Flying motorcycles are here!

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2004-11-16 10:26am

...or at least being flight-tested next year....

link

Last week we brought news that the flying car was coming a step closer as both Nasa and Boeing start working on prototype craft. But now comes even stranger news — of a flying motorcycle.
The Dutch firm Spark Design claims the vehicle — which looks like a cross between a helicopter and a full-fairing bike — will be able to take off and land vertically and reach 125mph both on land and in the air.

They say that provided sufficient investment continues to be made, it could be ready for test flights in as little as a year, and that the machine will be made in Canada mainly for the US market.

Power is likely to come from Mazda’s Renesis rotary engine, the unit currently used in the RX-8 sports car, which produces a generous amount of power for its size.

The rotor and propeller are folded until the machine needs to fly. Once airborne the rear-mounted propeller pushes the craft along and the unpowered main rotor spins to give the craft lift. It is designed to fly under the 4,000ft threshold used by commercial aircraft.

Spark is the opposite of a specialist company. It has worked on products as disparate as the Carver (a three-wheeled enclosed motorbike that leans over in corners), parts for coffee-making machines and bathroom-door handles for invalids.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-16 10:33am

Finally, MASK becomes a reality!

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-11-17 08:18pm

>sigh<

It's a gyrocopter. We've had those since the... what?... 19320's? Before true helicopters at any rate.

Certainly it's possible from a technology standpoint - as I said, we've had gyros for something like 70 or 80 years with performance at that level.

The problem is - you would still need a pilot's license to fly one in any country you care to name. Specifically, you'd need a rotorcraft license. That's about $15-20k USD last I heard. Plus a physical, flight reviews, etc., etc.

In addition - the maintenance on rotorwings is a headache. Even unpowered rotors. The costs are higher than fixed wing due to all the moving parts and the forces that act on the rotorblades. As a rule of thumb, any rotorcraft maintenance will cost at least three times what a comparable fixed wing costs maintenance-wise.

"Intended" to stay under 4,000 feet? That's nice - how do they intend to enforce that. Also, over major urban areas, the "floor" of commercial airspace is often less than 4,000 feet. Let me re-phrase that - the floor of designated flight paths and commercial traffic is often under 4,000 feet because there is no designation called "commercial airspace", at least in the US. I can fly up to 18,000 feet as a private VFR pilot - if I had an instrument rating there would be no upper limit. The only public airport a private citizen can't fly their plane into in the US is Washington National - and that rule only since 9/11. Really, I'd feel this report was more trustworthy if they at least got the airspace thing correct - it's not like this is top secret knowledge.

Anyhow - how do they plan to keep these things low?

This idea of the "flying car" or "flying motocycle" has been around 80 years, at least. Problem is, cars make lousy aircraft, and aircraft make lousy cars. Sort of like how you don't see many amphibious vehicles driving the highways or cruising the waterways.

Want to fly? Save up about $6k US and go take flying lessons in an airplane. Canadian license somewhat more expensive. Europe -- lot's more expensive. Anyhow - there's also the ultralight/microlight option. Want to fly? Then go do it - stop reading about someone else's fantasy (which is unlikely to become reality soon, if ever) and just do it. Even if I'm wrong and they're selling these things in 10 years (ha!) the skills you pick up with traditional flying will still serve you well.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-20 10:44am

Broomstick wrote:Anyhow - how do they plan to keep these things low?

Perhaps that's its service ceiling. Through that would be quite a hindrence if you lived somewhere like Denver.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-11-20 11:47am

Well one more toy for the well to do.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-20 01:03pm

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Well one more toy for the well to do.

The well to do can afford better. That thing looks like an accident waiting to happen. I would feel much more safer, and happier, in my own Mooney or Fouga.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2004-11-20 03:20pm

I´ll stick to hoping for my very own Skycar, thank you.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-20 05:56pm

VT-16 wrote:I´ll stick to hoping for my very own Skycar, thank you.

http://www.firebox.com/pic/p415b.jpg

That's a peice of shit death trap, you'd be better off with a Cessna 152 or a small helo.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-11-20 08:37pm

Agreed.

There is so much wrong with the skycar it'd take me some considerable time just to get started.

These things look cool to the non-pilot - but to those of us who have some notion of what we're doing we go "Uh.... no. If the engines quit it has the glide profile of a brick." Among other things.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-11-20 08:43pm

Please, get started. I'm interested.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-11-20 08:46pm

Broomstick wrote:Agreed.

There is so much wrong with the skycar it'd take me some considerable time just to get started.

These things look cool to the non-pilot - but to those of us who have some notion of what we're doing we go "Uh.... no. If the engines quit it has the glide profile of a brick." Among other things.

Its even the right color....

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-20 08:56pm

Pcm979 wrote:Please, get started. I'm interested.

Design wise it's unstable, and if your engine quits you're dead. Control wise it would be extremely difficult to handle because of it's negative stability. And the training necessary to operate it, we're looking at private and instrument rating, would be prohibitive. From a practicality standpoint it can possible fly a few places where a car cannot reach, but a car can drive through fog, strong winds, high density alitude, and icing just fine. Unless you've got severe clear weather with next to no winds, out where ground level equals sea level, and a healthy life insurance policy, you're not taking that thing anywhere.

Oh yeah and Broomstick, I picked up my Commercial instrument multi and BE-200 type rating today, so I guess I'm better than you!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-11-21 03:13am

Fuck it for being three wheeled, that's no bike. But anyway we already have wheel driven motorcycles so fast no one has ridden them to their top speed. I'll take on of those over a flying deathtrap.

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2004-11-21 05:29am

To defend the p.o.s. deathtrap:
Moller claims it's aerodynamically stable (it may not look like it, but they say it is. Would probably take a closer look at the actual thing to check it.)
It's got a total of eight engines, two in each nacelle; a single failure is supposed to be no problem.
It's got three redundant control computers, which also stabilize against external influences - the idea is that the pilot just tells the thing which direction he wants to fly at what speed, and the comps figure out the rest.
It's got a pair of parachutes.
As for the prohibitive training, Moller is pushing for a new class of license, which shall require far less training.

No, I'm not saying I'd trust my life to one of these contraptions; just pointing out that it's supposedly not quite that bad.

By the way, what's your opinion on the X-Hawk? That's really a flying brick...

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-11-21 07:30am

Wicked Pilot wrote:Oh yeah and Broomstick, I picked up my Commercial instrument multi and BE-200 type rating today, so I guess I'm better than you!

I'll concede you're the better educated pilot, son, but until you land an airplane in someone's backyard with no damage to you, the airplane, or anyone/anything else, AND convince the FAA and Illinois Department of Transportation that that was the wisest and most proper course of action under the circumstances, the jury is still out on who's "best"

(OK, it was a really big backyard...}

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-11-21 08:07am

AMX wrote:To defend the p.o.s. deathtrap:
Moller claims it's aerodynamically stable (it may not look like it, but they say it is. Would probably take a closer look at the actual thing to check it.)

What does he use to stabilize it? Gyros?

It's got a total of eight engines, two in each nacelle; a single failure is supposed to be no problem.

And if you hit a flock of geese....? (Many birds expect YOU to get out of THEIR way. I've actually had a hawk attack the Cessna 150 I was flying.)

It's got three redundant control computers, which also stabilize against external influences

OK... and what happens when the computers crash? Triple redundancy is usually a pretty solid thing, but this can only be called triple redundant if each of those computers have their own, separate power systems. That will add significant weight and occupy significant space. If they all operate off one power supply they are NOT triple redundant.

I've been aboard airplanes with complete power failures. It does happen. In a conventional airplane that is a survivable situation - in good weather it's more an annoyance than an emergency. In a Moller Skycar, however, it would be lethal.

It's got a pair of parachutes.

That's a good thing, yes. However, parachutes have their limitations.

I started in the branch of aviation that pioneered airframe parachutes. Yes, they can save your life, but won't always. Parachutes can fail to deploy, their ropes can tangle, and they can drop you into things like powerlines and lakes which may be fatal, too. They should be viewed like airbags in cars - a good safety device on average, but not a guarantee of survival.

Parachutes also require a certain minimum time to open. With current airframe parachute technology owners/operators are cautioned that you need to allow at least 100 vertical feet for the parachute to fully open and reduce your speed. BRS, the largest maker of such systems, did report a "save" with deployment at just over 90 feet - both survivors sustained life-threatening injuries and spend considerable time in the hosptial and rehab, if I recall correctly.

Also, no one has yet developed such a parachute for rotorcraft, so you can't install them on gyrocopters that started this thread.

As for the prohibitive training, Moller is pushing for a new class of license, which shall require far less training.

He can push all he wants - it doesn't mean he will get it.

The FAA did recently approve a new class of license which requires less training, called Sport Pilot. It specifically excludes multi-engine craft of any sort from this rating. Once upon a time you did see multi-engine ultralights (in the US ultralights meeting Part 103 requirements do not require a license). Not anymore - it's called "natural selection". The government didn't have to outlaw it, there were so many crashes and deaths that even the "wild men" didn't want to try it anymore. Maybe you can develop a multi-engine aircraft that can be flown safely with minimal training, but we've 100 years of history saying mostly otherwise. The aviation crowd has real reason to be highly skeptical of this claim.

No, I'm not saying I'd trust my life to one of these contraptions; just pointing out that it's supposedly not quite that bad.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion - but I happen to think that yes, it really is that bad.

By the way, what's your opinion on the X-Hawk? That's really a flying brick...

This is the first I've heard of the X-Hawk. My initial impression is just that - if the engines quit you're toast. Unless you've got an airframe parachute. A conventional rotorcraft vehicle can use unpowered auto-rotation to break the fall sufficiently to survive impact. I don't know if this X-Hawk can auto-rotate.

Fly-by-wire is a great thing, but it's expensive, which is why we generally see it only in the military or in large transport airliners. In the new, small aircraft manufacturers still use mechanical linkages - the weight penalty isn't very high, and the systems are simple, robust, and easier to inspect and repair than fly-by-wire.

Yes, we may have the technology to make an X-Hawk work, but it's going to be very expensive. It won't be "everyman's" flying car.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-11-21 08:18am

On another message board I (and others) have gone into some detail on what's wrong with things like the Moller Skycar and what not - I can either copy some of that here, or just link to the other site. (If I do the link, you have the advantage of hearing more than just my opinion on the subject)

Which do you guys prefer?

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-11-21 08:27am

Link sounds good; More for us to chew on, less for you to type.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-21 11:05am

I believe if it is a true gyro, then it can't be flown over populated areas anyway.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-11-21 01:50pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I believe if it is a true gyro, then it can't be flown over populated areas anyway.

Nonsense - it is perfectly legal to fly a gyrocopter over even densely populated areas provided it has a valid airwothiness certificate and meets a few other simple requirements - usually the deciding factor is whether or not it uses an FAA-certified engine or not, although transponders can also enter into the mix. (Disclaimer - I speak about US regulations - other countries can and do have different rules on these matters)

I will freely admit that when it comes to some of the flying cars and what not I tend to be extremely skeptical. Given that small-scale and personal aviation is the corner of aviation I specialize in I feel I have some ground to stand on here. And part of it comes from my training - I was taught very early on to approach ANY aircraft - even one of tried-and-true design and one I have many hours in - with skepticism prior to take-off. Assume something is wrong, then try to prove otherwise. It doesn't mean I think some of these ideas will never come to pass, or they're completely impossible, it's just that I have personal acquaintance with things going wrong, accident clean-ups, and funerals related to same.

If someone could come up with a SAFE, RELIABLE, personal flying machine like a Moller Skycar, or X-Hawk, or SoloTrek, or what have you that was under $30,000 USD I'd be one of the first in line to buy it... but I don't believe it is possible at this point in time. I think we'll see Burt Rutan orbit a privately funded spaceship before we'll see any of these other things.

For that matter, Rutan DID come up with some extremely innovative designs for small aircraft back in the 1970's - cruise speeds over over 200 mph on engines in the 100-150 hp range that could be built in the average Joe's garage and still have an impressively good safety record for homebuilts. Not a single damn one of them looks like a car, not a single damn one of them uses rotors, ducted fans, or vectored thrust. I'll trust Rutan over Moller because the stuff Rutan builds may look weird but it FLIES, and flies damn well - I've yet to see a Moller skycar fly. How about you?

And now for those links - not all start with personal flying vehicles, so scroll through until you come to someting interesting:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... car+flying

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... car+flying

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... car+flying

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... car+flying

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-21 03:31pm

Broomstick wrote: Nonsense - it is perfectly legal to fly a gyrocopter over even densely populated areas provided it has a valid airwothiness certificate and meets a few other simple requirements - usually the deciding factor is whether or not it uses an FAA-certified engine or not, although transponders can also enter into the mix. (Disclaimer - I speak about US regulations - other countries can and do have different rules on these matters)

I was talking about the UK, so your point is moot. Autogyros are deemed unsuitable to be used over densely populated areas unlike similar light-craft in the UK, if memory serves. I recall because I was interested in acquiring one someday and the CAA rules mentioned this. It may have changed in recent history, however.

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2004-11-21 04:25pm

Broomstick wrote:
AMX wrote:To defend the p.o.s. deathtrap:
Moller claims it's aerodynamically stable (it may not look like it, but they say it is. Would probably take a closer look at the actual thing to check it.)
What does he use to stabilize it? Gyros?

They're only talking about aerodynamic stability - if they are right, the thing can glide "safely" (provided it was already moving forward).

Parachutes also require a certain minimum time to open. With current airframe parachute technology owners/operators are cautioned that you need to allow at least 100 vertical feet for the parachute to fully open and reduce your speed. BRS, the largest maker of such systems, did report a "save" with deployment at just over 90 feet - both survivors sustained life-threatening injuries and spend considerable time in the hosptial and rehab, if I recall correctly.

Moller claims <25ft, provided the vehicle is producing aerodynamic lift and they use a "spreader gun" for the 'chutes.

Also, no one has yet developed such a parachute for rotorcraft, so you can't install them on gyrocopters that started this thread.

I'm aware of that; since I know only that single article about this "autogyromotorcylcethingy", I was only talking about the Skycar.

As for the links: Interesting read.
This part makes a surprisingly good argument:

But it's also up to the driver/pilot to avoid restricted airspace. We had that even prior to 9/11 and it's only gotten worse since then. Get lost AND get lost too close to Airforce One and you just might be shot down - the legal authority exists for the airforce to do just that, and given the current political climate, they'd probably bill your heirs for the bullets and the gas for the pursuit jets.

Austria has to intercept about 50 airplanes per year - mostly pilots who "got lost", forgot to check for temporarily restricted areas (like last month - some guy in a flying lawn mower got to close to a chopper that happened to be carrying the Israeli president), etc (plus the occassional US violation of our airspace; but that's more a matter for the venting thread, if at all).
Anyway, what did I want to say?

Ah, yes: If we get cheap, safe flying vehicles, which litterally everyone can operate from his garage, we'll quite definitely need a few additional interceptors. (Did I mention that we're currently using Saab 105 trainers because 23 Drakens just aren't enough? And that we'll get only 18 Typhoons to replace these Drakens, and no replacement at all for the 105? I know, venting, but I'm getting tired.)
Given the state of our finances, our government would rather outlaw them than come up with the extra money...

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-11-21 05:05pm

AMX wrote:They're only talking about aerodynamic stability - if they are right, the thing can glide "safely" (provided it was already moving forward).

What are you talking about? That thing has definate negative stability. It's not like a Cessna 152 in which you can stall the airplane, then let go of the controls to watch it regain controlled flight on its own. If you tip that thing it will continue to roll until it's a hole in the ground. God help you if one of those fans cuts out and you're trying to fly on asymetric thrust. And you must be on crack if you think that thing can glide to a power off landing.

Moller claims <25ft, provided the vehicle is producing aerodynamic lift and they use a "spreader gun" for the 'chutes.

As someone who's been trained on parachutes and ejection systems, I can say that Moller's claim is bullshit. That 25 foot crap is pure absolute best case senereo only. As an example the T-37, after almost fifty years of flying, has seen many pilots eject from it, but still the seats and parachutes that come with that plane have maintained a 100% success rate. Everyone who has ever bailed out of that airplane has lived, everyone who ejected within the ejection envelop that is. People still died though ejecting from that airplane because they bailed out outside the envelop, either because they had no choice, or because they hesistated until it was too late. In fact, the Air Force and Navy's newest primary trainer, the T-6, has a zero zero seat installed, which is much much more capable than that of the T-37, yet in the only crash so far of that airplane, both instructor pilots were killed when they engaged the seats low to the ground, almost inverted. That spreader gun won't do jack shit if you lose control near the ground with the car banked 60 degrees by the time you pull the triggers.

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2004-11-21 05:16pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:What are you talking about? That thing has definate negative stability. It's not like a Cessna 152 in which you can stall the airplane, then let go of the controls to watch it regain controlled flight on its own. If you tip that thing it will continue to roll until it's a hole in the ground. God help you if one of those fans cuts out and you're trying to fly on asymetric thrust. And you must be on crack if you think that thing can glide to a power off landing.

I'm only telling you what they claim.
And they say, litterally:

www.moller.com/skycar/safety wrote:In the unlikely event that insufficient power is available to hover, the Skycar's aerodynamic stability and good glide slope allows the pilot to maneuver to a safe area before using the airframe parachutes.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-11-21 10:47pm

AMX wrote:And they say, litterally:
www.moller.com/skycar/safety wrote:In the unlikely event that insufficient power is available to hover, the Skycar's aerodynamic stability and good glide slope allows the pilot to maneuver to a safe area before using the airframe parachutes.

If you're stable, able to manuver, and have a glide slope to a "safe area" you don't need a fucking parachute!!!

Yes, AMX, I know you're quoting someone else, but that is precisely what Wicked and I mean by bullshit. The sad thing is, the average person doesn't have the knowledge base to recognize the depth of the doo-doo when Moller or the like spout this drivel.

AMX wrote:Austria has to intercept about 50 airplanes per year - mostly pilots who "got lost", forgot to check for temporarily restricted areas

The US intercept rate has been thousands per year since 9/11... due in part to idiots who don't check before launching, yes, but also because the DHS, TSA, and FAA can't get their act together and come up with a clear, coherent, and comprehensible system of notification. In the past three years there have been at least two occassion I told the flight service briefer about TFR's - and he's supposed to be the one telling ME! (Yeah, yeah - another topic for venting...)

Another problem the interceptors here are having is that the attack planes are too fast for intercepting the slower civilian planes like low power single engine Cessnas and Pipers, much less the ultraights and powered parachutes. It took them a bit to figure out that it makes much more sense to send a helicoptor after the slower planes than an F-16 or whatever they were using at first.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I was talking about the UK, so your point is moot. Autogyros are deemed unsuitable to be used over densely populated areas unlike similar light-craft in the UK, if memory serves.

Well, moot for you -- but I did throw in the bit about speaking strictly about US regulations. In many areas the US is less restrictive than Europe, including Britain.

By the way - the UK also bans the airframe-mounted ballistic recovery 'chutes such as the skycar and many other of these gizmos claim as a safety feature. It goes back to a number of gory accidents in the early 1980's involving such systems that fired off on the ground by accident and shot through someone. Which, by the way, is pretty much what does happen - it doesn't hit you, it goes through you. Which is yet another thing to worry about - backyard mechanics fucking around with these things, which are launched by a small, solid-fuel rocket, and killing themselves or bystanders.