Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Moller Celebrates Flightless 50

By Robert Goyer / Published: Oct 04, 2011
Rate it! 0% or 100%

Moller International announced last week the 50th anniversary of the development of the Skycar, a product that is the brainchild or idea of Paul Moller. The Skycar is not intended as a roadable aircraft, claims the company, but rather as a kind of Jetson’s style replacement for automobiles; hence, the “Skycar” name.

The vehicle, which is claimed to be a four-seater, makes use of four ducted fan rotary engines that are encased in repositionable nacelles. In 2003, the Skycar hovered for a short period of time while tethered to a cable suspended from a crane. Moller claims that it has since made several additional tethered hovers. A promised manned, untethered flight has been scheduled and canceled on numerous occasions over the years but has never been attempted. The company says it has spent around $100 million over that time to develop its craft.

The projected specifications of the Skycar are truly fantastic in the truest sense of the word. Moller projects a cruise speed of 360 mph at sea level, a maximum range of 750 miles (presumably statute miles) and a ceiling of 35,000 feet for the unpressurized craft powered by (for now) normally aspirated Wankel engines. The figures are all difficult or impossible to reconcile with the shape or design of the current model, known as the M400X. The company has claimed that the craft would continue to be controllable if any one of the four ducted fan engines were to fail. It will be “parachute equipped” and computer controlled, says Moller.

Fifty years is a long time for any aircraft company to be in business--in that time, many respected aircraft makers have come and gone. But it’s indeed a remarkable milestone for a manufacturer that has yet to make a first actual flight with one of its manned designs. Then again, that kind of deliberate approach to first flight might well be a reflection of the company’s continuing culture of safety.

Comments (9) Post a comment

All Comments

airsteve172's picture

I seem to be missing something here. An aircraft company that's been in business for 50 years whose aircraft have not yet made an actual flight? This sounds more like some kind of a socialist regime enterprise rather than anything I could possibly construe as a business. Where do they get the money to pay for the bills for things like a place to store their flightless junk???

azed's picture

Ya gotta be kidding. Never flown (tethered doesn't count) and you write it up? After 50 years and numerous press releases?

rufust's picture

The first flight will be over a cookoo's nest. There is a motorcycle (flying) company taking over the reigns of a money pit and snake oil company. How can they not get into trouble with the IRS? 100 million dollars. Hey, give them credit on their marketing skills.

Mike_Flys's picture

To the people who made the above comments you should research Moller, or maybe the writer should give some of the history. He started this company with his own money and a dream. 50 years ago the technology to achieve this didn't even exist. The vehicle was ahead of it's time and has been able to be developed slowly as technology like GPS, and computers have come into existence.

I would suggest to do some research and to start here: http://www.moller.com/ before deciding weather or not Moller is a good company or not.

Even if the vehicle never flies it is a very cool concept and Moller has created and push some cool technology of their own in the process.

My $0.02
Mike

iused2fly's picture

Moller probably could have designed and certified a light aircraft or two, maybe even made money from the venture, rather than sinking $100 million into this ridiculous design for half a century. I can see how such a design might hover briefly while tethered in ground affect, but how is this thing ever going to fly without wings or a rotor?

One or two powerful engines on the longitudinal axis of the machine would seem to be more feasible, like the configuration of the F-35 fifth generation fighter jet. With the engines so far from the centerline even a moderate power loss in one engine would likely cause sufficient asymmetric thrust to send the machine out of control. Or build it with a pusher prop and folding wings, less cool but more more sensible!

Douglas M
Surrey, British Columbia

marcusak's picture

50 Years?
$100,000,000?
No Product?
Really?
Are you serious?
Surely, there is another story that deserves coverage by the world's greatest aviation magazine.
Why waste time reporting on this ongoing con?

marcusak
USA

elmog's picture

You want to know how to make a small fortune in General Aviation? Start with
a BIG one!

Jetjock737's picture

I'd like to echo Mike_Flys's comment. It's obvious the other posters haven't checked out the design on www.moller.com. The guy had a really cool idea. Yes, it'd be great to see the thing fly, and I'd love to have one in the garage. But sadly, it hasn't happened. And it may never happen, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to keep an eye on the man and the machine.

Every success began as an idea, and with new technology, who knows? Maybe Mr. Moller or his successors may get the darned thing off the ground someday. How about we encourage him, rather than pile on the poor guy. It hasn't cost any of you anything; if you don't want to read about it, then don't!

Thanks, Robert, for the update.

Voodoo's picture

I don't see the issue as being if Moller's concept is do-able. Aircraft in this configuration (like the Bell X-22) have been flown successfully before.

The bigger issues are the claims that have been made for speed, altitude, and range. Or the fact that Moller International always implies in their publicity that their designs are proven and about to go into production, rather than designs that have briefly hovered, and even that not recently.

If they want to be taken seriously, then they have to demonstrate a number of things:

1) That their design is capable of flying in forward flight.

2) That their design is capable of making a conversion from hover to forward flight and back. (There are other VTOL designs from the past that could take off vertically and fly horizontally, but were incapable of converting between the two).

3) That their projections for the speed, altitude, and range of the Skycar are based on something other than wishful thinking.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use