Terrafugia CEO Responds To "Flying Car" Criticism 233
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."
Re:Just another energy-wasting toy for the rich (Score:3, Informative)
As for the rich part...well, nobody is claiming otherwise.
Re:Just another energy-wasting toy for the rich (Score:3, Informative)
RE the flying car, it's actually much more reasonable than most other private planes, for which the Transition's $150k price tag is really bargain-basement (for a new plane). A new Cessna 172 is around $250k. And this particular model has a number of money-saving features compared to other light-sport aircraft; specifically, it runs on ordinary super-unleaded gas, it should get ~27 mpg while in the air, and most importantly, it doesn't need to be hangared, which can cost upwards of $500/month in some airports.
If they can pull off the engineering, I could see these guys having a good, stable business selling a couple hundred planes a year (which is about what other LSA manufacturers do). If they hit their price point, there will be good demand.
If you had R'd TFA... (Score:5, Informative)
If you had read the fine article you'd have seen that there were two major components to the answer for "Why now when it has always before been infeasible?":
1) New materials make it technically feasible.
2) New FAA regulations, creating a new class of aircraft (Light Sport) that's drastically easier to certify, makes it bureaucratically feasible.
I believe 2) completely answers your objection.
But thank you for playing.
Re:I predicted the demise of Tesla in 3 years (Score:4, Informative)
The US economy grew at .6% (annualized) the last two quarters, amidst a massive spike in oil prices, and food prices, and a financial service sector meltdown, and new-home-building doldrum, and assorted other minor panic. Unemployment remains about 5%, inflation (via the CPI) just .3%. If anything, this testifies to the strength of the rest of the US economy. My local Ph.D. economist opines, "If anything, the government should stop stepping on the gas."
Invest in America. It's underpriced.
Re:Walk around inspections (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just another energy-wasting toy for the rich (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
As far as the fuel economy goes, light sport aircraft are quite fuel efficient. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect around 6 gph at 120 knots. That results in about 23 miles (statute) per gallon. Better than my truck, and I'm sure that mileage could be improved upon.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
(Yes, you read that right - the C152 airframe was only minimally changed in 1977 as a tweak of the previous, highly successful 150)
It strikes me as quite appropriate that 21st Century technology would provide a significant improvement in capability/price/performance, when developed by current, high-quality engineers.
BTW, Burt Rutan is a legend in the field. You might know his company Scaled Composites [wikipedia.org] which won the Ansari X-Prize [wikipedia.org]. He's a legend in the field. Not only did he build an experimental aircraft design that outperformed other designs by a factor of 2 or more in speed, while halving fuel burn, he did so with a design that's relatively cheap and easy to build.
Some people like Rutan and Al Mooney [wikipedia.org] just seem to "get it right" when it comes to aircraft design, and they do it over, and over, and over again. The Mooney Mark 20 is a line of high performance, high reliability, cheap, complex aircraft that provide solid performance, excellent safety and great economy. The Mooney Mark-20 line (there have been lots culminating in the current "Ovation") is one of the few GA single-engine airplanes with a proper "crash cage" resulting in excellent safety numbers - you are half as likely to die (per mile of flight) while flying a Mooney in IFR conditions than the industry average.
A good indicator of airplane efficiency is its glide ratio - how far it moves forward for every foot dropped without power. The first number is the distance you move forward, the second number is is how far you drop. It's a ratio, and the higher the first number relative to the second, the better. A Mooney has a glide ratio of about 13:1, while a Cessna does about 7:1. A long EZ or a VariEZE can do anywhere from 15:1 to 20:1, a Boeing 767 did about 12:1 in the famous Gimli Glider incident [wikipedia.org]. Many ultralights do as badly as 3:1.
Can they do it? I'm quite sure they can. As soon as I can afford one, I'll probably buy. (It'll take me a few years, which is fine, since they won't be ready and tested by the "early adopters" for a few years, anyway)
I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want I want !!!!!!
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Rgds
Damon
Re:I predicted the demise of Tesla in 3 years (Score:3, Informative)
So, since you know so much about this, you can explain in more detail. Please do explain how such tighter regulation was in place when a Democrat administration was in office for the previous eight years. Ah, I see.
While you're at it, please explain how the person in the executive office can cause the legislative actions in the congress and the senate that would be necessary to do what you're talking about. Perhaps you can cite the Democrats (who have been running both houses for a while now) who - since they have the majority, and can control what legislation is brought to votes - had a firm grasp on how regulation would have prevented people from borrowing more money than they could pay back, and put forth legislation that would have prevented it. Then point to the calander date during which the Democrats mustered a vote on that subject, being in charge of the legislative agenda as they are, and then sent such legislation to the president you hate so much, where he vetoed it - since that's the mechanism by which he would have prevented such regulation. No, really, please pass along those details... I'm having trouble finding any sign of them, or finding any sign of the actions that The Wise Bill Clinton took to address that issue, but which The Evil Bush tore down.
So, thanks in advance for providing that information. Oh, and please also, if you would, explain how a new administration will suddenly have new constitutional authority to regulate banking and real estate in a way that doesn't have to start with the congress. I'm intrigued, since neither candidate is asserting such new powers, though you're convinced they will have them.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
1) The cost of certification. Lots and lots of documentation and testing are required.
2) Reliability. If your car engine dies, you can simply pull off to the side of the road. Obviously, you can't do this in an aircraft. This reliability is often achieved by redundancy. A simple example if this is spark plugs. Aircraft engines have two spark plugs per cylinder. If one dies, you will get reduced power, but it will be sufficient power to keep the aircraft in the air long enough to land safely. Now add the cost of duplicating major important aircraft components.
3) Liability. This is probably the biggest reason there are no cheap aircraft. If something goes wrong and there is a crash, just about any company that built a part that is on that aircraft will be sued. Combine that with many juries anti-corporation mindset and you've got a huge problem.
Here's an example of #3. Let's say you want to take video of what it's like to drive your prized 1960 Ford Fairlane, so you rig up this huge video camera mount on the steering wheel of your car. Next, you are feuding with you neighbor and as he sees you pulling out of your garage with the video camera on the steering wheel, he parks his F-550 pickup truck across the end of your driveway to prevent you from leaving. Your car is rather old, so it's not required to have seatbelts and doesn't. You speed out of your garage, down the driveway, and hit your neighbor's F-550 with your car. This causes you to fly forward and hit your head on the video camera and mount you have attached to the steering wheel, causing serious injuries.
Your wife decides to sue. Who does she sue?
1) You for being so stupid to mount a video camera to the steering wheel of your car and not stopping when you see your neighbor's F-550 parked across the driveway.
2) Your neighbor for parking his F-550 across your driveway in an attempt to keep you from leaving.
3) Ford for making an unsafe automobile.
If your wife chooses #3, what do you think are the chances of her being successful in suing Ford?
Change the 1960 Ford Fairlane to a 1940's Piper Cub, the F-550 to a fuel truck, and the driveway to a runway and you have exactly what happened. To make things even more bizarre, the jury found the aircraft maker, Piper, liable for millions of dollars of damages for producing an unsafe aircraft design.