Personal SUV of the Sky

BoomZilla writes "While we're all waiting for the personal jet packs we were promised in the magazines of our youth, another 'personal flying car' has entered the fray. The Taero 4000 will exist in the car/plane category, but will require a pilot's license and will operate from airports (...no lifting off from the back yard). The Taero has an interesting folding wing concept: '[the] wing fold system will enable automatic transformation from air to land travel with the wings folding to a position parallel with the fuselage'. The target base price for the Taero 4000, in assembly kit form, is $400,000 U.S. dollars (does not include assembly[!] or optional extras). According to the site, 'Taero is scheduled for first delivery in 2007'. The FAQ makes interesting reading. Competition for Moller International's SkyCar?"

Comments

How is this better?

[ericspinder]

Looks like a delorian with a plank across the top and an airplane fin on the back. I clicked on the "more information" button and got a page with a "nice" flash animation. The caption says, "click on a name above to see and hear what the experts say.", I did, Dr Douglas Ikeler (the only expert) makes a couple of glowing statements, Of course he is the founder, so that is completely unexpected. The first line in the FAQ was "Is Aerospectives planning to become a publicly traded enterprise?" which tells you where their heart is.

Really how is this more efficient than leaving you car at the airport and renting one at the other end? For 400,000 dollars you get the worst of both worlds.

Re:How is this better?

[mrgodzilla]

My thoughts exactly.. you pretty much nailed
what my thoughts were as I read through the
site -- and to top it off, the performance
stats are really too good to be true for any
folding design.

I don't see how they can list a price if they
don't even know how long it will take to
assemble -- woudln't you need to know something
basic like that to be able to price it out?

-- godzilla

Re:How is this better?

[rmohr02]

Looks like a delorian with a plank across the top and an airplane fin on the back.

Wait...I recognize this!--this thing can travel through time!

Re:How is this better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a delorian with a plank across the top and an airplane fin on the back.

But once that baby gets up above 85 MPH, you're going to see some serious shit!

Re:How is this better?

[Anonymous Coward]

wing folded out - you travel forward in time
wing folded in - you travel back in time

wing falls off, you can kiss your butt goodbye

Re:How is this better?

[timeOday]

My question is, how many people with $400,000 lying around are do-it-yourselfers?

Re:How is this better?

[Josh Booth]

But can it fly at only 88 miles/hour without stalling? I mean, flux capacitors are funny devices that work only at certain speeds.

Re:How is this better?

[Shoggoth of Maul]

That's no Delorian. The Delorian had panache. That *thing* looks more like a mutant Ford Focus or Honda Insight, another freakish-looking vehicle.

I personally don't think a "flying car" would be worth the effort unless it was a VTOL like the Moller is. Why should one have to get stuck in traffic on the way to the airport when your flying car is supposed to keep you out of traffic?

Re:How is this better?

[moltar77]

The problem is, however, it is difficult flying in such a vehicle when you cannot exceed 88mph. I see this as serious flaw in their business model. You'd think the engineers would have noticed, sheesh.

Re:How is this better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Impressive performance specificaition. A pure airplane for $400,000 with 350 Knot performance 2500 ft/min climb rate, 61 Knot stall speed would blow the top right off the market. But it's a car too. TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

We've seen the only product that will ever come out of this company - a cheesy web site.

Paul, private pilot, instrument & glider

Re:How is this better?

[meta-monkey]

You're absolutely right. The design parameters for a road vehicle and an airplane are compeltely different. You might as well try to build a combination submarine/helicopter. Good freakin' luck. On the other hand, you could buy, say, a Mercedes SUV for like $50k, and then a nice used Cessna 172 for, say, $80k, and have both a good SUV, and a good airplane! What a concept!

Re:How is this better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, how about his qualifications? Doctor of Vetrinary Medicine?!?!?!?! YEah, sign me up for an advance model!

Re:How is this better?

[Vess V.]

Plenty. The new generatoin of "plastic" planes like Cirrus and Lancair, which cost around the $300K range, started out as kits, but are now certified and selling like hotcakes.

Re:How is this better?

[Snocone]

I don't believe that it's a kit because they expect anyone in this market to be a DIY type. The motivation is almost certainly to avoid the essentially limitless liability for crashes they would have if they delivered it assembled which has all but destroyed the U.S. hobby airplane industry other than a couple outfits which basically state up front "we have no assets, so don't waste your time suing us."

Re:How is this better?

[TwistedKestrel]

You guys joke ... but this thing looks more likely to fly than the Taero or whatever.

Re:How is this better?

[Mattsson]

Or you could use your 400,000 dollars to get a second hand *real* aircraft.
And you would still have enough left to get a respectable car and an aircraft-license.
Hell, the Cessna at my dropzone was only about 50,000$!

Re:How is this better?

[BrainInAJar]

88 MPH isn't that bad... 76kts and change... stall speed of the Cessna 152 power off flaps up is 48kts and it cruises at about 91kts

Re:How is this better?

[timeOday]

Wow!

How long does it take to build a Lancair airframe?

It takes about: 700-1000 hours to build the Legacy, 500 hours to build the Legacy FG, 1300-1500 hours to build the Lancair ES, 1300-1500 hours to build the Lancair IV and 1500-1700 hours to build the Lancair IV-P/Propjet/Sentry. These hours do not include firewall forward installation, electrical, paint or upholstery.

1500 hours and $300K. After that I'd have live next to the airport in a shack to watch over my life's work!

Re:How is this better?

[IM6100]

It looks like a few tech savvy folks like me should spend some time hanging around the hangars offering to build kit planes for people. There are lots of people who would invest the $300K but might not have the time to build it themselves. We could form a 'plane building club' and they could coincidentally 'buy' stuff from me on eBay at ridiculously inflated prices as compensation.

Re:How is this better?

[JohnFluxx]

1500 hours / 30 hours a week = 1 year

Hardly life's work. (Assuming you won the money in a lottery of course...)

Re:How is this better?

[JohnFluxx]

And when you get sued because the plane crashed?

Re:How is this better?

[JohnFluxx]

That's not what worries me. It's the maximum flight distance of 1,700 nm. That's uh 2 micrometers?

Re:How is this better?

[Micro$will]

I think nm is Nautical Miles. Gotta love it when they mix metric and imperial measurements, then make up abreviations and assume everyone knows WTF they're talking about. I think NASA had the same problem.

Re:How is this better?

[Dr. Cody]

Take at look at the pictures of him in "Experts" and "About." He looks like a cross between John Denver and Terry Gilliam after a hefty line of bathtub crank.

His website also has these gems describing him...

...launching an international speaking career to guide veterinarians worldwide to achieve transforming results from their practices...

"Innovation ... in systems thinking ... insight ... business acumen ... passionate persistence ... Aerospectives innovates ... systems architecture ... methodologies ... the world[!]" - Dr. Douglas Ikeler, Founder and President of Aerospectives

Dr. Ikeler's college years began at Cornell University in biomedical sciences, continuing at UCLA with studies in astrophysics, human-factors engineering and business management. He completed his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree...

Re:How is this better?

[Anonymous Coward]

For 400,000 dollars you get the worst of both worlds.

Maybe the US Postal Service will snap up a bunch. Money (and practicality) apparently isn't a high priority there...

Re:How is this better?

[lelnet]

That's what I'd think...the whole "flying car" gestalt sort of implies a replacement for non-flying cars. If you'll need an airport to take off, an airport to land, and a pilot's license to operate it, why not just buy a damn airplane and call it like it is? We mere peons may not be able to do that, but anyone with $400,000 and a pilot's license very definitely has that option open to them, and it's open _today_, not "maybe in 2007 if our vaporware predictions all come true". Not only that, but you won't have to build it yourself (unless, of course, you're the kind of guy who would enjoy building it yourself, in which case there are many options available...).

Egh

[Wigfield]

I saw the Lego block logo and for a minute thought someone had made an entire SUV out of legos.

Re:Egh

[the unbeliever]

Honda has, it's called the Element. Or haven't you seen that commercial yet? ;)

Re:Egh

[dicepackage]

They used Megablocks not LEGOs.

Re:Egh

[Anonymous Coward]

Pls post link It sounds really cool

Re:Egh

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who actually buys one of these things deserves to spend eternity looking at www.goatse.cx, which BTW is not quite as horrible looking as the Element.

Re:Egh

[the unbeliever]

If I hadn't lost the ability to mod in this discussion by posting, you sir, would have +1 funny.

Re:Egh

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I kinda like it. Apparently so do a lot of other people, as I see a lot of Elements out there. I like the Toyota Scion better though.

Amazing...

[npistentis]

The Skycar goes 350 mph, and yet still gets way better gas mileage than my escort.

Re:Amazing...

[eugene ts wong]

The Skycar goes 350 mph, and yet still gets way better gas mileage than my escort.

That's not the way that I'd use an escort, but it's your money. Have you tried complaining to the agency about her?

Re:Amazing...

[Goldfinger7400]

Yes, but how fast can it do the quarter mile?

Re:Amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Escort as in the car, escort as in hooker, they all leave you fucked in the end.

I hope it can...

[jpetts]

..stay up longer than the Taero web site!!!

Flying Cars....

[c_oflynn]

People seem to have trouble driving while using a cell phone - do you think most people are ready for complete 3D navigation? I guess thats why this thing needs a pilots license...

I really don't see whats so great about this. Seems like a homebuilt aircraft, as you still need all the normal things (pilots license, airport, etc).

Re:Flying Cars....

[geekoid]

What id it was fully automated?

I understand what you are saying. I would imagine wide spread use of flying cars would look more like 5th element. Where everybody(except our hero) flies along a flat plane. essential making it 2d.

Re:Flying Cars....

[Shoggoth of Maul]

Perhaps the flying-car industry will pick up an endorsement from people who want lower highway maintainence costs; It seems an easy way to have multi-level freeways without having to actually build them.

The only problem is that the more levels you add the greater the odds for a crash of biblical proportions. If the engine fails on one car, it drops like a stone into the levels below. And when this flaming mass of metal and flesh hits the ground...ick.

Of course, with no barrier between one level and the next there would also be the added danger of people making vertical lane changes...and police pursuits would get a lot more hairy.

We are definitely not ready for masses of flying cars. Lets work on a more ubiquitous rail system, eh?

Re:Flying Cars....

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You are right though, people are such goons with automobiles. I can only imagine that they'd just kill themselves within 30 days for not doing proper pre-flight checks and not paying attention

These projects AREN'T going to happen, I doubt anyone would be able to actually be able to legally use one in any developed country. IMO, Moeller is at best a fraudster, I think he has been just blowing hot air about his aircraft projects for longer than most slashdotters have been alive.

The FAA is basically on to him, he can't demonstrate the stability of the Skycar so it cannot be operated without a tether. If you want an airplane, just get an airplane, if you want a car, get one, if you want both, just rent a car at the airport wherever you land.

It sems to me that

[geekoid]

this type of design is the most likley one for a personal home flying 'car'.

OSQ

[xao gypsie]

did anyone else instantly think of the Canyonero?
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!!!!

xao

Re:OSQ

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
Smells like a steak, and seats thirty five?
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Hey, hey!
Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty five tons of American pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with her super high beams
She's a squirrel-squashin', deer-smackin' drivin' machine
Canyonero! Canyonero! Canyonero!
Whoa, Canyonero! Whoa!

tucker torpedeo

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds me of the Tucker, no car yet (that I can tell, the site sucks) but they need to sell stock to get money to make a real prototype.
Is this the car of the future or another bust.

Re:tucker torpedeo

[Bat_Masterson]

Huh? The Tucker Torpedo has been around since 1947. Unfortunately, the automobile was ahead of it's time and the Big 3 (GM, Ford, Chrysler) ran Tucker out of business before it could really get going.

Flying cars?

[aardvarkjoe]

Most people can't handle a car that stays on the ground. I shudder to think what would happen if personal airplanes became common for commuting.

Fortunately, this looks more like a half-assed grab for investment money than anything else. I rather doubt we'll ever be seeing one of those things barrelling through the sky. The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars.

Re:Flying cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it's way harder to get a pilot's license than a drivers license. I just got my private pilot certificate. I logged almost 60 hours of flying time, over 40 with an instructor, before I could get certified. It was over a period of about 6 months. I don't think most people have enough motivation to go through the process just to be able to commute through the air.

Re:Flying cars?

[moltar77]

The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars.

I think the obvious solution to this is most definitely flying trains! Hmm, wait a minute...

Re:Flying cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

obvious solution to this is most definitely flying trains! Many a truth spoken in jest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3256 018.stm

Re:Flying cars?

[Bat_Masterson]

The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars.

Actually, I could see the Moller SkyCar (with VTOL capability) being the backbone of a "taxi" service in many city locations. Using "vertiparks" (I think that's the term Moller uses), commuters could live in the suburbs, commute to the vertipark, hop a skytaxi into the city, and use a Segway to get to work. At each step, you have individualized transportation, so do not have to spend time waiting for intermediate commuters to get on and off the "mass transit". The skytaxi service could (be programmed to) follow well defined skylanes that might not be more than a few (hundred) feet off the ground -- the new parachute ejection systems would ensure that problems could be handled.

Re:Flying cars?

[bigpat]

"Fortunately, this looks more like a half-assed grab for investment money than anything else. I rather doubt we'll ever be seeing one of those things barrelling through the sky. The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars."

And mass transit is a full-assed grab for tax money.

Re:Flying cars?

[eugene ts wong]

At each step, you have individualized transportation

The problem with individualized transportation is that the vehicle that you ride in takes up a proportionately large amount of room. In this case, it would make the sky look very messy to see tons of vehicles flying over your home. There are some planes now, but I can tolerate that.

When mass transit is implemented without the politics [almost impossible, unfortunately], then you can have an extremely efficient system. We had a lot of politics go into ours, but it's not too bad.

Re:Flying cars?

[Scrameustache]

Most people can't handle a car that stays on the ground. I shudder to think what would happen if personal airplanes became common for commuting.

A lot of high-paying jobs would sudendly become available...

Re:Flying cars?

[IM6100]

And the future of mass transit, or so we are told, is to pack people into sardine can highrise apartment along 'corridors'.

A lot of people's response to that is 'the hell with that.'

I am no lover of the freeways, and I detest the 'drive an auto everywhere' mentality, but I am also realistic to know that people don't want to ride the bus.

Re:Flying cars?

[LS]

Bigpat, I bet you drive an SUV two blocks to buy a magazine. How about the full-assed grab of $90 billion and 1000's of dead for the fuel in your car, and the sprawled out cities and freeways and brown skies and high cancer rates? I'd pay half my salary to the full-ass grabbers to have a clean environment with facilitated by public mass transit.

LS

Re:Flying cars?

[sapped]

When mass transit is implemented without the politics [almost impossible, unfortunately], then you can have an extremely efficient system. We had a lot of politics go into ours, but it's not too bad.

When mass transit can quickly take people from lots of different places to lots of different other places then we can have an extremely efficient system.

Basically, the problem with mass transit is getting a mass of people all going from the same place to a the same destination. For most commutes, e.g. to and from the office, this simply is not the case. Unless you want to force everybody who works in a certain office building to all live in a certain suburb.

Re:Flying cars?

[eugene ts wong]

Basically, the problem with mass transit is getting a mass of people all going from the same place to a the same destination. For most commutes, e.g. to and from the office, this simply is not the case. Unless you want to force everybody who works in a certain office building to all live in a certain suburb.

An interesting point about the transit system in the GVRD [Greater Vancouver Regional District], which I use, is that it has a few long lines of travel. In other words, because it is long, & because it travels in a variety of areas, people end up using it quite a bit. A bunch will get on @ the start, & then get off along the way, as people get on along the way. I think the key is having a variety for stablity. I guess that I'm speaking about a bus route or 2, whereas you seem to be speaking about an overall system. I guess my point is that it would be nice if the people running the system would try to bear that in mind, & make more routes profitable.

Just to emphasize the variety idea: in my city, there is a route that runs through some fairly run down neighbourhoods, & yet there is a high frequency. The neighbourhoods aren't slums by any measure, but you can tell that nobody seems to be doing well, & it appears to be ugly overall.

I think that another way to promote transit is to promote it by marketing to specific customers. With infrequent routes, you probably want to know about alternate routings that will get you from point A to B, & would prefer to have everything mixed into 1 schedule. Perhaps the marketers should try to send out some promotional brochures just while the route is new or has been upgraded in frequency. With frequent routes, you probably want to know what other frequent routes connect to them, so that you can move about without having worry about schedule timings. You might also want to have a listing of what kinds of businesses are along those routes. It could be like a yellow pages.

I'm in the process of making some of these brochures & schedules. I'm hoping to start a project on the Internet where people can customized information. The information would be given by volunteers for the areas that interest them personally. I would call these brochures, TIPs [Transit Information Packages], because they are more than schedules & maps, & because everybody likes a good acronym. :^)

If anybody is interested in what I got, then let me know.

Re:Flying cars?

[sapped]

Hey, this sounds like a brilliant scheme. Keep us posted.

Re:Flying cars?

[bigpat]

Hmmm... and what of those same thousands of dead to bring you the food that you eat, the clothes that you wear, the books that you read... Unless you live on a farm and don't use machinery or fertalizer and don't raise methane producing cows and don't let dirty water run off your fields into the stream. Especially so if you live in a city, then you are as much a consumer of fuels as I am, since cities consume more resources as overhead than anyplace else, even if you do share a big ass train with your fellow big ass man.

I used to be an environmentalist... I am still working on the windturbine on my roof, but people like you make me sick... you think just because you give ten bucks to greenpeace and act snooty that makes you a more thoughtful person... well the most important thing you could do for the environment would be to shoot yourself... or move to some unproductive land and try to eek out an existance. Personally, life is about leaving more things better than I find them, but waste is a part of living.

The subject of this article seems like it will never leave the ground, but personal air travel would very clearly save much time resources over cars and other forms of transportation. Plus the economy would grow more so... which maybe something that you cringe at, since you and your ilk seem to want all the humans dead or miserable (besides your contemplative selves, of course).
It would indeed lead to more urban sprawl as people would find that they could travel further in shorter amounts of time... To me living where you want to and being able to go where you want is a good thing, but to you this is the ultimate nightmare... uncontrolled growth.... or maybe it is just the uncontrolled part that bothers you. Imagine extending an acceptable commuting range by 200 miles. New business, new wealth, new choices... sounds horrendous to you doesn't it? Or would you and your politician freinds rather plan your metros and keep telling your friends where to buy land so that taxpayer billions can raise their property values a few tens of thousands. That is what really builds railroads, pork and the oinkers that go with it.

I for one believe that you save species and their environments for their moral value not as potential for new wonder drugs... that you try as best not to polute the environments with dangerous chemicals because it may cause other people and animals to suffer... not because it may or may not be the law... that for the most people to be the most happy you need to give them freedom of mobility and freedom of choice and not to restrict and burden their movements much beyond that which sharing space and rights of way dictate.

If we stick people in cities where the only mode of mobility, except for the very rich or well connected who can always afford to be above the rest of us, is walking or sitting in an underground sardine-can with wheels, then that will only serve to further economic disperity which is at the heart of civilized unhappiness, if you disagree then you are more than welcome to take your things and head for the woods, where value isn't measured with dollars and cents, but with common sense.

I for one like living with people and wish to see them have more choices not fewer. If that means more public transportation then that is fine with me, but don't burden the rest of us too greatly with your ideas for the rest of us and let economics not ill-conceived philosophy be your guide.

Get a folding bicycle

[Anonymous Coward]

All that cost just to solve the pilot's ground transportation problem. Sheesh.

Taero vs. Moller

[mikeophile]

Dueling vaporware.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Prune]

The SkyCar is not vaporware, since the prototype works fine.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Geno Z Heinlein]

The SkyCar is not vaporware, since the prototype works fine.

Even if it were somewhat vapory, this sort of design is still important.

One of the lies about automobiles -- at least in the US, I don't know how cars are advertised elsewhere -- is the myth of freedom: the open road, the great western frontier, going anywhere you want, et cetera. IRL, you're tied down to an infrastructure of fuel, mechanical support and roads. Anything that reduces the dependence on those sorts of factors enhances individual freedom.

Getting the idea of roadless private travel into people's heads would be a huge step forward.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Saeger]

Flying cars for the masses will always be vaporware as long as:

1. They can't, without fail, fly themselves on autopilot from point A to B (NO WAY can millions of morons be allowed to fly "offroad" in 3 dimensions; enforced skylanes are a must).
2. NIMBY eye-pollution.
3. VTOL flight consumes more energy than rolling along roads.
4. They're mechanically more complicated and expensive (despite economies of scale).
5. Birds splats are more dangerous than mosquitos :)

My main beef against flying cars would be the eye-pollution, with fear-of-morons falling out of the sky coming in a close second.

--

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[goofballs]

dude, there's no way "roadless" travel is going to happen in a flying car. there will be air corridors that you are restricted to, otherwise it's going to be mass pandemonium.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[A nonymous Coward]

Bet they run Microsoft Embedded Windows XP Professional. It's probably as ready as they ever will be.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Geno Z Heinlein]

dude...

... where's my air car?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

... there's no way "roadless" travel is going to happen in a flying car. there will be air corridors that you are restricted to, otherwise it's going to be mass pandemonium.

True, but with a car, you're physically restricted from certain terrain; even SUVs can't just drive anywhere. In a plane, you can deviate from those air corridors if you choose to.

Of course, we'll need a force of tech-savvy, anti-government people who can bypass the inevitable federally-required tracking devices. If only there was some way, maybe an electronic forum, where such brave individuals could communicate....

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

You are like those crotchety old folks that vote in abnormally large numbers. You are out to stop us from having our fun while advocating that the government take over yet another aspect of our lives. If you have problems with "eye pollution" I would suggest that you first deal with all of those signs that are posted everywhere. I, for one, am willing to spend a little more on fuel if it means that I can save a buttload of time by travelling more quickly.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Vess V.]

You missed his point. He presented those problems because they exist; he didn't take any of their positions as his own.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Bat_Masterson]

1. Let the computer do it! Artificial Intelligence is coming.
2. If flying cars become viable, the sky won't be "your backyard" anymore.
3. Depends on how far you roll...
4. Yeah, but so is the automobile when compared to the bicycle.
5. Use a bigger fly swatter.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Saeger]

5. Use a bigger fly swatter.

How would that work? Flying cars with fricking laserbeams on their hoods?

--

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[NoData]

These are all valid concerns to some degree, but really, I wonder if flying cars will ever be possible in today's legal reality. I mean, "liability" and its catalyst, "litigiousness", rule the day.

Seriously, could a Henry Ford or a Wright Bros succeed today? Or even a Watt or Fulton? Transport is dangerous stuff. You look at the ridiculous risks the inventors at the "heyday" of mechanical innovation took...they put a lot of people's lives on the line. People were zipping about in their Model T's without restraints, with little regulation, at unheard of speeds. Sometimes I'm amazed that even today they (the govnt) actually allow meagerly trained common citizens to pilot massive 2 ton projectiles at lethal speeds...it's really thanks to the inertia of history. You introduce new personal transport (e.g. the Segway) and the regulators and lawyers and risk managers and all sorts of bureaucrats of officialdom are all over you. And god forbid your device requires a modicum of personal responsibility and involves personal risks. That's not acceptable in today's liability-first world.

No doubt we're a lot of safer with the oversight...I wouldn't fly without something like the FAA...but we're talking about personal transport as opposed to commerical transport, and I regret that real innovation can't happen (or be seriously adopted) in today's climate.

(BTW, as for the "eyesore" complaint: I think replacing milions of miles of multilane monstrosities with greenspace is a fair trade-off for skylanes dotted with personal flightcraft.)

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are you gonna do from the air? Piss donw on Mother Nature?

You got to land the fuck you fuck tard!!!

And you still need airports, gasoline, mechanics, all those infrastructure a car needs.

You are a true 1st class moron...

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[IM6100]

I wouldn't call the 'open road' myth a lie.

There are a hell of a lot of places one can go in an automobile, more than can be reached by any other means at all.

Unless you've got support depots of granola and replacement hiking shoes spread out all around the world, you're using a bait and switch arguement technique.

And your point about 'individual freedom' being reduced by the infrastructure sounds like more of a philosophy debate than a practical reality. 'What is Freedom' and all that is cool to argue about in armchairs, but the rest of us are out enjoying our freedom.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[IM6100]

The private aircraft industry has already been crushed, almost completely decimated, by the trial lawyer industry. Maybe we should start calling them 'Big Trial Lawyers' since calling anything 'Big' automatically gets people riled up against them.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Arcturax]

To fly this thing would require a pilots license. People who can't pass those tests will NOT be allowed behind the wheel of this thing. Period.

Granted if they did allow it, it would at least help reduce the worlds population. Unfortunately it would do a lot of damage in the process.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Geno Z Heinlein]

I wouldn't call the 'open road' myth a lie.... There are a hell of a lot of places one can go in an automobile, more than can be reached by any other means at all.

You can reach more places in an automobile than by any other means? Mountaintops? Underwater? Flying through the air? Outer space?

More to the point -- more to what I actually said, to be specific -- a hypothetical "flying car" would have one less dependency, one less restriction, than a regular car: it would be able to bypass roads. It would be able to go anywhere a car can go, plus other places a car can't go. It remains to be seen whether these flying cars will actually do this, but the idea I'm promoting is pretty straightforward.

If you can only travel by road, you are dependent on government to put in a road first. I prefer not to let Uncle Sam dictate where I can go.

And your point about 'individual freedom' being reduced by the infrastructure sounds like more of a philosophy debate than a practical reality.

Fine, build your own road. Drive on it. Let me know how that goes.

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[blankmange]

And this same argument keep idiots from behind the wheel of an automobile...right?

Re:Taero vs. Moller

[Bat_Masterson]

Sure. Just label it a "deflection device" and nobody will be the wiser... :-)

extras?

[slobber]

does not include assembly[!] or optional extras

Wait a second... you mean parachute is an extra???

Flightpaths?

[IANAL(BIAILS)]

I wonder what kind of FAA regulations there would be for such a vehicle. Even if you did have your own personal landing strip for the car/plane/thing, I can't think that you'd be able to fly it just anywhere anytime. There would be flightpaths from other (commercial) airports to worry about... would you have to file a flight plan anytime you wanted to take off?

Re:Flightpaths?

[markfinn]

Flight plans are not required for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight.

Most airspace below 18,000 ft is uncontrolled, and as long as you avoid airports there is really a lot of sky out there with relativly few planes filling it.

Of course, It's still really easy to hit something.. notably the ground. That's why you need a license to fly this.

Personally I'd rather have an actual DeLorean and a small jet then this thing... and for .4 million dollars plus assembly, They would be easier to afford.

Re:Flightpaths?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Ever see the price tag that a small jet has? A bottom of the line piston engined cessna starts out at 155k. Good luck finding a jet under 400k.

Re:Flightpaths?

[general_boy]

The short answer is it not usually but it depends.

There are specific circumstances under which a pilot is required to file a flight plan. For the short hop in good weather, it's not likely to be required. Departing or arriving at a busy airport may require a clearance (permission and specific instructions) from ATC but not necessarily a flight plan.

It's an airplane when in the air or taxiing at an airport, private or public. The FAA already has rules covering certificated aircraft and pilots.

yes, IAAP (I am a pilot).

Re:Flightpaths?

[RevMike]

would you have to file a flight plan anytime you wanted to take off?

In good weather, you can fly under VFR (visual flight rules). You are not required to file a flight plan, although some people do anyway. You are rersponsible for staying clear of other aircraft and of various restricted flight space. Since 9/11 large portions of previously unrestricted flight space around major cities has become restricted.

In poor weather, you can fly under IFR (instrument flight rules). An air traffic controller is responsible for routing you around the sky, moving you from point A to point B. This requires a flight plan.

It is not particularly difficult to get an pilot's license to fly a single engine propeller aircraft under VFR. Most people could do it given sufficient practice. The IFR endorsement for the license takes a lot of effort and intelligence.

Re:Flightpaths?

[markfinn]

remember.. that $400k buys you a kit, not a mig.

Re:Flightpaths?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

But that mig doesn't include a Delorian.

Re:Flightpaths?

[Bitsy Boffin]

BD-5J .. jets don't have to be big, or expensive.

This is not anywhere.

[DJ FirBee]

They don't even know how long it's gonna take to change it from a plane into a car. It's just more losers speculating about a product that does not exist but which could be made available given jackasses with a half mill and a bunch of sucker investors.

I have already saw this before. And it didn't work out so good. So, yeah. I don't think so.

Flying cars. Still a dream. To be continued...

Jetsons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meet George Jetson!

Re:Jetsons?

[AndroidCat]

Does it come with pods to drop the kids off at school?

Re:Jetsons?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it makes the cute "bleep bleep bleep" sound.

Who founds this kind of project ?

[dassdraugen]

This is cretanly not the first "flying car" project i'we read about. And like the others I never think this one is gettning off the ground (littary). This keeps me thinking, who founds this kind of projects ?

Re:Who founds this kind of project ?

[Bat_Masterson]

The only one that's gotten "off the ground" is the Moller SkyCar and he has done most of the funding himself.

Will it become reality? I think so...

[calebb]

There are a couple video-interviews with the founder of Taero, Dr. Douglas Ikeler. It sounds like they have a substantial team of aviation engineers working on this project - and he is confident that there are no more potential show-stoppers - it's just a matter of finalizing the design & production at this point.

Also, the FAQ indicates that you'll need to use aitports for takeoff & landing. I wonder if an old sideroad that doesn't get much traffic would work for takeoff? :-) And along the same lines, I wonder if you can switch on the jet engine (GE J85) while on the road?

No taking off from your backyard unless

[doormat]

you live in a fly-in community. Where people have aircraft hangars as a part of their houses, and a 3500 ft runway is their door to the world.

suv

[paul248]

"If it's not (con)trail rated, it's not a Taero 4000..."

Pls post mirror

[Neop2Lemus]

If one exists. /.'d already

Specs - from website

[calebb]

How will the TAERO perform in flight and on the road?

The TAERO 4000 is currently in prototype design development for initial introduction as an experimental owner-operator assembly craft. The following represent the most current target specifications to which the design team is committed. Refinements in performance specifications will be posted as design development proceeds.

PERFORMANCE - Tearo 4000
Takeoff - 1,050 ft
Takeoff (50' object) - 1,475 ft
Max rate of climb - 2500 Ft/min
Cruise speed @ 75% power - 350 KTAS (402.5 MPTA)
Stall speed w/flaps - 61 KIAS
Maximum range:
....Air - 1,200 nm
....Land - 350 miles
Landing (ground roll) - 850 ft
Landing (50' object) - 2,030 ft


ENGINE
Air Power:
....Manufacturer - General Electric
....Model - CJ610/J85
......(Base Price Assumes J85 Refurbished)
Land Power:
....Manufacturer - To Be Determined
....Model - IC - Front Wheel Drive

DIMENSIONS
Length - 27'
Height - 7'11"
Wingspan - 36'
Wing Area - 140 sq ft
Cabin Length - 132"
Cabin Width - 60"
Cabin Height - 55"
Landing Gear - 4 wheel


DESIGN WEIGHT & LOADING
Max Gross Wt - 4,000 lbs
Std Empty Wt - 2,800 lbs
Maximum Useful Load - 1,200 lbs
Fuel Capacity (Usable) - To Be Determined

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A private pilots license, is required for operation of the TAERO. In addition, a current drivers license is required.

The occupancy of the TAERO 4000 is four passengers, while the TAERO 8000 is slated to accommodate eight passengers.

The estimated target base price of the TAERO 4000 as an assembly craft is $400,000.

The TAERO 4000 and 8000 are being designed for take-off and landing form private, general aviation and commercial airports, and will be subject to all FAA, DOT, and local regulations.

At this time, the target date for TAERO availability as an assemble craft is 2007, subject to change in the course of prototype development.

Re:Specs - from website

[Anonymous Coward]

Maximum range: ....Air - 1,200 nm

Wow, I have about the same range in the air as this thing. I can jump 1m easily!

Re:Specs - from website

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

A private pilots license, is required for operation of the TAERO.

That Private license also needs to include a type rating. As other people have correctly pointed out, the J85 is a turbofan engine. FAA regulations (I'm too lazy to go look up the specific code, but it's in Part 61) require that the pilot-in-command of any turbojet-powered aircraft have a type rating for the type (turbojet includes turbofan, in this case).

How many people are going to want to spend two weeks at FlightSafety so they can learn to drive their cars?

I'll believe it when I see it fly

[l810c]

This is a pipe dream.

I've been following the Moller skycar for over 20 years.(I'm not kidding, he gets an articale in Popular Science every couple of years). We should have been expecting a flying prototype each year in the past 20 years, still nothing more than short hops and tethered jumps.

So these people are going to build a prototype next year sometime when they find facilties and have this thing working in a year or two? yea right, next...

Re:I'll believe it when I see it fly

[Bombula]

I've been following Moller for about 15 years. They do seem to have come a long way, but very slowly. I suspect the real problem is how insular the entire operation is. There's no doubt the guy is something of a genius, but he's obviously a paranoid control freak. This is a great example of how better management would lead to greater commercial success, and how technical know-how alone is not enough for a company to be successful. They could start by having a marketing and PR person write the company's marketing and PR copy instead of Moller himself, which would help get rid of the embarassingly bad content on their website. Also, any full-time lobbyist worth his or her salt could have gotten dumptrucks of money from the DOD for development of this, whereas Moller proudly (!) explains that the company has spent only $20m over 30 years developing this (probably more now, since they went public). Just plain dumb!

Buy an ad

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one fine piece of Astroturf you've written there. You should get a weekly column.

Moronic

[danharan]

Well, it tells you it will use Jet Fuel A, which is conveniently available at your nearby airport. While it does not give any indication as to fuel efficiency, we can be sure that it is abysmal.

I don't want to believe people would use such a wasteful mode of transport, but then again people commute every day in SUVs.

The only hope I can see is if using such a vehicle got associated in the public imagination with SDS - Small D**k Syndrome.

Re:Moronic

[calebb]

Diesel fuel can actually give you a higher fuel eficiency than POUG (plain old unleaded gasoline).

According to this article, the volkswagon 4-door Jetta with a volkswagon turbo diesel engine gets ~50 mpg.

This site discusses what makes a good diesel vehicle a good diesel vehicle - and when a POUG engine is better. With the correct differential, todays diesel engine will have a 10%-30% higher fuel efficiency. Of course, modern diesel engines have a higher intial cost, but the A4000 is already $400,000, so I don't think an extra $5K-$10K for an efficient diesel engine is an issue.

Re:Moronic

[general_boy]

The info page does mention an expected range of 1200 nautical miles in the air. That's quite respectable for a small GA aircraft.

That endurance number would likely be attainable at a low cruise power setting of 65% or so and specific (think high for a jet) altitude - not the 75% power setting at which it's supposed to reach 350 knots true airspeed.

Re:Moronic

[MemoryAid]

How about the idea of having two engines? According to the FAQ, the fuel was chosen to be common to the 'fan jet engine,' presumably a turbofan, and the diesel. I don't think I would like to fly around in a plane that has an extra diesel engine strapped in it, 'cause they are usually pretty heavy, and heavy doesn't like to fly without power, and power requires bigger engines, which are heavy....

Anyway, can't one engine do double duty to cut weight? I know I don't drive around with a turbofan in the back of my truck. (To be fair, there are several reasons for that i.e. I don't have one.)

I could be way off base, though. I may have spent several hundred hours in folding wing airplanes, but that doesn't make me an expert. You see, if I were an expert, I would have my name next to the founder's on his web site, and then I would have my say.

Re:Moronic

[danharan]

50 mpg? Most certainly not when flying!!

And 50 mpg can easily be beat with hybrid or hydrogen cars. One concept car does at least 80 mpg.

Re:Moronic

[Anonymous Coward]

Jet Fuel A ...
INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS
Keep away from strong oxidizers such as nitric acid and sulfuric acid.

Doesn't deisel have a high sulfer content and can even in some circumstances, when mixed with water(think water condesation in the atmosphere) form sulfuric acid. I sure hope he's thought out his fuel regime.

Re:Moronic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you get better milage, not a surprize, a gallon of diesel has aboput twice energy as a gallon of conventional gas. The problem with diesles is they get are generally high compression engines that weigh (Yes for your metric people I ment weight and not mass) more then conventional gas engines. In an airplane weight is a critical. (IIRC the fuel is also heavier, but I'm not sure where to look that up to check myself)

P.S. Ethanol is about 2/3rds the energy of conventional gas yet still manages to get nearly the same milage in an engine tuned for it.

Re:Moronic

[xheotris]

Did you happen to notice the engine "chosen" for this project? A GE J85. A turbojet engine, the same as has powered the T-38 and T-37 trainers. Talking about diesels and diesel fuel and diesel economy is irrelevant, because we are looking at a TURBINE engine here. (and an unspecified "IC" engine/motor for the ground- so that's TWO powerplants on this beast, one being dead weight while the thing is "flying".) Not "turboshaft" but turbine, which brings on a whole different set of operating characteristics. Turbine engines have HUGE fuel requirements, even more so at low altitudes. They spool up and down slowly. Look, the TBA fuel capacity is because they haven't figured out how to attach a tractor trailer tank for the fuel needed. And 350 KTAS?? I'm laughing my ass off.

A T-37 could fly about 390 miles on 457 internal (no drop tanks) gallons of JP-1. That comes to about 230 gallons per engine (two J-85s per Tweet)for less than 400 miles-- 1600lbs of fuel. Putting aside all the actual math, let's assume that this brick is a little more efficient, and it'll fly 600 miles on 200 gallons. The 1200 mile range equals about 400 gallons of fuel. 400 gallons of Jet-A equals about 2800lbs. Empty weight is listed at 2800lbs, max gross at 4000. Empty weight does not include fuel, occupants, or cargo, so you need to add 2800lbs to 2800... oops, we're over gross already. Hmmm... Well, if we offload some fuel... say, 1900lbs (gotta load a pilot and his gear, remember), that gives us 900lbs of fuel, or about 128 gallons, or about a third of the fuel needed for a max range flight. 400 miles... less what's burned to get to the airport, less what would need to be offloaded to carry a passenger, less what's needed for FAA-required fuel reserves (30 min for day VFR, 45 for night), less what's needed for runup and taxi. Not so hot now.

Let's approach it from the other direction: Four passengers at about 180 each is 720 pounds, excluding any possible baggage, and the likelihood that some of 'em are chunkier than that. Useful load of 1200lbs, less passengers, is 480lbs, or about 68 gallons of fuel. 68 gallons is about enough to get most light jets from the tie down to 10,000 feet. Remember, fuel usage with a turbine engine can't be directly related to miles; while putting out full power in thick air below 10,000, fuel usage jumps horrendously. That's why airliners fly so high.

Here's another way to look at it: The Cessna T-37 had a cruise fuel consumption of 1700lbs PER HOUR. Not total, but per hour, once it was up at altitude and flying efficiently. That translates to 850pph per J85. So, with a full load of passengers, this hunk has about, oh, 30 minutes of cruise time. Or, with only a pilot, assuming some extra burn for climb, you get about 45 minutes of real range. Assuming you could even get NEAR 350ktas, you're lookin' at less than 200nm, by the time you follow ATC vectors and fly the pattern at your destination. And how much would it cost? About $2 per gallon of Jet-A, so... $284 in fuel costs alone. Compare that to a 152, with a 6gal per hour burn on avgas (36pph)... Bottom line, this thing is even less realistic than the Molitor. And at least the Aerocar, by Taylor, was really capable of flying and driving. It drives me nuts to see people here discussing the merits of this thing without first checking the basic numbers, or features.

Moller's Idea

[raisinets]

I hear this vehicle is actually being funded by Moller as a way of building hype for skycars in general. Most of the technology is just rehashed from his own Skycar.

J

I wonder if it will be small dicked assholes that

[Anonymous Coward]

use this method of transportation.

Pfft..

[Wigfield]

Looks like something from Spaceballs.

What next? A tacky van with wings driven by a dog?

Re:Pfft..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a giant space ship that converts into a cleaning woman.

"We brake for nobody"

Re:Pfft..

[marfpilf]

I'm a MOG, half man half dog, I'm my own best friend thank you.

At last!

[quantaman]

Darwin will finally take care of SUV owners!!

Re:At last!

[IM6100]

Naw. Darwin is too busy cleaning up on bicycle enthusiasts and pedestrians. heh

Re:At last!

[picka]

I think it rather be Newton who takes care of the SUV owners ...

Road Rage

[hao2lian]

Makes it all the more fun, I guess.

Re:Road Rage

[SYSS Mouse]

I wonder if people would mount machine guns on its wings. Now we see SUV Fighters. (Patroit missles, anyone?)

Re:Road Rage

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of French slur is 'patroit'? If I were French and intelligent enough, I may have been offended?

Is it voice activated?

[Beek]

I won't make the purchase unless I can lift off with a simple "go go gadget wings!"

Save your money for a real jet!

[Lobo_Louie]

There's a *real* jet that's going to take over the skies in the near future. Eclipse 500: A Million dollars and change www.eclipseaviation.com

Re:Save your money for a real jet!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.adamaircraft.com/

A700 AdamJet
80% commonality with their tandem prop plane the A500, first production models are due in the last quarter of 2004. They flew the prototype to the EAA Oshkosh Air Show in August of this year.
Costs: $1,995,000.00 USD
But if you had to ask,.....

Delivery of the first Eclipse 500 isn't expected till the second quarter of 2006.

Re:Save your money for a real jet!

[Lobo_Louie]

Please! The Adam jet will use W*lliams engines whereas the Eclipse will use a Pratt and Whitney powerplant. If that isn't convincing enough, look at the electronics, Eclipse wins hands down - and at half the price! Eclipse 500 A million dollars and change.

The SUV of the sky?

[duckpoopy]

What could be more annoying? The jetski of the sky, perhaps?

It has been done... more than once

[dloyer]

At least two other flying cars have been sold commercially over the years. They never caught on. They generaly make both poor airplanes and poor cars.

In this case, they will have two engines and need to conform to two different sets of regulations. Also, the wing will need to retract for driving mode, but still be strong in flight. Also, they need to fly with all of the extra weight needed for land driving like big wheels and heavy drivetrain.

It will suck in the air and suck on the ground.

You will still need a Pilots certificate to fly it. They are not easy to get. I spent over a year to get mine.

There are a lot of good airplane makers with actual products that perform very well that have a hard time keeping the doors open.

The Moller skycar is trying to do something very different. They are trying to build a airplane that uses computer controlled fans to take off and land vertically, then use the body as a airfoil for high speed flight. There is no need for a runway or a airport.

It would be very cool if they could do it. But, dont hold your breath. Moller has been trying to build it for several decades and has burned a lot of money.

They are trying to build new engines, fly by wire control system and a new lift configuration. Big project. There might not be any one thing that is a show stopper, but getting there will take a lot of investment.

Re:It has been done... more than once

[EssJay]

And here's the link to the Moller Skycar... :)

In fact I also immediately thought of this one, as a local electronics-dude here in Norway has sold this concept for many many years...

Re:It has been done... more than once

[EssJay]

Dammit... why oh why didn't I manage to read that the Moller car was linked... dammit... :) I was too fast on the trigger as usual... sorry..

Re:It has been done... more than once

[Anonymous Coward]

>>They are not easy to get. I spent over a year to get mine Horseshit.

I've been flying and teaching people to fly for 26 years. Any idiot that has average hand-eye coordination, can push enough buttons to set a VCR to record a TV program, and can read a book can get a pilot's license. It takes ~ $4000 and 3 or 4 months.

What's not "easy to get" is judgement- That handy thing that keeps pilots from running out of gas in weather, from taking off in an over-gross/out of balance plane, from stalling & spinning it at low altitude, etc. etc.

You can stop flexing your testicles now about how hard it is to fly, air-scout.

It's not just a new vehicle, . .

[Limburgher]

It's a new target for a slow and painful /.ing! Granted, it's already graphics-heavy, but it's crawling like a stunned yak. . .

General aviation

[wowbagger]

At this time, general aviation aircraft do not have to file a flight plan - just stay out of certain volumes of the sky. I have a friend who has a hangar attached to his garage, and a runway out back.

Just last weekend the weather was unusually nice, and he said "Let's get Mr. Cessna's aluminum kite out" - so we hopped in the 182 and took off - buzzed another friend's farm, flew around, practiced stalling, and so on.

We just had to make sure we stayed out from the airbase's airspace.

So, this would be little different than owning a Cessna in that regard.

However, unlike a car, an aircraft has to go in once a year for its annual inspection, where they tear the thing down and make sure all is well. I would assume that this thing would be no different.

So the question is, can you do without your car for a couple of weeks of the year?

Re:General aviation

[Avihson]

Not only is there an annual, but there is a 100 hour inspection. 100 hours can get eaten up pretty fast when you also use this as ground transport. Most pilots I know have problems changing sparkplugs in accordance with the FARs, and catch hell from mechanics and inspectors like my father ( Pilot, A&P Mechanic, and IA). Who is going to sign the logbook that this is air-worthy after a minor fender-bender? I live 5 miles from the local airport, 30 miles from the controlled airport. It is faster to drive the 30 miles than to spend the hour+ to properly preflight my dad's Cessna 172, file a VFR approach into the controlled airspace, and get a place in the pattern behind a passenger jet. It is a toss up between flying or driving to the mid-sized regional airport for the FAA seminars; if the weather is nice the seminar doesn't start too early, we fly, if not, we drive. General Aviation flying is fun, but if you want to get there with the minimal effort and maximum effeciency, either drive or fly commercial.

Re:General aviation

[Anonymous Coward]

100-hour inspections are only required for airplanes used commercially (e.g. for flight training, renting it out, etc.). A personal aircraft only requires annual inspections (and oil changes etc.) I don't rent my airplane out to anyone, so it needs nothing but an annual and 50-hr oil.

Re:General aviation

[Anonymous Coward]

General aviation planes do not even require a radio,electrical system or lights, but that tends to limit when and where they can fly.

All you need is a working compass, altimiter and Turn&bank Bubble. the airspeed was optional in my homebuilt.

Re:General aviation

[Ralgha]

An aircraft only needs a 100 hour inspection if it's for hire.

Re:General aviation

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, the things people do for fun in rural areas. Did you tip cows as a kid?

Re:General aviation

[Beatlebum]

You don't know what you're talking about. Flight plans are filed for flight through many kinds of airspace. For a VFR flight the plan is mainly used as a search & rescue aid when the pilot does not close out the plan within a certain period. For IFR (instrument flight) the flight plan helps controllers give clearances during the flight, otherwise the pilot would have to make explicit requests en route.

Re:General aviation

[IM6100]

Does it take a couple of weeks to tear down an ultralight and inspect it? Agreed, these are bigger than an ultralight.

I live near a small county airport here and we get buzzed all the time in the weekends with weird little craft. I've seen someone up there with a helicopter that appears to be about the size of a garden tractor.

Re:General aviation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on there smarty ass. You don't need the 100 hour inspection if you only use the plane for personal use. ... but if you want to get there with the minimal effort and maximum effeciency, either drive or fly commercial.

This is just not true. If you can afford staff, then they can prep the plane and do everything else. This is surely faster than waiting in the Delta line, not to mention the searches, delays and other BS you have to put up with.

Re:General aviation

[potat0man]

I do the same thing. Have a landing strip right behind me (just a big stretch of dirt). But I built the plane I use so I avoid the annual inspections.

hang gliders

[mks180]

I once got a change to meet Francis Rogallo, the inventor of the hang glider. He told me that he envisioned it originally as a wing for cars that you'd deploy, fly where you needed to go, then stow it after you land and park the car.

I find SkyRider's approach much more interesting..

[jcr]

VTOL, robotic piloting with GPS, fly point-to-point, etc.

The thing that convinced me that they're on to something is that they drive the fans electrically from an inboard generator.

That saves the horifically complicated transmission that something like the Moller SkyCar needs to make all the engines drive all the fans.

http://www.macroindustries.com/website/files/sky ri der/sr-index.htm

AAA membership refused for this vehicle?

[mwooldri]

Then join the newly formed American Airborne Automobile Association - the AAAA! We cover our members with exclusive services such as emergency flight planning, jet-engine jump start and in-flight wing repair.

In due course we will be securing the domain name aaaa.com for our activities, and offering a full range of services for our fly-drive members.

Ask The Experts...

[nick_davison]

Arguably the funniest part of the site is What the experts say.

Among the massive pannel of international experts, you can choose from: The founder... uh, the founder... um, the founder... and, uh, the founder. Nope, that's about it. One expert. And that's the founder of the company.

They have, however discovered the secret of efficient flight: Vapour.

Re:Ask The Experts...

[YoungBonzi]

If you watch the movie long enough the coulds begin to fly backwards... as if the engine has stalled and somethinig terrible is about to happen.

Why call it an "SUV" of the sky?

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

I get it - just like SUV owners never take their vehicles off-road, owners of these will never actually fly them.

Re:Why call it an "SUV" of the sky?

[CAIMLAS]

Considering that SUVs
- really can't drive "off-road" (they can manage dirt roads and back roads OK, and flat field driving - are not as off-road as a pickup (which isn't all that great either, when it comes down to it)

I'm guessing that this will:
- not fly very well in it's equivilant to "off-road mode", occasionally "getting stuck" (IE, falling out of the sky)
- not compare well to the slightly capable small, single-prop airplanes, at an inflated cost

Re:Why call it an "SUV" of the sky?

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, I love it when people say "I went offroading" when all they did is drive down a dirt path. This is what most SUV'ers think is offroading. Pffft, I follow them in my Escort. ... are not as off-road as a pickup (which isn't all that great either, when it comes down to it)

Pickups... not great? You mean a 2WD pickup?

I've seen 4WD pickups cross the toughest parts of the Rubicon so I don't know what you're talking about if that's what you mean.

Re:LOl

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, you're an idiot.

SUV of the sky? I don't think so...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see soccer moms driving their kids to practice in one of these things!

the best commuter aircraft imho

[WormholeFiend]

http://www.engineeringsystem.co.jp/genh4_en/

aerocar of 1968

[bender-high]

Looks awfully similar to the "aerocar" of 1968:
http://www.museumofflight.org/collections/craftdis play.html?ID=3
Manufacturer: Aerocar
Model: Model III
Year: 1968
Serial No.: 1
Location: Museum of Flight
Viewable? Yes

Span: 34 feet
Length: 26 feet
Wing Area: 190 square feet
Empty Weight: 1,500 pounds
Gross Weight: 2,100 pounds
Cruise Speed (Road): 60 mph
Cruise Speed (Air): 135 mph
Service Ceiling: 12,000 feet
Range: 500 miles

Re:aerocar of 1968

[CatPieMan]

Now I know I saw something like that in the Man with the Golden Gun (old bond flick for those who don't know).

The bad guy turned his car into an airplane in about 5 minutes.

-CPM

Re:aerocar of 1968

[bender-high]

Yes, there are actually five different plane-cars mentioned at Unreal Aircraft including a WWII tank-plane and a jeep-plane.

Re:aerocar of 1968

[thogard]

Before 1970 there were many cars like this. Odd thing is most were based on the VW bug.

Sky-Highway

[YoungBonzi]

The virtual highway in the sky sounds pretty cool.

Dream on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on people...
Peak Oil is coming and we can't find better things than trying to figure out new ways to waste our remaining resources...
I guess we've probably been past Peak IQ for a while now...

Builder is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

For using all kinds of weirdo units: KPTAS, nm (thought it was a very short autonomy, if measured in nanometers), miles... *Sigh* It's _his_ project, he can make it out of bamboo if he wants. I reserve my respect for the next, though.

I'll avoid making a joke which would make some people who already suffered even sadder.

Flying Car

[Shky]

"What walk? You'll have the flying car..."

Kevin Smith's short film.

Finally...

[filtur]

I can get a date with that snobby Judy Jetson, my "ground" car just wasn't good enough.

Correction

[MacFury]

The future of transportation is improved mass transit

Correction, the future of transportation should be improved mass transit. The real future is bigger SUVs.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States, of course.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so 'not in the US' elitist. SUV's are getting popular worldwide, whether or not they're as large as American SUV's doesn't matter.

Ironically, at the same time that SUV's are getting bigger, small cars are getting smaller (Honda Beat and City, tons of european prototypes).

Re:Correction

[Mad Marlin]

Correction, the future of transportation should be improved mass transit. The real future is bigger SUVs.

Mass transit: because most people don't get to smell urine often enough in a day.

Mmmm great..

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if we can get the price down to an affordable level like $40,000 we can have these clueless SUV drivers kill themselves before they hurt others.

For $400,000

[Anonymous Coward]

You could buy several SUV's and leave them parked at airports across the country. Although I'd spend the extra cash on a better plane.

yet another name i can't pronounce

[psyence_phixion]

oh great, how am i supposed to pronounce this one? T-aero? Tae-ro? Ta-ero? Tee-ro? Taro? yum.

i for one

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our new flying suv overlords.

Great! More expensive toys

[Anonymous Coward]

the pricks can stroke their egos with instead of spending it on World Hunger/AIDS/new school building/etc., ad nauseum...

Can't wait til I see one while driving around in my Honda Civic.

"Oops..was that one of those stabilizer thingey's I knocked off? Sorry!"

You, sir, are gullible

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a couple video-interviews with the founder of Taero, Dr. Douglas Ikeler. It sounds like they have a substantial team of aviation engineers working on this project - and he is confident that there are no more potential show-stoppers - it's just a matter of finalizing the design & production at this point.

Of course he's going to sound confident- that's what the investors want to hear. You should check out the "What the experts say" section, it has more quotes from Dr. Ikeler, who, interestingly enough, is the expert they have yet found to comment on the product. Next you're probably going to tell me that the world is flat and the center of the universe. Oh shit, I just read your sig...

Re:You, sir, are gullible

[calebb]

Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm not a scientist ;-) I like to study God's Word AND His works. (aka the Bible and the world)

Perhaps you've heard of Francis Bacon? He's the one responsible for coming up with the modern scientific method. Here's a quote he made:

Let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the Book of God's Word, or in the Book of God's Works--Divinity or Philosophy. But rather, let men endeavor an endless progress or proficiency in both

If you check out my profile, you'll see that I'm a scientist...

Been done before

[farnerup]

The ConVAIRCAR

Well, How 'bout...

[iminplaya]

this?
http://www.fordpinto.com/mitzar1.htm

Experimental Class

[Sir Banana]

Since this is a kit plane it will be in the experimental class. Unfortunatly this means that you wouldn't be able to fly it over built up areas making pretty restrictive for a $400k general purpose vehicle :(

Re:Experimental Class

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean ultralights. Experimental-class aircraft are allowed to fly in any airspace they're equipped for, including IFR and over cities. They also have the same maintenance requirements as certified aircraft. The main restriction is that they are only for non-commercial use, so they can't be used to carry passengers or cargo for money.

Re:Experimental Class

[Sir Banana]

Nope, I refer you to FAR 91.319...

No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental or restricted certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway unless authorized by the FAA.

Aerospectives Taero 4000...

[Anonymous Coward]

... because having a web page from 1999 breeds trust.

Re:I find SkyRider's approach much more interestin

[Anonymous Coward]

The Boeing TiltRoter uses complex transmissions but the Moller SkyCar doesn't. It uses two motors in each nacelle that directly operate the ducted fans in that nacelle. The motors are all contolled by redundant computer systems. As far as I know, no transmissions are needed. If any motor fails, the others have the power to compensate for it, even in hover.

Compare this to SkyRider's approach with a single engine and no redundancy in the nacelles.

The Sokol A400 Flying Car

[Bat_Masterson]

This Taero 4000 reminds me of the Sokol A400 Flying Car. I haven't looked deeply, but I'll bet some of the same people are involved.

It's ashame that the Solotrek died so fast (see more about it here).

Wait, I have a bridge...er...car....flying car ...

[Seahawk91]

to sell to you.

I sense the niche market of people with $400k burning a hole in their pocket. I will get a Doctorate degree from one of those e-mails I keep getting. Then, I will get a picture of a Geo or Yugo and strap a sheet of plywood across the back of it with duck tape (all DIY's love duck tape)and only charge $395k.

Naturally, this is only in pre-prototype and Photoshop, but hey, there has to be at least one taker out there who will pay me for the hour I used to set up the web site. Two takers will even buy me the Geo for the prototype and four would allow me to fill it with gas and move to Hawaii.

Only drawback is the wing does not fold but disattaches at 50 mph on the highway. Part of the "extras" kit is 100 mph tape (much better than duck tape, but much more expensive...at least when priced as an option for my G Aero).

Oh yeah, since it is not even in prototype yet, its specs are: air speed is supersonic, air range is to moon and back, on road it goes 55 mph and 350 miles on one tank of gas.

Here's what I feel about flying in general:

[keifir]

"...oh,no. Not again..."-D.A.

Speaking of Moller...

[Anonymous Coward]

Found this:
http://www.milkfarm.net/lifext.htm

Yeah, this SkyCar thing sounds more legitimate every day. (sarcasm)

This is total BS

[aws4y]

From the website
Dr. Douglas Ikeler
~ Highly Successful Business Entrepreneur - Multiple Veterinary Medical Practices, Substantial Real Estate Portfolio and International Training and Consulting
~ Student of Astrophysics, Human Factors Engineering, Systems Thinking and Business Innovation
~ Private Pilot
~ Doctor of Veterinary Medicine - Completing Additional Requirements for MD Degree

I think this is a BS product since the best testimonial they could come up with was a Veternarian

Re:This is total BS

[raodin]

Not only that, but a veteranarian who happens to be the founder of the company.

Lassie would be proud

[ubrgeek]

The future of transportation is being brought to us by a Vet ...

Skyblazer

[Spacejock]

Same topic, different sky car, different URL: http://www.haynes-aero.com Cheers Simon

ADSB and Open Skies is needed first.

[furry_wookie]

If ADSB really takes off we could see this become pratical.

With ADSB and GPS, many people in avaition are starting to question the need/benifit of positive controled airspace.

If ADSB gets widely deployed pilots will have 10x more information avaiable to them about traffic around them then todays air controllers.

The concept of "Open Skies" is getting lots of talk these days about being the future. Many people envision a world where the pilot does his own navigaion from point a to point b, and only needs air traffic controllers during entry and exit of congested airports... during regular cross-country nagivation, no air traffic control is needed.

There are already so many commerical flights in the air today that the existing way of doing things (eg only traveling over pre-determined routes on nav charts, basically "highways in the sky), is starting to be a problem with not enough highway and too much traffic. Open Skies would make pilots able to take any road they wanted and not be required to stick to the current few paths allowed between locations.

This would also make it much simpler for individuals and the general public to take on aviation modes of transportation.

I find SkyRider's approach much more interesting..

[jcr]

So, Moller's got eight Wankel rotary engines?

I've got to say I'm much more optimistic about the reliability of a single turbine generator, than I am about eight separate rotary engines.

-jcr

Proof that it's vaporware

[Goldenhawk]

IAAAE (I AM an aero engineer)...

It's impossible to state the range (1200nm), and then later in the same paragraph, to state that the usable fuel capacity is "to be determined". Fuel capacity determines the range. (Gee, thanks, Sherlock... that's true of any vehicle.) But in an airplane, it's even more critical, because fuel capacity determines structural weight (more fuel requires more structure, which in turn demands more fuel to move it, which demands more structure, etc.). Until they've nailed down the fuel load, this thing is hardly an aerodynamically developed system.

This thing is a pipe dream - if you read the FAQs, there are far more "to be determined" than details.

Re:Proof that it's vaporware

[LuxFX]

It's impossible to state the range (1200nm),

well gosh, it should still be safe to say that the range is at least 1200nm, right? That is one-thousand-two-hundred nano-miles, right? Or about 8/100's of an inch?

Oh, wait...

Re:Proof that it's vaporware

[Anonymous Coward]

this is just a guess, but I think in this case nm might stand for nautical miles.

Re:Proof that it's vaporware

[the pickle]

IANAAE (though I've read a few books on it).

I am, however, what you might describe as an "aviation enthusiast."

Even considering the GE J85 is the engine from the F-5 Tiger fighter and you *might* be able to pick one up fairly cheap from a gov't surplus auction, it seems to me that $400K is a bit optimistic for this thing.

First, it's going to be carrying around a lot of extra pounds. (For an airplane; keep in mind this thing has to be road-worthy AND airworthy, and that requires a fair amount of structural bracing that a normal airplane wouldn't have.) Weight is the enemy of all airplane designers, and this nutjob is intentionally adding on an automotive drivetrain and chassis.

Second, I don't see anything jet-powered selling for under about US$1m or so brand-new. Something like a USED Cessna Citation CJ-1 or Learjet 31 will easily fetch US$2-3m on the market today, and I'd trust either of those a LOT more than I'd trust a product designed by someone with an apparent "get-venture-capital-fast" agenda and no demonstrable experience building working aircraft.

p

Re:Proof that it's vaporware

[LuxFX]

yeah, I figured. those silly traditional measurements.

it's not a car

[Myopic]

if it requires a pilot's license, and an airport, it's not a car. we already have a word for what it is: airplane.

Re:it's not a car

[Anonymous Coward]

If it can drive on the road, it's a car.

$400K & no options!?!?

[eugene ts wong]

The least that they could do is add AM-FM radio. Good grief!

Re:$400K & no options!?!?

[3waygeek]

Well, it probably has an ADF (automatic direction finder -- basically a radio compass), which can receive AM signals.

As for FM, the frequency band for VORs (a dedicated radio navigation system) is just above the FM band; a nav radio might be able to pick up some of the higher-frequency FM signals.

Standard FAA regulations apply

[tyler_larson]

Don't get the idea that any joe can just pony up the $400 grand and use the car to take off on I-25 on their way to grandma's house. You'd be breaking all sorts of laws. First of all, this car not a propeller driven junker, it's a jet. You're got to be licensed and qualified to fly the thing. That means you have to obtain (a) a medical certificate from an FAA licensed doctor, (b) a private pilots license, (c) IFR rating, (d) commercial rating, and (probably) (e) type-specific rating. The minimum you can expect is some 250-300 hours flight time under your belt before you're allowed to take this car into the air; probably much more.

Next, once you can fly the plane, you still have to follow all the same rules that normal planes have to follow. You can only take off and land on airport runways. You must maintain contact with ATC when you're within controlled airspace, and you have to file a flight plan and remain in constant contact with ATC if you intend to fly at or above 18000 feet, or in weather with low visibility.

What sets this craft apart is.. or rather, what Taero hopes will set this craft apart is:

(a) price. A light jet for under $1 million new? Still yet to be done. Granted, it is a kit plane--that brings the price down quite a bit. You sacrifice reliability to get an uncertified aircraft that you get to assemble yourself. No guarantees. Hope you didn't forget that last screw.

(b) freedom. Drive to the airport, fly your car to your destination, then drive you plane to the hotel.

(c) novelty. Let's face it, if you can afford to own (and pay insurance on) a jet, you can afford to rent a car when you get to grandma's house. It's really the novelty factor that would attract most customers. "Wow, a flying car!"

Re:Standard FAA regulations apply

[Ralgha]

Wrong.

To fly this jet, you would need a medical, a private pilot certificate, and a type rating. That's it. 100 hours would probably more than do it, except perhaps for insurance requirements.

There are no federal regulations requiring airplanes to utilize airports or runways for takeoff and landing.

You only need to maintain contact with ATC in certain kinds of controlled airspace, and you can fly IFR without a clearance or talking to anyone in uncontrolled airspace (I.E. above 18000 feet or in low visibility).

CFII-MEI

Re:Standard FAA regulations apply

[randyest]

A light jet for under $1 million new? Still yet to be done. Granted, it is a kit plane--that brings the price down quite a bit. You sacrifice reliability to get an uncertified aircraft that you get to assemble yourself. No guarantees. Hope you didn't forget that last screw.

Worse, the $400k price is assuming a refurbished engine (read the specs page carefully).

Michael is an Idiot, Boomzilla Needs To Buy An Ad

[thelizman]

What the hell is michael smoking today that he'd actually post this, then actually allow a comparison. To wit, the Taero is a non-existent vaporware ford-focus with a surfboard wing wannabe. The Moller Sky Car actually flies, exists, and has existed for years.

The Taero is a pipe dream at least - deceitful vaporware at best, and most likely a venture capital scam in progress. There is no reason this story should be on slashdot - except for the probably lameness of slashdot. The Jihad is right.

Why does Slashdot post crap like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent them a link to an article about Honda's new jet actually *flying* and at the same time they get a post about a sky car. No doubt after much deliberation, they decide a sky car is a much more valuable topic than a new mini-jet from Honda.

I've now placed my ranking of 'future' articles from Slashdot down a few notches. Clunk, clunk, clunk.

Re:Wait, I have a bridge...er...car....flying car

[BlacKat]

Duck Tape!? :o}

Perchance you mean Duct Tape? ;o)

Re:Will it become reality? I think so...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they hire Burt Rutan, call me. If they ship it, call me. Otherwise, I wish everyone would just give the vaporware marketing a rest.

Look! We're gonna make a hybrid-electric hydrogen-powered helium filled flourescent green motorcycle with a couple of things that look like wings slapped on it! Can you give us some money?

Fugly

[ruiner13]

Man, that is one ugly vehicle. Well, I guess it is better than the aztek, but it looks like an cougar with wings strapped on.

I clicked on "what the experts say"...

[srcosmo]

...and got a picture of a freaky-looking guy with a vacant stare (the founder) floating in the clouds, with a quote:

We will own more than a single product idea. We will own an entire category of transportation -- TRANSFORMATIONAL TRANSPORTATION.

Is anyone else very, very afraid?

Autonomy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else see this on the website?

Maximum range: Air - 1200 nm

1200 nanometer?

Re:Autonomy?

[warkda rrior]

What's the speed of vaporware again?

Rental cars too expensive?

[baboon]

So you have $400k to spend, so instead of having a modest limo service meet you at the airport, you're going to drive this awkward liability around the highway, where the lightest fender bender requires a full airworthiness re-inspection.

If I recall back when I got my private license, it seemed like the rental car companies were dropping off cars for lots of people, even out there in the middle of nowhere. What is broken here?

Re:No taking off from your backyard unless

[hungsolo]

No thanks. I'd rather not live next to John "Scientologist" Travolta.

Travolta's New House.

Re:Wait, I have a bridge...er...car....flying car

[srn_test]

No, he means Duck Tape. Do a quick web search and find out what it was called when invented (WW2).

Press the Red Button!

[Bob Snuffy]

If it comes with ejector seats, will they work on the ground too?!

Personal Rocketship for Sale

[tekrat]

This is the stupidest thing _ever_ on Slashdot. So, if I put up a cheap-ass website detailing my plans to sell "personal rocketships" (travel NYC to Tokyo in just 2 hours!),and I cobble together some bad photoshop artwork that shows my "prototype concept", can I also get a posting on Slashdot?

Because if so, I'll start making that illustration now. Hey it doesn't have to work, or be aerodynamic, or even be based on a shred of reality. If it's on the web, it must be real!

Re:Hey Michael

[Anonymous Coward]

When you bite your girlfriend on the ass, does she fart loudly and fly out the window?

Actually...

[Kelar]

This is from the FAQ section of their site. Takes a bit more than a private pilot ticket. Come on, it's a personal jet, and therefore would require a type rating. It would obviously be a lot more involved transitioning up to something that flies this fast from a Cessna 172 or Piper.

This definately isn't a vehicle for a non-career private pilot.

What are the licensing, training and assembly, and insuring requirements of owning a TAERO?
Those who proceed with acquisition of the TAERO will be provided with a complete licensing and/or rating enhancements training program as well as a complete ownership and assembly orientation and training program - all in an engaging, interactive, technically supported and resort-like environment. As a bimodal craft intended for operation within the U.S., licensing will require a private pilot license with instrument and multiengine ratings including a Type Rating to act as Pilot-in-Command, as well as a private Driver License, Class R, for motor vehicle operation. High altitude right-seat jet time will also be beneficial. Orientation and training, and active involvement in actual assembly will meet the highest standards of care and will be fully consistent with FAA and DOT requirements. Research is currently underway regarding insurance underwriting for the TAERO, to address liability, property and casualty protection. More information on licensing, training and insurance will be made available to TAERO First Members as these programs develop.

What are the licensing, training and assembly, and insuring requirements of owning a TAERO?

Those who proceed with acquisition of the TAERO will be provided with a complete licensing and/or rating enhancements training program as well as a complete ownership and assembly orientation and training program - all in an engaging, interactive, technically supported and resort-like environment. As a bimodal craft intended for operation within the U.S., licensing will require a private pilot license with instrument and multiengine ratings including a Type Rating to act as Pilot-in-Command, as well as a private Driver License, Class R, for motor vehicle operation. High altitude right-seat jet time will also be beneficial. Orientation and training, and active involvement in actual assembly will meet the highest standards of care and will be fully consistent with FAA and DOT requirements. Research is currently underway regarding insurance underwriting for the TAERO, to address liability, property and casualty protection. More information on licensing, training and insurance will be made available to TAERO First Members as these programs develop.

Re:Actually...

[Ralgha]

Notice I said it would require a type rating.

A type rating can be obtained with a limitation to VFR only if instrument proficiency is not demonstrated.

The FAQ performance section seems to indicate to me a single jet engine. If they have two jet engines, then yes, a multi-engine rating would be required. However, the land drive would not class it as a multi-engine aircraft. Also, the stall speed they indicate in the FAQ is 61 knots, significant because this is the upper limit for single engine airplanes. If it were multi-engine, there would be no need to keep the stall speed that low. Granted, it could very well be multi-engine anyway, but it all just reinforces my thoughts that it will never come to be.

It definatly could be a vehicle for a non-career private pilot. Holding a commercial certificate does not make you a better pilot, neither does making a career out of it. Granted career pilots are generally more proficient, but there is nothing preventing a private pilot from learning to handle such an aircraft.

This thing need Jet Fuel to travel around town

[Mal Reynolds]

Reading through the FAQ, it seems this thing is going to use a common fuel, "Jet A" for both the aircraft engine and the automotive engine. Uh, how many gas stations carry "Jet A"? One could buy a very nice aircraft and a dozen road vehicles, each stationed at a variety of airports for the amount of money this thing will cost. $400K? Don't think so, this thing will probably be closer to a million by the time it's ready. One thing for sure, if they do manage to get one running we'll see it in an upcoming James Bond movie. And just like most gadgets in Bond movies, it will be the first, last and only time we'll ever see it. BTW, Moller's Sky Car has been advertising for venture investors for over 20 years now, still not a single working prototype has been built. I remember seeing the magazine ad's begging for money in an issue of Popular Science in the early 80's.

Re:Wait, I have a bridge...er...car....flying car

[IM6100]

I looked, and what I've found is that 'Duck' tape is a registered trademark. And the people selling 'Duck' tape have this story they want to tell you about why you shouldn't use the non-trademarked name for it.

4000 lbs of Hype ?

[zymano]

This thing doesn't look safe at all. Very heavy also. I don't trust Kits . The website is sparse like it was made by one person company. No one should faith in what that website is saying . Seems like alot of exagerations .

Re:4000 lbs of Hype ?

[LWATCDR]

There is nothing wrong with kitplanes. More Kitplanes are made each year then GA aircraft in the US. This thing however is just.... well a load of bunk. The jet engine will not push that through the air at the speed they claim. You can not go 400+ miles an hour in a minivan shaped airplane using a turbo jet engine and carry enough fuel to go any where. THe drag, weight, and fuel consumption are all too high.
Until it flys it is a dream.
When I read a fight test in Sport Aviation then I will believe it.

Even more hype than Moller

[Animats]

Moller has been spewing hype about his VTOL craft since 1967. I have his 1974 brochure, in which the thing was to be available Real Soon Now. It's still Real Soon Now. He did an IPO a few years back, got in trouble with the SEC, paid a fine, and throttled back the hype a bit.

This new guy is worse.

The numbers on this thing are amusing. It's way overpowered. Unlike Moller, this thing uses a jet engine. Hanging a CJ610, with about 3000 pounds of thrust, on a 4000 pound aircraft is overkill. Two of those engines power a 20,000 pound Learjet. CJ610 engines cost about $250,000 used and overhauled.

It's unclear why the takeoff distance is so long.

Isn't a GE J85 a jet engine???

[baine]

I guess people will have to alter their driving etiquette, and keep a bit more than 2-1/2 car lengths separation when they pull in behind one of these things!

This thing looks far more like a pipedream than the Moller air car. Moller's would work, if he could just get the money to get production going in high volume. This flying turd seems like a dream on paper. Just from a basic weight vs. power vs. available lift (wing size), the numbers don't seem to add up.

The lesson of the day: slapping a jet engine on the back doesn't always fix the problem!

Re:Isn't a GE J85 a jet engine???

[tekrat]

Yes, but just think how cool it'll be driving on the highway, a cop gets behind you to give you a ticket for speeding, and you kick in the jet engine....

(as long as the highway is clear in front of you)

Anybody ever see the movie "Hooper"?

moller skycar

[oohp]

I think the Moller Skycar (or equivalent) has a brighter future than this. This is just a car-plane hybrid, nothing new here; all they did was stick two wings on a car. Bah.

Re:moller skycar

[Logopop]

You're right - nothing new here. However, I beg to diagree re. the Moller concepts. Fixed wings allow for establishing a glidepath and (semi) controlled emergency landings in the event of an engine failure. Helicopters have a similar way of recovering using autorotation and fact that the main rotor has enough mass to allow for controlled landings without power. If the Moller skycar looses a single engine during flight, the vehicle instantly becomes unstable and will drop. It does not have enough wing area to maintain lift, neither does the failed engine have enough rotor mass to be used for autorotation. The only safety device offered is a parashute. Even if mechanically launced, I seriously doubt that the FAA will certify such a thing. It's a neat dream, but I think that investors should spend some money on some professional engineering technology assessment before putting money into that project (even if it flies already).

-Kris

"promised?!?!"

[e.m.rainey]

Does anyone else find this idea of holding some nebulous "them" up to the promises of "tomorrow"? WHO made these "promises"? And WHO was fool enough to believe that they were actual promises? Why do journalists abuse this word in this fashion, all the time, everytime an "invention of the future" is mentioned?

Get a clue! No one promised you squat! Get over it!

Extremely Flammable and Dangerous

[Sangloth]

I remeber how hot the Twin Towers burned from the Jet Fuel of the airplanes. Wouldn't it be the same if a Taero get's in an accident on the ground?

Even if this scheme were possible, you'd be crazy to drive a $400,000(+ assembly) car on the open road.

I've got an idle question for any people knowledgable in the area. Would flying be more energy efficient then ground transportation?

Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.

Re:Extremely Flammable and Dangerous

[fuzzybunny]

I remeber how hot the Twin Towers burned from the Jet Fuel of the airplanes. Wouldn't it be the same if a Taero get's in an accident on the ground?

Yeah, but would you really mind this happening to the average SUV driver? Every time some inconsiderate sonofabitch in his Grand Suburban TransCountryExplorer pieceashit cuts in front of me, I wish that those NBC flammability trials with bottle rockets strapped to a truck's fuel tanks hadn't been rigged...

Answer from the FAA

[scsirob]

"I wonder what kind of FAA regulations there would be for such a vehicle"

Simple... Grounded!

S.U.V. explained

[blankmange]

Stupid.Useless.Vehicle. Yet another way for Americans to show their greed and amazing materialism...

It has been done... with more practicallity

[vortexau]

Does ANYONE remember the Bond movie: "The Man with the Golden Gun"? Although Scaramanga's Flying Pinto was SFX,
that car
that concept did already exist, but was not in mass-production!

Why "drag" the wing around when you're not actually flying?

I STILL prefer wing-less designs!
.

I'll get my famous predictions in now

[utahjazz]

I think there is a market for maybe 5 flying cars in the world.

Nobody needs a flying car in their garage.

The flying car is dead.

50 years from now, you will be able to look at a flying car for 30 minutes, and 70% of the time not be able to tell if it's an airplane, or it's a car.

100 years from now flying cars will be twice as fast, 10,000 times bigger, and cost so much only the richest kings in Europe can afford them.

Obvious venture capital sink

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much better because a website advocating use of an existing car/airplane solution deals with "real" money. As we all know, "real" money has issues with not being all profit and is therefore less desirable. The imaginary carplane idea doesn't exist in real life, so it deals in "fake" or "investor" money. People give you money thinking that you'll give them more money back later once you're selling your product. What they don't know is that you've stuck a clause in the contract that states that they might not get all their money back if the idea doesn't pan out. You've known all along that a carplane could never exist because of the post-9/11 temptation to fly it into a building, not to mention the technical details.

Your investors (that you call "suckers" when they aren't around) like the pretty concept art that you send them from time to time, and keep giving you money until finally you break the bad news to them and refer them to the fine print that allows you to keep a portion of their money no matter what. Alternatively, they can find that they can no longer get in contact with you because you have relocated to some single-digit latitude island to spend your hard-earned cash. People with too much money still like to invest in pretty pictures of impossible ideas, so I recommend the latter method of profiting from this "fake money" that you have "borrowed" (as in from the ten's column).

SUV

[Captain Ed]

No way will this thing fly, I guarantee you. It is a trap for sucker investors.

It does make you wonder...

[scoove]

what would Jesus fly?

because transportation is a moral issue...
(especially to some people)

*scoove*

For that much money...

[sahonen]

I'd rather get a Cirrus SR-22, and just buy an SUV. A car cannot be an airplane, and vice versa, I'd much rather have two vehicles which do what they werre designed to do very well than one vehicle that does two things poorly.

Not to mention the absurdity of trying to design avionics that work for both ground and air navigation... Imagine your car yelling at you for busting class B airspace when you drive past an international airport.

Man with the Golden Gun

[FreeLinux]

This isn't new. It looks way too much like the car from the James Bond film, The Man with the Golden Gun. The car used was the AMC Matador, a hideous vehicle from the 70's that looks far too similar to this new flying car for my tastes.

Moller is a kook...

[Anonymous Coward]

I laugh every time I read his name on Slashdot.

I heard Moller himself hype his Skycar 400 (the Batmobile one) six years ago when Art Bell was still interviewing kooks on the air late at night.

Six years later and it's still as much vaporware as ever. Oh wait, there's a :03 video on the website now. And pictures.

I highly suspect Moller of being yet another pseudoscientist existing solely on the gullibility of venture capitalists. Support the Taero, it looks like something real...