The main tank, brimful with ideas. Enjoy them, discuss them, take them. - Of course, this is also the #1 place for new submissions!
User avatar
By Mobius1
I called it the Creative Minds X1 and started designing it using a computer 3D Design Tool.

The original idea was for an ultra light aircraft powered by a very small and relatively cheap engine such as a motorcycle engine or (as many suggested) a big chainsaw engine.

I wanted the wings to be foldable/detachable so that it could fit onto a large trailer. I wanted the bodywork to be made mostly of moulded plastics, this turned out to be an extreamly expensive task. Sheet aluminium is probably a better idea.

Im posting it here simply because it might inspire somebody who has the money, the talent, the will - to go and try it. I believe I had the talent, and the will. I didnt have the money, the space or the contacts.

If you have any questions concerning original measurement ideas etc - please feel free to ask!

Reward: I would like its name to remain as Creative Minds X1 and I want to be recognized as the original designer.
This was the last of my visualizations of the aircraft.
User avatar
By Mobius1

The CMX-1 'might' be examined by a managing director of a prestigious aircraft corperation in America with the primary purpose of figuring out wether or not this aircraft design is possibly valid. The name and design are not for sale and is considered at this time to be 'open source' if its right to put it this way. If the choosen examining body makes any conclusions, I will update it here.


Microsoft MPEG-4 video codecs needed and can be found here: ... nload.aspx

User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
Mobius... I've been a pilot for over 35 years and actively involved in the design of experimental aircraft for even longer than that. I've seen at least 30 very similar fixed wing aircraft designs like yours (shaft fuselage) and am wondering what is unique about yours over all the others. I know that you shouldn't give out patentable details here but a unique function over all the other designs would be helpful.

Also, there is an excellent program called "X-Plane" that I use to design all my experimental aircrafts. In this program it would only take about an hour to design, build, and fly your plane just exactly as it would fly in the real world. You might want to do that just for fun. Once it's flight characteristics are perfected, you can upload it to the X-Plane site where everyone else can download and fly it. If the plane is popular then others will continue to improve it until it's as good as it can get and artist from around the world will make it as beautiful as it can be. I think you'll LOVE this X-Plane program as much as I do. You won't believe how powerful and exacting X-Plane program is yet so easy to use!

As for now... your windshield side posts as shown are way to visually obstructive to be acceptable by any federal aviation agency. A single post dead center (to replace the two) would be much better. If you were to fly your plane in X-Plane as-is you would have trouble seeing those blue taxiway lights at night. The visual gap would cause you to think that there's a turn on the taxiway that doesn't actually exist and you could wind up in a ditch or pond -- just like in the real world. :(

I've been working on a no-compromise cross between a car (convertible), boat, motorcycle, and variable sweep wing airplane with telescopic wings in X-Plane for over a year now and this program has shown every single flaw in my designs to absolute perfection! When I have perfected it's functions and flying characteristics in X-Plane I will dedicate an open source web site to it for it's perfection by the rest of the worlds aviation enthusiast. This is something that you might want to consider doing with your design if it is unique in some way to all the other shaft body designs.

Hope this helps! Good luck!!!!
User avatar
By Mobius1
Hi Michael :)

I have had the same oppinion on the windshield design for a while now. Im looking at ways to increase pilot visability while maintaining structural integrity.

Taxi'ing would be a severe problem if the plane was designed to take off from land but in this case its meant strictly for water. The frontal design of the plane is bizarre and certainly not as aerodynamic as others in its field, but this is designed specifically in case of a hard touch down on water. The flat surface underneith the cockpit is meant to act like a boat, it would help the plane stay a-float.

About making it different..

Good Point!.. The only idea that I had that would make this ultra light completly stand out from the others was an early idea that involved using lightweight materials such as plastics and aluminium tubing. In doing this, weight would be shaved. This could allow for alternative energy source's in the form of electricity to be used for thrust. This electricity obviously needs to come from a source such as a battery, which in turn could be charged by flexi-solar panels mounted along the wings.

Nasa has already did something similiar, with an unmanned glider. ... ecProp.jpg

Electric engines can go as fast as 50mph when used in scooters. I wanted the stall speed for my design to be no more than 30~35mph so if electric could produce 40~45mph airborn then it makes for interesting thought.

its also a very expensive thought mind you because 4 of these solar panels producing a total of 128 watts would cost $1100+
User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
Yes, that solves the problem but as you said, at the loss of frontal impact strength. You can regain a lot of that strength by widely rounding all four corners of that center post. Also, for ultralites, they make pontoons with incredibly light retractable wheels. You may want to consider that to increase the utility and safety of your plane.

I would also recommend a Sterling Cycle engine-alternator to generate the electricity as a very inexpensive and far lighter alternative to solar panels. However, I do love the idea of never having to fuel the plane! Over time that just might make the cost of those expensive solar panels negligible.

Meanwhile, have you considered modeling your plane in X-Plane so that it not only looks great, is rotatable, but also FLYABLE? That program will actually make the pontoons bounce properly off the waves you specify in "settings". You can even test fly it in horrific thunderstorms and gusting wind shears etc.

You might also consider mass produced inexpensive disposable (use one time) molds that would allow you to make the entire plane from injected foam (unsinkable) and much lighter than aluminum. This is similar to how they make those plastic bumpers for cars only much lighter foam (like that used to pack computer printers for shipping).

I've been designing planes and cars for over 40 years (since 18) and have built up a wealth of information about what is currently available for doing what you're trying to do. If you can't find what you need via Google -- just ask me. Email me and I'll send you all of my instant messenger contact info if you like.

I have all instant messengers up and running all the time including for full video conference capability. With this program I can point my cam at my monitor and show you what it looks like from inside the cockpit of my experimental airplane while I'm actually flying it! -- or a chase plane view from any angle while flying!

Out of time -- must run -- SeeYa!
User avatar
By Mobius1
I downloaded the demo of X-PLANE, didnt realize it was so packed with features. I will try modelling my plane in it, although it wont be easy due to x-planes limited modelling facilities. I modelled my one in 3D Studio Max, which is basically industry standard.

I'll have a go at it anyways! If it works out, I'll probably buy the full version. As you had said before, your interested in finding a compromise between a car, aircraft and boat, well I assume you have saw this, but if not, here ya go!

All for $995,000
PFFT! maybe next year! :-D

Thanks m8
User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
Yes... my biz partner invested huge amounts money in that company and is still hanging on. When he saw my design a few years ago he went nuts trying to deside if he should invest in mine instead. He likes mine a lot better so, he decided that we should make it an open source project for the internet to perfect via a dedicated web site. That's what I'm working on right now. 3D Studio Max is my favorite but I've had very little time to use it.
User avatar
By Mobius1
Since we are on the subject of Sky-Cars and since the rest of creativity pool are most likely bored to tears at this thread - Pay Attention!!! this could be your future in transportation!!! :-B


Knowing my luck, I'll be in my grave before we see such things :~( the idea of see'ing the skys packed with auto-piloted - GPS guided family Sky Cars is truelly an overwhelming thought yet a very realistic one.

Well heres creativity pools Phantom Sky Car, hope yas like =D
User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
Don't worry... if their bored they'll just move on to another thread. That's what makes the CreativityPool so great -- lots and lots of interesting ideas/threads and people to share your dreams.

I think that when it comes to personal planes that can take off and land in your driveway, most non-pilot types visualize all those flying cars flying at about 300 feet AGL (just above their cars) following the roads they normally drive to work only with stop-n-go lines of flying cars. That's the problem! Planes would rarely follow the roads -- that would be insane! ;) There's billions of times more available traveling space above the road than on it. Personally I think the Moller will succeed -- at THAT price, how could it fail? There are enough rich pilots in the world to make it happen.

I like your simplified Moller design but would recommend a powered parachute just-in-case you lose a prop to a large bird. ;) The Moller has so many backups that it would be as safe as a conventional fixed wing Cessna 152!

Hang in there! Time for me to crash and burn.
User avatar
By Mobius1
I had a very bold thought about solar powered flight. I tried converting the thought into an image


Although this could not achieve anything other than vertical take-off and landing, it would make seriously interesting experimentation for the future possibilities of solar powered flight. The un-conventional design was slightly borrowed from Boeings turned-down X32 JSF. It makes sense though since it does provide maximum space for solar equipment unlike most other designs.

It looks very much like a UFO too!
By MissPlayful
Dear Mobius 1 and Michael D,
I have enjoyed reading your posts and wish you success with your ventures. Here are some thoughts from a person living in suburbia who will be watching developments from good old terra firma! If you want to fill city skies with personal planes or sky cars, please don’t forget noise pollution - electric motors would be great, chain saw motors would not be great. (Chain saw motors would give a new meaning to “the idea of see'ing the skys packed with auto-piloted - GPS guided family Sky Cars is truelly an overwhelming thought”). Your motors need to be extremely quiet because there are no barriers to sound between your planes and the people below, as we all know from the numerous times we have been woken up at night by helicopters. Make sure they are fully enclosed so people can’t throw things out the windows. You need to make your little planes a lot more city-friendly than helicopters are. I am sure many people envisaged city skies alive with helicopters when they were first invented, but this has not eventuated. There are reasons for this - eg they are very noisy, and they easily get blown slightly off line and hit things when landing and taking off. Cities can be very unfriendly places for low flying objects - even some birds have problems. Your planes will need to be very stable in gusty winds because the margins for error are so slight. On an airport runway or country field a few metres off course generally would not matter, but when landing in your back yard or rooftop landing pad it could be a different storey. These aspects do need to be overcome in addition to the technical problems relating to the planes themselves. Personal planes or sky cars would need to be extraordinarily city-friendly before they would be accepted as part of city life, otherwise they will simply be banned. But out in the country it’s a different matter - I’m sure there is plenty of scope for building better ultra-light planes or other kinds of personal flying transport for country use.

Good luck! Signed MissPlayful.
User avatar
By Michael D. Grissom
Very good points MissPlayful and the Moller engineers, years ago, resolved the problems that you mentioned except for severe wind gusts. They patented an incredible tuned muffler design (I studied the patent) that is like a Bose audio sound system only in reverse. The sound from all eight engines is less than that of a new car. The ducted fans were shaped until they were quiet -- much like the super quiet muffin fans in some computers these days. The blade pitch mechanism was designed to be super quick to allow instant compensation for sudden wind gusts but, unfortunately, there's no way to make the pilot quicker so, your right, I doubt seriously if you'll ever see them in the cities. Also, they would kick up everything lose on the ground when landing which is more than enough to keep them off of city streets but then, they never intended for them to go there. It's main purpose is for pilots who want to take off from their home driveways, land at an airport or in a field, and then drive onto a road to finish the trip. When I fly my plane to the beach it's only a 55 minute trip (3.5 hours by car) but, it takes and hour from the time I leave my driveway until I lift off the runway. Then, after landing, another half an hour to arrange refueling and rent a car to complete the trip. Also, aviation gas to the beach is about $55 but filling up at a gas station (legal here for aircraft) would make it about $22 which would save about $66 round trip in fuel alone.

If or when the Moller is available to buy -- I'll be first in line!
User avatar
By Mobius1
I think that many governments are trying hard to pursuade people to make the move from car to motercycle because this means less traffic and less polution. I cant stand cars because I get sick in them, Im more the biker boy, but anyways back to the point. A common feature in city life nowadays is Multi Story Carparks, could such facilities be adjusted slightly to help promote skycars in the distant future?

Perhaps pilots could take off from home and land directly on the roof of multi story carparks located in and around town. I doubt skycars will ever be able to just fly through city streets etc and governments continue to press hard on preventing people from using all forms of vehicals in city centers.

If Skycar's were to be allocated landing pads on the roofs of carparks they could provide not only a great means of personal transport but could be used in a similiar manner in public transport services such as taxi's.

I still think electric / solar skycars are a way better option than the Moller skycar, lets not forget it only acheives an almost useless 20 miles to the gallon (unless I read the site wrong). I mean think about that seriously, for example, my 125cc scooter does 140 miles to the gallon

The Big Issue

Can mankind shed its neverending addiction to fossil fuels and pay the price for strong research into newer and cleaner means of energy production? unlikely! unfortunatly oil companys rule us equally or more so than governments do.
By aviator32
Hi all,

Was viewing this thread with some interest; aviation, roadable aircraft and solar power all fascinate me.

Moller's Skycar requires about 1000 hp for vertical takeoff, though it uses less for horizontal flight as it develops aerodynamic lift from its wings, duct and the shape of its fuselage when in forward flight. An electric motor that could generate 1000 hp would, I suspect be prohibitivly heavy, to say nothing of the batteries it would need. (Solar cells just can't generate that much power in real time. There is no way around the fact that you need that much brute power if you are using small ducts. The solar cars that run in events like the Sunrayce are covered with solar cells and don't generate much more power than a hairdryer - certainly not enough to lift a large vehicle with vertical thrust).

The amount of power required is proportional to the size of the disc producing the lift. It's called "disc loading". Moller has 4 smallish discs (ducted fans in his case) producing the vertical lift and needs that much horsepower; a helicopter has a disc area much larger and of course requires less, but is complex and requires a high skill level to pilot.

We will be attached to fossil fuels until someone can come up with an alternative that produces the kind of power we are addicted to. I think biofuels like ethanol have more promise for the short run; and perhaps fuel cells eventually.

And as for X-plane: it's WAY cool. I've been tweaking a design of my own for while now and find it fun and educational. To get the most out of it, you need to know a bit about design: I would recommend Andy Lennon's book on R/C Model Aircraft Design (and excellent starter - same principles apply for big and little airplanes, and this book is by far the easiest to understand) followed by Daniel Raymer's Simplified Aircraft Design for Homebuilders, and Martin Hollmann's Modern Aircraft Design. All super books.

Hope this helps!


Is there anymore need for physical cards? I suppos[…]

A Place for problems and solutions

This is a really good proposal. One title could be[…]

Team Innovating Forum

Are there forums for team innovating? Normally peo[…]

Whats your favorite Xbox game?

Mine is outrun2