So my dad sent me yet another link to www.moller.com. I read the website, and their numbers. Those engines are obsolete. I've seen a lot of press on these sky cars and it's time to shout back. All the numbers are on the website so you rotorheads should be able to see right through them.

POWER
The Moller engine gets 150HP - before exhaust losses (10-30HP) - from 1.3L and 120lbs. The '86-'88 RX-7 gets 146HP - AFTER exhaust losses - with a 1.3L engine that 2 people can lift without an engine hoist. The RX-8 Wankel gets 238HP, still at only 1.3L. Moller claims 20mpg at 200mph, down from 28mpg.

FUEL ECONOMY
Moller's engine numbers showed up to 31mpg @ 25HP & 70mph (typical freeway HP & speed). Not bad. Mileage is inversely proportional to velocity squared, with ground friction playing an insignificant role at freeway speeds or greater. That means the sky car needs a drag coefficient of ~0.04 to acheive 20mpg at 275mph (which is doable). Mileage at 375mpg would be 11mpg.

EMISSIONS
The "low" emissions posted on that website showed were 3-4 times the legal limit for a smog test. After adding a catalytic converter, the emissions dropped to slightly over the legal limit. The emissions from the RX-8 are at least 10 times lower than the limit. My smog test shows less than half the legal limit.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Mazda has already used many fuels in their rotary engines, including hydrogen. They sell dual fuel hydrogen/gasoline promotion vehicles. Moller is doing new research in diesel, however.

Moller's Wankel engines are outdated by about 25 years.

I first saw the Skycar in 1990, slated for release in 1994. In 1998 they complained about needing to convert the fan flow from laminar to turbulant: My dad complained that that was a very basic problem and showed that they hadn't gotten very far. He's an aerospace engineer at Boeing with a degree in aeronautical engineering. Since then Moller has taken million dollar deposits on sky cars nearly every year, promising to return the deposits should the sky car not be released by the end of the year. Take about a nice no interest loan. The sky car appears in multiple magazines and TV programs each year, but so far no investors have shown interest. Hmm...


It's kinda like the video phone touted in the 50's. In the future we'll all be flying skycars, everything will be solar-powered with photovoltaics (the worst alternative energy), LEDs will light everything (the most expensive light, and less efficient than flourescents), etc., etc.

Here's the real future, according to current technologies under development: smaller & more aerodynamic ground cars, more efficient gasoline engines, alternative (expensive) sources to pump petroleum from, and HID/Xenon/better-flourescent lighting plus more energy efficient refrigerators since fridges are the real power users. Oh, and thanks to Moller we'll have 27cc rotary power tools - the source of boasting for more planned production engines than Mazda - and the military will have rotary diesel power generators.

Sorry McFly, no hovercars in 2005. Not as pretty on the headlines, eh?

 

yeah man! It's 2006 where's my damn flying car! All the movies said we'd have flying cars by now....I'm really disappointed.

 

I've heard tell that Moller drinks.

 

Moller is a nice guy, but a scam artist. I don't necessarily believe he's lying per se - it's entirely possible he believes in what he's doing. Nonetheless, he's at least moderately misguided. And, I happen to know, there are a lot of things he's done, and things he's doing, which aren't exactly on the up and up. Believe me, I've got some inside info...

 

I should also mention the one good part - the mileage numbers posted in the FAQs - are under ideal circumstances. I estimated 31-38mpg freeway from these, but even a hybrid electric Moller rotary would not quite acheive 31mpg. Real world mileage would probably be around half: 15-16mpg freeway. The sky car needs a drag coefficient of 0.01 to acheive 20mpg at 275mph. That's the same as an air foil, which is quite impossible. BUT if he shrinks it smaller than a regular car - which it probably is - he only needs 0.02. That takes a very aerodynamic shape, which it seems he has.

With all the press he's getting, I don't fully blame Moller either. I think the media needs a hovercar, robots, etc., etc. to harp about. OTOH I think it's wrong to give in to hype. It's like those family shows where all of little Mary Kate's friends thinks she's so cool cause she did something. But she didn't, and she lies about it to stay popular. We need Bob Sagat to set Moller straight.

I just woke up from a dream where I was in a dance-musical involving Italian-style honor among guys dressed up like lions. The lead was vindicating himself. He claimed he had not failed to show hospitality to the old-lion man in the middle of the night. He did not deserve his shame. I was one of the woodland animals just trying to get some sleep... Hey, I just pulled an all-nighter on a class project a couple days ago, okay

 

yeah moller is nice guy, but with all the SEC suits for missleading investors in 2003, you gotta wounder whats going on.

I dont think the skycar will ever make full flight. he need to update to todays tech. those 25 year old engines are not going to cut it.

 

I think that part of the reason for the old design is the FAA. He is trying to get the car approved for doing more than just flying on the end of a tether. If the engines are FAA approved to do atleast that much, then I too would leave them alone and focus on other areas of the car. Only after the car is allowed to be used for its intended purpose should there be further developmant to meet fuel mileage and hp goals.