It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Skycar a viable transportation device?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Hi all, this is the first thread I've actually started, so be nice until we get into it.

The Skycar or the Volantor is a project started by Paul Moller in the 60's.
His main aim was to create a viable personal flying vehicle.
He achieved a fully working and air worthy vehicle in 2002 (The M400 a 4 seater).
Well this was the only one that you would actually want to drive!!



Doesn't it look beautiful?

He also created others along the lines of the classic saucer shape.



Not so beautiful..

Anyhow, do you really think they will be an everyday vehicle for the near future or just a millionaires toy?

Would you buy one if they were cheap enough?

There's not been a lot of news about these vehicles over the last few years so I'd like to just give you all a nudge.
Especially as the M200 is supposed to be available (although I can't get on the purchase page of their website)

What Moller has to say.



Can any automobile give you this scenario? From your garage to your destination, the M400 Skycar can cruise comfortably at 275 MPH (maximum speed of 375 MPH) and achieve up to 20 miles per gallon on clean burning, ethanol fuel. No traffic, no red lights, no speeding tickets. Just quiet direct transportation from point A to point B in a fraction of the time. Three dimensional mobility in place of two dimensional immobility.


What would the aerial infrastructure have to be to support people using these machines. Would we be able to use our local airports?
I know they are classed as motorcycles for road use (has 3 wheels).
In one of Moller's video's he states that they would have to have automated flight controls. Presume so crazies like us don't go falling out of the sky in one

I know I'd love one

Links for info and test flight videos:-
Main Moller site

AOL Tech review
TED TV talk 2004 (The man himself)



Henry Ford, Chairman, Ford Motor Company-1940
"Mark my word: A combination airplane and motorcar is coming. You may smile. But it will come..."




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


I don't know why Moller is still trying to sell these. I had a friend that put up a $250,000 deposit on one back in the early 90's and still has nothing. Think that money is gone. Good looking vehicle, just not enough cash to bring to fruition.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I think the first wealthy idiot who thinks he's some kind of future supertraveller will put these things back in the hangar/garage for another fifty years when he lands it on a freeway and kills himself and others.

Sci-fi can be dumb sometimes and should only be left to the movies and books.

Not all great inventions are meant to be made perhaps?

Time will tell but I'm sure they'll be stories and events from these things.

cheers...nerb



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Car breaks down, people need to cover their heads.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I think the biggest problem people face when utilizing flying vehicles, is that when the vehicle breaks (whaich will happen in something that has lots of moving parts) you can't just pull over to the side of the freeway... The vehicle basically turns into a homesick rock.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Apparently it has 4 computer systems for engine control. 1 goes down other 3 take over (1st warning). 2 go down other 2 take control so you can only hover and get it on the ground pronto!! If you don't take those as warnings expect a bad day..

Also comes with 2 parachutes (most probably just for psychological safety
)

I'd still love a go in one. Moller says it feels like a flying carpet (wonder if he made 1 of those too)



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Any "flying car" based off of known physics (Bernoulli's principle) is impractical, IMO. The engines are gigantic, the energy requirements are enormous, they would be too expensive and overall, just do not offer the comfort and convenience of a regular land vehicle.

The only way I see flying cars replacing regular cars is if physicists somehow discovered an anti-gravity effect that would prove safe in a flying vehicle and needed less energy to work. Even then, an accident in the skies would almost certainly result in death.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee
The only way I see flying cars replacing regular cars is if physicists somehow discovered an anti-gravity effect that would prove safe in a flying vehicle and needed less energy to work. Even then, an accident in the skies would almost certainly result in death.


They are working on just that. All that is needed is to lift the vehicle off the ground, even if its just a few inches. Then you use conventional air jets to lift it further or manuver, forward motion, reverse, left, right, pitch up/down.

That would be far more practical, and alot safer.

I dont think we will see anything like that for quite some time to come. Maybe by 2100 or so.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I dont think everyone should have a skycar at all honestly.
You cant even get folks too maintain their ground vehicles let alone ones that fly.
Then there are those whom constantly forget about gassing up their cars,etc..
When you run out of gas in the Air there is No pulling over just straight plummeting too earth.
These things will have too be idiot proof literally IMO if they are too be common.
Id love one though......



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I love to say where's my flying car when talking about false techno utopias ,but the truth is if you really think about it's a recipe for disaster and fiery death on a daily basis

Can you picture teenagers old people and criminals fleeing crime scenes if this were at all possible ? Good Grief the there would be a mid air collision every few minutes!

I now know this was always a ridiculous notion,although I have to say I'm very captivated by the way it's portrayed in Metropolis,and The Fifth Element



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by VType
 


Even ground based vehicles requires responsibility. What you implement with the flying vehicles is an even more restrictive operating privilage requirement.

Navigation and collision prevention computers can also be implemented. Its not byond fiesability, once the gravity issue is resolved.

I am sure that in a case where you got some drunk or robber or obnoxious teen whisking around at 500 feet, the authorities could hit a button and bring that puppy to a stop, hover until they arrive, and land it and then take the offender into custody.

Again its a matter of reponsibility. Even for ground vehicles, they take away your license if you have too many DUI's or too many tickets. You just upscale those penalties for the offense in the airborne vehicle world.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns


They are working on just that. All that is needed is to lift the vehicle off the ground, even if its just a few inches. Then you use conventional air jets to lift it further or manuver, forward motion, reverse, left, right, pitch up/down.

That would be far more practical, and alot safer.

I dont think we will see anything like that for quite some time to come. Maybe by 2100 or so.



Cheers!!!!


They've been working on anti-gravity for decades. The discovery doesn't look imminent. However, I read a paper two years ago that spoke of using Heim Theory to create a powerful magnetic field to create an anti-gravity effect. I have not heard anything about it since.

Also, if room-temperature superconducting materials are ever discovered, they could give us hover cars. There would need to be a gigantic renovation of infrastructure to make it work, but we could get cars to hover just above the ground.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The biggest problem with all of these personal flying machines is the insurance, not the technical practicalities. The simple Piper Cub was a very cheap, reliable airplane. No runway available? How about an autogyro? Even safer than an airplane. You could take off from your own driveway without even bothering the neighbors.



With a car, however, most accidents are going to be simple fender benders with pretty much nobody getting hurt. With these things, an accident can very easily be a death, and not just of the pilot or any passengers. Death, property damage, etc.

That's why it's not viable. Maybe if automatic collision avoidance and crash prevention technologies get a whole lot better. Someday. But don't hold your breath.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Did you watch the TEDTV video. They had to double the power of the rotary engines that are fitted to a Mazda RX8. Those are great engines by the way..



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join