Slashdot Log In
Flying Car Ready To Take Off
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Jan 12, 2009 06:42 AM
from the fill-up-on-windshield-fluid-please dept.
from the fill-up-on-windshield-fluid-please dept.
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."
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."
[+]
"Roadable Aircraft" Moving Towards Launch 186 comments
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."
[+]
Flying Car Flies From London To Africa 148 comments
krou writes "It may not be exactly what people have envisioned or tried over the years, such as the flying car in Bladerunner, or the previously reported Terrafugia Transition, but the BBC is reporting that a flying car (creatively dubbed the Skycar, but different from this Skycar) has flown from London across into Africa. They modified a parajet fan that can fly a man into a bigger fan with a canopy that is capable of flying a car."
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.
Rules? (Score:5, Funny)
Has anybody made an attempt at drafting traffic rules for flying cars yet?
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Crashed.... (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure about the car, but the website sure crashed!
Hope the car is better.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Year 2015, together with Mr Fusion reactors.
Oh, if I remember correctly, upgrading a ground car to flight costs US$40,000 (this was a reasonably big amount when the movie was first released).
Just remember, never appear in the middle of a lane traveling in the opposite direction!
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wont stop them from trying tho, much like a lack of that pesky drivers license do not stop many from driving cars...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like James Bond where the wings fold out electrically
Actually, from TFA, it is... The wings are actuated electromechanically; you just push a button in the cockpit.
Parent
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you don't need to hotwire an airplane. Just disconnect the grounding wires from the magnetos and turn the prop over by hand, and away she goes. The engine is electrically powered by its own rotation and does not need a battery and alternator to keep it running. To stop one, you have to ground out the magnetos or shut off the fuel supply. There is actually an item in the preflight checklists of most small aircraft to verify that the grounding switches still operate, otherwise you will have problems shutting down at your destination. (It's hard on the engine to kill it by starving it of fuel, and drains the carb float bowls which can complicate restarting.)
This sounds unsafe, but this is by design - They didn't want an electrical fault to kill an engine. The radios and such will die without the battery, but as long as the engine has fuel and air, it will turn.
Parent
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Informative)
There is actually an item in the preflight checklists of most small aircraft to verify that the grounding switches still operate, otherwise you will have problems shutting down at your destination.
It's not just that - you shut down each magneto in turn, so you can prove that both systems are working. Most piston aeromotive engines have two complete ignitions systems, with two magnetos and two sets of spark plugs. When you switch one off, then engine revs will drop a little. This way you can work out if a) the magneto is working, and b) the ignition switch is switching it off. If the revs don't drop, either that magneto isn't working or is staying on. If you switch the other one off and the revs drop, the first magneto isn't switching off. If you switch it off and the engine stops altogether, the first one wasn't working.
Parent
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Informative)
We DO NOT use the switch to kill the engine at the destination, however. Instead, we pull the mixture to cut off the fuel flow to the engine. Starving the engine of fuel prevents the mag from firing any residual fuel left in the cylinder after engine shut off. If we don't, someone just walking by the front of the plane can move the prop and have it accidently fire up. That would not be a good situation and many people have been killed because of it.
And yes, I am a pilot.
Bill
Parent
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Informative)
Not true at all, and in fact most light singles are shut down by pulling the mixture, which essentially does just that (starving it of fuel).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This sounds unsafe, but this is by design - They didn't want an electrical fault to kill an engine. The radios and such will die without the battery, but as long as the engine has fuel and air, it will turn.
Ignoring the latest generation of light, single and twin piston aircraft which have dual electronic ignition, which do require a functioning power bus and battery.
There is even an accident on record of a Diamond [diamondaircraft.com] twin engine [planeandpilotmag.com] crashing immediately after take off because of dead batteries, despite it being d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to burst your bubble, but quite a lot of more rural places have small airfields with little checking.
Some friends used to have one in back of their property that was shared by covenant between the 10 or 12 houses that shared the complex.
Everyone pitched in to maintain the grass airstrip. They had a windsock at the end, no lights or instruments, and it was listed on local aviation charts (along with lots of other like-rated strips).
Taking off in a plane wouldn't be the problem. Once you hit a high enou
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Funny)
Either way I cannot wait for the first police chase involving one of these on the road. It will be fucking exciting, especially when the chase leaves the road . Better than Dukes of Hazzard on their best day :)
That SOB is going to get TIVO'd.
Parent
Re:Rules? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the rules above ground are drafted for professionals with thousands of logged hours. We can either require that for everyone who wants to fly or we can draft simpler rules in height-confined airspace. Maybe we already have, in VFR flight levels, I don't know.
Parent
Re:Rules? (Score:5, Informative)
... You can get a private pilot's license, good for light aircraft and night flying, for about $5,000, with about 100 hours logged. Simulator time counts. It's really not that much of an impediment, and this thing will probably be small enough to count as a light aircraft.
My real question is what kind of fuel it runs on. There aren't a lot of aircraft that'll run well on less than avgas, and avgas is very expensive. (The aircraft I trained on was a Diamond Eclipse, which *will* run on premium unleaded, but runs a lot better on avgas....)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simulator time or not, 100 hrs @ $50/hr avg is going to be hard to come by. I think most folks end up closer to $7500/60 hrs.
Re:Thankfully, you're wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Just to clarify, Private Pilots can fly in any VFR [wikipedia.org] (Visual Flight Rules) airspace. With just the private pilot ticket (no further endorsements) you can fly a plane up to (but not including) 200hp, fixed gear, fixed single prop, below 18,000 feet, and a sufficient distance away from clouds to qualify for VFR. You need a current third-class medical and a bi-annual flight review and you're good to go with yourself and/or friends anywhere you want.
To traverse class B or C airspace you need a working radio and transponder in the plane and you need to obey the controller. In class D, G, or unclassified airspace you just need to not hit anything.
Also, these days I'm not aware of many weekend fliers who can get the license in 40 hours. To do that you pretty much need to go to a focused school and be on an airline pilot track. I'd say 50-60 hours is about average.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's really no correlation between financial success and intelligence. Those people in the rat race aren't happy anyway. Studies have shown that the American dream is a big fucking crock.
Re:Rules? (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait for that call to your insurance company about a car in your living room ... in your 17th floor condo.
Parent
we will NOT have flying cars (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously. most people can barely control a car on the ground. or even keep one properly maintained.
and you want to put these folks into the air? over your house? yeah... i don't think so.
thats what you call a 'bad idea'.
cap:unguided
Re:we will NOT have flying cars (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:we will NOT have flying cars (Score:5, Insightful)
The moller skycar is not even a real prtotype, it's a vaporware fake demo.
we will NOT have VTOL flying cars. Have you seen what a harrier does to pavement when it takes off or lands vertically? IT even blisters the hell out of super thick concrete. and no fan or turbofan in existence will do a decent VTOL without being 3X the size ofthe aircraft.
Flying cars will NOT happen. The general public is far too stupid to own one, and you would have to put in safety systems that make the car refuse to move when periodic service is needed. Hell my old Piper Comanche needed it's wings replaced for every 1000 hours of flight, and that was nearly the fricking cost of the aircraft! (which is when I sold it.)
Parent
Re:we will NOT have flying cars (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a quick solution to that problem, and it doesn't even require any technical or legislative changes: don't call it a flying car!
Even their website doesn't use the term 'car'; it's clearly marketed towards pilots not drivers and they call it a "Roadable Aircraft". It's being sold to people who already fly, but want to be able to get from door to door rather than airfield to airfield - an idea which makes sense to me.
Parent
Re:we will NOT have flying cars (Score:4, Insightful)
I, for one, (not welcoming anybody) am dreaming of flying car that I can select my destination on some dialer a then let central computer take me there. I wouldn't put my family into flying car that I am supposed to fly. What they have is not flying car, it is airplane you can drive. Flying car should be, first of all *car* - something that Joe Sixpack can use easily in (relatively) safe way.
Parent
It won't be most people (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Great,
Now Farmer's Markets will have to equip Flak cannons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For someone who can afford one of these flying cars, it is likely the cost barrier for a pilot's license does not exist. What is likely to exist, however, is the time barrier. Typically, unless cashed out, retired or otherwise not working, people that can afford this kind of luxury are working their asses of with very little free time.
With that said, in the U.S. I there are new Sport Pilot licenses that might fit this usage perfectly. The licenses are much easier to obtain, with the associated training cent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FAA requires a minimum of 40 hours for a PVT license. On average the training time is much longer. It took 63 hours to achieve my PVT rating. Flying has gotten more complex since the days when the government established the initial time limit. Not so much the actual flying, but the rules, and that instructors are teaching better judgment these days. That takes time.
I think I'll wait till they automate a flying car into traffic before considering a purchase.
Make sure... (Score:2, Funny)
Make sure not to hit the "transform back to car" button while you're in mid air.
this sorta thing has been done many times (Score:5, Funny)
First is a little misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Calling it the first flying car is a bit misleading; there are quite a few pre-existing flying cars, it's just none of them was ever a commercial success. There's still an Aerocar about with an airworthiness certificate.
The main problem with a flying car is the number of certificates you need to get in order to be able to use it.
It's Not a Flying Car (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how many airports are out there that have a path from the runway to the road that isn't fenced off or have some other barrier to getting this craft on the road.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's Not a Flying Car (Score:4, Informative)
Actually that isn't a problem. There are many general aviation airports that rent hangar space to aircraft owners (in fact almost all airports do). You drive your car onto the airport and park right next to your hangar, get it your plane and take off. In this case you can taxi your airplane off the runway, onto the private airport road, then out of the airport. Remember this is a plane the size of a car with folded wings. No problem!
Parent
Roads do nasty things to vehicles (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't want to be around when one of these that has done 20,000 miles of potholes, salt, grit and all the other things you drive through on the road that mess up vehicles takes to the air because god knows what it would do to a light airframe over 10 or 20 years. Sure , you're supposed to do maintenance - but that doesn't prevent loads of cars breaking down at the side of the road due to lack of it. If people drive this like a car (even if they're qualified pilots) they may start to treat it like a car rather than like an aircraft and skip on servicing. The rest you can guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If people drive this like a car (even if they're qualified pilots) they may start to treat it like a car rather than like an aircraft and skip on servicing. The rest you can guess.
That's called evolution, baby! If you're the kind of person who's going to think "hey, that corrosion on the wing supports can wait 'till next year", and your still going to fly the thing, then you deserve what you get.
Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
"That's called evolution, baby! If you're the kind of person who's going to think "hey, that corrosion on the wing supports can wait 'till next year", and your still going to fly the thing, then you deserve what you get."
Yeah , but the people on the ground you land of top of don't.
Parent
Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles (Score:4, Funny)
So finally the upper class is a literal definition!
Parent
Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles (Score:4, Insightful)
anyone that would drive a $200,000+ vehicle in the snow and salt is an idiot, and certainly not able to pass a pilots license requirement. That's the cool part, the pilot license requirement weeds out the idiots.
Parent
Re:Roads do nasty things to vehicles (Score:4, Interesting)
I can guarantee you that since this is a roadable aircraft and not a flying car, it will be subject to the same inspection and maintenance requirements as a light aircraft.
Reality is, this thing is going to be expensive to own, but no more so than an average light aircraft *and* a car (since as you point out you'll have the same wear and tear as a car with a very rigorous maintenance schedule).
There's a good reason light aircraft fly for 20 years or more; they need to be in order to maintain an airworthiness certificate. This vehicle will be no different.
Parent
Holy cow (Score:4, Interesting)
I SAW one of these things on I-80, and spent some time with Google trying to figure out what the thing was. Unfortunately it was being towed, rather than driving under its own power, but still. The wings were folded up but there's no mistaking the shape of the thing.
Neat.
Coincidence? (Score:5, Funny)
One month later: Flying cars.
What's next?
Thanksgiving: Immortality.
Christmas: Girlfriend!
Clearly, all this fuss about Obama has been well placed! He's not even in power yet and the flying cars are already on the way!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not a flying car like the moller which envisioned VTOL from your driveway.
And that's probably a good thing. Why is it that everyone understands that you have to have an Atari 2600 before you can have a PS3 but, when it comes to the "flying car", they expect the future today.
Indeed. OTOH Here's a real transport revolution - (Score:3, Interesting)
The first real PRT system is nearly ready to enter active service at Heathrow Airport.
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/news/29/32/First-Flight-at-Heathrow/d,News%20Display/ [atsltd.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of the poor airline pilots, who have 100's of lives on board, restricted lanes to travel in, air traffic control to help guide them....now having to watch out for lunatics in personal flying cars swooping across the front of their cockpits. It'd be an interesting new approach for a terrorist attack.
Isn't that what air brakes are for? :-P
I would imagine these flying cars would have their own low-altitude restricted space to fly in. If that's the case, they wouldn't be anywhere near commercial jets, except maybe during the jets' take-off and landing.
Wouldn't these things also be linked to air traffic control?