Slashdot Log In
"Roadable Aircraft" Moving Towards Launch
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Oct 19, 2008 03:37 PM
from the move-over-bob-cummings dept.
from the move-over-bob-cummings dept.
We discussed Terrafugia's plans for what they don't like to call a "flying car" — rather a "roadable aircraft" — last spring. The Boston Globe has an update on Massachusetts-based Terrafugia and its fight to get airborne in these parlous times. "The last serious attempt to bring a car-airplane hybrid to market was the Aerocar, in 1949. According to Carl Dietrich, chief executive of Terrafugia, that company built six prototypes. It needed 500 orders in order to gear up for mass production, but it never got there... 'It can be hard to explain the value of this to non-pilots,' Dietrich says, 'but when you're a pilot, the problems of high costs, limited mobility on the ground, and weather sensitivity are in your face, all the time.' The company says more than 50 of the vehicles have been pre-ordered. The target price is $198,000."
Related Stories
[+]
It's Not a Flying Car - It's a Drivable Airplane 243 comments
waderoush writes "Aviation enthusiasts have been dreaming of flying cars since the 1940s. But in an old machine shop in Woburn, MA, a team of MIT aero/astro grads is building what could be the first practical airplane that's also certified for highway driving. Angel-funded startup Terrafugia, headed by 2006 Lemelson-MIT Student Prize winner Carl Dietrich, hopes to have its first full-scale proof-of-concept vehicle ready to show off at July's AirVenture aviation festival in Oshkosh, Wisconsin."
[+]
Terrafugia CEO Responds To "Flying Car" Criticism 233 comments
waderoush writes "The majority of the comments on last week's Slashdot post It's Not a Flying Car — It's A Drivable Airplane were critical, even dismissive, of Terrafugia's work to build a two-passenger airplane with folding wings that's also certified for highway driving. We boiled down these criticisms to the dozen most commonly expressed points, and today we've published responses from Terrafugia CEO Carl Dietrich. While hybrid airplane-automobiles are an old (some would say laughable) idea, Dietrich argues that current materials and avionics technologies finally make the concept feasible."
[+]
Flying Car Ready To Take Off 315 comments
ChazeFroy writes "The first flying automobile, equally at home in the sky or on the road, is scheduled to take to the air next month. If it survives its first test flight, the Terrafugia Transition, which can transform itself from a two-seater road car to a plane in 15 seconds, is expected to land in showrooms in about 18 months' time. Terrafugia claims it will be able to fly up to 500 miles on a single tank of unleaded petrol at a cruising speed of 115mph. Even at $200,000 per automobile, they have already received 40 orders."
[+]
Flying Car Passes First Flight Test 273 comments
waderoush writes "Terrafugia — the Massachusetts company building a 'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me) — revealed at a press conference Wednesday that the Transition vehicle has been taken aloft for its maiden flight. The craft, which can fly up to 460 miles at 115 mph and then fold up its wings for 65-mph highway driving, was the subject of two hotly debated Slashdot posts on May 8 and May 13 of last year. The company said the first flight took place in Plattsburgh, NY; retired Air Force Colonel Phil Meteer was at the controls."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Uses (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool, it's the private pilot who wants to be able to fly somewhere and not have to worry about ground transportation at the receiving end.
If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not supposed to be "for the lay driver in 3D traffic", but it IS for the pilot to "Fly somewhere thus dodging traffic". Yes, that car rental problem at the end of a flight is a bear hidden trap that doe seriously add a cost to trips. This is practically the "Holy Grail" of transport.
Re:Uses (Score:5, Funny)
I'm holding out for personal teleportation tech.
1. Punch in the place you want to be.
2. It "dials" to see which of the [X] receiving platforms are unoccupied there
3. Magic happens.
4. You're standing on a teleport pad roughly where you want to be, get off, and someone else probably arrives soon after you.
As long as I'm dreaming I'd like a pony and a fully functional gynoid with a remote control.
Parent
Re:Uses (Score:5, Funny)
> 4. You're standing on a teleport pad roughly where you want to be, get off, and someone else probably arrives soon after you.
4b. Alternatively, due to a slight miscalculation of departure times somebody is teleported to your location while you are still on the teleport pad, instantly accelerating the atoms formerly known as "your body" into all directions away from their former positions in a bloody explosion.
Parent
Re:Uses (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, because getting told "the source is right there, fix it yourself" is so nice after you got telefragged...
Re:Uses (Score:5, Interesting)
The big questions are
1: how much extra will a roadable airplane cost compared to a normal one?
2: how much will this cost to insure (i'm betting a lot, particularlly for fully comprehensive cover)
3: how long will it take to convert between airplane and car modes?
In summary will it really be cheaper and/or more conviniant than hiring a car at your destination airport?
Parent
Re:Uses (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who want to build the aircraft mentioned in TFA plan to sell it for about $200k. A used, but very serviceable, two seat "regular" airplane can be bought for around $20k to $30k and a four-place for about $40k to $50k. So, the roadable airplane seems to cost between 4x and 10x as much as a normal one. And, if having a new airplane is important to you, you could spend $120k for a brand new Cessna Skycatcher, which comes from a company with an established track record of building reliable airplanes--and doing it profitably, which means that spare parts will continue to be available for many decades that well-maintained airplanes last.
For the price of a new roadable airplane, you could buy a used normal plane and have enough left over for a few luxury cars (or a whole fleet of Civics/Fits/Corollas/Yarii) to park at your most frequent destinations. Consider also that a normal airplane, because it doesn't need to make so many compromises, will be better at being an airplane than this roadable plane will. And the same goes for the normal car being a car.
Parent
Re:Uses (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think comparing new to used is fair, so lets look at your new prices - $200k vs $120k. That means you're spending about $80k extra getting a road-certified plane - probably a bit more in reality as parts are likely to cost more, etc.
You suggest purchasing a car for each airport that you plan on flying this plane to. Lets say you purchase just two cars for $15k each, using rentals whenever you go anywhere else so you've now got a buffer of $50k. How much will you pay in hanger fees, car fees, and car storage fees, not to mention maintaince on three veichles instead of one?
$300/month seems fairly conservative for hanger fees. Add a couple hundred extra for the car fees and your Cessna is looking at being more expensive after about eight years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many rental-car miles can you get for $80,000? Realistically, most people fly frequently to a small handful of locations, where they should probably enter into a car co-op with some other people, and share one of those econoboxes, and pick up the rest of the slack with rentals.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is correct. Ground transportation at the destination is the EXACT purpose of this form of machine. That's why they're not advertising it as a flying car. Because it's not. It's an airplane that can legally drive on roads to get you to your hotel or a cheap parking garage. (Hanger fees are exorbitant.)
EXORBITANT? (Score:5, Informative)
then don't put it in one
many many small airports charge a $10.00 tiedown fee to tie it up on the tarmac, waived if you buy fuel..
FFS why put it in a hangar?
Parent
Re:EXORBITANT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because while being covered with dimples may work well for a golf ball, they do considerably less aerodynamic good when applied to an airplane by a passing hail storm.
Parent
What about fuel costs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the price of fuel needed to keep a machine in the air, I doubt anybody who can afford to fly to work every day will worry about airport fees.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I should hope that anything that flys, regardless of how popular it becomes, still requires a pilots license and that the skill needed to attain such a license remain quite high. Lay drivers manage to kill 43,443 people in 2007. [car-accidents.com] I don't want to see what the statistics would be if people were text, putting on makeup, eating, yelling at the kids in the backseat, playing with the radio, fighting off sleep, etc. w
Re:Uses (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely correct! Most people are horrible pilots of anything they operate and make poor transportation decisions. They do whatever they want, with little regard for what the people around them are doing. Every region has different ways of driving poorly, but in my region of Texas, they don't know how to maintain speed while cornering or going up hills, they don't know how to merge or yield, they don't signal their lane changes or turns, they drive at night like they are night blind, they drive either 8 mph under the speed limit or 15 mph over the speed limit, they blare loud music out of their vehicles, they swerve across 3+ lanes of traffic at the last minute to take an exit or entrance ramp, they use all available space to make a turn (even breaking State law to make a right-hand turn across as many road lanes as are available), they tailgate, they sit at red lights blocking the right-turn lane from turning because they won't make the legally-allowed right-hand turn on red, they won't make a left turn on a solid green light (they have to have a green arrow, or they won't even attempt the turn), they pace vehicles, especially while driving in the other driver's blind spot. In the last few weeks, I've encountered several drivers who simply stop and remain in the middle of the road whenever they have a problem, even in a 45 mph zone. The concept of a free flow of traffic is alien to most Texas drivers, and many of them drive like they have spent their lives on a country road without having to consider other drivers.
Texas drivers are mostly annoying, and only somewhat hazardous. In Virginia, especially closer to D.C., the drivers are more ruthless, more vicious. If you signal a lane change, they usually will attempt to block you from changing lanes.
I've long said that when flying cars become marketable, I'm installing an anti-aircraft gun in my front yard.
Parent
Here it's the "I don't see you" game. (Score:3, Informative)
In Virginia, especially closer to D.C., the drivers are more ruthless, more vicious...
In the Boston area, we practice the "I don't see you" game when merging. The driver with the shittiest car wins. I bet that's what you're running into on the Beltway. I recall driving a '75 Chrysler New Yorker around Cambridge (dents everywhere, front bumper wired together, tape on the tail lights), and it was amazing how smoothly I was able to merge into traffic. Then when I got a job and bought a new car -- suddenly
Re:Uses (Score:5, Informative)
Also known as the Big Sky Theory. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Uses (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Uses (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the thing. Big Sky Theory only works outside of airways (official, and unofficial) and especially outside airport circuits. Inside the circuit, the pilot is rather busy getting setup for landing, running through checks, at uncontrolled fields they need to ascertain the runway in use, wind conditions etc.. unfortunately so are the other 10 aircraft all converging on that small piece of airspace. This is when most mid-air collisions happen, not in the big sky, but in the little patches above airports.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You got it. OK aircraft quite possibly. Awful car probably. That's about the best that looks to be doable. Better than walking.
This is not everyman's flying car for flying to the grocery store. It's not supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right. They had to do a lot of engineering to build an airplane that can back up, has proper brake lights, etc, etc, etc ... and keep it light enough to fly. FYI, the maximum takeoff weight of a fully loaded Cessna 172 is 1043kg. A Chevrolet Aveo -- an extremely small and light car -- weighs in at 1066kg with no payload whatsoever including driver, fuel, or fuzzy dice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure that's a valid market. Smaller airports frequently have a courtesy car they will lone you for a few hours if you fill up the plane with gas at their FBO, many FBOs even list this fact in their AFD listing. Failing that, the typical cost of renting a car for a day is less than half the typical cost of renting a small plane for an *hour* or if you own the plane, a little over the cost of an hours fuel burn at cruise, and most rental car places will bring the car to you. IAAPP (I Am A Private P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PP-ASEL-IA too.
If you're seriously thinking about a powered parachute, you should know that they typically get a top speed of about 31 MPH and a stall speed of about 29 MPH. There is not a lot in between. You wouldn't want to fly something like this in anything more than a light breeze.
You ought to take a look at terrain and airspace. A quick reminder: you're not allowed to conduct operations under Part 103 over urban areas.
I would think long and hard before considering the use of any ultra-light aircraf
It's 2008 people (Score:2)
Dam it , it's 2008 people I was promised a flying car !!!
You had your flying car in 1979... (Score:4, Funny)
...and it was called the General Lee [thedukesofhazzard.net]
Didn't fly very far and the nose-first landings were a bit on the rough side.
Parent
Not much of a plane either (Score:5, Funny)
Quote from their website:"Drive to your local airport, fly up to 400nm, land, convert, and drive directly to your destination."
Call me back when this thing can fly above one billionth of a meter.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a good one.
But all joking aside, this "roadable aircraft" has a range of 400nm and costs $200K. Compare that with a Cessna 162 SkyCatcher which will get you 470nm range at $120K. So the roadable costs you an additional $80K.
And where is Mr. Moller during all of this?
Re: (Score:2)
Not in this case. Both of these aircraft will get about 20nm/gal on 100LL.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A lot, according to your girlfriend. :)
--Toll_Free
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was a bit too quick on the post. But 400 billionth of a meter still isn't much, especially for an airplane.
Air Traffic Control is like Appletalk (Score:2, Insightful)
Carrier Sense, Multiple Access, Collision Avoidance. Sadly, the roads, and soon (?) the skies might be filled with mouthbreathers who operate on the Ethernet (Carrier Sense, Multiple Access, Collision Detection) model. Who the hell would ever insure on of these? Lloyd's of London ?
Re: (Score:2)
Parlous...I like that. (Score:3, Funny)
"Parlous Linux 2008: Because life sucks"
"ParlOS - optimized for low latency thin client computing over parsec-level distances"
"Parlous Santana"
Not new. (Score:3, Interesting)
This report reminds me of the many videos of people donning various winglike arm attachments and diving off platforms or tall structures to disastrous results.
This concept is not new. Everyone's been developing their own "car-o-plane" for ages. I'd be very surprised if this one goes anywhere beyond the previous ones [howstuffworks.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the contrary, I do think Moller is on the right track.
Is prototypes work, and work well. They're too expensive right now, but they have the range, safety, and power necessary. The government just has no structure to deal with it, and the FAA is far too rigid and geared toward a completely different paradigm.
The crucial difference between moller's models and concepts like this is he doesn't try to work off either an automobile or aircraft chassis.
He's developed his own, unique system.
It is not roadworth
I'm willing to kick in a couple of bucks. (Score:2)
I think that we see a lot of stories on
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is to make it a business.... (Score:2)
And I'm not sure why you feel donating money towards making some rich guys $200,000 car/planes is a particularly worthy cause.
OLD NEWS!!! ALREADY BEEN DONE!! (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder how many buy it for its road abilities (Score:2)
This thing has the nicest looking cockpit of any Light Sport Aircraft and it is one of the few amphibious models.
Those are two very attractive selling points for the retiree pilot who is cashed up with a cabin on a lake but may not be able to pass the medical requires for a private license any more.
I wonder how many of they fifty people that have ordered one care too much about weather they can put in on the road or not.
Alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alternative (Score:5, Funny)
Insightful? You completely stole that idea from Batman.
Parent
Changing Lanes (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe its just me, but it looks like changing lanes must be a bitch in this thing. The foldable wings are huge obstructions to both the driver and the teeny tiny side mirrors. Of course, I haven't sat in one, so I don't exactly have first hand experience.
Nice idea, but there are 1 or 2 problems... (Score:5, Informative)
Before you say anything else, yes I am a licensed pilot so here we go...
Parking by brail. Yes I am sure you have all heard about it and I am quite sure most of you have done it to one degree or another. That is when you just touch the car behind or in front of you while trying to parallel park. The thing is, with aircraft, if you graze anything or your aircraft is grazed by anything else, much less dented, the aircraft is instantly grounded until inspected by an A&P ( Airframe and Power Plant mechanic) and certified as being once again airworthy. So parking will be a pit of a problem.
Now arguably people that buy one of these will be pretty well-off in the money department, but if they want to use it as intended they have to drive the thing through all kinds of traffic with the hazards therein.
There are unprotected control surfaces on both ends of the beast. One commuter reading the paper or reaching for their coffee bumps you and you now have damaged control surfaces and again the machine is grounded.
The wings are hinged to retract and fold. When winds are folded and not locked together the only structural stiffness is the hinges. Just that thought gives me pause. Drive the Mass Pike or any other commuter road lately? I don't know about yours but mine have serious potholes and undulations, not to mention serious stop and go driving with a lot of hard braking. I just cannot see this thing standing up to the kind of beating your car takes on a daily basis.
Safety... I cannot imagine how they are going to get this thing through the DOT when clearly in order for this thing to fly it has to be made out of some seriously light weight materials. So it is pretty much going to have almost no crash protection, side impact bracing, airbags, etc etc because all that adds a lot of weight. They do state on their website that it is "Designed to automotive crash safety standards", yet they do not say that is has passed DOT standards as yet.
Useful load, they are pretty careful not to say what the useful load is. Useful load is the weight the aircraft can carry. They do not state the empty weight of the aircraft. They do state a MAX Gross takeoff weight of 1320 lbs, and a full fuel load of 120 lbs. They do claim it can carry two passengers. The weight of an FAA "Adult" is 175lbs. So the useful weight is more then likely not much more then 500 lbs. This would put the empty weight at about 820 lbs.
Ok, so just how much impact safety can you build into something that has to be 820 lbs or less? IMO not much. So even if the thing manages to become street legal, I am for one am not driving it on the road, because it will just be CRUSHED by a 3300 lb VW Jetta or Passat, or Lexus or whatever, never mind a bus or a water delivery truck. This thing will more then likely cause more then a few accidents out of sheer novelty as people stair at it rather then pay attention to their driving.
That brings to mind insurance. Now insurance for aircraft is a lot like cars, it is broken down into the Airplane itself and Liability. From the liability POV I don;t think it would be that bad, but from the collision aka Comprehensive POV if I was an insurance company, I would either not insure your airplane while in operation of roads, or I would charge you a massive premium for the reasons I listed above. Any kind of a minor fender bender will render this thing non-airworthy and require a trip to a FBO ( Fixed Base Operator ) to have an A&P have a look at it. And since it is more then likely constructed of mostly composite materials, there are probably no A&P's who can repair it. They will just ground it and tell you to call the factory.
Trust me, I like the idea, I think it is very cool, but as presented there are a whole boatload of problems that will have to be overcome. I much prefer the older idea of a car that you attach the flying part to, then take off to your destination. When you get there, the flying part detaches and is stored until you return to fly back to where ever you came from.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey there.... Well, they are not technically breaking the rules because:
CFR 14.91.7(a) states: "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition."
CFR 14.91.7(b) states: "The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur."
Now having said all of that, an aircraft made of composite mat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I agree with your general point, that you would want to thoroughly inspect anything that had been "bumped" by another vehicle. But your wording was vastly more general than that. I've seen aircraft being flown immediately after getting whacked with small personal items, and even after taking out a runway light. If you bump it with your car then you should probably have it looked at by a professional, but there's a lot of stuff that can graze your plane without really creating the need for an inspection
Re:Solution in search of problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Renting a car is fine if you're flying somewhere where such is available.
When I used to fly little Cessna 152s around the place we would often land at "airfields" that were little more than converted sheep paddocks with a gas pump off to the side. The nearest rental car place would have been 100 miles in any direction you cared to choose.
For that kind of flying, something like this would be practically nirvana. For flying between international airports, yes stick with the rental Chrysler or something...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You know, there's this thing called google [google.com] these days, which can easily point you to their web site [terrafugia.com], where you can find all the pictures they've got.
Or you could just bitch about it.
-jcr