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?

[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?

[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?

[TwistedKestrel]

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

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?

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....

[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.

OSQ

[xao gypsie]

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

xao

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.

Taero vs. Moller

[mikeophile]

Dueling vaporware.

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

[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.)

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?

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.

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.

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...

Pfft..

[Wigfield]

Looks like something from Spaceballs.

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

At last!

[quantaman]

Darwin will finally take care of SUV owners!!

Is it voice activated?

[Beek]

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

The SUV of the sky?

[duckpoopy]

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .