alt.energy.renewable

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
news:eZeEj.46936$cQ1.27527@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "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

I would call an aircraft with extra engines, and a self delpoying chute in
case of total failure to be safer than any commercial airliner.


> 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.

They never promised efficiency...only something that works.

>
>> 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?

Do you know exactly what an aircraft will do that has not been fully field
tested? What if it went crazy and hit one of the bystanders? The company
would be sunk form lawsuits?
What if an engine failed and their only prototype was smashed to bits?

>
> > 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.


You mean like the V-22 Osprey?

"22 years. ****$16 billion****. 30 deaths. The V-22 Osprey has been an R&D
nightmare. But now the dream of a tilt-rotor troop transport could finally
come true."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/osprey.html?pg=1&topic=osprey

"Now the aircraft that flies like an airplane but takes off and lands like a
chopper is about to make its combat debut in Iraq. It has been a long,
strange trip: the V-22 has been 25 years in development, more than twice as
long as the Apollo program that put men on the moon. V-22 crashes have
claimed the lives of 30 men - 10 times the lunar program's toll - all before
the plane has seen combat. The Pentagon has put $20 billion into the Osprey
and expects to spend an ******additional $35 billion***** before the program
is finished. In exchange, the Marines, Navy and Air Force will get 458
aircraft, averaging $119 million per copy. "
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665835-1,00.html


>
>> 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.


No..it's about costs.

Seems to me the Moller Skycar has a much better track record.


>
>> Millions is a bargain.
>
> I suggest that you call Mollier and offer to invest. He will be
> delighted to hear from you.
>

I think I will.

>
> Vaughn
>