"Due to aerodynamic effects in the duct within which the propellers rotated, the platform was dynamically stable, even though the pilot and center of gravity of the platform were fairly high up. In testing, the prototypes flew well enough, but the U.S. Army judged them to be impractical as combat vehicles as they were small, limited in speed and only barely flew out of the ground cushion effect."
Seems like it wouldn't be so great for going over mountains and such.
People have tried to make flying cars since the 60's and yet there has never been a successful product in the niche.
What people seem to overlook is that making a flying car is easy. Making it so that the FCC will allow my mom to fly it and land it in her garage is next to impossible.
If only accredited pilots can buy one the production price won't come down, and if you can only land and take off from an airport as a pilot in an expensive flying device, well then you've invented.... a plane... Congratulations you're competing with Boeing, Gulfstream and Learjet on their own turf - a highly political arena where money and conections count more than anything else.
Sans magical technology (nanotech perhaps) planes will always be significantly more expensive than automobiles.
Consider two scenarios. In scenario 1 I buy a beater car and don't maintain it. What's the worst common scenario that can happen? I end up broken down on the side of the road. In scenario 2 I buy a beater hover car and don't maintain it. What's the worst common scenario that can happen? It falls out of the sky killing all the passengers and possibly people on the ground.
This is why used planes keep their value so well, because every single one of them must be kept up quite well in order to be flight worthy.
If you watch the video, it specifically addresses these two concerns -- it is an ultra-light aircraft so a pilot's license isn't necessary, and it's VTOL so you don't need a runway or airport.
Not saying it will work, but these specific objections aren't relevant to this particular whirlygig.
I live about 2500 feet from an airport (in fact, my home is pretty much in the landing flight plan); I'm not sure how the airport authority would feel about this much less an ultralight.
In fact, thinking about it, I'm not sure how much time a flying car would save me. Even though I'm half a mile from an airport, and work is only four miles from an airport, the two airports are 12 miles apart. Right now, it takes around 35 minutes to drive. With a flying car, it might take, what? 20 minutes? I suspect any time I saved might be taken up with flight clearance.
Check out the Terrafugia:
http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html
I am skeptical as you are about the possibility of a practical flying car, but I've been watching this one for a couple of years and it seems on the right track.
It'll be an LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) which makes pilot certification and maintenance simpler and cheaper.
It would still have to be landed at an airport, but I think it's pretty neat nevertheless.
"Why be stuck in two dimensions when you can fly in three!". I don't know about the rest of you, but given how awful people drive while constrained to two dimensions, I'd be truly terrified to see the state of things if travel like this became ubiquitous.
Personally, I still hold out hope for cars that can (and are required to) drive themselves, at least on major roads. Get that figured out, and then we can talk about flying.
I'm a little disappointed by the cynical comments. This is exactly the type of innovation we should be encouraging. Dismissing it by saying "It won't work," or "It's next to impossible," doesn't help anyone and doesn't move us forward.
We have an impending energy crisis and we're dreaming about taking our lazy asses around in flying car?! Jesus, instead of solving grid lock with fantasy of everybody flying to work (I'm sure the sky will be cluttered if it's really affordable to fly, so there goes solving your problem) why don't we concentrate on creating an efficient public transit system, something that would save us fossil fuel and help with traffic.
"Ironically, it was the Hiller Platform's inherent stability that ultimately killed the project. The problem was that the platform had a tendency to right itself. Going forward depended on the machine's continued lean in the direction of flight, but it constantly wanted to straighten up and this made it almost impossible to maintain a consistent heading"
How do you plan to overcome that shortcoming? Gyroscopes or something?
Also, why does your platform use the slats instead of a cone duct to direct airflow like the original design?
"SkyFly is infinitely more stable than any helicopter. Because it is so stable, SkyFly makes flying much easier for everyone!"
Says the designer about an unbuilt prototype.
You know the V-22 Osprey is "just" two helicopter motors mounted on pins on the end of a winged prop plane. Freaking simple.
And a rocket motor is just two tanks of propellant pumped through a big blast proof cone.
Dual counter rotating prop has lower efficiency than a single big prop, it just doesn't have a net torque on the overall vehicle. I just can't see a 6' diameter rotor being strong enough to get far off the ground cushion, much less 2x6' with all the turbulence that comes with it.
Actually if you look at my comment above you'll see that the video I posted discusses that the problem with the original platform was that it was too stable.
On the other hand the third video I posted shows a modern miniature version of the original craft. This modern version isn't nearly as stable looking as the original. I can only assume that this is either due to it's size or lack of a duct. My best is on the lack of a duct. That being said, the design for this kickstarter project uses louvres instead of a duct, so I'm wondering if he can achieve the stability of the original Hiller Flying Platform.
-As somebody mentioned, these things can't fly that high. Is it going to be dangerous to try to fly it over tall houses or buildings?
-Even if you can get above street level, is the thrust going to, say, ruin your neighbor's garden? You could have a problem with smaller communities banning these, even if it stays legal.
Alternately for the $20,000 he could get an old cessna 172, learn how to maintain it and get his A&P mechanic license and have a safe and reliable way to fly during nice weather.
Still would need an "airport car" to get to work from the airport though.
All money invested in this will be completely wasted. It's a nice dream. But flying cars the general public can use are at least 20 years away. There needs to be a completely automated pilot system that protects you from the 10 million things that can go wrong, windstorms, hailstorms, bird hits, maintenance checks, fuel levels. Pilots get formal educations on how to fly because one mistake and you die. It is no different with this device.
"Due to aerodynamic effects in the duct within which the propellers rotated, the platform was dynamically stable, even though the pilot and center of gravity of the platform were fairly high up. In testing, the prototypes flew well enough, but the U.S. Army judged them to be impractical as combat vehicles as they were small, limited in speed and only barely flew out of the ground cushion effect."
Seems like it wouldn't be so great for going over mountains and such.