Well, the price tag looks prohibitive for mere mortals, but there seems to be two potential candidates for the role. Well, OK, the PAL-V is more of a flying motorcycle, but whatever.
A key thing is going to be the license(s) required. Not a problem for me - assuming either or both of these get off the ground (>snerk<) with my private pilot license I’ll be able to check out in one if I can scrape the bucks together (I’m pretty sure I’d have to buy used, not new). Well, OK, I’ll have to get rotorcraft added to my license but under Sport Pilot rules that wouldn’t be much of an obstacle to me, as it would be an add-on and not an entire new license. I’ve flown Rotax engines, with proper care they’re not bad performers (I’ve actually had more engine failures in certified aircraft engines like Continental and Lycoming as opposed to Rotax). The fact you can land this and convert to driving mode would, I hope, reduce the motivation to press onward in inclement weather when you really shouldn’t be flying which is a significant killer of light aircraft pilots.
What makes me think these are actual contenders is that they’ve both actually flown in real flights. The biggest obstacle now looks to be the price tag.
I’m still not seeing it. Flying cars are nothing new. The Terrafugia adds the folding wing to a very old concept. The gyro looks like a maintenance nightmare, and a falling out of the sky nightmare (I don’t think a folding rotor is a good idea). They don’t attract me, but the general coolness factor is there, and I understand the appeal to many.
Currently flying cars are simply planes/helicopters/autogyros that can (technically) be driven on a street.
That is not a flying car. A flying car, conceptually, is something that can take off from your house, bring you to the office or supermarket, where you land, do your thing, then take off from the parking lot to fly home. What we actually have is a plane/helicopter/gyro that can be easily stored in your driveway instead of the local airport.
My idea of a flying car is a completely autonomous vehicle that happens to have a passenger compartment. Something you can summon with your smartphone and that goes away when you arrive at your destination.
Jesse James’ Esparante actually flew - though not very well
The Henry Dreyfuss Convaircar and the The Taylor Aerocar actually flew back in the 40’s
The Tampier Roadable flew back in the 20’s
Really, the problem is that cars are too heavy to fly and planes are too delicate for traffic. That’s a problem that’s been around for 100 years and isn’t going to change any time soon.
yeah, there may be some overly rich people that may buy a Terrafugia as a novelty, but it’s not a very good car and it’s not a very good plane. As an aircraft, it performs about like a Cessna 150 - which you can pick up in good used condition for about $15,000. That’s about $275,000 cheaper than the Terrafugia. How many taxi rides back and forth to the airport can you buy with $275,000?
The Terrafugia actually can be driven around like a car, to the store or whatever. I’m not sure that’s their best application, but apparently they are roadworthy and supposedly get 35 mpg on the road. They look about the size of some of the newer “Smart Cars” and electrics I’ve been seing lately.
However, your point about landing at the supermarket does bring up the issue of local laws regarding landing off-airport and airspace issues.
The use of composites and other new materials, however, result in the same strength/durability for less weight. In fact, a lot of cars are incorporating those same materials in their construction since reduced weight improves gas mileage and that’s a selling point these days.
I’m not sure the “delicacy” issue is the deciding factor here, as motorcycles give little or no protection to their rider(s) yet have been and remain popular.
As I said, the price tag is prohibitive. However, I disagree with your assertion that aircraft in the same performance range as a Cessna 150 are somehow not very good. If they were total crap there wouldn’t be so many of them still flown, they stopped making them in the mid-70’s and yet they are still as persistent as a heat rash in summer - little bumps everywhere.
New airplanes are expensive - a new C-172, the C-150’s slightly larger brother, is something like $250,000 to $300,000+
Full-plane parachutes are being retrofitted to a lot of older airplanes as well. Brewha’s hypothetical used C-150 can have one installed for around $10k, which would make a C150 w/chute still an order of magnitude cheaper than a new Terrafugia. Except that you can’t legally drive a C150 on the road in most places but apparently the Terrafugia is street legal.
OK, my previous post was overly simplistic since I didn’t feel like typing a ton.
When I say that airplanes are too delicate, I’m not talking about crash protection. When an airplane is on the ground, it’s either taxiing (driving ) very slowly, or it is driving very quickly on a very well maintained FOD free runway. What if you are driving your terrafugia at 62 MPH and hit a pot hole? What if you run over a chunk of semi retread? What if you parallel park and bump the curb? What if the guy behind you parallel parks and bumps your vehicle and you don’t know it? What if you get doored in the parking lot?
Everyone one of those situations would, IMHO, require an inspection by a certified A&P before I would dare take off again.
The delicacy of a roadable aircraft would make driving it on the road impractical.
If I’m driving around in a 2 seater 1/4 million dollar car, it better have a top speed of 200+ and a 0-60 time in the sub 3 sec range.
On the flip side. Yes, a 172 is about the (claimed) price of a terrafugia. But, it has twice the passenger capacity, twice the payload, twice the range, and 50% faster cruise. And, I heavily emphasize that the 279,000 price tag is their current claimed value. When the concept for the transition came out in 2006, they were claiming a sub $100K price tag. That’s nearly tripled. What will it actually be once it comes up for sale?
The reason there are so many 150s in the air is not that they are a great performing plane, it’s that they are cheap reliable easy to fly aircraft. When I said it’s not a very good plane, I meant it’s not a very high performance plane. For 279,000 I’d better either get high performance or high payload. The 172 has a great payload and a respectable top speed. The Transition has neither.
Geez, brewha, I must fly on a different planet than you.
Oh, I wish runways were “well maintained” and FOD free. Maybe at large commercial hubs, but potholes, FOD, slush, and all manner of things do occur on runways. Not that anyone thinks that is a good idea, but it happens.
Gee, I dunno - I’m not fully conversant with the construction details here.
But, honestly, if a C-150 got a dent in the door I wouldn’t worry about it. Sure, a bird strike is nothing to laugh at but I’ve had an airplane hit by crap kicked up on the runway now and again, it’s not the end of the world. Not all damage is equally dire.
Except we’re not talking about a car, we’re talking about an aircraft. It’s a different thing.
BS - cruise for a 172 is 122 knots, or only about 20% better than the C-150 or Terrafugia. The C-172 has four seats, but it’s long been known that you can seldom seat four American adults in one legally, especially if one is taking on full fuel. The Terrafugia range is estimated at 425 nautical miles, the C172 as 696 nautical miles, or about 160% of the Terrafugia range and not the 200% you claim. Calculating the payload is a bit more complicated because it is so very dependent on what equipment such as avionics you have on the airplane but the C172 payload is not “twice” the C150 capacity.
Please review your information before making grandiose statements.
You know, “high performance” is not the sole determinant of the value of a vehicle.
Pshaw. The C172 payload is not as wonderful as you seem to think, though it’s not too shabby for a light plane. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “high performance”, but if it’s speed you’re talking about calling a C172 “high performance” is laughable.
Is there any market for these things? They might sell a few to bored millionaires, but how many people would want one?
As has been said, these things are marginal in terms to performance-they are not good planes and not good cars.
I find it hard to believe that they would pass the crash tests required of highway vehicles-something built to be light wold not have a lot of structural strength.
Like I said, the price tag seems to be the biggest obstacle. If they cost 1/10 that a lot of people might want one but wanting doesn’t do them any good if there’s no way to afford one.
That’s probably why the PAL-V wanted to be regarded as a motorcycle for road regulations, the crash requirements are much different for them. “Light” doesn’t mean “weak”, but it does mean you have to be very savvy about how it’s built. There have been aircraft built with what were essentially roll-cages or crumple-zones in the past and these may be like that.
I saw a video of one a few years back that was a combination off-road vehicle and paraglider. IIRC it was made in the UK and they were trying to do an around-the-world tour with it.
Many airplanes do one thing very well. (For example, Mooneys are fast.) Skyhawks do just about everything ‘well enough’. Not a speed demon by any means, but faster than many other airplanes when it was introduced. A Skyhawk will ‘weight out’ before it ‘bulks out’, but it will carry a family of four (two adults and two children) and might have full tanks. Most of the time you’re not going to fill the seats anyway. Range is pretty good – farther than some bladders can handle. And you can get long-range tanks (at the expense of payload). It used to be that they were moderately priced; a ‘family plane’ that middle-class people could afford. Now it’s priced out of its target market.
Certainly. But have you ever seen the size of the joints and securing devices on those things? And they don’t have the entire rotor shaft fold down into a horizontal position. And yes, I realize you realized those things already.
