alt.energy.renewable

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "GeekBoy" wrote in message
> news:47e1c838$0$1087$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> 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.
>>
> Then there is much you don't understand about aviation. Multiplying the
> number of engines always multiplies the chances of failure. Under some
> conditions the loss of ANY engine can cause an accident. Did you know that
> small twin engine planes actually have more fatal accidents than their single
> engine counterparts? In the case of the Mollier design, imagine a loaded table
> that suddenly loses one leg. A chute is unlikely to help unless you are high
> enough for 1) the pilot to recognize the situation and trigger it on time; and
> then 2) the chute has time to deploy and open and decelerate the aircraft. We
> are talking several hundred feet at minimum.
>
> By all means, invest!

If I understand Mollers design, there are 4 thrust pods and each
one contains two engines. The pod is supposed to still provide
sufficient thrust for flight even if one of the two engines fail.

Control is via a flight computer so human reaction times are not
a limiting factor. In the case of deploying the chute, there are
zero-zero systems available that can deploy the chute even at
zero altitude and, presumably, the computer would decide when to
launch the chute.

Invest in this thing? Since it's already been at least three
decades then I doubt I would get any money back in my lifetime.

Perhaps Mollers original plan was to patent the idea of powered
flight and then try to collect from anyone who actually made it
work. He would have lost his case in court, of course, but a big
company might have settled as being cheaper than lawyers.

Anthony