Moller flying car (no Audi content)

[Mike Arman <armanmik@n-jcenter.com>]

Just got back from Moller's flying car website mentioned earlier in the
Wankel engine seals thread . . .

Don't hold your breath waiting for delivery. Flying cars have been touted
for years, and the prospects for success are slim indeed. Moller had an
article in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science a few years ago - standard
aircraft engine on the front, retracting nose wheel incorporating ground
steering. Coupla minor problems there - the spinning propeller would not be
exactly "pedestrian friendly", and the long, spindly nose wheel strut would
collapse at the first ripple in the pavement. Cover art showed this "flying
car" in freeway traffic. Right. I notice that Moller is more than a little
coy about actual flight being achieved, and he has been working on this for
a LONG time!

Moller's design has another problem - any failure is catastrophic. There's
no lift in the airframe - it is all supported by the rotors. The US
Marine's newest assault aircraft, the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey, has the same
problem - if either of the lift rotors stops, that end falls - NOW -, and
the "safety parachutes" Moller talks about won't help much. If you are VERY
lucky, you might survive the impact. The 14 passengers in the prototype
V-22 were not that lucky - when one of the lift rotors failed, the aircraft
instantly became uncontrollable (and the pilot was very skilled, not some
yuppie SUV driver with a new toy), and crashed immediately.

The first (and unfortunately only) flying car that achieved ANY degree of
success was built by Molt Taylor in Washington state, back in 1939. He
built (I think) six, one of which is currently here in Daytona Beach. The
"car" part is an extremely crude tin can (actually an aluminum can),
powered by the aircraft engine (125 hp Lycoming) driving the rear wheels
through a gearbox which engages either the prop or the wheels. Shaped like
an egg, the car is extremely light and very, very fragile. No 5 MPH bumpers
here, guys. Not even safety glass - it's acrylic plastic for the windows.

The wings are mounted with clevis pins and lock pins, and can be removed in
about 15 minutes and replaced in about 45 minutes - takes two people to do
it. (I have been one of them - I declined a ride in this device, either on
the ground or in the air.) Once assembled, the car DOES fly, but not well -
it is too heavy and underpowered. While Molt Taylor (who I met once) is a
very good engineer, his sky-car is simply too fragile to survive in the
real world.

'Nother slight problem - once you take the wings off, what do you do with
them? Taylor's solution was a little dolly, and you towed the fragile,
expensive wings behind you, evidently hoping to find a LONG parking space
at your destination.

After WW-2, the Budd company experimented with a flying car, too. Their
idea was they would sell you the car, and if you wanted to go flying, they
would rent you the flight part (wings, tail, prop, etc.), attaching your
car to their airframe at one of several hundred "flight ports" they would
establish around the country. I've seen a photo (heavily retouched) of this
- I don't know if it actually ever got off the ground or not. (Don't think
so.)

Next stop was in 1976 or thereabouts. Two engineers started with a Cessna
337 (the push-me-pull-you centerline thrust twin) airframe and a 1974
Pinto. The fuselage and front engine of the Cessna was removed, and the
Pinto (later replaced with a Mercury Capri - same car, fancier trim level)
was bolted in its place. The wings, tail, twin tail booms, and rear engine
of the Cessna were used, and the whole device was controlled with some
clever linkages to the Pinto's brake pedal, gas pedal and steering wheel,
which moved fore and aft as well as the usual direction.

This one did fly, but unfortunately, the system used to connect the car to
the airframe wasn't good enough. It came apart during the takeoff of (I
think) the fourth test flight, and both the designers were killed.

The idea of a flying car, while appealing, is becoming less and less
possible instead of more and more. Other than the almost insurmountable
technical problems, you have licensing problems, legal problems, and
insurance problems. To get all of this in a package that is still
affordable (Yeah, we could do this for $10,000,000 a copy, but who other
than Bill Gates would buy it?) is not likely. Car technology and aircraft
technology are diverging, not converging, and unless someone comes up with
something totally different, well, this one just ain't gonna happen. Darn -
it does sound like such fun, too!

Best Regards,

Mike Arman