Flying Car Crashes In British Columbia 91
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.'"
Re: (Score:3)
What it mostly looks like is a car with a paragliding chute and a huge fan on the back.
Toy. (Score:1)
Yes, the video leaves out the part where you gotta take off and fold up the parasail after landing. This isn't a jump in, drive to strip, take off, fly, land and just drive away.
This isdrive to strip, attach parasail, make sure it's spread out so that it'll unfold properly to give life, take off, fly, land, take off parasail, fold it up, drive to where you're going.
It's a nice toy - but impractical.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to have a pole a the front of the para-sail which keeps it (at least) vertical. Otherwise it would get tangled in the fan.
Re:Not A Flying Car (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a streetable car, and it does fly.
The Maverick --- designed for medical missionary work and similar applications --- is an ATV that can take to the air with a reasonable payload when needed. Top speed in flight is a modest 40 mph. It was never intended for use in high winds or other extreme conditions.
When it's time to fly, the Maverick's central telescopic mast raises and acts as a wing spar for its chute, properly known as a ram-air wing. The flip of a switch diverts engine power from the rear wheels to the rear-mounted five-blade propeller, which propels the car across the ground, up to its take-off speed of 40mph (64km/h). Thanks to its ram-air wing design, the Maverick can take flight in only 300 feet (91 meters).
Once in the air, the vehicle's electronic fly-by-wire system allows the pilot to steer it with the steering wheel, just like they would on the ground. According to I-TEC, existing sport pilots can learn to fly the Maverick within 12 hours. A dash-mounted Garmin GPS allows for both aerial and ground-based navigation. In flight mode, it has a maximum payload of 330 pounds (150 kg).
The Maverick flying car [gizmag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just my bent $0.02...
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO a flying car should have a performance improvement while in air.
In L.A., going 40 MPH in the air would be a 1000% improvement over going 4 MPH on the highway. Seriously though, it's not rocket science. First, you're limited to speed by the speed limit, so it's not a 2.5x difference, it's more like 2x difference. Than, you factor in all of the perks of flight such as direct A to B navigation (Yes, I know that if you need a runway, you can't exactly do A to B navigation, but the idea still holds). The term, "As the crow flies" applies here. Depending on where you are
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not A Flying Car (Score:4, Informative)
It's a car that flies, so it's a flying car. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your Jetsons dreams.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is a board that's white, so it's a whiteboard. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your "but I need to write on this" dreams.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a car that flies, so it's a flying car. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your Jetsons dreams.
I don't know if a two-seater kit-car with no cargo-space qualifies as a car by today's metric. It's a glorified motorcycle attached to a parasail.
It can fly and drive. But it doesn't look very maneuverable in the air (by nature of the high-drag parasail) and I wouldn't want to be in a road accident with it either... the other car will drive right though it.
Also, they make it street legal with a loophole: It's sold as a "kit car" and wouldn't pass the full road certification (no crash tests) required by w
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because things from Lamborghinis to Smart cars don't get described that way.
Probably a good thing. Slower means more time to recover from mistakes, less maneuverable means less temptation to do something stupid, and being a paraglider it means if the engine fails or the pilot has a heart attack it will land itself mostly safely (for people on the ground).
Re: (Score:1)
Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (Score:3)
Still waiting for my flying car..
Re: (Score:2)
If God had wanted Man to fly, they would've used a Mopar.
Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (Score:3)
And a JATO pack.
Re: (Score:2)
On me, or the car? Either way, that's a win.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, that's going to hurt. a lot.
But it'll look great on YouTube.
YouTube - Documenting human stupidity since 2005.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it'd look like frog-in-a-blender streaking by at something near mach 1 with fire at the tail end.
Ewww.
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
If you compare modern aviation to the early days of aviation, the "average joe" is already restricted from building and/or owning aircraft.
It wasn't that long ago that anyone with a few bucks, a bit of technical ability, and a grasp of the basic concepts could have happily built an airplane. They could have barnstormed, performed impromptu aerial acrobatic shows, and revolutionized air travel.
To the best of my knowledge, barnstorming is long since dead. Pilot
Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultralights still fall under a rather strict set of restrictions. (FAR Part 103)
One seat. Less than 5 gallons of fuel. Empty weight of less than 254 pounds. Top speed of 55 knots. Max stall speed of 24 knots. They can only be operated during daylight hours, and over unpopulated areas. All operations have to be in uncontrolled airspace.
That pretty much ensures you won't be doing any sort of cross country flying. You won't be flying into any airport other than your home ai
One bad thing about flying cars (Score:5, Interesting)
Compared with normal cars, you have 50% more directions you can crash into something and gravity weakly prefers one of them.
Re:One bad thing about flying cars (Score:4, Funny)
A bit orthogonally limited are we?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering you have about 90 degrees of forward-backwards movement in either direction in a normal car, but you have that plus close to a full 360 degrees of vertical-horizontal movement in a flying car, there's a lot more ways to crash a flying vehicle. And yes, you can crash into things going up.
I gotta ask... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
images (Score:5, Interesting)
I figured out the problem (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless this machine requires EXACTLY 100 yards.
Re: (Score:3)
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 ?
Re:I figured out the problem (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
US meters must be different from rest-of-the-world meters.
There are three different gallons (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Flying car crashes in British Columbia (Score:3)
Drones have been dispatched.
Note To Flying Car Manufacturers (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap, and here I was expecting that video to be two Aries going at it head-on, just like their namesake.
Great Scott! (Score:2)
100m runway? (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
flying car? (Score:1)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Oh The Humanity! (Score:2)
Note to the manufacturer: substitute the paragliding gear with a hydrogen-filled, metal-framed dirigible. Ya, that's the ticket for great press coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
More exciting crashes, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Let's kill these selfish dreams from yesteryear (Score:2)
The real solutions are better urban planning that pulls people out of the wasteful suburbs and public transportation.
So many have tried. And failed.. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Helicopters are
1. Hard to fly
2. Have a problematic requirement for a long tailboom with a torque countering thrust at the end of it
3. Or counter-rotating rotors with complex drive requirements
4. Have rotors that are long and ungainly and need to be stowed
5. Need large amounts of power to generate all required lift
Making one into a car means solving all those problems, AND adding all the safety equipment etc that is required for a modern car, AND still having it light enough to get off the groun
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There's your answer (Score:3)
It's the 21st century!! Where is my flying car?
It's stuck in a tree, in British Columbia.
Re: (Score:3)
What are the rules for found flying cars in trees? Same as model rockets/kites? Finders keepers, get it down in one piece and it's yours?
"Flying Car", Hardly (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I just used the last of my mod points.
Was seen earlier this month on Daily Planet (Score:3)
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.
In Jeremy Clarkson's words (Score:2)
It's rubbish!