Or rather we have the Terrafugia roadable aircraft. The FAA has a special program for Light Sport Aircraft, for which the Terrafugia received a special waver.
A pilot’s license is required. You take off from an airport. The wings fold up and you can park it in your garage. From the FAQ:
I am not a pilot. The Terrafugia costs something upwards of $200,000. A used Cesina might cost $20,000-$50,000. Would not the difference pay for a lot of parking?
Would somebody really want to take an aircraft onto public roads regularly? Wouldn’t road vibrations increase wear and tear? If it’s raining or snowing, is it really a good idea to take an airplane with folded wings on a highway? What about salt and muck?
Don’t get me wrong: this is a cool idea. But does this one-man aircraft truly serve a practical purpose? Is there a true niche market for it, setting aside its obvious novelty?
That said, what we really need is a flying boat like the Icon A5. I approve of that.
FWIW, a Cessna Skyhawk is closer to $40,000 and up. Of course there are cheaper ones, but when buying a plane you have to think about the five-figure overhauls.
For those who don’t read the website - the waiver is for the additional weight required to make it a roadable vehicle and is devoted to such things as airbags and a front crumple zone which are not standard on aircraft. So it is justified to increase safety.
Thank Og for that! Seriously - driving a car doesn’t prepare you for flying something.
Strictly speaking, you don’t have to take off from an airport - any surface 2500 feet or longer sufficiently flat for you to get up to 80 mph will do. Strictly speaking, a lot of ordinary roads would do (well, check for overhead obstacles - would be bad to hit a traffic light on take off). However, many localities have passed laws requiring you to use an airport.
You’re comparing apples and oranges - a new aircraft to a used aircraft. A new Cessna Skyhawk can easily cost a quarter million or more (it depends on options). I’ll note that a Skyhawk also carries more of a payload and has some capabilities the Terrafugia doesn’t… but you can’t drive a Skyhawk on the road (well, not legally). You are paying some extra for that road capability.
Some would - some pilots live in subdivisions where they are allowed to use the local roads as runways (or runways as local roads, depending on your viewpoint). As a pilot, my main concern with taking an airplane onto a road would be 1) collisions with other vehicles and 2) hitting something overhead on a take off or landing Heck, I’ve landed in open fields before, and airplane on a paved road isn’t that big a deal.
There’s a heck of a lot more vibration involved in flight than most people realize. You don’t get road bumps, but the engine runs a LOT faster than it would on a road (I presume) and any turbulence in the air affects the aircraft.
It might be a better idea than trying to continue to fly in such conditions…
A lot depends on how hard the raid/snow/whatever is coming down, visibility, how slick the roads are, how strong the winds are…
No, I don’t think I’d like to take it on the road in really bad weather… . but I don’t like taking my car or truck on a road in really bad weather.
Well, I’ve taken off and landed on runways that had some snow on them before… a lot depends on how deep/slick the snow and slush is. Just like for a car. Salt is considered a Bad Thing for airplanes, but would probably be less corrosive on the composite structure of the Terrafugia than some of aluminum skins of more conventional aircraft.
I’m pretty sure it seats two, not one.
Sure, there’s a niche for it - it can be a pain in the ass trying to arrange ground transport after flying a small aircraft to a small airport. Trust me, I’ve been there. If you’re someone who has been flying your aircraft to a small strip and then renting a car frequently this could be just the thing for you. Not every pilot will want one, but yes, if it’s reliable and the economics work out, yes, there could be a niche for it. Especially if it can be outfitted so a private pilot or higher could fly it at night or in IFR (though you’d not want to take something that small into heavy IFR).
Up until now, the “roadable aircraft” haven’t functioned very well as either aircraft or cars. If it flies even somewhat efficiently and can actually keep up with cars with a half decent gas mileage this one might work. It also might not. Only time will tell.
I have to admit that I never looked closely at the Terrafugia. It didn’t ‘click’ that it’s a two-seater. So I’ll amend my previous post, where I mentioned the Cessna Skyhawk. A closer analogy, since the OP mentioned Cessna (note spelling) specifically would be the 150/152. Those can indeed be had in the $20,000 - $40,000 range, with most being in the mid-20s.
Note that the least expensive Cessna 150 ($15,000) has 1,954 since major overhaul (SMOH). The Continental O-200 has a TBO (time between overhauls) of 1,800 hours, so it’s due. Figure about $10,000 for that, and remember your annual inspection. The 152 uses a Lycoming O-235, which has a 2,000 hour TBO. I don’t know the cost of overhaul, but I suspect it’s similar to the Continental.
I’d love one if I had the money. But that’s the problem with this aircraft and many other Light Sport Aircraft (LSA).
A lot of the LSAs I see are just as expensive as standard aircraft. You can buy a Cessna 152 for way less than a new LSA, such as the Czech made plane that Piper is now putting out.
Thanks for the comments, gang – I have precious little knowledge of this topic, outside of childhood exposure to The Jetsons.
Please elaborate. Surely airports have relationships with rental car companies, I respond naively.
I imagine that it might be diverting to stow your plane in your garage. But if you are away from home, I wonder where you would park your craft. I’d feel paranoid just handing the keys to a minimum wage hotel valet. If there’s something wrong with the aircraft, would pre-flight inspection necessarily pick it up?
More generally, would you rather drive an LSA in the rain or fly a stable aircraft with a long track record through it?
I also wondered whether someone who made 3 or 4-way commutes might have a use for a Terrafugia. The added flexibility might be nice.
‘Little airplanes’ tend to fly out of municipal airports. Most activity there tends to be local, so people drive to the airport, fly, and then drive home. Transient aircraft use the services of FBOs – Fixed Base Operators. These are companies that rent aircraft, provide training, sell fuel, etc. Larger ones in larger cities might have relationships with car rental agencies, but I don’t know. Most of my flying has been of the local variety. When not, we were picked up by relatives or just hired a cab. If there’s a car rental agency in town, you’ll certainly be free to use the phone to call them. Some FBOs have an ‘airport car’. This is a generally a ‘beater’ that they have as a courtesy to visiting pilots. I’ll venture to say that they are not extremely common.
Some do, some don’t. Some have a “courtesy car” that can be used by pilots - of course, you’re talking about a vehicle used by the same bozos responsible for the condition of public toilets being less than stellar, that is, the general public. Last time I was in one starting it required arcane operations under the hood and the rear view mirror fell off. All that before we pulled out of the parking spot. OK, that was the worst courtesy car I had, most aren’t literally falling apart, but fancy they ain’t.
Yes, there are something like 5500 official airstrips in the US. They range from things like O’Hare and LaGuardia and LAX full of all sorts of modern tech and conveniences to lonely turf strips that, if you’re lucky, have been mowed sometime this year and have a porta-potty. Not every airport has an agreement with a rental car company. Those that do… remember, pilots flying in are a captive audience. The possible arrangements are not always as convenient as you might like.
Well, if you’re at an airport you could, presumably, either park it in the aircraft tie-down area (so called, as it has provisions for literally attaching the airplane to the ground so it won’t wander off in high winds) or some places will let you park it in the corner of a hangar (sometimes for a fee, more rarely for free). If you’re not at an airport, presumably you could park it wherever you can park a car of comparable size.
Assuming you do a thorough and competent preflight, probably. What sort of hidden damage are you concerned about? Yes, I’ve found some problems on pre-flight, sometimes serious enough I canceled my flight. Then again, I’m somewhat known for being a bit obsessive about preflights. Then again, I fly rental airplanes - you know, airplanes used by the same yahoos responsible for the condition of public bathrooms and the courtesy car. You bet I check them out.
As I am not qualified to fly in anything more than a light drizzle the answer is “neither”. I once landed a Cessna in someone’s backyard due to deteriorating weather - and was quite concerned it might not be possible to fly it out again and would have to pay to have it disassembled, trucked back to the airport, and reassembled. This would have been QUITE expensive. Fortunately, that proved unnecessary. There’s a situation where a fold-up roadable aircraft might have been a good thing.
“A stable aircraft with a long track record” doesn’t help in heavy weather if the pilot isn’t trained and qualified to fly in such weather. As I said, driving a car doesn’t prepare you and isn’t comparable to flying. No one with a Light Sport License is qualified to fly ANY aircraft is significant weather. Neither is a private pilot, unless said pilot has the additional training to earn an instrument flight rating or IFR privileges.
Yes, that might be someone who would find it a useful option.
One positive aspect is that it could help reduce accidents caused by “get-homeitis” - where pilots fly into poor conditions just to get home, rather than dealing with the consequences of landing somewhere else. With a Terrafugia you just land somewhere else and drive home. All you lose is a little time.
It’s unclear to me what the flying mission would be for this air/car. It looks like fun…don’t get me wrong. But I’m hard-pressed to think of this as a suitable enough alternative, for enough people, to have a serious market. The flying part, in particular, is a little more tricky than just picking it up and plopping it down in a Wal-Mart parking lot.
Most LSA pilots buy small taildraggers to futz around in the mountains, or on scruffy rural or remote strips, or for general sightseeing/horsing around where speed, ability to cover distance, and payload aren’t major issues. The planes don’t go that fast and they generally are equipped with only the most basic navigational equipment. Some examples:
A 100hp rotax engine isn’t going to carry much. Most of its horsepower will be used to simply lift the weight of the air/car off the ground, with not a lot left over for baggage.
Instrument panels for serious IFR (flying in limited visibilty or in weather) can add upwards of $50,000 to the cost of a basic VFR (flying only in good weather) plane. It is rare for a hardcore, seasoned IFR pilot to load up a LSA with expensive avionics and use that platform for IFR flying. Plus, becoming proficient in IFR flying is a virtuous circle - you actually want to fly a fair amount in marginal weather to keep yourself sharp and well honed on the procedures and with the ‘flow’ of using your instrument panel.
It seems like this would only be suited for highly specific instances where commuting time (perhaps over a congested major metro area, like L.A. or Chicago…or perhaps over water like Puget Sound) consistently good weather, and availability of landing sites nearby the departure/destination would make it worthwhile. My guess is that is a very small universe. Even landing a air/car at a low stalling speed of 60mph, for example, requires several hundred feet of linear open space with 50-60 feet of width - that’s essentially a two-lane highway. And that’s only if you do it after lots of practice and aren’t concerned about wind or obstructions like power poles that are below a 2 degree glide slope from your touchdown point. Take a drive around Seattle and try and find places like that that are consistently traffic-free and empty of obstructions like parked cars, curbs or posts. It won’t be many.
I’d like to see one of these fly. But my guess it that it will be a novelty item for seasoned pilots to fool around with.
The Commuter was a version of the Cessna 150. I suspect the name was chosen because it’s an economical airplane for commuting.
Of course, flying will always be more expensive than driving. But there are other reasons to fly. I worked with a guy who lived in Big Bear, CA, and commuted to Orange in his '66 Piper 140 (another economical airplane). The extra cost was offset by his ability to fly over 100 miles of traffic. I remember reading an article about a doctor who had a rural practice, and would use a Robinson R22 helicopter (economical, for a helicopter) to make his rounds. Again, speed and mobility trumped cost.
I think most people who own their own planes use them for traveling – even if they have to make up a reason. (c.f. 'Hundred-dollar hamburger.) Dad and I would take one of his to Las Vegas ‘for lunch’. Really, it was an excuse to go fly. If I had a plane, would I use it to commute? Sure, if I didn’t have a mortgage. It ain’t cheap. I’d say that most people just fly for recreation.
A Cessna 152 burns about 5-6 gph, and 100LL costs about $5/gallon in this area. It flies at 110 kts (126.5 mph). If I owned a 152 and used it for commuting, it would cost per trip about $50 or $60 in fuel – plus oil, 1/1000 the cost of an overhaul (call it $10), insurance, tie-down, and a few bucks per hour for the Annual inspection. Added to the cost, there’s weather. Up here, weather is often poor and I wouldn’t be able to fly. And then there are the airports. The little strip near my house has been closed because we need another truck stop. :rolleyes: The nearest airport to me is 20 miles away. On the other end, I assume I’d have to land at Boeing Field. That’s seven miles from the office. Public transportation in Seattle is cheap, but it does take a little extra time.
If my mortgage and car were paid off and I owned the plane, I could afford to fly a 152 to the office on days when weather cooperates. But I’d still have a 152. Not fast, not great ‘legs’. Under the right circumstances, a good ‘commuter’ airplane; and it’s perfectly OK for ‘poking holes in the sky’. But it’s not very useful if you actually have someplace to go, or if you have more than one friend.
You’d be in the same situation with the ‘flying car’. Expensive compared to driving, not as fast as an actual airplane for the same price, weather will reduce the number of days you can fly, and you still have to have an airport to take off and land.
