Slashdot Mirror
It's Not a Flying Car - It's a Drivable Airplane
waderoush writes "Aviation enthusiasts have been dreaming of flying cars since the 1940s. But in an old machine shop in Woburn, MA, a team of MIT aero/astro grads is building what could be the first practical airplane that's also certified for highway driving. Angel-funded startup Terrafugia, headed by 2006 Lemelson-MIT Student Prize winner Carl Dietrich, hopes to have its first full-scale proof-of-concept vehicle ready to show off at July's AirVenture aviation festival in Oshkosh, Wisconsin."
Does that mean it's actually certified to drive, or just fits within the lane and all that? I'd feel kinda scared if there was a plane next to me on the freeway.
For places with no aviation authorities, yeah, they'll probably see their share of car-planes landing/falling in interesting places because some moron ...
Maybe someone familiar with the safety statistics for single engine planes can chime in, but here in California it's not at all uncommon to read about planes crashing into people's homes and backyards.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html
Fourth quarter, 2007The number of general aviation accidents was down slightly (2 percent) for the fourth quarter. In year-to-date comparisons, general aviation accidents saw an increase as compared to 2006 figures (6 percent).
General Aviation Accidents
According to the FAA, there were a total of 315 general aviation accidents in the fourth quarter of 2007 (down 2 percent from 2006). This figure is the lowest total for the fourth quarter. Accidents for the past several months showed a continued improvement of the GA safety record. Year-end comparisons show a 6-percent increase in general aviation accidents (1,607 in 2007 vs. 1,518 in 2006).
The difference between a flying car and a roadable airplane is that a roadable airplane is more airplane than car. It is designed to land and get you a short distance to a nearby destination at relatively slow speeds. It is also more delicate on the ground than a regular car. The upside is that as an airplane, its functionality is mostly preserved. The concept of a Roadable Airplane is closer to the truth as far as what will actually work.
;)
Building roadable airplanes is all about minimizing the weight sacrifice in adding the extra stuff it takes to fold the wings and make it steer and propel itself down the road. It's a very tough compromise. Aircraft engines are designed to run at fixed RPMs, they are not suitable for driving a transmission. Thus you're either adding a very small second engine or using a hydraulic motor or something similar. Again, more weight.
Beware prototypes that show very fancy automatic folding wings and other gadgetry - they are likely to never be practical in real life due to the added weight. The goal is to keep it simple and light.
There has been a problem in the industry of folks overpromising and under-delivering. It's a difficult problem that won't be solved with Popular Science cover art. It's easy to dismiss roadable airplanes as fantasy, but it's not an insurmountable engingeering problem, it just requires a lot of difficult work. It's been done before for real (Molt Taylor Aerocar) and it will be done again.
But yes, in the mean time, it's ok to continue to say "Where's my flying car?!?!?!"
--M
Its not so much a flying car as it is a conventional airplane you can drive. You still need an airport to take off and land, it can't hover and you can't fly locally. What it gives you is the ability to drive to the airport, take off, land at another airport, and drive to your destination in the same vehicle. Its also intended for pilots, its not a solution for the masses.
There are a large enough number of flights even with fewer flights that it shouldn't effect the overall percentage of incidents per flight.
Collector's Edition
This isn't the first Slashdot story about this exact vehicle. Try http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/10/1611216 for the exact same thing from last October. Deja Vu anyone? --The FNP
Emphasis mine.
It's understandable. Imagine how they feel when every time they ask "where's my flying car?", the response back is "where's your pilot's license?".
Those of us that are licensed pilots (alas, not current in my case) think this is a cool idea. Ground transport when you get to your destination airport is always an issue. Years back they used to sell a small motorbike that folded up into something the size of a suitcase, my father-in-law had one. Or if you have a regular destination, you buy a cheap used car and leave it parked there. At some places rental cars are an option, but there are a lot of small airfields a long way from the nearest rental agency.
-- Alastair
And with something like this, I'd expect it all the more. If you want it to both drive and fly, it's going to have to be poor at one, the other, or most likely, both, and the more you try and make it not be bad at both, the more it's going to cost. For example, the passenger safety cell. To be safe, you need to get a lot of metal around you. Sure, you could use titanium to have it just as strong as steel but 60% of the weight, but that'd really raise costs, and honestly, 60% of the weight isn't enough of a cut. You could built it out of magnesium, also raising the costs and dramacally reducing the weight, but then you'd have a safety cell that's not very safe at all.
This applies to almost all elements of the car's design. Those wings are raising your weight and CdA in normal driving. So does the prop. The wings also will catch crosswinds badly. Car safety features like traction control and enhanced stability control are worthless in flight. Your suspension, tire, and transmission needs are quite different in each. And so on.
No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
I think the idea is impractical for many other, technical reasons, but litigiousness and insurance are the deadly killers.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No, a "flying car" is typically expected to be able to fly from anywhere to anywhere, usually with the assumption that there will be vertical or near vertical takeoff and landing, and it is typically expected to be advanced enough that "everyone" can fly it.
This is what I was getting at: the idea of a flying car for the masses is fundamentally flawed, since being a pilot takes a lot more skill than driving a car, and there's a higher risk involved since there's no such thing as a fender-bender in the air.Sigh. But this is not about a "flying car for the masses". it's about a plane that can be driven on a road to/from the airport. Why you keep bringing up flying cars when this thing targets an entirely different type of market is beyond me, unless you're just trolling.
The point here is that light aircraft are highly dependent on weather, and hangar costs also adds up. Being able to land if weather gets bad and continue on ground, and/or take your plane home with you both makes light aircraft a lot more practical and cost effective for those who already use them or might be interested in using them, and that have or are prepared to get a pilots license.
In other words: They target pilots, damn it, not drivers.
This is not a flying car. This is not a flying car. This is not a flying car. THIS IS NOT A FLYING CAR.
THIS! IS! NOT! A! FLYING! CAR!
Let's go back to the Jetsons and think of what we saw in their cartoon. The concept of a flying car is a vehicle in which the general public can transport themselves in the air and start from and end at any point desired. It is currently unsafe, illegal, and HIGHLY not recommended for any such implementation to even happen. The general public would have to be trained on basic air traffic strategies. You'd be adding an entire new dimension to traffic control.
Directly from the creator's website:
Q: Can I take off from the highway?
A: No. In addition to power lines, billboards, overpasses, and other obstructions that make this idea unsafe, the Transition® will have to be parked with the engine off in order to deploy the wings and engage the propeller. It is also illegal in most states (emergency landings excluded).
This is a drivable airplane. This means it is able to be transported without additional equipment (i.e.: tow truck, etc) to a destination via public roads rather than be forced to stay at the airport due to its size, speed, fuel costs, etc.
HOWEVER to be honest, a majority of this is more dependent upon the law and intelligence/training requirements of the public rather than design limitations. BUT this doesn't mean the existing design can easily take off from anywhere you wish or land anywhere you wish easily. Still, it's CLOSER to a flying car than nothing.
tl;dr: IT'S NOT A FUCKING FLYING CAR! But it's CLOSER to one than nothing.
Pancakes. Oh I blew it.