Flying car more economical than Hummer.

Paul Moller is the eternal optimist. He's been working on this aircar for over 20 years and still hasn't produced an airworthy vehicle...and it's unlikely that the FAA would ever approve such a vehicle since one of its mandates is to protect people and property on the ground and this gadget is just waiting to plummet.

Yes, it may well use less gas than a Hummer, but, consider this: it's a death trap, just as any wingless flying machine is. This is why the "jet backpack" of Popular Science Magazine fame never made it beyond initial testing. Helicopters, with their rotary wings, at least have a chance to autorotate if the engine quits. This puppy has zilch.

Try for a moment, George Lucas notwithstanding, to visualize rush hour traffic in 3-D with a number of these gizmos buzzing.....buzzing the what? Highway? "Airway"?....who would regulate these things? And how?

I seriously doubt that any propfan aircraft would use less fuel than a car, even a Hummer, because of the physics involved in lifting something up. Still, the fact that it's an imaginable comparison says volumes about how awful the Hummer is for the environment.

Give me real wings and/or a Prius.
Bob

 

You can see more about it at http://www.moller.com/

It's supposed to be able to fly with one engine out and be able to fly it in dead stick with all out. But really you're not supposed to fly it, just tell it where you want it to go and it'll take you there, guided by an airway network "to be constructed." I agree with Bob Allen, this has been around for some time.

 

You can't dead stick it to the ground, just to a place where you decide to deploy the vehicle parashute.

 

the article says it gets "20 mpg on the road" obviously when flying and using much more of the 770 HP motor, the mileage will drop accordingly.

great for rich idiots who have nothing else to blow their money and OUR resources on. as for me...

PASS

 

I can't wait for Mr. Fusion and flying Deloreans to be invented.