Take a look at a new, quarter-million dollar Cessna 172 (the Ford Taurus of the air). Then take a look at a 1976 Cessna 172. Sure, the new one has nicer upholstery and thicker (quieter) windows, and there are some detail changes; but they’re pretty much the same. (The basic structure dates back to 1956, BTW.) Airplane manufacturers are a rather conservative lot. In the 1980s lawsuits killed General Aviation. At the height of manufacturing in the '70s there were something like 15,000 new GA airplanes built every year. When people sued everyone for everything and jury awards were outrageous, Cessna (for example) stopped building small aircraft and built corporate aircraft instead. Much less chance of being sued. In just a few years 2,000 new aircraft per year was ‘good news’.
Sounds like pilot error, if you ask me. But no! My husband/son/daughter/wife/‘this ornamentum of some mother’s eye, His Majesty the Baby of just twenty-odd years back’ [Tom Wolfe] couldn’t possibly be at fault! There was something wrong with the airplane! We’ll make those greedy airplane-makers pay dearly!
To be fair, some aircraft may have deign or other flaws. The Piper Tomahawk (called ‘Traumahawk’ by some) was redesigned after it was certified and not retested. The modifications included reducing the number of ribs in the wing and the cutting of lightening holes in the main spar, which resulted in a flexible wing whose airfoil required a rigid structure. More often, however, problems are caused by the pilot (the final authority to the safety of the flight) flying into conditions he was not trained to be in or the aircraft was not intended to fly in (with appropriate warnings in the POH in the latter case), flying into a situation he could not get out of (a box canyon; or, in the case of Cory Lidle, a manmade canyon), forgetting to put fuel in the tanks, forgetting to remove the gust lock, and so on and so forth. And yet if the pilot screws the pooch, who gets sued? The airplane manufacturer. The engine manufacturer. The avionics manufacturers. The instructor who taught the pilot to fly, no matter how long ago the training was. Anybody and everybody. And plaintiffs’ attorneys do their best to make sure that jurors know nothing about aircraft or the science of aeronautics, or are even anti-aviation.
So manufacturers tend to be conservative. Any change opens them to another avenue of attack should there be a fatal crash, even if the change had nothing to do with it. Better to Something as novel as a ‘flying car’ or ‘roadable aircraft’ is going to be a plaintiff’s attorney’s wet dream. Even if this product… ehm, ‘gets off the ground’, I think it likely they won’t be around long.
What freeway do you drive on where the vehicles are ONLY going 50? Last dozen times I drove the interstate the average speed was faster than the normal take-off speed of, oh, about 14 of the 17 or so different airplanes I’ve flown.
I’d forgotten that. A very good point. Still, there’s a huge market outside the USA. Particularly in Europe, I guess. How ironic would it be if the plane were export-only?
What gets me is that a brand-new 2009 Cessna 172SP costs $297,000 – more than the quarter-million I mentioned in my post. In 1976 my dad bought a six-year-old (1970) Cessna 172K Skyhawk for $10,200. Today a six-year-old Skyhawk is selling for $115,000 to $178,500. (Prices from controller.com.)
I’ve been told that it’s just inflation; but I’m still suspicious that the larger factor is that when my dad bought his first plane they were being built at a five-figure annual rate, and that for about a decade they were being built at 15% or 20% of that rate. More expensive airplanes mean fewer people learning to fly and wanting to buy them. Lower demand means fewer units built. Fewer available units means that demand for them goes up, so the price rises. There are still aircraft available that were built during the heyday. I think that adjusting for inflation they are about the same relative price my dad paid for his. Only they’re five times as old now. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
Is it known to be impossible using forced air or gasses from ducted fans or jet turbines? I know the Moller guy has been the laughing stock for a while now, but is he failing due to incompetence or to the impossibility of his task?
Of course you can build a VTOL aircraft. The problem is that your VTOL aircraft will cost millions of dollars and require advanced training to fly. So yeah, you can get yourself a Harrier jump jet. Or a small helicoptor. Or a Piper Cub, just like Spartacus had. The flying part can be achieved.
But a “flying car” is different. A flying car the way people imagine is a vehicle where you walk out to the driveway, get in, take off, fly to the grocery store, land, get your groceries, and fly home. And you don’t need to be a highly skilled pilot. And it’s safe enough that your average suburban office worker dad can fly it every day. And it doesn’t cost more than a house. And it doesn’t guzzle fuel. And it’s quiet. And it doesn’t blow the shingles off the neighbor’s roof when you land.
This vehicle is not possible without antigravity or some other magic. Such a vehicle does not exist and never will exist. Flying is not the same as driving. A commuter aircraft is not a flying car. Simple laws of physics, and unless you figure out a way to bend those laws, you’ll either have a crappy aircraft that can drive on the road, or a decent aircraft that can’t be driven on the roads.
But no, you’re not going to get an anthropomorphic robot with a strong AI system that can understand natural language and make snappy wisecracks about your decorating choices.
You can get machines that help you clean your house. Like, say, a dishwasher that, you know, washes your dishes. Or a vacuum cleaner that drives itself. And so on.
Wow, it’s a flying car! It is so cool that we will all soon have flying cars!
I’ve been looking at a timeline of aviation history and trying to figure out what is significant about 1918 in this context. I observe that the first successful use of the parachute occurred in that year, but somehow I doubt that’s the milestone he’s alluding to.
Felix Longobardi’s Combination Vehicle received a patent that year. However, it probably couldn’t have flown or traveled on the ground, being basically a boat.
I’m guessing here, but 1918 was the year that WWI ended. Prior to WWI the aeroplane was an immature invention whose potential hadn’t been realised. It was during WWI that the aeroplane transitioned from an underpowered machine mainly used for reconnaissance to a war machine fitted with guns, capable of dropping bombs, and able to support ground troops. My guess is that during WWI the aeroplane came of age to some extent, and after WWI was when people had the time to start seriously considering what you could do with a flying machine apart from blowing people up.
Don’t need one. I have a pilot’s license, I’m already legal to fly.
Maybe first successful parachute deployment from an airplane, but daredevils started leaping from hot air balloons strapped to parachutes back in the latter half of the 1800’s - so that’s not it.
I disagree: this plane is a first step. It’s doable.
IMHO the problems are ones of control, not technology. Managing millions of flying cars is going to be a real problem for ATC. Then you’ve got the increased need for runways and managing take-offs and landings. And then you’ve got control of the airplane itself. Imagine trying to fly with screaming kids on the back seat.