Moller's back...

"Monk" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 11:44 am, Dana M. Hague wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:13:59 GMT, "vaughn"

wrote:
Did he ever go away?

He never will, either.

But he's got competition, now....

http://samsonmotorworks.com/

Good for a few chuckles on a slow day. The FAQ's are especially
amusing...
--
If the government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them
with theirs?

Samson's machine looks closer to reality than Moller's. For one
thing, the wheels look like they could handle operating in the
earthbound mode.

Although Moller's FlyingCar is/was/has_always_been a farce, his
SuperTrap mufflers was a successful design and his contribution to the
improvement to the Wangle engine are notable.

___________new message______________

That looks like something related to Finagle's constant...
or did you mean Wankle...

Peter

Peter Dohm schreef:
"Monk" wrote in message
his contribution to the
improvement to the Wangle engine are notable.

___________new message______________

That looks like something related to Finagle's constant...
or did you mean Wankle...

After much scratching of my head, I decoded this to "Wankel"

Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.



SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? (LAST LINE)

On Jan 12, 1:47*am, Avionics wrote:
Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.

SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? * (LAST LINE)

And what does the amount or type of controls have to do with the
ability of the driver to actually 'fly' safely?? They seem to be
oblivious that controlling a vehicle in 3 deminsions is jusst _wee
bit_ different than in 2 dimensions.

Harry K

"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.

On Jan 12, 10:38*am, Harry K wrote:
On Jan 12, 1:47*am, Avionics wrote:

Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.

SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? * (LAST LINE)

And what does the amount or type of controls have to do with the
ability of the driver to actually 'fly' safely?? *They seem to be
oblivious that controlling a vehicle in 3 deminsions is jusst _wee
bit_ different than in 2 dimensions.

Harry K

Harry, that's a flame about spelling the foot thingies incorrectly.
Everybody knows it's "peddles" )

On Jan 12, 1:04*am, jan olieslagers
wrote:
Peter Dohm schreef:

"Monk" wrote in message
his contribution to the
improvement to the Wangle engine are notable.

___________new message______________

That looks like something related to Finagle's constant...
or did you mean Wankle...

After much scratching of my head, I decoded this to "Wankel"

Yeah! That's the ticket!

On Jan 12, 10:08*am, cavedweller wrote:
On Jan 12, 10:38*am, Harry K wrote:





On Jan 12, 1:47*am, Avionics wrote:

Are the controls different for flying vs. driving?
We plan to provide both ‘pilot’ and ‘driver’ with comfortable and
familiar controls. A control wheel is provided that functions like an
aircraft ‘yoke’ in the air, and while on the ground acts as a motorcycle
or 4-wheeler handlebar. A motorcycle twist grip throttle and brake are
utilized to keep the feet free for the rudder petals.

SINCE WHEN DID WE HAVE RUDDER PETALS ??? * (LAST LINE)

And what does the amount or type of controls have to do with the
ability of the driver to actually 'fly' safely?? *They seem to be
oblivious that controlling a vehicle in 3 deminsions is jusst _wee
bit_ different than in 2 dimensions.

Harry K

Harry, that's a flame about spelling the foot thingies incorrectly.
Everybody knows it's "peddles" )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I missed that!!!

Harry K

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

Ron Webb wrote:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/p...he_skycar.html



Are you gullible? To find out send $10 to.......

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired