Hello Readers of LPW. I've recently got into a bit of hot water for a news article I wrote about Moller Skycar

http://www.eaa.org/lightplaneworld/a...202_moller.asp

It was very poor judgement on my part for repeating a news story widely reported in the media about Moller announcing new LSA designs. I was surprised to find it reported straight-up in some media outlets without including the historical background of non-performance of the company. I foolishly thought that Moller had replaced Jim Bede as the icon of that genre and wrote it up like a straight press release thinking everyone would recognize something was amiss with his claims. I was wrong.

Those of us who grew up in the early years of the ultralight movement saw many examples like this. Claims by designers of airplanes that couldn't actually fly. Most of those were far more convincing aircraft than the Moller's designs. We learned to look for actual direct claims of flight and for pictures with wheels off the ground. Within the last year or two LPW has reported on other new unusual designs that had not yet flown and subsequently have not been heard of again.

However, few companies in modern times has quite the reputation matching Moller and I was negligent in my failure to include that background information. The blame for this omission goes squarely on me and I want to assure everyone that I see every word that goes out before it is published. It doesn't get changed later by other editors. All the mistakes are mine. I encourage everyone to keep reading LPW and keep checking for errors in facts, or judgement. Thanks.

P.S. If I had included the drawing of the single seat Moller everyone would have been suspicious from the start. The two seater was just conventional enough to be believable.

.