Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BiPod Flying Car Makes (Short) Test Flights

Posted by Soulskill on from the enjoy-your-lawsuit-from-apple-over-the-name dept.

Zothecula writes "The team at Scaled Composites pulled out all the stops to realize the final design of the company's founder and former CTO, Burt Rutan, ahead of his retirement in April earlier this year. In just four months, the Scaled Composites team went from beginning the preliminary design to the first flight of the 'BiPod,' a hybrid gasoline-electric flying car that grew out of a program to develop a rapid, low-cost electric test bed using as many off-the-shelf components as possible."

9 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Not a flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Needs a runway to take off...

    1. Re:Not a flying car by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Aircraft have to be light to fly. Ground vehicles carry extra weight to handle impact by other vehicles. I'd like to see how they are going to incorporate bumpers, crumple zones, airbags, side impact protection, etc that make a vehicle safe on the road. Any vehicle light enough to be used as an aircraft would be weak enough to get a one star crash rating. I would like to see what would happen to a BiPod if it was hit head on by a Suburban doing 60 miles an hour.

      In fact the more I look at the vehicle the more I think that it will never be a real product. There are certain minimum safety standards for vehicles driven on the road. One main one is bumpers. I see no bumpers on this vehicle. I doubt very much if it would pass any DoT standards as a legal road vehicle. I looked at the company web site, http://www.scaled.com/projects/bipod, and noticed a couple of things. First BiPod is a test bed not a prototype. Second they use the term "roadable" and not "street legal". "Roadable" just means that it is able to drive on a read not that it can legally drive on a highway with other vehicles as "street legal" implies.

      Another point that seems to be missed is that the propellers have not even been fitted to the BiPod. The "flights" are accomplished by driving the aircraft down the runway using the rear wheels for propulsion, lifting off and gliding back to the ground. At this point it is not a flying car; at best it is a gliding car. Talk to me when you can fly further than the Wright Flier

    2. Re:Not a flying car by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One has nothing to do with the other. The fact you think it does is extremely weird.

      With your completely insane and illogical definition, many helicopters are not helicopters. Yes, that's right, when many helicopters are fully loaded, operate at high altitude, or operate in hot/humid environments,they too require a runway for take off. Here is a training video so you can see what it looks like. Hmmm. Very airplane-like. So its settled - helicopters are no longer helicopters. That's for enlightening us.

    3. Re:Not a flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Buying Burt Rutan an ultralight for his retirement? I can think of a few other retirement gifts that make that much sense.

      Let's get Steve Jobs a phone that can do internet and maybe a nice turtleneck.

      We'll buy Woz a book on electronics.

      We'll get Donald Knuth a book on algorithms and some typesetting software.

      And Linus can have a textbook on OS development.

  2. apple lawsuit by cdxta · · Score: 3, Funny

    apple lawsuit over name in 3...2...?

    1. Re:apple lawsuit by rossdee · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. The term 'bipod' has been in use for over a century, as a 2 legged mount for a rifle or light machine gun.

  3. Congratulations! by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

    * Your invention requires pilots to attach the wings themselves every time they want to fly, which must require the help of a friend or two,
    * Your plane shuts the pilot in a separate compartment from the only passenger seat,
    * They have to trade seats when the pilot wants to switch from flying to driving (or vice versa),
    * The passenger has no ability to take the controls in an emergency,
    * It looks odd in the air and downright silly on the road,
    * And you picked a gimmicky pop-culture-based name that will piss off a major corporation!

    You must be an engineer! Welcome to Slashdot!

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  4. It's not a flying car by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2

    I wish journalists would learn the difference between a flying car and a street-legal airplane.

    --

    Technoli
  5. Re:In USA, you need flying Humvee! by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2

    I think the big problem is that in the USA, you will need to build flying Humvees to get this idea accepted. Anything smaller will be seen as an insult to American integrity, and not safe on the roads

    Way ahead of you: DARPA's Flying humvee