A new type of VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) machine was announced last spring; one that can be driven on the ground like a car or flown like a small plane after vertical take-off.
The prototype was developed by Paul Moller, a former profes-sor of aeronautical engineering who in 1974 forsook his tenured position at the U. of Calif. at Davis for the risky world of industry and founded Moller International in Davis, Calif.
He produced a number of VTOL machines, such as the un-
manned "Aerobot" (powered by an umbilical cord for power and
control signals) up to altitudes of 1,000 ft for military, industrial or
traffic surveillance. His first full-fledged VTOL machine was a disk-
shaped contraption with its jet engines thrusting vertically upward
and intended for military uses such as mine sweeping. There were
intermediate models, and now he has come up with the M 400, a
four-seater that can be
driven like a car to a "ver-
tiport," where it will swivel its
engines and take off. Once it has
gained altitude, the engines
are swung horizontal again,
and the small wing span is claimed to make the contraption, which Moller calls a "Volantor," more stable than a helicopter.
The volantor seats four, has a range of 850 miles, a cruising speed of 322 mph (403 max.) and is expected to cost $100,000 when limited production for marketing and tests starts in 1991, with first deliveries of FAA-certified models expected in 1992-3. A $5,000 deposit will hold your place in line, but the first 261 places have already been reserved; call (916) 750-5088 to get in, or even to buy a videotape ($49) and literature. But remember the M-400 has not yet flown
¾which is not its most serious drawback, for other prototypes have.What led to this undoubted success was Moller's development of a light, powerful, and affordable motor, of which the M-400 has eight (two in each housing in picture). A VTOL aircraft must ob-viously have a thrust greater than its weight
¾not a condition for regular aircraft¾and that normally makes such aircraft all engine and fuel with little to spare for payload. A helicopter, on the other hand, is slow in forward flight, as well as expensive. But Moller developed a rotary (Wankel) engine that produces 150 HP and weighs only 68 lb, and 2.2 HP/lb is an impressive ratio.The volantor is claimed to be very safe, with sufficient excess power to allow for an engine failure. It has a parachute, and redun-dancies are built into its electronic control
¾but it remains to be seen by how much the price goes up after the FAA is through prescribing additional safety devices.I would expect the volantor, if it can keep its price down to $100,000 or even improve on it by mass production, to become a popular corporate jet and recreational vehicle for the affluent and for flying clubs. But I can't see it becoming, as Moller hopes, a commuter plane that will relieve the crowded freeways, for the skies are not as uncrowded as they might seem. "Computer control" sounds impressive, but in air, you have three dimensions of where to go, not one as on the road. And if there is a critical failure, a car just stops running; so will a volantor, but too late. So I don't see much sense in the San Francisco Chronicle's headline "In the future, our cars will fly."
But it is a good occasion to look at the future of passenger transport.
|
|
Vol. 17, No. 3
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 17, No. 3 Date: December 01, 2004 03:12 PM Title: Bipartisan deceit
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|