Last week, I posted my comments on MIT's
Technology Review Air Car Forum (http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=289&iPage=1). I have copied core of
my posing here.
Taking cue from Navras' comment below if we try to express definition of "what" a Flying Car should be, here it is:
Normal automobiles that are made suitable or
transformed for flight "on-the-fly" during normal road traffic while in motion and as simple to park while static.
Hence, a flying car is wingless, rotor-free and devoid of any high-powered engines or thrust with the ability of short take-off. It is an automobile first and functions as one at street level. Its ability to fly is an add-on and it shall fly few feet above street to few hundred feet above city blocks with ultimate production costs in the range of high end BMWs & Mercedes. That is, $75,000 to $100,000. It uses normal fuel like any other normal car uses today and produces noise levels in the same range (or slightly more) of such cars and motorcycles.
I have been a serious thinker in this field for a long time and I am sure Dr. Paul Moller indeed a key contributor, pathbreaker and pioneer in charting this new territory.
Accept this. NASA recognizes this today. He recongnized it 20 years ago.
If you look at history, during the transition from 19th-20th century, we had automobiles and airplanes catching the fancy of human beings. That fascination is carried over to next stage during the transition from 20th century to 21st century.
More players are getting in and onlooker comments cover a wide range from awe to real funny ones.
NASA throwing in the towel in terms of a competition makes one thing clear: Flyig Cars are going to be a reality.
Technology to support PAVs are available at this juncture between the centuries. The rest is upto to the invetor/s' clarity.
NASA's competition also means something esle: The best or the most acceptable is yet to come!
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Last week, I posted my comments on MIT's
Technology Review Air Car Forum (http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=289&iPage=1). I have copied core of
my posing here.
Taking cue from Navras' comment below if we try to express definition of "what" a Flying Car should be, here it is:
Normal automobiles that are made suitable or
transformed for flight "on-the-fly" during normal road traffic while in motion and as simple to park while static.
Hence, a flying car is wingless, rotor-free and devoid of any high-powered engines or thrust with the ability of short take-off. It is an automobile first and functions as one at street level. Its ability to fly is an add-on and it shall fly few feet above street to few hundred feet above city blocks with ultimate production costs in the range of high end BMWs & Mercedes. That is, $75,000 to $100,000. It uses normal fuel like any other normal car uses today and produces noise levels in the same range (or slightly more) of such cars and motorcycles.
I have been a serious thinker in this field for a long time and I am sure Dr. Paul Moller indeed a key contributor, pathbreaker and pioneer in charting this new territory.
Accept this. NASA recognizes this today. He recongnized it 20 years ago.
If you look at history, during the transition from 19th-20th century, we had automobiles and airplanes catching the fancy of human beings. That fascination is carried over to next stage during the transition from 20th century to 21st century.
More players are getting in and onlooker comments cover a wide range from awe to real funny ones.
NASA throwing in the towel in terms of a competition makes one thing clear: Flyig Cars are going to be a reality.
Technology to support PAVs are available at this juncture between the centuries. The rest is upto to the invetor/s' clarity.
NASA's competition also means something esle: The best or the most acceptable is yet to come!