Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I want my sky car!

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


You really know nothing about flying! (Probably a good thing)
Buy if you should learn, it is exhilarating. Even if you try to fly at sea level, which most would not suggest.
So go figure out what a squelch knob is. Even if your plane is computer controlled or automatic, it would probably be a good thing if they factored in oxygen intake levels at different altitudes since it gets pretty thin up there. But since there is nothing in the sky to hit to begin with, this shouldn't be a problem for you when you stall at 30,000 feet and can't get the engines restarted!

I'm not wasting any more posts on this 2-dimensional argument.


Apparently you are truly an expert on the art.

Sea level is the altitude at which you can find plenty of airfields, airstrips and airports. That may be important to you, as a pilot, because most flights consist of a takeoff and a landing, which you might know involves the surface of the earth or a flight deck on an aircraft carrier.

I am no expert or am trying to present that I am.
There are only 3 places in the USA with airstrips below sea level Death Valley, Salton Sink, CA. and New Orleans. With the exception of New Orleans I don't intend to fly to any of these locations in the near future or make a landing on an aircraft carrier!
This makes no sense anyway even if it were a real issue!
Take-off's and landing's are the most dangerous parts of flying. Correct, but not for what you are talking about.


Ever landed at Philadelphia? Newark, Boston, Los Angeles, Washington DC, anywhere on the peninsula that is called Florida? All those places, plus a lot more, for all that it means to a pilot.... are effectively at sea level. I mentioned sea level when you originally asked me what altitude for a particular stall speed. Sea level is the important one because when you land at most airports, that is where you will be, sea level.

Your fixated on this one point that really does not make that much of a difference. Great way to deflect attention away from your earlier comments. Like there is nothing to hit up in the sky!

As for the rest of your comments start at the top of this post and read back down.
Repeat if necessary!
edit on 5/11/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 
Apparently you are truly an expert on the art.

Sea level is the altitude at which you can find plenty of airfields, airstrips and airports. That may be important to you, as a pilot, because most flights consist of a takeoff and a landing, which you might know involves the surface of the earth or a flight deck on an aircraft carrier. These particular aspects of the flight are the most dangerous.... know why? Because it involves the ground, where you tend to hit things. Most aircraft need to slow down a bit from cruising speed to land, another connection between stalling and low altitude flying that you may want to remember, since you have apparently been grabbing the yoke.

The air is thickest at sea level, another factor that affects stall speed. So, if you are going to stall, where would you be most concerned about it? At a higher altitude? Or where you don't have time to recover from a stall?

Just wondering.

ETA: Don't worry about the squelch knob.... I don't need you to talk me in.

edit on 11-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguyYes, of course aircraft are troubled by that pesky 'falling out of the sky' problem. Are you seriously comparing aircraft and automobile engines and maintenance?

I was addressing the point that there are far fewer things to hit in an aircraft than in a car. If anyone wants to argue that point, they really need to look upwards first.


Yes, of course I am comparing the two - BECAUSE YOU ARE. Aircraft are much more maintenance heavy than your car, and are maintained to a much higher standard.

The *only* reason why we don't see more aircraft crashing because of maintenance issues is because they are operated under EXPENSIVE and ARDUOUS maintenance regimes, demanded by the FAA, CAA, ICOA and other aviation safety bodies.

And all because WHEN AIRCRAFT FAIL, they FAIL HARD. There is no pulling over to the hard shoulder, there is no nice roll to a stop, there is no "pick the hedge to plow into when my brakes fail". Operating a failed aircraft IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

And once again, if you are hinging your ENTIRE ARGUMENT on the fact that physical obstacles are the primary issue, then you DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by butcherguy


Spoken by someone who probably does not know how to fly a plane.

There are a lot more things to look for in the sky when flying.
And if you do hit something you will not be changing a flat tire!
Are you a pilot? If so, what types of aircraft are you qualified to fly?

Just what is it that you are going to hit up there?

Please help my poor intellect to understand by composing a list of "things to look for in the sky" when flying.



That you are so obsessed with "what is there to hit?" as your argument certainly indicates that you should never, ever be put in charge of an aircraft. The world of flying is so much more than avoiding physical obstacles.




I never said that 'flying is the art of not hitting anything.
Never claimed to be a pilot.

I also did not manipulate a quote to make it seem like someone wrote something that they didn't....like you just did with me!
edit on 11-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


I think anyone willing to look at any of the posts made in this thread are likely to find that I didn't manipulate anything, my quoting perfectly reflects what you said.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 



There are only 3 places in the USA with airstrips below sea level Death Valley, Salton Sink, CA. and New Orleans. With the exception of New Orleans I don't intend to fly to any of these locations in the near future or make a landing on an aircraft carrier! This makes no sense anyway even if it were a real issue!
well, my friend, you certainly have made no bones about telling me that I know nothing about it!

Ever landed at Philadelphia? Newark, Boston, Los Angeles, Washington DC, anywhere on the peninsula that is called Florida? All those places, plus a lot more, for all that it means to a pilot.... are effectively at sea level. I mentioned sea level when you originally asked me what altitude for a particular stall speed. Sea level is the important one because when you land at most airports, that is where you will be, sea level.

edit on 11-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by AnteBellum
 
Apparently you are truly an expert on the art.

Sea level is the altitude at which you can find plenty of airfields, airstrips and airports. That may be important to you, as a pilot, because most flights consist of a takeoff and a landing, which you might know involves the surface of the earth or a flight deck on an aircraft carrier. These particular aspects of the flight are the most dangerous.... know why? Because it involves the ground, where you tend to hit things. Most aircraft need to slow down a bit from cruising speed to land, another connection between stalling and low altitude flying that you may want to remember, since you have apparently been grabbing the yoke.


Most aircraft have low speed, high lift devices such as flaps and slats, which increase lift from the wing at the cost of more power - so you actually have a better operating envelope at low speeds such as approach or take off than you would in the thin air of cruise.

While takeoff and landing are dangerous, the danger does NOT stop there, and its certainly nothing like driving a car - there are numerous ways in which an aircraft during cruise can have an issue, as detailed in some of my other posts (which you seem to be ignoring).



The air is thickest at sea level, another factor that affects stall speed. So, if you are going to stall, where would you be most concerned about it? At a higher altitude? Or where you don't have time to recover from a stall?

Just wondering.


Actually, the best place to have a stall is between the two, on the descent - at altitude your stall conditions are more varied than your flight conditions, and at altitude recovering from a stall takes significantly more effort and action than in thicker air.

While recovering from a stall in close proximity to the ground is a pain in the arse.

But again, this is why pilots have huge amounts of training, certification and repeat certification. You really think people wanting sky cars would be willing to go through hundreds of hours of training and certification? Because to be safe, thats what they would have to do.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Thank you for replying, I didn't want to make it easy for him though.
Some like to use information you give to make a better argument.
It is way more fun watching them flap around like a fish out of water or in this case a bird out of flight!
This is way more fun then playing video games or work.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 



While recovering from a stall in close proximity to the ground is a pain in the arse.
Where I come from we think so too.




Most aircraft have low speed, high lift devices such as flaps and slats, which increase lift from the wing at the cost of more power

Most single/ two-seater aircraft civilian don't, they would be the equivalent to the Skycar.




You really think people wanting sky cars would be willing to go through hundreds of hours of training and certification?
Do you really think the skycar is a conventional aircraft? Is it possible that the time that it has taken this project to come to fruition may be to make it safer to operate? Is there a reason that they might have called it a 'Skycar'? Instead of , some new airplane?

edit on 11-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 



Some like to use information you give to make a better argument.

You really think so? You just figured out what debating is?

Excuse me, I meant to say that you are obviously a superb debater.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Holly N.R.A.
 


I have never seen that. Reminds me of me and my buds...FLIPPIN HILARIOUS!


Glad I could enrich your understanding of what one does in order to have a flying car...


Guess people would rather be serious than giggle around here. Good to see you could enjoy it.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


If this was even close to a debate I would agree with you.
Truth is you are not a pilot, neither am I yet.
So when 2 pilots come on board and start debating, I would listen.

Deny Ignorance is the site motto.
edit on 5/11/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 



neither am I yet.
Thank you, seriously thank you.





Do you even know I am not a girl?

What in the world does that have to do with anything? Have I referred to you in a gender specific manner?

You should go check out the threads on the nuclear disaster in Japan. There are plenty of posters on those threads that are not nuclear physicists, and they are all brazen enough to post about such a subject. As if they should be allowed to have an opinion on such matters. Hmmmph!




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 



Oh, Christ on a magic pogo stick...
Alright, Marty McFly, if I build you a flying car will you fly it to the other side of the solar system for a few decades?

Ya think there might be bigger priorities on the planet than you zooming around like George Jetson??



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Amazing, you still think you are right!

Well if it makes you feel any better I lied about the whole thing. . . . . . .
I actually am the flight instructor that taught Mohamed Atta how to fly!

NOT!
edit on 5/11/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 




I think anyone willing to look at any of the posts made in this thread are likely to find that I didn't manipulate anything, my quoting perfectly reflects what you said.

Then you need to let everyone look more closely.

Here is what antebellum posted:




Spoken by someone who probably does not know how to fly a plane. There are a lot more things to look for in the sky when flying. And if you do hit something you will not be changing a flat tire!

In this post:post

You posted this:





give this post a star
posted on 11-5-2011 @ 12:49 PM this post

Originally posted by butcherguy


Spoken by someone who probably does not know how to fly a plane.

There are a lot more things to look for in the sky when flying.
And if you do hit something you will not be changing a flat tire!

Are you a pilot? If so, what types of aircraft are you qualified to fly?

Just what is it that you are going to hit up there?

Please help my poor intellect to understand by composing a list of "things to look for in the sky" when flying.

That you are so obsessed with "what is there to hit?" as your argument certainly indicates that you should never, ever be put in charge of an aircraft.

The world of flying is so much more than avoiding physical obstacles.


Here:Your original post




Let me know where I wrote what you have attributed to me!

edit on 11-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Not alot of members willing to talk here, well here are a few rather interesting people..

TextDr. Dennis Bushnell--Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center"The volantor (Skycar) will do for car-based society what the car did for horse-based society.It is the right solution at the right time." He goes on to add, "It is not a question of if but when the market for personal air vehicles will be about $1 trillion a year."



TextDr. John Zuk—Chief, Advanced Plans and Programs, NASA Ames"This is extremely significant," says Dr. Zuk. "It’s really a breakthrough for the type and concept and it has merits from a cost standpoint that show promise to be a future personal transportation system.It’s a true first."Dr. Zuk goes on to say, "Moller is different.He’s got academic credentials.He’s thorough."



TextInc. Magazine--"This is Rocket Science!""The engine was the key Moller knew, in combining straight up flight with the speed and simplicity of a light plane.

Forbes FYI Magazine--"Are We There Yet?"

"Skycar ‘pilots’ will simply log on to the tracking system via on-board computers, then stick around for any arising emergency tasks such as deploying the craft’s parachutes in the event of a catastrophic power failure."



TextThe Learning Channel (TLC)—"The Ultimate Ten Machines Ever Built"A program devoted to describing and rating the ten most significant machines ever built.The Skycar was rated number 6.


This is just more fuel
visit the site to see all that is said about the skycar...www.moller.com...



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 



Amazing, you still think you are right!

No, amazing that you originally called me out asking me if I was a pilot, as if a person can not have opinions on this board without qualifications. Then when I asked if you were a pilot and what aircraft you were qualified to operate, you show me a photo of a plane and tell me that is the one you fly.

That is why I said thank you, sincerely.

Deny ignorance indeed.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 





Like there is nothing to hit up in the sky!

I asked you for a list, and you provided none.....

I think that point is well made and pretty simple.

What is it that you are going to hit?

Back to the point that you want to be on.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Personally, I think that the PRICE will keep us from seeing very many of these in the sky anyway.

The price may eventually fall into the $100,000 range some day.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


ATS Post

Buy the way the invention of the SkyCar is a great thing, we are just not ready for full blown commercial applications or production yet.
That is why investors are hard pressed to put the money needed into this - out of liability, not credibility!
I am finished now, it's been fun!
Any more comments can be directed to my Wall.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join