Slashdot Mirror
Flying Car Passes First Flight Test
waderoush writes "Terrafugia — the Massachusetts company building a 'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me) — revealed at a press conference Wednesday that the Transition vehicle has been taken aloft for its maiden flight. The craft, which can fly up to 460 miles at 115 mph and then fold up its wings for 65-mph highway driving, was the subject of two hotly debated Slashdot posts on May 8 and May 13 of last year. The company said the first flight took place in Plattsburgh, NY; retired Air Force Colonel Phil Meteer was at the controls."
This has been beaten to death over and over again, and I thought that, by now, people would understand that this product isn't a Jetson's "Flying Car," but already, with just two comments, we've got someone confused on the subject.
This is not a Jetson's style "Flying Car" for everyone to keep in their driveways. It is a plane that can fold its wings and has enough lights such that it is street legal. It is meant as something for private pilots (with pilot licenses) such that they can store their planes at home and "drive" them to the local airport before taking off on a pleasure flight.
It is NOT meant for people to fly to work after taking off from their garages, merging onto the skyway, and passing some old geezers flying outdated DeLoreans.
It's just a plane that you can also legally 'drive' on the road. That's it.
Part of the pre-takeoff checklist for every aircraft I've ever seen is "FLIGHT CONTROLS: FREE AND CORRECT". You move the stick and make sure the control surfaces move in the proper direction. It's not just (or even primarily) for detecting sabotage; it's because mechanics have been known to hook cables up backwards during maintenance.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
No. The FAA has a new license category, I believe called Sport Light. It's easier to get and does not require an air traffic controller. This new license is what has been driving (no pun intended) the production of these new flying cars/roadable aircraft.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
You don't need clearance from anyone to fly an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (class G - below 700 ft or below 1200 ft near uncontrolled airports).
Further, you can fly VFR in class E (pretty much everywhere except near airports, and below 18000 ft) without any clearance whatsoever. In fact, you are not required to talk to anyone at all if you don't want to.
This makes it a much better aircraft, but as always causes HUGE problems on the ground. It causes huge air-drag, even when foled up. They need to do it the other way. Make a good car that can also fly. Why? Because if flight is your major interest, then you always will need.
Specifically, go the powered parachute route. (Basic, non-street legal version here: http://www.easyflight.com/)
Your wing needs to be packable, not merely foldable - once. Once you do that, make it street legal, like this: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/the-worlds-firs.html
Yes, it is a pusher prop instead of the more tradional forward based properller. This means the prop is not blocking the driver's view.
But the most important thing is that wing is CHEAP, and when not being used to fly, can get packed away into the trunk of your car.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Supposedly the video is only of the maiden flight. The article said they made several more "real" flights.
One thing that was disconcerting to me though, was the amount of elevator it took to get airborne. That seemed to me like a not well balanced (CG) aircraft.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Don't care what naysayers are spouting. I want one. And I'm nowhere near super rich (lower middle class, actually). Sure, I'd need a pilot's license -- they don't just give those things away like they do with driver's licenses.
Sure, the price tag is a bit steep -- about twice the cost of a Cessna 162 (a two-seat light sport plane) yet only 2/3 the cost of a Cessna 172 (4-seat personal aircraft).
It comes down to desire and value.
If you desire something and that thing has value to you, then it's worth having and you work towards it.
Apparently, enough people have the desire and perceive value in it to justify its production.
Probably not bad. My Diamond DA20 gets 29mpg in cruise.
...and does not require an air traffic controller.
Eh???? You can legally fly *any* airplane without talking to air traffic control with a conventional pilot's license, as long as you remain clear of certain types of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D airspace, specifically).
Of course, your personal 747 won't do you much good if you remain clear of Class A airspace, and you'd better have a really big back yard to build your private 10,000 foot airstrip on so you don't have to fly in Class D airspace.....
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The problem with self-driving cars is that they ALL have to be self-driving for it to work properly.
Wrong. There have already been successful completely automated cars driven on motorways which could overtake other cars when it needed to. And this was over 10 years ago... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUREKA_Prometheus_Project
First of all, it's a Sport Pilot license that allows you to fly Light Sport Aircraft (which are not certified aircraft, by the way--the FAA only certifies that they are not certified aircraft).
Secondly, as others have pointed out, whether you talk to a controller is exclusively determined by what type of airspace you are in, though your license and ratings may preclude you from flying in certain types (Class A, for example exists only at altitudes for which you need an IFR rating, and large Class Bs are often (on a case-by-case basis) off-limits to holders of Student Pilot licenses.
And finally, the purpose of the LSA category and Sport Pilot License is to reduce to cost of flying--which the vehicle in the article doesn't do. I can buy, today, (if I had the money) a number of other LSAs from manufacturers with longer track records for roughly $100k less than I might be able to buy this vehicle some years from now. You could rent a pretty nice car more than 1000 times before you made up that difference. Even then, you're never going to come out ahead after you pay for insurance--which costs more, insuring a $100k airplane, that is virtually guaranteed never to get into a fender-bender with a car plus a $20k car that drives on public streets; or insuring a $200k vehicle that drives on public streets?