Flying Car More Economical Than SUV

fusion812 writes "The M400 needs 35 clear feet to take off but thanks to its 770 hp engine can whiz to 365 mph - cruise control kicks in at 326 mph - and climb at 6,400 feet per minute. You may hear it before you see it: it emits a rather noisy 65 dba at 500 feet. Interestingly, with a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road, it's rather more economical than a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and looks positively eco-friendly compared to a Hummer."

Comments

MPG not important

[jepaton]

Moller said that today's economics give each M400 a theoretical price tag of around half a million dollars, but in volume production it could drop to $300,000 and in really large volumes to below $50,000.

If you can afford one of these the MPG isn't going to be an issue.

Eco-friendly???

[Kwelstr]

"it emits a rather noisy 65 dba at 500 feet. Interestingly, with a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road, it's rather more economical than a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and looks positively eco-friendly compared to a Hummer."

How about NOISE POLLUTION???? 65 dba at 500 feet. Yeah that's eco friendly in my book!!!

Economic Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty soon most in city travel will move towards public transportation and small aircraft will remove much of the cost of building highways and their economic cost. Really this whole thing makes a lot of sense to the government.

So what?

[divine_13]

Well i guess that the fact of a vehicle being a bit more "economical" that others does not make it better. There are alot of other features; support, part prices, driving abilities etc.

Its astonishing

[Timesprout]

That someone actually spent 200 Million dollars on a project like this. Flying cars are a cool idea but lets face it totally impractical with todays infrastructure. Also given the paranoia over security today I cant imagine the US Govt being in any great hurry to allow the masses get airbourne.

I reckon he needs to find 400 people with more money that sense to but them as very expensive novelties to break even.

Re:Its astonishing

[BiggerIsBetter]

So you think that lowering the financial bar for aerial terrorists is a good thing?

I'll take that as a genuine question rather than you attempting to put words into my mouth.

I think lowering the financial bar for personal aircraft for *anyone* is a good idea. Cheap aircraft can be had, but you're looking at some pretty old designs and hardware. Making better craft cheaper is a good thing, and can make flying safer for those that want to. The idea of raising prices to a point where only the extremely wealthy and suitably large corporations can do so smacks of elitism and "corporatism". Eg, common people shouldn't be allowed to do things, some of them might do something bad! Better only let the good (rich/white/christian/political/etc) people do those things, or only companies so we can regulate them (and because most sensible well off folks use companies as vehicles for their finances anyway).

Personally, I like the idea of jumping in a cheap reliable plane and flying somewhere nice and remote to go camping for the weekend, but people like you would rather see me "under control" and put through security checks and 3 hour check-in queues - because that's "safer" isn't it? And as I understand it, terrorists are rather well funded already, so don't kid yourself that life will be rosy if you price anything interesting out of the Joe Public market.

Look buddy, keep your paranoia to yourself. The US has got the largest military spend in the world and bases in everyone else's countries... but now you're getting pissy over letting some average dude fly his family around because you think someone might attack you? In a 4-seater Cessna? Uh, that's been within terrorists reach for *decades*. There's some serious introspection needed here...

Re:That may be so...

[M1FCJ]

Airspace is quite controlled as well, at least in Europe. Where you can fly is pretty regulated. There are volumes of space left for small aircraft but still you are pretty limited (as the roads are).

The nice thing is given a separation distance, air traffic can still hold enormous volumes.

On the other hand while driving on the ground I only have to live two seconds worth of distance as a minimum between my car and the guy in front of me. On air, this distance is much much longer. The traffic might be still pretty bad.

The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Jonas the Bold]

The point is how much SUVs suck. There is no excuse for having worse fuel efficiancy than a fucking airplane.

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[jcam2]

I think a more interesting and fairer comparison would be an SUV vs. a real airplane with a similar passenger capacity, such as a Cessna ..

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[tommck]

If you read the article, that's the mileage it gets _on_the_ground_... not in the air!

Heck, it probably ways less than many SUVs too! Probably has no towing capacity and is extremely streamlined...

More appropriately (because of its shape), it should be compared with sporty cars and, there, it's not so great..

Re:The point isn't the practicality of flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think a more interesting and fairer comparison would be an SUV vs. a real airplane with a similar passenger capacity, such as a Cessna .."

It's been done, more or less. Years ago, Flying magazine compared the fuel economy of a Grumman TR-2 airplane with that of a Ford Pinto. To be fair, the Pinto held 4 people, and the Grumman only held two, but we all know that most cars rarely
carry their max passenger capacity.

At any rate, the airplane won, based on gallons of gas used to
go from point A to point B. The car was of course quite a bit slower. But a comparision of economy of cars and airplanes is
kind of pointless anyway. The two machines are good for different things.

If you've ever had the chance to travel in a private plane, and go
where, when, and how you wanted to go, you will know that
even a basic single engine plane makes cars look stupid.

I used to fly from Annapolis MD to a town in VA, and the same trip took 1.1 hours in a plane, and easily over 2.5 in the car. And then there was the stress of driving through hellish traffic
( the Beltway around D.C.). If you can fly ( and not everyone can)
flying is a great way to travel.

Acting as your own pilot is, well, a bit less forgiving of mistakes
than driving a car. As such, unless and until truly automated
aircraft are available, flying will never be something the masses
can engage in, even if it were free. Then again, it *would* be a
good way to clean up the gene pool...

Re:That may be so...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Gyrocopters would make good civilian flying
> cars.. They're easy to learn (about 30 odd
> lessons) and if they run out of fuel they
> autorotate automatically..

And you land in a crowd, or on the side of a building and tip off and die. No, the lawyers will incinerate companies like this. Both sky cars and gyrocopters, for general use, will need computer control to manage fuel, takeoffs, and landings.

Actually, sky cars should be very safe. With multiple engines, the computer could keep it flying even if one engine goes doen, enough for a safe landing. They would have their own network of radar and computer control so they can fly around each other. The passenger will rarely "drive" this. Enter destination, push a button, and go.

Re:That may be so...

[buzzcutbuddha]

So you have to pay more to get the thing initially. Boo hoo. You can fly at 326mph to your destination and get better gas mileage. So you have save time and cash on your commute, or going wherever. Is it really that hard to see the long-term economic benefits?

At 326mph I could get to work in 9 minutes. That alone is worth the price of admission.

And, btw, intelligence is absolutely no indicator of someone's ability to pilot or steer or drive a machine. I've seen plenty of supposedly smart people (think of some professors you've had) that can't drive a car to save their life. And I don't think any of us are going to nominate Dale Earnhardt Jr for a Nobel Prize, but I don't question his driving skills.

Stop being so damn elitist.

WTF?

[Cthefuture]

Am I missing something or what?

65 dBa is quiet. Those crappy old desktop computers put out more sound than that. Most high quality cars have an interior road noise level of around 65 dBa at 60 MPH.

Did they mean 165 dBa or something? (now that that would be loud as hell)

Reality Check

[xyote]

Flying as a mode of transportation only works because there are relatively few aircraft in the air so they can be kept really far apart, and the pilots are well trained.

It is repeatedly demonstrated every single day that ordinary drivers cannot handle 1 dimension in driving, let alone 2 dimensions such as intersections and multi lane roads. 3 dimensions is completely out of the question. Are you totally insane?

That still doesn't get around the concept's flaws

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'm surprised that the group that rips on Infinium Labs for being the vapor that they are doesn't rip on Moller for being vapor far longer than Phantom Console.

Skycar, IMO, is a scam. Yes, they have two "test flight" pictures, might be rigged or faked.

Don't count on 326 MPG on 30MPG. Remember, these are vapor numbers on a flying vehicle with barely any wings at all. If it's too good to be believed...