Fairly Realistic Flying Car Offered for 2009 Delivery 276
An anonymous reader writes to tell us about yet another promise of a flying car. The Register is reporting on the latest from Terrafugia Inc called the "Transition" which is a combination car and airplane that runs on unleaded gas. The idea is that it's a car that you can drive to the nearest airstrip and, with the touch of a button, convert to an airplane, fly to an airstrip close to your goal, then convert back to a car to reach your ultimate destination. Of course, how many times have we been promised flying cars only to suffer in perpetual disappointment.
50s? Ha./ (Score:2, Informative)
More like the 30s!
Realistic? (Score:4, Informative)
550lb total payload. -120lb gas, -200lb pilot + 150lb passenger = 80lb left. What...you were eplanning on bringing a little luggage?
Re:Cmdr. Sisko wants to know -- (Score:4, Informative)
So flying cars, no. Driving airplanes... yes.
Re:Unleaded fuel???? (Score:3, Informative)
This one has wings that fold out and takes off and lands conventionally - hence the bit about finding a runway...
Re:Unleaded fuel???? (Score:2, Informative)
A lot of the newer, smaller engines, like Rotaxes and Jabirus, can run on automotive unleaded gas (often 93 octane). The older engines often can too, though you have to be careful as ethanol can eat up seals in the fuel system and give you a very bad day. This is getting more popular as gas prices rise
We're also starting to see airplanes with computer-controlled diesel engines running on standard Jet-A.
Also, the vehicle in TFA isn't VTOL--it would need a runway like any other airplane.
common mod (Score:2, Informative)
Realistic? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does the FAA say about it? (Score:3, Informative)
Based on what, exactly? Something particular in TFA that you can point to that is problematic with the FAA? TFA indicates that the manufacturers have been working with both the FAA and the NHTSA (the latter of which may be a bigger barrier.)
Re:This will go nowhere. (Score:2, Informative)
The minimum time for a standard private ticket is 40 hours, with a bunch of other requirements (certain number of "cross-country" hours, night flight, navigation, etc). The national average is somewhere around 60-80 hours--and that's flight time, which doesn't include ground instruction or studying on your own. I don't expect that a sport pilot license will take too much less, despite what the regulations say. Most people generally aren't even ready to solo until at least 20 hours. (Interestingly, the average used to be 5-6 hours, and people would think something was wrong with you if you hadn't done it by 10 or so... but now the FAA requires much more material to be covered prior to solo)
Flight instruction isn't like driver's ed, either. The instructor works you hard (simulated emergencies, proficiency maneuvers, unusual attitudes, and so on); you aren't just tooling along aimlessly like driving. The tests are harder, too. First, you have a written/computer exam covering things like aviation regulations, flight planning, proper technique, and weather. Then, your checkout consists of an oral exam over any and every subject the examiner wants to (mine included hydraulic systems, overwater navigation, aerodynamics, performance characteristics of the airplane, and "what would you do if..."), and a flight check. The flight check has very specific standards, and you will demonstrate just about everything you've learned. Bust one little thing, and you fail the checkride--I nearly busted mine by being just a bit too high during one approach. It's not "let's go flying and you only fail if you break a regulation."
Buildable, yes. Marketable, no. (Score:3, Informative)
There's no fundamental reason this thing can be built. It's a light sport aircraft with folding wings and good taxi capability. The wings just fold, which looks stupid in car mode but can be done without much trouble. They don't retract into the fuselage like one of the cooler-looking but unbuildable designs for flying cars. It's going to be a lousy car, though. Too fragile, and with all that sail area, hard to handle in a crosswind.
There's probably a market for some kind of ducted-fan thrust vehicle usable in tight spots. Moller is unlikely to make his "Skycar" work, after forty years of failure. But someone else might. Such a vehicle needs turbine power, will cost as much as a jet helicopter, and will be a fuel hog. The military could use something they could drop down into an urban street. With helicopters, the rotor circle is too big for that.
Interestingly, we're seeing small UAVs with those properties. Flying robots will be deployed before flying cars. The stability problem for small pure-thrust VTOL aircraft seems to have been solved.
Re:More interesting are the Honda plug-ins (Score:2, Informative)
According to this site [freedict.com] "kishimu" is one Japanese word that translates as "jar" in English.
PAL-V: Gyrocopter+tricycle = WANT! (Score:3, Informative)