How are you comparing the efficiency and practicality of these, =20 compared to helicopters? Practically-wise, I'd think it would pretty much fit the same space as =20 helicopters. Yes, I know that veers a bit away from "flying car". Efficiency-wise, I'd think these would be to helicopters, what =20 multi-engine airplanes are to single-engine. Higher cost, but have =20 other advantages such as redundancy. And with computer =20 control/balancing already built in, the old case for single-engine =20 being better in some situations is even less so. Yes, there is a =20 difference between these being electric and current helicopters being =20 combustion-engine powered (though there have been successful =20 electric-helicopter flights), but that's a separate argument, and =20 who's to say these multi-copters can't be combustion-engine based =20 (though I expect we'd need collective pitch for quicker response), or =20 a hybrid of combustion/electric powered. FWIW, there are commercial quad-copters with 100-lb or better payload =20 capabilities in use for some government/military uses. Cheers, -Neil. Quoting Yigit Turgut : > I don't believe this can ever be an efficient and practical > transportation system due to a dozen of reasons one can easily spot. > IMO transportation will seriously evolve when LIGO discovers more > about gravitational wave's nature. When outputs are combined with > precisely pioneered know-how of the Searl effect. > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:27 PM, John Ferrell =20 > wrote: >> On 11/2/2011 2:04 PM, RussellMc wrote: >>> The final missing =A0item on my childhood wish-list has just been born. >>> >>> The cellphone and LEO satellite constellations gave us the practical >>> reality promised by the =A0Dick Tracy Communicator and the " Man from U= ncle" >>> =A0 'Open Channel D' worldwide communicator pen. >>> >>> John Carmack showed us that the Flash Gordon Rocket ship ("take off and >>> land on a column of fire / leap into space"), if not quite yet here, wa= s on >>> its way and Burt Rutan's Spaceship One and the various space tourism >>> wannabee startups have helped fill in the gaps as we wait. >>> >>> Micral, Altair, Imsai, IBM, Apple and the growing crowd didn't just red= uce >>> the building sized computers of the early 1950's to a real affordable h= ome >>> computer, and Xerox's 1972 "Dynabook" portable personal computer dream = into >>> a netbook, but kept on going and we are yet to see the sensible end in >>> miniaturisation of genuine portable personal computing. And Siri, stand= ing >>> in for HAL, is yet to show us the dark side of her personality. >>> >>> And the internet. Oh yes! The internet is what we dreamed of but knew c= ould >>> never be true! And more. >>> >>> But, for decades now I, and many others, =A0have asked >>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Where are the flying cars. They promis= ed us flying cars! >>> Where are they?" >>> >>> There have been pretenders. The Solo Trek tired and the =A0Martin "Jet = Pack" >>> =A0 more or less delivered a version of personal flight. And it's unden= iably >>> =A0 fun and utterly awesome - =A0but suh craft will =A0never fill the f= lying car >>> niche. Over the years various grotesque cars-that-also-fly have clawed >>> their way into and fallen out of the sky. But the Starwars / Blade Runn= er / >>> Avatar craft that lift from a =A0parking place, twist in the air and fa= ll >>> into the sky have never looked even remotely like happening. Until toda= y. >>> >>> On October 21st 2011, the flying car arrived. >>> This hasn't been billed as a flying car by anyone yet as far as I know,= and >>> there is no technical breakthrough here - it's been obvious for a year = or >>> few that this is possible, and increasingly so in the last year or so. >>> >>> But this claimed world's first flight of an electrically powered >>> "multicopter" in Germany heralds, (according to me) THE moment when the >>> flying car made it's first stumbling footsteps (wingbeats?) >>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.gizmag.com/first-manned-multicopter-= flight/20345/ >>> >>> Unlike the undoubtedly marvellous "Martin Jet Pack" which is so-far >>> notionally somewhat ahead of what has been achieved here, this craft >>> represents a proof of concept (which nobody doubted anyway) of >>> a (reasonably) practical, =A0(reasonably) safe, (reasonably) affordable= means >>> of (reasonably) =A0useful manned flight. >>> >>> 16 rotors. 16 electric motors in a quad arm (two crossed beams) >>> construction. 16 vicious open props, an exercise ball as landing gear (= what >>> an excellent idea). >>> Don't fly too high on first flight 'just in case'. >>> Rough - sure. >>> Impractical as it stands - sure. >>> Innovative - no, not at all. >>> But - earth shatteringly new and fantastic. >>> Fly by wire stable. >>> Anyone suitably keen and moderately technically capable could build one= ! >>> The basic hard work has been done. You can buy the parts, and the >>> controllers and download the software. There's quit a lot of tinkering >>> between there and getting airborne, but it's "just a matter of >>> engineering". >>> >>> Able to fly safely (they say) in this configuration with up to 4 motors >>> out. . >>> How many motors you need or are practical or desirable in more advanced >>> forms is tbd, but properly implemented, here is something which quite >>> probably won't fall out of the sky when an amateur-enthusiastic prop fa= ils, >>> motor seizes, battery vents with flame, computer crashes, etc. Sure mai= n >>> beam failure and Murphy can and will kill you - as can a prop shard or >>> unfortunate interaction with a failing part and something excessively >>> important. But sensible design, sensible construction, sensible operati= on >>> and a small amount of luck will make these far safer than small copters= , >>> microlights, hang gliders and more. Worst case this craft will safely b= ring >>> it's pilot home, even if dead. >>> >>> A major initial factor here is the electric drive. It's use of batterie= s >>> make it far less energy-density effective by far than fuel powered >>> =A0 internal combustion engines, but allows essentially as many motors = to be >>> placed where you want them and to be controlled easily and well. =A0IC >>> versions can and will happen, and it may be that a "diesel electric" >>> version =A0may be attractive with an internal combustion engine providi= ng the >>> conversion of energy dense fuel to electricity to drive electric =A0mot= ors. >>> >>> At the upper end this concept is unlikely to threaten conventional roto= r >>> craft. Scalability probably becomes unattractive at large loads, high >>> speeds and long ranges. But for a craft that can (just about) be flown >>> safely off an urban back lawn with a reasonably good chance of not kill= ing >>> its users or miscellaneous people along the way, this concept fills a g= ap >>> which nothing else available comes near to. >>> >>> At last, the flying car! Soon, anyway. >>> >>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Russell McMahon >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Copyright Russell McMahon, November 3rd (NZ) 2011. >> http://www.suasnews.com/2011/11/9691/german-multicopter-makes-first-mann= ed-flight/ >> I like this one... >> >> -- >> John Ferrell W8CCW >> "The man who complains about the way the >> ball bounces is likely to be the one who dropped it." >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .