Flying Car Ready To Take Off

ChazeFroy writes "The first flying automobile, equally at home in the sky or on the road, is scheduled to take to the air next month. If it survives its first test flight, the Terrafugia Transition, which can transform itself from a two-seater road car to a plane in 15 seconds, is expected to land in showrooms in about 18 months' time. Terrafugia claims it will be able to fly up to 500 miles on a single tank of unleaded petrol at a cruising speed of 115mph. Even at $200,000 per automobile, they have already received 40 orders."

Comments

Rules?

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Has anybody made an attempt at drafting traffic rules for flying cars yet?

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there are so many flying cars up in the sky. It's getting crowded!

Re:Rules?

[FiveLights]

Rules? Where we're going we don't need rules...

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

In the air they have to obey the same rules as other planes. On the ground they have to obey the same rules as other cars. Simple as that. Also to fly one of these things you need a private pilot's license so it's not like any yuppie with 200K is going to be able to fly it.

Re:Rules?

[hitmark]

wont stop them from trying tho, much like a lack of that pesky drivers license do not stop many from driving cars...

Re:Rules?

[HungryHobo]

about time!
We were supposed to have flying cars how long ago? :D

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

Maybe not but people don't seem to be stealing private aircraft very often. Maybe if this one was in your drive way it'd be more tempting to steal but it still looks like in order to fly it you have to unfold the wings by hand. It's not like James Bond where the wings fold out electrically and you fly away from the bad guys chasing you.

Re:Rules?

[EdIII]

In the air they have to obey the same rules as other planes. On the ground they have to obey the same rules as other cars. Simple as that.

Either way I cannot wait for the first police chase involving one of these on the road. It will be fucking exciting, especially when the chase leaves the road . Better than Dukes of Hazzard on their best day :)

That SOB is going to get TIVO'd.

Re:Rules?

[phoenix321]

Well, the rules above ground are drafted for professionals with thousands of logged hours. We can either require that for everyone who wants to fly or we can draft simpler rules in height-confined airspace. Maybe we already have, in VFR flight levels, I don't know.

Re:Rules?

[gmuslera]

The only rules i know related to flying cars so far are more related to avoid meeting yourself in the future or your mother when she was young.

Considering that this ones are more like planes than i.e. DeLorean using antigrav and powered by mr.fusion, probably planes/helicopters/etc rules should apply.

Re:Rules?

[troll8901]

Year 2015, together with Mr Fusion reactors.

Oh, if I remember correctly, upgrading a ground car to flight costs US$40,000 (this was a reasonably big amount when the movie was first released).

Just remember, never appear in the middle of a lane traveling in the opposite direction!

Re:Rules?

[Lumpy]

Yes,

nobody with an IQ under 110 can even own one.

That would be a HUGE start to making them far safer than the cars on the road.

Re:Rules?

[mapkinase]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The non-trivial question is about rules of landing and taking of.

Re:Rules?

[TerranFury]

It's not like James Bond where the wings fold out electrically

Actually, from TFA, it is... The wings are actuated electromechanically; you just push a button in the cockpit.

Re:Rules?

[jellomizer]

Great so we get a bunch of pompous jerks driving in the air ways each one thinking they are smarter then everyone else so everything else is not their fault.

  There are 2 Major Interstates that cross threw the area they both have the same amount of people driving on it however there are very different driving patterns on it. One comes from a very upscale town neighborhoods where you have a lot of intelligent/successful workers coming into the city, the the other road is where the more run down cities, and rual areas where most of the people are just getting by.

Oddly enough the traffic on the "Smart People road" is always jammed, People panic going over a bridge, and traffic gets so bad because they are so snotty about being in the right they rarely ever let people in. But the "Dumb People road" people drive with enough space, don't let bridges freak them out. and normally allow other people in and the road tend to go much smoother.

Intelligence doesn't make you a useful person.

Re:Rules?

[Libertarian001]

From the website, one needs a Sport Plane certificate, which can be had in 20 hours. That's what scares me. I'm not sure on the timeframe for my fixed wing cousins, but must helicopter pilots solo, for the first time, at right around 20 hours. I've yet to meet someone that I'd be comfortable signing off to go on their own at 20 hours. Yes, I realize that the Sport Plane cert is pretty limiting. That's really not the point. No one looks at flying, and it's requirements, and says, "I'm going to hit those 20 or 40 hours and never fly again." They still want to continue on. And if that's the case, they may as well do it right and get at least their Private Pilot cert, and preferably continue on and get their Commercial cert. More knowledge and skill is a good thing.

Re:Rules?

[KillerBob]

... You can get a private pilot's license, good for light aircraft and night flying, for about $5,000, with about 100 hours logged. Simulator time counts. It's really not that much of an impediment, and this thing will probably be small enough to count as a light aircraft.

My real question is what kind of fuel it runs on. There aren't a lot of aircraft that'll run well on less than avgas, and avgas is very expensive. (The aircraft I trained on was a Diamond Eclipse, which *will* run on premium unleaded, but runs a lot better on avgas....)

Re:Rules?

[Nazlfrag]

Stay under 88mph?

Re:Rules?

[drinkypoo]

There's really no correlation between financial success and intelligence. Those people in the rat race aren't happy anyway. Studies have shown that the American dream is a big fucking crock.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

"nobody with an IQ under 110 can even own one."

Sucks for you then.

Re:Rules?

[Yvanhoe]

I agree, we need rules. Here is my proposal : anything about flying cars that only use future tense and that promise something in more than one year should not make it to Slashdot frontpage.

Re:Rules?

[areusche]

The quick little article synopsis said unleaded petrol, which I am assuming is 94 unleaded gasoline!

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies have shown that the American dream is a big fucking crock.

Misread this from the corner of my eye as "big fucking cock"; coffee spillage resulting.

Re:Rules?

[hitmark]

private aircrafts often find themselves far away from punks, and/or behind some nice high fences with barbed wire on top...

another reason could be the ease of hotwiring, but i must admit im not familiar with the difficulty of that on a small aircraft (altho ms flight sim kinda gives a impression on the number of actions needed to take to get a cessna going).

Re:Rules?

[Suzuran]

Actually, you don't need to hotwire an airplane. Just disconnect the grounding wires from the magnetos and turn the prop over by hand, and away she goes. The engine is electrically powered by its own rotation and does not need a battery and alternator to keep it running. To stop one, you have to ground out the magnetos or shut off the fuel supply. There is actually an item in the preflight checklists of most small aircraft to verify that the grounding switches still operate, otherwise you will have problems shutting down at your destination. (It's hard on the engine to kill it by starving it of fuel, and drains the carb float bowls which can complicate restarting.)

This sounds unsafe, but this is by design - They didn't want an electrical fault to kill an engine. The radios and such will die without the battery, but as long as the engine has fuel and air, it will turn.

Re:Rules?

[elrous0]

Only if the cop waits patiently while they stop and put the wings on.

Re:Rules?

[Gordonjcp]

There is actually an item in the preflight checklists of most small aircraft to verify that the grounding switches still operate, otherwise you will have problems shutting down at your destination.

It's not just that - you shut down each magneto in turn, so you can prove that both systems are working. Most piston aeromotive engines have two complete ignitions systems, with two magnetos and two sets of spark plugs. When you switch one off, then engine revs will drop a little. This way you can work out if a) the magneto is working, and b) the ignition switch is switching it off. If the revs don't drop, either that magneto isn't working or is staying on. If you switch the other one off and the revs drop, the first magneto isn't switching off. If you switch it off and the engine stops altogether, the first one wasn't working.

Re:Rules?

[jsight]

(It's hard on the engine to kill it by starving it of fuel, and drains the carb float bowls which can complicate restarting.)

Not true at all, and in fact most light singles are shut down by pulling the mixture, which essentially does just that (starving it of fuel).

Re:Rules?

[Lumpy]

Upscale/rich most certainly does not equal intelligent. Not even by a long shot.

Most rich I know are incredibly dumb when it comes to technical (let alone most everything else) what they are good at is schmoozing and selling. (Yes I know, all my clients are $350K a year and higher income level)

  Financial success is 1% you know and 99% of who you know.

Hell I know master degree holders that are as dumb as a box of rocks, so don't even look at education as a sign of intelligence either.

Re:Rules?

[Cyner]

Yeah, the article doesn't specifically say it, but this runs on premium mogas. I would think it would also run on avgas, but am not certain.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up for being the first message in here that actually has important facts about aircrafts :P

Re:Rules?

[jsight]

You can get a private pilot's license, good for light aircraft and night flying, for about $5,000, with about 100 hours logged.

Simulator time or not, 100 hrs @ $50/hr avg is going to be hard to come by. I think most folks end up closer to $7500/60 hrs.

Re:Rules?

[notaspunkymonkey]

It is not the first flying car - check out this bad boy - it begins its journey from London to Tombouctou tomorrow! http://www.skycarexpedition.com/the_expedition.php

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

First rule about flying cars is:

You don't talk about flying cars.

Second rule about flying cars:

You don't talk about flying cars.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually if i remember correctly, if you stay below 4,000ft with a light aircraft (in the US anyways) you don't need a pilots license. i could be mistaken though.

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

The Lycoming engines in the Cessna 152s and 172s I fly are shut off by pulling the mixture to idle cut off. I don't think this is a big deal for the engine since it's the recommended procedure by the Pilot's Operating Handbook for these planes. When starting it you usually prime 3 times which sprays fuel in the carburetor.

Re:Rules?

[petermgreen]

One big difference is that when driving unless you do something suspicious you are unlikely to have to speak to anyone outside your car for the whole journey.

Whereas to use this thing you will have to take it into an airport (past whatever security they have), switch to airplane mode, taxi to the runway and then take off maintaining contact with air traffic control. I would think most airports would ask questions if you weren't already known to them and/or you didn't seem to know all the flying jargon.

I guess you could try to take off from a road though you would probablly need two lanes and it would look very suspicious.

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

I agree, the sport pilots license is not that much less work than the private once you're done it. The minimum hours are less but in actuality most people take about 1.5 to 2.0 times the minimum hours to get their certificate/license. I'm actually doing my private right now and most people will solo around 20 hrs or so as well. All that really involves is flying a few touch and goes, nothing big, so that's no harder than what the pilot has been doing before the solo.

Re:Rules?

[Lumpy]

Even more for you, with your IQ you are not even allowed to look at one.

But then you get confused and cry when given a doughnut.

Re:Rules?

[petermgreen]

I would think in the time it would take to unfold the wings the police could easilly render this thing unflyable by ramming.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwww, the pomp's testicle washer can't take a joke. So sad.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

They make up for the extra 40 hrs by staying at a Holiday Inn Express.

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

It's an airplane so you land at a designated airport just like every other airplane in existence. It must not be that obvious if you can't figure that out. The FARs(US Federal Air Regulations) and the CAR(Canadian Air Regulations) clearly state any aircraft is not to attempt take off or landing on any surface unless that surface is a designated airport or aerodrome.

That is unless it's an emergency then you can land wherever the pilot deems safe. You must report so called "off field landings" to the regulating body of your country(at least that I know of in Canada and the US).

Since this drivable airplane requires a minimum of a sport pilot license, the person driving this would know the rules.

Re:Rules?

[ATMD]

By the GP's misquote, we should have them 6 years from now :)

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

I don't know of anywhere that is that cheap but if you can find it then good for you I guess. Is that in a light sport aircraft? The 152 I rent for training is $107 CAD per hour plus instructor is $65 per hour. Works out to around $180/hr CAD during training which I agree is ridiculously expensive. That's all there is close to me though.

This plane from the article uses the little Rotax engine that's popular in a lot of kit planes and LSA. I believe those can run on car gas but they run a lot better on proper high octane avgas.

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

Must have mixed it up with another flying car or maybe a previous design of this one. The one I thought they were talking about used to have manually extended wings, not electrically.

Re:Rules?

[samkass]

It's true that a lot of fields increased security after 9/11. But most small airfields have no tower, and are located out of class B or C airspace so no contact with ATC is required. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that if you can get this inside the airport fence, you won't have to talk to anyone until you want to get back out of your destination airport's fence.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>It's hard on the engine to kill it by starving it of fuel, and drains the
>>carb float bowls which can complicate restarting.

Wow, you were doing so good - a proper description of how airplane magnetos power the engine. Then this :-(

Actually the proper way to stop an airplane engine is by pulling the mixture lever to "Idle Cut-Off" which starves the engine of fuel. The magneto grounding switches are purely for safety on the ground, so that if the prop is pulled through the mag won't spark the plugs and cause injuries.

Re:Rules?

[MikeBabcock]

Just wait for that call to your insurance company about a car in your living room ... in your 17th floor condo.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a decent speller. Might want to look threw a dictionary one of these days.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's a start, but how about allocating altitude slots based on travelling directions? This would probably prevent a lot of mid-air collisions.

10-20m above the ground only north-south traffic, and 30-40m above the ground for east-west traffic?

Re:Rules?

[powerlord]

Not to burst your bubble, but quite a lot of more rural places have small airfields with little checking.

Some friends used to have one in back of their property that was shared by covenant between the 10 or 12 houses that shared the complex.

Everyone pitched in to maintain the grass airstrip. They had a windsock at the end, no lights or instruments, and it was listed on local aviation charts (along with lots of other like-rated strips).

Taking off in a plane wouldn't be the problem. Once you hit a high enough altitude, ATC will pick you up, that's when you'll start to have problem (unless you know what you're doing). Landing though is usually the part of flying that is the most difficult, even for a trained amateur, so I don't see "Joy flying" as being a big repeat sport (for the untrained).

Re:Rules?

[Sobrique]

Not to burst your bubble, but quite a lot of more rural places have small airfields with little checking.

Even more places have roads that go approximately straight.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies have shown that the American dream is a big fucking crock.

That's because you have to be a sleep to see it.

Re:Rules?

[EricTheMad]

Actually if i remember correctly, if you stay below 4,000ft with a light aircraft (in the US anyways) you don't need a pilots license. i could be mistaken though.

You are definitely mistaken. A pilot's license is required to fly a plane at any altitude. However, no license is required to fly an ultralight (single seat, under 250 pounds).

Re:Rules?

[OneSmartFellow]

Unlikely. From personal experience I have decided that the ability to drive well is inversely proportional to intelligence. The smartest people I know are the worst drivers, while the best drivers I know are amongst the dumbest people I know.

Your prejudice towards some idiotic test which supposedly measures intelligence is noted, however. I wouldn't take much consolation from having an IQ at 110, the last time mine was supposedly measured when I was in the fourth grade, it was 155, and I can assure you, I'm nothing special in the brains department.

IQ is a joke, and people who trust it are fools. Mensah is nothing more than a elitest club for people who think they're smart.

Re:Rules?

[GooberToo]

This sounds unsafe, but this is by design - They didn't want an electrical fault to kill an engine. The radios and such will die without the battery, but as long as the engine has fuel and air, it will turn.

Ignoring the latest generation of light, single and twin piston aircraft which have dual electronic ignition, which do require a functioning power bus and battery.

There is even an accident on record of a Diamond twin engine crashing immediately after take off because of dead batteries, despite it being diesel. The fuel pumps are electric (not sure if its actually mechanical with electric axillary or fully electric) along with the retractable gear. Seems retracting the gear was enough to deplete the batteries, causing the fuel pumps to turn off. This caused both engines to simultaneously quit.

I would have provided a link to the NTSB accident report but the web site is currently unreachable for me.

Re:Rules?

[Sobrique]

The guy that stole their car might not know the rules, but then even if they did they probably wouldn't care ;)

Re:Rules?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

... You can get a private pilot's license, good for light aircraft and night flying, for about $5,000, with about 100 hours logged. Simulator time counts.

Where are you getting your training for $50/hr? I charge half that just for my time as a CFI, and I don't know anything short of a Champ or Cub that only burns $25/hr in gas, to say nothing of maintenance, insurance, etc.

My real question is what kind of fuel it runs on. There aren't a lot of aircraft that'll run well on less than avgas, and avgas is very expensive. (The aircraft I trained on was a Diamond Eclipse, which *will* run on premium unleaded, but runs a lot better on avgas....)

At only 100BHP, it's probably an engine that runs well enough on auto gas. It's not that hard to get low-horsepower engines to run on auto gas due to their lower compression. High-power engines (over about 160 BHP) get tougher.

Re:Rules?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

It's an airplane so you land at a designated airport just like every other airplane in existence. It must not be that obvious if you can't figure that out. The FARs(US Federal Air Regulations) and the CAR(Canadian Air Regulations) clearly state any aircraft is not to attempt take off or landing on any surface unless that surface is a designated airport or aerodrome.

Cite? I'm looking through the FARs, but I don't see that regulation, and frankly, given the number of people who operate off of a mowed strip on their private farms, I think you may be misinterpreting a regulation.

Re:Rules?

[Deadstick]

They're called the Federal Aviation Regulations.

rj

Re:Rules?

[CrispBH]

Well, the rules above ground are drafted for professionals with thousands of logged hours. We can either require that for everyone who wants to fly or we can draft simpler rules in height-confined airspace. Maybe we already have, in VFR flight levels, I don't know.

You can get a PPL with a minimum of 45 (40 in the USA I believe) hours total time. Hell, you can get a fAPTL and jump in a 747 with 250 hours experience (not likely in the current economic climate but still legal).

So, just to nit pick, you have to be neither professional nor have thousands of logged hours; indeed you can be a professional with hundreds of logged hours. Most flight instructors start in the 250-500 hours category just to cheaply hours build.

Also, we already have enough light aircraft crashes as it is; the ones that usually don't make the national news (UK here). Relaxing the rules would be devastating in my opinion, and remember when a plane crashes, there's the whole mess on the ground too - will it crash into a field or a house?

What I've said holds true for FAA and JAA pilots pretty much the same. Anyway, if you're buying one of these bad boys for $200k, I doubt the extra ~$8-10k for a PPL is going to bother you, although perhaps the time spent learning and revising for the exams would.

Re:Rules?

[anilg]

Thanks, I wonder why this wasn't slashdotted. The sports car version is something you'd want to buy.

Re:Rules?

[notaspunkymonkey]

I agree - it looks awesome.. that is something that I can see a serious practical use for, especially in places like Australia with massive areas of land with little or no population / buildings to speak of. Would be very cool if you could fly most of the way to your neighbours or nearest town and then drop down, pack the "wings" away and drive into town..

Re:Rules?

[yabos]

That should have been "within a built up area". CARs 602.13, not sure what the FAR is.

Re:Rules?

[huckamania]

I went thru the whole site and all I could find was 1 badly doctored photo of the car flying thru a city and 1 actual photo of the wheels coming off the ground, just barely, on a beach somewhere.

It's a cool idea, but if they actually got it to work, how come there are no actual pictures.

Re:Rules?

[notaspunkymonkey]

I did wonder about that to be honest but have come to the conclusion that they want to keep people hanging on to get a proper look at it.. If they have not tested it yet they are pretty ambitious to want to fly 6000km!. It has also been picked up by the BBC who are running the story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7821979.stm They only have badly mocked up pictures too????

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve a -1 Killjoy mod.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single-engine airplane I have flown has required that you kill the engine by starving it of fuel. You do a quick magneto check by turning off the mags to make sure that they ground, but quickly turn them back on. Afterwards, you pull the mixture to cut off and let the engine die from a lack of fuel.

Both of these procedures are redundant safeguards to prevent the possibility of the engine firing due to someone moving the prop by hand. The mag check makes sure that there can't be a spark, and cutting off the fuel makes sure that all excess fuel has burned out of the cylinders.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA claims standard unleaded

Re:Rules?

[PitaBred]

It takes a license and an activation code to go from car to plane mode, so only the licensed owner can convert it to flying mode, in theory.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

... You can get a private pilot's license, good for light aircraft and night flying, for about $5,000, with about 100 hours logged. Simulator time counts. It's really not that much of an impediment, and this thing will probably be small enough to count as a light aircraft.

For a PP certificate, the hour requirements is 35 or 40 depending on whether you train under FAR Part 61 or 141 requirements, although the national average is 60-70 hours. And, simulator time counting is limited significantly for PP. For an instrument rating, you can count a large portion of the required training in a simulator, but not for PP.

If this thing qualifies for light-sport aircraft, then you can get a light sport certificate for just 20 hours.

Regardless, you still have to pass a practical test (check ride) to receive your certificate. And the DPE's (Designated Pilot Examiners) don't just pass you if they want to continue being examiners.

The real question I have is, how can this thing meet LSA weight requirements and still meet highway safety standards. And assuming they can do that, what is normal road rash going to do for airworthiness?

I'm not sold on this approach, yet. We'll see how it goes, though.

Re:Rules?

[wjsteele]

That is incorrect. The mag check is used to determine that the primary ignition systems are firing all cylinders. In the event of a failure, the plane will still have a working ingition system to power the engine, though on a slightly reduced power level.

We DO NOT use the switch to kill the engine at the destination, however. Instead, we pull the mixture to cut off the fuel flow to the engine. Starving the engine of fuel prevents the mag from firing any residual fuel left in the cylinder after engine shut off. If we don't, someone just walking by the front of the plane can move the prop and have it accidently fire up. That would not be a good situation and many people have been killed because of it.

And yes, I am a pilot.

Bill

Re:Rules?

[wjsteele]

The real question I have is, how can this thing meet LSA weight requirements and still meet highway safety standards. And assuming they can do that, what is normal road rash going to do for airworthiness?

Actually, it's quite easy to do with modern technology as long as you don't mind the higher cost. This "roadable aircraft" is actually designed with a carbon fiber monocoque structure like an Indy Race car. They can easily survive impacts of 150mph or more. This plane, by LSA Rules, is limited to 138mph.

Also, as for the "road rash" you speak of, their design incorporates several patented ideas that prevent that type of damage. For example, the forward and rear flight control surfaces are also the front and rear bumpers and can survive 2.5mph impacts like a regular car. They are deformable and will return to their designed shape within seconds... similar to the way memory foam matresses work. They also have clever "rub strips" along the top of the wing that will prevent door ding impacts from occuring.

The insurance companies for both auto and airplane are on board and have reviewed their design for just such occasions.

Bill

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a large city where helicopters are commonly used, a 115 mph car in the air won't stand a chance in getting away.

Re:Rules?

[Frankenshteen]

How many homes will catch one of these falling from the sky before they're banned in metro's?

Re:Rules?

[brizzadizza]

I think MENSA is one of the most clever tricks an average intelligence pulled off on a higher intelligence person. You join up, pay yearly dues and do... puzzles?

Re:Rules?

[CodeBuster]

There aren't a lot of aircraft that'll run well on less than avgas, and avgas is very expensive.

That is mainly due to poor availability of alternative aircraft engines with numerous advantages over piston engines for light aircraft use. For example, the Wankel rotary engine has a number of desirable aircraft features, including ability to accept and run on lower octaine fuel without loss of power, high power to weight ration, ability to continue running even when severely overheated, smaller frontal cross section, etc...from the wiki article:

"In addition to the enhanced reliability by virtue of the complete removal of this reciprocating stress on internal parts, the engine is constructed with an iron rotor within a housing made of aluminium, which has greater thermal expansion. This ensures that even a severely overheated Wankel engine cannot seize, as would likely occur in an overheated piston engine. This is a substantial safety benefit in aircraft use since no valves can burn out."

Re:Rules?

[SST-206]

we can draft simpler rules in height-confined airspace

But surely the greatest danger to inexperienced/untrained pilots is below 10ft altitude, i.e., the ground (and the people/buildings on it)?

Heck, I got thousands of hours' of flying, but my best times were always those nifty stunts under bridges and between buildings.

But in our modern age of The War Of Terror, I just can't see this getting off the ground legally.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Times, it uses regular unleaded petrol. It uses a 100hp engine to either drive the axel or a pusher prop.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

wont stop them from trying tho, much like a lack of that pesky drivers license do not stop many from driving cars...

Especially the illegals in the country from Mexico.

Re:Rules?

[TheoMurpse]

I've always thought it'd be a good idea to have altitude be a function of cardinality, in that as you turn your car, your altitude changes.

The only traffic intersections would be people merging from above or below when turning. If you were going straight, you'd never have to merge (except with people aligning themselves with your direction who happened to have a remarkably similar path as you to the point that they'd be located at (X_1,Y_1) at the exact time as you going the exact same direction as you).

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

A pilot who doesn't know about aircraft without mixture controls.

Re:Rules?

[Gordonjcp]

That is incorrect. The mag check is used to determine that the primary ignition systems are firing all cylinders. In the event of a failure, the plane will still have a working ingition system to power the engine, though on a slightly reduced power level.

We DO NOT use the switch to kill the engine at the destination, however. Instead, we pull the mixture to cut off the fuel flow to the engine. Starving the engine of fuel prevents the mag from firing any residual fuel left in the cylinder after engine shut off.

... and causes severe pinking as the engine runs out of fuel, severely stressing the engine. How many pistons have you holed? ;-)

We were told never to do that, because it made starting a bitch - particularly when you'd burnt a big bite out of the exhaust valve.

If we don't, someone just walking by the front of the plane can move the prop and have it accidently fire up. That would not be a good situation and many people have been killed because of it.

And that's why you leave it with the mags off and the prop bra on.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was going to be about Moller to be honest, that was the first "Real" flying car with decent specs as well!

www.moller.com

Re:Rules?

[tweak13]

That Diamond didn't crash because the fuel pumps shut off, it crashed because it has a FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) system. Basically, a computer controls every aspect of the engine. The pilot noted he had an alternator failure while taking off and decided it was too late to abort the takeoff. When he retracted the gear, the load was strong enough to drop the voltage in the system enough to reset the FADEC. The FADEC resetting in flight was never supposed to happen, and it caused both engines to shutdown and the props to feather.

Without the FADEC the fuel pump probably would have kept right on running through the voltage drop. Diamonds have since been retrofitted to keep the same problem from happening again.

Re:Rules?

[wronskyMan]

Currently the FAA regs stipulate this, above a certain low altitude traffic going visual w/o ATC control is west=even altitudes +500 (4500, 6500, etc) and east=odd +500. Instrument flights under ATC control are the same but on even thousands instead of +500

Re:Rules?

[Wiseleo]

You have just had an accident.
        Seven points have been temporarily
        removed...

You have one more point left on your license.

Re:Rules?

[Sandcastle]

Actually, you don't need to hotwire an airplane. Just disconnect the grounding wires from the magnetos

Bit of cognitive dissonance - You don't hotwire airplanes - Here's how to hotwire an airplane...

???

Re:Rules?

[lendude]

"...look threw ..."???

Ditto to you my man.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, great. Imagine the skies over Texas on any given Friday night around 2am.

That's it. I'm moving to Canada....

Re:Rules?

[SpelledBackwards]

The Dukes left the road in practically every chase. Hint: ramps.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Starving the engine of fuel prevents the mag from firing any residual fuel left in the cylinder after engine shut off.

Not in many cases, and certainly not something I'd bet my life on. If you let the plane sit a while, fuel fumes will waft into the cylinders. Just give it a try. I've tried to start a few times with the mixture cut off on a carburated engine and it would fire up and run happy as a clam for a few seconds. And hell, for a fuel injected engine it's standard procedure.

Re:Rules?

[EdIII]

Well, yeah. But the plane can leave it for a much longer period of time and go places where the roads can't :)

I wasn't knocking the Dukes of Hazzard either. Just saying that car chases that end up in the air are a little bit more exiting.

Re:Rules?

[Teriblows]

you need a pilots license and a whole buncha radio etc certifications..so its just plane rules. james may ones listed all the requirements of the pilot/driver...its a lot of stuff.

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

My real question is what kind of fuel it runs on. There aren't a lot of aircraft that'll run well on less than avgas, and avgas is very expensive. (The aircraft I trained on was a Diamond Eclipse, which *will* run on premium unleaded, but runs a lot better on avgas....)

Unleaded Petrol.

"Terrafugia claims it will be able to fly up to 500 miles on a single tank of unleaded petrol at a cruising speed of 115mph."

Re:Rules?

[the_digitalmouse]

any yuppie with 200K for this car/plane probably has the money for the private pilot lessons i would suspect.

i don't expect this idea to 'take off' very well. it's just not practical to drive all the way to an airport across town just to take off. so until they change the rules about using roads as runways, i'll stick with my helicopter/car, hovercar, or gyrocopter/car dreams.

Re:Rules?

[ElectricTurtle]

The folding process in the animation seemed quick enough, and the police usually don't PIT a vehicle until several minutes after a pursuit has started. In some jurisdictions they require authorization before they can PIT, and in others they can't do it at all.

Re:Rules?

[GooberToo]

Now that you post it, I do recall those facts. Seems I confused the first account I heard about it with the actual facts. I was hoping to look up the accident before I posted.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Re:Rules?

[Suzuran]

I was referring to simply letting the engine run mixture-normal until the tanks ran dry and it died out. I didn't want to try explaining fuel/air mixture to a layperson and was trying to keep my explanation simple.

I was taught to kill the engine with the mag switch and then pull to ICO, because doing it in the other order was hard on the (old, high-time) engines in the trainers we were using. After we got a new airplane with a newer engine, we did it in the other order.

Re:Rules?

[smyle]

upgrading a ground car to flight costs US$40,000

You're off by a few orders of magnitude - $39,999,999. (or maybe the last 9 was a 5). I remember first watching and hearing the 39,999 and thinking "wow, inflation" followed a split second later by "but I really guess that's not SO bad", and then he gave the extra '999' and I about choked.

Re:Rules?

[mcrbids]

When planes rent for $100 / hour (including fuel) logging 100 hours for $5,000 is going to be mighty tough, especially when you consider that flight instructors (who accompany you on most of your flights, especially early on) cost around $40-$50/hour. However, you don't need 100 hours to get a private license, you need a minimum of 40. (most people are proficient at around 60 hours, I got my license at just over 50 hours) You can get a new type of limited license in just 20 hours - Light-sport, which limits you to small, slow planes with only two seats.

$100/hour sounds ridiculously expensive, and it is not cheap, but it's also not as unreasonable as it might seem. Small planes go about 2x as fast as a car on the freeway, and only have meaningful delays when flying out of major airports, which private flights rarely do - usually there's a small airport much closer to your destination. The Cessna 172 that I rent costs $103/hour, has four seats, and flies about 125 MPH.

But your car out in the driveway costs you about $0.50 per mile (average) to drive when you include all expenses - gas, insurance, purchase cost, maintenance, etc. which puts its freeway driving cost at around $30-$40/hour. And since planes go 2x as fast, they replace your car at around $60-$80 per hour equivalent. So even though getting a pilot's license isn't cheap, it can make more sense than you think.

That said, it's seriously FUN TO FLY! Until you've done it, you have no idea!

The other day I took two of my sons out for a 1.5 hour flight just for some sight-seeing. It was late in the day, smoke/haze on the ground, otherwise a beautiful day. We took off, and after climbing 500 ft, busted through the haze into gorgeously clean, cool air. Visibility was unlimited, snow-capped mountains 200 miles away were crystal clear. Traffic was light, so ATC was very quiet. We joked, looked at the local college, flew over some lakes, a local military base, and some mountains while we watched the sun set off our left wing. As we headed home, night fell, and the moon split the horizon and our right wing. We got a gorgeous picture of the sharp, full moon reflected below by water in irrigated fields, and above by the wing bottom.

We floated in low over a gorgeous blanket of city lights at just 1,200 AGL as we entered a gradual, straight-in final at our local airport. The air was as smooth as glass. I landed a bit long, but touchdown was a gentle bump with just a mild squeak of the tires.

Man I love flying!

Re:Rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had a bunch of votes so I could mod this up several times.

Fortunately, it's already +5.

Re:Rules?

[David Gould]

"Terrafugia claims it will be able to fly up to 500 miles on a single tank of unleaded petrol at a cruising speed of 115mph."

I don't think I'm familiar with this unit of fuel-efficiency -- how many "miles per tank" do you get in a Prius vs. a Hummer?

Re:Rules?

[phoenix321]

That's why there's diesel powered piston aircraft engines now:

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

The same plain old diesel your car uses. They adapted Volkswagen TDI engines for aircraft use, primarily for highly variable ambient pressure and a single gear.

Come thinking of it, I hardly know why we haven't used diesel engines before. They are well-known for highly reliable and economical operation under high torque loads.

Some truck engines can last for a million miles and some decades of continuous operation, regular professional maintenance provided. But they also last for quite some time even with incompetent drivers, irregular maintenance if any and constantly overloaded cargo compartment. Middle America and Africa has countless machines like this and they amazingly still work. So why do we have comparatively flimsy and guzzling gasoline piston engine in general aviation aircrafts, at all?

Re:Rules?

[phoenix321]

Wankel engines may not seize, but they can deform, leak oil and burn.

But as they guzzle gas like there's no tomorrow, they are unsuitable for most non life-threatening mission profiles. I mean, there's the Mazda R-8 with a very advanced Wankel engine but with at max 15mpg it eats into your wallet hard and fast.

With a favorable torque profile, extremely fast rpm changes and the mesmerizing jet engine sound, it has it's merits. But outside the race track or until a full tank of gas is 10$ again, it's just a silly boytoy.

Why would anyone use a Wankel engine in aviation? Gasoline piston engines consume enough fuel as it is... :)

Re:Rules?

[phoenix321]

Hummer H1 2007: 193 liters
Prius 2008: 45 liters

Hummer H1: 10mpg (rare max) = 4.25 km/l
Prius 2008: 45mpg (avg) = 19.1 km/l

Hummer H1 range: ~820km / 510mi
Prius 2008 range: ~860km / 535mi

Using SI units of France and Satan. Deal with it.

Re:Rules?

[phoenix321]

An ant-like army of smallish, barely controllable passenger planes in the hands of a thousand civilians have nothing to do with the War on Terror, but everything with the War on Drugs.

We can barely manage the Mexican border on the GROUND. Imagine hundreds of speedy, low-flying, radar-evading vessels crossing the borders, landing on any empty stretch of road and then hiding in a plain old basement garage.

I for one welcome our controlled-substance trafficking overlords, that's for sure.

Re:Rules?

[wjsteele]

We were told never to do that, because it made starting a bitch - particularly when you'd burnt a big bite out of the exhaust valve.

Have you ever read the engine shut down procedure for an airplane?

Here is the Engine Shut Down procedure from my POH:

1. Parking Break - SET
2. Fuel Boost Pump - OFF
3. Electrical and Avionics Equipment - OFF
4. Throttle - 1000 RPM
5. Mixture - IDLE CUT-OFF
6. Magneto/Start Switch - OFF, after engine stops
7. Battery and Alternator Switches - OFF
8. Control Lock - INSTALL
9. Wheel Chocks - INSTALL
10. Parking Break - RELEASE

I've never burnt a piston or valve.

And that's why you leave it with the mags off and the prop bra on.

If you have fuel remaining in a cylinder, it can still ignite in a hot engine if the prop is turned, even with the Mags off! Doing both is a double check to prevent injury.

I've been flying for 24 years, and I know you were taught wrong.

Bill

Re:Rules?

[Gordonjcp]

Chances are you're flying very different aircraft.

If you have fuel remaining in a cylinder, it can still ignite in a hot engine if the prop is turned, even with the Mags off!

Only if the engine is severely overheating! At normal air temperatures, say around 10-12C, this just plain can't happen unless the engine is almost glowing. If it's that hot, it's because you've leaned the mixture out too far. Bear in mind I'm almost certainly a hell of a lot further north than you.

I've been flying for 24 years, and I know you were taught wrong.

I've not been flying as long, but have been working on engines for longer. I'd say we were just taught differently.

Re:Rules?

[GWRedDragon]

You have it wrong. The movie was intentionally joking about inflation being insane...

After all, it's not like there is a shortage of flying vehicles in the movie future.

we will NOT have flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously. most people can barely control a car on the ground. or even keep one properly maintained.

and you want to put these folks into the air? over your house? yeah... i don't think so.

thats what you call a 'bad idea'.

cap:unguided

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[_Shad0w_]

Really I'm glad a pilot's license is a lot harder to obtain. I just wish they weren't so expensive.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Yes we will have flying cars. Only they'll be nothing like a tiny airplane, and fully automated. Fully programmed VTOL is the only thing that would happened. May be a long shot, but we won't get anything short of that no matter what.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[MoonBuggy]

There's a quick solution to that problem, and it doesn't even require any technical or legislative changes: don't call it a flying car!

Even their website doesn't use the term 'car'; it's clearly marketed towards pilots not drivers and they call it a "Roadable Aircraft". It's being sold to people who already fly, but want to be able to get from door to door rather than airfield to airfield - an idea which makes sense to me.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[should_be_linear]

I, for one, (not welcoming anybody) am dreaming of flying car that I can select my destination on some dialer a then let central computer take me there. I wouldn't put my family into flying car that I am supposed to fly. What they have is not flying car, it is airplane you can drive. Flying car should be, first of all *car* - something that Joe Sixpack can use easily in (relatively) safe way.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[mcfatboy93]

but remember of the 20 orders for a $200,000 flying car you have to filthy stinkin rich to get one and therefore they can pay for lessons. second there are only a few of these things on the market and fewer in the sky now what are the chances of them hitting anything exept a tree or building

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[dougisfunny]

Joe Sixpack can barely even do that in a car now.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[fprintf]

For someone who can afford one of these flying cars, it is likely the cost barrier for a pilot's license does not exist. What is likely to exist, however, is the time barrier. Typically, unless cashed out, retired or otherwise not working, people that can afford this kind of luxury are working their asses of with very little free time.

With that said, in the U.S. I there are new Sport Pilot licenses that might fit this usage perfectly. The licenses are much easier to obtain, with the associated training centers springing up, where a person can pay $X thousand and learn to fly in two weeks. For example, http://sportplanesflorida.com/learntofly.htm?gclid=CIeL79WHiZgCFSUqHgodKRniDg is what came up on my first google search.

I read the new licenses only require 20 hours of flight time versus the current Solo rating 40 hours. If you fly 2 hours per day, which is a *lot*, then in 10 days you are done.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously. most people can barely control a car on the ground. or even keep one properly maintained.

and you want to put these folks into the air? over your house? yeah... i don't think so.

thats what you call a 'bad idea'.

cap:unguided

You are right. Lets just stick to cars that only travel on the roads. Good thing they never end up rolling over people on the sidewalks. Or roll through peoples homes.

The flying planes are simply too dangerous than what we currently have!

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

Assuming we harness fusion for power before we use it for armageddon...

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

Might wanna get that working on a road car first!

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Lumpy]

The moller skycar is not even a real prtotype, it's a vaporware fake demo.

we will NOT have VTOL flying cars. Have you seen what a harrier does to pavement when it takes off or lands vertically? IT even blisters the hell out of super thick concrete. and no fan or turbofan in existence will do a decent VTOL without being 3X the size ofthe aircraft.

Flying cars will NOT happen. The general public is far too stupid to own one, and you would have to put in safety systems that make the car refuse to move when periodic service is needed. Hell my old Piper Comanche needed it's wings replaced for every 1000 hours of flight, and that was nearly the fricking cost of the aircraft! (which is when I sold it.)

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Bucc5062]

The FAA requires a minimum of 40 hours for a PVT license. On average the training time is much longer. It took 63 hours to achieve my PVT rating. Flying has gotten more complex since the days when the government established the initial time limit. Not so much the actual flying, but the rules, and that instructors are teaching better judgment these days. That takes time.

I think I'll wait till they automate a flying car into traffic before considering a purchase.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Libertarian001]

Really? From their website they say one just needs a Sport Plane cert, which can be had in as few as 20 hours. No one serious about aviation gets a Sport Plane cert (very limiting what one can do with it).

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[kannibal_klown]

Great,

Now Farmer's Markets will have to equip Flak cannons.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Thumper_SVX]

That depends a lot on the person, though. I got my license in 48 hours.

Me, I'd actually consider one of these things; it actually meets most of my concerns with buying a plane... the only barrier to me right now is cost. However, with a bit more business, who knows? :)

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Mascot]

The site states as little as 20 hours flight time required for a licence specific to this gizmo.

I don't think this will exactly hit the mass market anytime soon. But it would be bloody brilliant if it did. Living in a country that barely has a mile worth of straight road in total, it would absolutely slash travel time for longer trips.

If the vehicle itself eventually ends up priced for the average consumer, I'm sure the infrastructure and regulations would find a way to accommodate it in such a way that the entire time saved on the actual trip won't be lost in getting take off and landing permissions.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[kalirion]

And these "Fully programmed" vehicles will be hackerproof so no one can set it to manual?

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously. most people can barely control a car on the ground. or even keep one properly maintained.

and you want to put these folks into the air? over your house? yeah... i don't think so.

cap:unguided

No, those people are not going to be able to use the Terrafugia; it requires (and is conceived as requiring) an FAA pilot license. We won't have flying cars until the ground highways and roads are all running automatic computer-controlled cars; so look for that in about 50 years.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Plekto]

More on the Sport Plane license:

http://sportplanesflorida.com/wings.htm
Looks like they already DO have foldable versions of these little cheap aircraft. Modifying the landing gear and controls to a 4 wheel design and making it roadworthy doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Note - the typical drivers license in Germany is just about as involved and time consuming. It's not unreasonable to assume that such a limited use license could become a fairly standard thing for a lot of people.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[psb777]

1000 hours? Not true. Even a Piper Tomahawk is 10,000 hours.

Also, that the thing won't take off without the mandatory maintenance is hardly a problem. Most of us manage to fill up with gas before we run out. Most of us will manage to get the maintenance done before the hours run out.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[fprintf]

I wonder how many people will buy the $150 Floormats? http://sportplanesflorida.com/pricelist.htm

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[RCourtney]

I live in Los Angeles where, whenever it rains, our freeways turn into a huge red (as in the color on traffic maps) disaster zone just from a few millimeters of 3-dimensionality caused by water. It scares me to death to think of these same 'drivers' moving on to fully 3-d travel. Car accidents cause a huge amount of deaths each year. Without a fully automated process controlling these things, I only see the statistics of deaths going up if flying cars ever become as ubiquitous as current cars.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[FatAlb3rt]

Flying cars will NOT happen.

And 64K should be enough RAM for anyone. You do realize that some people do own planes and that they do fly them, right? How is this any different? You're not gonna see the average person with a flying car anytime soon, but I do believe that there will be a group of enthusiasts who have them soon. That group will slowly expand, becoming more and more mainstream. During that time, the technology will evolve, making the vehicles safer and more of the process will be automated.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[mkcmkc]

and you want to put these folks into the air? over your house?

Actually, I don't even want them driving around in my neighborhood. As far as I'm concerned, everyone who wants to drive over 25MPH should be bonded, with permanent revocation upon three strikes for driving unsafely, or any single at-fault "accident".

Drivers kill 40,000 Americans a year. With friends like this, who needs terrorists?

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

You accidentally the end of the sentence.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[MoonBuggy]

You're right, but I'd say that any objections you may have are to the light-sport plane classification itself, not this particular aircraft.

I don't know enough about it to hold an opinion either way, but if you're worried about someone crashing the Terrafugia into your roof you should be equally worried about them doing so with any of these. The fact its road worthy isn't giving it a licensing class any less rigorous than other currently available (non-roadworthy) planes.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[JM78]

Flying cars will NOT happen.

Even though in the end you may be right, the number of smart people out there that said the atom could never be split or that space-flight was impossible is staggering. Just remember, the only way to become a member of the Stupid-Smart-People-Club is to proclaim that something is impossible.

I would suggest remembering that without people who attempt to make the impossible possible we wouldn't have ever found the America's, let alone enjoy the industrial and technological wonders we take for granted every day of our lives.

Moral of the story: don't be a Science Scrooge and enjoy the possibilities which may or may not become reality rather than farting in their general direction.

Just food for thought.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[retro128]

I'm still up in their air as to whether Moller's creation is going to get legs, but you can't really compare what he's doing to a Harrier. Moller's Skycar uses fans powered by rotary engines, NOT vectored thrust from a turbofan like the Harrier does, so there's no surface blistering.

As far as the public being "too stupid" to own flying cars, they were saying much the same things about those novel playthings if the rich, the horseless carriage, when they first started rolling out. Too complicated, too expensive, and too difficult to operate for the average person, they said. Until Henry Ford came along, that is.

I contend that not only will flying cars happen, they are inevitable. In our lifetimes though? That's another story. The biggest hurdle is that the air traffic control system is set up a certain way that doesn't facilitate controlled skylanes. Training, enforcement, where to take off and land, systems to deal with IFR conditions, computer guidance, etc are all factors that need to come into play to make it happen. The FAA is the biggest hurdle to all of this, and if anything will kill the flying car for the foreseeable future, it's them.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Valdrax]

Just remember, the only way to become a member of the Stupid-Smart-People-Club is to proclaim that something is impossible.

Ah, but there's a very big difference between saying something is technically impossible (which is what most people in that club have done) and saying that something is impractical because people are idiots and it only takes a handful to people behaving stupidly to ruin the entire concept.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[wjsteele]

Actually, the reason for the Light Sport Aircraft designation is the reduced certification of the aircraft, not the pilot. FAR Part 23 certified aircraft are a lot more expensive because of all the required paperwork and checks on the aircraft. Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) are much simpler aircraft and also have relaxed rules. They are just as airworthy, but the FAA doesn't certify them, they are certified by the manufacturer to a consensus standard (ASTM.) That allows companies like Terrafugia to produce aircraft that cost consideribly less, however, it does limit the performance and weight limits of the aircraft.

BTW, the Sport Plane certificate is not that limiting... it is far less restrictive than a recreational pilots license. It is basically the equivalent of a Day VFR pilots license with no distance restrictions. You can even enter controlled airspace if you have been endorsed for it. If you are already a private pilot, you can fly with those privelages as long as your not out of medical. If you decide, you can "downgrade" to the LSA simply by not renewing your medical... as long as you have a valid drivers license.

This is a great option for those pilots who think that they might not pass the medical, but are still able to fly.

Bill

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[nidarus]

we will NOT have VTOL flying cars

OK, then how about a helicopter-like (instead of a jet-plane like) flying car?

Flying cars will NOT happen. The general public is far too stupid to own one, and you would have to put in safety systems that make the car refuse to move when periodic service is needed.

Then how about making the "flying car" fully automated? I think that's the solution for normal cars as well (better safety, less traffic, etc).

I don't think it'll be easy, or that it'll be tomorrow, but the demand is certainly there.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Twinbee]

Would even unlimited amounts of portable power not solve the pavement/noise issue?

I wouldn't worry about collisions and stupid flying. They could act like 'repelling magnets' to avoid each other (and buildings) in the sky.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Two things. You're assuming that within the next 60 years, or however long we'll have to wait for "it", we'll still have nothing but 20th century propulsion engines. Who knows what will happen, maybe we'll have something involving supraconductors, magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, some stuff we haven't discovered, and so on. Besides, wrong comparison. The Harrier is a 10 ton jet aircraft. Its exhausts could start a forest fire. Obviously you wouldn't see that on a commercial flying car. So to sum up that point, don't focus so much on what we can do as of the 2000s, no one said the flying car was for tomorrow, and by no one I mean me.

The second thing. I said programmable and automated. Understand foolproof. If stupid people knows how to drive it cars more or less safely and take them to the station for a refill or maintenance, surely they could do the same with a full automated flying car. The "fully automated" thing is really the trivial part, it's much simpler to make an hypothetical VTOL take off from a point, fly on its own to another and land there than it is to drive a car from point A to point B in the traffic (and yet DARPA is showing it's getting there). The general public could be as potent as a retarded gorilla, engineers still could make it so that you just have to press on two buttons to get somewhere. Besides, if it's automated, the thing might as well fly itself in the middle of the night to the garage for an oil change.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Not really, it just pushes the limits. Think of it this way, a car is complicated to operate, but people manage to operate it. Alright, but what if you designed a car for rhesus monkeys? It's just an engineering problem, you have to automate and dumb everything down to what the user really has to do/can do. In the case of a car for rhesus monkeys, you'd make it an fully automated car with for only controls a bunch of buttons representing destinations.

So you see, it's really all an engineering challenge.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

How would a fully automated vehicle be made in the first place so it could be hacked (I assume you mean maliciously/criminally hacked)?

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Not really, although that's actively being worked on (see the DARPA prize for that), but the GP is right, and that's orders of magnitudes more trivial to get that working on a VTOL. In a car, you need to worry about obstacles, the road, people, other drivers, road rules.

With a flying car all the computer has to do would be take off vertically while avoiding any eventual obstacles (trees and what not, fairly trivial), get to a certain altitude, follow rules defined for the purpose to regulate the air traffic of cars while avoiding to rely on a central authority (you won't have air controllers for flying cars), then once above your destination, slowly land on it vertically while still avoiding any eventual trees. Also a bunch of stuff to palliate to eventual dysfunctions, maintenance, and so on... But overall, much simpler.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

We're already moving toward taking control of cars away from people. By the time we have flying cars, they won't be so primitive as to burn holes in driveways. That's dangerous and unaesthetic. The fact that we don't know how this propulsion system works yet - well, that's why we're not building them yet.

And certainly our "driving" will be mediated by computer to give the car efficiency and us fun. There's no reason driving a car, flying or not, can't be a videogame adventure if the driver wants one. Or half-speed, and in pastels. Or just nothing - as should_be_linear implied, hit the "school" and "work" buttons and let me have my laptop and Silly String.

Another way to sell people on not driving their cars is to let them still drive it at first, but just catch them when they fail. Then they'll start turning to the back seat, and digging in pockets and purses and kid's mouths and music collections, and maybe someone will climb into the back seat for something...

Of course, this implies that we take care of a whole bunch of technical and social issues - it could be that the only flying cars are thrown by trebuchet.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[joib]

Who knows what will happen, maybe we'll have something involving supraconductors, magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, some stuff we haven't discovered, and so on.

Or maybe we'll run out of cheap oil, suburbia dies and except for the farmers the rest of us will be forced to adopt a low energy lifestyle, living in dense cities and traveling with electrified mass transit (think cramming like sardines aka the Tokyo subway).

As for automated cars, Brad Templeton (of EFF fame) has a site puffing them.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

What's with all this low energy bullshit? That's like it's a new cult or something. Anyways everybody knows that in the future everything is powered by refuse fusion.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

In a car, you need to worry about obstacles, the road, people, other drivers, road rules.

Whereas with a flying car, who cares about obstacles, people, other drivers, and rules?
</sarcasm>

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Yeeeeah.. I kind of already addressed those points in the rest of my post, if you could have been bothered to read and think it through in its entirety before replying..

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[kalirion]

And U.S. iPhones aren't made to work with providers outside of AT&T. I'm really talking about the owners hacking their own vehicles to gain manual control.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[kehren77]

I'd settle for a hovercar (2-3 feet off the ground). Think of the savings to the government in infrastructure, both in initial cost and in maintenance. No more pot holes to fill, no more road construction season. Just put out some road markers, like they do for snowmobile trails, and away you go.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

Just because you prefix a description a task with "all you have to do", it doesn't make that task straightforward. A couple of examples:

"All you have to do is exceed the speed of light to travel through time."
"All you have to do is get everyone to be excellent to one another to achieve world peace."

Explain to me, then, what you mean by "follow rules defined for the purpose to regulate the air traffic of cars" if those rules don't imply the extremely non-trivial task of making sure nobody crashes into anything.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Well these rules can be simple, but it's not in 1 minute that I'll define a viable set of rules. But they can be deterministically determined pathways, and surveying the area to make sure you're on no collision course with anything (in which case another deterministic thing would determine what each should do). It's just like road rules, except respected by machines. Keeping in mind that in the air your road can be 1,000 feet wide and only one way, I mean, at that point you make the machines do whatever you want.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Oh, well, they can hack their own vehicles at their own risk, but I'm pretty sure that the eventual legal frame for these hypothetical vehicles would be pretty restrictive about manual piloting.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

Keeping in mind that in the air your road can be 1,000 feet wide and only one way, I mean, at that point you make the machines do whatever you want.

There's an old joke that when a physicist is asked how to make a race horse go faster, he replies "First, assume that the horse is a perfect sphere..."

You seem to have no consideration for scalability, no appreciation of weather conditions, no cognisance of cities, no comprehension of determinism, etc.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[petermgreen]

Minor nitpick, the rolls royce pegasus engine that powers the harrier is actually a turbofan. Bypass air comes out the front ports engine exhaust out the back.

Still given the fact it's a low bypass engine even if a mixing system was added (which would probablly significantly increase the weight and bulk) tempreature of the exhaust would probablly still be a problem.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[petermgreen]

There is also the fuel issue, we are probablly heading towards peak oil and may even be there already. Light aircraft already use more fuel than road travel and any kind of VTOL craft will likely use way more.

So in addition to everything you have mentioned we need a new source of cheap portable power before the flying car can become a reality for ordinary people.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

Like I said, all of this is relatively trivial compared to self driving road cars.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

That is an entirely circular argument, and one predicated on proof by assertion.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

What?? I'm talking about algorithms here, comparing algorithms. No idea what you're on.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

You're not comparing algorithms. You're simply stating that the algorithm for self-driving road cars would be easier than the algorithm for self-driving flying cars, without providing a basis for that assertion. Then when I point out what the problems are with your assumptions, you simply repeat your assertion without addressing those problems.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[4D6963]

It's just obvious that it's simpler. Except maybe for the weather part.

Re:we will NOT have flying cars

[hobbit]

It's just obvious that it's simpler.

That'll be why there are so many automatic flying cars on the market!

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know its all James Bond and everything, but the practicality is not there. It reminds me of a swiss army knife. Not a single useful tool in the bunch. (That's why I use a Leatherman)

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

It reminds me of a swiss army knife. Not a single useful tool in the bunch.

Dude, don't knock it just because you don't know how to use it properly. You know, the Swiss army hasn't lost a war in over 200 years.

Obligatory...

[maple_shaft]

1) RTFA

2) Create yet another flying car that has been done and failed countless times before.

3) ????

4) Profit!

Re:Obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually say this every time this comes up:

Putting stuff in the air is doable. Making an aircraft that can be piloted by you average citizen is quite another matter.
Car crashes can be quite bad as it is, but if you add a 1 km fall to every incident, the death toll would surely go up.

We would have to add steel plates to every roof to defend against distracted soccer moms raining down at terminal velocity.

Re:Obligatory...

[Krupuk]

And all the soda cans... and ashtrays... and...

Re:Obligatory...

[aliquis]

So make it go 2-3 meters up, enough to not having to build and maintain roads and get plenty of extra space but still no huge extra impact compared to the stuff you normally have to go thru anyway.

Re:Obligatory...

[Pvt_Ryan]

Car crashes can be quite bad as it is, but if you add a 1 km fall to every incident, the death toll would surely go up.

I fail to see the downside. It's called natural selection.

Re:Obligatory...

[hobbit]

Imagine if we didn't have to build roads because we all had these hovering craft. But what on earth would we call them?

Re:Obligatory...

[aliquis]

Are you joking or just asking?

Kind of hard to tell since you more or less say hover craft :D

Personally I think it would be kind of cool to just be able to zip around a little bit everywhere.

But regarding safety I think all these attempts are wrong and that if we want private persons up in the air we should shot for those air sailthingys with a small engine on a couple of HPs.

I imagine most of them can go down to ground quite safely even if you get an engine failure, I have no idea how often they fall down due to winds and such, gasoline economy would probably be quite ok since they are so light weight, you could travel at varying heights and maybe you could even glide with them if you where skilled enough / had a bigger modell.

Would be so nice with a bicycle in the city and something such for 20km+ trips or something such, imagine the view, short cuts, amount of (traffic) space available, ..

Re:Obligatory...

[aliquis]

Fuck, forgot to add that I doubt a foldable airplane will cut it. Sure it may be somewhat better for carrying luggage / weather protection but as person transport it's such a waste.

Re:Obligatory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Car crashes can be quite bad as it is, but if you add a 1 km fall to every incident, the death toll would surely go up.

I fail to see the downside. It's called natural selection.

As a bonus, these people will likely only be able to crash once.

Re:Obligatory...

[hobbit]

I was indeed alluding to hovercraft. Hovercraft are great for places without roads (like the surface of water!) but they have their own issues, such as handling and fuel economy. If you want to get a few metres above ground, you're looking at a helicopter really, which is even worse. Paramotoring is all well and good when you're the only person doing it in the immediate area, but you'd be a slave to the weather.

Re:Obligatory...

[Auraiken]

Natural selection is only good when it doesn't have the ability to take out people not associated with the idiots who are going to die.

Re:Obligatory...

[aliquis]

Yeah, I doubt scratching the ground all the time is the best method.

When it rains you take the car ;)

Re:Obligatory...

[MaskedSlacker]

Not necessarily true. As long as the idiots remain statistically more likely to die it's all good.

Make sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure not to hit the "transform back to car" button while you're in mid air.

Re:Make sure...

[barocco]

It's funny, or perhaps sad, when on their own website they put "Drive in case of inclement weather" as the first bullet point about safety.

Re:Make sure...

[ja]

Easy, just place the "transform back to car" handle on the outside.

Re:Make sure...

[MaskedSlacker]

Great, you just had to tempt the one moron who was going to try and prove you wrong and do it in flight. Now they are going to have to add a warning sticker that says: "Do not attempt to exit the vehicle and turn the 'Transform Back to Car' handle during flight" after he comes plummeting out of the sky. The upshot of course is that it will make for a better thn usual episode of CSI: the pilot landed one mile away from the crash site. INVESTIGATE!

this sorta thing has been done many times

[wjh31]

and while many of them have taken off, none of them have taken off

Re:this sorta thing has been done many times

[JoeCommodore]

I am more interested in seeing this one actually fly then some hybrid airplane (which has been done before...):

http://www.moller.com/skycar.htm

Re:this sorta thing has been done many times

[2short]

Yeah, I thought that one was really cool when I heard it was in trials, and expected to be on sale soon. They had a bunch of awkwardly-cropped photos hiding the crane they use for "flight" tests. There was a whole big writeup in Popular Mechanics... 20 years ago.

Moller is a bad joke.

Re:this sorta thing has been done many times

[joe_frisch]

The compromises required to make an airplane also work at a road-legal and customer-acceptable car tend to result in really poor airplanes. Heavy tires and suspension, sound insulation, transmission, bumpers. Car engines are usually optimized for good efficiency at about 20% power. Aircraft engines normally operate at 60-80% in cruise. In general it is just easier to drive to the airport, get in your plane and fly. Rent a car at the other end. If the cost of a rental car bothers you, you shouldn't be flying.

First is a little misleading

[_Shad0w_]

Calling it the first flying car is a bit misleading; there are quite a few pre-existing flying cars, it's just none of them was ever a commercial success. There's still an Aerocar about with an airworthiness certificate.

The main problem with a flying car is the number of certificates you need to get in order to be able to use it.

Re:First is a little misleading

[MichaelSmith]

The main problem with a flying car is the number of certificates you need to get in order to be able to use it.

If you owned a plane and a car you would still need both certificates.

It's Not a Flying Car

[Cephacles]

It's a driveable airplane. One key difference is it is marketed to licensed pilots.

I wonder how many airports are out there that have a path from the runway to the road that isn't fenced off or have some other barrier to getting this craft on the road.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[Alarindris]

I would think they all would have a fairly easy way of getting out. Doesn't the mail go through regular passenger planes?

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[Anonymous Coward]

this one?

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[Cephacles]

Yes, but the baggage is transported from the plane to baggage pickup. The mail trucks don't just drive on to the tarmac.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[kae_verens]

are these things not VTOLs? in which case, why would they need a runway?

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[kae_verens]

silly me. picture in article doesn't look remotely VTOL.

but in that case, i don't really see the point - if it's not a VTOL, it would need to take off and land at airports, in which case why not just use an airplane?

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[scharkalvin]

Actually that isn't a problem. There are many general aviation airports that rent hangar space to aircraft owners (in fact almost all airports do). You drive your car onto the airport and park right next to your hangar, get it your plane and take off. In this case you can taxi your airplane off the runway, onto the private airport road, then out of the airport. Remember this is a plane the size of a car with folded wings. No problem!

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost any rural airfield has a direct path from the airstrip to the road. Few have fences or gates of any kind.

On top of that, must suburban airports have direct tarmac access from the parking lot through a gate, easily large enough for a big truck.

As a pilot that frequents a number of such airports, I have a file on my PDA with gate codes for dozens of such airports. As a bonus of being a local pilot, you gain more or less unfettered access to the tarmac, including the fuel station. Ever seen what a sports car does with AV gas in it?

Larger commercial airports also have roads and gates to the tarmac, but they are generally guarded by people, and your main issue isn't the physical barrier so much as the incredulous individuals you'll have to deal with. That being said, no one flies small private planes into or out of commercial airports. If they can avoid it. It's way to much of a hassle.

All that to say, there isn't an issue with access. The issues will be with the DOT, and FAA for the most part. That, and the bizarre looks and incredulous people you'll have to deal with driving/flying something like this.

As a pilot, I have to say it's an intriguing concept, however, it remains to be seen if it's ready for prime time.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[MobyDisk]

Most small untowered airports.

Some of them might have a fence with a gate, but any of the pilots would have the key. It is not uncommon to see people just drive up to the plane, get in, and tax to the runway.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[Lumpy]

Nope no mail on planes, no packages on planes... those UPS and FEDEX planes are all fake cardboard cutouts.

Every airport has an easy way to get cars, trucks, tanks, and other vehicles on the runway.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[jandrese]

You're basically paying $200,000 for the luxury of not having to deal with airport parking.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[sac13]

I wonder how many airports are out there that have a path from the runway to the road that isn't fenced off or have some other barrier to getting this craft on the road.

Virtually all airports I fly my plane into. Where I have my plane tied down, I turn into the airport and drive right out to the parking area and park beside my plane. That's typical of most general aviation airports. The ones that I know of that do have a fence also have a keypad operated gate that allows owners to drive right up to their planes.

Most people think about the airlines and big airports with Class B airspace when they hear about flying. There's about 30-40 times more airports in the US that operate in a much friendlier manner. No TSA. No baggage checks. Hop on the plane and go.

And before anyone starts demeaning it all in a classist attack, my plane gets about 20 mpg at cruise and has monthly payments of only ~ $200. Tie down fees are $25 monthly. And this is all for a plane that can take 2 people up to 300-400 miles on full tanks at about 100 knot cruise speed.

Aviation is a lot more in reach for most than most think. For those that are interested, I'd suggest taking a serious look at it. On average, it's much less of a rich man's hobby than bass fishing.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[Anonymous Coward]

Four words: Fire trucks.

(how do you think they get those on there?)

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[Eil]

I wonder how many airports are out there that have a path from the runway to the road that isn't fenced off or have some other barrier to getting this craft on the road.

All of them. Even the smallest airfield has at least one non-obstructed entrance to the ramp. They have to so that emergency vehicles can get to the runway if somebody's coming in for a crash landing. Larger airports usually have multiple (albeit guarded) gates.

If you were flying into an airport in one of these "flying cars," there no physical reason you couldn't make your landing, taxi onto the ramp, and then drive off the ramp and onto the road with the rest of the motorists. The main obstruction I see would be procedural. I'm not a pilot, but just as you wouldn't be able to drive to the airport and take right off without filing a flight plan first (per the FAA), I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do the reverse without some paperwork or inspection holding you up for awhile.

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[wronskyMan]

my plane gets about 20 mpg at cruise and has monthly payments of only ~ $200. Tie down fees are $25 monthly. Wow.. what model is that if you don't mind me asking (always thought planes ran 100K+); what about maintenance etc?

Re:It's Not a Flying Car

[sac13]

It's a 1976 Cessna 150M. The engine was overhauled a few years back and only has a bit over 300 hours on it. It has a TBO (time between overhaul) of 1800 hours. So, it should last for many more years given that.

Maintenance varies depending on the condition of the plane. I was fortunate to find one in great condition. So, it's not as big of a cost as one might be with a little less care given to it.

The annual inspection, which is required to maintain airworthiness, typically runs $300-500. You could tack on another $500-1000 for miscellaneous items that might need to be repaired throughout the year. My insurance renewal back in November was about $700 for the year.

Most people think that private planes are a big chunk of cash. The reality is that the average private plane costs much less than the average bass fishing rig. Mine was $28k, but you can find many for less than that. The great condition of mine pushed the price up.

Still, even the lower priced one's are airworthy. The FAA requires high standards of maintenance for planes to remain so. That's why you can buy planes that are decades old and they're still in great shape. And, the nice thing about them is that if you keep them maintained and flying, their value increases. I'm not saying you can expect to make money on it, but it's a hell of a lot better deal than some luxury car. And, the funny thing is, people look at it as being more special despite the fact that you've spent much less on a plane than some guy in a new 3 series BMW.

I used to think the same thing about the costs, and I ignored my dream to fly for years. Then, when I finally did the research I was shocked that I had wasted all that time on motorcycles or cars. New planes ARE expensive. But, there's no need to buy one unless you just like to spend money and have plenty of it. A new Cessna 172, which seats 4, cost upwards of $280k. You can get a 80's model in great shape for less than $50k. Or, if you've got the $280k to blow, keep half of it and buy a used DC-3 where you can take the all of your family and friends. :)

The expense is only perception. If you're really interested, check out the AOPA. Flying is in just about anyone's reach. If you can afford a Harley-Davidson, you can afford an airplane.

This isn't a flying car...

[iCEBaLM]

This is a plane which can also stow it's wings and drive on roads. You will need an aircraft pilots licence, you will need to take off and land at aircraft runways. This is not a flying car like the moller which envisioned VTOL from your driveway.

Re:This isn't a flying car...

[QuantumG]

This is not a flying car like the moller which envisioned VTOL from your driveway.

And that's probably a good thing. Why is it that everyone understands that you have to have an Atari 2600 before you can have a PS3 but, when it comes to the "flying car", they expect the future today.

Re:This isn't a flying car...

[Per Wigren]

Because they were supposed to be common 9 years ago.

Re:hope it doesn't run on windows!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOOOOOOOOOOL... not!

Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Viol8]

I wouldn't want to be around when one of these that has done 20,000 miles of potholes, salt, grit and all the other things you drive through on the road that mess up vehicles takes to the air because god knows what it would do to a light airframe over 10 or 20 years. Sure , you're supposed to do maintenance - but that doesn't prevent loads of cars breaking down at the side of the road due to lack of it. If people drive this like a car (even if they're qualified pilots) they may start to treat it like a car rather than like an aircraft and skip on servicing. The rest you can guess.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Tx]

If people drive this like a car (even if they're qualified pilots) they may start to treat it like a car rather than like an aircraft and skip on servicing. The rest you can guess.

That's called evolution, baby! If you're the kind of person who's going to think "hey, that corrosion on the wing supports can wait 'till next year", and your still going to fly the thing, then you deserve what you get.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Viol8]

"That's called evolution, baby! If you're the kind of person who's going to think "hey, that corrosion on the wing supports can wait 'till next year", and your still going to fly the thing, then you deserve what you get."

Yeah , but the people on the ground you land of top of don't.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[miketheanimal]

Thats all very well but: A badly maintained car usually just grinds to a halt. A badly maintained aircraft *falls* onto things.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Lumpy]

anyone that would drive a $200,000+ vehicle in the snow and salt is an idiot, and certainly not able to pass a pilots license requirement. That's the cool part, the pilot license requirement weeds out the idiots.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Rogerborg]

The people on the ground are poor though, so who cares?

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Thumper_SVX]

I can guarantee you that since this is a roadable aircraft and not a flying car, it will be subject to the same inspection and maintenance requirements as a light aircraft.

Reality is, this thing is going to be expensive to own, but no more so than an average light aircraft *and* a car (since as you point out you'll have the same wear and tear as a car with a very rigorous maintenance schedule).

There's a good reason light aircraft fly for 20 years or more; they need to be in order to maintain an airworthiness certificate. This vehicle will be no different.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[ptrace]

I can guarantee that the FAA will not let the owner 'skip' maintenance. Servicing (annuals) are mandated by the FAA and they are far more stringent than anything a car must go through. Since this vehicle is treated like an airplane, it must have follow the same service and inspection regimen as an airplane, otherwise you won't be allowed to fly it (legally). All the people who purchased the Terrefugia are pilots and/or former aircraft owners. They know this. Aircraft are maintained to a much higher standard than automobiles. Much of the private aircraft fleet is >30 years old and still airworthy... this is due to stringent inspection requirements. Engines are overhauled at mandated intervals and major parts are swapped when they hit their useful life. I have a 30 year-old Grumman Tiger that is easily in better shape than the typical 5 year-old automobile. The average yahoo will not be able to fly a Terrafugia. The true everyman aircar is still many years away.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[rwyoder]

I wouldn't want to be around when one of these that has done 20,000 miles of potholes, salt, grit and all the other things you drive through on the road that mess up vehicles takes to the air because god knows what it would do to a light airframe over 10 or 20 years. Sure , you're supposed to do maintenance - but that doesn't prevent loads of cars breaking down at the side of the road due to lack of it. If people drive this like a car (even if they're qualified pilots) they may start to treat it like a car rather than like an aircraft and skip on servicing. The rest you can guess.

Do some homework. In order to be sold to the public, it must be certificated as an *aircraft*. Aircraft must undergo extensive annual inspections performed by certified aircraft mechanics. These inspections are orders of magnitude more thorough than any auto inspection. And if the aircraft is used for commercial purposes, it must go through inspections every 100 hours of use.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[psb777]

Well, either that or they would drive a foreign car.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Joe the Lesser]

So finally the upper class is a literal definition!

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone that would drive a $200,000+ vehicle in the snow and salt is an idiot, and certainly not able to pass a pilots license requirement. That's the cool part, the pilot license requirement weeds out the idiots.

riiiiight. that's why we still hear of commercial pilots who tied one on too much and went to work.

Never kid yourself. A license is a one-time test that can be retaken. Idiocy can pop up at any time.

Nothing is foolproof because fools are just to ingenious.

Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles

[Eil]

That's the cool part, the pilot license requirement weeds out the idiots.

YouTube begs to differ.

As does my father, a private pilot of 15 years.

And of course, I do as well. Someone I used to work with (in I.T.) was not even 20 years old by the time he crashed his first plane. That was during his time off, when he wasn't busy crashing our Cisco routers.

Link to the print version

[DerCed]

Wow, a link to the print-version of the Times article! For a change, I'd like to thank the submitter or editor for their effort!

For the love of God.....

[AnalPerfume]

...don't contract Microsoft to do the in car entertainment.

Re:For the love of God.....

[gmuslera]

Hey, isnt so bad, they will make the fastest cars in history. Wonder what will be the speed when they hit the ground. Maybe even faster than this one

If these do become the norm

[AnalPerfume]

Think of the poor airline pilots, who have 100's of lives on board, restricted lanes to travel in, air traffic control to help guide them....now having to watch out for lunatics in personal flying cars swooping across the front of their cockpits. It'd be an interesting new approach for a terrorist attack.

Re:If these do become the norm

[N1AK]

How is it remotely new? You think Terrorists are waiting for flying cars to use when they can already buy proper aircraft with better lift capacity and speed for about 1/3rd of the price?

A lot of people posting here don't seem to realise that you still need a pilot's license to fly a "flying car". I'm more worried about the ability and safety of the vehicle for ground use than air use, but it's a null and void point as very few will be produced and the ones that are will be driven very little (to airports and back). My hope is that it is a catalyst for the market and brings in more competition.

Re:If these do become the norm

[skiman1979]

Think of the poor airline pilots, who have 100's of lives on board, restricted lanes to travel in, air traffic control to help guide them....now having to watch out for lunatics in personal flying cars swooping across the front of their cockpits. It'd be an interesting new approach for a terrorist attack.

Isn't that what air brakes are for? :-P

I would imagine these flying cars would have their own low-altitude restricted space to fly in. If that's the case, they wouldn't be anywhere near commercial jets, except maybe during the jets' take-off and landing.

Wouldn't these things also be linked to air traffic control?

Re:If these do become the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

They WOULD need to follow a flight plan, and in order to RETAIN that coveted pilots license, would need to have proper takeoff checklist procedures performed.

Re:If these do become the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

It happens, and it doesn't have to be terroristic for it to be terrifying.

Re:If these do become the norm

[HTH NE1]

You think Terrorists are waiting for flying cars to use

I can think of thousands of people just itching for the opportunity to fly cars into parking structures.

Transformation

[Anonymous Coward]

which can transform itself from a two-seater road car to a plane in 15 seconds

That's nothing. I bet I could transform it from an expensive plane into a crater in under 1 second.

Border control just got more complicated

[AnalPerfume]

Not to mention a lot more expensive. These things would be a criminals dream.

Re:Border control just got more complicated

[skiman1979]

What about Military bases? Criminals wouldn't have to worry about those pesky guarded gates anymore. Wait until 100s of commuters decide to attempt to commute to work in these things on a Monday morning.

Re:Border control just got more complicated

[Attaturk]

Not to mention a lot more expensive. These things would be a criminals dream.

No more so than helicopters or any other light aircraft for that matter, which are usually easier to get your hands on than flying cars. Even a home-grown balloon can get you over a fence. ;)

Indeed. OTOH Here's a real transport revolution -

[Colin Smith]

The first real PRT system is nearly ready to enter active service at Heathrow Airport.

http://www.atsltd.co.uk/news/29/32/First-Flight-at-Heathrow/d,News%20Display/

 

Here's hoping that this is a success

[optkk]

because according to TV, I should have had my first flying car 10 years ago. DAMMIT! I WANT MY FLYING CAR!

The first one?

[captainpanic]

I believe that this is not the first flying car as stated in the article. As early as the 1950 were there flying cars. The article further fails to mention the real fuel efficiency. 500 miles on 1 tank - quite remarkable if the tank is 1 liter... but if it's a 200 liter tank, then it's not very efficient, is it? And as mentioned in the article: you still need to take off from a normal airport, and not from your driveway or garden. So... how much sense does it make to spend 200,000 on the flying car when a Cessna costs about half of that, and a car too? I'm just trying to find arguments other than "I don't want more airplanes" - noise, safety and the poor birds are some other standard arguments against this contraption. Sorry for being negative. Donuts, anyone?

Re:The first one?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

500 miles on 1 tank - quite remarkable if the tank is 1 liter... but if it's a 200 liter tank, then it's not very efficient, is it

If you look at the specs...

Cruise: 100 kts (115 mph) Fuel burn: 5 gph Fuel tank: 20 gallons On road: 30 mpg, 65 mph

5 gph / 20 gallons, 4 hours per tank at 115 mph, so assuming you're spending most of the flight in the equivalent of "cruise" you're looking at the equivalent of 20-25mpg.

Considering the speed you're traveling, that's pretty darned good. OTOH, you're not going to buy a plane for its fuel efficiency...

Re:The first one?

[Endo13]

So... how much sense does it make to spend 200,000 on the flying car when a Cessna costs about half of that, and a car too?

None at all. A plane that can also drive on the road is practically useless. You still have to have a pilot's license, you still have to take off from an airport. And because it also functions as a car, it's a lot less efficient to operate, and a lot more expensive to build. And you're also dead right about this not being the first flying car. Even if it actually were a flying car, it's not the first. I'm fairly certain though, that it's still going to be a while before we see any real flying cars in use.

She will get stuck at security checks...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Drive on the runaway
2. Off the runaway to the Airport, assuming they offer you way-to-runaway service, which may cost well as much as $200000 depending on the airport
3. Get to the entrance to the runaway specially made for you
4. Get out of the car
5. Pass Metal Detector, X-Ray all of your luggage, wait until officers and dogs have thoroughly checked the contents of your car
6. Sort out what is needed (papers and controls) for your passengers, too
7. Enter the runaway area
8. Wait for a slot..

Seriously people, this may be good for amateurs middle of nowhere but a bit of social rules have to change for it to really work around cities where it's needed, for example: specialized mini runaways along the runaway. Then can you imagine what the already hard traffic control will look like? And what about security if your car gets stolen? No way.

The current scheme separates too strictly between driveway and runaway, for need and because it should be so. I see no immediate success for this idea.

Re:She will get stuck at security checks...

[Glonoinha]

Yea, if only there was a separate section of the airport where privately owned small (Cessna) sized planes were kept, where their owners could drive up basically right to their own area to transition from their cars into their private Cessnas, then fly off using the same runways that all the other planes use. Too bad that doesn't exist in reality. Someone should invent that.

Re:She will get stuck at security checks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ho! Yes! Is funny because all airports already have that!

Re:She will get stuck at security checks...

[ardin,mcallister]

yeah, they do. "General Aviation" sections are at every airport, whether or not you know they are.

Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

How pathetic we must seem to the future-predictors of the past. OK we've come through with Cel phones, microwave ovens, the Space Shuttle and the Internet, but where the hell are the Hovercars? It's 2008 and all we can come up with is to reuse disappointing airplane technology?

We need GPS guided space taxis that take us anywhere on the Earth within 2-3 hours (essentially what the Space Shuttle has been doing for over 25 years)-- that should hold us over until we develop something like a Gravity Distortion Engine for day trips to the Moon...

It won't be most people

[MikeRT]

Ever heard of this thing called a "pilot license?" Yeah... "most people" neither have them nor an opportunity to get one, and they'll be required to operate one of these things.

Re:It won't be most people

[darth dickinson]

Unfortunately, since this thing could feasibly take off from any straight stretch of road, what's to stop the "I can fly MS Flight Sim, I can fly one of these" types from just finding a nice stretch of road and taking off?

Of course, taking off and piloting are the (relatively) easy parts, so maybe the problem will take care of itself the first time they do an approach :)

Re:It won't be most people

[Hertzyscowicz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it use to be the same for driver's licences? It might be that when "flying cars" or whatever you want to call them start working their way into the mainstream, so will flight schools.

I'm sure that if you had asked someone in the late 19th century, they'd have told you that a car going as fast as 60 miles per hour would be so hazardous a contraption as to require a skilled racer to drive.

Holy cow

[Verteiron]

I SAW one of these things on I-80, and spent some time with Google trying to figure out what the thing was. Unfortunately it was being towed, rather than driving under its own power, but still. The wings were folded up but there's no mistaking the shape of the thing.

Neat.

Mr Fusion Reactor To Fly Reusable Spacecars

[troll8901]

"Mr Fusion Ltd has designed a nuclear fusion reactor small enough to fit into a car, yet powerful enough to power the car into the stratosphere (about 15 to 50 km high)...

Output power is at least 1.21 Gigowatts, equivalent to a lightning strike...

Will be available from 2015 onwards..."

I see no immediate success for this idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and a brand new series of amazing runaway car-chasing shows, having the car actually chasing the chopper of the press.

Revenge!

[chrysalis]

Flying cars are great, you can now get revenge when a bird shits on you.

Order now, and as a special bonus...

[Lord Bitman]

Order now, and as a special bonus you also get: It's butt ugly!

Strange in a society where streamlined aerodynamic everything tends to be viewed as beautiful.

It

[Konster]

It is a very bad airplane. It's complicated in areas that general aviation spent the last 30 years ironing out complications. There are very strong reasons why the small/private aircraft industry uses designs that are ancient...they tend to work, and why they stop working is known too. This thing is whole new WHY DID IT BECOME A LAWN DART let's learn new things.

Yeah, well them ain't your teeth they are digging out of the ground 30 feet short of the runway...they are (were) mine.

If you want a bad car, rent a Chevy Aveo. If you want a bad plane, rent in Mexico. If you want a good plane, rent a Cessna 150 in the USA. Want to meld a good car and a good plane? You can't. People have been trying this for 50 years and no one has succeeded. A good car cannot be a good plane and vice versa. They are mutually exclusive concepts.

Believe it when I see it

[SirGarlon]

TFA says words to the effect, "First delivery anticipated 2010." Along with Windows 7 and Duke Nukem Forever. Whether the company will still be around in 2010 to deliver the orders they've already taken is very much an open question. Whether these aircraft will be street-legal in any state in the U.S. is another open question.

Re:Believe it when I see it

[Spadefinger]

TFA says words to the effect, "First delivery anticipated 2010." Along with Windows 7 and the Moller Skycar.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Indeed. OTOH Here's a real transport revolution

[LingNoi]

It's looking very cool, I can't wait to fly just to try it out.

I hope the government decides to use this system in the future however I couldn't really think where because of human traffic making it more dangerous.

Like my dad said...

[Digana]

Like my dad, with 35,000+ hours of flight accumulated before his death said... "nothing that flies is a toy".

In 2009* also available in gyrocopter

[CBravo]

At http://www.pal-v.com/ they have a gyrocopter version. I think it looks way cooler (no product photos yet though).

Disclaimer: I know an employee of this company.

Like we really need more fuel gobblers.

[tjstork]

Flying cars are one of those sci-fi ideas that are good on paper but right now, not in practice. How much fuel does a flying car take to fly? Cars have rolling resistance, for sure, but keeping an aircraft up in the air would take more energy, and hence, more fuel, would it not?

Re:Like we really need more fuel gobblers.

[HTH NE1]

keeping an aircraft up in the air would take more energy, and hence, more fuel, would it not?

Due to aerodynamic lift, keeping a structurally sound aircraft up in the air is simply a matter of keeping it moving forward parallel to the ground at a sufficient speed.

Re:Like we really need more fuel gobblers.

[tjstork]

Due to aerodynamic lift, keeping a structurally sound aircraft up in the air is simply a matter of keeping it moving forward parallel to the ground at a sufficient speed.

Yes, and you have to continually apply force sufficient to lift the entire weight of the aircraft against the force of gravity. If the car is planted on terra firma, you need very little force at all. That is why a 3000 hp engine is sufficient to move a mile long train that with a mass of thousands of tons, but we have yet to build an aircraft that can actually haul as much as a train can push.

Re:Like we really need more fuel gobblers.

[HTH NE1]

Yes, and you have to continually apply force sufficient to lift the entire weight of the aircraft against the force of gravity.

Bullshit.

If you're in VTOL like a Harrier jet, sure, but it doesn't take as much force to push an aircraft forward such that there's enough air pressure below the wing vs. above the wing to make the air pressure differential push the aircraft up than it does to push entirely against the force of gravity. A VTOL craft expends a hell of a lot more fuel in the take-off and landing vertically than it does doing the same horizontally. You certainly don't keep it in VTOL mode during flight!

Consider gliders which produce no thrust of their own, yet they stay aloft carrying their own weight plus a human pilot (or two when training) just from their forward momentum and can travel miles without seeking any updrafts.

If you think an aircraft's engines going dead means it immediately falls straight down like a rock, you've been watching too many cartoons.

We don't have flying trains because it is impractical to build large enough wings with sufficient lift to carry that much mass. It would be equally impractical to build interconnected trucks that long to drive along the roads. Trains are an example of Newton's laws, specifically that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. It takes a lot of power to get it going, it takes a lot to stop it, but it doesn't take nearly as much to keep it moving.

Coincidence?

[Viceroy Potatohead]

January: Obama becomes president.
One month later: Flying cars.

What's next?
Thanksgiving: Immortality.
Christmas: Girlfriend!

Clearly, all this fuss about Obama has been well placed! He's not even in power yet and the flying cars are already on the way! :P

Re:Coincidence?

[commodoresloat]

Christmas: Girlfriend!

One word: HOPE

Re:Coincidence?

[sac13]

January: Obama becomes president. One month later: Flying cars. What's next? Thanksgiving: Immortality. Christmas: Girlfriend! Clearly, all this fuss about Obama has been well placed! He's not even in power yet and the flying cars are already on the way! :P

Now you understand why the Christians have been excited for so long about the second coming...

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, of course you meant to say:
"Flying cars, the legacy of the Bush administration!"

After all, if something bad happens, you'll still give him credit at least a couple of years *after* he leaves office so it's only fair to give him this feather in his cap.

Another flying car

[Andy_R]

This one has already been test flown, and is about to set off on a publicity gathering expedition from London to Timbuktu.

More details courtesy of BBC News here. Basically it's a beachbuggy/powered paraglider combo. The guy behind it seems to know what he's doing with paragliders, he built and co-piloted the one that reached the top of mount everest.

Flying car

[Fallus Shempus]

I'd just like to point out this at quarter of the cost

Crashed....

[mrops]

Not sure about the car, but the website sure crashed!

Hope the car is better.

Re:Crashed....

[captain_dope_pants]

SNAKES ON A CAR !

Re:Crashed....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7821979.stm

Really, who needs wings? :)

Thankfully, you're wrong...

[Chibi Merrow]

Well, the rules above ground are drafted for professionals with thousands of logged hours.

No they're not. You can get a Light Sport license with 20 hours of flight time. That only lets you fly a very limited class of aircraft in VFR, of course. But even a full fledged private license only takes about 40 hours, and instrument rating is only about 100 hours total. At that point you're allowed to fly IFR flight plans in controlled airspace the same as any "professional" pilot (though as a private pilot you're probably limited to Victor airways, since jetways require a jet, which will run a couple million...).

So really, "the rules above ground" are for anyone and everyone, not just people who fly for a living.

Re:Thankfully, you're wrong...

[samkass]

Just to clarify, Private Pilots can fly in any VFR (Visual Flight Rules) airspace. With just the private pilot ticket (no further endorsements) you can fly a plane up to (but not including) 200hp, fixed gear, fixed single prop, below 18,000 feet, and a sufficient distance away from clouds to qualify for VFR. You need a current third-class medical and a bi-annual flight review and you're good to go with yourself and/or friends anywhere you want.

To traverse class B or C airspace you need a working radio and transponder in the plane and you need to obey the controller. In class D, G, or unclassified airspace you just need to not hit anything.

Also, these days I'm not aware of many weekend fliers who can get the license in 40 hours. To do that you pretty much need to go to a focused school and be on an airline pilot track. I'd say 50-60 hours is about average.

Re:Thankfully, you're wrong...

[yabos]

IFR is reportedly the hardest rating to get, even harder than commercial or CFI. It's extremely useful but takes a lot of hard work.

Re:Thankfully, you're wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

To traverse class B or C airspace you need a working radio and transponder in the plane and you need to obey the controller. In class D, G, or unclassified airspace you just need to not hit anything.

In class B, C, or D airspace you need a transponder and 2 way radio. In class B you need a Mode C transponder. To enter class B you need a specific clearance first. In B, C, and D you need to be in communication with ATC.

D is not uncontrolled airspace. E is also not uncontrolled airspace but you don't need as much crap. G is uncontrolled. There's no such thing as unclassified airspace in the United States.

Re:Thankfully, you're wrong...

[samkass]

Thanks. It's been over 6 years since I've flown, and I guess it shows.

My point was that a lot of people imagine that all the planes in the sky are constantly under supervision by people on the ground. In reality, there are a huge number of small planes flying in class E and G that don't even require radios.

Re:Thankfully, you're wrong...

[Chibi Merrow]

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that a non-instrument rated Private License lacked the ability to do those things, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just trying to point out that the privilege to fly is available with only a minimum investment of time, and the ability to take advantage of the entire airspace regardless of time of day or weather was available to someone after only about 100 hours of private flying time, not "thousands of hours" of "professional" flight.

And you're right, normally it does take more than 40 hours, but all that's legally *required* by the FAA is 40 hours. :)

Legal issues surrounding fuel

[petermgreen]

one thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the FAQ is how they are getting arround the legal issues surrounding fuel.

IIRC they claim the transition can run on both 100LL and some kind of road fuel. This raises two issues

1: I was under the understaning that leaded petrol was banned on the road, so if you ever fill up on 100LL you would have to clean out your tank before driving on the road.
2: I was under the impression that catalytic converters were incompatible with leaded petrol and yet were required for road vehircles.

Is my understanding wrong? have they got some kind of exception?

Re:Legal issues surrounding fuel

[HTH NE1]

Perhaps it has two fuel tanks?

Re:Legal issues surrounding fuel

[joib]

The probably use normal mogas all the time. The engine is designed to work with it, so there's no need to use the (very expensive) 100LL.

Re:Rules? (Observations)

[starglider29a]

not like any yuppie with 200K is going to be able to fly it.

No, but any pilot who wants to indenture himself as an air-cabby could make a metric a55-load of cash.

Simple as that

well, except for the transition from air to road. I didn't RTFA, but it doesn't matter. Say yer cruising from SF to LA and you decide to stop at the Rock Store for some french toast. What is to stop you from setting the thing down on an out of the way road and driving in? Yeah. Rules. What else? (I know the short answers, but will let y'all cover them. GPS chips, etc.

As an aero engineer, I'm excited at this possible advancement. But as someone who lives in a society run by lawyers, cybercops and pirates, I'm not that excited. It will die a smothering death, even if not ONE fatality ever results.

9/11 and flying cars

[whereiswaldo]

I'm surprised flying cars would ever be allowed given the Sept. 11 attacks _unless_ flying was secured and "smartly" automated.

Re:9/11 and flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

You underestimate the influence of those with pilot's licenses in the USA.

Re:9/11 and flying cars

[2short]

Yes, that's why small planes have been banned.

Finally a flying car....

[Anonymous Coward]

and all I had to give up was my left foot.

Ultimate getaway car

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of those who have ordered this, has a criminal record for bank robbing etc. ? Esp. if it is not evident that it can fly ...

slashdotted already

[josteos]

At least we know their server has taken off

Not the first flying car

[psb777]

This is not the first flying car. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar for perhaps the most successful example. Several examples were made and flown. One still flies.

Yogi Berra?

[Joe the Lesser]

is that you?

Has anyone thought about flying these at night?

[pmandryk]

You're leaving a party...one that happens to be 800 miles from home and it's 2 am.
Are you the "Designated Pilot" or the "Designated crasher" because chances are you're gonna hit something in the dark.
Last time I looked, my headlights really sucked when it was fully dark out.
Maybe we should just get really tall lamp posts.

At 200K USD

[TheHawke]

That's dirt cheap for a brand new licensed civil aviation aircraft!
Consider a used 1996 Columbia loaded to the gills with glass cockpit and anti-icing gear, nearly 300K.
But you can latch onto a used Seawind Amphibian for 150K easy, and have the ability to park it on a body of water of your choice and camp on the shore.

You can't fly near DC w/o permission

[jjo]

It's silly to think that a flying car like this is more of a threat than a similar, conventional light aircraft, since it requires an airport to shift between "Car" amd "Airplane" modes.

Light aircraft are now prohibited from coming anywhere near Washington DC without permission. Violating this rule will result in a friendly fighter-jet escort. Seriously violating this rule will result in a friendly barrage of surface-to-air missiles. :-)

Re:You can't fly near DC w/o permission

[david_thornley]

At the end of World War II, Admiral Halsey sent an order to the Fleet assuring them that there was now peace with the Japanese, there would be no hostilities, and therefore any Japanese aircraft getting uncomfortably close was to be "shot down in a friendly sort of manner".

No

[mqduck]

One word: air traffic accidents.*

It should go without saying that these are really for novelty only. The "flying cars" we all demand from the 21st Century are not just cars that fly, but cars that *hover* a la /The Jetsons/. This is just a car with wings.

*(No, you don't get a prize for seeing what's wrong with this sentence. :-P)

Now I just need a willing girl

[Profane MuthaFucka]

And the two of us can join the "Sea level high club."

Same As Tesla: +1, Informative

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of business by 2010.

Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout

Drive AND fly without getting off your butt!

[rusl]

This will really make the world a better place. We can fly to the drivethrough and watch a movie at the drive in from ABOVE everybody else... So very useful. Install a toilet in the pilots seat and it's just about purfekt!

trying not to pessimize

[MegaFur]

I want to not say that this is junk. I really want to. I mean, maybe *someday* something cool will come out of this project.

But this car isn't it. See, the thing is, actually flying a plane can easily get many orders of magnitude more difficult than driving a car. Why? Well, because if you mess up while driving a car, cliffs notwithstanding, all of the things you might crash into are generally *in front* of you. With a plane, they could easily be above or below you. Oh yes, and there's *always* the ground.

If you run out of gas in a car, you're screwed, but you will probably be ok with walking. If you run out of gas in a plane, you're really, *really* screwed.

Before any pilot takes a plane into the air, they are expected to complete a pre-flight check list of the plane to mitigate the chance of crashing in a fire-y ball of death. That usually doesn't happen with cars.

Still, if enough people get these things, then maybe we'll create an auto-fly system like in Back to the Future 2. That was pretty cool.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

quick, wake up

[Anonymous Coward]

all those people on /. who requested to be left alone until the flying car was invented!

PFFT.

[M0b1u5]

All the disadvantages of both a car and a plane, and the advantages of neither!

Brilliant!

Two words: George Jetson n/t

[Anonymous Coward]

no text.

I'd rather have the flying dunebuggy!

[BikeHelmet]

http://www.skycarexpedition.com/about_skycar.php

Because...
-It's cheaper.
-It's cooler.
-It's a dunebuggy.

All good reasons IMO!

Re:I'd rather have the flying dunebuggy!

[Mogster]

From the site:

On 14th January 2009 the team will embark on an incredible maiden voyage from London to Tombouctou, across the Sahara desert.

Looking at that site I expected to see the name Phileas Fogg. Around the World in 80 Days.. anyone?

And here I thought you'd be talking about

[Mycroft Holmes IV]

the Taylor Aerocar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar

One is for sale on ebay at $3.5 million.

Deduce the costs of road-maintenance!

[Kaukomieli]

200k might look expensive, but if one takes into account that instead of tarmac-roads it would be enough to have "grass-avenues" where todays problems of soil-sealing, rainwater, aquaplaning and the like are unheard off the macroeconomic cost might not be significantly different then today.
"We need a beltway!" - "Ok, I get the lawnmower!"

Unfortunately this is an utopian dream, since it would require widespread adoption and tearing up roads already in existence when a sufficient proportion of cars is capable of flying. Nevertheless, I like the thought of it.

Terrafugia Web site...

[TJNoffy]

Gotta wonder about a flying car whose company's Web site is parked at GoDaddy.com. If they skimped on their Web site, what did they skip on designing and building the car/plane???