It says more about where they came from - Apple, when Jobs came back, was in distress and focus and vision were very important. Google has pretty much never crashed, it just kept amassing more money. So of course he feels no panic, he's never had to rebuild after a company tanks. But in the long run I think focus wins out...usually. But he has the money and the attention span of a kid perhaps, so it keeps him off the street. ; >
It says more about where they came from - Apple, when Jobs came back, was in distress and focus and vision were very important. Google has pretty much never crashed, it just kept amassing more money. So of course he feels no panic, he's never had to rebuild after a company tanks. But in the long run I think focus wins out...usually. But he has the money and the attention span of a kid perhaps, so it keeps him off the street. ; >
Google's R&D spending to actual product release is very very very low, depressing profit (and probably long term revenue). But they make it up in PE from all those unicorn ranch crap.
If Apple was like that they'd likely be praised for shoveling unicorn poop like Google...
Play that video tmay posted. Fast forward to 2:15 and hear the chief enginner of the project say: "So what we are waiting for is until the lithium battery technology can SIGNIFICANTLY improve it's energy density..." I
Actually, I think we need some entirely new method of storing energy because lithium is not that abundant and is only produced in a few regions. The top three reserves of lithium combined is only 10 million metric tonnes. At the current rate of output it would last about 100 years. Of course the rate of output will certainly increase very rapidly with the surge in electric car production. It may only be a decade or so until lithium becomes quite rare in its natural state, spodumene. Lithium power is a dead end even with recycling. We need an energy storage technology that uses a far more abundant element or at least one that can significantly increase the energy to weight ratio.
Compare Carter's work with Juan de la Cierva's early 1930's autogyro. Improved materials mostly, but the same approach.
McGinnis' Synergy looks very promising; the box-wing and other drag-reducing features that he's working on have been shown to work previously, if not all of them collected in one aircraft. Frankly, the biggest problem for him is that it looks pretty unconventional, and that sort of thing has killed a lot of aviation projects in the past.
Moller, on the other hand, is an amiable monomaniac who's been working on his ducted fan thingie for decades. The biggest problem (not the not the only one by far) is the gadget's controllability, and he's never seemed to get a handle on that. Lose an engine or three in flight, and if you can't eject, you'll be digging a hole pretty quickly.
I think that you will find that tilt rotor or alternately, tilting ducted fan designs will win out in the market. Cartercopter will end up having the cost and complexity of a helicopter, and Synergy Aircraft looks to be an efficient (un) conventional light aircraft design, not a V/STOL aircraft.
The Cartercopter isn't much more than a slicked-up Cierva autogyro; autogyros have been around since the 1930's, and they're a good deal simpler mechanically than helicopters. They're not as good vertically as a helicopter, and not as good in horizontal cruise as a conventional airplane. They have a niche, but just that, a niche where they fit.
Carter's proposals for larger commuter or fire fighting models begin to look more like things like the Fairey Rotodyne, or full-on compound helicopters, which have some historical record, mostly not very successful. Maybe they'll get the small model to market; I suspect it's got the best chance of success, if only a small segment of general aviation.
Wow, 4 downvotes but not one of those cowards wants to challenge what I post?
Flying cars ARE stupid. They are not fuel efficient, they are very costly to manufacture AND certify (and they will require certification), will require a complete overhaul of FAA regulations to be allowed to fly (and people think rules regarding autonomous cars are going to get complicated) and don't actually solve any transportation problems. They are the ultimate luxury gadget for the wealthy.
I don't think you understand. These people will live forever and be able to develop antigravity.
The Cartercopter isn't much more than a slicked-up Cierva autogyro
I think you are missing the innovation of the jump take off using energy stored in the weighted rotor tips, and of the efficiency gained by the reduced drag of the slowed rotors.
The Moller Aircar is a stupid idea and an engineering and investing black hole, but there are a number of self-piloted quadrocopter-style flying taxi companies currently developing working models that look very promising. One is Chinese and they demoed a working model last year. "Drone taxis" are almost certainly going to come into use sooner than people think. And if for some reason they are blocked from use as taxis, law enforcement will probably use them.
This project's purpose is probably to find what the issues are to build a flying car, not actually building it. Automated flying cars might work, but first we need to find a different way of propulsion.
The Federal Aviation Administration is the biggest issue/obstacle to personal flying cars. And once idiots get behind the yoke of them, the FAA will ground them or seriously control them. (See controls put in place for drones due to idiots flying them over private homes and into emergency work areas.)
Comments
Funny
I'm thinking that's all Google really is!
And yes, flying cars are extremely inefficient, dangerous and well they're going to be noisy too.... Good grief.
But they make it up in PE from all those unicorn ranch crap.
If Apple was like that they'd likely be praised for shoveling unicorn poop like Google...
Think differently....
McGinnis' Synergy looks very promising; the box-wing and other drag-reducing features that he's working on have been shown to work previously, if not all of them collected in one aircraft. Frankly, the biggest problem for him is that it looks pretty unconventional, and that sort of thing has killed a lot of aviation projects in the past.
Moller, on the other hand, is an amiable monomaniac who's been working on his ducted fan thingie for decades. The biggest problem (not the not the only one by far) is the gadget's controllability, and he's never seemed to get a handle on that. Lose an engine or three in flight, and if you can't eject, you'll be digging a hole pretty quickly.
The Cartercopter isn't much more than a slicked-up Cierva autogyro; autogyros have been around since the 1930's, and they're a good deal simpler mechanically than helicopters. They're not as good vertically as a helicopter, and not as good in horizontal cruise as a conventional airplane. They have a niche, but just that, a niche where they fit.
Carter's proposals for larger commuter or fire fighting models begin to look more like things like the Fairey Rotodyne, or full-on compound helicopters, which have some historical record, mostly not very successful. Maybe they'll get the small model to market; I suspect it's got the best chance of success, if only a small segment of general aviation.