On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:46:21 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article
,
Harry K wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:36 am, "Ron Webb" wrote:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/p...he_skycar.html

Seeing as how we can't keep the average driver from stacking his car
up, how does he think the average driver will do dealing with 3
dimensions?

Seeing the carnage on the roads now, if his sky car were workable and
affordable the result would be a rapid decrease in population.

Harry K

If it were workable and affordable, it would already have flown in an
extensive flight test program -- aftaer all, he has had more than 30
years to get it to work.

As an engineer, I can list a number of "page one" flaws in both the
design and concept:

1. Controllability. He wants to synchronize four to eight engines to
provide both lift and thrust, where failure of either one engine or the
control interlink would cause loss of control.

There is no provision for power-off glide or control, so a BRS-type
parachute is mandatory.

2. Aerodynamics. Just one look at the Volantor convinces me that the
design is a drag machine, with interference and parasite drag sources
everywhere.

3. Fuel consumption. The engines are supposed to be Wankel-type
rotaries, which have a very high fuel consumption, although their
power/weight ratio is good.

4. According to Moller himself, he is not a pilot, nor has he undertakn
flying lessons. It shows.

I'm reminded of a statement supposedly made by Igor Sikorsky that all
designers should fly their designs. That way we would only have good
designs.

Or no more than one example of each poor design be it whole or in
parts.


Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com