Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

Flying Car Crashes In British Columbia 91

Posted by samzenpus
from the flying-education dept.
First time accepted submitter vawarayer writes "An experimental car has crashed near a school in British Columbia, Canada. Only five cars like this have been produced. From the article: 'A release from the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) confirmed the flying car was "an American corporately registered I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute" that had crashed. The vehicle, known as "Maverick," uses a 100-metre runway to take off and flies under a parasail. But it also needs a 100-metre runway to make a safe landing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flying Car Crashes In British Columbia

Comments Filter:
  • by TigerPlish (174064) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @01:10PM (#43702999)

    Still waiting for my flying car..

    • by flyneye (84093)

      If God had wanted Man to fly, they would've used a Mopar.

        • And a JATO pack.

          On me, or the car? Either way, that's a win.

          • by JWSmythe (446288)

            Either way, that's going to hurt. a lot.

            But it'll look great on YouTube.

            YouTube - Documenting human stupidity since 2005.

            • I imagine it'd look like frog-in-a-blender streaking by at something near mach 1 with fire at the tail end.

              Ewww.

              • by JWSmythe (446288)

                I would so totally pay $20 to watch it live online.

                Apparently charging people to watch suicide or homocide or otherwise physically severely injured or death is illegal in most countries. Well, unless it has to do with large crowds, multi-million dollar player contracts, and something called "sport"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, 2013 @01:11PM (#43703003)

    Compared with normal cars, you have 50% more directions you can crash into something and gravity weakly prefers one of them.

  • by Macchendra (2919537) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @01:16PM (#43703047)
    ...is the Whomping Willow ok?
  • images (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhlowe (1803290) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @01:20PM (#43703067)
    A quick google image search [google.com] its just a motorized paraglider with a car body.. I've flew a friend's motorized paraglider about 15 years ago and it was pretty scary getting off the ground with the extra weight and higher than I was used to speeds.. Once in the air, it was still subject to gusts of wind deflating the wing.. There are many safer ways to fly for $94,000.. But... glad no one was seriously hurt...
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'm guessing that the US-made car actually requires a 100 meter runway, but the Canadians substituted a 100 metre runway.

    p.s. Insert obvious jokes about yards (or about rods and hogsheads) below.

    • by alexhs (877055)

      If a meter is not equal to a metre, where are we going ? A liter not being equal to a litre ? A ton not being equal to a tonne ? A gallon not being equal to a gallon ?

      • by PNutts (199112) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @02:19PM (#43703357)

        If a meter is not equal to a metre, where are we going ? A liter not being equal to a litre ? A ton not being equal to a tonne ? A gallon not being equal to a gallon ?

        He demonstrated that an ass is the same as an arse.

      • Actually, a ton is *not* equal to a tonne. A metric tonne, and an Imperial long ton are pretty close, by pure coincidence, but the long ton is about 1.5% larger. If you're talking short tons, which most Americans call simply, a "ton", then the metric tonne is over 10% bigger.

        Then there's the mess with American vs. Imperial gallons. The gallon that the rest of the world uses (or at least, recognizes as a gallon) is over 20% larger than the American gallon. That's one of the reasons why people think Americ

      • US meters must be different from rest-of-the-world meters.

      • Actually, a gallon isn't the same as a gallon or the same as a gallon, if we mean Imperial gallons vs. U.S. liquid gallons vs. U.S. dry gallons.

      • by Kittenman (971447)

        If a meter is not equal to a metre, where are we going ? A liter not being equal to a litre ? A ton not being equal to a tonne ? A gallon not being equal to a gallon ?

        A ton isn't equal to a tonne. One's non-metric, the other is metric - and the weights (or masses, if you prefer) are different. And a gallon may not be equal to a gallon: there's a US gallon and an imperial gallon. Litres and metres are ok, barring quantum physics...

  • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @01:36PM (#43703133)

    Drones have been dispatched.

  • by guttentag (313541) on Sunday May 12, 2013 @01:36PM (#43703135) Journal
    Naming your flying car "Parachute" suggests you expect it to fail and necessitate the use of a parachute. Kind of like Dodge Aries [youtube.com] implies your 22 hp hunk of metal is intended to ram into things.
    • I think they named it that because it uses a parasail. It is basically is a parachute with a propeller.
    • That's not the only thing wrong with the name. Take another look at it.

      I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute"

      The first flying card I get in will not be named after wild cattle. It might be name after the most loyal of tame creatures or one of the more sedate birds (preferably one that floats too).

      • That's not the only thing wrong with the name. Take another look at it.

        I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute"

        The first flying card I get in will not be named after wild cattle. It might be name after the most loyal of tame creatures or one of the more sedate birds (preferably one that floats too).

        The I-Tech Maverick, by any other name, would still crash as hard.

    • by Reziac (43301) *

      Crap, and here I was expecting that video to be two Aries going at it head-on, just like their namesake.

  • I knew i should bring back antigrav tech in the last trip to the future.
  • 100m runway? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Raptoer (984438)

    If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane?
    A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane?
      A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...

      because it's registered as a car, I suppose.

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane? A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...

      Really? I've never seen a helicopter that was capable of traveling on a road before. Could just be me, though.

      Oh, you mean you automatically expect "flying car" to mean "VTOL capable"? Why? Sci-fi movies? Absolutely nothing in the concept of "flying car" in any way implies that it doesn't need a runway. All it means is that it is a car (i.e. capable of traveling on a public road or highway) that is also capable of some form of flight. This can do both, therefore it is a flying car.

  • When I hear the term flying car I picture something like the PAL-V (http://pal-v.com/), which had its maiden flight last year.
    rather than a dune buggy with a powered parachute (as per the description in the article).

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      And when I hear the term "car," I think of a compact, while most Americans seem to think of an SUV. What's your point?

  • Note to the manufacturer: substitute the paragliding gear with a hydrogen-filled, metal-framed dirigible. Ya, that's the ticket for great press coverage.

    • More exciting crashes, as well.

    • Note to the manufacturer: substitute the paragliding gear with a hydrogen-filled, metal-framed dirigible. Ya, that's the ticket for great press coverage.

      Don't forget the flammable paint. That was actually the issue with the Hindenburg, not the hydrogen.

  • The real solutions are better urban planning that pulls people out of the wasteful suburbs and public transportation.

  • People have tried for so many years now, and I think we are seeing a trend here now. It's almost impossible to create a flying car that hoovers stable with the technology available today, tomorrow and I predict the same for the next 30 years. And even if they get them stable, the cars will be so dangerous concerning in-air malfunction that they would require a complete double set of engines and fuel and at least two pilots.

    You do the math.

    So many have tried. So many companies has invested and lost their mon

    • by gandhi_2 (1108023)

      there are thousands of powered parachutes in use, as well as auto-giros. (yes, i know, siam).

      it shouldn't be that much of a strech to make one a street-legal car.

    • by Deadstick (535032)

      So many companies has invested and lost their money

      Ummm, no. Many companies have tried and lost someone else's money, less a little something for the proprietors. That's how the flying-car scam works.

    • Lest we forget that even if you made a device that flew safely and satisified all of the requirements from the safety boards, you'd still have what I'd imagine as a giant gas guzzler of a car/plane. You thought a 10 MPG SUV was bad, wait till you see the 2 MPG flying vehicles of tomorrow!
  • It's the 21st century!! Where is my flying car?

    It's stuck in a tree, in British Columbia.

  • That thing is hardly a "flying car". More like a cheap dune buggy with an ultralight strapped to it. Even some of those autogyro craft qualify more as a "flying car".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgHSaNtAMjs [youtube.com]

  • If you're in Canada, Daily Planet [discoverychannel.ca] carried this car earlier this month. They mentioned they were doing test flights.

    OF course, you get to see a rather interesting takeoff int he clip. Alas, I think it's Canada only - not sure if the US Discovery channel has it on any of their channels (it's a Canadian production).

    Guess we might see an update shortly.

  • It's rubbish!

Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.

Working...