Talk:Moller Skycar M400

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] No confidence

I don't honestly believe that Moller will ever be able to fly this pipe dream. As far as I know, he doesn't have an engineering team qualified to test and certify the vehicle. I'd be willing to bet that it never goes airborne beyond it's tether. - G-man, 10/10/05

The machine flies. The real problem is stability, and that has done a number of aircraft designs in over the years. Notable among these is the Northrop YB-49 flying wing. They eventually stabilized the platform with vacuum tube-based analog computers, but it was too late to save the project. The concept went on hiatus for over 30 years, until modern digital microcomputers made the Northrop B-2 bomber possible. For Moller, the question is whether his company has deep enough pockets to continue development and solve the stability problem. --QuicksilverT @ 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
(Does it [fly]? The main article says that it "passed its first real flight tests in 2003". Is that true? Has this thing actually flown without a tether? I don't think so, and I've been following this for years. In those 2003 pictures, there's a big crane supporting the thing with a cable. Yes, there's some slack in the cable; it is lifting under its own power. But it's not going anywhere.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagle (talk • contribs) 08:45 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether they have the deep pocket or not I guess it doesn't really matter. At least it doesn't matter for me who does it, Moller or any other company? Well, there is this technology and in at most 25 years, I guess we will see these thing or similar things like these on the sky. That's amazing how technology progresses. --Quinlan Vos 20:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The real problem is fuel consumption. His estimates of the Skycar's fuel consumption are extremely low, to the point of being absurd. Mexcellent 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, are you basing that statement on the consumption of a "hovering" Skycar, or one in horizontal flight (where supposedly only 1/4 of the vehicle's lift is powered by the engines)? MFNickster 03:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's required by FAA regulations to be flown tethered to a crane. Kairos 19:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make it impractical for travel? I don't wanna lug a crane around with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.15.2 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noise

In the section discussing the noise of the vehicle, 65dB seems really, really low to me. I recently took my bone stock car to an autocross where they measured everyone's car output. The cap for the cars was 92 dB; mine clocked in between 70db and 85db, depending on if I was on the gas or not when they measured it. Is there a distance component to the 65 dB measurement? Depending on the distance, the flying car might be quieter than normal cars (not likely, but still). Riddlefox 13:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The 65dB claim must have been taken out at some point. I provided a reference to a site claiming that the noise at takeoff will be "only" the same as "a nearby freeway". Given that freeway noise can dominate a landscape for miles to either side and this thing seems unlikely to be a high flier, I am less than unenthusiastic about it. When you consider how badly even the most remote areas are impacted by aircraft noise now... and those are usually high flying with many passengers each! I wonder if that makes me one of the nay sayers who feel threatened by his technology - or does that phrase refer to the people afraid of cars falling through their ceilings? 70.15.114.2 (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collisions

The article doesn't address what to me is the most significant issue of all with a 'skycar' of any description -- How do you prevent it from colliding with low flying General Aviation aircraft, helicopters, and for that matter, other skycars? Even assuming that a skycar with performance similar to Moller's claims can be produced (which I have profound doubts about), how will 'traffic control' work? Given the quality of driving (or lack thereof) I see every day on the highway, I shudder to think what would happen if some of these cretins were operating in more than two dimensions. If an entirely automatic system of traffic control is required, it would likely be horrendously expensive, and would have to account for everything else in the air. This is probably a deal-breaker all by itself. Opinions?

You raise a good question but don't provide a rationale for why it should be included in the article. Perhaps if there has been some authoritive criticism that talks about potential collisions with other aircraft you could cite that in the article, but it's unencylopedic to write that criticism yourself. I suspect there is no real criticism of any potential future air traffic control system because the Skycar prototype (I believe there is only one) has not actually flown any distance. This is assuming Moller himself hasn't talked about his air traffic control ideas with the media at any great length. That may make for an interesting read. --ozzmosis 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There's serious work on that problem.[1] Also see Free flight. But that's not Moller-related work. --John Nagle 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
from what I've heard NASA already has plans for a future air-traffic system. wether or not the 'Skycar' ever works, in the future it is quite likely at least that small aircraft will see much more common useage. Sahuagin 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protracted development

Some issue is made about how long Moller has been working on the Skycar without going into production. This does have the slight smell of investment fraud but the V-22 Osprey has been in development for a couple of decades and it has the backing of the U.S. government. I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the investors but the time it's taking to get it working may not be unreasonable. Rsduhamel 20:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Moller had to pay substantial fines to the SEC for fraud. That's rare. Also, many VTOL aircraft have been built that actually fly. The Hiller Museum [2] has a nice collection of them, including the Hiller Flying Platform. --John Nagle 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The past history of VTOL aircraft is not especially distinquished, with the specific exception of the Harrier. The U.S. Army (and to a lesser extent, the Air Force) had a huge program into VTOL aircraft in the Fifties and early sixties that investigated a lot of concepts, but didn't come up with anything that was more practical than the Helicopter (with the possible exception of the V-22, which seems to have had endless trouble, and still isn't in full service 18 years after its first flight).
My concern is that Moller is trying to introduce at least three fundamentally new technologies in one craft -- Very high power-weight ratio Wankel engines (which can supposedly function on a very wide range of fuels), a type of VTOL craft with few precedents (the only one I can think of is the Bell X-22), a sufficiently automatic control system for such a craft to stabilize it and fly it so that it can be piloted by anyone, and some kind of guidance/anti-collision system to prevent said craft from colliding with each other, other craft, etc.
I would feel a lot more sanguine about the prospects of Moller's development program if these issues were being tackled one at a time, rather than trying to work out the wrinkles of so many fundamental changes (each of which would be a substantial acheivement all by itself) all at once in the same prototype. I have profound doubts about the long term prospects for this, which are not eased by the long term schedule slippage. (Check out the dates in the older versions of the Moller website on www.archive.org some time!)
The problem goes back further than the Internet. See Moller's brochure from 1974. "December 31, 1974 - Preliminary test flights complete - December 31, 1976 - Full-scale production begins". Right. Moller has been saying "real soon now" for thirty years.
If somebody like Burt Rutan was building this thing, it would be flying in three years.
The fundamental frustration with such vehicles is that they obviously should be turbine-powered; the power to weight ratio on turbojets is much better than for reciprocating engines. Even the Avrocar (aircraft) was turbine powered, and that was in 1960. But nobody has ever been able to make a small, cheap jet engine. Small ones can be made, but once you get down to bizjet size, they don't get much cheaper as they get smaller. This is why general aviation is still running on pistons. It would be quite feasible to build something like the Skycar with bizjet turbines, but it would cost like a bizjet. --John Nagle 03:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder sometimes why Moller hasn't pursued a turbine-powered Skycar. As stated above, it would put the cost of the Skycar into the business jet range. So what? There are lots of people that do own business jets and who would likely be happy to own something with the attributes of a Skycar, even at that price. (There are always people around with more money than they know what to do with looking for neat things to spend it on). It would get the concept on display and raise public awareness far more than the periodic articles in Popular Mechanics, and appearances on 60 Minutes. Even if they only made a turbine-powered prototype (with the Wankel-powered production version following), it would probably be worth it as a demonstrator. The fact that this hasn't been done over the years leads me to think that there are far more practical problems with such a craft than the issue of propelling it.--Plane nutz 14:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone else is finally doing it. The X-Hawk, from Israel, is being developed. A non-flying mockup was shown at Farnborough last week, and a flying prototype can hover, untethered, at low altitude. Joint venture between Bell Helicopter and Urban Aeronautics, with some funding from the U.S. Office of Naval Research. Price to be around $6 million. Two jet engines. Top speed 140mph. "It will be a gas guzzler". Those numbers are much worse than Moller's, but it will probably work. The applications are expected to be mililtary and emergency services, things for which helicopters are already used in cities but for which the big rotor circle limits what you can do. --John Nagle 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This new candidate sounds a little more realistic -- particularly given the involvement of Bell, the only outfit that has ever actually built and flown something like this (the Bell X-22), as well as the use of an off-the-shelf powerplant. The site says that it uses FAA certified engines, but I didn't see the engine listed -- any ideas? It will be interesting to see how the X-Hawk develops. --Plane nutz 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delivery date reverse progress

From FAQ on Moller web site archived by archive.org in March 2000 [3]:

4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next two years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away

From FAQ on Moller web site, June 2006: [4]

4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next three years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away.

--John Nagle 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be taking deposits on these things, refundable if FAA flight certification does not occur before 01/01/2009. This seems relatively new. My recollection was that a year ago they were too far away to take orders. TMLutas 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, see that page from 2003, which looks the same, except that the date was December 31, 2005. And see the page from 2004, when the date was December 31, 2006. It's always just two years away. --John Nagle 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Sale

The prototype model is now up for sale on eBay. See http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/M400X-Skycar-VTOL-Prototype-Aircraft_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ26428QQihZ015QQitemZ250036057352QQrdZ1QQsspa Cpc464 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The bid is up to $1.7 million and eBay is still showing "reserve not met". Interestingly, the auction ends on October 19th, and the annual meeting of Moller stockholders is on October 21st. This looks like a last-minute desperation effort. --John Nagle 19:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The bid is up to 2 million and still shows "Reserve not met". This is starting to look like a PR stunt; they clearly have some huge reserve value. --John Nagle 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The bid reached 3 million, the auction ran out, and still shows "Reserve not met". This wasn't a serious attempt to sell the thing, with a reserve price somewhere above $3M.

[edit] Updates by Spfrazer and Smackycat

Recently, the article has been updated by Spfrazer (talk · contribs) and Smackycat (talk · contribs). Both are new users and have edited only this article. The Smackycat edits were primarily to the links, and needed rework, but the primary new link from that editor (to an MSNBC article) was properly inserted into the article.

The Spfrazer edits were more of a rearrangement, with some additional uncited information about the Skycar. There were also some edits which made the flight testing history of the Skycar look more successful than it has been. (It has never flown untethered, and it's been three years since the tethered hover demo.) Those edits were reverted, due to lack of sources, but if a source can be found for Moller's future plans, that info can go back in. --John Nagle 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove material about the SEC fraud lawsuit. Also, new dates added about what's supposedly going to happen in 2007 need citations. Thanks. See WP:OR and WP:VAIN. --John Nagle 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, how will the "2007 flight tests" take place if the prototype is sold on eBay? --John Nagle 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The claim that further flight tests will occur in 2007 requires a citation. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More edits by Smackycat

Relevant to the discussion above, Smackycat has added the large section of POV text below:

Moller has changed the design of the proposed aircraft every few years, and then spent time modifying the prototype or mockup to match. This way, he can blame the "current" delay in flight testing on the modifications being done. If you look at the wide range of shapes and configurations during this long and fruitless history, it's obvious that he's just playing for time. In Nov 2006, the Moller web site announced that yet another set of changes was being considered, setting the stage for another big delay. In addition, the proposed test site (a man made lake) project has also been delayed. He has recently started telling the old story of how the engines will be running on 35% water in ethanol as fuel. The use of low-yield fuel like ethanol, combined with the "dead weight" of the non-burnable water, should keep the Skycar firmly planted on the ground. This will allow yet another development cycle to begin, where once again, as for the last forty years, he will claim that success is right around the corner.

I reverted it, since it is POV and unsourced. Do with it what you will, but don't reinsert it without NPOV-ing it and sourcing it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that was overdoing it. There's enough information on the record indicative of fraud that it's not necessary to speculate. --John Nagle 05:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New edits by EllasBates

We have some new edits by EllasBates, a new user who has edited no other articles. Some Moller PR material was added, and has been removed. There's a certain similarity with the Smackycat/SFrazier situation. Do we need a sockpuppet check? --John Nagle 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very, very quiet

This subject has been very, very quiet recently. Is there nothing new (not even any interesting gossip?)--Plane nutz 13:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent News

Moller International Launches Production of Jetsons-Like Ground-Effect Vehicle Thursday June 28, 9:00 am ET


DAVIS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Moller International (OTCBB: MLER - News) has completed tooling and has begun producing parts for its Jetsons-like M200G volantor, a small airborne two passenger saucer-shaped vehicle that is designed to take-off and land vertically (see www.moller.com).

The M200G is the size of a small automobile and is powered by eight of the Company's Rotapower® rotary engines. This vehicle is intended for operation continuously in "ground effect" up to approximately 10 feet altitude.

Dr. Moller calls the M200G, "the ultimate off-road vehicle" able to travel over any surface. "It's not a hovercraft, although its operation is just as easy. You can speed over rocks, swampland, fences, or log infested waterways with ease because you're not limited by the surface. The electronics keep the craft stabilized at no more than 10 feet altitude, which places the craft within ground effect where extra lift is obtained from operating near the ground. This lets you glide over terrain at 50 mph that would stop most other vehicles," he continued. While the Company does not foresee the requirement for significant training or licensing to operate the vehicle, it is prepared to offer demonstration sessions in Davis, California once the vehicle is ready for market.

Production on the initial six airframes started earlier this week using hard-tooled molds with the capability of producing one fuselage per day.

Depending upon engine production volume the M200G price could start as low as $90,000. The key component in determining the M200G production price is the cost of its Rotapower® engines. The Company is working with a strategic partner to produce this engine for a number of different applications in order to obtain the cost benefits of high volume production.

Persons interested in purchasing a M200G volantor may reserve a delivery position by making a refundable escrowed deposit. multitasx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.139.14 (talk • contribs)

Moller's web site says "prices could vary between $125,000 for the M200G to $450,000 for the Firefly 3." Video of the thing hovering is available. It's not too impressive; they only fly tethered. Flight performance looks worse than the Hiller Flying Platform from the 1950s. If you want to fly ten feet off the ground, there's the Universal Hovercraft 19XRW Hoverwing, which is a hovercraft which can get up to ten feet off the ground. --John Nagle 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch those ref tags, people

There were some bad "ref" sections in the article, now fixed. Unterminated "ref" sections will eat and hide the remainder of the article up to the next </ref> or <ref/> close tag. The whole "Presales" section had disappeared into limbo. So watch those close tags. Thanks. --John Nagle 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair implied accusation

Moller has failed to produce any machine that flies. The only demonstration approaching flight was a "hover" performed by a Skycar prototype that was tethered to a crane, "for insurance purposes" Moller claims.

This is plausible. To take off, he would require FAA certification (impossible to get) or a waiver (difficult to get). There's a significant likelihood it could lose control and crash into things far away and destroy the only prototype for sure. There's only a slightly greater power required to fly much higher and a simple control problem could have sent it crashing to the ground hundred of feet or miles away no problem.

I looked at the video and see no indication the tether is bearing any of the weight of the machine.

Basically it is totally reasonable for a VTOL test to be conducted with a tether. The article's wording implies there is an element of fraud.

It is actually remarkable, especially since the engine design is unique and is shown to function, just nowhere near his claims. Nor is the weight of the machine documented, is there anyone on board? Lifting an empty shell with a minimum of fuel on board would not mean as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Miller (talk • contribs)

To take off, he would require FAA certification (impossible to get) or a waiver (difficult to get). No. It's straightforward to get an "experimental" airworthiness certificate.[5]. You have to put "EXPERIMENTAL" in big letters on the aircraft, and you can't carry passengers for hire.[6] The FAA does some basic inspection to keep amateurs from flying with total junk. The FAA may insist that, during phase I flight test (the first 40 flight hours), "the flight test must be over open water or sparsely populated areas with light air traffic so it does not pose a hazard to persons or property on the ground." Also, passengers aren't allowed during Phase I flight test. That's all. Amateur plane builders do this all the time. Private flight testing is often done at Mojave Airport, where there's plenty of room and empty desert. But Moller operates at such low altitudes and speeds that the FAA would probably let him test over local farmland. Although, until he can get up to a few hundred feet of altitude, it would have to be farmland where the owners agreed. That shouldn't be hard; he's part owner of the Milk Farm.[7] --John Nagle 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Scare quotes are to be avoided. [8] Rephrase it to a more neutral tone. (SEWilco 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
Another view on the tether requirements is that their current facility (where the tests were conducted) is in the middle of town. Control loss of even the 10' to 15' elevation could have severely damaged other peoples property. --Rocksanddirt 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certification date not updated (yet)

Interestingly, as of right now Moller has not made the usual update to push forward the certification date for the M400 -- At this moment, it still says "Certification Date: Not later than December 31, 2008". Mind you, the web site still says copyright 2006, so I assume it hasn't been updated in a while. (That in itself speaks volumes, I suppose).Plane nutz (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They don't seem to talk about the M400 much any more. They're concentrating on the smaller "M200G", which can at least get off the ground, although they're still operating it tethered to a crane. The M200G seems less capable than the Hiller Flying Platform, from 1955. It's a low-altitude semi-ground-effect vehicle.
A cute video is now on the Moller site, from Moller's "XM-2", from 1967.[9] It's a hovercraft-like vehicle that can't hover without wobbling violently and banging into the ground repeatedly. 40 years later, the current model can hover. --John Nagle (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The December newsletter said they showed the integrated M400 at the stockholder's meeting, and the current priority is the stabilization software which the M200G will also use. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forward Flight?

Have any of the Moller vehicles been taken to an airport and tested in forward flight, i.e., off a runway? Forward flight will introduce a whole new set of control laws that will need to be in place before the aircraft can be considered for certification. Then, there's the issue of forward flight performance. Will they obtain enough lift from the propeller ducts to enable the aircraft to achieve useful forward speeds, e.g., up to 400 mph? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)zbvhs

None of the Moller craft has ever achieved significant flight. Some have hovered or flown for short periods while tethered to a crane. None have achieved even the performance of the Avrocar or the Hiller Flying Platform, VTOL craft from the 1950s which could fly, but not well enough to be useful. --John Nagle (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
With enough engine power to make it lift while it has the aerodynamics of a brick, there is no doubt there is enough engine power to make it move forward. The design already has been modified once to increase the wing surface, but we'll have to wait for horizontal flight testing for some airspeed results. I don't know what number makes a speed "useful", but probably there is a cost/benefit ratio involved. If someone can afford it for the benefit gained, it's useful. But first someone will have to take delivery of one. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Took out Wankel press release material

Took out some material from anons about a new Moller press release.[10]. That's just a reprint of a Moller press release, not a reliable source. It's a "real soon now" announcment; they haven't closed the deal. For more details see this SEC filing: [11]. --John Nagle (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)