inline jet engines?

[stevem1928]

I found this picture in my son's National Geographic Kids magazine. It seems like inline jet engines (or ducted fans) would not be effective. Is this way out of line, or is it realistic?

[Sparky Paul]

The idea of the full-scale is to sell an interest in the design... I believe I saw a long-ago early version at an air race at Mohave, about 1974.
The thing isn't really intended to be a real proposition.
Its intent is to make your money the designer's money.
The toy might work, as it doesn't use turbines.. but the full-scale... Nope!

[Mike Taylor]

Go here (the inventor's page) (http://www.moller.com/skycar/). There are pictures of it hovering under its own power on a tether. Do a google on 'skycar' and you will find a lot of pages...

And it DOES look cool...

[robert harik]

This thing has been "almost ready to go" for the past 20+ years, but I dont think its ever gone beyond tetherd flight. I met the designer back in the mid eighties. He was very interesting to say the least.

[robert harik]

Just looked at the web site, slick.
You got to say one thing about this guy , he is a salesman.
Reminds of somthing Barnum once said...

[Mike Taylor]

Hey, I never said I was ready to lay down any cash for one... I just pointed out that it gets off the ground by itself. That is more than can be said for a lot of our designs!

[robert harik]

Mike , from reading your past posts I would never think of you as a sucker.
And it is a cool looking design.

[mwraight]

I'm voting for unrealistic - at least from a marketing prospective. I wouldn't want a computer flying me or children around. What happens when that computer locks up? And who's going to be able to afford the 1000 gallons of Jet A for that trip to Grandma's house? I'll buy an airline ticket or drive...and I'm betting that 99% of the rest of the population will as well. It's just like those other pilotless commercial aircraft that have been visualized for the past 20 years. Who in their right mind would crawl into an aircraft and let a computer take them somewhere with no pilot to save their sorry butts when things went wrong? And things will go wrong! Humans aren't infallable...but I'll take my chances with John Q. Pilot over silicon chips running Bill Gates software any day!

[Purdue Aero Man]

Who in their right mind would crawl into an aircraft and let a computer take them somewhere...

Can you say Airbus?

[Mike Taylor]

I wouldn't want a computer flying me or children around.

That is exactly what you are doing everytime you get in any modern airliner. Do you actually believe the pilots wiggle the sticks other than getting to and lining up with the runway?

[mwraight]

Yes I can say Airbus...and I will not fly in them if I can avoid it. Too much reliance on the old computer for my tastes.

Mike - as a commercial pilot and a friend of many other pilots - yes I actually believe and know that the pilots wiggle the sticks. Usually autopilot is off from takeoff to 500' and 500' and below on landings. And an autopilot is a lot different from a computer controlling every aspect of the flight! You can always turn the autopilot off and fly the plane manually - but if you're relying totally on a computer to fly you around you're dealing with a horse of another color. I would want the sticks there just in case... Would you willingly put your life in the 'hands' of a computer? Not me, buddy. :) I've been around them enough to know that they aren't worth trusting that much too -- at least not yet! When they develop the failproof, lock proof, glitch proof computer, then I might change my mind.

Could you imagine being in one of those things and finding out some 12 year old punk put a virus in it?

I also believe fuel would be a major issue. Going 300 mph doesn't happen cheaply...especially with four big ole spinning things out there!

[cwesh]

Not only Airbus, how about a F-16? , F-22?........ But those do have ejection seats! :)

Chuck...

[raptor22]

F-117. If the computers failed, it would be im[possible to fly.

Fly-by-wire controls that were simple (making it safer like the nighthawk) than a cessna's could let a average person take control in an emergency.

I do think fuel would be an issue, but planes are more effecient than cars at high speed when designed properly. Maybe 150 w/ props? An elec drive system would work using fuel cells (NASA has done it with a dymond twin).

--Alex

[raptor22]

How does it get such "amazing" effecienty (28 mpg ;)) without appreciable wings? It would make sense for a tilt rotor, but this seems to create lift with the ducted fans. Not very effecient.

--Alex

[mwraight]

Now an ejection seat or a ballistic chute could change my mind. But I would definitely want a way out when that computer decided to do something crazy. Sitting there with no other means of safety would not feel good. I wouldn't let a computer drive my car either - all those crazy plans they've hatched for sensors in the road, etc. No thanks. I'll just put my hands on the wheel and do it myself. Maybe I'm a control freak? I just know, at this juncture in time, the human mind is far more stable an operating system than a computer!

[robert harik]

" And because the Skycar will be computerized, anyone- even kids- can drive it !"
What a joke. The computer, savior of the world!
It reminds me of when the airplane manufacturers put "steering wheels" in airplanes to make them seem more like cars and had adds claiming its just like the family car!
I remember one J3 cub pamphlet( comic book) stated "even kids could solo the cub in as little as a hour." I wouldn't want to be around to see that mess!

[mwraight]

Well Robert - manufacturers and inventors certainly do like to make grandiose claims about their products. I remember one Dean Kamen who claimed that his "Ginger" was going to revolutionize the world and change the way humans get around. It was to be the single most revloutionary transportation product since the automobile. Citites would be redesigned or designed around this device. That device, of course, is the Segway - a $3000 curiosity that looks pretty neat, but isn't exaclty what he claimed. So far I don't notice thousands of Segway riders in any city in the U.S.

Solo a J3 Cub in as little as one hour indeed.

[BMatthews]

Not just Airbus. I do believe that many of Boeing's latest are all fly by wire as well. And when they say "wire" they ain't talkin' steel cables! :D

[mwraight]

Yeah, the 777 was Boeing's first commercial foray into fly by wire technology. It's inevitable. It's not the wires that bother me that much - Atari Joysticks are pretty reliable, aren't they? The computer control really bugs me though...just a tiny bit more than fly by wire. In an Airbus the plane decides what's going to happen. The pilot can often override this, but there have been instances where the computer decided that the pilot didn't have a vote. Scary stuff.

My friend flies MD-80s. He says if you look up in the wheel wells you can see all the control cables running all over the place. That's the kind of fly by wire I like - but nothing is foolproof. We're all at the mercy of chance. At least those cables have been proven over 100 years of flight...the fly by wire only for about 20 - 30 years.

Every thing has redundancy in aviation...theres always a back up for the backup's backup...but that hasn't always been enough to prevent tragedy. Maybe my fears are unfounded, but it's still a technology I find extremely uncomfortable - and I'm one of those Gen Xer's that are supposed to love all that techno crap!