Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
The Skycar goes 350 mph, and yet still gets way better gas mileage than my escort.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
..stay up longer than the Taero web site!!!
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
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).
did anyone else instantly think of the Canyonero?
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!!!!
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
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.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Dueling vaporware.
does not include assembly[!] or optional extras
Wait a second... you mean parachute is an extra???
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
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?
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.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
How will the TAERO perform in flight and on the road?
....Air - 1,200 nm
....Land - 350 miles
....Manufacturer - General Electric
....Model - CJ610/J85
......(Base Price Assumes J85 Refurbished)
....Manufacturer - To Be Determined
....Model - IC - Front Wheel Drive
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:
Landing (ground roll) - 850 ft
Landing (50' object) - 2,030 ft
ENGINE
Air Power:
Land Power:
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.
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...
Looks like something from Spaceballs.
What next? A tacky van with wings driven by a dog?
Darwin will finally take care of SUV owners!!
I stole this Sig
I won't make the purchase unless I can lift off with a simple "go go gadget wings!"
What could be more annoying? The jetski of the sky, perhaps?
word.
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?
www.eFax.com are spammers
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.
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.
VTOL, robotic piloting with GPS, fly point-to-point, etc.
y ri der/sr-index.htm
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/sk
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Does it come with pods to drop the kids off at school?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
I get it - just like SUV owners never take their vehicles off-road, owners of these will never actually fly them.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
Looks awfully similar to the "aerocar" of 1968:s play.html?ID=3
http://www.museumofflight.org/collections/craftdi
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
I can get a date with that snobby Judy Jetson, my "ground" car just wasn't good enough.
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 :(
-- "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
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.
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).
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.
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.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
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 .
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.
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.