alt.energy.renewable

"GeekBoy" wrote in message
news:47e0fa05$0$6497$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> I disagree.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but mine remains unchanged.

I have been watching Mollier for years. Being a commercial pilot, I have an
idea of what is a safe aircraft concept and what isn't. Also, being a sailplane
pilot, I like to think that I have an idea about what is efficient and what
isn't. The Mollier designs are neither safe nor efficient. They require
several engines to be running at max throttle to even get off of the ground. If
any one of them stops, you are likely to return to the ground in an uncontrolled
manner. I don't have to tell you that needing multiple engines to move a 1 or 2
seat vehicle is not a fuel efficient method of transportation.

> I watched those videos and you can see the cable is not there to provide lift
> for the vehicle, but for safety.

Exactly. If they don't trust the thing to fly without that safety cable, how
could they possibly expect the FAA to certify it as safe a safe aircraft for the
general public to buy and fly?

> So they "sucked" up only millions? I wish I could do research and
> development for a flying car that only cost millions.

This is more of a flying scam than a flying car. The best example I can
think of is the AirCar. The "inventer" always seems to be able to find new
dreamers with money to invest. Product is always going to be ready for mass
production "next year". Huge profits are always just around the next bend in
the road.

> Gillette (razors) spent 1 BILLION on research just for their Sensor razor
> blades.

I would not have one in my house. Give me a plain old single blade any day!
The more blades you add, the crappier the shave.

> Also the B2 stealth bomber costs 1 BILLION each. Just think how much went into
> research.

Apples and oranges.

> Millions is a bargain.

I suggest that you call Mollier and offer to invest. He will be delighted to
hear from you.


Vaughn