If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Space.com)   How about a Hoverbike while you're waiting on that flying car?   (space.com) divider line 55
    More: Cool, large telescopes, amateur astronomy, Deep Space Network, Big Questions, Astrobiology, Hoverbike, space power, solar system  
•       •       •

5251 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Aug 2012 at 3:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-20 11:48:23 PM  
Deal!
 
2012-08-21 12:13:37 AM  
How about a Jazzy Chair, while waiting for your Hoverbike?
 
2012-08-21 12:20:13 AM  
Simpsons did it.
 
2012-08-21 12:22:08 AM  
Would be a cool way to drive to work, except for the screams of agony as the people you passed were pelted with bits of road debris
 
2012-08-21 01:40:04 AM  
meh
is this the same group from NZ? I thought the NZ version was MUCH hotter
 
2012-08-21 01:42:41 AM  
 
2012-08-21 02:09:02 AM  
Want! Also suck it, Moller.
 
2012-08-21 03:04:47 AM  

namatad: Link


Funny how every photo of it is either flat on the ground, or about a foot off the ground with at least four tethers to keep it straight.
 
2012-08-21 03:07:01 AM  
Simpsons did it.
 
2012-08-21 03:17:17 AM  
I hope it sounds like this: Link
 
2012-08-21 03:39:59 AM  
 
2012-08-21 03:53:22 AM  
Ever felt left out from being the coolest, laughriot, popular chap at all the beach parties?

Then HoverbikeTM is for you!!!
 
2012-08-21 04:09:41 AM  
How could you possibly transport eels in any quantity riding on that?
 
2012-08-21 04:31:33 AM  
That thing looks like a p.o.s. Looks like the same technology used in my remote controlled mini hover-plane (which cost $15) except my mini hover-plane could do flips.

Although not like I could build anything better...
 
2012-08-21 04:50:01 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Finally , we are one step closer to GI Joe.


And now I have another site where I can get lost in nostalgia...
 
2012-08-21 05:28:17 AM  
*Forest moon of Endor not included.
 
2012-08-21 05:29:58 AM  
Looks like a sexed up Piasecki Airgeep.

Note: this is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
2012-08-21 06:23:55 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Looks like a sexed up Piasecki Airgeep.

Note: this is not necessarily a bad thing.


Not as much as this looks like it.

dl.dropbox.com

The flying car thing is still very much alive.
Some were/are even more promising in their performance.

dl.dropbox.com

Question is why aren't they hitting the market even tho the technology has been getting better.
The FAA has licenses ready to issue and people keep saying they want them... and they just sit there on the shelf.
 
2012-08-21 06:38:32 AM  
I want a flycycle!

/and a tasp
 
2012-08-21 06:39:49 AM  
How is it supposed to maintain it's upright orientation? It looks like if you got a few feet off the ground you'd just flip right over.
 
2012-08-21 07:03:00 AM  

way south: DjangoStonereaver: Looks like a sexed up Piasecki Airgeep.

Note: this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Not as much as this looks like it.

[dl.dropbox.com image 600x450]

The flying car thing is still very much alive.
Some were/are even more promising in their performance.

[dl.dropbox.com image 500x426]

Question is why aren't they hitting the market even tho the technology has been getting better.
The FAA has licenses ready to issue and people keep saying they want them... and they just sit there on the shelf.


I'd never heard of the Israeli Air Jeep, but that second thing is the Moller Skycar, which has been
5-10 years away from commercial release for the last 15 years, so citing a scam artist who's been
the subject of an SEC investigation doesn't bolster the case for personal flying vehicles.
 
2012-08-21 07:21:40 AM  

Honest Bender: How is it supposed to maintain it's upright orientation? It looks like if you got a few feet off the ground you'd just flip right over.


I found this on live science yesterday and it seems to have more in the way of the "hows" than this article does. I would totally buy one if I could.
 
2012-08-21 07:24:29 AM  

Fark Griswald: Honest Bender: How is it supposed to maintain it's upright orientation? It looks like if you got a few feet off the ground you'd just flip right over.

I found this on live science yesterday and it seems to have more in the way of the "hows" than this article does. I would totally buy one if I could.



Failed to put the link in. Whoops!
 
2012-08-21 07:43:40 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: I'd never heard of the Israeli Air Jeep, but that second thing is the Moller Skycar, which has been
5-10 years away from commercial release for the last 15 years, so citing a scam artist who's been
the subject of an SEC investigation doesn't bolster the case for personal flying vehicles.


He's a scam artist with a working flight test article.
Moller's financial issues aside, Can we both agree that is a flying car?

The X-Hawk and Skycar aren't the only examples of powered lift vehicles. There was also the Solo-Trek, The martain jet pack, and the Nord 500 among others. (Far more, if you include roadable aircraft and single person helicopters).

dl.dropbox.com

Which is to say that the technology is there and repeatable. Multiple configurations and price points are possible.
What bothers me is there seems to be a gap between what we can make and what gets to market.

People will buy a Robinson R22 to serve a similar purpose as a flying car, but they wont buy an actual flying car.
 
2012-08-21 07:55:46 AM  

namatad: Link


Yea I haven't seen anything new about that in a year. it looks to me like he put all the effort into making it sexy for investors, put some fans on it that probably just go "up" and called it good.
 
2012-08-21 08:27:56 AM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I hope it sounds like this: Link


I'm sorry, as ManateeGag mentions above, the sound of a hoverbike was established at 17:20 right here.

/Who do you love now?
//HOVERBIKESk
 
2012-08-21 08:37:16 AM  
spaceships.30doradus.org
 
2012-08-21 08:40:29 AM  
 
2012-08-21 08:47:25 AM  

Captain_Sunshine: I want a flycycle!

/and a tasp


damn wireheads
 
2012-08-21 08:50:23 AM  
been done
static.tvguide.com
 
2012-08-21 08:53:44 AM  
if submitters link doesn't work, here's the video page for the firm making the bike.

Looks like the driver/pilot sits over the engine, and it'll be interesting to see what sort of designs occur if this takes off.
 
2012-08-21 09:01:51 AM  

way south: He's a scam artist with a working flight test article.
Moller's financial issues aside, Can we both agree that is a flying car?


In it's current incarnation, it can do little more than hover. It's been that way for at least 10 years now, if not more. In fact, I don't believe it has flown since 2003, and every time it was flown it was tethered.

They sit there on the shelf because Moller hasn't demonstrated that he's got a controllable aircraft that can successfully transition from hover, to level flight, and then back to hover. Then we have the reliability issues: In essence, that's a 4 engine aircraft, and because it has little lift generating ability beyond engine thrust, if you lose an engine you're toast.

Then we have fuel consumption. Each engine is rated at about .4 lbs of fuel consumption per horsepower hour. He's got 4 180 horsepower engines on the M400. That means that it will consume ((180*4) * .4) = 288 lbs of gas, or around 46 gallons an hour. He claims a range of 750 miles. At a cruising speed of 305 mph, it will use a minimum of 113 gallons of gas, plus you'll need a half hour reserve, which is another 23 gallons, so you're looking at 136 gallons full up, which is going to weigh about 850 lbs.

According to Moller's specifications for the M400, the max gross weight of the vehicle is 2,400 lbs, and the "max net payload" is 750 lbs. Assuming that doesn't include the fuel, that would mean the vehicle empty weight is around 2,400 - 750 = 1,650 - 850 = 800 lbs. The engines he's using get 1.5 HP per installed lb, so the engines and ancillary stuff like mounts and wiring will account for 480 lbs of that, leaving an empty airframe weight of 320 lbs.

That just doesn't seem right, not for an aircraft with a max speed of 360 mph. For example, my father's plane has an empty airframe weight (minus engine) about half that, and it's only rated for a single passenger with a Vne of 100 MPH IAS.

I can't see where Moller is going to triple the capacity and more than triple the airspeed by only doubling the weight. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but something just doesn't seem right there.
 
2012-08-21 09:30:35 AM  
I remember when the pics for these designs came out a bunch of farkers were suddenly physics experts who KNEW FOR A FACT you couldn't put the pilot above the fans or the whole thing would instantly flip the minute the pilot moved.

Don't see anyone bothering to admit they were wrong...
 
2012-08-21 09:35:16 AM  
I couldn't make it through the ad at the beginning of the video. If I can't skip an ad in under five seconds, I don't watch the video. Period.

Charles.
 
2012-08-21 09:54:36 AM  

namatad: meh
is this the same group from NZ? I thought the NZ version was MUCH hotter


tEh_PenGuin: That thing looks like a p.o.s. Looks like the same technology used in my remote controlled mini hover-plane (which cost $15) except my mini hover-plane could do flips.

Although not like I could build anything better...


A fine set of examples of non-contributing members of society complaining about society's contributions. They built a prototype for the friggin' speeder bike from Return of the Jedi, and all that comes out is a resounding, "meh."

Link
 
2012-08-21 09:55:11 AM  

dittybopper: way south: He's a scam artist with a working flight test article.
Moller's financial issues aside, Can we both agree that is a flying car?

In it's current incarnation, it can do little more than hover. It's been that way for at least 10 years now, if not more. In fact, I don't believe it has flown since 2003, and every time it was flown it was tethered.

They sit there on the shelf because Moller hasn't demonstrated that he's got a controllable aircraft that can successfully transition from hover, to level flight, and then back to hover. Then we have the reliability issues: In essence, that's a 4 engine aircraft, and because it has little lift generating ability beyond engine thrust, if you lose an engine you're toast.

Then we have fuel consumption. Each engine is rated at about .4 lbs of fuel consumption per horsepower hour. He's got 4 180 horsepower engines on the M400. That means that it will consume ((180*4) * .4) = 288 lbs of gas, or around 46 gallons an hour. He claims a range of 750 miles. At a cruising speed of 305 mph, it will use a minimum of 113 gallons of gas, plus you'll need a half hour reserve, which is another 23 gallons, so you're looking at 136 gallons full up, which is going to weigh about 850 lbs.

According to Moller's specifications for the M400, the max gross weight of the vehicle is 2,400 lbs, and the "max net payload" is 750 lbs. Assuming that doesn't include the fuel, that would mean the vehicle empty weight is around 2,400 - 750 = 1,650 - 850 = 800 lbs. The engines he's using get 1.5 HP per installed lb, so the engines and ancillary stuff like mounts and wiring will account for 480 lbs of that, leaving an empty airframe weight of 320 lbs.

That just doesn't seem right, not for an aircraft with a max speed of 360 mph. For example, my father's plane has an empty airframe weight (minus engine) about half that, and it's only rated for a single passenger with a Vne of 100 MPH IAS.

I can't see where Moller is going to triple the ...


I recall the original spec was for eight engines to provide redundancy, and they were using a new kind of wankel rotary to boost the horsepower and efficiency.
There is nothing that really stands out which can't be explained as the usual teething problems of new aircraft, and especially with new types of aircraft.
It is a car and it can fly.

Even with all critisms accepted, what about the others?
The Martin jet pack did an unmanned test to 1500 feet. It runs for a half hour with pilot and fuel.
If you can double that, which should be within believable engineering possibilities, you'd have a similar flying car.
Admittedly engineers can be optimistic about how far the numbers can carry them, but a powered lift vehicle can certainly be brought to market with what we know now.
 
2012-08-21 09:56:28 AM  
I have transportation. What I need is a hood-mounted Phaser.
 
2012-08-21 10:03:39 AM  
Flying cars... NEVER going to happen.

The FAA is a nightmare enough dealing with regular piloting. You want to add a few million people in non gliding death machines?

There are no rednecks in space! I'll be happy to explain that further if you don't understand.
 
2012-08-21 10:07:31 AM  
the pilot is not sitting, but in a low crouch. Either he is riding a flying horse or a hovering segway. Must get tired on the legs after a while.
 
2012-08-21 10:10:33 AM  
Is it loud like a Harley? My understanding is that no kind of bike is in any way cool if it's not loud like a Harley.
 
2012-08-21 10:42:26 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-21 10:52:38 AM  
Using the pilot as the auto-balance system? De Lackner did it first.

24.media.tumblr.com 

/yes, he is belted in so he can't fall into the blades.
 
2012-08-21 11:13:13 AM  

HotWingAgenda: namatad: Link

Funny how every photo of it is either flat on the ground, or about a foot off the ground with at least four tethers to keep it straight.


Yeah, that thing looks incredibly unstable. Either it tilts slightly to the side and the resulting imbalance causes it to violently flip the rest of the way, crushing the rider and sending the "bike" careening away down the street, or it tilts slightly to the side and the resulting loss of verticle thrust causes it to drop to the ground like a rock.

washington-babylon: /yes, he is belted in so he can't fall into the blades.


Either way, it takes some enormous gonads to pilot something like that.
 
2012-08-21 11:20:16 AM  

StrangeQ: washington-babylon: /yes, he is belted in so he can't fall into the blades.

Either way, it takes some enormous gonads to pilot something like that.



Agreed. But I hear James Bond music in the background when viewing that pic. Maybe that explains it.
 
2012-08-21 11:21:29 AM  

way south: DjangoStonereaver: Looks like a sexed up Piasecki Airgeep.

Note: this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Not as much as this looks like it.

[dl.dropbox.com image 600x450]

The flying car thing is still very much alive.
Some were/are even more promising in their performance.

[dl.dropbox.com image 500x426]

Question is why aren't they hitting the market even tho the technology has been getting better.
The FAA has licenses ready to issue and people keep saying they want them... and they just sit there on the shelf.


Because ever since the XP-38 came out, they just aren't in demand
 
2012-08-21 11:48:21 AM  
Looks cool, but my Kymco GV 250 can run circles around it with one hand tied behind my back
 
2012-08-21 11:51:19 AM  

Felix_T_Cat: way south: DjangoStonereaver: Looks like a sexed up Piasecki Airgeep.

Note: this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Not as much as this looks like it.

[dl.dropbox.com image 600x450]

The flying car thing is still very much alive.
Some were/are even more promising in their performance.

[dl.dropbox.com image 500x426]

Question is why aren't they hitting the market even tho the technology has been getting better.
The FAA has licenses ready to issue and people keep saying they want them... and they just sit there on the shelf.

Because ever since the XP-38 came out, they just aren't in demand


Damn you for making me Wookiepedia that.
Now I'm going to be stuck there all afternoon.
 
2012-08-21 12:20:12 PM  

way south: I recall the original spec was for eight engines to provide redundancy, and they were using a new kind of wankel rotary to boost the horsepower and efficiency.


I was using the numbers for the "new kind of wankel rotary". Didn't you follow my link?

There is nothing that really stands out which can't be explained as the usual teething problems of new aircraft, and especially with new types of aircraft.


From the first possibility of building a helicopter, until the first really practical example, was 30 years (1906 to 1936).

Moller has has been working on his vaporware aircraft for about 40 years now.

It is a car and it can fly.


It hasn't flown since 2003.

Meanwhile, the Terrafugia Transition is currently in flight and ground testing, and it's not tethered
 
2012-08-21 12:30:11 PM  

way south: There is nothing that really stands out which can't be explained as the usual teething problems of new aircraft, and especially with new types of aircraft.


Generally, it doesn't take 40 years and 200 million dollars to develop new light aircraft.
 
2012-08-21 03:05:33 PM  

namatad: Link


Thank you for linking. I'd not been to Space.com in a bit and apparently, now, they have their head so far up facebook's ass the page won't even load. I like blocking aggressive scripts like those of facebook.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report