Talk:Moller M400 Skycar

Noise

In the section discussing the noise of the vehicle, 65dB seems really, really low to me. I recently took my bone stock car to an autocross where they measured everyone's car output. The cap for the cars was 92 dB; mine clocked in between 70db and 85db, depending on if I was on the gas or not when they measured it. Is there a distance component to the 65 dB measurement? Depending on the distance, the flying car might be quieter than normal cars (not likely, but still). Riddlefox 13:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The 65dB claim must have been taken out at some point. I provided a reference to a site claiming that the noise at takeoff will be "only" the same as "a nearby freeway". Given that freeway noise can dominate a landscape for miles to either side and this thing seems unlikely to be a high flier, I am less than unenthusiastic about it. When you consider how badly even the most remote areas are impacted by aircraft noise now... and those are usually high flying with many passengers each! I wonder if that makes me one of the nay sayers who feel threatened by his technology - or does that phrase refer to the people afraid of cars falling through their ceilings? 70.15.114.2 (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Collisions

The article doesn't address what to me is the most significant issue of all with a 'skycar' of any description -- How do you prevent it from colliding with low flying General Aviation aircraft, helicopters, and for that matter, other skycars? Even assuming that a skycar with performance similar to Moller's claims can be produced (which I have profound doubts about), how will 'traffic control' work? Given the quality of driving (or lack thereof) I see every day on the highway, I shudder to think what would happen if some of these cretins were operating in more than two dimensions. If an entirely automatic system of traffic control is required, it would likely be horrendously expensive, and would have to account for everything else in the air. This is probably a deal-breaker all by itself. Opinions?

You raise a good question but don't provide a rationale for why it should be included in the article. Perhaps if there has been some authoritive criticism that talks about potential collisions with other aircraft you could cite that in the article, but it's unencylopedic to write that criticism yourself. I suspect there is no real criticism of any potential future air traffic control system because the Skycar prototype (I believe there is only one) has not actually flown any distance. This is assuming Moller himself hasn't talked about his air traffic control ideas with the media at any great length. That may make for an interesting read. --ozzmosis 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There's serious work on that problem.[1] Also see Free flight. But that's not Moller-related work. --John Nagle 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

from what I've heard NASA already has plans for a future air-traffic system. wether or not the 'Skycar' ever works, in the future it is quite likely at least that small aircraft will see much more common useage. Sahuagin 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Delivery date reverse progress

From FAQ on Moller web site archived by archive.org in March 2000 [2]:

4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next two years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away

From FAQ on Moller web site, June 2006: [3]

4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next three years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away.

--John Nagle 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be taking deposits on these things, refundable if FAA flight certification does not occur before 01/01/2009. This seems relatively new. My recollection was that a year ago they were too far away to take orders. TMLutas 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, see that page from 2003, which looks the same, except that the date was December 31, 2005. And see the page from 2004, when the date was December 31, 2006. It's always just two years away. --John Nagle 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates by Spfrazer and Smackycat

Recently, the article has been updated by Spfrazer (talk · contribs) and Smackycat (talk · contribs). Both are new users and have edited only this article. The Smackycat edits were primarily to the links, and needed rework, but the primary new link from that editor (to an MSNBC article) was properly inserted into the article.

The Spfrazer edits were more of a rearrangement, with some additional uncited information about the Skycar. There were also some edits which made the flight testing history of the Skycar look more successful than it has been. (It has never flown untethered, and it's been three years since the tethered hover demo.) Those edits were reverted, due to lack of sources, but if a source can be found for Moller's future plans, that info can go back in. --John Nagle 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove material about the SEC fraud lawsuit. Also, new dates added about what's supposedly going to happen in 2007 need citations. Thanks. See WP:OR and WP:VAIN. --John Nagle 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, how will the "2007 flight tests" take place if the prototype is sold on eBay? --John Nagle 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that further flight tests will occur in 2007 requires a citation. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More edits by Smackycat

Relevant to the discussion above, Smackycat has added the large section of POV text below:

Moller has changed the design of the proposed aircraft every few years, and then spent time modifying the prototype or mockup to match. This way, he can blame the "current" delay in flight testing on the modifications being done. If you look at the wide range of shapes and configurations during this long and fruitless history, it's obvious that he's just playing for time. In Nov 2006, the Moller web site announced that yet another set of changes was being considered, setting the stage for another big delay. In addition, the proposed test site (a man made lake) project has also been delayed. He has recently started telling the old story of how the engines will be running on 35% water in ethanol as fuel. The use of low-yield fuel like ethanol, combined with the "dead weight" of the non-burnable water, should keep the Skycar firmly planted on the ground. This will allow yet another development cycle to begin, where once again, as for the last forty years, he will claim that success is right around the corner.

I reverted it, since it is POV and unsourced. Do with it what you will, but don't reinsert it without NPOV-ing it and sourcing it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that was overdoing it. There's enough information on the record indicative of fraud that it's not necessary to speculate. --John Nagle 05:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New edits by EllasBates

We have some new edits by EllasBates, a new user who has edited no other articles. Some Moller PR material was added, and has been removed. There's a certain similarity with the Smackycat/SFrazier situation. Do we need a sockpuppet check? --John Nagle 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch those ref tags, people

There were some bad "ref" sections in the article, now fixed. Unterminated "ref" sections will eat and hide the remainder of the article up to the next </ref> or <ref/> close tag. The whole "Presales" section had disappeared into limbo. So watch those close tags. Thanks. --John Nagle 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfair implied accusation

Moller has failed to produce any machine that flies. The only demonstration approaching flight was a "hover" performed by a Skycar prototype that was tethered to a crane, "for insurance purposes" Moller claims.

This is plausible. To take off, he would require FAA certification (impossible to get) or a waiver (difficult to get). There's a significant likelihood it could lose control and crash into things far away and destroy the only prototype for sure. There's only a slightly greater power required to fly much higher and a simple control problem could have sent it crashing to the ground hundred of feet or miles away no problem.

I looked at the video and see no indication the tether is bearing any of the weight of the machine.

Basically it is totally reasonable for a VTOL test to be conducted with a tether. The article's wording implies there is an element of fraud.

It is actually remarkable, especially since the engine design is unique and is shown to function, just nowhere near his claims. Nor is the weight of the machine documented, is there anyone on board? Lifting an empty shell with a minimum of fuel on board would not mean as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Miller (talk • contribs)

To take off, he would require FAA certification (impossible to get) or a waiver (difficult to get). No. It's straightforward to get an "experimental" airworthiness certificate.[4]. You have to put "EXPERIMENTAL" in big letters on the aircraft, and you can't carry passengers for hire.[5] The FAA does some basic inspection to keep amateurs from flying with total junk. The FAA may insist that, during phase I flight test (the first 40 flight hours), "the flight test must be over open water or sparsely populated areas with light air traffic so it does not pose a hazard to persons or property on the ground." Also, passengers aren't allowed during Phase I flight test. That's all. Amateur plane builders do this all the time. Private flight testing is often done at Mojave Airport, where there's plenty of room and empty desert. But Moller operates at such low altitudes and speeds that the FAA would probably let him test over local farmland. Although, until he can get up to a few hundred feet of altitude, it would have to be farmland where the owners agreed. That shouldn't be hard; he's part owner of the Milk Farm.[6] --John Nagle 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Scare quotes are to be avoided. [7] Rephrase it to a more neutral tone. (SEWilco 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Another view on the tether requirements is that their current facility (where the tests were conducted) is in the middle of town. Control loss of even the 10' to 15' elevation could have severely damaged other peoples property. --Rocksanddirt 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Certification date not updated (yet)

Interestingly, as of right now Moller has not made the usual update to push forward the certification date for the M400 -- At this moment, it still says "Certification Date: Not later than December 31, 2008". Mind you, the web site still says copyright 2006, so I assume it hasn't been updated in a while. (That in itself speaks volumes, I suppose).Plane nutz (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Took out Wankel press release material

Took out some material from anons about a new Moller press release.[8]. That's just a reprint of a Moller press release, not a reliable source. It's a "real soon now" announcment; they haven't closed the deal. For more details see this SEC filing: [9]. --John Nagle (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a list of specifications here: http://www.moller.co.kr/skycar/m400.htm. Another way of getting a power figure is to work with the stated HP of the Rotapower engines, from http://www.moller.com/faq.htm#q4. According to this source, the engines are rated at 75 HP for the small (650 cc) version and 150 HP for the big (1300 cc) version. Figuring on 8 engines, you have a choice of 600 or 1200 HP.

Certification Date: Not later than December 31, 2008

Moller is only 45 days away from missing their "FAA Certification Deadline" on the M400, after which they have to return any deposits they've taken for the thing.[10]. --John Nagle (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's 2009, and it's still not flying. Moller has a December 2008 letter with new excuses.[11] --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some interesting thoughts about the performance claims for the Skycar here[12] and here [13]--Plane nutz (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article in the National Post (and associated newspapers) on flying cars

There is an article here [14] from the National Post (the article also appeared in other Canwest newspapers) which references the Moller Skycar. It describes the Skycar as a "failure", and the Moller company as follows: "The Moller Company still exists; however, it's no longer believable enough to gain investors." Is this worth incorporating into the article?--Plane nutz (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, it looks like potential Skycar purchasers who previously put down a deposit are having trouble getting their money back[15]. It's not a good sign.--Plane nutz (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Moller bankrupt?

According to [16], Paul Moller has declared chapter 11 bankruptcy. I'm not sure if this is him as an individual (can an individual, as distinct from a corporation, declare chapter 11?), or does the article mean that Moller International has declared Chapter 11? I have not added this to the article because of this uncertainty -- Perhaps someone more knowledgable could update the entry accordingly?--Plane nutz (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Moller web page restructured

The Moller International webpage ([17]) has been substantially re-organized recently. Some of the references within the article will have to be adjusted to point at the new locations, and I suspect that some of the material previously referenced is no longer available.

--Plane nutz (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Just a kind reminder that this talk page isn't a forum. Anything not related to article improvement doesn't belong here-perhaps move it to your own talk page, which doesn't get subjected to this guideline.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice concerning a source

This source may not be trustworthy, as much of the lower half or so of the article is copied from this Wikipedia article (it even has the ^[6][7] which indicates it was a simple copy and paste). The only thing I think I can derive from this source is the existence of a test flight.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like commercial hype to me. I suggest to wait and see what happens with the "demonstration flight" on October 11, 2011. My guess is that it will be more of the same: hovering while secured to a tether. If Moller demonstrates a practical/significant increase in performance we may want to mention it here then. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Test flight in October

Can anyone verify the authenticity of this on their website

http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:skycar-manufacturer-moller-international-announces-scheduled-test-flight-&catid=35:moller-news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.175.43 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's on their web site. We'll know in October 2011 if it flies. If it outperforms the Hiller Flying Platform, that would be interesting. --John Nagle (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the fake photoshop images in their page are outrageous. Please wait and see what develops. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those pictures of the thing flying high above clouds are a bit much. For the article, I suggest we hold off until it either flies or doesn't. There will be news coverage either way. --John Nagle (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that the press release uses a lot of the same old boilerplate statements that Moller has always used in their corporate communications, and is suspiciously vague about exactly what the test flight will accomplish. Still, they have actually stuck their neck out enough to commit to something, and it will be interesting to see what transpires, one way or the other. They had better be able to do something more than just another hover test -- being able to demonstrate a conversion from vertical takeoff to forward flight and back would go a long way towards restoring some of their credibility. We shall see.--Plane nutz (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The amazing thing is how long Moller has gone on without something flying. It's not that hard to make VTOL craft that fly. Many were built in the 1950s and 1960s. See List of VTOL aircraft, and especially the Doak VZ-4. Some of them are at the Hiller Aviation Museum. If you're not concerned about fuel consumption, range, speed, payload, and other useful stuff like that, a demo craft is well within reach. Stability control used to be a big problem (see Avrocar (aircraft)) but now, quadrotor toys have good stability control systems. --John Nagle (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern/suspicion about Moller and the Skycar has always been about the performance figures for the engines, and the range/fuel economy projections for the finished design. While I will freely admit that I have no hard figures to back up my gut feelings, the figures have never 'felt' right to me, and I question how accurate such projections can be on a craft that has never made a forward flight, or a transition to or from hovering. I should add that despite my long standing doubts about the Skycar, I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

I also feel that Moller's past corporate communications (heavily implying in news reports, magazine articles, internet blogs, etc. that the Skycar is a design almost ready to go into production, without ever actually outright stating this) verged on fraud. To their credit, they now seem to realize this, and understand that they're going to have to demonstrate some actual performance if they want to retain credibility. It will be interesting to see what form their public demonstration takes.--Plane nutz (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

...And, in a move that should surprise no one, Moller today postponed the October 11 public flight, with no future date announced. See [18]. --Plane nutz (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Moller should team up with Freedom Ship. Two ideas that will NEVER take off.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

Volantor / Neuera

Don't get confused, in all the Moller hyperbolae, between the Volantor/Neuera flying saucer and the Skycar.Petebutt (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Formatting in introduction needs fixing

Random spaces/no spaces and capitalization. (M-dash should have no spaces around it, unlike n-dash.) --31.45.79.44 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the punctuation, like I suggested (above) that it needed. The mistakes I mentioned are gone now, but I'm not sure actually rephrasing the introduction would hurt. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Moller M400 Skycar, Moller M200G Volantor and Paul Moller

I'm proposing that these three pages be merged together into a single page called Moller International, due to the degree of overlap of the content between the three pages. I feel that the three separate pages are redundant, and that a single page that addresses the various craft designed by Paul Moller would make more sense. Probably the best way to do this would be to merge all three articles to this page, and then rename this page. Opinions?Plane nutz (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge - The biography is not a biogrtaphy but a rehash of his company's projects. Information on the "aircraft" is so limited and scant that all models could be listed in a single article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - The field of roadable aircraft is a widely-known emerging technology that, like it or not, has captured the imagination of a significant proportion of the populace that doesn't otherwise care about either aircraft or emerging technologies; it is also a fairly small field. Therefore, I feel having individual entries is not outrageous. Maybe when one hits mass market production we can lump all of the failures into one page. --Roland (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Moller trying to do a public stock offering and a deal with an investor in China

Moller is trying to raise money again. See the notes from the 2011 annual meeting.[19] [20](Backup copy). An SEC filing has been made for this.[21]. Moller writes "Yesterday (12/9/2011) we received a comment letter from the SEC regarding the offering. We will be reviewing it and determine its impact next week. Initial impressions remain positive." The SEC EDGAR records indicate that there's been no action since the filing last November.

There's also something about a joint venture with an unnamed company in China. See slide 14 of the notes from the shareholders meeting. "JV’s total investment for first, second and third installment for the Moller Skycar Project = 84.5 billion Rmb ($13.7 billion USD) Production plans through 2018 with goal of reaching 100,000 units per year".

Meanwhile, Moller tried auctioning off the 1960s "Discojet" prototype on eBay.[22] --John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the usual background noise. Mr. Moller is still trying, so there is no updates to report. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No other source has picked this up. It seems to have been a trial balloon which, like most Moller projects, didn't fly. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Athena Technologies, Inc.

On the Moller website in the news section, it says, dated January 24, 2013, "Moller Forms Joint Venture with Athena Technologies, Inc." http://moller.com/dev/index.php/14-latest-news/57-athena-jv It seems Athena has an article about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena_Technologies --95.34.149.128 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)