FWIW, Moller Again ?

[Al G[_2_]]

GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a small,
"Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and land
vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet above
ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to travel over any
surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further claimed the M200G could
speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain because the electronics keep
the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is
obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
www.Moller.com.


Al G

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Al G wrote:
> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a
> small, "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and
> land vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
> automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet
> above ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to
> travel over any surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further
> claimed the M200G could speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain
> because the electronics keep the craft stabilized at no more than 10
> feet altitude, where extra lift is obtained from operating near the
> ground. For more information, visit www.Moller.com.
>
>
> Al G

From the Website... And yet he still hasn't been able to produce a video
without it being attached to a crain.
The M200X volantor has completed over two hundred successful test flights.
It has been extensively hard-tooled so that derivatives not requiring FAA
certification are now available.



Recreational and utilitarian models include:

a.. Demonstrators for use over one’s own property (M200D)

b.. Versions that operate within ground effect--approximately 10 feet AGL
(M200G)

c.. Experimental or homebuilt variants (M200E)

d.. Rescue configuration capable of docking with skyscrapers (Firefly 3)

Depending on the number of orders received the prices could vary between
$125,000 for the M200G to $450,000 for the Firefly 3. Information on
potential military and/or para-military applications of the M200R and M200M
are welcome.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Al G" > said:
>GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a small,
>"Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and land
>vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
>automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet above
>ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to travel over any
>surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further claimed the M200G could
>speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain because the electronics keep
>the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is
>obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
>www.Moller.com.

Funny how the 1953 Avro Aircar was a saucer-shaped aircraft intended to
fly at altitude but they couldn't get it out of ground effect. History
repeats itself?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Software planning seems to be based on denying plausibility.
-- Graham Reed

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:


> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a small,
> "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and land
> vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
> automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet above
> ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to travel over any
> surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further claimed the M200G could
> speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain because the electronics keep
> the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is
> obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
> www.Moller.com.

I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the downhill
side.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Al G" > said:
>>GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>www.Moller.com.
>
> Funny how the 1953 Avro Aircar was a saucer-shaped aircraft intended to
> fly at altitude but they couldn't get it out of ground effect. History
> repeats itself?

Except Avro was trying to get OUT of ground effect; Moller is trying to stay
IN it.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[El Maximo]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In a previous article, "Al G" > said:
>>>GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>>www.Moller.com.
>>
>> Funny how the 1953 Avro Aircar was a saucer-shaped aircraft intended to
>> fly at altitude but they couldn't get it out of ground effect. History
>> repeats itself?
>
> Except Avro was trying to get OUT of ground effect; Moller is trying to
> stay IN it.


Maybe he's simply trying to turn a failure into opportunity.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 6, 11:25 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
>
> > GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
> > Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a small,
> > "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and land
> > vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
> > automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet above
> > ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to travel over any
> > surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further claimed the M200G could
> > speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain because the electronics keep
> > the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is
> > obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
> >www.Moller.com.
>
> I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the downhill
> side.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

That's called flying in "hill effect", or maybe its "slope
soaring"... :-)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "Al G" > said:
>>>GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>>www.Moller.com.
>>
>> Funny how the 1953 Avro Aircar was a saucer-shaped aircraft intended to
>> fly at altitude but they couldn't get it out of ground effect. History
>> repeats itself?
>
>Except Avro was trying to get OUT of ground effect; Moller is trying to stay
>IN it.

No, Moller used to say his things were going to fly. This "only in ground
effect" thing is recent, probably after he realized he couldn't get out of
ground effect.

The ironic thing is that he was at Avro when they were working on the
Aircar.



--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to government
censorship that we insist on having unaccountable private parties
to do it instead. -- Bill Cole

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In a previous article, "Al G" > said:
>>>>GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>>>www.Moller.com.
>>>
>>> Funny how the 1953 Avro Aircar was a saucer-shaped aircraft intended to
>>> fly at altitude but they couldn't get it out of ground effect. History
>>> repeats itself?
>>
>> Except Avro was trying to get OUT of ground effect; Moller is trying to
>> stay IN it.
>
>
> Maybe he's simply trying to turn a failure into opportunity.

One man's trash is another man's treasure? :~)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>> In a previous article, "Al G" > said:
>>>>GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>>>www.Moller.com.
>>>
>>> Funny how the 1953 Avro Aircar was a saucer-shaped aircraft intended to
>>> fly at altitude but they couldn't get it out of ground effect. History
>>> repeats itself?
>>
>>Except Avro was trying to get OUT of ground effect; Moller is trying to
>>stay
>>IN it.
>
> No, Moller used to say his things were going to fly. This "only in ground
> effect" thing is recent, probably after he realized he couldn't get out of
> ground effect.
>
> The ironic thing is that he was at Avro when they were working on the
> Aircar.
>
I keep conjuring up visions of the Harrier.

Even if Moller could pull it off, as mentioned, his FAA certification
headaches would be, well, deadly.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
> On Jul 6, 11:25 am, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
> >
> > > GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
> > > Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a small,
> > > "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and land
> > > vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
> > > automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet above
> > > ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to travel over any
> > > surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further claimed the M200G could
> > > speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain because the electronics keep
> > > the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is
> > > obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
> > >www.Moller.com.
> >
> > I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the downhill
> > side.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> That's called flying in "hill effect", or maybe its "slope
> soaring"... :-)

Just one of the reasons hovercraft are hardly ever used anywhere other
than over water.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
>
>
>> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a
>> small, "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and
>> land vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a
>> small automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about
>> 10 feet above ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle,
>> able to travel over any surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He
>> further claimed the M200G could speed up to 50 mph over a variety of
>> terrain because the electronics keep the craft stabilized at no more
>> than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is obtained from operating
>> near the ground. For more information, visit www.Moller.com.
>
> I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the
> downhill side.
>

I'll bet nobody knows.

WHat ****es me off is that EAA is hyping it for him.

[Bill Daniels]

Way back, I got a chance to play with some prototype "ATV - like" consumer
ground effect machines. They looked like a cross between a Vespa motor
scooter and an ice rink resurfacing machine. We unloaded them in a big,
empty parking lot and fired them up.

The first thing you learn about ground effect machines is that they stir up
a LOT of dust - even where you didn't expect there would be any dust.

The second thing is that they will almost uncontrollably slide downhill. In
this case, until they got to the storm drain gratings in the corner of the
parking lot where they grounded themselves - there's no ground effect above
a grating. We then faced the problem of an 800 pound machine with no wheels
firmly stuck on a storm drain grate. Fortunately, the truck that delivered
them had a wrecker crane - possibly due to the developers previous
experiences with storm drain grates.

We decided that dry land was possibly not their native environment so we
tried them over water since water is 'mostly' level.

The first thing you learn about ground effect machines over water is that
they kick up a LOT of spray - enough to thoroughly soak the driver. You
need goggles to keep the spray out of your eyes but spray covered goggles
are hard to see through.

The second thing you eventually discover is that when the engine quits over
water the thing sinks FAST. Fortunately, the developer had a water recovery
skiff with a crane and plenty of drying out stuff - possibly due to previous
experiences with over water engine failures.

Maybe this is why you don't see a lot of consumer ground effect ATV's.

Bill Daniels


> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
>
>
>> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a
>> small,
>> "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and land
>> vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
>> automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet
>> above
>> ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to travel over
>> any
>> surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further claimed the M200G
>> could
>> speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain because the electronics keep
>> the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift
>> is
>> obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
>> www.Moller.com.
>
> I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the downhill
> side.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
> >> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a
> >> small, "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and
> >> land vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a
> >> small automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about
> >> 10 feet above ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle,
> >> able to travel over any surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He
> >> further claimed the M200G could speed up to 50 mph over a variety of
> >> terrain because the electronics keep the craft stabilized at no more
> >> than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is obtained from operating
> >> near the ground. For more information, visit www.Moller.com.
> >
> > I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the
> > downhill side.
> >

> I'll bet nobody knows.

> WHat ****es me off is that EAA is hyping it for him.

It's not hard to figure out; not even the Marine Corp has balls big
enough to try running a hovercraft over a hill bigger than a small
sand dune.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ernest Christley]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Way back, I got a chance to play with some prototype "ATV - like" consumer
> ground effect machines. They looked like a cross between a Vespa motor
> scooter and an ice rink resurfacing machine. We unloaded them in a big,
> empty parking lot and fired them up.
>
> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines is that they stir up
> a LOT of dust - even where you didn't expect there would be any dust.
>
> The second thing is that they will almost uncontrollably slide downhill. In
> this case, until they got to the storm drain gratings in the corner of the
> parking lot where they grounded themselves - there's no ground effect above
> a grating. We then faced the problem of an 800 pound machine with no wheels
> firmly stuck on a storm drain grate. Fortunately, the truck that delivered
> them had a wrecker crane - possibly due to the developers previous
> experiences with storm drain grates.
>
> We decided that dry land was possibly not their native environment so we
> tried them over water since water is 'mostly' level.
>
> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines over water is that
> they kick up a LOT of spray - enough to thoroughly soak the driver. You
> need goggles to keep the spray out of your eyes but spray covered goggles
> are hard to see through.
>
> The second thing you eventually discover is that when the engine quits over
> water the thing sinks FAST. Fortunately, the developer had a water recovery
> skiff with a crane and plenty of drying out stuff - possibly due to previous
> experiences with over water engine failures.
>
> Maybe this is why you don't see a lot of consumer ground effect ATV's.
>
> Bill Daniels

Bill, that was hilarious. Thank you.

I can see I-40 now during rush hour. On of the Aircars runs over a
drainage grate and goes crashing to the ground. Then there is a 300
aircar pile-up, because short of tossing an anchor over the side, I see
nothing on the thing to make an emergency stop with.

[Al G[_2_]]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
...
> Way back, I got a chance to play with some prototype "ATV - like" consumer
> ground effect machines. They looked like a cross between a Vespa motor
> scooter and an ice rink resurfacing machine. We unloaded them in a big,
> empty parking lot and fired them up.
>
> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines is that they stir
> up a LOT of dust - even where you didn't expect there would be any dust.
>
> The second thing is that they will almost uncontrollably slide downhill.
> In this case, until they got to the storm drain gratings in the corner of
> the parking lot where they grounded themselves - there's no ground effect
> above a grating. We then faced the problem of an 800 pound machine with no
> wheels firmly stuck on a storm drain grate. Fortunately, the truck that
> delivered them had a wrecker crane - possibly due to the developers
> previous experiences with storm drain grates.
>
> We decided that dry land was possibly not their native environment so we
> tried them over water since water is 'mostly' level.
>
> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines over water is that
> they kick up a LOT of spray - enough to thoroughly soak the driver. You
> need goggles to keep the spray out of your eyes but spray covered goggles
> are hard to see through.
>
> The second thing you eventually discover is that when the engine quits
> over water the thing sinks FAST. Fortunately, the developer had a water
> recovery skiff with a crane and plenty of drying out stuff - possibly due
> to previous experiences with over water engine failures.
>
> Maybe this is why you don't see a lot of consumer ground effect ATV's.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a
>>> small,
>>> "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and land
>>> vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a small
>>> automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about 10 feet
>>> above
>>> ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle, able to travel over
>>> any
>>> surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He further claimed the M200G
>>> could
>>> speed up to 50 mph over a variety of terrain because the electronics
>>> keep
>>> the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift
>>> is
>>> obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
>>> www.Moller.com.
>>
>> I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the downhill
>> side.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
>

Thanks Bill, that made my day.

Al G

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Gig 601XL Builder: The 2005 EAA video from Oshkosh had just a quick short
flick of a Rotorcraft. Of all they had to choose from they selected the
AirScooter. The AirScooter has no autorotation capability and has the
perfect opportunity for a Lawn Dart Conversion when an engine out occurs at
the max recommended ceiling of 50'. I'm not sure where the "Powers that
Be" are trying to take EAA. It sure seems like it is in a direction away
from amateur built aircraft.

--
Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
(760) 608-1299 technical cell
www.experimentalhelo.com
www.vkss.com


"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a
>>> small, "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and
>>> land vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a
>>> small automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about
>>> 10 feet above ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle,
>>> able to travel over any surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He
>>> further claimed the M200G could speed up to 50 mph over a variety of
>>> terrain because the electronics keep the craft stabilized at no more
>>> than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is obtained from operating
>>> near the ground. For more information, visit www.Moller.com.
>>
>> I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the
>> downhill side.
>>
>
> I'll bet nobody knows.
>
> WHat ****es me off is that EAA is hyping it for him.
>

[Al G[_2_]]

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder: The 2005 EAA video from Oshkosh had just a quick short
> flick of a Rotorcraft. Of all they had to choose from they selected the
> AirScooter. The AirScooter has no autorotation capability and has the
> perfect opportunity for a Lawn Dart Conversion when an engine out occurs
> at the max recommended ceiling of 50'. I'm not sure where the "Powers
> that Be" are trying to take EAA. It sure seems like it is in a direction
> away from amateur built aircraft.
>
> --
> Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
> Experimental Helo magazine
> P. O. Box 1585
> Inyokern, CA 93527
> (760) 377-4478 ph
> (760) 408-9747 publication cell
> (760) 608-1299 technical cell
> www.experimentalhelo.com
> www.vkss.com
>
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> GROUND-EFFECT VEHICLE PRODUCTION LAUNCHED
>>>> Moller International has completed tooling for its M200G volantor, a
>>>> small, "Jetson-like" two-passenger vehicle designed to take-off and
>>>> land vertically. The M200G is saucer-shaped, about the size of a
>>>> small automobile, and is intended for operation continuously about
>>>> 10 feet above ground level. "It's the ultimate off-road vehicle,
>>>> able to travel over any surface," claimed Dr. Paul Moller, CEO. He
>>>> further claimed the M200G could speed up to 50 mph over a variety of
>>>> terrain because the electronics keep the craft stabilized at no more
>>>> than 10 feet altitude, where extra lift is obtained from operating
>>>> near the ground. For more information, visit www.Moller.com.
>>>
>>> I'll bet it's a real thrill going over hills, especially on the
>>> downhill side.
>>>
>>
>> I'll bet nobody knows.
>>
>> WHat ****es me off is that EAA is hyping it for him.
>>
>
>

What better test bed for a Zero-Zero Ballistic Recover System. The
opportunities to test under actual conditions will abound.

Al G

[Peter Dohm]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
...
> Way back, I got a chance to play with some prototype "ATV - like" consumer
> ground effect machines. They looked like a cross between a Vespa motor
> scooter and an ice rink resurfacing machine. We unloaded them in a big,
> empty parking lot and fired them up.
>
> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines is that they stir
up
> a LOT of dust - even where you didn't expect there would be any dust.
>
> The second thing is that they will almost uncontrollably slide downhill.
In
> this case, until they got to the storm drain gratings in the corner of
the
> parking lot where they grounded themselves - there's no ground effect
above
> a grating. We then faced the problem of an 800 pound machine with no
wheels
> firmly stuck on a storm drain grate. Fortunately, the truck that
delivered
> them had a wrecker crane - possibly due to the developers previous
> experiences with storm drain grates.
>
> We decided that dry land was possibly not their native environment so we
> tried them over water since water is 'mostly' level.
>
> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines over water is that
> they kick up a LOT of spray - enough to thoroughly soak the driver. You
> need goggles to keep the spray out of your eyes but spray covered goggles
> are hard to see through.
>
> The second thing you eventually discover is that when the engine quits
over
> water the thing sinks FAST. Fortunately, the developer had a water
recovery
> skiff with a crane and plenty of drying out stuff - possibly due to
previous
> experiences with over water engine failures.
>
> Maybe this is why you don't see a lot of consumer ground effect ATV's.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
That was great. I was read for a couple of really good laughs.

Peter

[Ron Natalie]

Peter Dohm wrote:

>>
> That was great. I was read for a couple of really good laughs.
>
What we really need is a Moller-Bede joint enterprise.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Ron Natalie > said:
>> That was great. I was read for a couple of really good laughs.
>>
>What we really need is a Moller-Bede joint enterprise.

Financed by Zoom Campbell.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I didn't need to sabotage anything. Not being around to say "No that
won't work" or "you can't do it that way" is more than enough damage.
(Ego problem? It's not a problem.) -- Graham Reed, on job endings

[Jerry Springer]

>>>where extra lift is
>>>obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
>>>www.Moller.com.


How are they going to solve the problem of having all those cranes
that his vehicles have to be tethered to? Even his Ground Effect vehicle
is tethered in the video.

[Anthony W]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Ron Natalie > said:
>>> That was great. I was read for a couple of really good laughs.
>>>
>> What we really need is a Moller-Bede joint enterprise.
>
> Financed by Zoom Campbell.

And test piloted by yuan dart...

Tony

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>>>
>> That was great. I was read for a couple of really good laughs.
>>
> What we really need is a Moller-Bede joint enterprise.

Or Moller-Rutan.

If Rutan can put a man on the Moon, why can't he...

[Ernest Christley]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>
>>> That was great. I was read for a couple of really good laughs.
>>>
>> What we really need is a Moller-Bede joint enterprise.
>
> Or Moller-Rutan.
>
> If Rutan can put a man on the Moon, why can't he...
>
>

Because putting a man on the moon is possible?
The moon doesn't have the neighbors dog in the way?
Putting a man on the moon will use less fuel?

Somebody help me out here...

[Dan[_2_]]

Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>
>>>> where extra lift is
>>>> obtained from operating near the ground. For more information, visit
>>>> www.Moller.com.
>
>
> How are they going to solve the problem of having all those cranes
> that his vehicles have to be tethered to? Even his Ground Effect vehicle
> is tethered in the video.

He'll sell the cranes for a slight additional cost?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was great. I was read for a couple of really good laughs.
>>>>
>>> What we really need is a Moller-Bede joint enterprise.
>>
>> Or Moller-Rutan.
>>
>> If Rutan can put a man on the Moon, why can't he...
>
> Because putting a man on the moon is possible?
> The moon doesn't have the neighbors dog in the way?
> Putting a man on the moon will use less fuel?
>
> Somebody help me out here...

Someone help out the humor-challenged lad here.

[DABEAR]

On Jul 7, 4:05 pm, Ernest Christley > wrote:

> Somebody help me out here...

Flying Bumper Cars...very kewl! Try them also on the I-20 here in
Dallas during late afternoon rush hour!

It will be so much fun watching them shoot back and forth across lanes
of traffic, passing back and forth under unsuspecting Semis and those
blue and yellow Airport Shuttle vans.

They'll be the latest road rage! People in Los Angeles will have to
put away their Smith and Wessons and start carrying Triple A (the Anti-
Aircraft Gun, not the Automotive Road Service...) for when they get
cut off by one. Come to think of it, they might also want the other
Triple A as well...

Can you imagine one of these "hovercraft" in the drive through at
McDonald's? They pull forward to the windows and blast the poor fry
cooks with hot oil and french fries while they hover to pay. The girl-
at-the-window's hair looking like the Bride of Frankenstein after you
drive away; her face and makeup as done by Mary Kay in a NASA
centrifuge.

Imagine an aerial vehicle more "takeoff- and landing-challenged" than
the lowly Albatross.

Finally, the Gooney Birds of Midway Island will have their revenge...

....now, if they could just feed video of the carnage to National
Geographic, Gooney Bird life would be perfect!

As any Gooney Bird would tell you: what goes around comes
around...and around...and around...and around...

On second thought, let's not go down that road! Er, skyway! Er, Jet
Route!

Vanity wise, the good news is: the only two places in the World that
you'll go unnoticed are Edwards AFB and Area 51 !

The bad news is, the only two places in the World that you'll go
unnoticed are (Everyone!) Edwards AFB and Area 51 !

And how about those Vanity plates! Like: "Tubular," "Circular,"
"Frisbee" and my personal favorite:

"SPLAT!"

Perhaps thrusters would be the solution for the uphill/downhill issue?

In lieu of thrusters, I think JATO Rockets would do nicely! Like that
rookie pitcher in the movie Bull Durham, announce your presence with
authority! Especially where the Sepulveda Blvd tunnel goes beneath
25R/25L at LAX!

Or, if you really needed to stop, one could always Velcro the anchor?
But once the hooks are on your hovercraft, where do you find the
fuzzies? (Behind the billboard with a radar gun, laughing hsyterically
and feeling so bad for you they wouldn't dare pull you over in your
time of unmitigated shame...)

Okay! I'm game!

Just tell me where I can buy insurance...

Oh, and who regulates these things? NASA, the FAA, the DMV or MIT?

I mean, propulsion has got to be based on Newton's Laws of Physics,
right? You go to the garage, ignore the burly greasy-covered mechanic
with his Mr. Goodwrench Certificate, and look for the 12 year old with
the pocket protector, the slide rule...

....and a Master's Degree in Aeronautics & Astronautics!

You don't plan your trips using Mapquest...you have to plan your
navigation after reading books by a guy named Minnesota Fats! (For
those of you born after Minnesota Fats passed away: "Billiards
Player!")

Oh, if only John McDonnell had a fingernail of Donald Douglas' vision,
he would have shut down the MD-11 production line and started
producing ...

....I'm sorry ~ what was that damned thing callled?

The Krispy Creme Kamikaze!!?? Shaped like a doughnut with a hole in
the middle and it makes you weightless?

Seriously! The finally found a way to make those with Splenda?

Didn't the swimming pool industry already come out with something like
that. Inflatable, you wear it around your stomach, jump in the pool
and if your head isn't too big, you don't capsize and drown with
Celine Dion singing in your head as you grey out?

You know..."floaties!"

Why spend millions on development and hundreds of thousands of dollars
to buy one of these, when all you have to do is go down to Wal Mart,
buy an innertube, fill it with helium, hang Christmas lights on it,
and call yourself the "Goodyear Blimplet."

That, or a lawn chair and a whole lot of helium balloons! Or if in
Albuquerque during the Festival, Animal Balloons!

And then, comes the issue of people driving/flying one of these and
talking on the cell phone at the same time.

"ET...phone home."

Wow! Talk about your party line! <rimshot!>

You get pulled over by the Cops for drunk driving...you were seen
driving straight.

The only thing "Green" about them is the driver, and that's after
about twelve minutes on a one-way street. Reminds me of that Robin
Williams joke from Bicentennial Man:

"A woman calls her husband on his cell phone and tells him: Honey!
The TV just said there's a driver going the wrong way down the
freeway! Her husband responds:

One!? There's hundreds of them!"

Or how about those commercials:

Q: "Pardon me, but do you have any Grey Poupon!?

A: "Are you kidding! It's all over the COCKPIT!" <rimshot!>

Ahnold vudn't appre-she-ate daht. At least, not until they built the
Hummer version.

A "Sqvare Pehg in uh Round Travvic Circul!" Ahnold vould appre-she-
ate daht!

"Out of Ground Effect?"

Posh! "Sound of Impact" is all you really have to worry about! And
in those moments, just wear ear plugs!

Has this helped any?

No?

Sorry...you could always walk! Or use your Rocket Pack! <g>

As for me, I'll take the rec.aviation.train!

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:47:48 -0400, Ernest Christley
> wrote:

>Bill Daniels wrote:
>> Way back, I got a chance to play with some prototype "ATV - like" consumer
>> ground effect machines. They looked like a cross between a Vespa motor
>> scooter and an ice rink resurfacing machine. We unloaded them in a big,
>> empty parking lot and fired them up.
>>
>> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines is that they stir up
>> a LOT of dust - even where you didn't expect there would be any dust.
>>
>> The second thing is that they will almost uncontrollably slide downhill. In
>> this case, until they got to the storm drain gratings in the corner of the
>> parking lot where they grounded themselves - there's no ground effect above
>> a grating. We then faced the problem of an 800 pound machine with no wheels
>> firmly stuck on a storm drain grate. Fortunately, the truck that delivered
>> them had a wrecker crane - possibly due to the developers previous
>> experiences with storm drain grates.
>>
>> We decided that dry land was possibly not their native environment so we
>> tried them over water since water is 'mostly' level.
>>
>> The first thing you learn about ground effect machines over water is that
>> they kick up a LOT of spray - enough to thoroughly soak the driver. You
>> need goggles to keep the spray out of your eyes but spray covered goggles
>> are hard to see through.
>>
>> The second thing you eventually discover is that when the engine quits over
>> water the thing sinks FAST. Fortunately, the developer had a water recovery
>> skiff with a crane and plenty of drying out stuff - possibly due to previous
>> experiences with over water engine failures.
>>
>> Maybe this is why you don't see a lot of consumer ground effect ATV's.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
>Bill, that was hilarious. Thank you.
>
>I can see I-40 now during rush hour. On of the Aircars runs over a
>drainage grate and goes crashing to the ground. Then there is a 300
>aircar pile-up, because short of tossing an anchor over the side, I see
>nothing on the thing to make an emergency stop with.

They wouldn't be allowed on the roads in most states except possibly
for some of the more open, western states. Here in Michigan off road
vehicles are expected to *stay* of road and require a DNR permit. If
used over water they need a permit for that.

Can you imagine crossing a field and setting down in a bunch of brush?
Worse yet, how about a bunch of blackberry bushes or a bunch of small
thorn trees. Thorn trees, those are the ones with the three inch long
thorns <:-)) Then again this thing probably isn't quite as sturdy as
a "brush hog"

[erik]

On Jul 7, 4:58 pm, DABEAR > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 4:05 pm, Ernest Christley > wrote:
>
> > Somebody help me out here...
>
> Flying Bumper Cars...very kewl! Try them also on the I-20 here in
> Dallas during late afternoon rush hour!
>
> It will be so much fun watching them shoot back and forth across lanes
> of traffic, passing back and forth under unsuspecting Semis and those
> blue and yellow Airport Shuttle vans.
>
> They'll be the latest road rage! People in Los Angeles will have to
> put away their Smith and Wessons and start carrying Triple A (the Anti-
> Aircraft Gun, not the Automotive Road Service...) for when they get
> cut off by one. Come to think of it, they might also want the other
> Triple A as well...
>
> Can you imagine one of these "hovercraft" in the drive through at
> McDonald's? They pull forward to the windows and blast the poor fry
> cooks with hot oil and french fries while they hover to pay. The girl-
> at-the-window's hair looking like the Bride of Frankenstein after you
> drive away; her face and makeup as done by Mary Kay in a NASA
> centrifuge.
>
> Imagine an aerial vehicle more "takeoff- and landing-challenged" than
> the lowly Albatross.
>
> Finally, the Gooney Birds of Midway Island will have their revenge...
>
> ...now, if they could just feed video of the carnage to National
> Geographic, Gooney Bird life would be perfect!
>
> As any Gooney Bird would tell you: what goes around comes
> around...and around...and around...and around...
>
> On second thought, let's not go down that road! Er, skyway! Er, Jet
> Route!
>
> Vanity wise, the good news is: the only two places in the World that
> you'll go unnoticed are Edwards AFB and Area 51 !
>
> The bad news is, the only two places in the World that you'll go
> unnoticed are (Everyone!) Edwards AFB and Area 51 !
>
> And how about those Vanity plates! Like: "Tubular," "Circular,"
> "Frisbee" and my personal favorite:
>
> "SPLAT!"
>
> Perhaps thrusters would be the solution for the uphill/downhill issue?
>
> In lieu of thrusters, I think JATO Rockets would do nicely! Like that
> rookie pitcher in the movie Bull Durham, announce your presence with
> authority! Especially where the Sepulveda Blvd tunnel goes beneath
> 25R/25L at LAX!
>
> Or, if you really needed to stop, one could always Velcro the anchor?
> But once the hooks are on your hovercraft, where do you find the
> fuzzies? (Behind the billboard with a radar gun, laughing hsyterically
> and feeling so bad for you they wouldn't dare pull you over in your
> time of unmitigated shame...)
>
> Okay! I'm game!
>
> Just tell me where I can buy insurance...
>
> Oh, and who regulates these things? NASA, the FAA, the DMV or MIT?
>
> I mean, propulsion has got to be based on Newton's Laws of Physics,
> right? You go to the garage, ignore the burly greasy-covered mechanic
> with his Mr. Goodwrench Certificate, and look for the 12 year old with
> the pocket protector, the slide rule...
>
> ...and a Master's Degree in Aeronautics & Astronautics!
>
> You don't plan your trips using Mapquest...you have to plan your
> navigation after reading books by a guy named Minnesota Fats! (For
> those of you born after Minnesota Fats passed away: "Billiards
> Player!")
>
> Oh, if only John McDonnell had a fingernail of Donald Douglas' vision,
> he would have shut down the MD-11 production line and started
> producing ...
>
> ...I'm sorry ~ what was that damned thing callled?
>
> The Krispy Creme Kamikaze!!?? Shaped like a doughnut with a hole in
> the middle and it makes you weightless?
>
> Seriously! The finally found a way to make those with Splenda?
>
> Didn't the swimming pool industry already come out with something like
> that. Inflatable, you wear it around your stomach, jump in the pool
> and if your head isn't too big, you don't capsize and drown with
> Celine Dion singing in your head as you grey out?
>
> You know..."floaties!"
>
> Why spend millions on development and hundreds of thousands of dollars
> to buy one of these, when all you have to do is go down to Wal Mart,
> buy an innertube, fill it with helium, hang Christmas lights on it,
> and call yourself the "Goodyear Blimplet."
>
> That, or a lawn chair and a whole lot of helium balloons! Or if in
> Albuquerque during the Festival, Animal Balloons!
>
> And then, comes the issue of people driving/flying one of these and
> talking on the cell phone at the same time.
>
> "ET...phone home."
>
> Wow! Talk about your party line! <rimshot!>
>
> You get pulled over by the Cops for drunk driving...you were seen
> driving straight.
>
> The only thing "Green" about them is the driver, and that's after
> about twelve minutes on a one-way street. Reminds me of that Robin
> Williams joke from Bicentennial Man:
>
> "A woman calls her husband on his cell phone and tells him: Honey!
> The TV just said there's a driver going the wrong way down the
> freeway! Her husband responds:
>
> One!? There's hundreds of them!"
>
> Or how about those commercials:
>
> Q: "Pardon me, but do you have any Grey Poupon!?
>
> A: "Are you kidding! It's all over the COCKPIT!" <rimshot!>
>
> Ahnold vudn't appre-she-ate daht. At least, not until they built the
> Hummer version.
>
> A "Sqvare Pehg in uh Round Travvic Circul!" Ahnold vould appre-she-
> ate daht!
>
> "Out of Ground Effect?"
>
> Posh! "Sound of Impact" is all you really have to worry about! And
> in those moments, just wear ear plugs!
>
> Has this helped any?
>
> No?
>
> Sorry...you could always walk! Or use your Rocket Pack! <g>
>
> As for me, I'll take the rec.aviation.train!

Gawwdd!!! Have'nt you got work to do? <G>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jerry Springer wrote:
>>>> where extra lift is
>>>> obtained from operating near the ground. For more information,
>>>> visit www.Moller.com.
>
>
> How are they going to solve the problem of having all those cranes
> that his vehicles have to be tethered to? Even his Ground Effect
> vehicle is tethered in the video.

Moller has not built an aircraft yet. BUT he has made some real cool looking
Gondolas.

[Anthony W]

I've known for a long time that the Skycar was a scam but I got bored
yesterday and I decided to look over his website. It's amazing he
hasn't been busted for fraud. I first heard about this thing in 95 and
12 years later he has no new news on making it fly. The videos make it
look like he has a working prototype. The feds should bust him for
selling stock for something that will never work.

I think he should stop trying to make it take of vertically and prove it
can fly conventionally but that's looks to be a scam too. It doesn't
look like it has enough wing surface to fly. I think it's best role
would be to sell it as a movie prop...

Tony

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Anthony W > said:
>I've known for a long time that the Skycar was a scam but I got bored
>yesterday and I decided to look over his website. It's amazing he
>hasn't been busted for fraud. I first heard about this thing in 95 and
>12 years later he has no new news on making it fly. The videos make it
>look like he has a working prototype. The feds should bust him for
>selling stock for something that will never work.

Read the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_Skycar

He already settled with the SEC after they sued him in 2003 for civil
fraud for making unsubstaniated claims about the performance of the
Skycar. He agreed to a permanent injunction and a $50,000 fine.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm
Moller, age 64, the company's founder, chief executive office and
president, made false and misleading statements about the company's
imminent listing on the NYSE and the Nasdaq Stock Market, the projected
value of company shares after such listing, and the prospect for Skycar
sales and revenue. In September 2001, the company filed a fraudulent
registration statement with the Commission that exaggerated the true scope
of patents the company held for the Skycar. During the Commission's
investigation, the company belatedly cooperated with the staff in an
attempt to bring it into compliance with the securities laws and to
resolve all outstanding enforcement issues.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Net, there'd only
be one website left, and it would be called "bring-back-the-porn dot com".
-- Perry Cox, _Scrubs_

[Anthony W]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Read the Wikipedia entry:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_Skycar
>
> He already settled with the SEC after they sued him in 2003 for civil
> fraud for making unsubstaniated claims about the performance of the
> Skycar. He agreed to a permanent injunction and a $50,000 fine.
>
> http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm
> Moller, age 64, the company's founder, chief executive office and
> president, made false and misleading statements about the company's
> imminent listing on the NYSE and the Nasdaq Stock Market, the projected
> value of company shares after such listing, and the prospect for Skycar
> sales and revenue. In September 2001, the company filed a fraudulent
> registration statement with the Commission that exaggerated the true scope
> of patents the company held for the Skycar. During the Commission's
> investigation, the company belatedly cooperated with the staff in an
> attempt to bring it into compliance with the securities laws and to
> resolve all outstanding enforcement issues.

I don't get it. He's already been busted but he gets to keep up the
same old BS?

Tony

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Anthony W wrote:
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> Read the Wikipedia entry:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_Skycar
>>
>> He already settled with the SEC after they sued him in 2003 for civil
>> fraud for making unsubstaniated claims about the performance of the
>> Skycar. He agreed to a permanent injunction and a $50,000 fine.
>>
>> http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm
>> Moller, age 64, the company's founder, chief executive office and
>> president, made false and misleading statements about the company's
>> imminent listing on the NYSE and the Nasdaq Stock Market, the
>> projected value of company shares after such listing, and the
>> prospect for Skycar sales and revenue. In September 2001, the
>> company filed a fraudulent registration statement with the
>> Commission that exaggerated the true scope of patents the company
>> held for the Skycar. During the Commission's investigation, the
>> company belatedly cooperated with the staff in an attempt to bring
>> it into compliance with the securities laws and to resolve all
>> outstanding enforcement issues.
>
> I don't get it. He's already been busted but he gets to keep up the
> same old BS?
>
> Tony

Please note what he got busted for were all SEC violations and they were
mostly paperwork issues. He needs to get a civil or better yet criminal
charge for fraud slapped on him.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Anthony W > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm
>> Moller, age 64, the company's founder, chief executive office and
>> president, made false and misleading statements about the company's
>> imminent listing on the NYSE and the Nasdaq Stock Market, the projected
>> value of company shares after such listing, and the prospect for Skycar
>> sales and revenue. In September 2001, the company filed a fraudulent
>> registration statement with the Commission that exaggerated the true scope
>> of patents the company held for the Skycar. During the Commission's
>> investigation, the company belatedly cooperated with the staff in an
>> attempt to bring it into compliance with the securities laws and to
>> resolve all outstanding enforcement issues.
>
>I don't get it. He's already been busted but he gets to keep up the
>same old BS?

He's not selling "private" shares any more based on fraudulent statements
about "imminent listings" on NASDAQ and/or NYSE. That's all the SEC cares
about. His shares are listed on OBB which is the lowest of the low.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Did you know that "Gullible" is not in the dictionary?

[Al G[_2_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Anthony W > said:
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm
>>> Moller, age 64, the company's founder, chief executive office and
>>> president, made false and misleading statements about the company's
>>> imminent listing on the NYSE and the Nasdaq Stock Market, the
>>> projected
>>> value of company shares after such listing, and the prospect for
>>> Skycar
>>> sales and revenue. In September 2001, the company filed a fraudulent
>>> registration statement with the Commission that exaggerated the true
>>> scope
>>> of patents the company held for the Skycar. During the Commission's
>>> investigation, the company belatedly cooperated with the staff in an
>>> attempt to bring it into compliance with the securities laws and to
>>> resolve all outstanding enforcement issues.
>>
>>I don't get it. He's already been busted but he gets to keep up the
>>same old BS?
>
> He's not selling "private" shares any more based on fraudulent statements
> about "imminent listings" on NASDAQ and/or NYSE. That's all the SEC cares
> about. His shares are listed on OBB which is the lowest of the low.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> Did you know that "Gullible" is not in the dictionary?

And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.

Al G

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Al G wrote:
>
> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
>
> Al G

I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob


Yes the EAA should.

[Anthony W]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Al G wrote:
>> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
>> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
>>
>> Al G
>
> I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob
>
>
> Yes the EAA should.

OK so I now get the SEC stuff but now back to my other question. How
likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My
guess is not likely.

Tony

[Al G[_2_]]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
news:WJxki.3398$lY4.1382@trndny07...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Al G wrote:
>>> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
>>> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
>>>
>>> Al G
>>
>> I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob
>>
>>
>> Yes the EAA should.
>
> OK so I now get the SEC stuff but now back to my other question. How
> likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My guess
> is not likely.
>
> Tony

Well, the Navy throws pianos & Cars off the end of carriers, I
suppose...

Al G (Ex Navy)

[Anthony W]

Al G wrote:

>> How
>> likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My guess
>> is not likely.
>>
>> Tony
>
> Well, the Navy throws pianos & Cars off the end of carriers, I
> suppose...
>
> Al G (Ex Navy)

That's about what I figured.

Tony

[Ernest Christley]

Al G wrote:
> "Anthony W" > wrote in message
> news:WJxki.3398$lY4.1382@trndny07...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> Al G wrote:
>>>> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
>>>> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
>>>>
>>>> Al G
>>> I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.
>>>
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes the EAA should.
>> OK so I now get the SEC stuff but now back to my other question. How
>> likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My guess
>> is not likely.
>>
>> Tony
>
> Well, the Navy throws pianos & Cars off the end of carriers, I
> suppose...
>
> Al G (Ex Navy)
>
>

There's a discovery channel episode that covered an F-15 that flew home
after getting a wing knocked off.

It's possible he could get airborne with those four rotaries going
full-tilt (yuk! yuk!), but I'm sure he'd run out of fuel by the time he
gets to the end of the runway.

[cavelamb himself]

Anthony W wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Al G wrote:
>>
>>> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
>>> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
>>>
>>> Al G
>>
>>
>> I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob
>>
>>
>> Yes the EAA should.
>
>
> OK so I now get the SEC stuff but now back to my other question. How
> likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My
> guess is not likely.
>
> Tony

From wiki...

In the words of the SEC complaint, "As of late 2002, MI's approximately
40 years' of development has resulted in a prototype Skycar capable of
hovering about fifteen feet above the ground."


That ought to just about finish the matter, wiki being taken so
literally these says...

[tom laudato]

hello i was searching for penny stocks and came across this stock
looks like moller in another country...
http://www.skyflyertec.de/

stock name is SKFL.OB

tom laudato


"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
> Al G wrote:
> > "Anthony W" > wrote in message
> > news:WJxki.3398$lY4.1382@trndny07...
> >> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> >>> Al G wrote:
> >>>> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss,
the
> >>>> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
> >>>>
> >>>> Al G
> >>> I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.
> >>>
> >>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes the EAA should.
> >> OK so I now get the SEC stuff but now back to my other question. How
> >> likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My
guess
> >> is not likely.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >
> > Well, the Navy throws pianos & Cars off the end of carriers, I
> > suppose...
> >
> > Al G (Ex Navy)
> >
> >
>
> There's a discovery channel episode that covered an F-15 that flew home
> after getting a wing knocked off.
>
> It's possible he could get airborne with those four rotaries going
> full-tilt (yuk! yuk!), but I'm sure he'd run out of fuel by the time he
> gets to the end of the runway.

[Dan[_2_]]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Anthony W wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>> Al G wrote:
>>>
>>>> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
>>>> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
>>>>
>>>> Al G
>>>
>>>
>>> I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.
>>>
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes the EAA should.
>>
>>
>> OK so I now get the SEC stuff but now back to my other question. How
>> likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My
>> guess is not likely.
>>
>> Tony
>
> From wiki...
>
> In the words of the SEC complaint, "As of late 2002, MI's approximately
> 40 years' of development has resulted in a prototype Skycar capable of
> hovering about fifteen feet above the ground."
>
>
> That ought to just about finish the matter, wiki being taken so
> literally these says...

Must be a typo, the one video I have seen of the thing hovering on a
tether was maybe 15 inches AGL.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[cavelamb himself]

Dan wrote:

> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> Anthony W wrote:
>>
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Al G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And until he sells one of the things, and someone takes a loss, the
>>>>> civil side is pretty much out. The EAA, however, should know better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Al G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I love his balance sheet. Please note ZERO R&D for the last 4 qtrs.
>>>>
>>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=mler.ob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes the EAA should.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK so I now get the SEC stuff but now back to my other question. How
>>> likely is it that this thing can fly with conventional take off? My
>>> guess is not likely.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>>
>> From wiki...
>>
>> In the words of the SEC complaint, "As of late 2002, MI's
>> approximately 40 years' of development has resulted in a prototype
>> Skycar capable of hovering about fifteen feet above the ground."
>>
>>
>> That ought to just about finish the matter, wiki being taken so
>> literally these says...
>
>
> Must be a typo, the one video I have seen of the thing hovering on a
> tether was maybe 15 inches AGL.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

That's what I thought too, but if Wiki sez so then it must be true...

Ironically, like the Avro Aircar, the only thing missing is a few yards
of rubberized fabric for a GEM skirt.

Richard

[DABEAR]

On Jul 9, 5:01 am, erik > wrote:
> On Jul 7, 4:58 pm, DABEAR > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 4:05 pm, Ernest Christley > wrote:
>
> > > Somebody help me out here...
>
> > Flying Bumper Cars...very kewl! Try them also on the I-20 here in
> > Dallas during late afternoon rush hour!
>
> > It will be so much fun watching them shoot back and forth across lanes
> > of traffic, passing back and forth under unsuspecting Semis and those
> > blue and yellow Airport Shuttle vans.
>
> > They'll be the latest road rage! People in Los Angeles will have to
> > put away their Smith and Wessons and start carrying Triple A (the Anti-
> > Aircraft Gun, not the Automotive Road Service...) for when they get
> > cut off by one. Come to think of it, they might also want the other
> > Triple A as well...
>
> > Can you imagine one of these "hovercraft" in the drive through at
> > McDonald's? They pull forward to the windows and blast the poor fry
> > cooks with hot oil and french fries while they hover to pay. The girl-
> > at-the-window's hair looking like the Bride of Frankenstein after you
> > drive away; her face and makeup as done by Mary Kay in a NASA
> > centrifuge.
>
> > Imagine an aerial vehicle more "takeoff- and landing-challenged" than
> > the lowly Albatross.
>
> > Finally, the Gooney Birds of Midway Island will have their revenge...
>
> > ...now, if they could just feed video of the carnage to National
> > Geographic, Gooney Bird life would be perfect!
>
> > As any Gooney Bird would tell you: what goes around comes
> > around...and around...and around...and around...
>
> > On second thought, let's not go down that road! Er, skyway! Er, Jet
> > Route!
>
> > Vanity wise, the good news is: the only two places in the World that
> > you'll go unnoticed are Edwards AFB and Area 51 !
>
> > The bad news is, the only two places in the World that you'll go
> > unnoticed are (Everyone!) Edwards AFB and Area 51 !
>
> > And how about those Vanity plates! Like: "Tubular," "Circular,"
> > "Frisbee" and my personal favorite:
>
> > "SPLAT!"
>
> > Perhaps thrusters would be the solution for the uphill/downhill issue?
>
> > In lieu of thrusters, I think JATO Rockets would do nicely! Like that
> > rookie pitcher in the movie Bull Durham, announce your presence with
> > authority! Especially where the Sepulveda Blvd tunnel goes beneath
> > 25R/25L at LAX!
>
> > Or, if you really needed to stop, one could always Velcro the anchor?
> > But once the hooks are on your hovercraft, where do you find the
> > fuzzies? (Behind the billboard with a radar gun, laughing hsyterically
> > and feeling so bad for you they wouldn't dare pull you over in your
> > time of unmitigated shame...)
>
> > Okay! I'm game!
>
> > Just tell me where I can buy insurance...
>
> > Oh, and who regulates these things? NASA, the FAA, the DMV or MIT?
>
> > I mean, propulsion has got to be based on Newton's Laws of Physics,
> > right? You go to the garage, ignore the burly greasy-covered mechanic
> > with his Mr. Goodwrench Certificate, and look for the 12 year old with
> > the pocket protector, the slide rule...
>
> > ...and a Master's Degree in Aeronautics & Astronautics!
>
> > You don't plan your trips using Mapquest...you have to plan your
> > navigation after reading books by a guy named Minnesota Fats! (For
> > those of you born after Minnesota Fats passed away: "Billiards
> > Player!")
>
> > Oh, if only John McDonnell had a fingernail of Donald Douglas' vision,
> > he would have shut down the MD-11 production line and started
> > producing ...
>
> > ...I'm sorry ~ what was that damned thing callled?
>
> > The Krispy Creme Kamikaze!!?? Shaped like a doughnut with a hole in
> > the middle and it makes you weightless?
>
> > Seriously! The finally found a way to make those with Splenda?
>
> > Didn't the swimming pool industry already come out with something like
> > that. Inflatable, you wear it around your stomach, jump in the pool
> > and if your head isn't too big, you don't capsize and drown with
> > Celine Dion singing in your head as you grey out?
>
> > You know..."floaties!"
>
> > Why spend millions on development and hundreds of thousands of dollars
> > to buy one of these, when all you have to do is go down to Wal Mart,
> > buy an innertube, fill it with helium, hang Christmas lights on it,
> > and call yourself the "Goodyear Blimplet."
>
> > That, or a lawn chair and a whole lot of helium balloons! Or if in
> > Albuquerque during the Festival, Animal Balloons!
>
> > And then, comes the issue of people driving/flying one of these and
> > talking on the cell phone at the same time.
>
> > "ET...phone home."
>
> > Wow! Talk about your party line! <rimshot!>
>
> > You get pulled over by the Cops for drunk driving...you were seen
> > driving straight.
>
> > The only thing "Green" about them is the driver, and that's after
> > about twelve minutes on a one-way street. Reminds me of that Robin
> > Williams joke from Bicentennial Man:
>
> > "A woman calls her husband on his cell phone and tells him: Honey!
> > The TV just said there's a driver going the wrong way down the
> > freeway! Her husband responds:
>
> > One!? There's hundreds of them!"
>
> > Or how about those commercials:
>
> > Q: "Pardon me, but do you have any Grey Poupon!?
>
> > A: "Are you kidding! It's all over the COCKPIT!" <rimshot!>
>
> > Ahnold vudn't appre-she-ate daht. At least, not until they built the
> > Hummer version.
>
> > A "Sqvare Pehg in uh Round Travvic Circul!" Ahnold vould appre-she-
> > ate daht!
>
> > "Out of Ground Effect?"
>
> > Posh! "Sound of Impact" is all you really have to worry about! And
> > in those moments, just wear ear plugs!
>
> > Has this helped any?
>
> > No?
>
> > Sorry...you could always walk! Or use your Rocket Pack! <g>
>
> > As for me, I'll take the rec.aviation.train!
>
> Gawwdd!!! Have'nt you got work to do? <G>- Hide quoted text -

LOL! Aw hell, it was work that drove me to that! <GGG>

It's a vacation I need!

All joking aside, an interesting design, but too many engines for such
a small payload...and a 750 mile range at 20 mpg? Improve the gas
mileage and they have a winner. Otherwise, with gas prices the way
they are, I don't see too many getting sold. Just the same, if they
sell just enough, a half-million per ship is do-able by a large number
of people...if they're all rich people.

I think the thing has a better future with the military. Could help
pilots transitioning to the Osprey.

[Dave Hyde]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote...

> WHat ****es me off is that EAA is hyping it for him.

I cancelled my membership and tech counselor status when they endorsed Jim
Campbell's so-called 'resource guide'. Let's just say I'm not unhappy with
my decision. ;)

Dave 'back in the game' Hyde

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:59:34 -0700, DABEAR > wrote in
. com>:

> ... All joking aside, an interesting design, but too many engines for such
>a small payload ...

The engine/rotor noise must be awful, both for the pilot
and the poor groundlings under his commute to work.

Can you imagine hundreds of these things working
their way into a city during morning rush hour?

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

[Dave Hyde]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote...

> WHat ****es me off is that EAA is hyping it for him.

I cancelled my membership and tech counselor status when they endorsed Jim
Campbell's so-called 'resource guide'. Let's just say I'm not unhappy. ;)

Dave 'back in the game' Hyde

[Harry K]

On Jul 10, 7:22 pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" >
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:59:34 -0700, DABEAR > wrote in
> . com>:
>
> > ... All joking aside, an interesting design, but too many engines for such
> >a small payload ...
>
> The engine/rotor noise must be awful, both for the pilot
> and the poor groundlings under his commute to work.
>
> Can you imagine hundreds of these things working
> their way into a city during morning rush hour?
>
> Marty
> --
> Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
> Seehttp://www.big-8.orgfor info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Picture the chaos if that abortion was ever mass produced. Christ, we
can't even keep the average driver from wrecking when he has 4 tires
giving him firm control of direction.

Harry K

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Harry K" > wrote

> Picture the chaos if that abortion was ever mass produced. Christ, we
> can't even keep the average driver from wrecking when he has 4 tires
> giving him firm control of direction.

Naah, we're perfectly safe.

'Cause that thing will never fly without a crane hooked to it.

The physics are against it. The fuel use is against it. The noise is against
it. The cost is against it. FAA certification is against it. The chances of
engine failure ruining your day are against it. Finding a test pilot is against
it.

Did I say the physics are against it? It can't do what they say it will do. No
way, no how.

Yep, we're safe, from it.
--
Jim in NC

[Nauga]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote...
> WHat ****es me off is that EAA is hyping it for him.

I cancelled my membership and tech counselor status when they endorsed Jim
Campbell's so-called 'resource guide'.
Can't say I'm disappointed now...or surprised.

Dave 'soccer voter' Hyde

[Anthony W]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:

> The engine/rotor noise must be awful, both for the pilot
> and the poor groundlings under his commute to work.
>
> Can you imagine hundreds of these things working
> their way into a city during morning rush hour?

At this point I find it hard to imagine one of these things flying much
less a city full of them at rush hour.

Tony

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> The engine/rotor noise must be awful, both for the pilot
> and the poor groundlings under his commute to work.
>
> Can you imagine hundreds of these things working
> their way into a city during morning rush hour?
>
> Marty

No I can't imagine it at all because not a single one has ever flown.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
>> The engine/rotor noise must be awful, both for the pilot
>> and the poor groundlings under his commute to work.
>>
>> Can you imagine hundreds of these things working
>> their way into a city during morning rush hour?
>>
>> Marty
>
> No I can't imagine it at all because not a single one has ever flown.
Have a little faith, Baby. have a little faith!

[Harry K]

On Jul 10, 8:03 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Harry K" > wrote
>
> > Picture the chaos if that abortion was ever mass produced. Christ, we
> > can't even keep the average driver from wrecking when he has 4 tires
> > giving him firm control of direction.
>
> Naah, we're perfectly safe.
>
> 'Cause that thing will never fly without a crane hooked to it.
>
> The physics are against it. The fuel use is against it. The noise is against
> it. The cost is against it. FAA certification is against it. The chances of
> engine failure ruining your day are against it. Finding a test pilot is against
> it.
>
> Did I say the physics are against it? It can't do what they say it will do. No
> way, no how.
>
> Yep, we're safe, from it.
> --
> Jim in NC

What if one put a pig in it?

Harry K

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Harry K" < wrote

> What if one put a pig in it?

<chuckle>

Double indemnity, of course!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> Have a little faith, Baby. have a little faith!

Faith like Billy Graham wouldn't get that pig to fly.

Actually, I take that back. It might fly for a while. The problem would be for
the test pilot, when it "quit flying."

Remember those 2 cycle backpack helicopters?

Imagine an ejection seat in one of those.

Ouch!
--
Jim in NC

[Ernest Christley]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
>>> The engine/rotor noise must be awful, both for the pilot
>>> and the poor groundlings under his commute to work.
>>>
>>> Can you imagine hundreds of these things working
>>> their way into a city during morning rush hour?
>>>
>>> Marty
>> No I can't imagine it at all because not a single one has ever flown.
> Have a little faith, Baby. have a little faith!
>
>

And send your contribution to ....
Your contribution of just $100 will get you a pig bone, touched by our
faith healers and Jim Moller, his own self, and the glorious AirCar ROSE
FROM THE GROUND and was hEEEalled for all the world to see.

[Anthony W]

Harry K wrote:

> What if one put a pig in it?
>
> Harry K

I think the only reason we only see pix of it flying tethered is because
it won't lift anything heavier than an hamster. So I doubt a skycar
will make pigs fly... ;o)

Tony

[Nauga]

Richard Riley wrote...

> Dave! Welcome back!

Thanks. Decided to lurk for a while. Sorry 'bout the multiple posts.

Dave 'stale data' Hyde

[Mike Murdock]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message >
> From the Website... And yet he still hasn't been able to produce a video
> without it being attached to a crane.

You have to give Moller credit for inventing the "Crane Effect Vehicle".

-Mike

[Dan[_2_]]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
>>>> The engine/rotor noise must be awful, both for the pilot
>>>> and the poor groundlings under his commute to work.
>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine hundreds of these things working
>>>> their way into a city during morning rush hour?
>>>>
>>>> Marty
>>> No I can't imagine it at all because not a single one has ever flown.
>> Have a little faith, Baby. have a little faith!
>>
>
> And send your contribution to ....
> Your contribution of just $100 will get you a pig bone, touched by our
> faith healers and Jim Moller, his own self, and the glorious AirCar ROSE
> FROM THE GROUND and was hEEEalled for all the world to see.

You forgot "in the name of JAYsus."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired