Moller's back...

[Ron Webb]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html

[vaughn]

"Ron Webb" > wrote in message
ions...

Did he ever go away?

Vaughn

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Ron Webb schreef:
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html

Ah, finally some serious discussion stuff instead of these guys crying
loud about casting stuff
they can't even spell correctly - where's their credibility?
Give me Mr. Moller a 1000 times over, he's been in business for several
decades now!





(pun intended, for those who couldn't notice for themselves...)

[Harry K]

On Jan 11, 6:13*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "Ron Webb" > wrote in message
>
> ions...
>
> Did he ever go away?
>
> Vaughn

He's probably working on his "bail me out" request.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Jan 11, 1:36*am, "Ron Webb" > wrote:
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html

Seeing as how we can't keep the average driver from stacking his car
up, how does he think the average driver will do dealing with 3
dimensions?

Seeing the carnage on the roads now, if his sky car were workable and
affordable the result would be a rapid decrease in population.

Harry K

[Dana M. Hague[_2_]]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:55:49 +0000, jan olieslagers
> wrote:

>Give me Mr. Moller a 1000 times over, he's been in business for several
>decades now!

So was Bernard Madoff...
--
If the government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?

[Dana M. Hague[_2_]]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:13:59 GMT, "vaughn"
> wrote:

>Did he ever go away?

He never will, either.

But he's got competition, now....

http://samsonmotorworks.com/

Good for a few chuckles on a slow day. The FAQ's are especially
amusing...
--
If the government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Harry K > wrote:

> On Jan 11, 1:36*am, "Ron Webb" > wrote:
> > http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html
>
> Seeing as how we can't keep the average driver from stacking his car
> up, how does he think the average driver will do dealing with 3
> dimensions?
>
> Seeing the carnage on the roads now, if his sky car were workable and
> affordable the result would be a rapid decrease in population.
>
> Harry K

If it were workable and affordable, it would already have flown in an
extensive flight test program -- aftaer all, he has had more than 30
years to get it to work.

As an engineer, I can list a number of "page one" flaws in both the
design and concept:

1. Controllability. He wants to synchronize four to eight engines to
provide both lift and thrust, where failure of either one engine or the
control interlink would cause loss of control.

There is no provision for power-off glide or control, so a BRS-type
parachute is mandatory.

2. Aerodynamics. Just one look at the Volantor convinces me that the
design is a drag machine, with interference and parasite drag sources
everywhere.

3. Fuel consumption. The engines are supposed to be Wankel-type
rotaries, which have a very high fuel consumption, although their
power/weight ratio is good.

4. According to Moller himself, he is not a pilot, nor has he undertakn
flying lessons. It shows.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Monk]

On Jan 11, 11:44*am, Dana M. Hague > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:13:59 GMT, "vaughn"
>
> > wrote:
> >Did he ever go away?
>
> He never will, either.
>
> But he's got competition, now....
>
> http://samsonmotorworks.com/
>
> Good for a few chuckles on a slow day. *The FAQ's are especially
> amusing...
> --
> If the government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs?

Samson's machine looks closer to reality than Moller's. For one
thing, the wheels look like they could handle operating in the
earthbound mode.

Although Moller's FlyingCar is/was/has_always_been a farce, his
SuperTrap mufflers was a successful design and his contribution to the
improvement to the Wangle engine are notable.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"vaughn" > wrote:

> "Ron Webb" > wrote in message
> ions...
>
> Did he ever go away?
>
> Vaughn

Only when the lights were switched on.

[Peter Dohm]

"Monk" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 11:44 am, Dana M. Hague > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:13:59 GMT, "vaughn"
>
> > wrote:
> >Did he ever go away?
>
> He never will, either.
>
> But he's got competition, now....
>
> http://samsonmotorworks.com/
>
> Good for a few chuckles on a slow day. The FAQ's are especially
> amusing...
> --
> If the government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them
> with theirs?

Samson's machine looks closer to reality than Moller's. For one
thing, the wheels look like they could handle operating in the
earthbound mode.

Although Moller's FlyingCar is/was/has_always_been a farce, his
SuperTrap mufflers was a successful design and his contribution to the
improvement to the Wangle engine are notable.

___________new message______________

That looks like something related to Finagle's constant...
or did you mean Wankle...

Peter

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Peter Dohm schreef:
> "Monk" > wrote in message
> his contribution to the
> improvement to the Wangle engine are notable.
>
> ___________new message______________
>
> That looks like something related to Finagle's constant...
> or did you mean Wankle...

After much scratching of my head, I decoded this to "Wankel"

[Avionics]

Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.



SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? (LAST LINE)

[Harry K]

On Jan 12, 1:47*am, Avionics > wrote:
> Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
> We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
> familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
> aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
> or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
> utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.
>
> SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? * (LAST LINE)

And what does the amount or type of controls have to do with the
ability of the driver to actually 'fly' safely?? They seem to be
oblivious that controlling a vehicle in 3 deminsions is jusst _wee
bit_ different than in 2 dimensions.

Harry K

[Stuart Fields]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Harry K > wrote:
>
>> On Jan 11, 1:36 am, "Ron Webb" > wrote:
>> > http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html
>>
>> Seeing as how we can't keep the average driver from stacking his car
>> up, how does he think the average driver will do dealing with 3
>> dimensions?
>>
>> Seeing the carnage on the roads now, if his sky car were workable and
>> affordable the result would be a rapid decrease in population.
>>
>> Harry K
>
> If it were workable and affordable, it would already have flown in an
> extensive flight test program -- aftaer all, he has had more than 30
> years to get it to work.
>
> As an engineer, I can list a number of "page one" flaws in both the
> design and concept:
>
> 1. Controllability. He wants to synchronize four to eight engines to
> provide both lift and thrust, where failure of either one engine or the
> control interlink would cause loss of control.
>
> There is no provision for power-off glide or control, so a BRS-type
> parachute is mandatory.
>
> 2. Aerodynamics. Just one look at the Volantor convinces me that the
> design is a drag machine, with interference and parasite drag sources
> everywhere.
>
> 3. Fuel consumption. The engines are supposed to be Wankel-type
> rotaries, which have a very high fuel consumption, although their
> power/weight ratio is good.
>
> 4. According to Moller himself, he is not a pilot, nor has he undertakn
> flying lessons. It shows.

I'm reminded of a statement supposedly made by Igor Sikorsky that all
designers should fly their designs. That way we would only have good
designs.

[cavedweller]

On Jan 12, 10:38*am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 1:47*am, Avionics > wrote:
>
> > Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
> > We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
> > familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
> > aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
> > or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
> > utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.
>
> > SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? * (LAST LINE)
>
> And what does the amount or type of controls have to do with the
> ability of the driver to actually 'fly' safely?? *They seem to be
> oblivious that controlling a vehicle in 3 deminsions is jusst _wee
> bit_ different than in 2 dimensions.
>
> Harry K

Harry, that's a flame about spelling the foot thingies incorrectly.
Everybody knows it's "peddles" :))

[Monk]

On Jan 12, 1:04*am, jan olieslagers >
wrote:
> Peter Dohm schreef:
>
> > "Monk" > wrote in message
> > his contribution to the
> > improvement to the Wangle engine are notable.
>
> > ___________new message______________
>
> > That looks like something related to Finagle's constant...
> > or did you mean Wankle...
>
> After much scratching of my head, I decoded this to "Wankel"

Yeah! That's the ticket!

[Harry K]

On Jan 12, 10:08*am, cavedweller > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:38*am, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 1:47*am, Avionics > wrote:
>
> > > Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
> > > We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
> > > familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
> > > aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
> > > or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
> > > utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.
>
> > > SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? * (LAST LINE)
>
> > And what does the amount or type of controls have to do with the
> > ability of the driver to actually 'fly' safely?? *They seem to be
> > oblivious that controlling a vehicle in 3 deminsions is jusst _wee
> > bit_ different than in 2 dimensions.
>
> > Harry K
>
> Harry, that's a flame about spelling the foot thingies incorrectly.
> Everybody knows it's "peddles" :))- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I missed that!!!

Harry K

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:46:21 -0800, "Stuart Fields" >
wrote:

>
>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article
>> >,
>> Harry K > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 1:36 am, "Ron Webb" > wrote:
>>> > http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html
>>>
>>> Seeing as how we can't keep the average driver from stacking his car
>>> up, how does he think the average driver will do dealing with 3
>>> dimensions?
>>>
>>> Seeing the carnage on the roads now, if his sky car were workable and
>>> affordable the result would be a rapid decrease in population.
>>>
>>> Harry K
>>
>> If it were workable and affordable, it would already have flown in an
>> extensive flight test program -- aftaer all, he has had more than 30
>> years to get it to work.
>>
>> As an engineer, I can list a number of "page one" flaws in both the
>> design and concept:
>>
>> 1. Controllability. He wants to synchronize four to eight engines to
>> provide both lift and thrust, where failure of either one engine or the
>> control interlink would cause loss of control.
>>
>> There is no provision for power-off glide or control, so a BRS-type
>> parachute is mandatory.
>>
>> 2. Aerodynamics. Just one look at the Volantor convinces me that the
>> design is a drag machine, with interference and parasite drag sources
>> everywhere.
>>
>> 3. Fuel consumption. The engines are supposed to be Wankel-type
>> rotaries, which have a very high fuel consumption, although their
>> power/weight ratio is good.
>>
>> 4. According to Moller himself, he is not a pilot, nor has he undertakn
>> flying lessons. It shows.
>
>I'm reminded of a statement supposedly made by Igor Sikorsky that all
>designers should fly their designs. That way we would only have good
>designs.
>
Or no more than one example of each poor design be it whole or in
parts.


Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan[_12_]]

Ron Webb wrote:
> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html
>
>

Are you gullible? To find out send $10 to.......

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired