You've explained why helicopters today aren't being widely used and
elided any reference to potential growth... which if investments were
made in this technology, would result in improvements in the features
you speak about.

On Jun 25, 11:52 am, Williamknowsbest gmail.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M200X

The first vehicle off the assembly line was supposed to cost
a paltry $500 thousand. If only 0.1%% of millionaires and 0.1%%
of multi-millionaires, totaling 3,004 in the U.S, bought a Moller
Skycar M200X, at the starting price of $500 thousand each,
how much would the assembly line costs be reduced for the
future consumers?

I think that the inventor, Paul Moller, is still holding out to
those who wish to reproduce the invention material (not the
patent) if and when mass production should start.

American

Williamknowsbest wrote:

They've tried to make improvements over the years, realizing the huge
profits that could be realized if a personal helicopter that made sense
could be made.. but the basic energy use profile of a VTOL...

On Jun 22, 12:14 pm, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:

And so little if anything of "Williamknowsbest" has yet to directly
benefit another living or soon to be prematurely dead soul.

Even our Zionist/Nazi DARPA (aka New World Order) has been doing a
better job than Williamknowsbest.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jun 24, 7:14 am, Williamknowsbest gmail.com> wrote:

The Hiller YH-32 Hornet had a 23 foot diameter rotor, not 30 foot as
you attest. The loading was extremely light, so that rotor could have
been reduced - since the lifting capacity was huge. There were 18
built - I just saw one recently at Dayton's Wright Patterson AFB
Museum.

The ramjet based tip rotors while simple to construct, operated
subsonically, so efficency was very very low - this limited range and
duration. Noise was a problem, as was night-time visibility - with
the rotor flames.

All of these problems are workable - as was demonstrated by the Jet
Gyrodyne

http://www.gyropilot.co.uk/downloads/Rotodyne%%202%%20RTF%%20Mod.pdf

Here an engine, designed to operate efficiently at subsonic speeds
produces a jet of super charged air that is directed through a rotor
to tip jets -here the noise is abated, due to the rotor itself acting
like a tuned muffler, and night visibility is not a problem - due to
the temperatures of the exhaust at that point.

According to the Merrill Lynch 2007 World Wealth Report there are 9.5
million millionaires in the world and they control a total of $38.5
trillion - nearly all of which is liquid and available for investment
and consumption.

If 5%% of this money was direct toward the purchase of VTOL capable
capable aircraft, that would amount to $2 trillion - and at $500,000
per copy, that would be 4 million vehicles. Spent over a 10 year
period, that would be a production rate of 400,000 per year. With an
airframe lifetime of 10 years - this sizes your factory.

Demand relative to production, sizes your price.

This is given to engineers to achieve price points and volume within
this 'production box' = there's also the recurring cost of maintaining
and operating the vehicles.

Fuel and Oil
Scheduled Maintenance Labour
Unscheduled Maintenance Labour
Engine Overhaul
Airframe Overhaul
Airframe Lifed Items

Ducted fans can be quieter and more efficient than free rotors of the
same diameter operating at the same rotor speeds

http://www.esotec.co.nz/hb/HTML/DuctMyths.html

Saying that winged vehicles are necessarily less efficient than
wheeled vehicles and so they cannot ever compete is like saying that
rubber tires on asphalt is necessarily less efficient than steel
wheels on steel rails so automobiles will never compete. Obviously
long distance trucking and automobiles (along with airlines) kicked
train ass back in the 1950s and 60s. Why? Because efficiencies are
only one decision point in a large decision matrix. Knowing how
these decisions are made, and engineering solutions not possible with
other technology, assures economic success.

Listen you flaming asshole, if you can erect a $28 billion coal to
liquids facility in LESS than 10 years - I'll pay you a considerable
sum to do it.

I don't think ANY alternative energy program has had this much spent
on it. Furthermore, I think if you took ALL the alternative energy
programs TOGETHER they wouldn't add up to $28 billion -

and I have EIGHT programs like this underway worldwide.

So, please forgive me for saying FUCK YOU and the horse you rode in on
you ignorant savage.

On Jun 25, 2:12 pm, BradGuth gmail.com> wrote:

Williamknowsbest wrote:

If you are so rich, why aren't you smart?

Where, and under what name, and why are you posting lies and drivel here
so that your grandchildren can look back and think, "Gee, what an
asshole he was" ?

I forgive you for calling Brad an ignorant savage, but I'm sure you can
do better. How about Fishermen of Fools with Stinky Bait?