Move Over Moller

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 at 14:19:31 in message
, Montblack
wrote:
Reason I've read for its demise was fear of noise pollution (Right,
like a 1st generation 707 wasn't loud? And what about those 2 Harrier
jump-jet at OSH last year?). Another reason I've read for the project's
cancellation was British Govt. inside politics - with Fairey being
outside.

Those people who heard one can testify that it was extremely loud. As to
the politics I cannot say. I say 'those people' because I have a memory
of hearing the ear-splitting noise at a Farnborough Air show. But it
could have been the Flying Bedstead. I saw then both but did I see both
of them fly? - not quite sure of this because of it being around 50
years ago and I am now much older. :-(
--
David CL Francis

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:26:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote in
. net::

Sure, it might fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an
old Lear (at low altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky,
and the payload of a 172?

[...]

It's a start. It portends the future. It's going to need development
and refinement, but I believe these vectored thrust machines will
eventually be successful in achieving flight and eventually public
acceptance.

I just wonder *where* these things might be operated. Certainly not down
any city street or through any neighborhood?

Neil

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:14:35 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
: :

I just wonder *where* these things might be operated. Certainly not down
any city street or through any neighborhood?

I know what you mean. And I think you've touched on the cause of
their delayed development: a narrow range mission goals.

I have read that a primary mission goal would be for rescue of
personnel from sky scraper windows where the rotor disk of helos
complicates getting close enough for success. I'm not sure that would
be a viable mission either given the likelihood the down wash would
possibly suck out the glass facade.

The military funded some SoloTech research, so I would expect that the
concept of zooming soldiers around the battlefield or over mine fields
and water has some merit.

The lack of suitable missions, other than sheer joy of operation,
seems to be a significant hurdle.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:26:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

I know it's not the point, but I'd take these people much more seriously if
they *didn't* have a website full of beautiful renderings of the finished
craft. Assuming such a craft is ever possible (given the V-22 experience I
wonder) I suspect the devil lies in the systems integration details.
Parachutes and airbags in case of engine failure? Has he even thought of
what useful load is going to look like when it's all done? Sure, it might
fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old Lear (at low
altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the payload of a
172? Well, I hear Moller has a signed purchase agreement with Michael
Jackson. 'nuff said.

Pretty pictures are the easiest part. It's like a wannabe-novelist who
starts by composing a grandiose title with no idea of characters or plot.
Though I must admit I was surprised there were no leggy models immediately
apparent here, especially given that it's Italian. Disappointed, even.

I'd give it at least an equal if not greater chance than Moller, but
it's going to cost about as much as a PC-12, or TBM-700.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

-cwk.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
The future of personal flight?

http://www.gizio.it/cellcraft2.htm

"Roger" wrote in message
...


I'd give it at least an equal if not greater chance than Moller, but
it's going to cost about as much as a PC-12, or TBM-700.

As much? This thing has 2 engines and much more complicated systems. It'd be
quite an achievement to build one at comparable cost to a PC-12.

-cwk.