Moller Skycar for $3.5 Million

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:MSZ_e.253696$9A2.72113@edtnps89...

Don Hammer wrote:


Moler is like Jim Bede. Great at raising money for his pie-in-the-sky
ideas. After at least ten years, you'd think he'd have something
other than a sortof mockup. Where's the beef?

After 50+ years and trillions of $$$s,, where are all the fusion reactors
? Some things take time...

...Ken


There is a difference between fusion reactors, which are beyond the cutting
edge research projects.

Moler's project is a bit different. First, the technology exists to do what
he says he intends to do. He still hasn't gotten there. Beyond that, he's
promising performance figures that can't be achieved with the type craft
he's projecting. Check out his range/fuel mileage claims. Completely
impossible.

So, what we have in one instance is people trying to develop new technology
which may or may not achievable, ever.

And then, there is Moler, who has a 30+ year of failure at creating a flying
machine which should be doable with today's technology, although it'll never
meet the claimed performance. So, he's more or less a failure and a fraud
at the same time.

Anyone who can produce an "air car" for a reasonable price (say the
cost of a large luxury automobile) will be able to sell hundreds or
thousands, maybe even millions of them so there is considerable
insentive to do so so I have to ask...If this is so easily achievable
with current technology...why hasn't someone done it ?

....Ken

Anthony W wrote:

wmbjk wrote:

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm What surprises
me is that even though it only takes seconds to find evidence of his
decades of hucksterism, people apparently still send him money and
dream of flying his creation. Then again, this is his second attempt
to sell the prototype, so maybe he's finally running out of suckers.

Wayne


Like I said before, it's amazing he has stayed out of jail. Some years
ago a cross-dresser was selling stock for a company to build a 3 wheeled
car. When the feds check into it, there wasn't any thing more than a
mock up and no serious efforts to build anything. That weirdo
eventually went to jail over it.

Did the cross dresser put $$$ millions $$$ of his own money into the
project ?

....Ken

Roger wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:37:59 GMT, Anthony W
wrote:


Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Don Hammer" wrote in message
news

Moler is like Jim Bede. Great at raising money for his pie-in-the-sky
ideas. After at least ten years, you'd think he'd have something
other than a sortof mockup. Where's the beef?


Try 30+ years. Also, his website indicates he's spent $100 million.

I find it amazing that mainstream media still pimps his wares from time to
time, given that he's 30 years and $100 million into the project and has
Zero results other than a display only model with a pretty paint job.

PT Barnum would be so proud...

I'm suprised the feds haven't busted him for fraud by now...


Are you kidding? The feds and NASA think the basic idea is great and
actually have a program to develop something along those lines. Can
you imagine the air traffic if even one percent of the drives had
something like that?

If certainly would be "busy" over crowded cities...think "The 13th
Element"...but otherwise it would be much better. Consider that all
those cars and trucks have to move along asphalt ribbons that constitute
a very small fraction of available airspace...

....Ken

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Roger wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:37:59 GMT, Anthony W
wrote:


Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Don Hammer" wrote in message
news

Moler is like Jim Bede. Great at raising money for his pie-in-the-sky
ideas. After at least ten years, you'd think he'd have something
other than a sortof mockup. Where's the beef?


What's the difference between a prototype and a mock-up?

A mock-up is pretty and shows everyone what the finished product will
look like.

A prototype looks like crap, but shows everyone how the finished
product will work by actually working.

Anyone remember the Bell model 47 helicopter? Everything a helicopter
needs to fly, and nothing it doesn't.

"Ken Chaddock" wrote

If certainly would be "busy" over crowded cities...think "The 13th
Element"...

chuckle Good try, and right idea, but the movie you are thinking of is
"The 5th Element"
--
Jim in NC

Richard wrote:
He's got a point there.

Moller got five million dollars from Uncle Sam for R&D only a few years
ago.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Anthony W wrote:

Like I said before, it's amazing he has stayed out of jail. Some
years ago a cross-dresser was selling stock for a company to build a 3
wheeled car. When the feds check into it, there wasn't any thing more
than a mock up and no serious efforts to build anything. That weirdo
eventually went to jail over it.


Did the cross dresser put $$$ millions $$$ of his own money into the
project ?

...Ken

It couldnt' have cost more than hundreds for that crappy mockup... It
didn't have an engine or steering. It was pretty ugly too, jut like the
creator.

Tony

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:rWl%e.1708$z26.253@edtnps84...
Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:MSZ_e.253696$9A2.72113@edtnps89...

Don Hammer wrote:


Moler is like Jim Bede. Great at raising money for his pie-in-the-sky
ideas. After at least ten years, you'd think he'd have something
other than a sortof mockup. Where's the beef?

After 50+ years and trillions of $$$s,, where are all the fusion reactors
? Some things take time...

...Ken


There is a difference between fusion reactors, which are beyond the
cutting edge research projects.

Moler's project is a bit different. First, the technology exists to do
what he says he intends to do. He still hasn't gotten there. Beyond
that, he's promising performance figures that can't be achieved with the
type craft he's projecting. Check out his range/fuel mileage claims.
Completely impossible.

So, what we have in one instance is people trying to develop new
technology which may or may not achievable, ever.

And then, there is Moler, who has a 30+ year of failure at creating a
flying machine which should be doable with today's technology, although
it'll never meet the claimed performance. So, he's more or less a
failure and a fraud at the same time.

Anyone who can produce an "air car" for a reasonable price (say the cost
of a large luxury automobile) will be able to sell hundreds or thousands,
maybe even millions of them so there is considerable insentive to do so so
I have to ask...If this is so easily achievable with current
technology...why hasn't someone done it ?

...Ken

I think it is doable (though it still isn't easy) with today's technology.
Four problems that make it hard to commercialize (and therefore make it
unattractive to major investors) a

1) Cost. It ain't gonna be cheap. This limits the commercial applications
since everyman won't be able to afford one.
2) Fuel efficiency. You think your SUV gets bad mileage? Wait 'till you
see our flying car!
3) Reliability. Anything that transitions from vertical to horizontal
flight is complicated, which doesn't help reliability.
4) Regulation. This would be a new type of vehicle. Who's allowed to use
it, what are the rules, etc? Under today's rules, it would probably be
treated like a unique helicopter. Everyman doesn't have a helicopter rating,
and most commercial enterprises don't want helicopters landing in their
parking lots.

KB

Ken Chaddock wrote:

Anyone who can produce an "air car" for a reasonable price (say the
cost of a large luxury automobile) will be able to sell hundreds or
thousands, maybe even millions of them so there is considerable
insentive to do so so I have to ask...If this is so easily achievable
with current technology...why hasn't someone done it ?

...Ken

I counter that anyone who can make an "air car" for a reasonalbe price
will be considered an oddity and ignored. Reference the "air cars" that
have been flying for years with absolutely no commercial interest.

John Dyke was attempting to develope an "air car" with his JD-2 model.
It still has a steering wheel in the plans. The final straw for him was
the regulation that required windshield wipers. He decided to just make
a towable plane instead. Today, it is even worse. The amount of
emission controls required on a standard auto would kill the
airworthiness of most airplanes.

The truth of the matter is that it is doable, it is just:

1)impossible to get both the performance of a sports car and a fighter
jet into the same package. Unfortunately, the Sci-Fi channel has
painted a picture, and no one will accept anything less.

2)impossible to meet all the auto regulations and still have a viable
airplane.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

Ken Chaddock wrote:
...
Anyone who can produce an "air car" for a reasonable price (say the
cost of a large luxury automobile) will be able to sell hundreds or
thousands, maybe even millions of them so there is considerable
insentive to do so so I have to ask...If this is so easily achievable
with current technology...why hasn't someone done it ?


I daresay that anyone who could afford one of those could also afford
a real airplane and a real car, each which would outperform the
mechanical chimera, as well as the hanger space in which to park
on while using the other.

--

FF