+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: It flies - Production flying car

  1. Link to Post #21
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Quote Posted by petra (here)
    Quote Posted by dynamo (here)
    i'll take 2 please.

    (i would more likely than not crash the first one LOL)
    Ha ha, that's why I wouldn't want one

    Can't help wonder what insurance would be like. $4,000/month insurance... ha ha ha
    Well, it's not as bad as one would think - -

    205 $ US per year for liability personal injury and property damage for a standard single engine plane. https://avemco.com/aircraft-renters-...ote-rates.aspx

    Adding in automotive insurance example, a Mercedes S65 AMG (convertible) is $3,835 per year average..

    So 4000-4200$ (US) per year may be a realistic assumption..

  2. Link to Post #22
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Quote Posted by uzn (here)
    [..]
    and the Lilium:





    Webpage:
    https://lilium.com/
    As to the all electric "Lilium Jet"

    Great concept, but suffers from the first set of issues, no specs on how long it can really fly on a battery charge, what are the batteries used, what is the charge time, what is the payload, what type of motors (and efficiency) are running such..what is the noise profile, what is the failure rate.. All valid questions to ask about any vehicle that makes claims that it can be in production and actually save money and the environment..

    This all electric "JET VEHICLE" concept is a bit hilarious to me, as the nature of the jet and the energy needed to compress air and then eject is horrendously in-efficient..

    So what does Lilium do? It adds scores of jets on the wings, presenting multiple failure points (motors and fans).. compounding in-efficiency and thereby reducing payload and flight time. I count 36 JET ENGINE and MOTOR combinations on the "Jet".. Jet engines HAVE to spin fast, meaning bearing failures could be a very sore point.


    For instance, using liquid movement as a visual, a jet driven boat needs more engine rpm than a propeller driven boat for the same speed. The jet wastes energy in other words.

    A propeller driven by a reciprocating engine has better specific fuel consumption than a jet.

    Considering that there is energy wasted on the conversion of the electric motor's current drive into rotary motion, loss of efficiency of within the air-compressor within the jet engine itself, it is a loose-loose proposition.

    Looking at the website, it reminds me of "vapor-ware".. A nice promise quite likely like the hype for the original Moller Sky-Car that Bill mentioned a few posts back.. Moller was never in "production". Lift to weight to energy consumed to flight duration are all issues.

    If anyone ever has stood by a twin engine jet taking off, recall what that sounded like and then think about hundreds of those flying around over-head. Something you want? Not me. Lilium is not in production, and can't even show how much it will really cost to fly a mile - https://lilium.com/news/ considering engine replacement, battery replacement, in other words true cost per mile. They make some claims but they don't back it up with specs how the claims are derived.

    A proper roadable sky-car which is low pollution, fuel/energy efficient and has good payload makes sense to me. Something with minimal moving parts which are wear/maintenance points.

    A battery operated Jet using multiple jet-engines driven by electric motors makes no sense as far as cost of batteries, charging time, efficiency of flight.. by the looks at their "flight time" is anticipated to be a maximum 15 minutes: (that makes no sense for a "roadable" vehicle, or one that can be taken home and try to "fly to work" or fly on a business trip.. impractical and ridiculous to say such a thing would be quiet and accepted. Jets are NOT quiet.. Just think about that sound during take-off at a modern airport that jet sound, multiply that per the amount of jet engines on the Lilium..)


    Conventional wings and a single or twin prop works.. Even a turbo-prop-jet has a better efficiency than a jet that doesn't have a prop.. That is a given.. AeroMobile still looks like the winner..

  3. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member Builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 1,165 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Everything in engineering is a compromise and vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) has the most compromises.

    There is the famous "wheel of VTOL misfortune", giving an overview of historic designs:

    Last edited by Builder; 18th July 2018 at 19:47.
    To connect humankind with itself and the Cosmos!

  4. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Builder For This Post:

    bennycog (18th July 2018), Bill Ryan (18th July 2018), BMJ (3rd August 2018), Bob (18th July 2018), Debra (19th July 2018), Did You See Them (20th July 2018), Ernie Nemeth (20th July 2018), Foxie Loxie (19th July 2018), KiwiElf (31st July 2018), petra (19th July 2018), william r sanford72 (20th July 2018)

  5. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,917
    Thanks
    10,963
    Thanked 10,815 times in 2,970 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to conk For This Post:

    avid (20th July 2018), Bill Ryan (23rd July 2018), BMJ (3rd August 2018), Bob (20th July 2018), Foxie Loxie (20th July 2018), KiwiElf (31st July 2018), william r sanford72 (20th July 2018)

  7. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Member Foxie Loxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Age
    75
    Posts
    3,079
    Thanks
    67,683
    Thanked 17,343 times in 2,953 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Thanks for posting that, Conk! I remember having read about it before; good to have the video!

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Foxie Loxie For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd July 2018), BMJ (3rd August 2018), Bob (20th July 2018), KiwiElf (31st July 2018), william r sanford72 (20th July 2018)

  9. Link to Post #26
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Pretty sure that "invention" was bogus having read the description of 'how' it was supposed to work.. (ground up beetle wings glued to the wooden platform..) - there's more but i won't waste my time or the reader's looking up "fake" news..

    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.
    Viktor's "Science" is listed in article form on Rex Research's webpage HERE - (It seems to me that it should be reposted April 1st to keep it in very good tongue in cheek perspective). But since Viktor's "bug wing power platform" was dumped into a serious thread on roadable production cars that have airworthy certificates, what the hey, eh?

    Last edited by Bob; 20th July 2018 at 19:52.

  10. Link to Post #27
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,565
    Thanks
    15,223
    Thanked 20,875 times in 3,327 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    I don't know where I sourced this tidbit but ...

    The first jet engines were designed using a theory that could not be modelled; it was a hit and miss affair. They knew what they wanted to accomplish but had no way to know what configuration would work the best. I remember reading that the engineers were literally drilling holes in the compression/mix compartment of various sizes, in different locations, trying to find the optimum arrangement.

    So I can see just from that fact how a jet engine is probably not designed to its optimal level even today, and is rather inefficient compared to other designs.
    Forget about it

  11. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd July 2018), BMJ (3rd August 2018), Bob (20th July 2018), Did You See Them (25th July 2018), Foxie Loxie (1st August 2018), KiwiElf (31st July 2018), william r sanford72 (20th July 2018)

  12. Link to Post #28
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,917
    Thanks
    10,963
    Thanked 10,815 times in 2,970 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Pretty sure that "invention" was bogus having read the description of 'how' it was supposed to work.. (ground up beetle wings glued to the wooden platform..) - there's more but i won't waste my time or the reader's looking up "fake" news..

    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.


    Viktor's "Science" is listed in article form on Rex Research's webpage HERE - (It seems to me that it should be reposted April 1st to keep it in very good tongue in cheek perspective). But since Viktor's "bug wing power platform" was dumped into a serious thread on roadable production cars that have airworthy certificates, what the hey, eh?

    I gave it a wee bit of credibility because of Victor Shauberger's books where he writes about bumble bees using anti-gravity to fly. Shauberger was up there with Tesla and Leonardo in terms of intellect and accomplishment.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 23rd July 2018 at 19:12. Reason: fixed quote formatting
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  13. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to conk For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd July 2018), BMJ (3rd August 2018), Bob (23rd July 2018), Did You See Them (25th July 2018), Foxie Loxie (1st August 2018), KiwiElf (31st July 2018), william r sanford72 (23rd July 2018)

  14. Link to Post #29
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Pretty sure that "invention" was bogus having read the description of 'how' it was supposed to work.. (ground up beetle wings glued to the wooden platform..) -

    there's more but i won't waste my time or the reader's looking up "fake" news..

    Viktor GREBENNIKOV's "Science" is listed in article form on Rex Research's webpage HERE - (It seems to me that it should be reposted April 1st to keep it in very good tongue in cheek perspective). But since Viktor's "bug wing power platform" was dumped into a serious thread on roadable production cars that have airworthy certificates, what the hey, eh?

    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.




    I gave it a wee bit of credibility because of Victor Shauberger's books where he writes about bumble bees using anti-gravity to fly. Shauberger was up there with Tesla and Leonardo in terms of intellect and accomplishment.
    Well, the bumble bee is not flying because of "anti-grav" chambers in the wing cells which Viktor says is his endangered species beetle majik.. They use a vortex system, creating a virtual vacuum pressure differential. See this diagram:


    I suppose a roadable airworthy certified "car" builder could try experiments which induce vortex turbulence in key select locations around the vehicle, and/or engine nacelles.

    It is most worthy of discussion to try to come up with a method to assist a roadable airworthy car - although the Viktor beetle majik I just don't think is a valid way, but the bumble-bee vortex may hold up.. Good job thinking about that one !

    btw Conk, note my red highlight where you mention Schauberger..

    Viktor GREBENNIKOV is who you posted the video from, not Viktor Schauberger..

    So for Grebenniikov's credibility u may want to read the Rex Research link article for understanding Viktor GREBENNIKOV... see http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm

    BTW, I also corrected your quoting where you ended up blending my comments into your comment in the quote - I believe that the above quote is correct now with my formatting correction on your quote (I did strip out reposting the youTube). (although as of this moment, I still see in your post 28 that you have my quote listed from my post 26 as "your" words.

    Looks like you have not quite got that formatting error fixed.. One has to watch the words where the "quote boxes" are surrounding..)

    Schauberger not Grebennikov I think is where the focus should be on finding a better motive system.
    Last edited by Bob; 24th July 2018 at 21:41. Reason: corrected quote formatting issues

  15. Link to Post #30
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,917
    Thanks
    10,963
    Thanked 10,815 times in 2,970 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Pretty sure that "invention" was bogus having read the description of 'how' it was supposed to work.. (ground up beetle wings glued to the wooden platform..) -

    there's more but i won't waste my time or the reader's looking up "fake" news..

    Viktor GREBENNIKOV's "Science" is listed in article form on Rex Research's webpage HERE - (It seems to me that it should be reposted April 1st to keep it in very good tongue in cheek perspective). But since Viktor's "bug wing power platform" was dumped into a serious thread on roadable production cars that have airworthy certificates, what the hey, eh?

    Quote Posted by conk (here)
    Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.




    I gave it a wee bit of credibility because of Victor Shauberger's books where he writes about bumble bees using anti-gravity to fly. Shauberger was up there with Tesla and Leonardo in terms of intellect and accomplishment.
    Well, the bumble bee is not flying because of "anti-grav" chambers in the wing cells which Viktor says is his endangered species beetle majik.. They use a vortex system, creating a virtual vacuum pressure differential. See this diagram:


    I suppose a roadable airworthy certified "car" builder could try experiments which induce vortex turbulence in key select locations around the vehicle, and/or engine nacelles.

    It is most worthy of discussion to try to come up with a method to assist a roadable airworthy car - although the Viktor beetle majik I just don't think is a valid way, but the bumble-bee vortex may hold up.. Good job thinking about that one !

    btw Conk, note my red highlight where you mention Schauberger..

    Viktor GREBENNIKOV is who you posted the video from, not Schauberger.. So Grebeninikov's credibility u may want to read the Rex Research link article for understanding Viktor GREBENNIKOV... see http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm

    I also corrected your quoting where you blending my comments into your comment - I believe that the above quote is correct now with my formatting correction on your quote.
    Come on Bob. I know the difference between the two Viktors. I was simply saying that GREBENNIKOV's use of bugs on his platform reminded me of SHAUBERGER's theory about bumble bees using anti-gravity. My apology for any quote blending. I was just trying not to quote your entire comment, something many do to often. Sorry for this off-topic discourse. No more from me on bug wings.
    Last edited by conk; 24th July 2018 at 16:40.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to conk For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (24th July 2018), BMJ (3rd August 2018), Bob (24th July 2018), Foxie Loxie (1st August 2018), KiwiElf (31st July 2018), william r sanford72 (3rd August 2018)

  17. Link to Post #31
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Well the vortexes by the bumble bees probably do hold merit, that's the point I think you made a good thought there, just Grebennikov's stuff is not in the same calibre as Schauberger's vortexes.. So if one were to use vortex assist, for a car that can be used for a combo of road and air, that could be worth while; I seriously think tossing in Grebennikov's ludicrousness wasn't useful.

    The color clarification was for READERS who may have not realized the differences between the two people since both first names were referenced as "Viktor", and the first vid that you offered was on Grebennikov's "beetle chitin antigravity claims", and not Schauberger's vortex designs.. just interested in keeping clarity and focus up.

    From: http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Vi...chauberger.htm

    something like this (below) being the enclosed drive motor for the "air car" might be pretty darned efficient, if one believes the claims (using Schauberger's vortex engine in an aircraft):


    It could be that the vacuum vortex is a better design than ducted props, or jet engines, or open props with low noise designs.. I would love to see the above built.
    Last edited by Bob; 24th July 2018 at 18:06.

  18. Link to Post #32
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Not quite the aerial-car, but a one man production VTOL is coming on line:

    Check out this image:


    Here is the report on it:
    • MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. Kitty Hawk, an aircraft manufacturing startup in Mountain View, California, has unveiled its Flyer all-electric, one-person, vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft constructed of composite material, powered and propelled by 10 independent-lift fans, and promoted as a recreational vehicle, but could later be used for personal transport in urban environments.
    • The aerospace company is led by Todd Reichert, a Sikorsky prize winner and Guinness world record holder, and an engineering team that has spent countless hours meticulously designing, building and testing Kitty Hawk’s first personal flying vehicle, officials say. Google Co-founder and CEO Larry Page is among the top investors backing Kitty Hawk. Cameron Robertson and Reichert are previously known for their work on the Sikorsky prize-winning AeroVelo human-powered helicopter.
    • The all-electric Flyer aircraft is undergoing public testing and is now available for pre-order. Operators don’t require a pilot’s license, but do need to undergo a one-hour training course to fly the aircraft, controlled by a joystick in the cockpit.
    • The Flyer is currently capable of flying at speeds up to 6 miles per hour (mph), but Reichert anticipates the craft will one day be capable of double-digit speeds reaching between 50 and 100 mph.

    https://kittyhawk.aero/
    Last edited by Bob; 31st July 2018 at 19:02.

  19. Link to Post #33
    New Zealand Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    1st September 2011
    Posts
    5,984
    Thanks
    34,888
    Thanked 38,520 times in 5,691 posts

    Default Re: It flies - Production flying car

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    The Moller Skycar was one of the first concepts mooted, but it never got anywhere, and only ever made brief 'flights' tethered to a giant crane. It was loud, unstable, and only got a few dozen feet off the ground.

    Their photos of the thing flying above the clouds are all Photoshopped. But here's a real one:



    ***

    I have to say, some of the designs on this thread are VERY cool. Not a car per se, but I totally loved the BlackFly posted above.

    I can see that modern microdrone software (that co-ordinates a number of propellers to make the small thing highly maneuverable) can be applied to a much larger craft like the BlackFly, which can do just about anything the pilot wants.
    Have been following the Mollers since their inception - Related thread here (mostly about the Mollers):

    Where's My Flying Car? - Hold On! Paul Moller's Skycar Is Coming - TechFuture
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ing-TechFuture

    Brilliant concept, lousy marketing (overly ambitious before it was actually built!), slow execution & lack of funding with a lot of negative publicity to go...). It still does have potential (it works on a similar principle as a tiltrotor eg Osprey or BA-609/AW-609 but without the complex inter-connected gearboxes & drive shafts, using eight rotary engines inside four ducted fans, two in tandem in each "nacelle", each engine independently controlled by a computerised fly-by-wire system; (it's certainly no hoax or "toy"! ).

    In the unlikely advent of a complete failure of most or all engines, it has ballistic parachutes like the Cirrus SR22. They did work out the stability issues - see the video at the link or below), but I think someone else will beat Dr Moller to the race using the same or similar idea & hybrid-powered (electric & fuel)... Unfortunately, (with Moller), there have just been too many missed deadlines & broken promises combined with negative media which basically killed it (they ARE still around): the concept itself is sound.

    (NOTE: Many VTOL prototype aircraft of the past have been tethered during their initial hover testing, eg, the military Harrier jump jet, simply for safety and not to destroy an expensive prototype if something goes wrong - in the case of the Moller video, note that the crane/tether is slack; it is not supporting or lifting the vehicle...)



    Below is the BA-609/AW-609 Tiltrotor, a "commercial" but smaller equivalent of the Osprey, combining the features of both a helicopter & airplane (& cost!!!!). If the manufacturers can successfully sell it, smaller "car sized" variations probably won't be far behind. This video demonstrates how it works.



    Others...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmDA85Pl-o

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmXO6LF1RbA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkbH-1WB2OA

    Most of the above are "roadable aircraft" & will need a pilot's license to fly. I sure wouldn't like to get broadsided in a "car" crash (or any other crash!). I'll wait for one that really does look & drives like a futuristic car, but can also fly - with anti-grav to go - time travel capabilities optional.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	Delorean BTTF.jpg
Views:	5
Size:	20.8 KB
ID:	38602
    Last edited by KiwiElf; 1st August 2018 at 01:14.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts