But I expect the cynics on Straightdope will ridicule the idea; the same way they have been ridiculing fusion reactors to generate electrical power.
Is there any reason not to ridicule this idea? I bet you $1000 that nobody on this board sees one of these cars on the highway or in the air outside of a demonstration flight or airshow for all of 2017.
It’s a plane. People who can afford private planes already have them.
Pilotless? Why not just retrofit a Cessna?
Did you watch any of the video?
It has TWO power trains - the prop is not used for ground propulsion.
It has about 3" of ground clearance, and no prop guard or bumpers.
It wouldn’t even be a legal car, let alone airplane.
I’m not even going to touch the autonomous idea…
It is a goal worthy of ridicule. It’s been tried, numerous times. Anything with even a modicum of success has proven to be horribly inept at both flying and driving, sometimes fatally so. The compromises required are too great.
Also, since we’re getting into this… the day we have flying cars commercially available for people to buy at anything resembling a reasonable price will be the day civil aviation ends. Can you imagine what would happen if people started raining random death from the skies upon houses, schools, businesses, etc.? Oh, but they’ll be self-flying, you say. Well, have you seen the number of cars parked along side the road today where you live because they broke down when the owner didn’t maintain it properly? The self-flying feature won’t make a damn bit of difference when the owner defers maintenance and the engine seizes due to oil starvation. The costs involved in maintaining anything that flies is enormous, simply because you cannot afford to make a mistake. Wait until you get the first bill from BMW Carviation for the 1000-hour maintenance. It will make the 120,000 mile service on a M5 look like pocket change.
You will never, ever see a flying car available to the general population. Guaranteed. The only people who may eventually have one are well-heeled with money to burn and time to earn a private pilot’s license. It may as well be a Gulfstream for all the likelihood you’ll ever own one.
Yes, but because you disagree with the OP you’re a cynic, so therefore your opinion doesn’t count!
I’ll give it a lot of props on its design. I like how they’ve managed to make it look and behave like a car and plane with comfortable transition. Far better than anything I’ve seen before.
But realistically I don’t think it will take off.
Two puns in one post. Huzzah.
Why do we always, always ridicule flying cars? Because there’s no such thing as a flying car. That vehicle you linked to is not a flying car. It is an airplane you can drive on a road. What’s the point of an airplane you can drive? So you can drive it from the airport to your house?
Imagine taking a functional airplane, then loading it down with feature after feature to enable it to drive on a road. Every roadable feature you add makes it a worse airplane. If you’re flying a plane, you want it to be the best airplane it can be. Carrying around hundreds of pounds of roadable equipment is ludicrous. Wings that have to fold up, giant fat tires, drivetrain to the wheels, on and on. If you want to fly a light plane we already have those. There’s no need to drive your light plane home from the airport after you land, just drive a regular car.
Hey, and with Car2go and Uber and so on, the need to have a car waiting for you when you land is now taken care of, even if you’re landing at an unfamiliar airport hundreds of miles away from home.
These sorts of vehicles are intended to solve the problem of getting from your departure point to the airport, and then from the second airport to your destination. That’s all. And it’s crazy to imagine that the solution to that problem is “drive your airplane on the streets”. There are much better solutions, like “have two vehicles, an airplane that is optimized for flying and a car that is optimized for driving”.
I also hear they have these things at most airports called “car rental agencies.” I suppose that would also make it easier to get from the second airport to your destination.
Ho hum. Another flying car. Once again the same simple model. Really guys, if you are going to invent a flying car it should be amphibious also. Submersible as well.
it’s submersible. Once.
Who’s laughing now, monkey boy?
What people really want when they say “flying car” is a Back to the Future/George Jetson style flying car. And that kind of vehicle requires antigravity. A crappy airplane that can barely fly and can sort-of drive on surface streets isn’t what people want when they think ‘flying car’.
When I think “flying car” I think VTOL hovercar. Autopilot would be nice. If I wanted to get a private pilot’s license and fly a small plane around, I would.
Too lazy. Actually, I did take ground school and my brother is an avid pilot and I’ve spent time flying around with him. That’s why I know I’m too lazy to get a pilot’s license.
Well, I found the 1940s Style Flying cars (looks a bit like a 1949 Ferrari too), but I was unable to ascertain if it was Fusion Powered or not.
There’s a tad more skill/training required to pilot an aircraft than there is to driving a car. Such training is expensive, time consuming and demanding. Driving a car in a rain storm at night is one thing, but flying a “car” in a rain storm at night is quite another.
The developer is just a client-in-waiting for a bankruptcy attorney.
This exactly. It get’s worse however. Airman Doors is only scratching the surface of your maintenace problem.
While I’m sure most people could define a laser gun pretty well, even though they’d be slightly disappointed to leave it mounted in their garden running up electricity bills zapping squirrels, I don’t think any flying car proponent has ever really defined what a proper flying car should be like. They always end up like the above, a plane that can awkwardly drag itself down the road at low speed.
For me it’s like the spinners in Blade Runner, looks cool, acts like a helicopter without blades, no idea how something like that would actually work and therefore it probably won’t in the real world.
Here is a hint:
The smallest nick on the leading edge of a prop will cause the prop to fly apart of not fixed immediately.
Legally, it requires an FAA Mechanic’s license to fix that.
Airplanes are tempermental critters.
What impress me the most is that this thing has apparently actually flown - unlike some contenders in the flying car field.
However, I have Issues with the article:
This statement ignores two facts:
- Such systems for airliners cost oodles of cash. Many, many oodles of cash.
- Such systems are also dependent on ground tech at the destination airport, which also costs oodles of cash.
So, they’re claiming a 300 mph cruise? That means you need a private pilot license PLUS a high performance rating because I don’t know of any engine under 200 horsepower that can fly that fast.
I expect the back seats won’t be big enough for adults of any sort, much less the average American.
This also introduces variable loading configurations and the problems of weight and balance. Yep, you’ll need pilot ground school for sure…
:smack:
A PARACHUTE IS NOT A “GET OUT OF EMERGENCY FREE” CARD!!!
A parachute should be the LAST resort in an emergency, not the first!
The pros and cons of whole-plane parachutes have been covered several times on the Dope, links can be provided if anyone is really interested.
No, it won’t.
I have actually landed a small airplane in a field. It was an airplane with considerably more ground clearance and spring-steel legs. While I’d do it again if I had to it’s not an experience I’m really eager to repeat.
THIS thing - there is almost no ground clearance. Perhaps the gentleman who came up with that statement has only experienced grass and open “fields” on golf courses, which would be the economic bracket this is targeted at.
Driving a small, flying aircraft in the rain at night is frequently a recipe for suicide.
That’s another thing - they can’t get away from the fact that small aircraft aren’t well suited to flying in bad weather. Also, night+rain pretty much demands an instrument rating to go with the high performance sign off and that private pilot license.
You’re looking at $10-20k just to get a license to fly the thing.
Dammit Airman, we’re grounded again!
FTR, every designer calling their piece of crap a “flying car” is trying to evoke the sense of wonder created by the George Jetson flying car. What they actually “deliver” is a Cessna that can hobble it’s way from the airport to your driveway.