Flying Car More Economical Than SUV

fusion812 writes "The M400 needs 35 clear feet to take off but thanks to its 770 hp engine can whiz to 365 mph - cruise control kicks in at 326 mph - and climb at 6,400 feet per minute. You may hear it before you see it: it emits a rather noisy 65 dba at 500 feet. Interestingly, with a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road, it's rather more economical than a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and looks positively eco-friendly compared to a Hummer."

Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[Black Parrot]

IF YOU CAN READ THIS

I'm about to land on you

Re:That may be so...

[nkh]

for learning how to drive/fly one of these things?

Please, you're on Slashdot, we already know how to drive flying cars! Or have I wasted all these years playing video games?

The future is later

[BalloonMan]

If you get tired of waiting for flying cars, try some "life extending" organic almond butter [moller.com] from the good Dr. Moller.

Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[MouseR]

"I can't brake for nobody"

Why compromise...

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

...when you can have both in one! Flying SUV's! The noise pollution of the flying car and the gas-guzzling capacity of a Mac truck.

Seriously, how long do you think it will be before one of these is invented? With the American consumer market interested in style and power over economic- and environmentally-safe auto's, I'm guessing about three days after a smaller version of the flying car is available.

Obviously...

[Epistax]

I was under the impression that a tanker exploding was more environmentally friendly than an SUV. Better mileage too.

Re:Dawn of the age of the understicker...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I break on impact" :(

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[Hektor_Troy]

Just to nitpick, we don't use 8 significant digits when using km/l. 1 is more than enough. 8.5 km/l. Anything more is ridiculous, as the number will fluctuate anyway, and is probably rounded from something.

Here on Slashdot we often see posts like

"that's 8.50287411 km/l" followed by "see, this is why we don't want metric - it's too dificult to remember compared to 20 miles/gallon".

Of course we could do it the other way around as well. 8½ km/l 19.993239674108264552443197350831 miles/gallon. This is of course why we metric people hate imperial - it's too difficult to remember compared to 8½ km/l.

And for Simpsons fans

[HeghmoH]

20 miles/gallon = 537,600 rods/hogshead

Re:And for the non-americans in here

[carlislematthew]

Actually, wouldn't it be 19 and 35/36ths of gallon? That's *much* easier to remember... EVERYTHING MUST BE DIVISIBLE BY 6!!!!!!! Why? Because people used to have 5 fingers and 1 thumb on each hand. When mother nature dropped the useless "tiny finger" (even smaller than the "little finger"), people went to base 10. Base 5 was deemed to be too annoying for some reason.

This evolution happened earlier in Europe than in the US, hence the conversion to metric over there first. It'll happen over here too, once all those old, white, 6 fingered politicians finally die off.

Re:MPG not important

[ralfg33k]

My wife and I just howled with laughter at this one: this Hummer owner is the kind of schmuck who goes home, kicks his dog, then complains the next day that his foot hurts.

Re:MPG not important

[igny]

20 miles to the gallon on the road.

I dont get it, is it on the way up or on the way down?