Flying Car Wins Airworthiness Certification (bbc.com) 106
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: A flying car capable of hitting speeds over 100mph (160kmh) and altitudes above 8,000ft (2,500m) has been issued with a certificate of airworthiness by the Slovak Transport Authority. The hybrid car-aircraft, AirCar, is equipped with a BMW engine and runs on regular petrol-pump fuel. It takes two minutes and 15 seconds to transform from car into aircraft. The certification followed 70 hours of flight testing and more than 200 take-offs and landings, the company said. "AirCar certification opens the door for mass production of very efficient flying cars," its creator, Prof Stefan Klein, said. "It is official and the final confirmation of our ability to change mid-distance travel forever."
In June, the flying car completed a 35-minute flight between international airports in Nitra and Bratislava, Slovakia. The company told BBC News it planned "to fly to London from Paris in near future." Dr Steve Wright, senior research fellow in avionics and aircraft systems, at the University of the West of England, said the news was "a good step down the road" for the company and made him "cautiously optimistic that I am going to see a few AirCars one day -- but I think there is still a way to go."
In June, the flying car completed a 35-minute flight between international airports in Nitra and Bratislava, Slovakia. The company told BBC News it planned "to fly to London from Paris in near future." Dr Steve Wright, senior research fellow in avionics and aircraft systems, at the University of the West of England, said the news was "a good step down the road" for the company and made him "cautiously optimistic that I am going to see a few AirCars one day -- but I think there is still a way to go."
It's doomed (Score:1, Troll)
The hybrid car-aircraft, AirCar, is equipped with a BMW engine and runs on regular petrol-pump fuel.
As if the envirowhacks will ever let that see the light of day.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 48.78 olympic-sized swimming pools high.
Re: (Score:1)
And moves at the speed of an infinite number of olympic swimming pools under normal operating conditions. So that's fast!
Re: (Score:2)
It's also 888.8889 olympic-sized swimming pools deep.
Re:It's doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps those envriowhacks may be in a better mood, if our commute wasn't filled with rednecks rolling coal and cutting off and break checking every Electric car and Prius out there.
This particular type of flying car has a very slim chance of being an environmental problem. It would be a fun toy for a few wealthy folks, who enjoy flying around. But being that there is very little storage, it isn't too practical for a daily driver, with 100mph speed it isn't that special as an aircraft as well. Being a "fixed wing" aircraft, it will need an airport to take off and land.
The issue isn't really any one individual or company, but just a large number of them that add up. You can commute daily in an F650 Pickup and you alone would have nearly 0 effect environmentally. However if millions of people are driving a Pickup that does 7.5mpg just for normal commutes then it will have a real impact.
The actual environmentalist, the ones who make the decisions, vs the guy with a bunch of bumper stickers on his Prius, or some random guy on the internet who will shame anyone use isn't net 0 or less. But take a lot of factors into account, before they figure it can or cannot be approved. Which included how wide scale will it be used, and compared to the alternatives as well what additional utility will it bring up.
I would suggest that you get off Cable News, and Social Media for a while. They are painting a portrait where your echo chamber are normal guys, with normal problems, while the other side is full of crazy wackos. Where in reality those other guys are normal guys as well, with normal problems and are much similar to you than you really think.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's test that hypothesis. There are no rednecks in Europe, most if not all countries strictly forbid equipment needed to roll coal. Are environmentalists more or less offensive in EU compared to US?
And so, this nonsense is debunked. If there is a correlation between those things and angry "envirohacks", it's a correlation of "the more people roll coal, the better mood they're in".
As for this car being an environmental problem, flying already is a massive environmental problem. Yet in spite of this, becaus
Re: (Score:1)
Lol.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It is unlikely that you have ever seen a redneck in a F650 pickup roll coal.
Re: It's doomed (Score:3)
It's actually an airplane that can be driven on the roads. Meaning you still need a pilot's license as well as a driver's license.
I don't think the rads have much to worry about from this.
The enviromental issue is least of their worries (Score:3)
I'm assuming this is a car engine (given BMW no longer make aero engines) and hence has car engine reliability which is nowhere near that of an aero engine particularly when running close to max power most of the time in the air.
There's a reason piston aircraft engines are based on tried and tested decades old designs, some even still running on leaded fuel - its because they absolutely must keep on running no matter what to the best of their ability. There's no room for limp mode at 10K feet.
Re:The enviromental issue is least of their worrie (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, if you suffer an engine failure at 10k feet, the chances are you can make it somewhere safe to land unless your aircraft has really poor gliding characteristics, or you are a Youtuber trying to get more views [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The enviromental issue is least of their worrie (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of the light aircraft engines are in fact automotive engine derivatives. Primary reason why most of these come from older automotive engines is not because automotive engines aren't good enough, but because getting a new engine through the certification is too expensive compared to potential sales.
This is a problem well documented in world of light aircraft, where need for more modern light engines is extreme, but because of relatively small volumes, it's all but impossible to convince automotive engine makers to make minor adjustments and then get those engines past the certification. The problem with "automotive engines aren't reliable enough" is a myth.
And that is the reason why it's all old slightly modded car engines in the light aircraft today. Too small of a volume for automotive makers to bother with certification. That's it.
Re: (Score:3)
Aircraft have been using car engines for 70 years. The biggest problem with them is they're usually heavy, so the ones used in aircraft are typically sports car engines.
Many other light aircraft piston engines are very similar to automobile engines. Rotax for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Rotaxs were derived from snowmobile engines? All production ICEs are "similar" in most regards...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what came first, but Rotax makes everything from go-kart to automobile and aircraft engines, variations on each other. The aircraft engines aren't the hyper engineered magic the OP thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
I googled a bit and it seems I was right, https://www.rotax.com/en/news/... [rotax.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That was interesting. Thanks for the link.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine had a light plane that came with Rotax engines and converted it to electric...
Re: (Score:3)
If it runs on regular pump gas then it's an upgrade from most small planes, which run on leaded av-gas. For "some reason" they were granted an exception to the de-leading rule for fuel. You can only spew lead out your tailpipe if you're rich. (The reason is bribery as usual.)
Sva, mot & tuv (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to see it's roadworthiness certificate though. Especially the ncap crash tests with mandatory side impact protection, airbags, abs and soon vertical road signage identification. Not to mention euro 6+ emissions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to see it's crashworthyness from 8 thousand feet!
Flying Motorcycle (Score:3)
I'd love to see it's roadworthiness certificate though. Especially the ncap crash tests with mandatory side impact protection, airbags, abs and soon vertical road signage identification. Not to mention euro 6+ emissions.
My thinking exactly. I think these days it's harder to get certification for a car than an aircraft. Then I read the linked article and saw it has 3 wheels. In many/most jurisdictions a 3-wheeler is not considered an automobile and has fewer restrictions to get it on the road.
So while this vehicle might be both road and air worthy, in most places it's a flying motorcycle, not a flying car.
Re: Flying Motorcycle (Score:2)
"a 3-wheeler is not considered an automobile and has fewer restrictions to get it on the road."
And you would think that most cars in the US would be 3 wheelers because of this, except they are not.
Most cars have 4 wheels for a good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a "flying car" anywhere.
A flying car is a vehicle in which you can back out of your
driveway, take off immediately, and land on any flat area.
If you still have to travel to an airstrip to take off and land,
then what you have is an airplane. Why not just park
your plane in a hanger at the airport, and drive back and
forth in a real car?
"Flying car" is just PR B.S. (Score:2)
it's called an aircraft. Fullstop.
It's a non-starter (Score:5, Insightful)
Well ok maybe it literally starts, but this concept isn't going anywhere. Ok maybe it can go Paris to London but you know what I mean!
You get a shitty car and a shitty plane that you'll have to overhaul if you drive it too much or if someone bumps into you in traffic. And the benefit is what, that you pay for a garage instead of hangar space to store it?
Re: (Score:2)
I see it perhaps being useful for the Rich Exec type who wants to Go from Paris to London and back on the same day, who wants to just go end to end, without renting a car or waiting in lines (which is often)
If your going rate is equivalent of $500 an hour. waiting in line for security checks, or in the car rental place is going to waste a lot of money. If you can go end to end without stopping then you can save thousands of dollars every day, where you can be where they need to be.
Re:It's a non-starter (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I see the appeal in concept, I'd love that too, but in practice? Why wouldn't this exec just drive a nice S-class Benz to the airport, get into a rented/chartered plane, and take a cab at the other end? Yes that would require getting out of the car but I can't imagine this being a big inconvenience compared to dealing with a flying car which is bad at doing both of those things.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are in the $500/hour territory, you don't do what the common folk do, you get white glove service and your vehicle is pretty much waiting for you when you land (probably complete with a driver, but if you really want to drive yourself you can have a car waiting for you).
The inconvenience for this to have to go through airports means it doesn't buy you much over private plane and car service/rental (a brief walk between plane and car). On the flip side, most of the car utility is lost to the flexibili
That's what private helicopters are for. (Score:2)
As for savings, people who buy and fly private don't give a shit about savings. They are not making $500 an hour, they are making deals worth millions.
Which is why they can afford owning and operating flying machines which, with daily use along a proposed commute, [wingly.io] would cost a few thousand in inspections alone, [covehelicopter.com] - every 25 days.
Not maintenance - inspection.
What they CAN'T AFFORD is dedicated landing spaces.
Unless they own both of those particular skyscrapers, one in the middle of Paris and another in the mid
Re: (Score:2)
From Paris to London you need to go through customs (UK is not in the Schengen Area).
Videoconference (Score:2)
>> If your going rate is equivalent of $500 an hour.
Do it in video conference instead of a trip, save 25000
Re: (Score:3)
And the benefit is what, that you pay for a garage instead of hangar space to store it?
It's obvious that at best the market for flying cars is currently very small, and will probably continue to be very small. But since you ask, essentially yes. If you live near an airstrip, but not near enough to taxi a plane there, then this is a solution for you. There are "lots" of small communities (at least, the number is surprisingly large, even if there's not that many) where a private airstrip is shared by a number of houses which have small hangars for small planes, and the residents taxi to the str
Re:It's a non-starter (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the question is how do we define 'flying cars'.
If it means 'aircraft that must avail themselves of airports for takeoff and landing, but can also drive', I'd call that roadable aircraft because it's still awkward and practically not much potential for better over efficient car rental services combined with your flight.
I think most people imagine taking off from within a mile of wherever they are and landing within a mile or so, basically a VTOL. They want to open up the air so that 25 mile commute that takes an hour thanks to frequent congestion is a 15 minute trip (about 100 mph traversing the straight line path). They want to cut a 3 hour trip to relatives to under an hour of straight line flying.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you in general, if you can't just take off from or land on a highway (assuming it were made legal) then it's not a flying car, it's a roadable airplane. On the other hand, we could add airstrips just for vehicles like these which would bring them much closer to the dream.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have to allocate all that money and space for runways,
maintenance shops, ATC, etc. making these runways-for-cars totally impractical.
Re: (Score:3)
This would be great in my urban area. I could keep it at home (hangars are not available, and if they become availalbe after years of waiting they are over $500/mo.
Drive 25 minutes to the airport.
convert to plane and preflight
Take off
Land at destination airport
Convert to car and drive to final destination.
Out here in the West this would be an absolute game changer. A lot of the places we want to go to don't have good ground transport options, but do have great little airports right near the attractions.
Re: (Score:2)
where a private airstrip is shared by a number of houses which have small hangars for small planes
And that is the right way to travel if you are in that
group. Owning a sort-of car that doubles
as a sort-of airplane is madness.
Re: (Score:2)
I need one that transforms while driving. So I can use the roads, but when I git stop-and-go traffic I can transform, take-off, and go around it. 90% of the time the roads are fine. It's that 10% chance that requires you to leave an hour ahead of time, every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Right.
Take this pill, and sleep well.
Re: (Score:2)
The benefit is that you can save a lot of time moving moderate distance.
Look at it from an American perspective. If you live in NJ, it takes about 4 hours to get to a good Vermont Ski Resort. Flying does NOT save time - especially when you consider costs, security, and then getting baggage and a car at the destination.
Now consider getting into a car, driving to a small airport nearby. No security, because you are in your own aircraft. You spend about an extra hour driving out of your way and waiting fo
Re: (Score:1)
Plus, they haven't solved the #1 problem with flying cars: the failure mode.
When a car has a catastrophic mechanical failure, you end up stopped on the side of the highway waiting for a man with a truck.
When a flying car has a catastrophic mechanical failure, you end up smashing through someone's roof into their living room, killing a family of four.
Regulatory hurdles are going to be a thing with these products.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Plus, they haven't solved the #1 problem with flying cars: the failure mode.
What are you talking about ?
There is no problem with "flying cars" because such things do not exist.
Also : it is called an "airplane". Not a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? They don't exist? Well shit, that must mean they never will, and that the article this whole conversation is linked to is just a big fucking lie, right? Fake news!
Or, if you're just being unreasonably pedantic, let me revise my previous statement into "Plus, they haven't solved the #1 problem with the concept of flying cars: the failure mode." (revision in bold)
Happy? You've added no value to the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole discussion is meaningess anyway because "flying cars" is nothing more than a hopeless impractical PR stunt.
Re:It's a non-starter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If it can handle short runways, it could be great for living on one of the many islands off the coast of WA that have airstrips, though! Many of them have no ferry service so one might have a car on the island, a second car sitting in a paid parking lot on the mainland, and a boat in the marina or a small plane at the airstrip. Being able to use one vehicle would certainly be more convenient, and keeping it at your home is more secure and cheaper. There are other places in the world with similar access prob
Re: It's a non-starter (Score:2)
Most prototypes are "shitty". They tend to become unshitty once the initial tests are successful and they refine them for the market.
Don't look up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to invest in an underground bunker! Not because of the apocalypse, but because of all the idiots that are soon going to own flying cars.
Re: Don't look up (Score:3)
Hopefully getting a pilot's license is much more stringent than one for driving.
This has the effect of filtering out most of the window licking morons.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to scam your insurance for a new roof ?
I think you'll wait for a lonnnng time.
Jack of all trades... (Score:1)
The point being if you have multiple problems, you need multiple tools.
Planes are difficult to make and require a lot of compromises to keep the weight down. Wings and propellers take up a lot of space. Cars are less fussy but we have high demands of them. Designing something to do both means you have a rubbish car that turns into a rubbish plane.
Even car-boats have very limited appeal an
Re: (Score:2)
Okay then, what about a submarine spaceship?
Re: (Score:2)
Already been done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Over 100 mph ? Does it cost a meeelioon dollares ? (Score:1)
In a dive ?
Unpossible! (Score:1)
Compromised as a car, compromised as an aircraft (Score:2)
What exactly is the point of these vehicles? Yes there's a tiny use case of people who want to go point to point without changing vehicles but given its speed and range they'd probably be better off spending the money on a limo + chauffeur because this certainly isn't going to be bought by the guy who's blown his savings on getting a pilots license and occsionally rents cessna for a trip.
needs money (Score:2)
Re: needs money (Score:2)
Hes been at that one for 50 years now and in all that time he managed a 15 foot high tethered hovering. I'm surprised that this project is still around.
I would say that he was a scam artist who bilks his investors, but it seems he actually believes in his invention.
50 years and all I can conclude is that he is just a kook playing make believe.
Re: (Score:2)
50 years and all I can conclude is that he is just a kook playing make believe.
He's capable of doing the math, and from what he's published, it appears his numbers work out. Where his reach has exceeded his grasp for the entirety of his 85 years of life is control systems. That plus his apparent insistence on using inadequate technology. To this day, he persists in using Wankel engines in the nacelles of his skycar design, despite them being completely unable to respond to throttle changes quickly enough. I remember the article about his 15 foot tethered hover test and they specif
Re: needs money (Score:2)
"He's capable of doing the math, and from what he's published, it appears his numbers work out. Where his reach has exceeded his grasp for the entirety of his 85 years of life is control systems. That plus his apparent insistence on using inadequate technology. To this day, he persists in using Wankel engines in the nacelles of his skycar design, despite them being completely unable to respond to throttle changes quickly enough."
He needs to give that up and try a different approach. Yeah, a radical
Re: needs money (Score:2)
I want to mention that I first read of the "sky car" back on the mid 1980s, in one of those kid oriented science magazines. I thought "Cool! I want one!"
This was well before the realization and horrifying images of drunk drivers crashing into 5th floor apartments coming to mind whenever "flying car" is mentioned.
Probably an experimental aircraft cert. (Score:2)
With only 70 hours, it probably has the local equivalent of an experimental aircraft certificate, which is really the lowest level of certification above "ultralight". It simply means they can travel between airports.
The first attempt... (Score:3)
... back in 1973 with a Ford Pinto, ended very badly for the inventors.
https://performance.ford.com/e... [ford.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us will only see this ... (Score:2)
in a future James Bond film. A few people with too much money will buy one and use it to impress their mates. That is about it.
The reactions here are heartbreaking. (Score:5, Insightful)
We've done a complete 180 when it comes to this subject. From constant screams of "WHERE'S MY FLYING CAR!" to doomsayers puking up hatred every time we see any indication somebody might be trying to make a flying car. Do we have to hate everything now? Can't we just take a moment to enjoy the possibility before we shit ourselves in hateful glee?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't advancing age wonderful?
Re: (Score:2)
As a dude pulling up on fifty? No. It's terrible. I've been told it beats the alternative, but nobody seems capable of providing a first-hand experienced opinion on that particular variable.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, certain unavoidable physical developments aside, you can control how much of a salty old codger you become. Judging by your post you're doing okay. Unfortunately you still have to watch the people around you turn into cranky luddites.
Re: (Score:2)
I try to keep a sense of fun. My studio room is filled with toys and lego. And I take turns playing guitar or writing horrible vampires in space sci-fi / space opera. I'm not going full cranky old dude without a fight.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, personally I'm doing fine. I'm a cyclist, so I tend to keep myself in shape. Winters are rough, but that's standard in this part of the country. My real bummers are watching friends drop away into stupidities they swore they'd never fall into and such. That, and the rest of the world seems to always be on the verge of catching fire, falling into a black hole, or just flying apart spontaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not the 'flying car' that people were hoping for. The dream is unfettered direct lines from source to destination, without being corralled into snarled traffic situations of everyone wanting to travel the exact same freeway or awkward backroads that have to wind around terrain and have intersections frequently stopping you. Having airports being in the picture for takeoff and landing destroys that potential.
On the road side, you are still pretty much going to be stuck with the worst of the fre
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot is a cult. We have rituals. Do no interfere with our rituals, or The Great Grey Neckbeards will vote on an action you likely won't take kindly to. You've been warned...
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: "Do not interfere...
(Maybe typo's are a ritual)
It's fine if you're just a dreamer .... (Score:2)
The whole "flying car" thing relied on a fictional world where everyone was free to take off right from the convenience of their own dwelling (a la "The Jetsons") and travel pretty much anywhere, where you'd just land again in an available parking space.
When you try to build one in the current environment? It just makes no practical sense because you're talking about a heavily government regulated craft that requires you take off from an airport runway, subject to monitoring by a control tower and land at a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still want flying cars, just not basically modified helicopters that are still going to be as noisy and polluting as anything else in the sky and require huge amounts of effort and training and licensing to fly safely.
For me the vision of flying cars was always, like, a forcefield-shielded translucent bubble, lifted silently on an anti-grav drive, powered by a Mr Fusion and controlled by a cheerfully friendly AI, while I was served cocktails by a matter generator.
You can want some utopia of flying vehicle
Re: (Score:2)
Well, think of it this way: the model T wasn't exactly a lane-correcting, automatic braking, air conditioned wonder of modern technology. That's the state "flying cars" are in right now. Actually, pre-model T era for flying cars. No way are we gonna get the whole shebang all at once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The reactions here are heartbreaking. (Score:2)
This is the continuation of the 1990s "I'm apathetic, so I am cool!". Like sagging jeans, this didn't die out after the 90s ended, in fact, it had gotten much much worse as time went on. :-\
Flying car approved? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the number of desktops that are based on ChromeBooks,
I'd say maybe.
What a waste of time. (Score:2)
I dunno how to break it to ya - Anakin Skywalker you ain't. Even Luke's landspeeder was probably beyond the reflex
Re: What a waste of time. (Score:2)
I'm sure the pod racers were equipped with all kinds of collision detection and other advanced systems to prevent those racers from crashing into a redwood inside a dense forest at 500 mph. The pilot simply told the craft "I want to go in this general direction". Of course these systems were only designed to prevent unintended collisions, not pilots intentionally ramming their racers into each other.
Alaska? (Score:2)
lol, just in time (Score:2)
and runs on regular petrol-pump fuel
"Your flying car has arrived sir."
"Yay! Took goldarn long enough."
"Unfortunately, around next month or so, it will become illegal to fuel it."
" ... "
Looking forward to suing everyone involved (Score:2)
I've never been a fan of flying cars, not until *their* insurance pays for computer-controlled, radar-guided anti-aircraft guns on my roof, to shoot down drunks, kids joyriding, and "people who lost control of their vehicle".
Let's also consider someone who lives other than out in the middle of nowhere... just how loud is the engine revving up for takeoff?
AirCar pictures and such (Score:2)
Yet another... (Score:2)
...flying car video that fails to demonstrate how loud (or quiet) the thing is.
I just don't really get the attraction for having one of these unless you live very close to a landing strip.
Roadable airplane (Score:2)
These types of prototype cars have been tested and flew scince the 1970s (at least).
But it's still not what people think of when they hear "flying car".
Funny thing about airworthiness certificates.... (Score:2)