OTTOMH
You don’t need a license to fly one.
However, any ultralight with more than one seat is legally a trainer vehicle and can only be flown by somebody with a pilots license and a flight instructors license or by a student during instruction.
The other regulations of ultralights give maximum weight, speed, stall speed etc.
Well, I’ll be safe from falling hovercars, as I’ll be farming the ocean floor…
Like with everything else fun and interesting our letigious society will make certain that this idea never makes it off the ground. Great idea but until it is automated completely it won’t happen…I doubt any of us will live to see it.
It looks like it gets its lift through ducted tuckerfans.
I agree with you on the first, but disagree strongly on the second. I firmly believe that I will live to see self-driving cars become reliable and affordable.
Well there goes my commuter option.
I fail to see what is so groundbreaking here. What’s the major improvement over an ultralight helicopter, which costs a lot less? Some of those things have contra-rotating coaxial rotors (Eagle’s Perch, I think), making them relatively easy to fly.
I thought of that very same ad when I saw this - IIRC, it was an ad for AMEX - possibly their “blue” card.
But this thing… It’s a flying rock. Airplanes have wings and unless you dork out and stall the wing or get into a spin, they can glide in the event of engine failure. Count me in the “I’ll stay inside until every one of these that’s been sold has had a mid-flight failure and drops out of the sky” camp.
My eyes almost rolled out of my head watching that segment. The technology to have flying cars has been around for decades, it’s just too damn dangerous. Look at how much training and structure is put around regular helicopter flight and small plane flight. That’s with our skies nearly empty.
Step one will be computer controlled automobiles. Let’s work on controlling a 2D conveyance with known and reliable technology before trying it on a flying car.
I’m having some trouble finding stories on the project I’m thinking of. I believe it was “Navstar” but it may have been called something else. As of 10 years ago, the professor had it doing everything except paralel parking. Kids were always disappointed when he showed them the ‘robot car’ because it looked normal except for a few tiny cameras and a pc in the front seat passenger leg room.
I’d say that if he still has a leash on that thing, it’s a long ways from commercial production and 20K cruising.
Okay, luddite. I’ll be living in my fusion-reactor-powered lunar home.
I have a feeling that this is one of those “works great in the lab” ideas, but not in the real world. The various car makers have spend probably close to billions working on this technology, at least in the case of GM since the 1950s. While I’d be the last person to be surprized that the car makers would ignore a good idea developed by a lone inventor, I have a feeling that we just haven’t gotten all the kinks worked out of it, for real world use.
Oh, and the Avery Brooks commercial was for IBM, in it he made the point that we didn’t need flying cars because of things like the internet and the IBM technologies driving it.
EX-cellent!
—moves underground—
Seriously, what if this Moller guy actually produces something other than vaporcars, and he’s got a commercially-viable model for sale. It would cruise at 200-300MPH, miles overhead. It could travel hundreds of miles. It weighs over a ton. It sure doesn’t look like an ultralight to me. What is it, effectively? A plane?
Actually 10,000 feet above sea level. So you people in Colorado would be getting the short end of the stick, so to speak.
Also:
No one’s caught this yet? What kind of miracle transportation only goes 55 mph and only gives you 2 hours of flight time? I also noticed that nowhere in the article does it mention what kind of milage this flying “car” gets. And good luck pulling into a gas station.
All in all, I think it’s just an over-glorified helicopter. Since the CBS article didn’t have pictures.
It IS an ultralight helicopter! With coaxial rotors! This isn’t new! Gimme a break.
Hear, hear! And while we’re at it, let’s put boxing gloves on chickens.
That certainly appears to be true of the SkyCar.
But (maybe our doper aviators can correct me if I’m wrong), supposing the rotors on the AirScooter are massive enough, even if the engine quits, they might have enough inertia to keep spinning long enough and rapidly enough to allow a survivable descent, so long as the thing isn’t too high up.
And you thought that shopping carts got pushed around by a little wind.
I’m just going to the local shopping mall.
The result of a flying car ride. In smilies.
:smack:…:dubious: :rolleyes: 
:eek: 
:mad:
Hrrmm. I’m not setting foot in an invention engineered by someone with math skills like that. No-sir-ee-bob.