text:
User talk:GRAHAMUK/Archive 2

Nicky line
Thanks for the nice comment on my talk page. Re connection and maps, I can guarantee that there was *never* a connection, for two reasons. One was the inter-company rivalries (Midland -v- L&NW), the other was the geography. The main town station in Midland Road was already raised up from what later became Marlowes and the line stayed at around that height along the side of the hill and then on the viaduct to Heath Park Halt, which was itself well above ground level. The route that would have been needed for a connection to Boxmoor would have been a substantial drop as well as the lower end being boggy land and having to cross low over the main road and the grand union canal (then still a main freight artery). In regards to the OS maps, I am sorry to let you know that they are *frequently* wrong imho, indeed I have advised them on a number of occasions of errors in their maps (which, to be fair, they then correct in a subsequent edition). The pre-grouping railway atlas though is also a mess. Hemel is on the edge of a map, and in the version on page 10 (fifth edition) the line is shown as terminating at Heath Park Halt, but on page 11 the line is shown extending past that halt (but still no interconnect). My biggest puzzle, in fact, is that I'd never heard it referred to as the 'Nicky line' until I read the WP article! --Vamp:Willow 12:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Curiouser and curiouser! You seem pretty certain of your conviction, and for me it's harder to be sure, even though I lived in Hemel for many years. Of course neither of us were around in 1880, so there's no possibility of a direct yes or no eyewitness account, though I suppose there may be the small possibility of photographic evidence. I agree about map inaccuracies, but this, if it is an error, is one of staggeringly gross proportions. The map in question (, enter grid ref 504974,205994 and click "enlarged view") shows not only a connection, but a series of bridges (over the canal, river Bulbourne and the London Road), embankments and the actual layout of the trackbed between Heath Park and the main line. Even individual trees are depicted. Given that the depiction of the remainder of the line seems accurate, and includes tiny details such as signal posts, etc, it seems hard to believe that they would simply make this up. Of course being an old map the data on which it was based would be very hard to track down, and in the end it doesn't matter except as a curiosity. However, later maps (as late the 1970s) still show at least part of the connection, especially the curve off the main line that goes past the old gas works to the A41 London Road, though with the track removed. Now there is probably no trace on the ground at all as this area was redeveloped as an industrial area at some point, and still more recently the works for the road link to the new A41 bypass further moved land around. However, there must exist records of bridges being constructed and/or demolished, and other archive material that would prove it one way or another. Unfortunately I live in Australia these days so popping down to the Hemel public records office isn't really feasible, but the more this mystery deepens, the more I want to solve it! Graham 22:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * eep! My childhood is under attack! ;-P I'm looking at the map at the moment and it definitely shows a connection. However it also shows a "Harpenden Junction" where it passes over Marlowes (but no junction) and - to me and given the limitations of mapping - the line looks to cross Marlowes a little north of where it actually did. Also there appears to be a railway embankment (sans railway) north of the Heath Park Hotel, but otherwise it does appear to indicate a single track line. Looking at my 1974 OS map there appears to be a footpath marked too. One thing I do notice about the 1883 map though is that there is no Heath Park Halt station marked and the line in the Marlowes area is shown as an embankment not as the viaduct that it actually needed, thus leaving me with a few doubts still about that map. I am starting to worry though about whether all the history I was told of the line as a kid (HH born and bred in the 50s!) was as accurate as it should be. :: delay of ten minutes ::. F***. Looking at an aerial shot of the area you can clearly see the path of *something* following the route. Whether there was an actual connection I'll take the other info that says there wasn't (and if you look carefully at the 1883 map it doesn't show one either), but I'm now (annoyingly!) feeling more inclined to think that the line *was* extended down to the Boxmoor area (location now called Standring Rise). (Trees, btw, are always shown conventionally on maps of this era but are rarely accurately positioned ime). --Vamp:Willow 12:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * For me that aerial photo is quite convincing (and fascinating!). Note especially the area just north and south of the canal - clearly whatever this feature is or was it had a broad width, much wider than is necessary for a mere footpath. This could be the base of a removed embankment, bridge abutments or something similar - even unraised railway track might leave behind something like this. There is also an intrusion into the bank of the canal at this point on the non-towpath side, which would suggest that something was here - this part of the canal was widened in the 1920s or 30s as part of the Grand Union scheme, whatever stood here must have been around BEFORE the canal was widened (widening the span of a bridge for example would have been considered not worthwhile given that barges could easily give way if necessary to pass here). After it was removed, the intrusion remains which shows where the original unwidened canal bank was. Also, and much less reliably, I seem to recall seeing a photo somewhere showing the bridge across London Road (though I have just now tried to search it out again to no avail; and it may be that the photo I saw was of the main line bridge further along which still exists). As for your other observations about the 1883 map - it's hard to be sure about the positioning of the Marlowes viaduct, I personally never saw it. Given the possibly less accurate surveying in those days, you could well be right, though also bear in mind that the modern "funny" roundabout occupies much more space than the old Moor End crossroads, and so may appear to "move" the viaduct's apparent position closer to the junction. Unfortunately the resolution available on the online scan of the map makes it hard to pick out detail here, though the line of the Gade appears to also be crossed by the viaduct at that point, which would definitely make it a bridge rather than an embankment. The only photo I can find of it online  unfortunately doesn't really throw much light, showing it from the north. This page does however, also show a photo of a bridge across Station Road, which would be beyond Heath Park... If the line stopped at Heath Park why would there be an expensive bridge here? From what I can gather there were some sidings at Heath Park halt which may explain the additional embankment extending behind the halt - this would make sense on the basis that they would have needed a way to put an engine on either end of the train. Also, the 1883 map definitely does show a track connection to the main line - it's hard to see it but if you download the image and blow it up in Photoshop it can be made out. None of this necessarily conflicts with your childhood memories - it's quite possible that this whole section got dismantled much earlier than the 1950s, especially given the closure of the line altogether in 1947. I'm fairly convinced about the link existing, but there just isn't enough evidence online to settle it. I'm visiting the UK in the summer - I may try and find time to find out more about this. The Gazette should have lots of pics in its archives - I'm going to contact them and see if I can get hold of copies. I guess reading the recent new book would help too! It just goes to show how easily facts about our past are lost, though of course it doesn't really matter one jot in this case! However, I just want to KNOW! On a mission.... Graham 22:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (ten minutes later) looking again at the viaduct photo, I think it actually shows the structure from the south, not the north. Note the way the street appears to curve to the right beyond the viaduct - this is consistent with the 1883 map, which also appears to show a row of terraced houses on the left of the road going north but not on the right (the photo shows trees barely visible on the right????). This is really pushing the detail discernable on the map and photo however. This means the river would be behind the houses on the left, which is consistent with descriptions I've read of the watercress growers' cottages. So, comparing with the modern layout of Moor End, this places the viaduct very close to the "funny" roundabout - in fact only a few tens of metres north of the most northerly mini-roundabout, which is actually slightly south of the later BP building which I recall from MY childhood. Thus the old Plough crossroads is actually situated at the southern extreme of where the funny roundabout is today. What does this prove? Nothing, except that I believe it shows that the 1883 map's positioning of the viaduct is probably correct. One other thing comes to mind. If the Nicky Line as a whole was opened in 1877, and this map is from 1883, that's not long after it was built. Could it be that the old map shows the PROJECTED route of the line? While that's entirely possible, it doesn't explain the on-the-ground evidence visible in the aerial photo.Graham 23:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * [[image:hemeloverlay.jpg|thumb|right|400px]](1 hour later) You may find this interesting. I took the aerial photo and the map and fitted the map to the photo with a transparent overlay. In Photoshop I can vary the transparency of the layers which is cool - you can basically morph from one to the other. If you'd like the original layered Photoshop file (6.6MB), mail me (grahamDOTcoxATbigNOSPAMpondDOTcom) and I'll send it. This is a jpeg taken off it. If nothing else it shows that the 1883 map was actually pretty accurate - where it doesn't quite line up it's probably more to do with differences in the projection and my ability to manually adjust the scale than any surveying error. Graham 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Induced Drag.jpg
I was just looking around and found the Lift-induced drag page, which was meant to display the image you uploaded, titled Image:Induced Drag.jpg. There seems to be an error with it, and it is only appearing as:

I've removed it from the article for the time being, just put it back if you manage to get it fixed.

Just thought I'd let you know. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The image appears just fine right here, and on the page. Try it again - perhaps there were some issues given that WP had a major shutdown of its systems over the last few days - it might just be that you looked at images as just the wrong moment...? Graham 21:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Brent
Does it really add anything to the article by quoting the character of Brent as saying "M.C. Hammer shit"? I pulled the word because it distracts from the point of his delusionally inflated sense of his own ability. The Office contains a lot more casual vulgarity than many American viewers are accustomed to in their workplaces, & while it may be an accurate representation of UK practices, quoting that word alone & out of context of what the rest of the characters say (e.g. people are told to fuck off, sex toys are exchanged in the office as presents, Dawn calls David a wanker, Tim calls Gareth a cock & worse -- about the only obsenity I missed in the series is the British "bloody") makes him sound to the non-UK readers as if he were no more than a foul-mouthed & uneducated person: more like Dawn's boyfriend than David himself. I hope you take this point under consideration, rather than push for "freedom of speech". -- llywrch 04:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * On the other hand it shows another side of his personality - the way he tries to pass off what he clearly believes are talents as just something he does in passing; another string to his multi-dimensional bow. By off-handedly dismissing M.C.Hammer as "shit", he's trying to appear cool, casually dropping it in as if he hasn't in fact tried so very hard to study the moves in question. The irony is of course, that what he then does is indeed shit of the worst kind, and not even slightly cool. While I doubt this will come across from the quote to those who haven't seen this scene for themselves, for those who have it's an amusing reminder. Ask yourself what does adding it take away from the article? I'd say nothing, so where's the harm? Graham 05:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Careless use of vulgarity erodes credibility; & David Brent, for all of his faults is not vulgar by nature as Brick Top Polford in Guy Richie's Snatch was. Including vulgarity in a quote from that character -- or from a passage from Hunter S. Thompson's writings or the tapes of Richard Nixon -- properly help to define those individuals. And including vulgarity in a quotation is like adding a pungent herb (like fennel or licorice) to a dish: a little goes a very long way at best, & should be avoided unless you can defend its use.

 * But I'm conceding this argument. Partly because someone else agrees with you about the article, but mostly because I watched the scene tonight, & it's clear from the camera shot of his speechless audience that his inappropriate language was intended as an important part of the scene. It's one of many things in this series that only become obvious after repeated viewings. -- llywrch 05:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright
Can you please provide some proof that the image Image:Austinmaestro.jpg is "copyright free"? Does that mean that it's in the public domain? Thank you. --Ellmist 01:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also: Image:Austinmaxi.jpg, Image:Austinmontego.jpg, Image:Austinprincess.jpg --Ellmist 01:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The images are press release images issued at the cars' various launches to the press. Each image in its original form explicitly includes the words "copyright free", though for the sake of presenting the images nicely and reducing their memory footprint I cropped these out. The originals can be found at one of the external links on the pages where they're used. Graham 01:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dihedral
The more I think about it the more merit the sideslip theory has, in my mind. I don't want to go into a long-winded explanation here but I'm going to write something on the discussion page for dihedral.

I have one major problem with the sideslip theory. It is going to take some time for the aircraft to accelerate into the sideslip so there will be some delay before the aircraft rights itself. This means that by the time the aircraft rights itself it will have lost some altitude and changed heading. Maybe this is what actually happens. However, the fact that dihedral raises the center of lift means the aircraft is more stable in the first place. This will moderate the onset of the bank and accelerate the recovery.

BTW, I've found at least five different explanations of how dihedral works. I can't tell you where now because someone cleared the cache on my computer and I'm having trouble retracing my steps. I found one explanation similar to your explanation (but not exactly). Another sideslip theory says the sideslip acts on the raised wing. One explanation says the bank changes the wing area (???). The most common explanation says that the lowered wing produces more lift because it is more horizontal (which makes no sense to me whatsoever).

I'll give you some references when I can find them again. Rsduhamel 17:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll copy this discussion to your talk page - it's easier to follow a thread if it's all in on place.Graham 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whitley Bay - rm not do famous residents - let's TRY to keep it real
If we're going to go down that route, I'd remove virtually all the entries, as none are substantiated or backed up with references. - Jon Dowland 13:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TSR-2
Thanks for the edit - I agree that it duplicates in part the (your?) earlier section - but I think that it does mean that you have removed some important factual information about the remarkable fate of XR220 and XR222 and other information which comes directly from documentary film records from interviews with staff and managers at the factory.--Daedelus 20:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree - if you check the history, the deleted para does not mention the fate of those two aircraft specifically by number, and I added a line to the other para about the wiring damage (albeit summarised - I think too much obsessive detail is unwarranted in a general article of this kind). I don't think there is any information in the deleted para which is not covered elsewhere in the article in one way or another. However, if you do feel like adding anything back in, please note that there is a section dedicated to the cancellation (the deleted info regarding the cancellation was incorrectly added to the "Design" section). Also take care with your spelling - there were a great number of mistakes I also corrected. Graham 00:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Red Arrows
Hi, noticed you edited Imperial War Museum Duxford article that i have been working on (you must have eagle eyes to notice that mistake!) thanks, so i looked at your user page hoping you might have an interest in aviation etc. as i really want to get the Red Arrows article up to featured article quality, and by pure chance you actually mention them on your user page! Anyway, any help would be really great, thanks Bluemoose 11:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed iPod future?
Hello. I'm just wondering why you removed the "Future" part in the iPod article. I think it's a good idea and gives more information to the reader about the future of the iPod. Irdepesca572 01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Because this is an encyclopedia, whose job is to record what exists, not to speculate on what might exist. Of course there will be new iPod models, with new features, and so on - and when they are annonced, an encyclopedia such as this one can record that fact. Please do not lose sight of what Wikipedia is for. It's an encyclopedia, and nothing more. It's not a rumours site (god knows there are enough) nor is it a forum for iPod fans to swap wishlists, etc. As it stood the "future" section adds nothing of interest to an already overlong article.Graham 01:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, if for example Apple had already announced that "next year the iPod will do such-and-such" then that would be different, and could be included, but they haven't, so anything added to the page is simply uninformed speculation.Graham 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vx magnum.jpg
Hi, I just wanna inform you that I've put up this image, which you uploaded 2 years ago, up for deletion. Aside from it not being used in any article, it's copyright status is not cleared for commercial use. TheCoffee 17:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Roobarb and Custard
Hi I came across Roobarb and Custard created by you when it came up on discussion at reference desk. I'm planning to create an article on the "Roobarb and Custard effect" and would like to know your initial source of the Roobarb article and how the animation style came to be called by this name. Thanks. Jay 6 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

 * Most of the reference for this article came from an exhibition at the Museum of Film and Television in Bradford, Yorkshire. I'm not sure if the exhibition was permanent or temporary, it was a good few years back. Well worth visiting if you're ever in the area. Graham 8 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

image
what did you use to draw this?

Also, your talk page has some doubled sections. - Omegatron July 9, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

 * Adobe Illustrator. Fixed doubling - thanks. Graham 01:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Were the component shapes already-made? - Omegatron 13:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I created them (once) then simply made duplicates as necessary. There is probably a library you can get. If you'd like the original illustrator file I can send it. Graham 01:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Cylinder
For the drag coefficient of a cylinder to be used as a standard some conditions will need to be listed. As it stands there is no mention of the shape of the cylinder (ratio of length to diameter), or Reynolds number, or even what direction it is moving (end on or side on). Cylinders are known to have a large break in Cd with Reynolds number change. Please repost the definition along with the rest of the information.

On second thought, we would not want to give the impression that Cd is based on or defined as a cylinder at all, or on any other form. Cd=1 is entirly a mathematical idealization. Could we just leave it out until the whole story can be posted. Meggar 16:04, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

 * Fair enough - I'm not clear about the exact definition beyond what I wrote. Googling for more hasn't been all that helpful so far. However, a Cd of 1.0 is based on some kind of cylinder - or indeed on something at all, which the article fails to mention. I feel this is important, since otherwise Cd, being simply a number, has no meaning. I THINK the cylinder in question is one of effectively infinite length - i.e. one that extends outside the stream of the fluid. As for Reynolds Number, obviously this has a significant effect so needs to be factored in somehow, though the rest of the article doesn't do so either. In fact at the moment I feel it's rather substandard all round. Graham 01:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications survey
Hi again Graham! You may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

amplifier filtering
Does my comment on class D amplifier filters ( Talk:Electronic_amplifier ) make sense to you? Is it encyclopedic enough to move to the main Electronic_amplifier article? --DavidCary 01:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Aspartame
Please see my comments on Talk:Aspartame. --Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

L+R, L-R
???? Are you sure? I don't think a stereo record is cut with two separate styli. I think you may be correct that the physical arrangement involves two coils, each of which is oriented at 45 degrees to the vertical and, if energized separately, each drives the SINGLE stylus in a 45 degree direction. But by simple vector addition that's equivalent to recording L+R horizontally and L-R vertically. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It is cut with one stylus - I hope my edit didn't give any other impression. I was just surprised by the description of it being encoded as L+R/L-R, though now you have made me think about it in more detail, I realise you are correct. I have just never thought of it that way, and have never seen it described this way elsewhere. However, on considering the mathematics, you are right - my thinking was that resolving the two channels would require a multiplication matrix whereas of course a pickup is entirely passive - but what I missed was the fact that one of the coils is wired 180° out of phase and the physical arrangement does the rest. Cunning ;-) I'll put it back.... Graham 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Court.line.bac1-11.592pix.jpg
Dear GRAHAMUK, i'm working on the german BAC 1-11 articel right know and want to use your picture. Unfortunately it has an unverified copyright status. Please help! -- Stahlkocher 18:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Support
THanks for your support on this one. Nice to have some feedback Light current 23:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
THanks for your support on this one Graham. Nice to have some feedback Light current 23:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Electronic Amplifier Error??
Graham, I think I may have found an error in this article regarding the eff of a Class A resistive loaded stage. Could you take a look at my reasoning on the Electronic amplifier talk page and let me know what you think (as you appeared to be one of the contributors )THanks :-) Light current 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I'll leave you to change it if and when you see fit.Light current 00:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit failed
Hi, seeing your recent edits to Talk:Mac OS X I'm guessing you are seeing a lot of "edit failed" or "server did not respond" messages. Sometimes you get these even when the edit did succeed, so it's usually a good idea to check the Page history to see whether the edit succeeded or not. AlistairMcMillan 00:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW Just read your "observations" and wanted to say I agree. Not sure if I'd go as far as blocking ACs, but the signal-to-noise ratio around here sure does seem to be dropping recently.  AlistairMcMillan 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi - yes I was getting "server did not return any response to the request", so I tried resubmitting. After about 5 attempts I checked the page and saw it had gone through anyway. Graham 01:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

HFS Plus third fork
What's your source for the third fork? AlistairMcMillan 10:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, well now I come to check I might be mistaken... I thought I'd read it somewhere but I can't recall where - searching the Apple docs doesn't seem to indicate that this is the case (though it doesn't go into that much detail), and the best guess as to where I read it - the Ars Technica review, talks at great length about HFS+ metadata being stored in another kind of extensible structure that HFS+ supports. Maybe it's this that I recall reading but mis-remembered? . However this is itself quite interesting and might be worth a mention. Graham 11:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Unlike the Be filesystem, both WinFS under NTFS and Spotlight under HFS+ (well, it works on any filesystem you can mount on MacOS X, I have created Spotlight databases in SMB shares under NTFS and HFS+) don't use ads for storing search metadata but a per-volume database in regular files (Spotlight just creates a folder called ".Spotlight-V100" in volume's root while WinFS moves the files added to the database to the same folder where the database resides, and renames them for their own indexing, however seems to not add any ads to the files themselves -have to test it better with last Vista betas-), also adding another fork to HFS+ will absolutly require a major filesystem redesign as the filesystem only support two ads, Data and Resource. Claunia 05:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well this isn't what the Ars Technica article reports. However, you're incorrect that it would require "a major redesign" because in fact HFS+ already supports any number of forks per file in its structural design, it just so happens that only two are exposed through the File Manager APIs. Adding additional forks would require some minor changes to the internal OS code, but no changes to the APIs since they permit any fork to be accessed by name - so if Apple ever did add a third, fourth or forty-second fork, they'd only have to tell developers what name to use and it would be supported. The bigger headache would be how to transfer these n-forked files to other systems, which traditionally support only one fork per file. That's the real reason that Apple have moved away from this approach, which is a shame, but wholly pragmatic.Graham 14:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Theremin redlinks
I appreciate your comments concerning the purpose of redlinks. However, example lists such as are listed in the Theremin article can get out of hand, and I suggest that with 36 bands the list is approaching that point. See your own statement,  So much of what I've seen here is not even trivia, it's mindless minutiae. At what point does the list become merely a promotional vehicle for the bands, especially when they are so non-notable that no one has yet written an article about them. (Bear in mind that in the field of popular culture we have no shortage of fans eager to write about their favorite musicians...) --Blainster 22:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I take your point - I've never heard of them either... but having the redlinks might encourage someone to actually write the article, and who knows, it might even be worth a read ;-) I just disagreed with eliminating the redlinks for the sole purpose of "tidying up" since that removes one easy avenue for WP to grow. Graham 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Court Line Aviation Photography
Greetings:

I'm attempting to obtain photography related to Autair International and Court Line Aviation, Ltd., which was an operator of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar in the 1970s. I am interested in obtaining the photography to illustrate an article I would like to write about Court Line for my online Ezine, AirlinersAirlinersAirliners at www.airlinersairlinersairliners.net.

I would like to know your terms and conditions for use of your Court Line images, if they can be sized larger, and how many images you possess. So far, I'm viewing three on Wikopedia including a pink BAC 1-11, the Lockheed corporate photo of G-BAAA over the Sierras during a winter storm, and a group of multi-colored BAC 1-11s presumably on the ramp at Luton.

I am extremely interested in the TriStars history with the airline, so any photography of both aircraft, the Blackburn Beverly and Short Belfast support aircraft, would be appreciated, to inlcude any shots available of the Air Stairs and any additional shots taken of the aircraft at different locales the TriStars served.

Of particular interest are shots of the two TriStars during the Hadj Operations in Saudi Arabia.

Thank you!

BRDB!!! (= Best Regards DA BEAR!!!) aka Mark S. "Bear" Daniels Editor AirlinersAirlinersAirliners www.airlinersairlinersairliners.net

Aviation & Marine USA www.aviationandmarineusa.com

Silver State News Service www.silverstatenews.com

bearzbearzbearz@yahoo.com

 * Hi, I would love to be able to help, having something of an interest in Court Line myself. However, the photography is not mine to grant you any rights to - as you point out one of them is airline publicity material and the other is of unknown origin; it may be in the public domain, but I wouldn't know for sure. You can obtain many photographs of Court Line aircraft from airliners.net (do a freeform search for "court line", it should throw up fifty or so images). You will probably have more luck contacting the individual photographers through that site, since all the images are usually attributed to someone. It's also worth digging out the book "colours in the sky" which is a detailed history of Court - try an Amazon search in the first instance - again, contacting the authors would be the way to go, since I believe they have amassed a large amount of photographic material and ephemera from the airline. Good luck! Graham 09:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Stereophonic sound
You might want to join the discussion here, regarding whether the phrase "stereophonic sound" is incorrect. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I *did not* edit that Glam Rock piece.
I didn't remove any bands, I did not make a single change to that article! I only posted to the discussion. Such things are not in my philosophy.

I know I didn't even do it by accident. I ask you to check the record on the whole article now, please.

Tarquin Binary 04:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think you're telling off someone else, but the timestamp is odd, like I just put it on my watchlist and it's backdated or whatever? Sorry if it's my mistake.

Tarquin Binary 04:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, don't worry - I don't think I was aiming the comment at you anyway - as far as I can tell it was just another anon user. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Graham 04:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lift_Curve.jpg
Hi there... I think you drew this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lift_Curve.jpg Excellent diagram, please can you supply copyright or authorship info? Can't believe noone thought to contact you sooner, so I thought I would. Thanks. Mat-C 20:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:GRAHAMUK/Archive 2


text:
California State Route 6

Two highways in the U.S. state of California have been signed as Route 6:
 * U.S. Route 6 in California
 * California State Route 6 (1934), now part of I-10

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: California State Route 6


text:
Hněvošice

Hněvošice (Schreibersdorf, Gniewoszyce) is a municipality and village in Opava District in the Moravian-Silesian Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 1,000 inhabitants. It is part of the historic Hlučín Region.

Etymology
The name is probably derived from the personal name Hněvoš. The German name originated in 1630. After 1736, the folk name Něboščice also appeared.

Geography
Hněvošice is located about 9 km northeast of Opava, on the border with Poland. It lies in the Opava Hilly Land. The highest point is at 315 m above sea level.

The forest in the western part of the municipality is protected as the Hněvošický háj Nature Reserve with an area of 70.7 ha.

History
The first written mention of Hněvošice is from 1288, when the brothers Trutvín and Vítek were the owners of Hněvošice. They built a courtyard and a fortress. The courtyard was destroyed by fire at the beginning of the 18th century.

From 1742 to 1918, after Empress Maria Theresa had been defeated, the village belonged to Prussia. In 1920, the municipality was annexed to Czechoslovakia and incorporated into the district of Hlučín. In 1928, it was changed to the Opava District.

Transport
On the Czech-Polish border is the road border crossing Hněvošice / Ściborzyce Wielkie. The I/46 road from Opava to the Czech-Polish border in Sudice passes through Hněvošice.

Sights
The most valuable building is the Church of Saints Peter and Paul. It is the only still standing wooden church in the Hlučín Region and has been protected as a cultural monument. It has preserved original interior. The church was built in the Baroque style in 1730 and restored in 1842. It was funded by Johann Rudolf Žarovský from Žarov.

A landmark is the Church of Christ the Good Shepherd. It is a modern church, built in 1996.

title: Hněvošice


text: User talk:86.131.31.30

title: User talk:86.131.31.30


text:
Rose and Thorn

Rose and Thorn are each the personalities of two different characters within publication of DC Comics, and in which Thorn is a villainous persona. Rose Canton originated during the Golden Age of comics, and Rhosyn "Rose" Forrest during the Silver Age. Until the Crisis on Infinite Earths, Canton and Forrest were from Earth-Two and Earth-One respectively, of the DC Multiverse.

Rose Canton
Thorn (Rose Canton) is a woman with a split personality whose villainous personality has the ability to control plants. Initially, she and her hired thugs opposed the Flash. After being (apparently) cured of her Thorn persona, Rose married Alan Scott and had two children, Jennie-Lynn Hayden and Todd James Rice by him. After a resurgence of her madness, she left Scott and put her children up for adoption, then went into seclusion for many years. She finally resurfaced and faced the Justice Society several times before her sanity returned, and she committed suicide.

As a child, Rose Canton used an imaginary friend, "Thorn", to deflect blame for bad things that she did. Over the years, Thorn developed as a distinct persona in Rose's head. As an adult, Rose was studying biology on the island of Tashmi, where she was exposed to the sap of a jungle root, which transformed her into Thorn. After killing her teacher, Professor Hollis, she reverted to Rose. Rose returned to America and settled in Keystone City where Thorn headed a gang which harassed the Flash. When she was in control, Rose would approach Jay for help, claiming to be Thorn's sister.

The Amazons of Paradise Island undertook her psychological treatment and apparently managed to rid Rose of the Thorn persona. During the time of her recovery, Rose developed a crush on Alan Scott. Dyeing her hair black, she assumed the identity of Alyx Florin and romantically pursued him, leading to their marriage. Tragedy struck when, on their honeymoon, Thorn returned. The personality of Rose was able to prevent Thorn from killing Alan, but she chose to run, preferring Alan to believe that she had perished in the fire that consumed their cabin. Their brief honeymoon resulted in the conception of twins, the children who were to become Jade and Obsidian. Fearful that Thorn might kill them, she gave the children up for adoption.

Thorn continued to fight Alan, who was still unaware of his wife's alter ego. On the island of Tashmi, she faced her husband and two children, both now adults. To keep Thorn from killing them, Rose fatally stabbed herself in the heart.

In 2011, "The New 52" rebooted the DC universe. A one-shot take on Rose and Thorn was published as part of the National Comics line in September 2012, written by Tom Taylor and drawn by Neil Googe. This version is a teenage girl Rose Canton who is just returning to school after being institutionalized following the death of her father. The shy Rose discovers that she has a violent and sexually adventurous split personality Thorn who is determined to find her father's murderers.

In the pages of "The New Golden Age", Alan Scott's marriage to Rose Canton remains intact after he had told Obsidian about his first encounter with Red Lantern. He stated to Obsidian that he still loved his mother where Obsidian and Jade were born from that love.

Rhosyn Lynne Forrest
A second character was created by writer Robert Kanigher and artist Ross Andru in the 12-page Lois Lane story "Death House Honeymoon" in Superman's Girl Friend, Lois Lane #105 (October 1970), with her own series, "Rose and the Thorn", debuting that issue as the title's backup feature.

Rhosyn "Rose" Forrest is the daughter of Metropolis police officer Phil Forrest, who was killed by a criminal gang named The 100. When Rose went to sleep, her Thorn personality would emerge and stalk the streets as a vigilante, attempting to bring The 100 to justice. When she succeeds in bringing The 100 to justice, the "Thorn" personality subsides. Eventually, however, the gang escapes and forms another group, called The 1000, and her alternate personality resurfaces. She has since worked with Superman and Booster Gold to try to put these criminals behind bars. She was briefly under the control of Lord Satanus.

Thorn has no actual superpowers, but she is highly athletic and learned martial arts from her father. She is known to carry a pair of combat daggers, a barbed whip, and a bandolier of tiny, thorn-shaped weapons, some of which contain explosives, miniature smoke bombs, or blinding magnesium flares.

In the 1990s, Thorn appeared in a Green Arrow storyline written by Chuck Dixon. After trying to defeat a Metropolis crime lord, Thorn was defeated by Eddie Fyers and taken prisoner. After being tied up and gagged in a supply closet, Thorn reverted to her Rose persona and began to sob, frightened and confused about what was happening. Her sobs were heard by Green Arrow, who had rescued her earlier. They eventually teamed up to take down the crime lord after she returned to her Thorn persona.

When Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy moved to Metropolis, Thorn immediately attacked them. After a fierce battle, the women left Thorn hanging bound and gagged from a Superman statue in a local park for all of the citizens to see. During a later confrontation, Harley and Ivy defeat Thorn again, this time kidnapping her and keeping her tied up in their garden. After removing the vines from her mouth, Harley drugs Thorn into revealing the secrets about her multiple personality. Ivy then tortures Thorn in order to prove that she's weak, eventually leaving her in the care of Bizarro while she takes a break. Although, she is later rescued by Supergirl, who defeats Bizarro and unties Thorn. Supergirl later reveals that she just happened to stumble into the garden. Thorn and Supergirl later ambush and capture Ivy and turn her into the police.

A 2004 Rose & Thorn miniseries by Gail Simone provided a slightly different origin story. In this version, The 100 killed both her parents, but Rhosyn was now revealed to have, at age 12, fought back and mutilated their murderer, Mr. Quince, cutting his hand off. She was then placed into a psychiatric care home, where she constantly flew into violent outbursts. Rhosyn's multiple personality is a result of unethical experimental treatments by a psychiatrist named Dr. Chritlow. The experiments forced her to repress her more violent, base emotions; these emotions were then given to the buried "Thorn" personality, who emerged whenever the submissive Rose felt angry or threatened. Her Thorn personality finally broke out after Rose's roommate Kimmy was burned to death by another patient. Enraged, Thorn viciously mutilated the culprit. Once released into the public, Thorn began taking over more frequently, taking up a role as an ultra-violent vigilante in a quest to take down The 100 and avenge her parents. By the end of the miniseries, it was hinted that she had killed the head of The 100 while he was in the hospital.

In the miniseries, Gail Simone gave Rhosyn an uncle and godfather, Detective Curtis Leland, who was secretly taking bribes from The 100 and had been unable to stop them killing Rhosyn's parents. Wracked with guilt and determined to protect his goddaughter, he disposed of two 100 grunts that Thorn had dispatched. Curtis was killed while trying to prevent Quince from killing Rhosyn. In his final moments, he put a signed confession in his pocket so the police could arrest them.

It was also revealed that Rose and Thorn are not the only two personalities in Rhosyn's mind. The other two shown have been "Mom", a caring and maternal figure much like how Rose remembers their mother, and "Wild Rose", an Irish vigilante who is even more vicious and punitive than Thorn.

She encountered the Birds of Prey in the Hero Hunters storyline. As of Birds of Prey #98, she is employed at Dinah Lance's flower shop, Sherwood Florist II. Her most recent appearance was in Birds of Prey #108, where she makes an appearance as one of the heroines called in to confront and intimidate Spy Smasher.

In 2016, DC Comics implemented another relaunch of its books called "DC Rebirth" which restored its continuity to a form much as it was prior to "The New 52". Rose and Thorn appeared in September 2019 as part of the relaunch of the Legion of Superheroes under Brian Michael Bendis and Szymon Kudranski. This version of Rose is likewise dual-personalitied, and had a few run-ins with various heroes (including at one point waking up in Arkham Asylum) before medication developed by Lex Luthor suppressed her Thorn Personality, allowing her to live a normal life and get married. In this story, Rose is immortal (though she did not notice until they stopped making the medicine she took to suppress her Thorn persona, as the condition was now genetically corrected at birth). She goes to an aged Supergirl for help, but apparently does not receive it as her Thorn personality is later seen going on a murderous rampage against the criminal element in Neo Gotham. She lives on Earth unaging for over 1000 years, encountering a number of other prominent future characters including Batman Beyond and Kamandi. She is important in the founding of the Legion.

Powers and abilities
Exposure to the sap of a rare tropical plant gave Rose Canton's Thorn personality limited control over plant life, especially those with thorny stalks. The sap was also responsible for physically transforming Rose into the evil Thorn. She also has the ability to spin rapidly like a top. Thorn also had Rose's extensive knowledge of botany and plant-related toxins.

The Rhosyn Lynne Forrest version of Thorn is skilled at hand-to-hand combat. In the "DC Rebirth" version, Rhosyn is immortal and lives unaging for over 1000 years.

In other media
Thorn appears in Adventures in the DC Universe Annual #1.

title: Rose and Thorn


text: User talk:85.236.104.5

title: User talk:85.236.104.5


text:
Dikta

Dikta is an indie rock band from Garðabær, Iceland. The band was formed in 1999 and consists of vocalist and guitarist Haukur Heiðar Hauksson, guitarist Jón Bjarni Pétursson, bassist Skúli Z. Gestsson and drummer Jón Þór Sigurðsson. Their name is an Icelandic verb meaning "to compose or make something up". Dikta has released five studio albums.

Formation and Andartak (1999–2004)
Dikta was formed in Garðabær in 1999 by childhood friends Haukur Heiðar Hauksson, Jón Bjarni Pétursson, Jón Þór Sigurðsson and Skúli Z. Gestsson. The band is influenced by Radiohead, Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins, and were finalists in the Icelandic band competition Músíktilraunir in 2000. Dikta's debut album, Andartak, was released in late 2002. The album was self-released in Iceland by the band members through their label Mistak Records. Andartak yielded three singles, "Taminóra," "Andartak," and "Engin orð", which were all played frequently on Iceland's largest rock station at the time, X-ið 977. The album's lyrics are in Icelandic. Dikta played at the Iceland Airwaves festival for the first time in 2003 and have played there regularly since then.

Hunting for Happiness and Get It Together (2005–2010)
In 2005, Dikta released their second album, Hunting for Happiness, in Iceland, followed by releases in Denmark and the UK in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The album was produced by Martin "Ace" Kent of Skunk Anansie and was released by the Sugarcubes-owned label, Smekkleysa SM (Bad Taste). The album artwork was made by Gabríela Friðriksdóttir, who has previously collaborated extensively with Björk. Four successful singles were released off Hunting for Happiness: "Chloë", "Breaking the Waves", "Someone, Somewhere" and "Losing Every Day". Each single received heavy airplay on Iceland's rock radio stations X-FM and X-ið 977, and, with the exception of "Chloë", was also played on Iceland's national radio station, Rás 2. The album's lyrics are in English. Dikta received praise for their performance at Iceland Airwaves in 2006 from Rolling Stone senior editor David Fricke, who likened their set-closing performance of "Chloë" to a "Nirvana-like blowout."

In 2009, Dikta released their third studio album, Get It Together. Like their previous album, the lyrics are in English. The band members stated in interviews before its release that it would be a natural progression from Hunting for Happiness. The album was released in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in March 2010 by Smarten-Up!, a German indie label based in Düsseldorf. The album is certified platinum in Iceland and included the radio-hit singles "Thank You", "From Now On" and "Goodbye". In 2010, singer Hauksson featured on Ólafur Arnalds's song "A Hundred Reasons" off his album ...And They Have Escaped the Weight of Darkness. During the same year, Dikta supported The Kooks on their European tour.

Trust Me, Easy Street and 20th anniversary (2011–present)
In 2011, Dikta released their fourth album, Trust Me, following extensive touring in Europe in the past years. The album was self-produced and released by Kölski in Iceland. Dikta was interviewed for the National Geographic series Islands and performed an acoustic version of "Thank You" in 2012. In 2014, singer Hauksson performed the song "Is It Time" with Helgi Júlíus Óskarsson on the latter's collaborative album Crossroads. In 2015, Dikta released their fifth studio album, Easy Street, produced by Sky van Hoff. Easy Street was recorded in Germany and Iceland, and consisted of eleven songs. The album single "Hope for the Best" reached top five in the Icelandic charts and became the most played hit on Icelandic radio in 2015. In 2019, Dikta celebrated the anniversary of their formation with the release of the single "Anniversary". In 2022, the band released the single "Dig Deeper", produced by Sky van Hoff and Magnús Árni Øder Kristinsson. The band supported Skunk Anansie on various dates of their anniversary tour in 2022.

Band members

 * Haukur Heiðar Hauksson – vocals, guitar, piano
 * Jón Bjarni Pétursson – guitar
 * Skúli Z. Gestsson – bass, backing vocals
 * Jón Þór Sigurðsson – drums

Studio albums

 * Andartak (2002)
 * Hunting for Happiness (2005)
 * Get It Together (2009)
 * Trust Me (2011)
 * Easy Street (2015)

title: Dikta


text:
Talk:Moller M400 Skycar

== 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)

 * 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)

Collisions
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Delivery date reverse progress
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)

They seem to be taking deposits on these things, refundable if FAA flight certification does not occur before 01/01/2009. This seems relatively new. My recollection was that a year ago they were too far away to take orders. TMLutas 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

Updates by Spfrazer and Smackycat
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)

 * 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)

 * Also, how will the "2007 flight tests" take place if the prototype is sold on eBay? --John Nagle 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The claim that further flight tests will occur in 2007 requires a citation. Thanks. --John Nagle 18:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More edits by Smackycat
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)

 * 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)

New edits by EllasBates
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)

Watch those ref tags, people
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 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)

Unfair implied accusation
''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)

 * Scare quotes are to be avoided.   Rephrase it to a more neutral tone.  (SEWilco 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

 * 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)

Certification date not updated (yet)
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)

Took out Wankel press release material
Took out some material from anons about a new Moller press release.. That's just a reprint of a Moller press release, not a reliable source. It's a "real soon now" announcment; they haven't closed the deal. For more details see this SEC filing:. --John Nagle (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 * There is a list of specifications here: http://www.moller.co.kr/skycar/m400.htm. Another way of getting a power figure is to work with the stated HP of the Rotapower engines, from http://www.moller.com/faq.htm#q4.  According to this source, the engines are rated at 75 HP for the small (650 cc) version and 150 HP for the big (1300 cc) version.  Figuring on 8 engines, you have a choice of 600 or 1200 HP.

Certification Date: Not later than December 31, 2008
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)

 * 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)

 * There are some interesting thoughts about the performance claims for the Skycar here and here --Plane nutz (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article in the National Post (and associated newspapers) on flying cars
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)
 * 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)

Moller bankrupt?
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)

Moller web page restructured
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)

WP:NOTAFORUM
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)

Advice concerning a source
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)

 * 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)

Test flight in October
Can anyone verify the authenticity of this on their website

http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:skycar-manufacturer-moller-international-announces-scheduled-test-flight-&catid=35:moller-news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.175.43 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * It's on their web site. We'll know in October 2011 if it flies. If it outperforms the Hiller Flying Platform, that would be interesting.  --John Nagle (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Some of the fake photoshop images in their page are outrageous. Please wait and see what develops. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, those pictures of the thing flying high above clouds are a bit much. For the article, I suggest we hold off until it either flies or doesn't. There will be news coverage either way.  --John Nagle (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 * It's interesting that the press release uses a lot of the same old boilerplate statements that Moller has always used in their corporate communications, and is suspiciously vague about exactly what the test flight will accomplish. Still, they have actually stuck their neck out enough to commit to something, and it will be interesting to see what transpires, one way or the other.  They had better be able to do something more than just another hover test -- being able to demonstrate a conversion from vertical takeoff to forward flight and back would go a long way towards restoring some of their credibility.  We shall see.--Plane nutz (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The amazing thing is how long Moller has gone on without something flying. It's not that hard to make VTOL craft that fly.  Many were built in the 1950s and 1960s.  See List of VTOL aircraft, and especially the Doak VZ-4. Some of them are at the Hiller Aviation Museum. If you're not concerned about fuel consumption, range, speed, payload, and other useful stuff like that, a demo craft is well within reach. Stability control used to be a big problem (see Avrocar (aircraft)) but now, quadrotor toys have good stability control systems.  --John Nagle (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 * My concern/suspicion about Moller and the Skycar has always been about the performance figures for the engines, and the range/fuel economy projections for the finished design. While I will freely admit that I have no hard figures to back up my gut feelings, the figures have never 'felt' right to me, and I question how accurate such projections can be on a craft that has never made a forward flight, or a transition to or from hovering.  I should add that despite my long standing doubts about the Skycar, I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

 * I also feel that Moller's past corporate communications (heavily implying in news reports, magazine articles, internet blogs, etc. that the Skycar is a design almost ready to go into production, without ever actually outright stating this) verged on fraud. To their credit, they now seem to realize this, and understand that they're going to have to demonstrate some actual performance if they want to retain credibility.  It will be interesting to see what form their public demonstration takes.--Plane nutz (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 * ...And, in a move that should surprise no one, Moller today postponed the October 11 public flight, with no future date announced. See .  --Plane nutz (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Moller should team up with Freedom Ship. Two ideas that will NEVER take off.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

Volantor / Neuera
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)

Formatting in introduction needs fixing
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)

 * 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)

Proposed merger of Moller M400 Skycar, Moller M200G Volantor and Paul Moller
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)
 * Support merge - The biography is not a biogrtaphy but a rehash of his company's projects. Information on the "aircraft" is so limited and scant that all models could be listed in a single article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - The field of roadable aircraft is a widely-known emerging technology that, like it or not, has captured the imagination of a significant proportion of the populace that doesn't otherwise care about either aircraft or emerging technologies; it is also a fairly small field. Therefore, I feel having individual entries is not outrageous. Maybe when one hits mass market production we can lump all of the failures into one page. --Roland (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Moller trying to do a public stock offering and a deal with an investor in China
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Athena Technologies, Inc.
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) undefined 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Wikipedia

 * 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)

"Big announcement" coming
Mr. Moller announced today that he is going to make a big announcement on Nov. 5 on a radio show.. Also today, there was an edit which deleted some cited negative information about Moller. Please watch this article for unusual edits, PR, deletions, etc. (Since the announcement will be on radio, it probably won't involve an actual flight. That would be worthy of TV coverage.)  John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC) undefined 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC) undefined 20:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC) undefined 19:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC) undefined 07:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As of today, the web sites for Moller, Freedom Motors and Rotapower  are all unreadable. They're all on the same shared server and are returning a blank Joomla PHP script as the home page, so this may be a technical problem. Or a business problem.  --John Nagle (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Moller sites back up. --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I bet it is a publicity stunt, as supposed as a real technological development news. I doubt he got the thrust required. If his rotary engines performed as his web site claims, he would be the Bill Gates of aviation. If the multi-vane Rand Cam engine ever works, it may be what he needs. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * His rotary engines were first announced in 1985-1986.. They were announced again many times since: 2001  2003  2008  2010 . They still haven't shipped. This is important for the article.  Moller's established MO is to keep re-announcing the same thing every few years, after the previous announcement has been forgotten.  John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has to do with overcoming a capital barrier. If the government began funding NASA at a rate of $10 million a year, no amount of funding, no matter how many years of funding, would permit them to be successful with Mercury, Apollo, STS, or any other major manned space project. NASA in this hypothetical scenario could have received and spent $10 million a year for 100 years and get still not get human spaceflight done, as all money gets absorbed into fixed cost. This scenario is the actual reality for Moller. Think about that before alleging what you think is their business strategy. 14:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at this from another angle. Tesla Motors, Solar City, and SpaceX would not be as successful if it were for lack of vehicle tax credits, NASA's need for electrical power in human space flight, and contracts with NASA and beneficiaries of basic government-funded space technology. In most countries, the largest investor is the government, and that's not just in China. We can imagine an alternative universe where Elon Musk is called a scam artist, for lack of subsidy. Yet, this not an alternate universe, but rather, reality for Paul Moller. 15:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The previously announced "big announcement" was made today.. The announcement is that Moller has started an Indiegogo campaign to raise more money. That's it. John Nagle (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The announcement is a bit more than that. Why not locate the Indiegogo campaign itself instead of just linking to Fox News? (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/actually-fly-the-m400x-skycar-into-history) "Pledge: For Every $1 we raise, Nitro-Turbodyne will match it with $1 (up to $438,000) in flight test engineering, data reduction and analysis, FAA Designated Airworthiness Representative, Experimental Aircraft Certificate coordination, FAA liaison engineering, flight test conduct, test pilot, airworthiness compliance and airspace coordination." I'm sure as hell that I never heard that before this Indiegogo campaign. Previous announcement? Yeah right.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * SO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE SO FAR? The Skycar M400X has flown -- successfully -- several times and always without incident, but only without a pilot and always on a tether. This was a safety requirement by the FAA, but it also allowed us to prove that the Skycar was capable of flying under full control of the flight computers on-board the aircraft, and to test the capability of the autopilot system to fly the Skycar. After each test, refinements were made until we were ready for a manned flight (flight with a pilot on-board). In 2011, we retained the services of a consultant to obtain FAA clearance to fly the piloted/untethered flights. The consultant recommended several changes be made to the Skycar in order to be comply with new FAA requirements, which must be completed prior to the first untethered and manned flight. We are now ready to fly. We are often asked, “Why is it taking you so long to fly?”, or even more often, “Where is my flying car?”, to which we can only tell people that we are a safety-first company, and that we would rather focus on being safe and meticulous in our testing than to rush to get in the air simply for the sake of flying. While others take chances, we feel that your safety is more important than rushing our design. - http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/actually-fly-the-m400x-skycar-into-history siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * Re: Why not locate the Indiegogo campaign itself instead of just linking to Fox News? Because Wikipedia prefers third-party news sources over PR. The PR on the IndieGogo campaign page is pretty much the same spin Moller was putting out six years ago - will fly real soon now, blames FAA, etc. Read this talk page for 2007, above. John Nagle (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some ridiculous stuff is going on as of late (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2013/11/06/moller-talk-radio-show-sirius.html):
 * Inventor Paul Moller had been scheduled the only guest Tuesday on the show “Art Bell’s Dark Matter” on SiriusXM, but the show itself suddenly disappeared.
 * Moller is the CEO of Moller International Inc. in Davis, which for years has been working to build and market vertical take-off and landing vehicles.
 * Bell’s show ended suddenly before broadcast Tuesday, which happened to be the day Moller was scheduled to talk about his Skycar and the new developments his company has made with small, powerful Wankel motors.
 * Bell for years was host of Coast to Coast AM, a show in which he calmly discussed science, fringe theory, paranormal activity and conspiracies. For the past six weeks, Bell revived that vein of programming with Dark Matter on SiriusXM.
 * But the show went offline abruptly before the Tuesday night segment.
 * "We are sorry that Dark Matter on SiriusXM has come to an abrupt end. We’ll examine our options and may be able to return in a different format and medium," was posted on ArtBell.com. "In the mean time, ArtBell.com will still operate as long as financially possible, hoping for a workable solution to bring Art back to you, soon. Keep checking back here often."
 * I would not be unwise to blame someone for this. The problem is who is to blame. I dare you to blame Moller for this. I'm very sure you could.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * Nah. It was Somali pirates on flying cars. :-) -BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I received an email from "paul@moller.com" yesterday:
 * "Paul will be on the Coast to Coast AM show, Sunday November 10, 2013. Hosted by John B. Wells, the show is broadcast Live from 1am-3am EST / 10pm-12am PST. Check for a local station here:  http://www.coasttocoastam.com/stations"
 * siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * Moller indiegogo campaign result: "$29,429USD Raised of $958,000 Goal" John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Real Soon Now, since at least 1998.
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)

Joint Venture section of article
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

Never flown
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)

External links modified (February 2018)
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)

"Real soon now" since 1974
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)

No info on STARTING YEAR and project evolution
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)

title: Talk:Moller M400 Skycar


text:
User:Pg gupta78

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.

title: User:Pg gupta78


text:
Terra 2001

Terra 2001 is the second album of The Brilliant Green released on September 8, 1999.

title: Terra 2001