This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moller M400 Skycar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
== Noise ==
In the section discussing the noise of the vehicle, 65dB seems really, really low to me. I recently took my bone stock car to an autocross where they measured everyone's car output. The cap for the cars was 92 dB; mine clocked in between 70db and 85db, depending on if I was on the gas or not when they measured it. Is there a distance component to the 65 dB measurement? Depending on the distance, the flying car might be quieter than normal cars (not likely, but still). Riddlefox 13:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't address what to me is the most significant issue of all with a 'skycar' of any description -- How do you prevent it from colliding with low flying General Aviation aircraft, helicopters, and for that matter, other skycars? Even assuming that a skycar with performance similar to Moller's claims can be produced (which I have profound doubts about), how will 'traffic control' work? Given the quality of driving (or lack thereof) I see every day on the highway, I shudder to think what would happen if some of these cretins were operating in more than two dimensions. If an entirely automatic system of traffic control is required, it would likely be horrendously expensive, and would have to account for everything else in the air. This is probably a deal-breaker all by itself. Opinions?
From FAQ on Moller web site archived by archive.org in March 2000 [2]:
4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next two years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away
From FAQ on Moller web site, June 2006: [3]
4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next three years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away.
-- John Nagle 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
They seem to be taking deposits on these things, refundable if FAA flight certification does not occur before 01/01/2009. This seems relatively new. My recollection was that a year ago they were too far away to take orders. TMLutas 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Recently, the article has been updated by Spfrazer ( talk · contribs) and Smackycat ( talk · contribs). Both are new users and have edited only this article. The Smackycat edits were primarily to the links, and needed rework, but the primary new link from that editor (to an MSNBC article) was properly inserted into the article.
The Spfrazer edits were more of a rearrangement, with some additional uncited information about the Skycar. There were also some edits which made the flight testing history of the Skycar look more successful than it has been. (It has never flown untethered, and it's been three years since the tethered hover demo.) Those edits were reverted, due to lack of sources, but if a source can be found for Moller's future plans, that info can go back in. -- John Nagle 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Relevant to the discussion above, Smackycat has added the large section of POV text below:
I reverted it, since it is POV and unsourced. Do with it what you will, but don't reinsert it without NPOV-ing it and sourcing it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We have some new edits by EllasBates, a new user who has edited no other articles. Some Moller PR material was added, and has been removed. There's a certain similarity with the Smackycat/SFrazier situation. Do we need a sockpuppet check? -- John Nagle 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There were some bad "ref" sections in the article, now fixed. Unterminated "ref" sections will eat and hide the remainder of the article up to the next </ref> or <ref/> close tag. The whole "Presales" section had disappeared into limbo. So watch those close tags. Thanks. -- John Nagle 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Moller has failed to produce any machine that flies. The only demonstration approaching flight was a "hover" performed by a Skycar prototype that was tethered to a crane, "for insurance purposes" Moller claims.
This is plausible. To take off, he would require FAA certification (impossible to get) or a waiver (difficult to get). There's a significant likelihood it could lose control and crash into things far away and destroy the only prototype for sure. There's only a slightly greater power required to fly much higher and a simple control problem could have sent it crashing to the ground hundred of feet or miles away no problem.
I looked at the video and see no indication the tether is bearing any of the weight of the machine.
Basically it is totally reasonable for a VTOL test to be conducted with a tether. The article's wording implies there is an element of fraud.
It is actually remarkable, especially since the engine design is unique and is shown to function, just nowhere near his claims. Nor is the weight of the machine documented, is there anyone on board? Lifting an empty shell with a minimum of fuel on board would not mean as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Miller ( talk • contribs)
Interestingly, as of right now Moller has not made the usual update to push forward the certification date for the M400 -- At this moment, it still says "Certification Date: Not later than December 31, 2008". Mind you, the web site still says copyright 2006, so I assume it hasn't been updated in a while. (That in itself speaks volumes, I suppose). Plane nutz ( talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Took out some material from anons about a new Moller press release. [8]. That's just a reprint of a Moller press release, not a reliable source. It's a "real soon now" announcment; they haven't closed the deal. For more details see this SEC filing: [9]. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Moller is only 45 days away from missing their "FAA Certification Deadline" on the M400, after which they have to return any deposits they've taken for the thing. [10]. -- John Nagle ( talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an article here [14] from the National Post (the article also appeared in other Canwest newspapers) which references the Moller Skycar. It describes the Skycar as a "failure", and the Moller company as follows: "The Moller Company still exists; however, it's no longer believable enough to gain investors." Is this worth incorporating into the article?-- Plane nutz ( talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
According to [16], Paul Moller has declared chapter 11 bankruptcy. I'm not sure if this is him as an individual (can an individual, as distinct from a corporation, declare chapter 11?), or does the article mean that Moller International has declared Chapter 11? I have not added this to the article because of this uncertainty -- Perhaps someone more knowledgable could update the entry accordingly?-- Plane nutz ( talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The Moller International webpage ( [17]) has been substantially re-organized recently. Some of the references within the article will have to be adjusted to point at the new locations, and I suspect that some of the material previously referenced is no longer available.
-- Plane nutz ( talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a kind reminder that this talk page isn't a forum. Anything not related to article improvement doesn't belong here-perhaps move it to your own talk page, which doesn't get subjected to this guideline. Jasper Deng ( talk) 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This source may not be trustworthy, as much of the lower half or so of the article is copied from this Wikipedia article (it even has the [6][7] which indicates it was a simple copy and paste). The only thing I think I can derive from this source is the existence of a test flight. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone verify the authenticity of this on their website
http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:skycar-manufacturer-moller-international-announces-scheduled-test-flight-&catid=35:moller-news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.175.43 ( talk) 18:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't get confused, in all the Moller hyperbolae, between the Volantor/Neuera flying saucer and the Skycar. Petebutt ( talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Random spaces/no spaces and capitalization. (M-dash should have no spaces around it, unlike n-dash.) -- 31.45.79.44 ( talk) 01:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm proposing that these three pages be merged together into a single page called Moller International, due to the degree of overlap of the content between the three pages. I feel that the three separate pages are redundant, and that a single page that addresses the various craft designed by Paul Moller would make more sense. Probably the best way to do this would be to merge all three articles to this page, and then rename this page. Opinions? Plane nutz ( talk) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Moller is trying to raise money again. See the notes from the 2011 annual meeting. [19] [20](Backup copy). An SEC filing has been made for this. [21]. Moller writes "Yesterday (12/9/2011) we received a comment letter from the SEC regarding the offering. We will be reviewing it and determine its impact next week. Initial impressions remain positive." The SEC EDGAR records indicate that there's been no action since the filing last November.
There's also something about a joint venture with an unnamed company in China. See slide 14 of the notes from the shareholders meeting. "JV’s total investment for first, second and third installment for the Moller Skycar Project = 84.5 billion Rmb ($13.7 billion USD) Production plans through 2018 with goal of reaching 100,000 units per year".
Meanwhile, Moller tried auctioning off the 1960s "Discojet" prototype on eBay. [22] -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
On the Moller website in the news section, it says, dated January 24, 2013, "Moller Forms Joint Venture with Athena Technologies, Inc." http://moller.com/dev/index.php/14-latest-news/57-athena-jv It seems Athena has an article about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena_Technologies -- 95.34.149.128 ( talk) 01:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Moller announced today that he is going to make a big announcement on Nov. 5 on a radio show. [25]. Also today, there was an edit which deleted some cited negative information about Moller. [26] Please watch this article for unusual edits, PR, deletions, etc. (Since the announcement will be on radio, it probably won't involve an actual flight. That would be worthy of TV coverage.) John Nagle ( talk) 05:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The Moller web site has been redesigned. Different layout, same hype:
Some new editors have been editing the article, and may not be aware of the history. Moller has been claiming a flying car Real Soon Now since 1974. John Nagle ( talk) 07:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Moller International announced this joint venture over two years ago, but nothing appears to have actually resulted. Should this section be removed? Voodude ( talk) 10:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty new to Wikipedia, and I haven't really figured out how all these templates and stuff work. I noticed that in the specifications where it gives the total power, it's confusingly worded. It says "Powerplant: 8 × 530cc Rotapower rotary engines, 0.15lbs thrust per HP, with electric motor back-up equivalent to 120HP (and short-term boosts of up to 900lb thrust with both rotary and electric engine powering the prop), 180 hp (134 kW) each" I would propose changing that to "Powerplant: 8 × 530cc Rotapower rotary engines, 180hp (134kW) each; 0.15lbs thrust per HP, with electric motor back-up equivalent to 120HP (and short-term boosts of up to 900lb thrust with both rotary and electric engine powering the prop)" I tried to change it, but for some reason, the horsepower has to be entered separately from the "Powerplant" entry. If you try to delete the number and just insert it in after "Rotapower rotary engines", the entire "Powerplant" entry just disappears. I'm not sure why it's necessary to do this in such a complex fashion, but there must be some way for someone who knows what they are doing to fit it into the template, or use a different template that allows for two separate engine systems to be listed individually. Because the way it's written right now is convoluted. It makes you wonder which number refers to which engine, or if it's a total number, and initially, when you see "thrust per horsepower" but no "horsepower", you get frustrated.
Second issue, using the numbers it DOES give, I come to a very unlikely total thrust number. Assuming 180hp per engine, and four engines, that's a total of 720hp. It says ".15lbs thrust per hp", so 720 x .15 = 108. 108lbs of thrust TOTAL? That won't even lift the weight of the typical driver, let alone the combined weight of the airframe, engines, thrust units and passengers/cargo. I suspect that there is a typo or mistake, however, since there are numerous helicopters that can fly with far less than 720hp available. And I can't see how adding a further four 120hp electric motors into the mix is going to make up for the missing 780lbs of thrust...it says "900lbs thrust total, combined", but I don't see any possible way to reconcile that with the ".15lbs per hp". So, someone may want to take a look at that. AnnaGoFast ( talk) 03:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I added a line to the lede pointing out that no Moller aircraft has ever successfully flown free. The article can give the impression that some of this actually flew. (And yes, tethered hover has been demonstrated.) John Nagle ( talk) 20:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moller M400 Skycar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Documentation in support of the notion that the "Skycar" is and has been one big scam since 1974: https://www.downside.com/scams/moller/ 82.253.112.192 ( talk) 01:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
So 40 or 50 years of trying? We've got both, from (partially dead link) articles from 2016-19. Might depend on when you start counting backwards, and when the initial idea progressed to being a project. Still, NO STARTING YEARS anywhere in the article, nor a history of the project! It strengthens the impression that this was either initially misused by Moller Co. as an advertisement page, trying to hide the failures, or that it's the product of an overzealous fan. We need the facts. Arminden ( talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moller M400 Skycar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
== Noise ==
In the section discussing the noise of the vehicle, 65dB seems really, really low to me. I recently took my bone stock car to an autocross where they measured everyone's car output. The cap for the cars was 92 dB; mine clocked in between 70db and 85db, depending on if I was on the gas or not when they measured it. Is there a distance component to the 65 dB measurement? Depending on the distance, the flying car might be quieter than normal cars (not likely, but still). Riddlefox 13:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't address what to me is the most significant issue of all with a 'skycar' of any description -- How do you prevent it from colliding with low flying General Aviation aircraft, helicopters, and for that matter, other skycars? Even assuming that a skycar with performance similar to Moller's claims can be produced (which I have profound doubts about), how will 'traffic control' work? Given the quality of driving (or lack thereof) I see every day on the highway, I shudder to think what would happen if some of these cretins were operating in more than two dimensions. If an entirely automatic system of traffic control is required, it would likely be horrendously expensive, and would have to account for everything else in the air. This is probably a deal-breaker all by itself. Opinions?
From FAQ on Moller web site archived by archive.org in March 2000 [2]:
4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next two years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away
From FAQ on Moller web site, June 2006: [3]
4.1. When will M400 be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next three years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away.
-- John Nagle 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
They seem to be taking deposits on these things, refundable if FAA flight certification does not occur before 01/01/2009. This seems relatively new. My recollection was that a year ago they were too far away to take orders. TMLutas 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Recently, the article has been updated by Spfrazer ( talk · contribs) and Smackycat ( talk · contribs). Both are new users and have edited only this article. The Smackycat edits were primarily to the links, and needed rework, but the primary new link from that editor (to an MSNBC article) was properly inserted into the article.
The Spfrazer edits were more of a rearrangement, with some additional uncited information about the Skycar. There were also some edits which made the flight testing history of the Skycar look more successful than it has been. (It has never flown untethered, and it's been three years since the tethered hover demo.) Those edits were reverted, due to lack of sources, but if a source can be found for Moller's future plans, that info can go back in. -- John Nagle 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Relevant to the discussion above, Smackycat has added the large section of POV text below:
I reverted it, since it is POV and unsourced. Do with it what you will, but don't reinsert it without NPOV-ing it and sourcing it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We have some new edits by EllasBates, a new user who has edited no other articles. Some Moller PR material was added, and has been removed. There's a certain similarity with the Smackycat/SFrazier situation. Do we need a sockpuppet check? -- John Nagle 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There were some bad "ref" sections in the article, now fixed. Unterminated "ref" sections will eat and hide the remainder of the article up to the next </ref> or <ref/> close tag. The whole "Presales" section had disappeared into limbo. So watch those close tags. Thanks. -- John Nagle 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Moller has failed to produce any machine that flies. The only demonstration approaching flight was a "hover" performed by a Skycar prototype that was tethered to a crane, "for insurance purposes" Moller claims.
This is plausible. To take off, he would require FAA certification (impossible to get) or a waiver (difficult to get). There's a significant likelihood it could lose control and crash into things far away and destroy the only prototype for sure. There's only a slightly greater power required to fly much higher and a simple control problem could have sent it crashing to the ground hundred of feet or miles away no problem.
I looked at the video and see no indication the tether is bearing any of the weight of the machine.
Basically it is totally reasonable for a VTOL test to be conducted with a tether. The article's wording implies there is an element of fraud.
It is actually remarkable, especially since the engine design is unique and is shown to function, just nowhere near his claims. Nor is the weight of the machine documented, is there anyone on board? Lifting an empty shell with a minimum of fuel on board would not mean as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Miller ( talk • contribs)
Interestingly, as of right now Moller has not made the usual update to push forward the certification date for the M400 -- At this moment, it still says "Certification Date: Not later than December 31, 2008". Mind you, the web site still says copyright 2006, so I assume it hasn't been updated in a while. (That in itself speaks volumes, I suppose). Plane nutz ( talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Took out some material from anons about a new Moller press release. [8]. That's just a reprint of a Moller press release, not a reliable source. It's a "real soon now" announcment; they haven't closed the deal. For more details see this SEC filing: [9]. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Moller is only 45 days away from missing their "FAA Certification Deadline" on the M400, after which they have to return any deposits they've taken for the thing. [10]. -- John Nagle ( talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an article here [14] from the National Post (the article also appeared in other Canwest newspapers) which references the Moller Skycar. It describes the Skycar as a "failure", and the Moller company as follows: "The Moller Company still exists; however, it's no longer believable enough to gain investors." Is this worth incorporating into the article?-- Plane nutz ( talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
According to [16], Paul Moller has declared chapter 11 bankruptcy. I'm not sure if this is him as an individual (can an individual, as distinct from a corporation, declare chapter 11?), or does the article mean that Moller International has declared Chapter 11? I have not added this to the article because of this uncertainty -- Perhaps someone more knowledgable could update the entry accordingly?-- Plane nutz ( talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The Moller International webpage ( [17]) has been substantially re-organized recently. Some of the references within the article will have to be adjusted to point at the new locations, and I suspect that some of the material previously referenced is no longer available.
-- Plane nutz ( talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a kind reminder that this talk page isn't a forum. Anything not related to article improvement doesn't belong here-perhaps move it to your own talk page, which doesn't get subjected to this guideline. Jasper Deng ( talk) 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This source may not be trustworthy, as much of the lower half or so of the article is copied from this Wikipedia article (it even has the [6][7] which indicates it was a simple copy and paste). The only thing I think I can derive from this source is the existence of a test flight. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone verify the authenticity of this on their website
http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:skycar-manufacturer-moller-international-announces-scheduled-test-flight-&catid=35:moller-news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.175.43 ( talk) 18:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't get confused, in all the Moller hyperbolae, between the Volantor/Neuera flying saucer and the Skycar. Petebutt ( talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Random spaces/no spaces and capitalization. (M-dash should have no spaces around it, unlike n-dash.) -- 31.45.79.44 ( talk) 01:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm proposing that these three pages be merged together into a single page called Moller International, due to the degree of overlap of the content between the three pages. I feel that the three separate pages are redundant, and that a single page that addresses the various craft designed by Paul Moller would make more sense. Probably the best way to do this would be to merge all three articles to this page, and then rename this page. Opinions? Plane nutz ( talk) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Moller is trying to raise money again. See the notes from the 2011 annual meeting. [19] [20](Backup copy). An SEC filing has been made for this. [21]. Moller writes "Yesterday (12/9/2011) we received a comment letter from the SEC regarding the offering. We will be reviewing it and determine its impact next week. Initial impressions remain positive." The SEC EDGAR records indicate that there's been no action since the filing last November.
There's also something about a joint venture with an unnamed company in China. See slide 14 of the notes from the shareholders meeting. "JV’s total investment for first, second and third installment for the Moller Skycar Project = 84.5 billion Rmb ($13.7 billion USD) Production plans through 2018 with goal of reaching 100,000 units per year".
Meanwhile, Moller tried auctioning off the 1960s "Discojet" prototype on eBay. [22] -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
On the Moller website in the news section, it says, dated January 24, 2013, "Moller Forms Joint Venture with Athena Technologies, Inc." http://moller.com/dev/index.php/14-latest-news/57-athena-jv It seems Athena has an article about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena_Technologies -- 95.34.149.128 ( talk) 01:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Moller announced today that he is going to make a big announcement on Nov. 5 on a radio show. [25]. Also today, there was an edit which deleted some cited negative information about Moller. [26] Please watch this article for unusual edits, PR, deletions, etc. (Since the announcement will be on radio, it probably won't involve an actual flight. That would be worthy of TV coverage.) John Nagle ( talk) 05:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The Moller web site has been redesigned. Different layout, same hype:
Some new editors have been editing the article, and may not be aware of the history. Moller has been claiming a flying car Real Soon Now since 1974. John Nagle ( talk) 07:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Moller International announced this joint venture over two years ago, but nothing appears to have actually resulted. Should this section be removed? Voodude ( talk) 10:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty new to Wikipedia, and I haven't really figured out how all these templates and stuff work. I noticed that in the specifications where it gives the total power, it's confusingly worded. It says "Powerplant: 8 × 530cc Rotapower rotary engines, 0.15lbs thrust per HP, with electric motor back-up equivalent to 120HP (and short-term boosts of up to 900lb thrust with both rotary and electric engine powering the prop), 180 hp (134 kW) each" I would propose changing that to "Powerplant: 8 × 530cc Rotapower rotary engines, 180hp (134kW) each; 0.15lbs thrust per HP, with electric motor back-up equivalent to 120HP (and short-term boosts of up to 900lb thrust with both rotary and electric engine powering the prop)" I tried to change it, but for some reason, the horsepower has to be entered separately from the "Powerplant" entry. If you try to delete the number and just insert it in after "Rotapower rotary engines", the entire "Powerplant" entry just disappears. I'm not sure why it's necessary to do this in such a complex fashion, but there must be some way for someone who knows what they are doing to fit it into the template, or use a different template that allows for two separate engine systems to be listed individually. Because the way it's written right now is convoluted. It makes you wonder which number refers to which engine, or if it's a total number, and initially, when you see "thrust per horsepower" but no "horsepower", you get frustrated.
Second issue, using the numbers it DOES give, I come to a very unlikely total thrust number. Assuming 180hp per engine, and four engines, that's a total of 720hp. It says ".15lbs thrust per hp", so 720 x .15 = 108. 108lbs of thrust TOTAL? That won't even lift the weight of the typical driver, let alone the combined weight of the airframe, engines, thrust units and passengers/cargo. I suspect that there is a typo or mistake, however, since there are numerous helicopters that can fly with far less than 720hp available. And I can't see how adding a further four 120hp electric motors into the mix is going to make up for the missing 780lbs of thrust...it says "900lbs thrust total, combined", but I don't see any possible way to reconcile that with the ".15lbs per hp". So, someone may want to take a look at that. AnnaGoFast ( talk) 03:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I added a line to the lede pointing out that no Moller aircraft has ever successfully flown free. The article can give the impression that some of this actually flew. (And yes, tethered hover has been demonstrated.) John Nagle ( talk) 20:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moller M400 Skycar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Documentation in support of the notion that the "Skycar" is and has been one big scam since 1974: https://www.downside.com/scams/moller/ 82.253.112.192 ( talk) 01:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
So 40 or 50 years of trying? We've got both, from (partially dead link) articles from 2016-19. Might depend on when you start counting backwards, and when the initial idea progressed to being a project. Still, NO STARTING YEARS anywhere in the article, nor a history of the project! It strengthens the impression that this was either initially misused by Moller Co. as an advertisement page, trying to hide the failures, or that it's the product of an overzealous fan. We need the facts. Arminden ( talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)