Air cars will never fly (911 more reasons)

Really excellent glide ratio

Michael


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

The cruise endurance is 2 hours, and even at high cruise, of 400 mph, that
is 800 miles. Where do you come up with 1000 miles range.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
"Zoltan Szakaly" wrote in message
The development status is the following:

I have working induction jet engines
I have developed the flight control system that consists of:
-motor controllers
-multiprocessor systems
-fiber optic data links
-software architecture

I am hoping to integrate a prototype in the near future.

Zoltan

http://www.vtol.net

The cruise endurance is 2 hours, and even at high cruise, of 400 mph, that
is 800 miles. Where do you come up with 1000 miles range.


The current concept includes an impeller driven by a wankel engine.
This is used to blow bypass air around the induction jet engines
during hover to keep them from melting.

Horizontal flight can be done in various ways:

1. Gliding without engines using the canards and ailerons/flaps for
control.
This can be used for fuel out/emergency glide and landing.

2. On the ducted fan economy low speed cruise.
We are not sure how fast or how economical this will be.

3. Using the rear two induction engines with or without the ducted
fan.
This is the fastest cruise and should be somewhat economical.

We have data on the engines at static operation and have simulated the
airframe. The stall speed is 90 mph without engines. It can fly slower
with the engines and it can stop, hover, fly backwards.

The 1000 mile range is approximate, it depends on the payload etc.
This is achieved at less than full speed cruise. The 2 hours endurance
is for 400 mph.

I do have aviation experience, I learned to fly on a friends piper
apache, have done takeoffs and landings on my own. I do not fly now. I
think that the conventional instrumentation is way obsolete.

Of course the one-mw can fly anywhere just like any airplane. It can
be flown with the side-sticks. The front seats are equipped with
steering wheels, gas and brake pedals as well as two joysticks each.
The joysticks control pitch-roll on one side and throttle-yaw on the
other. This is the same as radio controlled airplanes or helicopters.
The pitch roll stick has a vertical throttle knob.

Zoltan

Oh brother. If this wasn't so pitiful, it would be funny.

I'm from Missouri.
--
Jim in NC

Hmmm... Seems to me that most auto drivers are doing well to safely handle
their machines, moving in only 2 dimensions... Don't give 'em 3
dimensions,,,, they're barely driving safely now, in only two.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
wrote in message
...
Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...l+never+fly%22

It was based on this man's (and other technophiles') naive, unworkable
vision of air cars replacing most ground traffic.

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm

Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin. I hope the
latest reason goes without saying! See subject line.

A.J.





ORIGINAL POST
Subject: Air cars will never fly
12-13-98 (sci.space.policy)

The article on the link below epitomizes the deluded "vision" of many
in the space-colonization movement. If the author thinks air-cars are
practical it's no wonder he thinks space-colonization as a means to
keep society sustainable is feasible too (see other links on the
site.)

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm


Here are some obvious reasons why the air-car concept will never fly:

1) It takes FAR more energy to keep something in the air vs. on the
ground, where no energy must be expended to lift its mass. In the
article the author claims that guv'mint fuel regulations inspired him
to think of the air-car concept, but he is completely deluded. He
yearns for transportation that would create energy nightmares on a
much larger scale.

2) Accidents happen often enough with earthbound vehicles restricted
to lanes. If we expand transportation into the air, millions of
vehicles will have to dodge each other with no lane boundaries and a
third dimension as well. It would be complete mayhem. Driving skill
is poor enough as it is, and most accidents would probably be fatal.
Who would trust a naive 16, 18 or 21 year-old to fly and jeopardize
everyone's safety? What about the elderly or infirm who can barely
keep a car on the pavement? Even top pilots have to concentrate hard
to maneuver aircraft in congested situations.

3) When a mechanical breakdown occurs with an earthbound vehicle it
often just rolls to a stop, out of harm's way. But a breakdown in a
airborne vehicle would result is serious danger to anyone in the area.
Controlling air-cars with computers to prevent accidents makes no
sense since it negates the very freedom they are supposed to offer,
plus computer systems fail, and would inevitably cause tragedies in a
sky packed with cars.

4) Environmentally speaking (and this is where the author is really
nuts, since he was partially inspired by a desire for fewer roads)
air-cars would be a visual and auditory nightmare. With no clear
lanes we would have vehicles buzzing all over the place, ruining peace
and quiet and disrupting areas that were formerly safe from roads of
any kind. Wildlife would be routinely scared and you couldn't go
anywhere (or even sleep at night) for fear of a joyrider slamming into
you. It would be like opening the entire planet to airborne jet-skis.

5) There are close to 200 million cars and trucks in use in America
today, and to replace even a fraction of these with air-cars would be
completely impractical for many reasons (cost alone would be
staggering). One big issue is our dependence on trucks of all sizes
for hauling freight, which would be impractical in high speed flying
vehicles. The author claims that air-cars would allow us to tear up
paved routes that spoil natural scenery, but this would prevent the
movement of vital freight everywhere; totally unworkable. Tearing up
roads would be impossibly expensive and it would just leave erosion
scars.

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night? How would
people park as well? Unless some magic anti-gravity propulsion is
developed we would be subject to annoying air-blasts every time
someone pulled into a Wal-Mart. The takeoff scenario after a major
crowd event would be a hopeless maze of flying objects as everyone
tried to leave first.

The author is a Libertarian who detests regulations, but air-cars
would demand more regulations than he could ever imagine. If anyone
thinks air-cars would be remotely practical (except as toys for the
wealthy) I'd like to see your arguments.

A.J. (reposted from 12-13-1998)

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote ...
Hmmm... Seems to me that most auto drivers are doing well to safely handle
their machines, moving in only 2 dimensions... Don't give 'em 3
dimensions,,,, they're barely driving safely now, in only two.

Good point. After all we have enough trouble training people how to post in
newsgroups.

wrote in message
...
Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:

Hey, whaddabout blind people like me? Cars have ESTRICTED my freedom, thank
you very much. I can't go anywhere that doesn't have mass transit (or decent
sidewalks, which are an equal rarity) without fearing for my life.
grumblegrumble ##$%^ two-ton machines...Trying to kill me, I swear...
/grumblegrumble

John

SO now the whole world must stripped of autos and other wise
de-industrialized in order for you to cope with your disability? Poor
little lost babe. Lets have a pity party. Oh, wait how about this line of
reasoning? The lack of advance technology had handicapped me in my search
for new opportunities. In order to help me adjust to my disability you must
make the reasonable accommodation of letting air cars, ssto and other high
tech development projects go forth unimpeded.

"gmw" wrote in message
.. .
Hey, whaddabout blind people like me? Cars have ESTRICTED my freedom,
thank
you very much. I can't go anywhere that doesn't have mass transit (or
decent
sidewalks, which are an equal rarity) without fearing for my life.
grumblegrumble ##$%^ two-ton machines...Trying to kill me, I swear...
/grumblegrumble

John

SO now the whole world must stripped of autos and other wise
de-industrialized in order for you to cope with your disability? Poor
little lost babe. Lets have a pity party. Oh, wait how about this line of
reasoning? The lack of advance technology had handicapped me in my search
for new opportunities. In order to help me adjust to my disability you
must
make the reasonable accommodation of letting air cars, ssto and other high
tech development projects go forth unimpeded.


Who ****ed in your Wheaties. Totally uncalled for.

See ya. Not.
--
Jim in NC