Mass produced vtol aircraft to eliminate eventual global gridlock of ground vehicles

Bill Ford, CEO of Ford Motor Company, stated recently that personal transportation will become limited, not by the price of fuel or CO2 emissions, but by congestion (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_ford_a..._gridlock.html). We will rapidly approach a point where traffic simply stands still, and that will limit our personal movement.
I have a patent pending on a new transportation vehicle that is designed to run on natural gas or any other bio-fuel at several hundred miles per hour at a lower cost per mile than the Prius.
The Verticraft is the ultimate transportation vehicle of the future. It has maximum speed and safety at minimum cost. Very high speed on the ground is very dangerous, while very high speed in the air is desirable and very safe. On the ground, vehicles are separated horizontally by a few feet with zero vertical separation. In the air Verticraft will be separated by hundreds or thousands of feet horizontally and by hundreds or thousands of feet vertically, making air travel thousands of times safer than driving. Residents of low-density, residential-only sprawling communities are also more likely to die in car collisions which kill 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number. The incredibly large costs involved in having to build roads and bridges to desired destinations and the destruction of the environment caused by those roads would be eliminated. The vehicle is designed to run on LNG or any bio-fuel to minimize emissions. A ballistic recovery parachute allows the Verticraft to make a normal landing in the unlikely event of multiple engine failure, because it is a vertical takeoff and landing vehicle. If anyone does not believe that electronic collision avoidance systems work, check the accident record. Before collision avoidance systems were perfected and then made mandatory there was a tragic series of collisions involving airliners. Since the electronic systems went on watch there hasn’t been a midair involving an airline jet. It is a little known fact that the public has been flying on an automated airline flight system for years. Only three minutes of the average airline flight is not operated on autopilot.
The aircraft would be totally automated. Each property owner would enter their address and each 12 'circular parking spot number into the FAA's NextGen system using the Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) system. The desired address and spot number would be entered into the Flight Management Computer. The FMC would reject any flight path that would have a traffic or weather or spot occupied conflict. The aircraft would all have TCAS ( traffic collision avoidance systems) connected to the autopilots that would take evasive maneuvers automatically just as the current airlines have TCAS warnings for the pilots to take manual evasive maneuvers. This system would automatically be activated by ambulance, police, or fire vehicles which have priority. The response time and efficiency of emergency vehicles would be greatly enhanced. If a spot at your desired destination is unavailable the nearest spot available would show on the cockpit display screen along with the nearest spot available to your current location at all times. At major airports the airline flights would operate in their normal flight corridors while inbound passengers would fly in unobstructed routes to their parking spots available near or on the terminal building. Passengers that live nearby could send their aircraft home as UAV's to free up parking spots. Rental aircraft would be available to international airline passengers. This would minimize the current causes of fatalities from automobiles such as falling asleep, alcohol, drugs, texting, many other distractions and last but not least, incompetence. Air taxi vehicles would be available for the people concerned about automated flying. The aircraft could be flown manually in low density airspace just as they are currently and still have the TCAS available to maximize safety as a backup to visual flight. The automated air transportation system would be used for transportation to the edges of high population areas where only mass transit vehicles are allowed. A good example is Disney World's transportation system.
The initial market would be the 600,000 licensed pilots in the USA along with the estimated 400,000 foreign pilots. I would like to discuss a joint venture to mass produce the Verticraft to replace the current fleet of cars, trucks and aircraft and eventually eliminate global gridlock and dependence on foreign energy sources.
Sincerely,
Stanley G. Sanders II, President Verticraft LLC.
email- j2sande@yahoo.com
phone- 239-248-0747

How do you envision fully automated aircraft mingling with those of us who choose to continue to control our airplanes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

I have a patent on a new transportation vehicle that is designed to run on natural gas or any other bio-fuel at several hundred miles per hour at a lower cost per mile than the Prius...

---

Uh huh. You're not related to Paul Moller, are you?

Thanks Dana. I was poised over my keyboard, but I couldn't remember Moller's name!

I will never fly on a 'fully automated' aircraft. As humans, we are not perfect, but since computers are designed by humans, they will not be either. I know enough about control system design to know I don't ever want to be on a plane without a pilot...

Spent a few minutes searching the Google patent database, didn't find anything in the name of Stanley Sanders, Verticraft, or any combination of "ADS-B" and "Sanders." Going to www.verticraft.com yields what is no doubt an interesting web site...though I don't read Chinese.

Did find an interesting VTOL aircraft patent in the name of John Sanders, though. Doesn't seem to be related, but it seems about as unlikely. The Patent Office doesn't assess the realism of the submission, just the originality.

(Walking into the workplace covered in dirt, next to a woman who looks like she had a racoon attack her hair)

"That's the third time this week I've been dusted by somebody's Verticraft."
"Huh?" says the woman.
[louder]
"Darn thing was on auto-home mode."
"I HAVE TO START WEARING EARPLUGS IN THE PARKING LOT" the woman yells back.

I like how the things are banned from cities - they fly you to a centralized location and one is forced to take mass transit into town - but have full access to airports.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spungey

How do you envision fully automated aircraft mingling with those of us who choose to continue to control our airplanes?

---

The totally automated flight is only necessary when enough aircraft are in any particular area to warrant such action. Otherwise the aircraft can be flown as desired.

Fully automated means that the autopilot is capable of taking off and landing without any further pilot input. CAT III Autolandings are done everyday by airlines when the weather is below CAT II minimums.

I expect initial funding from DARPA for a UAV. A computer simulation model is being done at the Georgia Tech Aerospace Design Lab. To speed up the process, I am looking for private investors to
build the PAV( personal air vehicle).

Wonder how much one of these gems would sell for? And will there be trained mechanics, nation wide, to perform routine maintenance and repair? What is max gross takeoff weight? How about refueling - will the special bio-fuel or natural gas be readily available nation wide?

Excellent questions, Jerry. We've seen all sorts of ideas for the next generation of automobiles. Hydrogen fuel cells, fast-replacement battery packs, compressed natural gas, etc. They all suffer from the same problem: no existing support infrastructure and prohibitive cost to build it. Unfortunately, we have a very well established network of gas stations, and they won't be easily converted to serve some other function.

The tech, if one could pull it off, would be amazing.

Heck, think of the huge sums of money one could make on military applications alone for an unmanned VSTOL that could take off, fly 50 miles (or more) and then land, unassisted, with an accuracy of five feet of its aimpoint.

We can't even get automated ground vehicles to navigate that far reliably, and they don't have to deal with gusts, thermals, wind, etc.

More automation is not necessarily better; this has been proven by recent accidents, including AF447. Someone still has to fly the aircraft when the automated systems disconnect or fail, and currently, I'm not aware of any aircraft that is capable of making an unassisted emergency landing. You cannot possibly program every conceivable emergency situation into the flight control system.

"Since the electronic systems went on watch there hasn’t been a midair involving an airline jet." That is NOT true. The GOL Transportes Aereos Flight 1907/Embraer bizjet midair and the Bashkirian Flight 2937/DHL 611 midair both occurred due to TCAS malfunctions.

It will still be an airplane, and will still need to be inspected and repaired by an A&P, making the operating cost substantially more than an automobile, and you'll have to see a LOT of these to get the cost down to something reasonable (i.e. $20-30k, similar to many current new cars). I would never buy one, and neither would any pilot I know...we are pilots because we love FLYING our own airplanes. At any rate, the original post reads like the Eclipse business model applied to the Moller pipe dream, so this should all be pretty entertaining to watch, if nothing else.

Fully Automated.
VTOL.
Inexpensive.

Nobody in GA is currently doing any of those things. Accomplishing all 3 at once is quite a challenge.

Hi Kyle, fully automated means that the autopilots(3) for redundancy just as I had in the B-777, have the ability to fly the aircraft in all flight modes mainly for very high density traffic areas. That mode of flight would only be necessary in the distant future when their are as many aircraft as their are autos now. Initially the market would be the 1 million licensed pilots world wide. As the public becomes aware of the capabilities of the aircraft , they would naturally want to purchase them. It would probably be a slow evolution as envisioned by the FAA's NextGen program. As far as VTOL is concerned I took the best ideas in aviation history and put them together using the latest engine and airframe technology to design the Verticraft. The biggest challenge is to make the aircraft affordable. The non-massed produced parts can be bought for about $200,000.
I would guess if you went to the parts store and bought all of the parts for your car at retail and then assembled the car, it would probably cost $250,000. I estimate that the aircraft could be mass produced for a price of between $100,000 and $50,000. I am trying to contact the companies that mass produce the current transportation vehicles such as Ford, GM, etc. to see if they are interested in a joint venture. I hope to get funding from DARPA for a UAV version of the Verticraft to save the military billions in runway construction and logistics cost. The Georgia Tech Aerospace Design Lab is working on a computer simulation model of the Verticraft.

Hi Matt, I envision the fully automated system would be required only when everyone had one, and only when flying into a very high density population area. Until then I agree with you totally that I would hand fly
the aircraft as much as possible. I personally avoid high density population areas as much as possible. That leaves everywhere else in the world to have fun hand flying. I was one of the original test pilots that tested the ACLS ( automatic carrier landing system ) in the F-4 when it was first developed to cut down on the aircraft carrier accident rate especially in night or bad weather conditions. I only flew the B-777 on autopilot in cruise and hand flew the departure and approach and landing unless the weather was below CAT II minimums and then an auto landing was required. I saw a new segment recently that said that airline pilots hand flew an average of three minutes of the total flight. The rightful concern was lack of proficiency leading to aircraft accidents. You are also correct about having" to see a LOT of these to get the cost down to something reasonable."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

As far as VTOL is concerned I took the best ideas in aviation history and put them together using the latest engine and airframe technology to design the Verticraft.

---

So, how many flight hours does it have? How about posting some pictures of it flying? Is this the same thing as Frank Black's Modus Verticraft concept?

Remember Otto Lillienthal: "To invent an airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything." We scorn Paul Moller, but he, at least, has flown his design. Have you?

How about posting the Patent Number so we can look it up?

Ron Wanttaja

From the "what really killed GA" thread, from Stan:

Quote:

---

I was answering your question about what killed general aviation. Affordability is the answer and mass production is the solution. The auto is obsolete but its replacement can only be successful if it is mass produced just as Henry Ford proved in 1914. Mass production of aircraft for primary transportation outside of high density population centers is the best way to prevent global gridlock that is ironically discussed by Henry Ford's great grandson (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_ford_a..._gridlock.html.

---

History is not kind to your assessment of mass production vs. cost of aircraft.

After WWII aircraft manufacturers looked at the huge number of returning pilots and the economic boom from war production and bet that it was time to start cranking out large numbers of aircraft.

It broke them.

In a perfect storm of economic sensibilities - a large prospective market, economies of scale making their products affordale, and an infrastructure of local airports that were demilitarized - it made sense on paper.

Sixty years later there are still a healthy number of Champs, Cubs, etc. hanging around because their production numbers were so high that normal attrition hasn't taken them off the market.

For conversation's sake, let's say we can get the auto-plane down to 60K a model (which would be pretty impressive). One is going to make it the second or third family vehicle; the need for the automobile due to weather concerns and convenience (taking the flying car to the pharmacy a mile to pick up a prescription away isn't going to happen) doesn't disappear.

Magic 8 Ball says Outlook Not Good on getting a flying car into the average home.

From the "what really killed GA" thread, from Stan:

Quote:

---

I was answering your question about what killed general aviation. Affordability is the answer and mass production is the solution. The auto is obsolete but its replacement can only be successful if it is mass produced just as Henry Ford proved in 1914. Mass production of aircraft for primary transportation outside of high density population centers is the best way to prevent global gridlock that is ironically discussed by Henry Ford's great grandson

---

History is not kind to your assessment of mass production vs. cost of aircraft. Or on the idea that if a company makes a lot of something it will generate demand because the product is in plentiful supply.

After WWII aircraft manufacturers looked at the huge number of returning pilots and the economic boom from war production and bet that it was time to start cranking out large numbers of aircraft.

It broke them.

In a perfect storm of economic sensibilities - a large prospective market, economies of scale making their products affordale, and an infrastructure of local airports that were demilitarized - it made sense on paper.

Sixty years later there are still a healthy number of Champs, Cubs, etc. hanging around because their production numbers were so high that normal attrition hasn't taken them off the market.

For conversation's sake, let's say we can get the auto-plane down to 60K a model (which would be pretty impressive). One is going to make it the second or third family vehicle; the need for the automobile due to weather concerns and convenience (taking the flying car to the pharmacy a mile to pick up a prescription away isn't going to happen) doesn't disappear.

Magic 8 Ball says Outlook Not Good on getting a flying car into the average home.

The initial Verticraft would not be mass produced and compete with the current aircraft market. Only when the demand for the aircraft becomes high enough can the aircraft be mass produced. Henry Ford had the same problem in 1914 with a greater problem of lack of roads to support the auto. Global gridlock of ground vehicles and the cost of roads and bridges to support them will accelerate the demand for the Verticraft.
China recently had an 11 day traffic jam with the average commute in Beijing being more than 5 hrs. By the way you mention a flying car in your last sentence, it is not a flying car and cannot be driven on a road, the whole point is to eliminate the need for paved roads which destroy the environment.

Positive forward thinking leads to innovation...good thread Stan. Keep us posted!

Thanks, Chad. If you run across any builders that think they have the capability to build the prototype and or investors that would be interested in participating in the PAV version. Please contact me.
My most likely funding will come from DARPA for the UAV version but I would be looking for private investors to build the PAV manned version at the same time. I would like to travel by air as my primary means of transportation as soon as possible because I am reminded daily of the dangers on the ground in my 1.5 hour commute. I had fewer close calls flying F-4's off of aircraft carriers during the Vietnam era than I have now in my commute. Don't you wish you could just pull up to avoid the car that just pulled out in front of you?

This doesn't sound like something that has any fun for someone that enjoys flying. It sounds like being a Fedex package.
I hope it never becomes necessary!

Bill, if it worked really well, fun would be the last thing it would be by design - and that's a good thing.

The best flying car* would be as mundane as riding in a Ford Taurus. Get in, buckle up, enter the location, push the button. Text message or tweet or Facepage whatever the kids are doing today to pass the time until it's time to get out. The very last thing one would want for the average person is a lot of buttons, dials, gauges and stuff advertising how complex the machine was or any sudden movements to hint at the danger.

Cars are like that. Idiot lights instead of gauges for everything but the most critical of items. Nobody really pays attention to the dangers of meeting another car on a two lane road at 50 mph, after all. Closing speed of 100 mph with three feet seperation.

If I were to design the panel it would be a large GPS screen with ground speed, direction, and estimated time of arrival on a moving map. The gauges would be fuel and tachometer. The rest would be idiot gauges.

Design question - would the vehicle have a ballistic parachute, and would it be automatically opened if the craft suddenly lost power or went topsy-turvy?

* Flying car used in the marketing sense, not as in the driving airplane one. One would use it as one would a car - only it flys instead of drives. I'd market it that way, too. It's the "other" car, the one that goes by air rather than ground; sounds much more mundane and safe that way.

The "flying car" has been a dream since the very first airplane flew. Stan, I wish you nothing but the best on your endeavor, but you are not the first person to propose and attempt to fill this niche. The path to a flying car is fraught with problems.

First, it must be able to integrate with the current infrastructure built around cars. Yes, ideally there is no need for roads, but those are still going to be there until your Verticraft outnumber cars. Your vehicle will need to be able to access gas stations, driveways, and garages in their current configuration. Using bio-fuel, etc. is a great for marketing, but realistically, you need to operate on whatever cars are operating on, otherwise there is a need for a whole new infrastructure to be built (another barrier to entry).

Second, you have to deal with the regulations regarding a machine like this. I hate to say it, but the FAA is going to see this as either an airplane or a helicopter, which means they get to say how it gets built and certified. Look into how much effort it takes to get a new airplane certified to see how slow and expensive this process is. It also puts you into the realm of needing to use certified engines, hardware, etc. You are now looking at a supply chain in the aerospace world, not the automotive world. Also, your neighborhood auto shop won't be able to fix these things, an A&P will have to, and it will require an annual inspection. How many cars have that level of maintenance currently? Not very many. I'm afraid the average public would not be in favor of those type of regulations on their daily driver.

Next, if the FAA is certifying it, then only people with pilots licenses can operate it. Like you said, most of the current commercial airlines are flying almost entirely by automation, but the FAA is still requiring pilots (with lots of hours and training, I might add) to push those buttons. I have yet to see anyone from the back of the plane step up and take over the flying duties on an airliner, so I am skeptical that the FAA will allow this in any sort of personal aircraft. So this takes you back to your "potential" market of 600,000 pilots. How many of them are actually current or even capable of flying? How many already own an airplane? Those may not be potential customers since they already have a vehicle that operates under the same rules as your Verticraft, and may very likely be cheaper.

Finally, your Verticraft will have to compete with the already in-place and automated (at least from the perspective of the rider) public transportation system. This includes trains, buses, and commercial airliners. What if cities/municipalities decide to expand their public transportation infrastructure to alleviate the gridlock on the roads? Now, more people ride the train and less people are on the roads. Less gridlock, less need for a flying car. Texting, reading, and talking on the cell phone can happen on the train. Plus, no pilots license needed to ride the train.

I know when a new idea is presented it is often met with skepticism and resistance, and you are free to take my comments as such. But you are not the first person to think of this idea, and everyone before has failed (the current exception is the Terrafugia whose history is still unfolding). Do an archive search of Sport Aviation to see all the articles written about the future of flying cars to see how long this has been a dream. I, for one, would love to hop into my car and "fly" to work or the store just like the Jetsons did, but it just doesn't seem to be a realistic form of transportation.

Hi John, I want to mention that the Verticraft is not a flying car but it makes them obsolete because they still need a runway and the whole point is to stay off of the highways and eliminate rush hour traffi if you want to live very long. It will not compete with public transportation but give the optimum way access public transportation. In the future all very large cities will have only mass transit vehicles allowed in the city their is simply not enough space to drive a car or airplane or anything else in the super dense cities. Terrafugia is already obsolete because it needs a runway. I have answers to all of your very well thought out concerns but it would take hours to discuss. By the way the nearest thing to a flying car available immediately is the super sky cycle at http://www.thebutterflyllc.com/sscycle/sscycle.htm. Larry Neal will sell you the roadable gyroplane
immediately, please tell him that I sent you if you are interested since I am one of his dealers.
Thanks,Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

I want to mention that the Verticraft is not a flying car but it makes them obsolete because they still need a runway

---

Stan, is the Verticraft more like a helicopter? Please share with us some technical details or at least a picture so we can understand what you are attempting to do.

I'm betting ducted fans - it's the shortest route to VTOL and limits exposure of moving blades to the operators.

Hi John, it is a modern day version of POGO shown in the following you tube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Hi John, it is a modern day version of POGO shown in the following you tube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010

---

Very interesting. I would be interested in hearing how you are solving some of the technical challenges associated with the original XFY-1.

Attachment 674

More info here, for those interested.

Hi John, my design solves all of the issues described in the article. The aircraft will be easier to land than any current aircraft. Today's technology makes all other issues easily solved. The major challenge will be
getting enough interest to mass produce the aircraft. Initially it will compete with the current market and only after enough interest is generated will it be able to be mass produced. I am hoping a mass produced
price of around $50.000 would generate enough interest to make mass production profitable. I will update you as things progress.
Stan

Please explain how a relatively low-time private pilot type is going to successfully land that aircraft when the computerized flight controls malfunction or fail. The Convair 'Pogo' is in several 'World's worst aircraft' type books, and for good reason.

I'd also like to see you actually address the MANY questions that have been brought up in this thread...you've dodged nearly all of them, and that certainly isn't giving you any credibility. It's as if you haven't thought of any of these issues, and have no idea how to address them, or know much of anything about aircraft design, certification, etc. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

---

The aircraft will be easier to land than any current aircraft.

---

In that configuration in a 4 knot crosswind I think not.

reading this thread makes me think of this song:

http://youtu.be/r1SCu9yiBlo

http://youtu.be/r1SCu9yiBlo

caution NSFW!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

(Walking into the workplace covered in dirt, next to a woman who looks like she had a racoon attack her hair)

"That's the third time this week I've been dusted by somebody's Verticraft."
"Huh?" says the woman.
[louder]
"Darn thing was on auto-home mode."
"I HAVE TO START WEARING EARPLUGS IN THE PARKING LOT" the woman yells back.

I like how the things are banned from cities - they fly you to a centralized location and one is forced to take mass transit into town - but have full access to airports.

:)

---

Yes, you are right. If you want to make a luxury journey by air then you need to use the aviation headset. It will give you pleasure of communication and safe you in the sky.
Visit the following sites and get more information.

https://www.bigearinc.com/product/cl...adset-adapters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rILP-CI-Kco

Computer controlled, eh? Just as long as Microsoft is not involved. That could give the old "blue screen of death" a totally new meaning. Now I would have to worry about hackers as well!

derswede

Sorry Stan, but this is all way too much Jetsons and Buck Rogers for me.

I'm ridiculously skeptical because I take all the fanciful emotion out of it and only think about the exhaustive variables that need to be in place and the infrastructure required to make such a system work efficiently, effectively and with the highest regard for safety. And the costs!!!! Oh the horror!!!

All this talk lately about autonomous planes and cars is nothing but fanciful BS and as a pilot just makes me angry and laugh at the same time. Why? What's the fascination with this auto stuff anyways. I've had AP's go FUBAR to the point where turning it off didn't help, had to pull the breaker, thankfully that worked. Maybe one day far into the future if this good ole earth survives BUT not now and not in my grandchildrens time(of which I have none presently).

You want investors? Go to the already converted, choired and invested. Contact Ilon Musk, Richard Branson, Ford, GM, Uber and Jeff Bezos and all the other billionaire visionaries who believe this stuff is just around the corner.