Flying car gets OK for highway use...

Then why does it have a parachute, Bra?

 

Between cars and airplanes we have a clash of cultures: To get a pilot's license you actually have to learn to fly. To get a driver's license you merely have to know which is the accelerator and which is the brake. And they don't even test for that very well judging by some of the accidents that happen. If there was an aerocar, would every bozo with a driver's license demand the right to fly the thing?

And think of the traffic! With cars, you can make them stop at red lights and stop signs. Imagine the sky as crowded with planes as the roads are with cars. Even houses wouldn't be safe with all the cars falling out of the sky. It's a fine idea if you are the only one who has one... well, no, it's really a lousy idea as several posters above have noted, but at least if you are the only one, you're merely sharing the sky with regular planes and helicopters. But when everybody wants one it'll be worse than a war zone.

 

Airportkid is right. Any minor damage will (should?) require the attention of a certificated airframe mechanic, and the cost will not be minor.

I have no concern that this (or things like it) will fill the skies. Few will be sold. would expect to see many more people buying light sport aircraft, and humble used cars to park at the target airports. The latter was already suggested here.

 

Funny you should mention that. I was thinking that those people would have done better if the had used their resources to develop a production ready safe, simple, light sport aircraft.

 

An early poster asked who happens to have two airports on their commute. There are many small fields (airports) in every area. While the cost is prohibitive at the present time, it will become less expensive over time.

One of the biggest problems in private aviation that makes it hard for commuting is that you have to have a vehicle at each airport and either a hanger or tie down space at both. This car/plane would solve those issues.

 

I'm curious why you think that the cost of using small airports will decrease. As land values increase, so will the cost of building/maintaining airports, and if the number of people flying increases, more air traffic controllers will be needed.

And while it's true that the aerocar would eliminate the need for two cars and airplane tie-downs, I wonder if the cost of the aerocar would more than wipe out the savings. An ultra-light plane and two economy cars is probably cheaper than an aerocar. And the cars would be far more convenient than driving the aerocar around town.

Kind of off-topic, but I remember a mentally ill homeless guy who was a regular at the homeless shelter where I worked. He had a big two-volume manual for building your own airplane, and he planned to build one, though I doubt he had the resources do carry out his plan.

I vote for two cars and an ultralight being far more practical, economical, and attainable than an aerocar.

 

nice!! another way to personalize massive waste on "nice person-relocation". obviously something i will never see or use. a niche product like personal jets which also exists to utilize 1500% of one's fair share of energy.

too bad that the equivalent percentage of money per estimated market share was not used towards mass transit like high speed rail.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The cost of using small airports is well, free. It won't get much cheaper. The cost of the aircraft will go down as more people buy them and more are made.

 

Neat idea, but it's not going to fly. :doh:

The concept of flying cars is like one of those futuristic fifties ideas that sounded good at the time, but doesn't really work. A good airplane makes a lousy car, and a good car makes a lousy airplane - it's very difficult to make one vehicle that does both things well. Airplanes aren't easy to fly, either - giving wings to people who aren't fully qualified to be driving is a really bad idea. The margin for catastrophic error is much smaller in the air than it is on the ground, and the potential for harm to the operator and the general public is much higher. There are more effective and less costly methods of population control.

Besides, those of us with the means and the needs to move quickly between urban areas, above the traffic, already use helicopters.

 

LOL!! that is a major understatement. as it is, its hard to make a car do one thing two different ways. Just ask anyone besides Toyota how easy it is to build an efficient hybrid that people want to buy.

and that is a much easier technical challenge than combining flight with roadworthiness

 

In terms of distance per erg, flying will never be as efficient as ground transport. It takes ergs just to stay in the air before using more ergs to move forward. Our little 2 place 150 with its 100 horse air-cooled engine were it a car would probably average 30mpg. As an airplane it gets half that - in no wind. Headwinds obviously make its mpg even worse.

What makes flying indispensible is time. Nothing on the ground will ever beat an aircraft for time across long distances. If you're flying for transportation purposes, it's because you value your time more than the expense of flying. That's why all the serious air transport craft are axial flow turbine powered - they burn fuel by whole tanker holds, but they annihilate time.

Now, if you're out just punching holes in the sky for the same reasons sailboaters beat a path through the waves, the sheer exhilaration of the experience, with actual transportation SECONDARY to the outing, time isn't important - in fact, you may take steps to PROLONG the time spent in the conveyance because, as they used to say, getting there is half the fun.

The aerocar concept never took off, and may never take off, because the convenience it offers: reduced time dealing with the hassles of getting to where you really wanted to go once you got to (the airport) where you were going, is addressing a NON-PROBLEM. If I'm out to get another $100 hamburger, whether it takes me an hour to do it or 90 minutes to do it isn't enough to justify the horrendous additional expense (and attendant loss of certain efficiencies) of doing it in a vehicle extremely vulnerable to damage while being operated in a non-airport environment at roadway speeds.

Or, in other words, invent and perfect a practical combination Grumman Gulfstream/Lincoln Limousine and then you'll have something that's addressing the problem of TIME, for the market for whom time is exceptionally valuable. But lots of luck making a Gulfstream and a Limo work as a single hunk of metal.

 

Not to wound your sensibilities, but I think I'd choose the sailboat. Or maybe a glider, to choose from horizontally-winged vehicles. Partly for the lack of exhilaration, oddly enough - quiet solitude is a rare and valuable commodity.

Metal? Not GRP?

The Jetson's flymobile seems about perfect, doesn't it? George gets to work on time, while Elroy drops off to Little Dipper School along the way, not even slowing down.

How long do you think it will be before wingsuits are used for commuting?

 

Why you dip the wing into the wind and you wont flip over... that would be a rookies mistake!

About damn time this thing showed up. I have been waiting since Popular Mechanics promised me I would be able to get one by the year 2000!

lane:

 

Just for fun, and for the record, the Moller Skycar is very near and dear to me. No, not because it will ever be practical. But because it is literally very near to me. Moller industries is HQ'd less than half a mile from my house, and I cycle by the place almost every day. The sad news is that the warehouse has been empty for 15 years, and there has been no activity in that time. The sign is still there. The warehouse is still there. But that's about it. The closest I ever saw the "car" in action was as it dangled from a crane with the engines running. In fact, I think that's the closest that *anybody* has ever seen it in action. I wonder where it is now. As far as I know, there only exists this one example.

 

In some sense, traffic on highways 'works' because of the balance of terror. The thing that keeps the other driver from carelessly or willfully dinging your car is the knowledge that his car will receive similar damage.

There is little or no apparent advantage to the transaction, so it is generally avoided.

However, with you in your Terrafugia or other roadplane, the balance is gone. Besides, you project a sense of excessive wealth. This will not be admired, as it might with you in a Lamborghini, because the other guy KNOWS he cannot fly the plane (he imagines he could drive the Lambo). So the other brain fills with resentment, not envy.

Drive this thing on the road and you'll get creamed. First day, first week, who knows. But it shouts your ignorance of human nature.

 

You can buy stock in his company and get in line to see his scheduled October 2011 demonstration.
Moller International Files for Experimental Airworthiness Certification for M400 Skycar - Yahoo! Finance

I'll just flush my money down the toilet and save the stock exchange fee.

 

Yes, a helicopter fills the aerocar niche moderately well, while functioning much better. There are places you can drive a car that you can't land a helicopter, but there are far more places you can land a helicopter than an aerocar.

I think a glider would be quite exhilarating: soaring without an engine!

I LOVE sailboats. I wish I didn't get seasick. I went out once on an America's Cup racer. (Some past-year racers wind up giving rides to paying visitors.) That was exhilarating also. We got to work at the capstans if we wanted to (which I did, of course) and the thing really hauled buns.

BTW, high speed trains can be faster than commercial planes on moderate-distance routes such as Madrid - Seville, when you factor in time getting to and from the airport, having to arrive ahead of time, and then waiting for your luggage.

 

You should try soaring sometime. It's a wonderful experience.

I've read that even sailors get seasick, depending on the weather. It all depends what you're used to. For most of us, it's not having our feet, stomach, and ears moving in several different directions at the same time. I've found medication makes all the difference. I don't usually take pills of any kind, but having experienced the evil combination of nausea and dizziness, I'd try just about anything to make it go away.

The TGV in particular was designed to compete directly with air travel. With the greater population densities and closer cities typical of Europe and Japan, this can work quite well.

 

Oh man. You have GOT to be kidding me. So after 30 years, this certificate will allow him to *start* flight testing the thing. Well, I promise to keep my eye on any action on this end. In fact I'll check on Monday. See if the cob webs have been disturbed.