OT: Personal aircraft, vertical takeoff and landing

I did not evaluate the unusual example... 

https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA 

...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include
vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness"
occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger
compartment does not rotate. 

The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky"
sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available
even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of
beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The
poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of
all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the
aircraft. 

Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if 
one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for
short trips. 

Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC
aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite
Convergence. 

Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just
this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a
designer's fantasyland. 













John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: 

> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe 
> <always.look@message.header> wrote: 
> 
>>You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One
>>problem is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four
>>engines probably helps with safety, but it's still inefficient.
>>So... What about developing such large drones but with vertical
>>takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an
>>increasing number of VTOL radio controlled aircraft (XK X520,
>>Eachine Mirage E500). 
>>
>>Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... 
>>https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA 
>>
>>Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes 
>>efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. 
>>
> 
> Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness 
> machine. 
> 
> Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen. 
> Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky. 
> 
> Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very
> expensive VIP transport from city centers to airports. With
> parachutes. 
> 
> 
> 

Nobody is talking about "cargo aircraft".
That is just another irrelevant argument from the maker of straw men...

-- 
bitrex <user example.net> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.68.MISMATCH!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
> Subject: Re: OT: Personal aircraft, vertical takeoff and landing
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> References: <pkgdn7$ekj$1 dont-email.me> <dkoomd5ua8fqi5g0ljlkdplaqeofo8obr1 4ax.com>
> From: bitrex <user example.net>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> In-Reply-To: <dkoomd5ua8fqi5g0ljlkdplaqeofo8obr1 4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 38
> Message-ID: <94_aD.23325$m27.1021 fx10.iad>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse frugalusenet.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 16:36:21 UTC
> Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 12:36:20 -0400
> X-Received-Bytes: 2529
> X-Received-Body-CRC: 4127541720
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:519971
> 
> On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
>> <always.look message.header> wrote:
>> 
>>> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem
>>> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably
>>> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about
>>> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing
>>> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL
>>> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500).
>>>
>>> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned...
>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA
>>>
>>> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes
>>> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.
>>>
>> 
>> Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness
>> machine.
>> 
>> Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen.
>> Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky.
>> 
>> Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive
>> VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and 
> safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering 
> problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about 
> physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and 
> lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy.
> 
> Some kind of powerful anti-gravity propulsors like in the Matrix movies 
> would improve things
> 
> 

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:36:26 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
> > <always.look@message.header> wrote:
> > 
> >> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem
> >> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably
> >> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about
> >> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing
> >> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL
> >> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500).
> >>
> >> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned...
> >> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA
> >>
> >> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes
> >> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.
> >>
> > 
> > Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness
> > machine.
> > 
> > Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen.
> > Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky.
> > 
> > Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive
> > VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and 
> safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering 
> problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about 
> physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and 
> lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy.

I thought the bulk of the weight in an orbital rocket was the fuel?  That's the big problem with rockets, it takes a lot of fuel to get the fuel up to where the little bit of remaining fuel can get the satellite into orbit.  

In other words, it's all about the fuel, fool!  That's "fool" in the same sense as stupid in "keep it simple, stupid".  Don't want anyone to think I am trying to insult you. 

I don't know VTOL is inherently contradictory.  It's more a matter of design goals.  Will it be as efficient as a jumbo jet in fuel per passenger, maybe not.  But when you factor in the huge inconvenience of transportation to and from airports it mitigates a lot.  So what are the requirements?  I know in DC many would pay extra to not have to go to the large airports. 

Rick C. 

On 08/09/2018 12:54 PM, John Doe wrote:
> Nobody is talking about "cargo aircraft".
> That is just another irrelevant argument from the maker of straw men...
> 

If your drone doesn't have to carry anything what does it need to be 
"large" for?! goddamn!

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:48:38 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
> I did not evaluate the unusual example... 
> 
> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA 
> 
> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include
> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness"
> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger
> compartment does not rotate. 

Doesn't matter.  Didn't you watch the video?  The transition consists of a free fall while pointing up followed by a transition of the propulsion.  That would be an E ticket ride at Disneyland.  Many will find it very upsetting. 


> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky"
> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available
> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. 

JT likes to simplify things so much he can use a sound byte for his entire argument while saying exactly nothing.  So you can't really dispute what he says.  Oh well...  


> If you add in FCC requirements of
> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The
> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of
> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the
> aircraft. 

Auto systems are getting so good that they are expected to be better than the humans.  The majority of accidents are currently caused by pilot error.  


> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if 
> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for
> short trips. 
> 
> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC
> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite
> Convergence. 
> 
> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just
> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a
> designer's fantasyland. 

It will be interesting to see what actually proves to be feasible. 

Rick C. 

On 08/09/2018 01:01 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:36:26 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>> On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem
>>>> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably
>>>> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about
>>>> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing
>>>> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL
>>>> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500).
>>>>
>>>> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned...
>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA
>>>>
>>>> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes
>>>> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness
>>> machine.
>>>
>>> Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen.
>>> Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky.
>>>
>>> Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive
>>> VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and
>> safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering
>> problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about
>> physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and
>> lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy.
> 
> I thought the bulk of the weight in an orbital rocket was the fuel?  That's the big problem with rockets, it takes a lot of fuel to get the fuel up to where the little bit of remaining fuel can get the satellite into orbit.
> In other words, it's all about the fuel, fool!  That's "fool" in the same sense as stupid in "keep it simple, stupid".  Don't want anyone to think I am trying to insult you.

If you had some kind of exotic material which was extremely lightweight 
and strong to build your rocket frame out of you could build a 
1950s-style rocket that could go SSTO from the Earth's surface without 
too much trouble. You're correct the bulk of the weight would still be 
fuel. But AFAIK that material doesn't exist, about the best we can do 
currently are varieties of aluminum-lithium alloys. A structure made of 
that helps greatly but screws the physics just enough that SSTO with 
1950s-style rockets made from conventional materials with conventional 
chemical rocket engines aren't possible.

You could also try to lower the planet's g from 9.8 m/s^2 that would 
help a lot too, SSTO from the Moon's surface is trivial using 1950s 
technology.

Only other way if all you have is conventional structural materials to 
work with to avoid staging is trying to optimize the engines in some way 
as compared to a big dumb booster, like air breathing engines part way 
or continuously variable engine bells that optimize their shape as 
atmospheric pressure decreases.


> I don't know VTOL is inherently contradictory.  It's more a matter of design goals.  Will it be as efficient as a jumbo jet in fuel per passenger, maybe not.  But when you factor in the huge inconvenience of transportation to and from airports it mitigates a lot.  So what are the requirements?  I know in DC many would pay extra to not have to go to the large airports.
> 
> Rick C.
> 

I'm not sure just the inconvenience of taking a ground vehicle to the 
airport is enough of a motivating factor to invest $50 billion in this 
kind project, even for billionaires. Other countries might try improving 
city topology or improving public transit, spending megabucks to develop 
long-range VTOL air taxis and $68,000 self-driving cars are what we call 
"American-style" solutions to urban planning.

In London there's an airport right in downtown, London City, the 
super-rich there can just have their driver take them there in the 
Bentley in 15 minutes and hop on an all-business-class A318 to NYC no 
problem

John Doe hit the keyboard and out came:
>You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem 
>is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably 
>helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about 
>developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing 
>(VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL 
>radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). 
>
>Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned...
>https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA
>
>Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes 
>efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. 

There is Airbus vahana.
It did make a test flight, and is still in development.
Google
 'airbus vahana'

Quadcopter idea, but wings with engines go horizontal after takeoff to get lift.

There is also a guy on youtube who build and flies his own quadcoper,
or now it is  multi-rotor IIRC...
followed that for a while, but dangerous...

But for personal transport gyrocopters exists.
Those can actually travel some distance, are cheap, also come as a kit...
You will need flying lessons, same as driving lessons for a car.
But.. would not want it flying over my head with home build
engines and all sorts of experiments.

And then.. there is the hot air balloon, you need the right wind.
One was flying past my house very low altitude, some years ago, toward the sea at high speed,
had to make an emergency landing in some field, thing damaged.
At first I though he was heading for one of the islands here, but did read
later he was totally out of control.
Once at sea they would have been dead.

Been thinking of buying a gyrocopter... just for fun,
many other interest.
Sailboat is mure useful, ocean levels will rise faster and faster, Noah's ark..
No fuel, maybe solar... electric motor.
;-)

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 08/09/2018 01:01 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:36:26 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> >> On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
> >>> <always.look@message.header> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem
> >>>> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably
> >>>> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about
> >>>> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing
> >>>> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL
> >>>> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500).
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned...
> >>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes
> >>>> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness
> >>> machine.
> >>>
> >>> Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen.
> >>> Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky.
> >>>
> >>> Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive
> >>> VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and
> >> safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering
> >> problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about
> >> physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and
> >> lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy.
> > 
> > I thought the bulk of the weight in an orbital rocket was the fuel?  That's the big problem with rockets, it takes a lot of fuel to get the fuel up to where the little bit of remaining fuel can get the satellite into orbit.
> > In other words, it's all about the fuel, fool!  That's "fool" in the same sense as stupid in "keep it simple, stupid".  Don't want anyone to think I am trying to insult you.
> 
> If you had some kind of exotic material which was extremely lightweight 
> and strong to build your rocket frame out of you could build a 
> 1950s-style rocket that could go SSTO from the Earth's surface without 
> too much trouble. You're correct the bulk of the weight would still be 
> fuel. But AFAIK that material doesn't exist, about the best we can do 
> currently are varieties of aluminum-lithium alloys. A structure made of 
> that helps greatly but screws the physics just enough that SSTO with 
> 1950s-style rockets made from conventional materials with conventional 
> chemical rocket engines aren't possible.
> 
> You could also try to lower the planet's g from 9.8 m/s^2 that would 
> help a lot too, SSTO from the Moon's surface is trivial using 1950s 
> technology.
> 
> Only other way if all you have is conventional structural materials to 
> work with to avoid staging is trying to optimize the engines in some way 
> as compared to a big dumb booster, like air breathing engines part way 
> or continuously variable engine bells that optimize their shape as 
> atmospheric pressure decreases.
> 
> 
> > I don't know VTOL is inherently contradictory.  It's more a matter of design goals.  Will it be as efficient as a jumbo jet in fuel per passenger, maybe not.  But when you factor in the huge inconvenience of transportation to and from airports it mitigates a lot.  So what are the requirements?  I know in DC many would pay extra to not have to go to the large airports.
> > 
> > Rick C.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure just the inconvenience of taking a ground vehicle to the 
> airport is enough of a motivating factor to invest $50 billion in this 
> kind project, even for billionaires. Other countries might try improving 
> city topology or improving public transit, spending megabucks to develop 
> long-range VTOL air taxis and $68,000 self-driving cars are what we call 
> "American-style" solutions to urban planning.
> 
> In London there's an airport right in downtown, London City, the 
> super-rich there can just have their driver take them there in the 
> Bentley in 15 minutes and hop on an all-business-class A318 to NYC no 
> problem

You are funny.  I like watching you joust with the strawmen you create.  :) 

Rick C.

On 08/09/2018 01:46 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>> On 08/09/2018 01:01 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:36:26 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
>>>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem
>>>>>> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably
>>>>>> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about
>>>>>> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing
>>>>>> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL
>>>>>> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned...
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes
>>>>>> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness
>>>>> machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen.
>>>>> Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive
>>>>> VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and
>>>> safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering
>>>> problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about
>>>> physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and
>>>> lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy.
>>>
>>> I thought the bulk of the weight in an orbital rocket was the fuel?  That's the big problem with rockets, it takes a lot of fuel to get the fuel up to where the little bit of remaining fuel can get the satellite into orbit.
>>> In other words, it's all about the fuel, fool!  That's "fool" in the same sense as stupid in "keep it simple, stupid".  Don't want anyone to think I am trying to insult you.
>>
>> If you had some kind of exotic material which was extremely lightweight
>> and strong to build your rocket frame out of you could build a
>> 1950s-style rocket that could go SSTO from the Earth's surface without
>> too much trouble. You're correct the bulk of the weight would still be
>> fuel. But AFAIK that material doesn't exist, about the best we can do
>> currently are varieties of aluminum-lithium alloys. A structure made of
>> that helps greatly but screws the physics just enough that SSTO with
>> 1950s-style rockets made from conventional materials with conventional
>> chemical rocket engines aren't possible.
>>
>> You could also try to lower the planet's g from 9.8 m/s^2 that would
>> help a lot too, SSTO from the Moon's surface is trivial using 1950s
>> technology.
>>
>> Only other way if all you have is conventional structural materials to
>> work with to avoid staging is trying to optimize the engines in some way
>> as compared to a big dumb booster, like air breathing engines part way
>> or continuously variable engine bells that optimize their shape as
>> atmospheric pressure decreases.
>>
>>
>>> I don't know VTOL is inherently contradictory.  It's more a matter of design goals.  Will it be as efficient as a jumbo jet in fuel per passenger, maybe not.  But when you factor in the huge inconvenience of transportation to and from airports it mitigates a lot.  So what are the requirements?  I know in DC many would pay extra to not have to go to the large airports.
>>>
>>> Rick C.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure just the inconvenience of taking a ground vehicle to the
>> airport is enough of a motivating factor to invest $50 billion in this
>> kind project, even for billionaires. Other countries might try improving
>> city topology or improving public transit, spending megabucks to develop
>> long-range VTOL air taxis and $68,000 self-driving cars are what we call
>> "American-style" solutions to urban planning.
>>
>> In London there's an airport right in downtown, London City, the
>> super-rich there can just have their driver take them there in the
>> Bentley in 15 minutes and hop on an all-business-class A318 to NYC no
>> problem
> 
> You are funny.  I like watching you joust with the strawmen you create.  :)
> 
> Rick C.
> 

The HUGE INCONVENIENCE of sitting in a car for 30 min /eyeroll

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

>I did not evaluate the unusual example... 
>
>https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA 
>
>...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include
>vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness"
>occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger
>compartment does not rotate. 
>
>The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky"
>sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available
>even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of
>beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The
>poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of
>all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the
>aircraft. 
>
>Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if 
>one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for
>short trips. 
>
>Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC
>aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite
>Convergence. 
>
>Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just
>this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a
>designer's fantasyland. 
>
>

And a good way to die.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com