Re: will aircars destroy the auto industry?

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Sun Apr 30 2000 - 05:43:55 MDT

Spike Jones wrote:
> > Spike Jones wrote: Even at 2 MPG,
> > > there might be certain circs where such a device could be useful however.
> > Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > Even normal existing aircraft get better than 2 mpg, Spike. Even
> > helicopters do better than that, not much better, but better. Can you
> > post your calcs?
> Roger that, but let me put em in a spreadsheet format so anyone
> who is interested can play.
> Regarding ordinary aircraft, I agree, however ordinary aircraft are
> not capable of vertical takeoff and landing. Helicopters have much
> higher wing area and are therefore more efficient fliers. The advertised
> version of the Moller aircar has the only real lifting surface that I can
> see arranged so far aft as to be practially useless for straight and
> level flight: it would need to rely on large amount of hard-won
> diverted thrust from the two forward ducted fans for lift. What
> is that about?

Not so. The ducts around the fans are made to act as ring wings in level
flight (and the vanes in the ducts give lift too). The rear wing design
is no different from a Vari-EZ or other canard type aircraft, only in
this case the canards are the fan ducts...

> Mike, that 20 MPG number is a fantasy bud. Otherwise
> its back to aerodynamics 101 for me. {8^D spike

Its my impression that in vertical lift mode (as well as in level
flight) the vanes at the rear of the ducts gain significant lift. I
don't know the surface area of these duct vanes, but they are not
readily apparent from the currently available photos of the aircraft.

Heck, contact Moller and ask them.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:59 MDT