"Roadable Aircraft" Moving Towards Launch

We discussed Terrafugia's plans for what they don't like to call a "flying car" — rather a "roadable aircraft" — last spring. The Boston Globe has an update on Massachusetts-based Terrafugia and its fight to get airborne in these parlous times. "The last serious attempt to bring a car-airplane hybrid to market was the Aerocar, in 1949. According to Carl Dietrich, chief executive of Terrafugia, that company built six prototypes. It needed 500 orders in order to gear up for mass production, but it never got there... 'It can be hard to explain the value of this to non-pilots,' Dietrich says, 'but when you're a pilot, the problems of high costs, limited mobility on the ground, and weather sensitivity are in your face, all the time.' The company says more than 50 of the vehicles have been pre-ordered. The target price is $198,000."

Comments

Uses

[man_ls]

I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool, it's the private pilot who wants to be able to fly somewhere and not have to worry about ground transportation at the receiving end.

If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.

Re:Uses

[TaoPhoenix]

It's not supposed to be "for the lay driver in 3D traffic", but it IS for the pilot to "Fly somewhere thus dodging traffic". Yes, that car rental problem at the end of a flight is a bear hidden trap that doe seriously add a cost to trips. This is practically the "Holy Grail" of transport.

Re:Uses

[AKAImBatman]

Parent is correct. Ground transportation at the destination is the EXACT purpose of this form of machine. That's why they're not advertising it as a flying car. Because it's not. It's an airplane that can legally drive on roads to get you to your hotel or a cheap parking garage. (Hanger fees are exorbitant.)

Re:Uses

[Kandenshi]

I'm holding out for personal teleportation tech.

1. Punch in the place you want to be.
2. It "dials" to see which of the [X] receiving platforms are unoccupied there
3. Magic happens.
4. You're standing on a teleport pad roughly where you want to be, get off, and someone else probably arrives soon after you.

As long as I'm dreaming I'd like a pony and a fully functional gynoid with a remote control.

Re:Uses

[Original Replica]

this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool

I should hope that anything that flys, regardless of how popular it becomes, still requires a pilots license and that the skill needed to attain such a license remain quite high. Lay drivers manage to kill 43,443 people in 2007. I don't want to see what the statistics would be if people were text, putting on makeup, eating, yelling at the kids in the backseat, playing with the radio, fighting off sleep, etc. while flying a plane. Sure, there is more open space in the sky than on the road, but with how many drivers act that's just giving them more rope to hang themselves with.

Fuel economy of airplanes vs ground transport is another rant entirely.

Re:Uses

[vtcodger]

You got it. OK aircraft quite possibly. Awful car probably. That's about the best that looks to be doable. Better than walking.

This is not everyman's flying car for flying to the grocery store. It's not supposed to be.

Re:Uses

[petermgreen]

The big questions are

1: how much extra will a roadable airplane cost compared to a normal one?
2: how much will this cost to insure (i'm betting a lot, particularlly for fully comprehensive cover)
3: how long will it take to convert between airplane and car modes?

In summary will it really be cheaper and/or more conviniant than hiring a car at your destination airport?

Re:Uses

[man_ls]

Carbon-fiber and under 1500 lbs. to fit in the light-sport category is very interesting. I wish there was a picture, though -- does the rear mounted propeller provide the thrust while on the ground as well as in the air?

The engine and engine-driven accessories in my previous ground vehicle came in weighing nearly 900 lbs (yay 1980s diesels!), so they must be doing something pretty creative to get the entire thing to weigh only a little more than that.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

That "magic" will likely be to digitally image all the molecules in your body, construct a copy of yourself in another location, and destroy the original... there are ethical and moral issues with this, since it basically means cloning and killing yourself.

Re:Uses

[VagaStorm]

Imagine a 2 cm by 2 yard table. then imagine 4 match box cars. Is the chanse of then ocupying the same spce largest if they must all stay on the 20cm line or if they can use the entire table? :)

Re:Uses

[Brian Gordon]

hah there's no way the propeller pushes the car on the ground.. that would be horrifying to drive. It would take MINUTES to get up to highway speed and forget it if you want to freeze it in a pinch

Re:Uses

[sheetsda]

I'm not sure that's a valid market. Smaller airports frequently have a courtesy car they will lone you for a few hours if you fill up the plane with gas at their FBO, many FBOs even list this fact in their AFD listing. Failing that, the typical cost of renting a car for a day is less than half the typical cost of renting a small plane for an *hour* or if you own the plane, a little over the cost of an hours fuel burn at cruise, and most rental car places will bring the car to you. IAAPP (I Am A Private Pilot)

The advantage I see in this is combating weather. If I want to go on a week long trip, its conceivable that the weather forecast will change enough in that week that I won't be able to get back on time. With this thing, I could prefer flight, but drive to another airport if necessary to escape bad weather. That said, if I'm an aircraft renter, an IFR rating is cheaper and probably enough, and I can't see these things being rental craft (imagine the insurance on a $198,000 rental car).

I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic

Off-topic aside: I've been seriously considering getting powered parachute (which, if flown under certain restrictions requires *zero* training for anyone, even without a pilots license) to make my daily ~7 mile commute to work. Anyone have any experience with those? Could be they be a short range commute craft?

Re:Uses

[Dutch Gun]

Also known as the Big Sky Theory.

Re:Uses

[ngg]

1: how much extra will a roadable airplane cost compared to a normal one?

The people who want to build the aircraft mentioned in TFA plan to sell it for about $200k. A used, but very serviceable, two seat "regular" airplane can be bought for around $20k to $30k and a four-place for about $40k to $50k. So, the roadable airplane seems to cost between 4x and 10x as much as a normal one. And, if having a new airplane is important to you, you could spend $120k for a brand new Cessna Skycatcher, which comes from a company with an established track record of building reliable airplanes--and doing it profitably, which means that spare parts will continue to be available for many decades that well-maintained airplanes last.

For the price of a new roadable airplane, you could buy a used normal plane and have enough left over for a few luxury cars (or a whole fleet of Civics/Fits/Corollas/Yarii) to park at your most frequent destinations. Consider also that a normal airplane, because it doesn't need to make so many compromises, will be better at being an airplane than this roadable plane will. And the same goes for the normal car being a car.

Re:Uses

[icebrain]

I think 'minutes' is a bit exaggerated... after all, takeoff speeds will likely be in the highway range (65-70 mph); if it took you minutes to get to those speeds you'd be flying from runways several miles long. Acceleration would be comparable to a loaded compact car, maybe.

But in any case, no, the prop isn't the power source on teh ground.

Re:Uses

[icebrain]

There's also the benefit of being able to park and work on the aircraft in your garage, instead of renting a hangar at the local field for hundreds of dollars a month.

Re:Uses

[mobby_6kl]

> 4. You're standing on a teleport pad roughly where you want to be, get off, and someone else probably arrives soon after you.

4b. Alternatively, due to a slight miscalculation of departure times somebody is teleported to your location while you are still on the teleport pad, instantly accelerating the atoms formerly known as "your body" into all directions away from their former positions in a bloody explosion.

Re:Uses

[Pooua]

I should hope that anything that flys, regardless of how popular it becomes, still requires a pilots license and that the skill needed to attain such a license remain quite high. Lay drivers manage to kill 43,443 people in 2007.

Absolutely correct! Most people are horrible pilots of anything they operate and make poor transportation decisions. They do whatever they want, with little regard for what the people around them are doing. Every region has different ways of driving poorly, but in my region of Texas, they don't know how to maintain speed while cornering or going up hills, they don't know how to merge or yield, they don't signal their lane changes or turns, they drive at night like they are night blind, they drive either 8 mph under the speed limit or 15 mph over the speed limit, they blare loud music out of their vehicles, they swerve across 3+ lanes of traffic at the last minute to take an exit or entrance ramp, they use all available space to make a turn (even breaking State law to make a right-hand turn across as many road lanes as are available), they tailgate, they sit at red lights blocking the right-turn lane from turning because they won't make the legally-allowed right-hand turn on red, they won't make a left turn on a solid green light (they have to have a green arrow, or they won't even attempt the turn), they pace vehicles, especially while driving in the other driver's blind spot. In the last few weeks, I've encountered several drivers who simply stop and remain in the middle of the road whenever they have a problem, even in a 45 mph zone. The concept of a free flow of traffic is alien to most Texas drivers, and many of them drive like they have spent their lives on a country road without having to consider other drivers.

Texas drivers are mostly annoying, and only somewhat hazardous. In Virginia, especially closer to D.C., the drivers are more ruthless, more vicious. If you signal a lane change, they usually will attempt to block you from changing lanes.

I've long said that when flying cars become marketable, I'm installing an anti-aircraft gun in my front yard.

Re:Uses

[Original Replica]

The same idea apply to sailing open water, yet I have seen boats run right into buoys and over other boats' anchor lines. I've seen sailors lock the wheel and then run below decks to grab something, leaving the boat going full speed with no one at the wheel. In open water, I frequently lock the wheel (I stay on deck) and eat a sandwich or apply sunscreen or whatever. On open water at times it can be difficult to remember to look up every fifteen seconds, getting sidetracked is easy. There is a salty saying "There's three types of sailors: those who've gone aground; those who haven't, but are going to; and liars." The danger isn't in the featureless open space, it's near the destinations, navigation points, and obstacles. That's where the degree of attention required changes more quickly than is often accounted for. Everyone gets used to a big open space and they lose the focus to avoid the easiest obstacles, that's why I sited such common driver distractions as putting on make up, talking on the phone, and yelling at the kids in the back. Drivers do these things now, with something that demands as much attention as highway driving, and I think that a less demanding environment would exacerbate these behaviors and habits, making those drivers completely unaware of when they were entering a situation that demanded more attention. Compare your own level of focus between driving on a long straight stretch of road vs a winding road.

Re:Uses

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If someone can't hold a line, they probably aren't going to be able to land or taxi properly and consistently either.

Re:Uses

[Klowner]

ouch, telefragged

Re:Uses

[vtcodger]

You're right. They had to do a lot of engineering to build an airplane that can back up, has proper brake lights, etc, etc, etc ... and keep it light enough to fly. FYI, the maximum takeoff weight of a fully loaded Cessna 172 is 1043kg. A Chevrolet Aveo -- an extremely small and light car -- weighs in at 1066kg with no payload whatsoever including driver, fuel, or fuzzy dice.

Re:Uses

[Ihmhi]

Holy shit, really? I've been looking into planes (like Cessnas) and they were more towards the $100K range for a four seater. I want to get my pilot's license and a four seater aircraft, but they're usually over $100K. How do you find them for half that?

Re:Uses

[Ihmhi]

Well, I guess pilots had better watch out for those sky buoys with anchors flailing around!

Re:Uses

[lakeland]

I don't think comparing new to used is fair, so lets look at your new prices - $200k vs $120k. That means you're spending about $80k extra getting a road-certified plane - probably a bit more in reality as parts are likely to cost more, etc.

You suggest purchasing a car for each airport that you plan on flying this plane to. Lets say you purchase just two cars for $15k each, using rentals whenever you go anywhere else so you've now got a buffer of $50k. How much will you pay in hanger fees, car fees, and car storage fees, not to mention maintaince on three veichles instead of one?

$300/month seems fairly conservative for hanger fees. Add a couple hundred extra for the car fees and your Cessna is looking at being more expensive after about eight years.

Re:Uses

[DerekLyons]

If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.

Yeah, the world is waiting for someone to get the bright idea of offering cars for hire, rent, or lease.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, ground transportation isn't usually a problem. In many cases there are courtesy cars available for the use of flight crews (purchasing fuel when using the car is considered good form), and failing that (unless you are in the backcountry) rental cars are more or less always available (most of the time, you'll have to call ahead to arrange this).

Re:Uses

[tyler_larson]

I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool, it's the private pilot who wants to be able to fly somewhere and not have to worry about ground transportation at the receiving end.

If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.

It is this exactly.

Even though I'm a pilot, and even though I have access to relatively inexpensive aircraft for short to medium distance travel, I still find myself driving instead when I could fly because I'll need the car when I get there. In the end, driving only adds a few extra hours each way, reduces safety only slightly, and the cost is comparable. So I might as well drive and not have to worry about whether I'll be able to find a reasonable car at the other airport.

A "road-worthy" aircraft would be a welcome improvement if you didn't have to sacrifice too much to get it. Some of the details of this project make it sound like more of a proof-of-concept solution than something I would actually use, however.

Note that if by "flying car" one is referring to a "personal" aircraft for use by ordinary people with no more training or certification than you get with the standard driver's license, then you ought to forget such delusions right away. The technology is not the problem. We have the technology already.

But technology fails. No matter how fail-safe you engineer it, some instance of the design will eventually break. And when an aircraft fails, you NEED a qualified pilot at the controls prevent disaster.

Re:Uses

[Teriblows]

james mays new show on this type of stuff was rather amusing. the number of licenses you have to get to be able to fly a flying car is quite insane:) he flew in an actual flying car in one episode. design from decades ago.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

learn2step2

Re:Uses

[AB3A]

PP-ASEL-IA too.

If you're seriously thinking about a powered parachute, you should know that they typically get a top speed of about 31 MPH and a stall speed of about 29 MPH. There is not a lot in between. You wouldn't want to fly something like this in anything more than a light breeze.

You ought to take a look at terrain and airspace. A quick reminder: you're not allowed to conduct operations under Part 103 over urban areas.

I would think long and hard before considering the use of any ultra-light aircraft for commuting. However, I have heard of some people who commute every day in small two seat aircraft. Air traffic control knows who they are and they usually have a squawk code and a friendly good morning waiting for them as soon as they're off the ground.

But at a distance of only seven miles, I don't understand why you aren't using a bicycle.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

i've often thought about a largish small airplane with enough space in back for a medium sized motorcycle.

maybe some sort of delta wing affair, i don't know, but i can't afford to get burt rutans input on the matter.

Re:Uses

[Bitsy Boffin]

Here's the thing. Big Sky Theory only works outside of airways (official, and unofficial) and especially outside airport circuits. Inside the circuit, the pilot is rather busy getting setup for landing, running through checks, at uncontrolled fields they need to ascertain the runway in use, wind conditions etc.. unfortunately so are the other 10 aircraft all converging on that small piece of airspace. This is when most mid-air collisions happen, not in the big sky, but in the little patches above airports.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our telefragging overlords!

Re:Uses

[darth dickinson]

You have to buy an older model plane. Have a look on Aerotrader.com sometime, you can get a mid-to-late 70's model Skylane or similar craft for around $40-$50k. As mentioned, properly maintained aircraft can last decades, so the only compromise you get in buying a plane that old is you don't get all the "bells and whistles" that a new model has. But you can (fairly) easily upgrade the avionics a bit at a time.

Re:Uses

[sumdumass]

Just stay away from the ones with a microsoft logo on them.

Re:Uses

[dreamchaser]

If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.

Yeah it would be great if they would invent some way to rent a car. Oh and before you give me the spiel about small airports having no rental counter, most rental companies will deliver to your location.

Re:Uses

[Manuel M]

$300/month seems fairly conservative for hanger fees.

If your wardrobe is 10km long, then maybe. But I'm sure I spend less than $3/month in hangers.

OTOH, hangars are very expensive, aren't they?

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, you want a Stargate? =P

Re:Uses

[Splab]

Yeah, because getting told "the source is right there, fix it yourself" is so nice after you got telefragged...

Re:Uses

[Robin47]

Everyone needs a little excitement in their life.

Re:Uses

[icebrain]

I'd love to commute by airplane, especially since I work at an airport.

There are many good reasons not to bike to work even if you're that close:

Hot weather--nobody likes body odor.

Traffic--multi-lane highways full of semi-trucks are rather dangerous anyways; it's almost suicide on a bike.

Lighting--I get to work before sunrise every day of the year. Riding a bike to work in the above conditions, in the dark, with bleary still-sleeping drivers says "I wish to die"

Heck, I wish I could ride a motorcycle to work, but I'm not sure I even feel comfortable doing that in those conditions.

Re:Uses

[jez9999]

The beauty is that, at least when they were dumb enough to crash a plane, THEY'd probably die too.

Re:Uses

[NotBornYesterday]

You must be near a city. When I visit my parents out in the hill country, drivers are very courteous and aware. Slower traffic pulls to the shoulder to let faster traffic by, most people signal a "thanks" for getting a break, etc. Yeah, there are a few bozos, but not like here in the northeast.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

...and, if having a new airplane is important to you, you could spend $120k for a brand new Cessna Skycatcher, which comes from a company with an established track record of building reliable airplanes

But, the Cessa Groundsmasher is going to be a manufactured-in-China piece of junk. The first one has already been augered into the dirt and the test pilot barely was able to bail out and ride his 'chute down.

Re:Uses

[street struttin']

I'm still struggling with the table that is measured using centimeters on one side and yards on the other. How many square foot-meters is that?

Re:Uses

[mapsjanhere]

On the plus side so, you can use the device for "safe points"; who hasn't always wanted to "go back and do that section over" in real life.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck."

I am a pilot, and what keeps me from using a small plane to get around isnt ground transportation. Indeed almost all municipal airports have a car or two that pilots can borrow for free. What stops me is gas & insurance prices.

Airplanes (and airplane maintenance) cost 5X what they should because of all the insurance liability garbage. For example, a 1979 cessna 172 uses the exact same alternator as a 1979 ford pickup. But you cant put the ford alternator in there, even though it does the job just fine, and a blown alternator wont make your engine stop running, yet the FAA mandates special restrictions on airplane parts so that the cessna alternator costs more than $400 whereas the exact same alternator costs $20 at the auto parts store.

The insurance industry is doing its best to destroy general aviation.

Re:Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

The *real* question is:

1: what will happen when someone puts it on that god-damn treadmill?

Re:Uses

[Ceseuron]

The big questions are

1: how much extra will a roadable airplane cost compared to a normal one? 2: how much will this cost to insure (i'm betting a lot, particularlly for fully comprehensive cover) 3: how long will it take to convert between airplane and car modes?

In summary will it really be cheaper and/or more conviniant than hiring a car at your destination airport?

You didn't ask the most pertinent question: 4. How stupid is the whole idea of a "roadable aircraft"? The answer? Immensely stupid. A select few people might want one just for the sake of saying they own one, but in reality the whole idea of a "carplane" just isn't practical. TFA? You can buy a used aircraft for around 1/4 of that price and used the remaining money to either buy cars to be kept at your frequent destinations you fly to or just simply rent the cars when you get there. Secondly, the safety regulations this thing would have to pass for both ground and air safety will probably "shoot it down" (pun intended) before it even "takes off" (pun intended). And what happens when your carplane get's backed into in a parking lot or some joker swings their door open and dents your wing? If I'm not mistaken, the FAA requires that you ground your aircraft pending a full inspection to determine it's airworthiness if your plane has been even slightly damaged. The whole idea of a winged car is just not practical. The cost is prohibitively high and there just isn't a necessity for it right now.

Re:Uses

[end15]

Yes and the equation will be balanced!

Re:Uses

[drinkypoo]

How many rental-car miles can you get for $80,000? Realistically, most people fly frequently to a small handful of locations, where they should probably enter into a car co-op with some other people, and share one of those econoboxes, and pick up the rest of the slack with rentals.

Re:Uses

[drinkypoo]

The new generation of automobile comes in around 1200 pounds. A Chevrolet Aveo is still a traditional unibody POS - and more of a deathtrap than usual (but still safer than a Neon.)

Re:Uses

[drinkypoo]

There are many good reasons not to bike to work even if you're that close:

Not really.

Hot weather--nobody likes body odor.

This is the best reason. It is mitigated by the use of an electric or even human-hybrid bicycle. Oh, and being clean (hint: does not involve having antiperspirant residue mixed with dead flesh rotting under your arms.)

Traffic--multi-lane highways full of semi-trucks are rather dangerous anyways; it's almost suicide on a bike.

It's also illegal to ride your bicycle there, and unless you actually work on the highway there is some other way to get to your work that doesn't involve its use. That's a really lame excuse.

Lighting--I get to work before sunrise every day of the year. Riding a bike to work in the above conditions, in the dark, with bleary still-sleeping drivers says "I wish to die"

That's the best argument here, by far. However, by far most bicycle accidents happen because the cyclist has their head up their ass, and the driver does as well. Be alert; we need more lerts.

Heck, I wish I could ride a motorcycle to work, but I'm not sure I even feel comfortable doing that in those conditions.

A bicycle is arguably far safer than a motorcycle. (Statistics indicate it's about an order of magnitude safer.) It's also statistically about as safe as walking. This of course will vary depending on location and your particular route...

Re:Uses

[icebrain]

This is the best reason. It is mitigated by the use of an electric or even human-hybrid bicycle. Oh, and being clean (hint: does not involve having antiperspirant residue mixed with dead flesh rotting under your arms.)

"Being clean" is fine, but shower facilities simply aren't available at the vast majority of workplaces. That's essential, because no amount of trying to simply "be clean" will keep you from sweating on a 10+ mile ride in muggy weather down here, and if you have anywhere to go after work besides the gym, forget it. Several months of the year you sweat just walking out the door. Bear in mind I live in the deep south (southeastern US) when reading this. We have three seasons--summer, hell, and mild summer.

It's also illegal to ride your bicycle there, and unless you actually work on the highway there is some other way to get to your work that doesn't involve its use. That's a really lame excuse.

I'm not talking interstates, but rather 4 or 5-lane state/national highways. For example, my workplace is near a major shipping facility and in a large industrial area. Large truck traffic is continuous pretty much around the clock. There is simply no way to get here without spending several miles on such roads. And it's pretty much the same story elsewhere in the area (generally accessible only by large road), or if the place has rideable roads, it requires going through neighborhoods that the police don't go to without backup, if they go at all. I'm licensed to carry, but it's better not to go to such places at all.

I understand that biking to work is healthy and "green" and all, and it's great to do if you can. But it simply isn't practical (or even safe) in many places. It might work if you live in a large city or small town with nice weather, but not in other areas. Sad as it is, most of the US is in the "not" category, either from weather or geography.

Re:Uses

[petermgreen]

depends if it is in airplane mode or car mode.

It's 2008 people

[JohnHegarty]

Dam it , it's 2008 people I was promised a flying car !!!

Not much of a plane either

[Yvan256]

Quote from their website:"Drive to your local airport, fly up to 400nm, land, convert, and drive directly to your destination."

Call me back when this thing can fly above one billionth of a meter.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

har har.

For those who actually don't know, in aviation nm is nautical miles, not nanometers.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

nanometers, nautical miles... hey, what's a few orders of magnitude between friends?

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

The plane is still ugly.

Douche.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[zamboni1138]

That was a good one.

But all joking aside, this "roadable aircraft" has a range of 400nm and costs $200K. Compare that with a Cessna 162 SkyCatcher which will get you 470nm range at $120K. So the roadable costs you an additional $80K.

And where is Mr. Moller during all of this?

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

(a Cessna 172 can pull 600nm without much difficulty)

What?!? That's basically it's maximum theoretical operational range.

First, I rarely get 120 knots out of the thing. Maybe with a tailwind.

Two, even if you could get 120 knots, with VFR you have to buffer fuel for taxiing, take-off, patterns, stuff not directly related to cruise. Plus a 30 minute buffer in case you need to redirect. It's a 45 minute flight time buffer for IFR.

The most I would consider the range of a typical 172 is 500 nm. But that's me. I'm a bit cautious in the air.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not quite all the math is it?

Gas is a huge expenditure, and the costs involved with fueling a plane can be very exorbitant. What it if you could run it into town to get gas, then park it back at the hangar?

I definitely see a future for these things.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[harrypancakes]

400nm *is* above one billionth of a meter, in fact it is 400 times above.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[zamboni1138]

Not in this case. Both of these aircraft will get about 20nm/gal on 100LL.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Toll_Free]

A lot, according to your girlfriend. :)

--Toll_Free

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Yvan256]

Yeah, I was a bit too quick on the post. But 400 billionth of a meter still isn't much, especially for an airplane.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you posted this, I'm not sure if you're still kidding or if you're really that stupid. I hope it's the former.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[evilviper]

"fly up to 400nm," [...] Call me back when this thing can fly above one billionth of a meter.

They're actually using base 2 notation... That makes it much bigger! Stupid airplane manufacturers misusing accepted binary notation units as metric, so NIST had to introduce "NiM" notation to replace "NM"...

Re:Not much of a plane either

[netringer]

Quote from their website:"Drive to your local airport, fly up to 400nm, land, convert, and drive directly to your destination."

Call me back when this thing can fly above one billionth of a meter.

Not to ruin a geek guffaw, but this nm = nautical miles.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Yvan256]

Yes I'm kidding, however I never studied aviation nor do I use "miles" when I measure distances. If you say "nm" to someone who uses metric, he will also understand it as "nanometers".

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, i never actually laugh out loud browsing slashdot. Except just now.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote from their website:"Drive to your local airport, fly up to 400nm, land, convert, and drive directly to your destination."

Call me back when this thing can fly above one billionth of a meter.

nm is nautical miles which is how distance is measured if you're in the air or on water.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[glwtta]

Hey, so has anyone mentioned yet that 'nm' stands for nautical miles here? Cause that would totally be informative.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Chris Burke]

Your attempt at being funny fails. The abbreviation "nm" has long been a standard for nautical miles, too.

We all know that. See, "nm" has two possible meanings, and he intentionally chose the one that lead to a ridiculous outcome instead of the one that was obviously intended. This is what is called in humor circles "a joke", and yes it was funny.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[street struttin']

Haha, even I can fly higher than that, un-aided, even.

Re:Not much of a plane either

[Anonymous Coward]

nm=Nautical Miles, goofball.

EXORBITANT?

[way2trivial]

then don't put it in one
many many small airports charge a $10.00 tiedown fee to tie it up on the tarmac, waived if you buy fuel..

FFS why put it in a hangar?

Re:EXORBITANT?

[Free the Cowards]

Because while being covered with dimples may work well for a golf ball, they do considerably less aerodynamic good when applied to an airplane by a passing hail storm.

Air Traffic Control is like Appletalk

[Gothmolly]

Carrier Sense, Multiple Access, Collision Avoidance. Sadly, the roads, and soon (?) the skies might be filled with mouthbreathers who operate on the Ethernet (Carrier Sense, Multiple Access, Collision Detection) model. Who the hell would ever insure on of these? Lloyd's of London ?

Re:Air Traffic Control is like Appletalk

[Anonymous Coward]

Mouth-breathers?

Seriously?

Re:Air Traffic Control is like Appletalk

[Brian Gordon]

Are those words?

Re:Air Traffic Control is like Appletalk

[Anonymous Coward]

> Are those words?

No, they're small gardening implements and furry animals. Sheesh!

Re:Air Traffic Control is like Appletalk

[darth dickinson]

You would still have to have at least a sport pilot's license for one of these.

You had your flying car in 1979...

[Nick Driver]

...and it was called the General Lee

Didn't fly very far and the nose-first landings were a bit on the rough side.

Parlous...I like that.

[TheModelEskimo]

"Them's parlous times, pod'ner!"
"Parlous Linux 2008: Because life sucks"
"ParlOS - optimized for low latency thin client computing over parsec-level distances"
"Parlous Santana"

Re:Parlous...I like that.

[solafide]

Parlous is perfectly valid English, and a nice word to boot. (Also, you misspelled pardner.)

Re:Parlous...I like that.

[TheModelEskimo]

Sorry, my friend. Google tells me that my cult of podner-using fanatics is around 20,000 results strong. That aligns with my opinion as to just who would use podner and who would use "pardner" and get shot. City slickers.
Also, I'm guessing you think I mistook Parlous for some other word or something...? I don't really understand why you felt the need to bring Bartleby-san into this discussion.

Re:Parlous...I like that.

[TrashJefferson]

"Pardner?" Where are you from, New York City, PODner?

Re:Parlous...I like that.

[Z34107]

Yes, yes; "Parlous" is a perfectly cromulent word.

(Why did Google Chrome put a red squiggly line underneath "cromulent"?!)

Not new.

[plasmacutter]

This report reminds me of the many videos of people donning various winglike arm attachments and diving off platforms or tall structures to disastrous results.

This concept is not new. Everyone's been developing their own "car-o-plane" for ages. I'd be very surprised if this one goes anywhere beyond the previous ones

Re:Not new.

[couchslug]

"This report reminds me of the many videos of people donning various winglike arm attachments and diving off platforms or tall structures to disastrous results."

As demonstrated repeatedly, the "winged jet suit" concept works surprisingly well.

The flying car, so far, does not work well and crossing the two types of vehicle guarantees a shit result. The shit result may be entertaining, but that is all. Running articles about flying cars on /. only appeals to the technically naive who have some respect for the idea.

Re:Not new.

[Ihmhi]

You may be interested in checking out the Flugtag, then.

Re:Not new.

[plasmacutter]

On the contrary, I do think Moller is on the right track.

Is prototypes work, and work well. They're too expensive right now, but they have the range, safety, and power necessary. The government just has no structure to deal with it, and the FAA is far too rigid and geared toward a completely different paradigm.

The crucial difference between moller's models and concepts like this is he doesn't try to work off either an automobile or aircraft chassis.

He's developed his own, unique system.

It is not roadworthy, but it's quite skyworthy, and designed well for its purpose.

Re:Not new.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Yeah, because materials and technology never advance enough to make old ideas more feasible, right?

Re:Not new.

[Napoleon The Pig]

Uh... the only flights the Moller M400 has made have been tethered to a crane. I'd hardly call that a prototype that works well. The haven't had a real flight test at all even though they've been "in development" for at least 21 years. They also haven't gotten FAA certification yet despite originally planning on having that secured by 2005, and were sued by the SEC in 2002 for making unsubstantiated claims about the performance of the Skycar and selling unregistered stock.

IMO, the Moller Skycar is a flight of fancy (pardon the pun) with very little chance of actually being feasible. It has airworthiness problems beyond simply getting off the ground.

IAAAE

Re:Not new.

[2short]

I saw pictures of the Moller prototype and read about how they were taking pre-orders when I was the same age that my kids are now.

They have the "range, safety, and power" of whatever model of crane lifts them off the ground for another round of suspiciously-cropped publicity stills.

Moller was a fraud 20 years ago; now it is a just joke.

Re:Not new.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the infamous "Sky Commuter." http://gizmodo.com/344198/sky-commuter-aircraft-prototype-flies-high-shatters-dreams

Saw one of those being auctioned on Ebay not too long ago..

I'm willing to kick in a couple of bucks.

[RustinHWright]

Not that I consider myself a likely customer but it seems to me that this is the kind of research and development into low cost aircraft that will likely improve the pool of technologies and techniques available to all of us.

I think that we see a lot of stories on /. about tech projects that we are in favor of but where we're not going to buy the product and few or none of us are in a position to become investors. Maybe it would be a good idea for /. to have an opt-in feature of a Donate To This Project Here button for such stories. Again, it would only be visible to those of us who requested it in our prefs. But I think that there are an awful lot of projects where if we /.ers had the chance to easily contribute a few bucks when we saw a story about a project we liked, it would add up to serious money fast. I would opt in. In fact, if required, this might even get me to buy a membership here if doing so kicked into a pool of money that would pay for the additional work the selector of the story would have to carry out to execute such a step.

Re:I'm willing to kick in a couple of bucks.

[ccguy]

I definitely can't wait to contribute to a project that would allow the many great drivers in my neighborhood to continue showing their skills right by my window.

Re:I'm willing to kick in a couple of bucks.

[jcr]

But I think that there are an awful lot of projects where if we /.ers had the chance to easily contribute a few bucks when we saw a story about a project we liked, it would add up to serious money fast. I would opt in. I

The means to do this were invented centuries ago; it's called joint-stock corporation. In the USA these days though, overregulation has made it impractical to sell shares in a new venture to the public unless you're trying to raise tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

-jcr

Solution in search of problem?

[mjensen]

"but when you're a pilot, the problems of high costs, limited mobility on the ground, and weather sensitivity are in your face, all the time."

You won't/can't land these on a road*, so it means you have to land at the airport and make it a car.

Just rent a car.

(* At least I don't want to be looking overhead for someone trying to land a plane in my road lane. Brings road rage to new heights.)

Re:Solution in search of problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most airports don't have airports. Most towns that have airports don't have rental cars. Only a tiny fraction of airports actually have car services available.

Re:Solution in search of problem?

[Snad]

Renting a car is fine if you're flying somewhere where such is available.

When I used to fly little Cessna 152s around the place we would often land at "airfields" that were little more than converted sheep paddocks with a gas pump off to the side. The nearest rental car place would have been 100 miles in any direction you cared to choose.

For that kind of flying, something like this would be practically nirvana. For flying between international airports, yes stick with the rental Chrysler or something...

Re:Solution in search of problem?

[netringer]

Just rent a car.

You try renting a car in DeKalb, Illinois at 3 PM on a Saturday. I had to divert for weather.

That's not what this is for, but it took me 10 hours to get home when I was only ~150 miles away.

Re:Solution in search of problem?

[smellsofbikes]

For the record, you can fit two standard bicycles in the back of a 152 if you pull the wheels off. I've flown from the front range of Colorado to the airstrip nearest Moab, Utah, ridden into town, spent two days riding the local trails, then ridden back to the airport and flown back home.

The big brother of this approach is Martin Hollman's Stallion homebuilt aircraft, which can either fit six people, or him and his wife and a Honda Goldwing motorcycle, wheeled up the tailramp.
Now *that* is the way to travel.

Re:Solution in search of problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

most airports don't have airports.

Wait, what?

OLD NEWS!!! ALREADY BEEN DONE!!

[gsgriffin]

Gosh. I remember seeing this done a long time ago. It's really simple to do. In fact, you can use spare parts from around your house to build it...that is if you live in an old house with a large fireplace hood. The vehicle may look a little strange and make funny sounds while driving down the road, but you can always sing a little tune to mask the sound. Sorta sounds like, Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang. You get used to it.

I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[daBass]

This thing has the nicest looking cockpit of any Light Sport Aircraft and it is one of the few amphibious models.

Those are two very attractive selling points for the retiree pilot who is cashed up with a cabin on a lake but may not be able to pass the medical requires for a private license any more.

I wonder how many of they fifty people that have ordered one care too much about weather they can put in on the road or not.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[couchslug]

"Those are two very attractive selling points for the retiree pilot who is cashed up with a cabin on a lake but may not be able to pass the medical requires for a private license any more."

Great. Not only do we have to dodge the dodderers on the road, but we'll have falling gummers to deal with too.
Not meeting medical standards is a hint to stay on the ground or let someone else do the piloting.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[icebrain]

The medical standards for pilots are a little more demanding. THings like diabetes or colorblindness require a lot of paperwork to get waivers for at the private pilot level. Airline pilots get a whole battery of tests (EKGs, blood tests, etc) every six months.

Pilots are wary of doctors for a reason. One doctor saying "hmm, that looks funny" and denying your certificate can take months to resolve, if ever. Even documented proof of a false positive, or a "I was taking this blood pressure medication, but now I stopped and that documented side effect went away" might not be enough. And even if you do get it cleared up, the denial is on your permanent record and the FAA is watching.

I've known guys unable to work for months after such problems. I know it's important to have healthy people up front, but mistakes on the doctor's part should be cleared up rapidly and without further prejudice to the pilots.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[Free the Cowards]

Hell yes. I know a guy who needs to go through a bunch of crap every single year because he once had hepatitis C. What does once having had hepatitis C (he is now cured) have to do with your ability to fly an airplane? Jack diddly squat, that's what.

The FAA has different medical requirements for different types of aircraft for a reason. There's no point in holding yourself to a higher standard than what the FAA requires. If you still feel good enough to fly but would fail a higher-class medical on a technicality, why not fly?

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[icebrain]

Cause if you're denied your first-class for that false positive, you can't get your third-class and fly private planes until it gets cleared up.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[Free the Cowards]

Yes but if you know in advance that you'll fail, and instead simply don't get a new medical, you can continue to fly in a category which does not require one.

Now, the rule that says that you can fly Light Sport without a medical but you can't fly if you've been denied a medical truly makes no sense. But if you can get out ahead of time so that your medical simply lapses instead of failing it, you're still in fine shape. And my understanding is that you can continue to fly gliders (including motorgliders with performance comparable to some Light Sport planes) even if you have actually failed a medical.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[FlyingGuy]

It probably has something to do with the meds he is/was taking.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[FlyingGuy]

Here is a link to the actual rules:

CFR 14.61.23

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[FlyingGuy]

I see your point, its a catch 22 in many, but not all regards; however, these things are being marketed as commuter vehicles that transition from flight configuration to road configuration.

Personally I think they should be classified as any Cessna 152/172 should be classified as a GA aircraft that require a Third Class medical Certificate because these things are going to be flown into civil airports near major business centers that have large population densities. If you don't like that, ammend the rules to prevent them from operating in any airspace requiring MODE C.

It is not like you are flying a glider out over the rolling hillside and chances are if you heart valve, pace maker, or whatever fails you are probably only going to kill yourself, but you are likely to be making an approach into the GA side of say Oakland, Hayward, San Jose, Palo Alto, San Carlos, all of which have large residential communities close by as well as major business centers with lots of people on the ground.

A third Class Medical Certificate is just NOT that hard to get and there is no age limitation.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[Free the Cowards]

Which hepatitis C medications create a substantial chance of sudden incapacitation for five years after you stop taking them?

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[Free the Cowards]

I'm not sure I understand. If it falls under the Light Sport rules, why not allow it to be flown under the same restrictions as other Light Sport aircraft? Those can be flown even into class B airspace with the proper endorsements. Relatively large and high performance touring motorgliders can as well, and don't even have the requirement to be healthy enough to obtain a driver's license.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[Free the Cowards]

I'm familiar with those rules. However, they are written in a foreign language that I have great difficulty understanding so I don't trust my own interpretation, and the interpretations I've heard from other people have varied quite a bit.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[FlyingGuy]

I have no idea, it was just a guess. I agree with you that having Hep-C does not seem like a reason to have your medical yanked. This link provides some insight as to the why. It talks about treatments and so forth.

I had a Kidney stone once and I had to go through all kinds of tests and this that and the other, before I could get it re-issued. If you have ever had to deal with a Kidney Stone you would understand why. The pain came on within an hour and it put me on the ground it was so bad. Relief only came in the form of morphine at my local hospital.

Re:I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities

[Free the Cowards]

But again, hepatitis C doesn't appear to cause rapid incapacitation, and even if it did, this guy has been free of it for quite a while but still requires special attention for years from the FAA.

I find it to be particularly ironic because he mostly needs his medical to tow gliders. The guy on the rear end of the rope doesn't need a medical at all, even though the guy in the glider can pretty easily kill the tow pilot but not vice versa.

As for kidney stones, that seems an awful lot like closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped. Wikipedia claims a 10%/year chance of recurrence, which is pretty big, but there's still a significant chance for someone who has never had one to get one. Why should I be allowed to fly with a significant chance of getting a kidney stone, whereas somebody else would not be allowed to fly because they have a really significant chance?

Ultimately, the question isn't whether people can be incapacitated in the air. Obviously they can. One question is whether people can be effectively pre-screened for incapacitation, and that's hard to say. Another question is whether it's worth pre-screening people at any given certification level, and the FAA has its own answer to that. In my mind the FAA is already far too strict on this question in many cases, so there's no reason to self-police to a greater degree than required. If you can't pass a medical but can meet the requirements for Sport Pilot (and don't have an obviously disabling condition) then go forth and fly!

What the fuck?!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one thing I hate, it's when a story calls for a picture and there's no picture available.

Re:What the fuck?!

[jcr]

You know, there's this thing called google these days, which can easily point you to their web site, where you can find all the pictures they've got.

Or you could just bitch about it.

-jcr

Re:What the fuck?!

[wjsteele]

Picture? That little thing right under the title of the article is a "Video!!!" Video is a series of picture chained together chronologically. It's a really cool invention, kind of like that Roadable Aircraft that the "Video" is showing.

Bill

I think the idea is to make it a business....

[FooAtWFU]

.... not a charity case.

And I'm not sure why you feel donating money towards making some rich guys $200,000 car/planes is a particularly worthy cause.

Re:/. editors are worthless

[capnkr]

Nope, just obscure....
 
Parlous

Pronunciation: par les

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, alteration of perilous

Date: 14th century

1: obsolete : dangerously shrewd or cunning
 
2: full of danger or risk : hazardous
 
  usage: "the parlous state of the country"

This will fail for one reason:

[Toll_Free]

Cost of fuel.

Anyone here ever bought aviation fuel? I mean, it AIN'T cheap.

I can't imagine they are trying to put a I4, V6 or any other engine from a typical automobile in it, and it does NOT cost little to build, maintain and keep an airplane engine in the air (I went through mechanics school, and my Engines teacher was a aircraft engine mechanic, the cost was EXHORBINANT).

Now, factor in the cost of the fuel, vs the cost of the gasoline you could be running.

Of course, there are methods of using more than one type of fuel in the engine, but I doubt they would even attempt that, due to the liability if one fell out of the air.

Yeah, I'm ready to shell out 5 to 8 dollars a gallon,for a vehicle that will more than likely be heavier than a standard commuter car.

Of course, we as American's usually end up going for convenience rather than intelligence.

So, maybe it will gain momentum.

--Toll_Free

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[britneys 9th husband]

RTFA, it uses premium unleaded gas.

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[drsquare]

8 dollars a gallon isn't a lot, you'd struggle to get petrol for that in many places. And if you can afford to fly the cost of fuel is neglible.

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[icebrain]

And if you can afford to fly the cost of fuel is neglible.

Considering that fuel costs are the largest fraction of the expenses for my dad's airplane, they certainly do make a difference. A lot of the expenses go down when you operate a homebuilt or ultralight because you can do your own maintenance and don't have to pay the certification costs that are rolled into everything on production airplanes.

If you have patience and attention to detail, you can build an airplane for about the cost of a full-size SUV, and it will retain its value much longer. It will require more maintenance than a car, but it's affordable enough.

People always think of flying as a rich guy's hobby. It's not--you just have to make some sacrifices, just like any other expensive hobby. And I don't mean bankrupt the kids' college funds, but rather things like eating out less, driving an older or smaller car, not buying big-screen TVs and super HD cable/satellite packages, etc. Flying seems expensive because people see new factory airplanes with fancy avionics, large piston or turbine twins, and private jets. They don't think about little airplanes, and they don't stop to think about how much they spend on their own hobbies--hunting, fishing, professional sports, shopping, electronics, cars, bars, vacations, etc. It just comes down to priorities.

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[sandmaninator]

Why on earth would you assume that an airplane/car would be heavier than a regular car? the thing has to fly!
Wikipedia says a Cessna 152 weighs ~1600 lbs. That's significantly less than my Jetta.
Airplane manufacturers go to great lengths to reduce weight. Car manufacturers do not.

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[Toll_Free]

Ahh, bit the problem with that is a couple.

1. Premium is not the same from state to state, nor from station to station. Yes, a lot of things in the electronics can effect the way the engine runs, but all in all, taking timing out (for the shittier gas) will lower horsepower ratings.

I mean, it's a big difference. In Colorado, Premium was what we called mid grade here in California. Octane ratings are not always the same from batch to batch, either.

AvGas is brought to more stringent testing.

2. What happens if / when you get some shitty gas, and the thing stalls, at 10,000 feet. I mean, it's not all that hard to imagine, as you HAVE LESS AIR TO COMBUST at that altitude (hell, my truck has problems at my house in the cold starting it, no matter WHAT grade gas I put in it... And that's at 6400 feet at my house.).

I still stand by my original statement, even if it runs premium.... I wouldn't do it without an octane booster, at the least.

ASE certified mechanic here, also trained in engine building at Skip Barber School of Racing.

So, no, I don't know what I'm talking about. If aircraft could RELIABLY operate on premium pump gas, people wouldn't be spending double the money on it.

--Toll_Free

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[Toll_Free]

Not right now, I don't.

I prefer to live in a country where the price of fuel is still somewhat reasonable, not where they bend me the fuck over.

Petrol is not gas... Petrol is gas with a HUGE tax in place by your government. Fuck, your CLOSER to the mideast than we are, and you STILL take it in the ass with the prices.

But, you guys, for the most part, do have better mass transit, more carpooling, etc., etc., etc., not to mention cleaner air, no doubt due to less people driving... BECAUSE IT'S SO FRIGGIN EXPENSIVE.

Anywho...

And the price of fuel isn't the most expensive thing, nor is someone that can fly going to think that way.

At least not the two licensed private pilots that I know (My Pa In Law, and Cousin).

--Toll_Free

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[Toll_Free]

I should qualify my last statement.

Neither of them own their own plane, so they must pay rental on top of the other fees those lucky enough to own their own plane pay.

--Toll_Free

Re:This will fail for one reason:

[Toll_Free]

Most things that fly are heavier than air.

Why the fuck does everyone here quote wikipedia, instead of the manufacturers websites?

But, seriously, yes, they do. BUT, a car designed to fly, or a plane designed to also drive, has dual purposes.

That means, more hydraulics / pnuematics to bring the wings in for driving around, more controls, etc. than the plane has.

Of course, build the plane smaller, and you negate some of those effects, but then it won't be comparable.

Hence the reason I would think that a plane designed to also drive on the ground would be heavier than the comparable (size, power, etc) airplane only device.

--Toll_Free

Alternative

[Nefarious Wheel]

An integrated, detachable motorbike would probably be more useful.

Re:Alternative

[Lost Engineer]

Insightful? You completely stole that idea from Batman.

Re:Alternative

[Saffaya]

You should actually watch Robotech again, the Invid Invasion part.
Alpha Fighters do integrate a ride-armor in the airframe.

Re:Alternative

[engineerofsorts]

The motorbike option is available for Cirrus Aircraft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq2dLNiFaos

Re:Alternative

[engineerofsorts]

correction, this was for an Experimental RV-10 aircraft.

Re:Alternative

[netringer]

An integrated, detachable motorbike would probably be more useful.

My buddy carries a moped, but he has a large twin. We can haul a regular or folding bicycle, or an electric scooter, and there is a fold up mini-bike.

Isn't that what "flying communities" are for?

[Joce640k]

Small towns with their own runway so you can land and taxi directly to your own garage? Apparently there's about 300 of them in the USA now.

eg. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DF123AF933A2575AC0A96F948260

The market for flying cars is vanishingly small. It makes a lot more sense to make special towns than to try and build a limited-production car which car which converts into a 'plane, along with all the compromises and complications that entails. It'll be a horrible 'plane and an even worse car.

What about fuel costs?

[Joce640k]

Given the price of fuel needed to keep a machine in the air, I doubt anybody who can afford to fly to work every day will worry about airport fees.

Re:What about fuel costs?

[I'm not really here]

It uses standard automotive unleaded fuel. Gets about 23 miles to the gallon in the air. Most pickup trucks get worse mileage than that.

Changing Lanes

[j_kenpo]

Maybe its just me, but it looks like changing lanes must be a bitch in this thing. The foldable wings are huge obstructions to both the driver and the teeny tiny side mirrors. Of course, I haven't sat in one, so I don't exactly have first hand experience.

Re:Changing Lanes

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's your only worry, why not try to get one of those: http://www.pal-v.com/

Based on the Carver and does some marvelous cornering. I'm guessing they use the same engine as the Mazda RX-8.

Oh, I'm a Dutchie, BTW.

Sounds like something for Ted Turner

[gelfling]

To get around on his Belgium sized ranches.

Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you say anything else, yes I am a licensed pilot so here we go...

Parking by brail. Yes I am sure you have all heard about it and I am quite sure most of you have done it to one degree or another. That is when you just touch the car behind or in front of you while trying to parallel park. The thing is, with aircraft, if you graze anything or your aircraft is grazed by anything else, much less dented, the aircraft is instantly grounded until inspected by an A&P ( Airframe and Power Plant mechanic) and certified as being once again airworthy. So parking will be a pit of a problem.

Now arguably people that buy one of these will be pretty well-off in the money department, but if they want to use it as intended they have to drive the thing through all kinds of traffic with the hazards therein.

There are unprotected control surfaces on both ends of the beast. One commuter reading the paper or reaching for their coffee bumps you and you now have damaged control surfaces and again the machine is grounded.

The wings are hinged to retract and fold. When winds are folded and not locked together the only structural stiffness is the hinges. Just that thought gives me pause. Drive the Mass Pike or any other commuter road lately? I don't know about yours but mine have serious potholes and undulations, not to mention serious stop and go driving with a lot of hard braking. I just cannot see this thing standing up to the kind of beating your car takes on a daily basis.

Safety... I cannot imagine how they are going to get this thing through the DOT when clearly in order for this thing to fly it has to be made out of some seriously light weight materials. So it is pretty much going to have almost no crash protection, side impact bracing, airbags, etc etc because all that adds a lot of weight. They do state on their website that it is "Designed to automotive crash safety standards", yet they do not say that is has passed DOT standards as yet.

Useful load, they are pretty careful not to say what the useful load is. Useful load is the weight the aircraft can carry. They do not state the empty weight of the aircraft. They do state a MAX Gross takeoff weight of 1320 lbs, and a full fuel load of 120 lbs. They do claim it can carry two passengers. The weight of an FAA "Adult" is 175lbs. So the useful weight is more then likely not much more then 500 lbs. This would put the empty weight at about 820 lbs.

Ok, so just how much impact safety can you build into something that has to be 820 lbs or less? IMO not much. So even if the thing manages to become street legal, I am for one am not driving it on the road, because it will just be CRUSHED by a 3300 lb VW Jetta or Passat, or Lexus or whatever, never mind a bus or a water delivery truck. This thing will more then likely cause more then a few accidents out of sheer novelty as people stair at it rather then pay attention to their driving.

That brings to mind insurance. Now insurance for aircraft is a lot like cars, it is broken down into the Airplane itself and Liability. From the liability POV I don;t think it would be that bad, but from the collision aka Comprehensive POV if I was an insurance company, I would either not insure your airplane while in operation of roads, or I would charge you a massive premium for the reasons I listed above. Any kind of a minor fender bender will render this thing non-airworthy and require a trip to a FBO ( Fixed Base Operator ) to have an A&P have a look at it. And since it is more then likely constructed of mostly composite materials, there are probably no A&P's who can repair it. They will just ground it and tell you to call the factory.

Trust me, I like the idea, I think it is very cool, but as presented there are a whole boatload of problems that will have to be overcome. I much prefer the older idea of a car that you attach the flying part to, then take off to your destination. When you get there, the flying part detaches and is stored until you return to fly back to where ever you came from.

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[FlyingGuy]

Sorry I did not mean to post anonymously...

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[Free the Cowards]

The thing is, with aircraft, if you graze anything or your aircraft is grazed by anything else, much less dented, the aircraft is instantly grounded until inspected by an A&P ( Airframe and Power Plant mechanic) and certified as being once again airworthy. So parking will be a pit of a problem.

Got cite? IAAP and I've never so much as heard of such a thing. My fellow pilots frequently shrug off such minor damage if it's obvious it hasn't damaged the structure. Maybe they're all just violating the regs (wouldn't be the first time) but it seems unlikely.

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[FlyingGuy]

Hey there.... Well, they are not technically breaking the rules because:

CFR 14.91.7(a) states: "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition."

CFR 14.91.7(b) states: "The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur."

Now having said all of that, an aircraft made of composite materials is subject to hidden cracks just like metal. I think in this type of aircraft getting a fender bender or a "parking by braille" situation would call for a complete inspection of the affected part, since its "Front Bumper" is both a canard and a control surface. Anything less would be quite foolish.

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[Free the Cowards]

Well I agree with your general point, that you would want to thoroughly inspect anything that had been "bumped" by another vehicle. But your wording was vastly more general than that. I've seen aircraft being flown immediately after getting whacked with small personal items, and even after taking out a runway light. If you bump it with your car then you should probably have it looked at by a professional, but there's a lot of stuff that can graze your plane without really creating the need for an inspection.

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

Now I'm not a pilot or an engineer, but I think a lot of problems you raise may be overcome with new/expensive materials (in principle).

When two objects collide, energy and momentum is transfered. It ought to be possible to shape a light weight material with regular molecular structures that will take a shock from a collision (taking into account that the car mostly travels forwards), channel the excess energy (vibrations, sound, etc) away from the passenger, and increase the time it takes to transfer momentum from the one object to the other.

If you can build highly resistant materials to stress under forces such as that a human could exert by accidentally learning on a car, and also readily crumple under higher stress, you will have a safe car that is both light weight and easy to tell if airworthy or not.

I'm not sure what Terrafugia is making this "roadable aircraft" out of, but I think that other attempts in the past would have been limited too much by the materials more than anything else. They would have to be doing some pretty revolutionary designing over there, but over time I can see this thing working as intended.

I much prefer the older idea of a car that you attach the flying part to, then take off to your destination. When you get there, the flying part detaches and is stored until you return to fly back to where ever you came from.

What happens when the whether turns sour and you make a landing to continue in car mode (an argument in the article)? I'm sure people would rather press a button and drive off instead of going to the boot and getting drenched whilst attaching the wings.

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[drsquare]

Yes I am sure you have all heard about it and I am quite sure most of you have done it to one degree or another. That is when you just touch the car behind or in front of you while trying to parallel park.

I have to say this, I've never done that in my years of driving. Hopefully the sorts of people who can't park without hitting other cars don't fly anyway.

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[drinkypoo]

I've seen aircraft being flown immediately after getting whacked with small personal items, and even after taking out a runway light.

And I've seen porn videos of women having unprotected sex with Peter North.

Re:Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much what I was thinking - how in the heck does someone get a pilots license when their driving abilities are *so bad* that they think that it's normal to ram into other cars when parking? Not just "yeah, I've tapped another car a couple of times", but "I do it so often that I imagine it to be normal". The mind boggles.

Eh, one more reason that I prefer driving to flying.

Not gonna fly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dis idea ain't gonna fly. Weight is the biggest problem. Planes are already too heavy. What's the extra weight of strong wheels, road-worthy tires, brakes, steering, transmission, differential, driveshafts, CV joints, shocks, springs, extra framework, and suspension? Certainly many hundreds of pounds. No pilot is going to want to carry that much dead weight into the air.

Plus it's going to be a horrible car. Lots of glass, no AC, stiff suspension, terrible cornering, plus a deafening noise level.

Nice if it could be done but the compromises are way too much for any rational pilot or driver to accept.

Treadmills, the real question

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is, can it take off from a treadmill?

Floating Car More Important

[Doc Ruby]

Instead of making some roadworthy cars into flying models that get fuel efficiency measured in "gallons per mile", not "miles per gallon", much more practical would be amphibious cars.

Yes, amphibious cars also get lower mileage than road cars, but since we're using up all the fuel to generate a Greenhouse that will continue to wash out roads and even submerge islands, the amphibious car is a lot more practical. And one that sinks will probably limit its damage to only the driver and passengers, not the strip of homes along its route.

Besides, amphibious cars actually work.

Horrible wing position!!!!

[gsgriffin]

They got a serious issue with the ground clearance. Did you see the prototype they are working with. The wing looks like its only 6 inches off the ground. You're not gonna land on anything but a typical airfield with that. Forget having fun and flying into the back country. You may land, but with only one wing left after a bump in the road, you won't be taking off again.

How Many MPG ?

[droopycom]

That would be the real question in those times...

Oh, HELL NO!!!!!

[IHC Navistar]

Great. Just great.

We already know that people CANNOT:

Drive intoxicated,
Shave,
Talk on the phone,
Text message,
Read the newspaper,
Apply makeup,
Get dressed,
Eat,
Disobey traffic laws,
and

while driving at 65 MPH, since this is a known cause of many traffic accidents.

Now, those same people can do their stupid little routines while flying at 10,000 feet and going about 155 MPH. We already have reckless/agressive drivers with road rage, and that's bad enough. Now they'll be able to be assholes *in the air*.

If these cars/planes are permitted on the road and in the air, I think that Air Traffic Controllers and Police should be allowed to track down any reckless pilots of these things that they have to deal with and beat the shit out of them. I know *plenty* of people who don't bother performing routine or preventive maintenance on their street vehicles. Imagine letting them fly a plane.

If you are one of those people who think that putting Average Joe in the cockpit of a Flying Car/Roadable Plane, I ask you this: Ever drive past a car that was broken down on the side of the road? OK, now imagine a plane breaking down in mid-air at 10,000 feet.

I know plenty of "Broken Down Car" stories that ended well. I know of *very* few "Broken Down Airplane" stories that ended on the same note.

As we saw. . .

[RustinHWright]

. . . in the second scene of the first Star Trek movie.

Not that I care.

A rose is a rose

[Hordeking]

I wish they'd call it a "flying car" instead of a "roadable aircraft".

After all, the former implies a car, while the latter implies a plane. This has an implication:

Plane: $198,000, probably regulated by FCC, not as likely to be regulated by DMV.
Car: $90,000, more likely DMV, with the FCC playing a smaller part in regulation.

Of course, this has an implication: At half the cost, I'm twice as likely to purchase one making this product a success. of course, twice the odds 1 in 100,000 is still only 2 in 100,000.

My prediction for this toy's success: epic fail.

I for one wish them success

[LordFolken]

I'm a glider pilot (engines are for wimps. physics rules.)

but i have come to understand what problems private plane owners have to face.

One is cost. Flying from A to B in your own plane is incredibly expensive. You usually pay higher landing fees, parking/storage fees, even fuel prices at an airport other than your own. Not yet counting cost of getting to and from the airport to your final destination.

Gliders always have had the distinct advantage that they are meant to be taken apart and loaded onto a trailer. Many glider pilots I know keep their plane at home, and set it up at the airport.
The only disadvantage is when you outland, then someone will have to hook up your trailer and come to get you. This is where the team sport comes into play.

I sort of never understood why the concept of taking the plane apart and putting it on a trailer on a daily basis hasn't carried over to non glider types. Size isn't really an argument since some of these gliders have wingspans of 25 meters. Multi-seat capability and engines too.

Re:I for one wish them success

[fprintf]

I always wanted to be a glider pilot, but due to funding had to settle for being a remote control sailplane pilot. Still fun, just without the thrill of looking for lift while thousand of feet in the air (or the bigger thrill of scratching for lift down low!)

I suspect weight may have something to do with the relative immobility of aircraft with gas engines. As you say, there are plenty of powered gliders but I think gliders have been designed from the ground up as soaring machines so weight is of primary importance, and the motors seem quite efficient when you have to put the engine on to *assist* flight (versus a airplane that relies more heavily on a fully functioning, and thus overbuilt/relatively heavy engine).

p.s. Another advantage of a glider is the ability to store it inside the trailer, not having to rent hangar space or worry about a passing hailstorm.

Why?

[greenlead]

Why would you want to take a very expensive and fragile airplane on the road and risk damaging it and making it not flyable? Not to mention that it can't possibly handle driving as well as a car.

Or Spy Hunter...

[GameboyRMH]

Depending or whether it needs to be re-attached...

Here it's the "I don't see you" game.

[Bozdune]

In Virginia, especially closer to D.C., the drivers are more ruthless, more vicious...

In the Boston area, we practice the "I don't see you" game when merging. The driver with the shittiest car wins. I bet that's what you're running into on the Beltway. I recall driving a '75 Chrysler New Yorker around Cambridge (dents everywhere, front bumper wired together, tape on the tail lights), and it was amazing how smoothly I was able to merge into traffic. Then when I got a job and bought a new car -- suddenly I was totally unable to merge at all.

Cool!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to using the turn signals in the pattern.

It's been tried too many times without success

[whizbang77045]

Sorry, the last time this was tried was not in the 1940s, but at least in the 1950s, and I believe, in the 1960s. I'm too lazy to go look up the exact dates.

It always seems to start the same way: there should be a huge demand for this type of device, but there never is. It's hard to know where to start.

Airplane engines aren't car engines, and car engines aren't airplane engines. An airplane engine must deliver approximately 75% of its power most of the time its flying. A car engine doesn't need to produce the same percentage of its power for extended periods.

Airplane engines are more expensive than car engines. They cost more per hour to run, whether they are going down the road, or flying. It takes an A&P to work on both the engine and the airframe, so this must go to the local airport for anything significant.

The gear (wheels) on an airplane aren't powered. They are in a car. The prop must be disconnected from the wheels when this thing is on the road. There are two sets of systems for too many things. That eats up the payload of the vehicle.

By the time everything is done, I suspect you can buy both an aircraft and a car cheaper than one of these things. Both will certainly perform better in their respective domains: this vehicle is a compromise, at best.

It sounds enticing, but it's been tried before. It winds up costing far more than it could be worth to anyone, and the performane is a compromise. As a result, it's hard to sell.

I hold an airframe and powerplant certificate with an inspection authorization, and a pilot's license. I've been involved in major aircraft modifications for a living, and was the project engineer on one project to certify a new aircraft. If somebody builds one of these things, I can't help you at a price you'd want to hear.

It's normal and healthy for startups to get help.

[RustinHWright]

Yeah, the intent *is* to make a business. What's your point? Do you have any idea how many startups get helped out in one way or another by folks not expecting to buy the product or become stockholders? Whether it's the retail outlet that gets cut a more payable price because the landlord likes their concept or the software company that gets shipped a free SDK because the vendor would like to see their software on his or her platform, it's entirely normal for people to offer a company a helping hand simply to help strengthen the ecosystem their products sell into or simply because they feel like it.

Frankly, after all these years, I'm getting a bit tired of the fantasyland that so many /.ers seem to live in of "pure" capitalist successes and the omnicient and infallable Force Of The Market. Those of us who actually work in startups know better. I wish that you guys would go out and read Accidental Empires or The Eudaemonic Pie or any of the other many books on how companies actually get started and grow. It's messy, it's difficult, and it's rarely doable without plenty of assists from plenty of people. All that I'm suggesting is that we take a thing that's already normal and add /. to the equation in a more straightforward and effective way.

I agree; stock isn't what I'm suggesting.

[RustinHWright]

I'm talking about a donation. Nothing more or less. Simply a chance to say, "damn, you guys are doing cool stuff. Let me kick in a couple of bucks to help keep you going long enough to become viable."

How many products have you liked and/or used and seen go to hell or never get to market at all because of financial problems? My list is certainly longer than I might wish. Howsabout we leverage the vast numbers and financial clout of /. to change the equation?

On top of everything else, such a system would help quantize demand and thereby help worthy companies raise money more conventionally.
"So, why should we fund your venture?"
"When we were mentioned on Slashdot, over three hundred users sent us contributions."

And it would also help call bullshit early on those ventures that should fail.
"So, you say that there will be massive demand for your product. Why is that when getting on Slashdot's front page netted you a pathetic fifteen dollars from just the kinds of users you say you're targeting?"
"Uhhhhhh..."

And, frankly, it would give /. as an organization and us as its users more power, a greater say in what does and does not go forward in the fields this site addresses. I don't know about y'all but I'm generally pretty in favor of chances to do something I want to do anyway and then get more influence by doing it.

Worst idea, ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Airbags do not help you at 3000 feet and falling. I just pray that every craft is required by law to have a second chance safety chute. Even still, you know some jackass is going to get hammered and try to fly home. Weeeeeeeeeeeee! KABOOM!

eviljonny

The Long-Forgotten Pinto Plane

[BigBlueOx]

The FA states that the last "serious attempt" at a flying car was the Aerocar in 1949 but I beg to differ.

'Bout 1975 (or so) I read an interesting little article in Car and Driver about some guy who had invented the Pinto Plane. This consisted of a big wing contraption with two aircraft engines attached. One would drive one's specially-modified Pinto underneath this thing and attach the car to it with cotter pins. The Pinto's car dashboard & pedals were then swung out of the way by a big lever revealing airplane controls and pedals. One then attached some cables and some electrical hookups and, presto!, the Pinto became an airplane!

The Car and Driver article ended by saying "we just wonder about those cotter pins that are supposed to hold it all together"

About a year after reading that, I opened my daily newspaper to find a short AP article about an inventor who was performing his flight worthiness demonstration for FAA officals out in Nevada with his car-airplane hybrid. It was an AP item because the car fell out of the bottom of the "plane" part from roughly 10,000 ft.

Guess the cotter pins didn't hold. Sounds pretty serious to me.

Moller SkyCar

[Anonymous Coward]

"The last serious attempt to bring a car-airplane hybrid to market was the Aerocar, in 1949."

Apparently, everyone has forgotten about the Moller SkyCar. This beauty has been near-ready for prime time since the 90's. Definitely a much sleeker design and much more versatile as a VTOL aircraft. Also a LOT cheaper. I seem to recall a 60-90k pricetag when they were taking pre-orders. (They are no longer taking orders.)

Anyway, Moller has been at this for quite some time and has a truly refined design. Though i have been out of the loop for quite some time and do not know where they are at today.

http://www.moller.com/