Where Are the Flying Cars?

Ponca City, We Love You writes "Complaints of the non-existence of flying cars as expressions of disappointment in the failure of the present to measure up to the glory of past predictions have long been a staple of popular culture but all that is about to change when Terrafugia introduces their $148,000 "Transition," a 19-foot, two-seater that the company describes as a roadable light-sport aircraft. The problem is that the U.S. doesn't have the infrastructure in place to make landing in front of your house a viable alternative yet and a sky filled with people who don't have pilot's licenses could also be a problem. The idea is to take advantage of the 6,000 public airports in the U.S. so a pilot can fly into a small airport (video) and instead of getting a rental car, just fold up the wings on the aircraft and drive away. Terrafugia expects the first production model to be ready in 2009 and says they've already received advanced orders for 30 to 50 Transitions."

Comments

Huge blind spots when driving

[CheddarHead]

Man those folded up wings make for some gigantic blind spots when you're driving on the road.

Re:Huge blind spots when driving

[shmlco]

Most licenses simply attempt to ensure that the holders are able to meeting some MINIMUM standard of training and practice. (Though I agree that some licenses exist simply as revenue enhancers.)

That said, I'm pretty sure that you're more likely to trust, say, your doctor who's licensed after years of training than to me, even though my rates are really cheap. I assure you, however, that I'm very interested in medicine and I've spend literally hours looking at all of the pictures in my "Inside The Human Body" book!

Sky Rage...

[__aaclcg7560]

So what is the Highway Patrol going to do when some jerk decides that the speed limit is meant to be broken and flies above the commuter lane? Normal road driving is scary enough as it is.

hmm

[thatskinnyguy]

The tail fins kinda remind me of a '57 Chevy. I noticed thespecs on the transition mentioned a 100hp engine. Will that engine drive both the prop and the wheels? If so, my mom's neon would leave this thing in the dust.

In all, I see this as a largely impractical vehicle. I would have a good laugh if I saw a car with wings folded vertically going down the highway.

Consider the freeway

[koan]

Do you want the same people you see tailgating, talking on their cell phones, and doing 45 in the fast lane, or drunk flying in the air?
I didn't think so.

Only way it would work is if it was all fully automated with no or little human intervention.

Not to be a killjoy

[Womens Shoes]

I don't think flying cars will ever make much sense. Barring some absolutely physics-defying discovery, it takes a relatively huge amount of energy to keep a vehicle off the ground, and it's not clear to me what the advantage is (other than being terrifically cool). When you're traveling point-to-point on the surface of a ball it's just not worth it most of the time.

Steering, stopping, and idling in the air are far more expensive and imprecise because you've got nothing fixed to hold on to -- we get a lot of freebies by being in contact with the ground.

I think it's apparent too (or soon will be) that one of the great challenges for mankind going forward is how to do everything we do more efficiently, not less. The technology bottleneck is going to be energy acquisition.

So sure, this may be a nice addition to the lineup of available planes, but I don't think we'll see "flying cars" in our lifetime, if by that we mean "ubiquitous airborne personal transportation".

Re:frGnnnpsot

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Too right. Helen Keller in a flying car is only marginally more dangerous than your average soccer mom in a SUV on her cell phone with two kids squalling in the back seat.

Re:Doesn't work that way

[vtcodger]

Flying cars aren't really impractical, but flying cars for the masses look to be many decades away.

There are three huge problems that need to be solved

• Most types of aircraft are either fuel hogs or can't take off and land without a runway. Unless and until we get some power source "too cheap to meter", flying cars are likely to be like the one in the article. Mediocre aircraft and probably worse cars.
• There is no chance that the average person can fly or control anything other than a balloon without being a menace to themself; other fliers; and people, property, and livestock on the ground. Computers can surely overcome this eventually -- but not this decade. We can't even design voting machines that work. (Not to mention that the US ATC system has been on the verge of breaking for decades handling the comparatively small number aircraft that are currently in the air.)
• Broken cars stop. Broken aircraft drop. Flying cars are going to require safety standards far beyond what we are used to for ground cars.

I imagine that we'll have flying cars in our garages some day. But not any time soon.

So I guess that basically I agree with you.

Re:Warning: Idiots Overhead

[ezHiker]

I'm not worried at all. The bottom line is that this is nothing more than an airplane with extended taxi capabilities. There's no way that the FAA would allow the Transition in the air without a licensed pilot at the controls. Any fund baby who wants to fly one of these things will have to take all of the same private pilot flight training that anyone would have to today to fly their Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee. If they want to fly in bad weather then they will have to train for an instrument rating, as well.

What I really have a tough time believing is that they would be able to sell this for $148,000. Most new light aircraft are already more expensive than this, and come without foldable wings, powered wheels, etc. By the way, most airplanes are expensive because of product liability litigation, not because its expensive to make an airplane. I don't see why this one would be exempt from this fact.