Air cars will never fly (911 more reasons)

"Casey Wilson" wrote:
Asperse: To spread false rumors; to strew upon or over; to slander
or
calumniate (as to asperse a man's motives).

I saw that, but that's a verb.

snip snip ...

You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.

Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.

I am developing a flying car. It uses induction jet engines that I
have developed, fly by wire technology, GPS navigation.

It can hover or fly at very slow speeds, it has no moving parts in the
engines and it tolerates multiple computer, sensor or actuator
failures.

It will fly following predefined roads in the sky. It can land
anywhere and be driven like a regular ground car. I envision driving
in towns and flying cross country. Hover is not fuel efficient but
will only be used for takeoff and landing.

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

("Dan Luke" wrote)
...asperses...

Merriam Webster let me down on this one.


It was auspices and asperses - combined.

It's called Montbonics.

Montblack
"I like to watch"
...might be the root of the problem

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:

In article ,
(Zoltan Szakaly) wrote:

snip snip ...

You think this will never happen? Not even 10 or 20 years from now?
You're like those people back in the early 1800's that said humans
would not be able to survive going faster than 45 mph.

Whose to say what will come of energy development and navigation
technology in the not too distant future? With our current power
problems and the development of nanotechnology I think neglected
research in Fusion and portable power storage (i.e. batteries) will
start to become more of a priority. Include our ever increasing
traffic congestion, and I see the potential for some sort of aircar.
No, not 5 years from now. But eventually I could see it.

I am developing a flying car. It uses induction jet engines that I
have developed, fly by wire technology, GPS navigation.

Are the engines similar to the Gluharff engine? If so, they are very
efficient at converting fuel into noise (with poor thrust, too).


It can hover or fly at very slow speeds, it has no moving parts in the
engines and it tolerates multiple computer, sensor or actuator
failures.


Sounds good -- NOW, let's see it fly!


It will fly following predefined roads in the sky. It can land
anywhere and be driven like a regular ground car. I envision driving
in towns and flying cross country. Hover is not fuel efficient but
will only be used for takeoff and landing.



Why the predefined routes?

Such a requirement removes the flexibility and usefulness of an aircraft
and can even be hazardous (T-storms, ice, fog, etc.).

Sounds as if Zoltan has no aviation experience.




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

It looks like an altered Velocity airframe. Again, I see NO aviation
expertise in Zoltan's resume.

I also see no mention of cost (operating, acquisition & maintenance).
Those four engines can be pretty thirsty!

Just hit geese and ducks instead.

mike regish

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Gilles KERMARC" wrote in message
news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-

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?

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?

Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

-c

"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.
--
Jim in NC

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

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:59:19 GMT, wrote:


GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
a crowded space. I've used a GPS handheld extensively and would not
bet my life on its resolution of 14 feet, or even 1 foot if such
accuracy was possible for the public.

Besides, GPS is just one of many flaws in the concept.

A.J.

Galileo plans to go to 1 meter resolution. Enhanced GPS will have a
similar resolution. A SkyCar or similar vehicle is well below the
maximum speed threshold for GPS.


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"