Roadable Aircraft ... What about this?

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
O'Neill Magnum.


Not much info...
http://www.aerofiles.com/_o.html
Scroll down to O'Neil


MontblackIrish

wrote)
I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm


Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the rear
tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?

Just a thought...


Montblack
I wonder if gyroscopic(?) forces (with the rear spinning tire) would make
banking difficult? :-)

("Montblack" wrote)
And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the
rear tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?


Or:
....a second sprocket or hub - don't use the rear tire.
....a belt/pulley setup, off the engine - like an old tractor.

Just a thought...


Montblack

Montblack wrote:
wrote)
I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm


Why not revisit the Wright Brothers design - a fitted belt, around the
rear tire, up to a big slow turning pusher prop?

Just a thought...


Montblack
I wonder if gyroscopic(?) forces (with the rear spinning tire) would
make banking difficult? :-)

Heading hold?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

wrote in message
ups.com...
I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Thanks
-Adam

Usually, the flying car concept is offered as a new, improved way to
commute. Wouldn't it be easier to have an airplane that isn't compromised
with the unnecessary weight of a motorcycle and position a motorcycle at
each end of the commute?

The compromises of a flying car (or motorcycle) tend to more or less ruin
the craft's utility in one or both roles.

("Kyle Boatright" wrote)
[snip]
http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Wouldn't it be easier to have an airplane that isn't compromised with the
unnecessary weight of a motorcycle and position a motorcycle at each end
of the commute?


That's great for Point (A) to Point (B) travel ...forgetting, for a moment,
about the other (24) letters in the alphabet.


Montblack

Earlier, Montblack wrote:

That's great for Point (A) to Point (B) travel ...forgetting, for a moment,
about the other (24) letters in the alphabet.

I'll bet that if you bought a Cezzna 150, and then five times a year
paid $1000 to buy a beater bike in whatever town you're visiting, you'd
have better speed and better handling at a lower overall cost. You
could also recoup a bunch of that by donating the bikes to charity and
claiming the deduction.

Nearly $50K??? Too danged expensive. Maybe $10k.

David M.


wrote:

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Thanks
-Adam

In article . com,
wrote:

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Thanks
-Adam

Yeah, well, I'll try to keep it polite, Mr. Wolff, since I'm always
asking others to do so. I'm hardly in a position to evaluate a product
that doesn't exist, so I can't comment on its merits or faults. But,
morally, I don't think you ought to be taking deposits for a product
that doesn't exist, nor selling dealerships for it.

I understand your concerns, and I've taken some heat for this. The web
site and our agreements state clearly that we will take deposits in
escrow -- our account or yours, however you may want to set it up --
and we would do the same for dealers.

Our goal with this is two-fold: 1) to offer early adopters and others
as excited about the concept as we are first dibs, and 2) to have
something concrete to show investors with a product for which the
market is somewhat nebulous.

I know that people have gotten burned in similar situations, and we
have done our best to protect both ourselves and any potential
customers.

Thanks
-Adam

Smitty Two wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

I saw earlier posts about North Texan's Butterfly and was impressed
with the depth and quality of discussion regarding patents and the
limitations and requirements for roadable aricraft.

I would welcome your feedback regarding my product:

http://www.wolffaerocycle.com/

And an article in the recent issue of Full Throttle (biker rag):
http://www.fullthrottlenyne.com/feature2.htm

Thanks
-Adam

Yeah, well, I'll try to keep it polite, Mr. Wolff, since I'm always
asking others to do so. I'm hardly in a position to evaluate a product
that doesn't exist, so I can't comment on its merits or faults. But,
morally, I don't think you ought to be taking deposits for a product
that doesn't exist, nor selling dealerships for it.