It flies - Production flying car [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

Bob

16th July 2018, 15:41

Pal-V

A strange looking "car", but it's in production and it doesn't use the "engine-propeller-pod" system that we've seen on other flying cars. It actually flies then in "gyro-copter" mode. It does use a strong pusher prop (horizontally mounted like an airplane's engine) to get it up to speed where the gyrocopter blade can lift it off.

This system looks like a miniature helicopter when the lifting system is deployed.

Here is a short < 5 minute uTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtKFDTtpzZc

I wonder about bad weather (IFR) certified?

Here is their webpage:

https://www.pal-v.com/en/purchase-your-pal-v

Price : just under € 299.000,- not including VAT or customization (they call it 'works')

Bob

16th July 2018, 18:05

Some images of Pal-V

https://www.maxim.com/.image/t_share/MTU0MDQyMDc4MzQxOTY1NTYz/pal-v-flying-car.jpg

https://images.carscoops.com/2017/04/PALV-Liberty-Top-Marques-Monaco-6.jpg

https://www.flyingmag.com/sites/flyingmag.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/images/2017/02/pal_v_flying_car.jpg?itok=YTw1Jg8c&fc=50,50

Bob

16th July 2018, 18:11

er, how do I turn on the wipers? (instrument cluster, nav package, etc.)

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/a5/78/33a578f9331aaba0f05ba1d251a2379a.jpg

https://awesomestuff365.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Pal-V-Liberty-Flying-Futuristic-Flying-Car-5.jpg

dynamo

16th July 2018, 22:26

i'll take 2 please.
:clapping:
(i would more likely than not crash the first one LOL)
:blushing:

Bob

16th July 2018, 22:28

The SCIENCE behind the 'technology' - AUTO-GYRO

It is not a "helicopter"

the definition of helicopter is:

a type of aircraft that derives both lift and propulsion from one or more sets of horizontally revolving overhead rotors. It is capable of moving vertically and horizontally, the direction of motion being controlled by the pitch of the rotor blades.

ref: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/helicopter and other sources

An auto-gyro-copter definition:

a type of rotorcraft that uses an unpowered rotor in free autorotation to develop lift. Forward thrust is provided independently, typically by an engine-driven propeller. While similar to a helicopter rotor in appearance, the autogyro's rotor must have air flowing across the rotor disc to generate rotation, and the air flows upwards through the rotor disc rather than down.

The differences are that air must flow over the horizontal rotary wings (also called blades) for a negative pressure gradient to exist at the top of the wing, to cause LIFT. (see below)

https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/Lift%20by%20Bernoulli.gif

The autogyro rotor blade generates lift in the same way as a glider's wing.

The craft must be moving forward with respect to the surrounding air in order to force air through the overhead rotor, autogyros are generally not capable of vertical takeoff (except in a strong headwind).

Under worst conditions Pal-V could require about a MILE of runway to get up enough speed to lift off (pretty lame for an autogyro).. Although it claims to be able to land within 100 feet of touchdown.. and in ideal conditions with the ROTOR blades pre-spun up to 1/2 speed with an electric boost motor drive, 350-600 feet to take off. (I assume that there are ground roll indicators as well as rotor speed indicators as well as headwind/tailwind indicators to allow you to compute the necessary minimums and ideals for safe take-off)

The reason for the long runway is there is inadequate lift generated from the rotary wing/blade system apparently to do it in any less distance than that.

Juan de la Cierva invented the modern autogyro (autogiro in Spanish) in the early 1920s.

Possibly the reader would recall the presentation of an autogyro in "You Only Live Twice" 1967 release, based on a novel published in 1964; such was the twelfth James Bond book written by Ian Fleming. 'James Bond' flies one - dubbed " Little Nellie ", a Wallis WA-116 Agile British autogyro.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Little_Nellie.jpg/1024px-Little_Nellie.jpg

007 was not the first novel hero to fly an auto-gyro.. Batman's first aircraft was an autogyro. The "Batgyro" was introduced in Detective Comics #31 in September 1939. It only made three appearances before being replaced by a more conventional fixed-wing aircraft.

PAL-V ONE (Personal Air and Land Vehicle ONE) - it has two seats and a 160 kW flight certified gasoline engine, giving it a top speed of 180 km/h (112 mph) on land and in air, and a Maximum Takeoff Weight of 910 kg.

SPECS:

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Capacity: 2
Length: 4 m (13 ft 1 in) with rotor folded
Width: 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in) with rotor folded
Height: 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in) with rotor folded
Empty weight: 680 kg (1,499 lb)
Gross weight: 910 kg (2,006 lb)
Propellers: 2-bladed

Performance

Maximum speed: 180 km/h (112 mph; 97 kn)
Stall speed: 0 km/h; 0 mph (0 kn)
Never exceed speed: 180 km/h; 112 mph (97 kn)
Range: 354–507 km; 191–274 nmi (220–315 mi) in-flight; 1,210 km; 650 nmi (750 mi) on land

Simulator flight for learning the machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHyaX4aadnQ

Bob

16th July 2018, 22:56

The SCIENCE behind auto-gyro-copter flight difficulties (or why crashes can happen more-so than with flying a regular helicopter)

Let's take a look at "Little Nellie" flying in the 007 film, "You only live twice"...

http://www.texas-flyer.com/LightFlyer/LittleNellie.jpg

references from : https://blog.chron.com/lightflight/2006/04/gyrocopters/

Gyrocopters have been subject to one main problem ever since they were invented, something called Pilot Induced Oscilation, or, PIO.

A lot of people skid off the road in their cars due to PIO, too, so it’s not totally the problem of gyro’s.

Basically, if you oversteer, you have a tendency, of course, to steer back the opposite way.

But if you oversteer the opposite way, then you have to steer back again the other way.

Each time you try to correct, you simply make it worse, but in the opposite direction.

This oscillation isn’t caused by the machine, but by the person operating it. Consequently, designing a gyrocopter (or a car, for that matter) that makes it difficult to start these kinds of oscillations would be a good thing.

If you recall watching carefully, the pilot in the Bond film was seen "wiggling" back and forth during ascent. That was the "oversteering" issue in action..

Here this problem is shown a LOT clearer in a more recent video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOd2PnR_YUU

Crash scenario:

One of the worst things you can do in a gyro is to perform any maneuver which will stop that forward progress.

If the wind stops being pushed through the rotor, then you lose your lift, and you stall. You then have moments if you are high enough in altitude to recover. Too low and you crash.

Watch an insufficient speed crash due to loss of lift (The gyrocopter flies behind the power-curve immediately after take off (too slow). It crashes consequently) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA3t_RsIZ_A

If you don't have enough RUN-WAY for the PAL-V in other words, you are not going to have enough wind moving over your gyroblades..

Bob

16th July 2018, 23:08

The SCIENCE behind blowing your power curve to hell

It doesn't take off, or you can crash.. That angle of the nose must be correct for your vehicle in other words.. the vehicle has a certain thrust profile from your PUSHER, and a certain lift potential based on the speed and angle of attack of your rotor blades. Do it wrongly - tragedy.. Do it safely and you fly.. Can't wait to spend € 299.000,- ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Ht60jQ6mo

Lessons with your vehicle and/or an autogyro is essential..

Pushing that powercurve - no forward speed and there can be problems - a low-level maneuver at low speed and with a tail wind, can result in impact with the ground.

Looking at the accidents that did not result in fatalities, the statistics show that more than 50% of gyrocopter accidents occur during takeoff and/or landing. (That's not an overwhelming discovery as these phases of flight are infamous for catching out pilots in any type of aircraft. )

Can you imagine tying one on (or 3 or 4) and barreling down the interstate up to 88 mph to take off and not quite seeing the overhead power-lines?

[..]
the gyro’s worst enemy is itself.

It loves to be thrown around and likes to fly low.

It wants to go into a ‘hover’ and wants to fly slow.

The machine allows a very inexperienced person to do these things.

With the relative low hourly cost of the machine and the very low number of hours you need before you can fly it all on your own, a gyro rating makes for a very attractive entry into flying, or an alternative to flying fixed wing aircraft. The average age of the 60 pilots that had accidents is 46; in fact, only four of the pilots were in their twenties.

Stay away from flying at tree top height, do not do maintenance on your gyro if you are not an approved person, watch the windsock when you takeoff and remember that you have a beach umbrella stuck to your gyro when you land.

Bob

17th July 2018, 16:40

Well, does the gyro-copter "car" concept seem like something you want to fly or how about something more like a tried and true fixed wing design (with a pusher prop), and hybrid electric dual motor front drive wheels, street legal, and air certified? A road vehicle with airbags, high speed handling ability, sleek design and darned good performance and gas mileage on the road and in the air..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0DM3wrEveg

Aeromobil and AEROMOBIL by the manufacturer) is a Slovak prototype roadable aircraft, designed by Štefan Klein and first flown in 2013. The aircraft will be produced by AeroMobil s.r.o..

AeroMobil s.r.o. company co-founder and CEO Juraj Vaculík indicated in March 2015 that the vehicle is intended for "wealthy supercar buyers and flight enthusiasts". Aeromobil unveiled the production version of the vehicle in April 2017 and announced that it would be available for preorder before the end of 2017.

General characteristics

Crew: two
Capacity: two passengers
Length: 6 m (19 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: 8.32 m (27 ft 4 in) wings extended
Width: 2.24 m (7 ft 4 in) wings folded
Empty weight: 600 kg (1,323 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912 four cylinder horizontally-opposed liquid and air-cooled piston aircraft engine, 75 kW (100 hp)

Performance

Maximum speed: 200 km/h (124 mph; 108 kn) maximum road speed: 160 km/h (99 mph)
Stall speed: 60 km/h (37 mph; 32 kn)
Range: 700 km (435 mi; 378 nmi) Road range: 875 km (544 mi)
Driving fuel consumption: 8 l/100 km (29.4 mpg‑US; 35.3 mpg‑imp)
Flight fuel consumption: 15 l (4.0 US gal; 3.3 imp gal) /hour

Now THIS I LIKE...

https://www.aeromobil.com/fileadmin/assets/flying-car/headerimg-car.jpg

It is considered a short take-off and landing vehicle, and a great road vehicle. https://www.aeromobil.com/aeromobil-4_0-stol/

https://www.aeromobil.com/temp/aeromobil-design.png

With a very nice "dashboard" instrument cluster - "glass cockpit" design

https://www.aeromobil.com/fileadmin/assets/flying-car/interior_car-2.jpg

And if that doesn't make you go woooooohooooo....

Aeromobil has plans for a generation 5 VTOL (Vertical take-off and Landing vehicle)

https://www.aeromobil.com/fileadmin/assets/flying-car/5_0/headerimg-car.jpg

https://www.aeromobil.com/fileadmin/assets/flying-car/5_0/aeromobil5_10.jpg

Enclosed vortex-Pods not needed for this design.. very straight-forward VTOL concept.

https://www.aeromobil.com/fileadmin/assets/flying-car/5_0/aeromobil5_09.jpg

petra

17th July 2018, 18:07

uzn

17th July 2018, 20:38

The above are good for chopping People into small pieces. Take a look at some better concepts:

The Blackfly:

https://www.opener.aero/images/media/opener-blackfly-takeoff.jpg

https://www.opener.aero/images/media/opener-blackfly-render.png

Jcpq6XYYoY4

Webpage:
https://www.opener.aero/

and the Lilium:

https://petervonstamm-travelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Electric-plane-Lilium-Jet-White-Side.jpg

ohig71bwRUE

Webpage:
https://lilium.com/

Justplain

17th July 2018, 20:47

When do we get the anti-grav version? 😁

Bob

17th July 2018, 21:09

Car - like driving type vehicle on the road;

Seems to me, if we wanted to discuss drone-like motor crafts you could get a whole thread about that.. I like the aston-martin drone-like vehicles, but that isn't street legal..

http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/aston-electric-drone-620x349.jpg

So getting back on topic, I'd like to see production CARS which are street legal which can fly which of course is what this thread is about :)

there are no back to the future deloreans out there as of now.

until then

:focus:

CurEus

18th July 2018, 15:46

Agreed........I'd be happy if I knew it won't just drop out of the sky.......

Mark (Star Mariner)

18th July 2018, 16:22

When do we get the anti-grav version? 😁

This!

It's very impressive engineering, certainly. But wings, propellers and aerodynamics are so 100 years ago. Atmospheric propulsion has been in a stall for at least 50 years, same for rocketry. All this is like redesigning the wheel imo.

Because the good stuff - the next generation tech - is buried is deep black layers of secrecy. What was it Ben Rich said of this tech? "It would take an act of GOD to ever get them out to benefit humanity."

Maybe one day we'll see a 'tech-gate' blow up. It will then all come out, and eventually we'll get to see something more along the lines of...

http://birdieable.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/flying-cars.jpg

Bill Ryan

18th July 2018, 16:30

conk

18th July 2018, 16:48

Sort of like the amphibious car. Not a really good car. Not a really good boat. The flying car is certainly a great concept, but how practical and safe? Just a toy for the ultra-rich?

Cidersomerset

18th July 2018, 17:01

Hi Bob we have posted several articles over the years most recently on
Targe's thread about technology , this was posted a few days a ago....

They show some archive clips including your own flying saucer , could
explain some sightings of the Jetsons in the 1980's....:ufo:

I will be surprised if they are allowed for security reasons, they would
be a terrorists dream I would of thought or at least perceived as one.

Flying car innovator believes he can finally make it a reality

DhKTCbbqbaE

Published on 12 Jul 2018
No technological dream has captured the minds of the media quite like the flying car.
Marcus Leng of Blackfly believes his invention will allow it to become a reality. CBS
News correspondent John Blackstone, who has chased down the flying car fantasy
for 30 years, reports on this Silicon Valley innovator.

===================================================

We took to the sky in Kitty Hawk's flying car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz0wLD_02nQ
Published on 6 Jun 2018...( 4 mins )...
Larry Page-backed Kitty Hawk has unveiled its first commercial vehicle, Flyer.
CNNMoney's Rachel Crane took it for a spin.

Bill Ryan

18th July 2018, 17:11

Sort of like the amphibious car. Not a really good car. Not a really good boat.

This is way off-topic, but I had to drop this in here. :) Back in 1951 (nineteen fifty-one), Ben Carlin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carlin) drove/sailed a makeshift amphibious jeep across the Atlantic.

He later did a full circumnavigation of the globe. He really did, but it's almost impossible to believe. (That's a little like a PAL-V or an AEROMOBIL design — but a primitive 1950s version! — flying across the Atlantic or Pacific, too.)

Photos here:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/halfsafe/halfsafe.html

http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/halfsafe/jeep60a.jpg

:focus:

Bob

18th July 2018, 17:16

The issues with civilian drone vehicles to date are run-time verses cost.

20 minutes for an affordable drone (affordable is relative) which can hold a nice 4K camera and fly around with auto-correction software, GPS, nav packages and so forth. Facial capture, or object capture and track, amazing features..

And the issue is weight of vehicle, to payload, to thrust to get the wings lifting, to road speed and air speed - and to maintain lift is expensive in terms of fuel used or battery power used..

Payloads of up to 400-500 pounds and that are capable of flying for hundreds of miles at 100 miles per hour require unique designs of 1 engine for thrust in the air and one or two engines for moving the vehicle on the road. Who wants a flying drone with a lawnchair attached to it which will only get them a few minutes flight time, being terribly noisy, not have adequate fail-safe reliability (such as ballistic parachute that can be deployed if there is a powerplant failure).. ?

Terrafugia is another one of those vehicles which really isn't 'making it' as good as it could, yet. They are hoping the TF-X will garner attention, and buyers..

Check out these windmills on the proposed TF-X - slice and dice anybody?

https://www.terrafugia.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/tfx_plane.png
https://youtu.be/wHJTZ7k0BXU

https://www.terrafugia.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/gallery-7.jpg

https://www.terrafugia.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/gallery-1.jpg

The noise factor for an 8-20 motor drone system is horrendous.

I used drones while doing my field-work, and it's not a pretty experience, and most certainly not something I would want to see saturating the skies, from a standpoint of being "within" or on the land subjected to the noise.

The best bang for the buck with the least noise profile, the best speed, the best range (on the land and air) still appears to be a pusher prop, electric motor front-wheel drive (high efficiency axial motors driving two front wheels using battery/powerplant recharge braking techniques) and high efficiency retractable wings.

No motors/props on the wings.

Jets are fuel guzzlers and expensive to fly, and most certainly not safe for being 'on-the-road' with a scorching exhaust.. meaning the "jet" would have to be used ONLY whence in the air, no VTOL is possible due to potential for creating FIRES or other damage on land.

The winner as of this moment appears to be aeromobil.

(BTW, "black-fly" scaled up "drone" has not demonstrated the range or carrying people for appreciable lengths of time efficiently. The power needed to fly VTOL, and hover consumes immense amounts of power. The craft can fly for up to 25 miles at a speed of 62 mph (http://autoweek.com/article/technology/blackfly-wants-be-your-first-flying-car-price-suv), which represents the current limitations of battery tech. It is a "novelty", not something that a serious user would consider either quiet, or efficient. (IMHO of course) - but as a short range "air taxi" able to do a quick jump, provided one can deal with the immense ground noise pollution, it may hold some merit for that application - it is not a "roadable personal flying machine"..

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16F07/production/_102495939_whatsubject.jpg

The cost of lithium batteries to be replaced every year at the high energy load can be extremely expensive.. Charging is going to take time also, another failure of electric cars in general... )

Bob

18th July 2018, 17:32

Sort of like the amphibious car. Not a really good car. Not a really good boat. The flying car is certainly a great concept, but how practical and safe? Just a toy for the ultra-rich?

If one looks at the price for a two-four seater airplane, the cost of the aero roadable cars is pretty closely priced.

Cessna aircraft makes the 172-SP, and it goes for $307,500 (US); the 160 hp 172R sells for $274,900. One has to fly those only from proper air-strips.. Emergency landings of course have seen these small planes make landings on roadways and farms (and in-between two soft trees in an emergency, as we say in the field, sheer the wings off and hopefully stop without dying)..

Bob

18th July 2018, 17:59

i'll take 2 please.
:clapping:
(i would more likely than not crash the first one LOL)
:blushing:

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-insurance/cost-quote-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..

Bob

18th July 2018, 18:37

[..]
and the Lilium:

https://petervonstamm-travelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Electric-plane-Lilium-Jet-White-Side.jpg

ohig71bwRUE

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.

https://lilium.com/images/technology/lilium-technology-teaser-1536w.jpg

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..)

https://lilium.com/images/mission/radius-3.png

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..

Builder

18th July 2018, 19:42

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

There is the famous "wheel of VTOL misfortune (https://vertipedia.vtol.org/vstol/wheel.htm)", giving an overview of historic designs:

https://vertipedia.vtol.org/vstol/images/wheelwords.JPG

conk

20th July 2018, 16:36

Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.
hYJXE4FCm7Q

Foxie Loxie

20th July 2018, 17:48

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

Bob

20th July 2018, 19:32

Ernie Nemeth

20th July 2018, 20:32

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.

conk

23rd July 2018, 17:50

Bob

23rd July 2018, 18:02

Pretty sure that "invention" was bogus having read the description (http://www.twobitguru.com/2014/08/11/viktor-grebennikov-anti-gravity-levitation/) of 'how' it was supposed to work.. (ground up beetle wings glued to the wooden platform..) -

there's more (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-beautiful-nutcase.5288/) but i won't waste my time or the reader's (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/natural-phenomena-of-biological-antigravitation-associated-with-invisibility.24150/) looking up "fake" news..

Viktor GREBENNIKOV's "Science" is listed in article form on Rex Research's webpage HERE (http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm) - (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?

Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.

:focus:

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:

https://aphidsrus.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/412688ab-2.jpg?w=584

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 (http://schauberger.co.uk/)..

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.

conk

24th July 2018, 16:26

Pretty sure that "invention" was bogus having read the description (http://www.twobitguru.com/2014/08/11/viktor-grebennikov-anti-gravity-levitation/) of 'how' it was supposed to work.. (ground up beetle wings glued to the wooden platform..) -

there's more (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-beautiful-nutcase.5288/) but i won't waste my time or the reader's (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/natural-phenomena-of-biological-antigravitation-associated-with-invisibility.24150/) looking up "fake" news..

Viktor GREBENNIKOV's "Science" is listed in article form on Rex Research's webpage HERE (http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm) - (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?

Too bad we aren't allowed to further explore this technology, presuming it is real of course.

:focus:

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:

https://aphidsrus.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/412688ab-2.jpg?w=584

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 (http://schauberger.co.uk/)..

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.

Bob

24th July 2018, 16:44

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/Viktor%20Schauberger.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):

http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/picturesc/sch250.jpg

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.

Bob

31st July 2018, 18:56

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

Check out this image:

https://aemstatic-ww2.azureedge.net/content/ias/en/articles/2018/06/kitty-hawk-now-accepting-pre-orders-for-flyer-all-electric-vtol-aircraft/_jcr_content/leftcolumn/article/headerimage.scale.large.jpg/1528396814565.jpg

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/

KiwiElf

31st July 2018, 23:17

The Moller Skycar (http://moller.com) 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 (https://moller.com/moller_skycar400.html) of the thing flying above the clouds are all Photoshopped. But here's a real one:

https://moller.com/images/moller_images/Skycar400/sky400_5.jpg

***

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 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103518-It-flies-Production-flying-car&p=1236019&viewfull=1#post1236019).

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/showthread.php?75828-Where-s-My-Flying-Car-Hold-On--Paul-Moller-s-Skycar-Is-Coming-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...) ;)

rgjug_0OAF0

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. ;)

RuGjkKkL2qE

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. ;)

38602

Mark (Star Mariner)

28th August 2020, 20:17

Here we go again. The newest iteration of the flying car - or man-sized 1980's remote controlled toy quad-copter. A big drone in other words.

Not until anti-grav/field propulsion is declassified will we have real flying cars. Until then we can dream...

4Yc2L5koWZY

Japan's 'Flying Car' Gets off Ground, With a Person Aboard
Aug. 28, 2020, at 5:28 a.m.

TOKYO (AP) — The decades-old dream of zipping around in the sky as simply as driving on highways may be becoming less illusory.

Japan’s SkyDrive Inc., among the myriads of “flying car” projects around the world, has carried out a successful though modest test flight with one person aboard.

In a video shown to reporters on Friday, a contraption that looked like a slick motorcycle with propellers lifted several feet (1-2 meters) off the ground, and hovered in a netted area for four minutes.

-

Battery sizes, air traffic control and other infrastructure issues are among the many potential challenges to commercializing them.

“Many things have to happen,” said Sanjiv Singh, professor at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, who co-founded Near Earth Autonomy, near Pittsburgh, which is also working on an eVTOL aircraft.

“If they cost $10 million, no one is going to buy them. If they fly for 5 minutes, no one is going to buy them. If they fall out of the sky every so often, no one is going to buy them,” Singh said in a telephone interview.

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020-08-28/japans-flying-car-gets-off-ground-with-a-person-aboard

scotslad

29th August 2020, 20:34

SkyDrive completed a successful four-minute 'flight' with a single test pilot
Project started in 2012 with funding from Toyota, Panasonic and Bandai Namco
SkyDrive head Tomohiro Fukuzawa hopes for a complete product ready by 2023

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/08/29/12/32534150-8676587-image-a-9_1598700103522.jpg

Blade runner, here we come...?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8676587/Tokyo-flying-car-firm-company-lift-vehicle-feet-ground.html

4Yc2L5koWZY

onawah

30th August 2020, 18:44

That would sure make parallel parking a lot easier! :nod:

Mark (Star Mariner)

24th October 2021, 20:58

Updated:

Still not a flying car as I would define it, but for cool factor it gets 10 out of 10.

------------------------

You Can Now Buy a Flying Car That Looks Like a Star Wars Spacecraft

Forget Elon Musk’s Tesla Cyberquad ATV because there’s a new form of transportation for the offroad enthusiast now available, and it looks like something out of Star Wars.

Sweden’s Jetson Aero has begun manufacturing a personal electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft that will zip around the skies at 63 mph.

The Jetson One eVTOL is an octocopter with four arms that produce 88 kW (118 horsepower) at full throttle. The pilot sits in an aluminum/carbon fiber frame and controls the craft via a throttle lever on the left, a joystick on the right, and a pair of pedals, likely controlling yaw.

According to vehicle car website Autoevolution, “the company [Jetson Aero] said that you can easily climb as high as 1,500 meters (4,921 feet) with Jetson One.” So far, videos only show the eVTOL moving at high rates of speed at low altitudes.

Someone who weighs roughly 187 pounds can expect 15-20 minutes of flight time before the batteries need a recharge.

New Atlas noted the eVTOL comes 50% built, and presumably, owners will have to assemble the rest. For that reason, the craft will likely fly under “experimental” where pilots don’t need a license to fly.

As for price, a $22k deposit will give someone the right to reserve a build slot for 2023. There are only three left. Production in 2022, a total of 12, has already been secured from people worldwide, including a few in California.

https://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2021/10/you-can-now-buy-a-flying-car-that-looks-like-a-star-wars-spacecraft-2658431.html

FzhREYOK0oo

Metaphor

24th October 2021, 22:10

New Atlas noted the eVTOL comes 50% built, and presumably, owners will have to assemble the rest.

Self assembly. Not unexpected when its from the same country that brought you IKEA
47748

Super cool stuff though! This really is sci fi world

eagle0027

25th October 2021, 19:26

these guys ..or a whizkid electrical engineer needs to come up with a way to charge batteries out of the air..re.voltage increase with altitude.At least till antigrav is available /released to us lowly earthlings.

Hym

1st November 2021, 14:57

Such a cool ride.... And,

Completely missing is the EF/EMF measurements on ALL electronic vehicles. The builders, the inventors and the consumers of these products SHOULD, by consumer protection laws ( those maybe not yet created ), know just what the intensity and duration of those electronic, genetic damaging, impulses/waves are. It should be part of the sticker placed on each vehicle before purchase:

Approximate flight time parameters per charge
Necessary upkeep of charging systems
Safety Data
FAA restrictions
Licensing Requirements
Suggested EM exposure time limits and Human Exposure Consequences (Cancer, etc.)
Manufacturers Suggestions on Storage, Equipment Upkeep
PreFlight Checklists, In Flight Limitations, Vehicle Operating Limitations (Speed, Elevation, Weather Restrictions)
Warranty Limitations and Actionable Cancellation of Warranty Warnings
Pre-Flight check of the Emergency Chute aerodynamically placed upon the overhead safety frame (Oops. They haven't added that safety feature yet. You're welcome.)

How did that get by when we have known since the late 1800's that exposure to strong Electro-Magnetic frequencies damages the health of all sentient beings and the living, life giving nature that nurtures organic life on this planet?

It takes the concerted effort of those manufacturers to hide the ill effects of the products they produce and a concerted narrowing of study for those individual inventors who build these unique machines without measuring the effects of those EM fields on the body electric, the interactive dynamic of bioelectric mechanics within the living cellular structure of humans.

This is all in stark contrast to the inventiveness that drives the production of "new" conveniences, distractions from the core of human need.

Note: The author of "Dirty Electricity", Dr. Sam Milham, told me that the Tesla tested as 'very Dirty Electricity'. He suggested that I test each area in my home, and any electronic equipment I use, and any vehicles I can test, like the older Prius I owned for a while, in order to become directly familiar with the sensations of excess EM exposure, if I am that sensitive. It turns out that I have noticed those sensations of energetic disruptions, cognitive switches, before using an accurate measuring device. Having the measurements has been a good confirmation of my perceptions and a valid way of measuring what EM fields do not affect.

It is interesting to have a TriMeter at hand to do just that. I do notice that there are different sensations perceived by different exposures.....from different computers, from electric outlets, from overhead power lines, from motors and generators-both gas and electric, even from moving tires with steel belted radials embedded inside that emit a surprisingly strong EM field.

As I have told so many people, and am aware of, if you don't have the sensitivity just turn on your car's AM radio. If you hear a strong buzz that is the amplification of a very unhealthy EM field. DO NOT LIVE THERE, DO NOT WORK THERE, DO NOT SPEND ANY TIME THERE. This is the most basic of indications of unhealthy EM exposure.

It is worth repeating here that wherever high powered electrical transmission lines are placed near houses or businesses there is a dramatic increase in cancer cases, especially in childhood leukemia, a condition my oldest sister was surviving, until she was killed by a polio shot.

Don't let your angels be taken away from you.....

Mark (Star Mariner)

19th July 2024, 18:17

An impressive demonstration of the latest drone technology in China. This is the Jetson's come to life. Think I want one of these.

Shenzhen UFO Flying Saucer Technology Demonstrates Manned Drone at Local Event

The Shenzhen UFO Flying Saucer Technology company recently demonstrated its manned drone at a local event, and it looked out of this world to say the least, especially with all of the lights turned on. This eVTOL can allegedly take off and touch down on land or water.

Each electric flying saucer boasts six hole duct structures containing two propeller blades for a total of 12, resulting in a stable design that maximizes safety with equally distributed propulsion. On a full charge, it can fly for up to 15 minutes and reach an altitude of 200 meters (656 feet) at a maximum flight speed of 31 mph. Yes, there’s also an autopilot mode that lets a computer take over the controls. Pricing and availability have not yet been announced.

https://vimeo.com/983582867

53404

Link: https://www.techeblog.com/shenzhen-ufo-flying-saucer-technology-manned-drone/