Talk:Moller M400 Skycar

message: == 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)
replies: text: The 65dB claim must have been taken out at some point.  I provided a reference to a site claiming that the noise at takeoff will be "only" the same as "a nearby freeway".  Given that freeway noise can dominate a landscape for miles to either side and this thing seems unlikely to be a high flier, I am less than unenthusiastic about it.  When you consider how badly even the most remote areas are impacted by aircraft noise now... and those are usually high flying with many passengers each!  I wonder if that makes me one of the nay sayers who feel threatened by his technology - or does that phrase refer to the people afraid of cars falling through their ceilings? 70.15.114.2 (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

message: 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?
:You raise a good question but don't provide a rationale for why it should be included in the article.  Perhaps if there has been some authoritive criticism that talks about potential collisions with other aircraft you could cite that in the article, but it's unencylopedic to write that criticism yourself.  I suspect there is no real criticism of any potential future air traffic control system because the Skycar prototype (I believe there is only one) has not actually flown any distance.  This is assuming Moller himself hasn't talked about his air traffic control ideas with the media at any great length.  That may make for an interesting read. --ozzmosis 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's serious work on that problem. Also see Free flight. But that's not Moller-related work.  --John Nagle 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from what I've heard NASA already has plans for a future air-traffic system. wether or not the 'Skycar' ever works, in the future it is quite likely at least that small aircraft will see much more common useage. Sahuagin 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collisions

message: From FAQ on Moller web site archived by archive.org in March 2000 :
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: 
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)
replies: text: No, see that page from 2003, which looks the same, except that the date was December 31, 2005. And see the page from 2004, when the date was December 31, 2006.  It's always just two years away.  --John Nagle 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery date reverse progress 

message: Recently, the article has been updated by  and . 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)
replies: text: Please don't remove material about the SEC fraud lawsuit.  Also, new dates added about what's supposedly going to happen in 2007 need citations. Thanks.  See WP:OR and WP:VAIN.    --John Nagle 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, how will the "2007 flight tests" take place if the prototype is sold on eBay? --John Nagle 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that further flight tests will occur in 2007 requires a citation. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates by Spfrazer and Smackycat 

message: Relevant to the discussion above, Smackycat has added the large section of POV text below:
:Moller has changed the design of the proposed aircraft every few years, and then spent time modifying the prototype or mockup to match. This way, he can blame the "current" delay in flight testing on the modifications being done. If you look at the wide range of shapes and configurations during this long and fruitless history, it's obvious that he's just playing for time. In Nov 2006, the Moller web site announced that yet another set of changes was being considered, setting the stage for another big delay. In addition, the proposed test site (a man made lake) project has also been delayed. He has recently started telling the old story of how the engines will be running on 35% water in ethanol as fuel. The use of low-yield fuel like ethanol, combined with the "dead weight" of the non-burnable water, should keep the Skycar firmly planted on the ground. This will allow yet another development cycle to begin, where once again, as for the last forty years, he will claim that success is right around the corner.
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)
replies: text: I agree, that was overdoing it. There's enough information on the record indicative of fraud that it's not necessary to speculate.   --John Nagle 05:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More edits by Smackycat

message: 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)
thread_title:  New edits by EllasBates 

message: 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  close tag.  The whole "Presales" section had disappeared into limbo. So watch those close tags.  Thanks. --John Nagle 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch those ref tags, people 

message: 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) 
:To take off, he would require FAA certification (impossible to get) or a waiver (difficult to get). No.  It's straightforward to get an "experimental" airworthiness certificate.. You have to put "EXPERIMENTAL" in big letters on the aircraft, and you can't carry passengers for hire. The FAA does some basic inspection to keep amateurs from flying with total junk. The FAA may insist that, during phase I flight test (the first 40 flight hours), "the flight test must be over open water or sparsely populated areas with light air traffic so it does not pose a hazard to persons or property on the ground." Also, passengers aren't allowed during Phase I flight test. That's all.  Amateur plane builders do this all the time.  Private flight testing is often done at Mojave Airport, where there's plenty of room and empty desert.  But Moller operates at such low altitudes and speeds that the FAA would probably let him test over local farmland.  Although, until he can get up to a few hundred feet of altitude, it would have to be farmland where the owners agreed. That shouldn't be hard; he's part owner of the Milk Farm.  --John Nagle 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scare quotes are to be avoided.    Rephrase it to a more neutral tone.  (SEWilco 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another view on the tether requirements is that their current facility (where the tests were conducted) is in the middle of town.  Control loss of even the 10' to 15' elevation could have severely damaged other peoples property.  --Rocksanddirt 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair implied accusation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Certification date not updated (yet) 

message: 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.. --John Nagle (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 2009, and it's still not flying. Moller has a December 2008 letter with new excuses. --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some interesting thoughts about the performance claims for the Skycar here and here  --Plane nutz (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certification Date: Not later than December 31, 2008 

message: There is an article here  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)
replies: text: In the same vein, it looks like potential Skycar purchasers who previously put down a deposit are having trouble getting their money back.  It's not a good sign.--Plane nutz (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in the National Post (and associated newspapers) on flying cars 

message: According to , 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)
thread_title:  Moller bankrupt? 

message: The Moller International webpage () 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)
thread_title:  Moller web page restructured 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:NOTAFORUM]]

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks like commercial hype to me. I suggest to wait and see what happens with the "demonstration flight" on October 11, 2011.  My guess is that it will be more of the same: hovering while secured to a tether.  If Moller demonstrates a practical/significant increase in performance we may want to mention it here then. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice concerning a source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Volantor / Neuera 

message: 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)
replies: text: I changed the punctuation, like I suggested (above) that it needed. The mistakes I mentioned are gone now, but I'm not sure actually rephrasing the introduction would hurt. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting in introduction needs fixing 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed merger of Moller M400 Skycar, Moller M200G Volantor and Paul Moller

message: Moller is trying to raise money again. See the notes from the 2011 annual meeting.
(Backup copy). An SEC filing has been made for this.. 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.  --John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the usual background noise. Mr. Moller is still trying, so there is no updates to report. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  No other source has picked this up.  It seems to have been a trial balloon which, like most Moller projects, didn't fly. --John Nagle (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Moller trying to do a public stock offering and a deal with an investor in China

message: 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)
replies: text: Athena is a real company, now part of Rockwell Collins. They make flight control systems.   Searching for "Moller" on their site returns a no find. --John Nagle (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moller is dealing with a different Athena (actually Athenatech Inc. -- www.eathenatech.com)).  I would describe them as a company that facilitates joint ventures between Chinese and American companies.  So, although this is described as a joint venture, it is probably more accuately described as a "Joint venture to find a joint venture partner".  I don't know if the coincidence in names with the other Athena Technologies is pure coincidence, or whether it's intentionally misleading.Plane nutz (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good find. I can't see it as being misleading though. A similar name is all a similar name needs to be. There's no grounds for conspiracy here folks.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The well known tech flight-control company Athena Technologies is based in Virginia, while the e-Athena Technologies in Moller's press release is a marketing company based in California .  The difference between these 2 different companies should be highlighted and treated with caution in this encyclopedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athena Technologies, Inc. 

message: The Moller web site has been redesigned. Different layout, same hype:  
* moller.com FAQ, 2015: When will the 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. We already have over 100 reservations for the FAA certified models. The timing of the models available to the public will depend on the speed of the government in certifying the vehicle as airworthy. Moller has little or no control in this process.  
* moller.com FAQ, 2005: 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. We already have over 100 reservations for the FAA certified models. The timing of the models available to the public will depend on the speed of the government in certifying the vehicle as airworthy. Moller has little or no control in this process. 
* moller.com FAQ, 1998: When will it (the M400 Skycar) be available? Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next 18 months. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. An FAA certified model is at least two years away. We already have over 100 reservations for the FAA certified models. The timing of the models available to the public will depend on the speed of the government in certifying the vehicle as airworthy. Moller has little or no control in this process. 
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)
thread_title:  Real Soon Now, since at least 1998. 

message: 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)
replies: text: That press release was loaded with sneaky words. A "memorandum of understanding" is non-binding, so it does not mean Athena Tech actually invested a dollar of the $480 million claimed or that the production is imminent. In my opinion, there is still much engine R&D to be done before Moller can mutter the "production" word. The fact that no investment has been signed and that not one engine has been produced yet, could be mentioned in that section.   BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, mention that it didn't happen, or pull it out. We went through that with Better Place, which pre-announced for years, didn't deliver, and eventually went bankrupt.  John Nagle (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Courtesy of Google Street View, here is what "Athena Technologies" (the supposed Joint Venture partner) office  looks like as of November 2014. 90.44.214.96 (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That Athena company is just a one-man web site trying to establish e-business between USA and China. In plain English, Moller advertised his company in China. Not a notable development. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave the reference in. Such examples of how Moller conducts business especially when done to generate buzz is very much a pattern there. User:Nagle's comment above very much illustrates this. What is getting to be silly is that there are other individuals now that are actually making machines in the direction of a 'flying car' successfully flying people (e.g. Volocopter or Catalin Alexandru Duru's 'Hoverboard' or this engine powered multicopter). These latest creations have come about in just a few years' time showing the folly of Moller's "work". Readers of this article should be fully aware of that aspect of the Moller story. 90.44.214.96 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, it seems to have been totally removed.  Leaving it in with the comment that it didn't happen is also an option. Either way works for me.  John Nagle (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint Venture section of article 

message: 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)
replies: text: I changed it, and I deleted 0.15lbs thrust per HP,  BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications template, questionable total thrust 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Never flown 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011054752/http://moller.com/test.htm to http://www.moller.com/test.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216035258/http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/11/05/moller-launches-crowdfunding-campaign-for-skycar-test-flight/ to http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/11/05/moller-launches-crowdfunding-campaign-for-skycar-test-flight/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Real soon now" since 1974

message: 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)
thread_title:  No info on STARTING YEAR and project evolution