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: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: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)