The 'Switchblade' Flying Car is Ready for Takeoff (abc27.com) 89
An anonymous reader shares this report on The Switchblade, "an aircraft that doubles as a car."
It could be "just weeks away from getting its wheels off the ground after an inspection by America's Federal Aviation Administration determined that the vehicle is safe to fly: The project has been 14 years in the making, and Sam Bousfield, CEO of Samson Sky and inventor of the Switchblade, said he's "stoked" to reach this milestone. After passing the FAA inspection, his team wasted no time in beginning the high-speed taxi test. They were out on the taxiway the next day. "[The crew] took off their 'I'm doing R&D' and they put on their 'I am flight test' crew hat, and I think that really set the tone for everything after," Bousfield said. "So, we're in a different game now...."
Just like a pocket knife, the Switchblade's wings slip smoothly into the body of the vehicle with the touch of a button, allowing it to seamlessly transition from sky to air. Its tail also unfurls or retracts, depending on if it's being used to fly or drive. The idea is that the vehicle could be parked in a garage, driven to an airport, flown to a new destination, and then driven anywhere on the ground after it lands. When a trip is over, the user can fly it home or fly it elsewhere.
"The side windows (in the doors) will be power windows," noted a tweet Thursday on the car manufacturer's official Twitter feed @FlyingSportsCar.
And Maxim points out that The Switchblade can be flown at up to 200 mph and as high as 13,000 feet, "for up to 450 miles, with the 190-hp liquid-cooled three-cylinder powering the single propeller." On the ground, the Switchblade can achieve a brisk 125 mph, making it similar to "a little flying sports car," Bousfield added.
Before production begins, the Switchblade has more regulatory hurdles that flying cars will need to overcome. Owners will need a pilot's license and either a motorcycle or driver's license to operate it in both flight and ground modes, plus car/motorcycle and aircraft insurance. But for now, the FAA flight approval has inspired Bousfield to keep charging ahead....
It will be at least a few more years before civilians are flying their own Switchblades, which are expected to cost around $170,000. But anyone can join the 1,670 people who have reserved one free of charge.
It could be "just weeks away from getting its wheels off the ground after an inspection by America's Federal Aviation Administration determined that the vehicle is safe to fly: The project has been 14 years in the making, and Sam Bousfield, CEO of Samson Sky and inventor of the Switchblade, said he's "stoked" to reach this milestone. After passing the FAA inspection, his team wasted no time in beginning the high-speed taxi test. They were out on the taxiway the next day. "[The crew] took off their 'I'm doing R&D' and they put on their 'I am flight test' crew hat, and I think that really set the tone for everything after," Bousfield said. "So, we're in a different game now...."
Just like a pocket knife, the Switchblade's wings slip smoothly into the body of the vehicle with the touch of a button, allowing it to seamlessly transition from sky to air. Its tail also unfurls or retracts, depending on if it's being used to fly or drive. The idea is that the vehicle could be parked in a garage, driven to an airport, flown to a new destination, and then driven anywhere on the ground after it lands. When a trip is over, the user can fly it home or fly it elsewhere.
"The side windows (in the doors) will be power windows," noted a tweet Thursday on the car manufacturer's official Twitter feed @FlyingSportsCar.
And Maxim points out that The Switchblade can be flown at up to 200 mph and as high as 13,000 feet, "for up to 450 miles, with the 190-hp liquid-cooled three-cylinder powering the single propeller." On the ground, the Switchblade can achieve a brisk 125 mph, making it similar to "a little flying sports car," Bousfield added.
Before production begins, the Switchblade has more regulatory hurdles that flying cars will need to overcome. Owners will need a pilot's license and either a motorcycle or driver's license to operate it in both flight and ground modes, plus car/motorcycle and aircraft insurance. But for now, the FAA flight approval has inspired Bousfield to keep charging ahead....
It will be at least a few more years before civilians are flying their own Switchblades, which are expected to cost around $170,000. But anyone can join the 1,670 people who have reserved one free of charge.
Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessing (Score:5, Insightful)
Some 30-40 years ago, a younger version of me would read about the flying cars we would have in 3-5 years, and be very excited. And the technologist part of me is still excited. Flying cars are really cool, right?
The grown-up and hopefully more mature me, hate thinking about a future with visual and auditory pollution from flying cars. When you cannot look at the sky without seeing cars zipping all over the place. When you take a walk in a quiet forest, and instead of listening to birds you are listning to a car flying overhead. Plus expensive flying cars will not be for everyone, so you keep getting reminded of your place in the world as the wealthy folks take to the skies.
The same actually goes for a future with drones flying all over the place. When I read about "delivery drones for pizza", that is in my mind a big negative. Drones for emergency deliveries like medical stuff? Yes. Drones all over a city for something as mundane as pizza? No way.
Re:Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You think this will still apply when the rich folks want to fly with their cars where they want? In the eternal words of Seto Kaiba, screw the rules, I have money. We'll just price it outside the range of the plebs so it doesn't get so crowded that we actually have to learn how to pilot those things and we should be good.
Re:Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessing (Score:5, Insightful)
You think this will still apply when the rich folks want to fly with their cars where they want?
Why wouldn't it? Despite long term existence of "rich people" the FAA has successfully regulated flying in the US. Licenses are still required and no one can just zoom around the skies without one.
The closest anyone has come to doing what you imagine are ultralight aircraft operators, like the powered parachutes I see around the small airport near me. They can be flown without a license under 14 C.F.R. 103 but they still have to be operated safely, not over congested areas, etc. So far "rich people" have not bought out the FAA regs on them and started menacing all us normals. "Rich people" tend to buy small twin engine planes, get licensed, then fly them for a year or two before dying in a crash.
Re: Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment, casual aircraft use is available to many people. Middle classish up to "rich folks", yet no one has successfully bought out the FAA to remove licensing, or safety rules for pilots. I don't see how the availability of a plane that folds and has good taxi characteristics is going to make that happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Even then the club fees, and the need to keep flying to keep your license intact, can add up a lot in time and money. My friend let his license collapse in pandemic shutdown just by not flying. But also he's retired otherwise it's tricky to keep up the hours.
Re: Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, [....]
Actually, almost everything you said is wrong or very confused and misleading. At least in the USA.
I think you might have heard some things and seen certain regulations, and are vastly misinterpreting them; your suggestions, in context, are wildly inaccurate and misleading.
Wait until this guy hears about Cessna (Score:2)
Just for the Cessna model 172 alone, there already about 40,000 of them. They've been around longer than you have. There are 20,000 Cessna model 182.
Overall there are about 200,000 GA aircraft in the US.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
That number has been pretty steady for the last 30 years. Has it ruined your life?
yep, for those (Score:2)
that have an airstrip in their back yards.
Re:Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessing (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't really a flying car. It is an airplane that can taxi at 125Mph and can legally drive on public roads.
And uses one of two different motorcycle engines, which are uncommon in the general aviation world. It takes regular 91 octane gas - leaded avgas probably isn't the best thing to be putting in it, so be sure you've filled up before you get to the airfield. Regular FAA-mandated inspections and maintenance won't be cheap, given that it looks like a fair bit of disassembly would be involved in just getting to the engine, and especially if any substantial time is put on the vehicle while on the ground. Also, that pothole or curb check that you wouldn't think twice about in a regular car might become a rather big deal for something that also has to fly.
It's neat, but I think it's probably more practical and likely cheaper just to buy a used 172 with a clean history and keep it at a local field.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I just don't see any advantage of this over driving a regular car to the airport and then getting in a regular plane that you own/rent for the single trip.
Unless you happen to work in a city with a downtown airport (like YTZ in Toronto) and also work near that airport, and also have a landing strip on your own property outside the city, I can't really see any advantage to using this "flying car" over a regular airplane since you'd still own a car anyway, so why not just drive that to the airport. Anyb
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I just don't see any advantage of this over driving a regular car to the airport and then getting in a regular plane that you own/rent for the single trip.
The advantage is that you have a car when you reach your destination. Little airfields are often far from anywhere, not on bus lines, and don't have rental cars.
Re: Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Your flight plans will have to be approved by the FAA and you will have to observe flight space, respect commands of ATC, ...
This is 2/3 untrue and pretty laughable to anyone who is actually a pilot. Flight under visual flight rules (VFR) requires no flight plan here in the USA. There is no need to communicate with ATC unless flying in controlled airspace.
Sure, instrument flight rules (IFR) is a different story but many pilots have the vast majority of their flight time with no flight plans or witho
Re: Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessin (Score:2)
Re: Flying cars, a mixed (mostly negative) blessin (Score:2)
Yes, most of these new "flying cars" are readable airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Your text makes it clear: this is a flying car.
Or did anyone ever think you can fly a flying car with a car license only? (* facepalm *)
and no uber per FAA rules! (Score:2)
and no uber per FAA rules!
Re: (Score:2)
Your flight plans will have to be approved by the FAA
Tell me you aren't a pilot without telling me you aren't a pilot.
Also, and this will be a big hurdle, you will have to have a proper pilots license to fly one of these.
Not so large a hurdle. From a conversation with my old German boss (also a pilot), getting my PP-ASEL in the US was roughly the same amount of work as (and cost less than) a German spends getting their drivers license. To be fair, this was ~15 years ago and I'm sure costs are higher today, but I spent about $4k total.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to drive to an airstrip before you can take off, and
you have to locate another airstrip before you can land, then
what you have is an airplane, and not any kind of car.
A true "flying car" is one that you can back out of your
garage and just take off and can land on any flat ground.
If it isn't a VTOL, it isn't a flying car.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Where are the flying cars? [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. No way this stuff should come into use.
Take, for example, all of the irresponsible behavior now happening on the new 6th Street bridge in Los Angeles.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/us/los-angeles-6th-street-bridge-closure/index.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/los-angeles-residents-outraged-by-constant-bridge-closures-as-police-struggle-to-contain-viral-antics/ar-AA10hJiZ
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/the-6th-street-bridge-is-already-home-to-illegal-activity-what-are-city-leaders-pla
Re: (Score:2)
When you take a walk in a quiet forest, and instead of listening to birds you are listning to a car flying overhead.
You're probably already listening to quad bikes and jet skis and whatever else the human race tows to the "countryside" these days to turn it into their own personal theme park.
Re: (Score:2)
We are nowhere near having that many drones in the sky, do you really need to be so paranoid and try to squish them so early? You have no idea how quiet they can be as technology advances with investment/revenue. They would be good in rural or suburban areas. it's not like cities are super quiet. Most automobiles and delivery trucks aren't exactly silent.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see it more like small planes. You still need an airport to land, and possibly to take off, but then you can just drive off from there without arranging for a car to be waiting at the destination.
It should arrive just after (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Petrol powered vehicles are banned
Close.
It should arrive around the same time that battery powered aircraft can fly more than an hour or so. That will be when LiS batteries, which have an energy density of about 550wh/kg compared to current lithium batteries used in cars which have an energy density of about 280 wh/kg are able to recharge more than 2000 times or so and are around $200 / kwh or less. Right now they can only manage about 500 charges.
That will also be the only way these could realistically work in urban areas because the nois
Power Windows ?! (Score:1)
Wow.
Re: Power Windows ?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, okay.
It seemed at first like a ridiculous idea that no-one would waste money on, but now, with Power Windows, it all makes sense.
Takeoff / Landing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will take off/land mainly at municipal airports. Just like other private planes. What this will give pilots is the ability to fold the wings once on the ground and drive away. Avoiding the hangar/storage fees that typical aircraft incur.
Re: (Score:2)
While what you said is true, the problem with it is that you still have to live near the airport because you're not going to want to make long drives in this thing — the more road-miles you put on it, the greater the risk of damaging your expensive toy while it's not even in the air. I wonder if anyone has done the math to figure out how far you can live from the airport and still have it make financial sense.
You do live near an airport. 19,000 in the US (Score:2)
There's an airstrip every few miles. 19,000 in the US.
That's one for every 17,000 people.
You are thinking about being a passenger on a commercial airline, getting on a 747. A 747 weighs 400,000 pounds and carries 416 passengers. The most popular aircraft, the Cessna 172, weighs about 1,700 pounds and carries 3 passengers. The airport requirements are very different.
Re: (Score:2)
You are thinking about being a passenger on a commercial airline, getting on a 747
What causes you to imagine you know what's going on inside of my head when you don't even understand the premise of the comment? Just because there's an airstrip somewhere roughly near your destination, that doesn't mean it's going to take few road-miles to reach it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there's an airstrip somewhere roughly near your destination, that doesn't mean it's going to take few road-miles to reach it.
Yeah, it sort of does. Unless where you live is some sort of multi-dimensional topological anomaly. Or you are using Apple Maps.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it sort of does. Unless where you live is some sort of multi-dimensional topological anomaly.
Anomaly? Just normal multi-dimensional topology (in three dimensions) is sufficient. Rural airstrips are commonly located atop a hill, not least because they're often in hilly country and the only other option is down in a valley that's harder to get out of. The topology of such locations is complicated.
Or you are using Apple Maps.
Apple Maps already seems to think the topology involves extra dimensions, so that checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
> Rural airstrips are commonly located atop a hill
If you're wanting to look intelligent, stop talking.
It's been said
It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it
See also Proverbs 17:28
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to several of them, and they all fit this description, except the one near a cliff which is essentially the same thing. You want to tell me I hallucinated?
One of them that was in a wooded area had taxiways and people had hangars at their homes, that was pretty slick. That seems like the ideal way to go. Not this mickey mouse showing off shit. Cool toy though.
Re: (Score:2)
You may well live in a very hilly area. Anecdotes and data and all that. There are a couple of important geographical criteria for selecting a location. These include:
1. Hundreds to thousands of acres of flat ground
2. Visual approach & perception
3. Wind dynamics (such as orographic effects)
#1 by itself generally tends to disqualify hill tops on most cases. Unless you use a mesa in Arizona, in which case #2 becomes a significant issue. Simply put, valleys are generally flat, hills are not flat (by defini
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there's an airstrip somewhere roughly near your destination, that doesn't mean it's going to take few road-miles to reach it.
Actually that is exactly what it means.
Even in Germany were 90% of all airfields are closed after WWII - you hardly have more than 15miles to drive to the next one, run by an air club - aka hobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
Number and location of (General Aviation aka "little") airports varies in the US, but there are lot of them. Sometimes you have to drive for hours to reach one. Sometimes there's one every 40 minutes. Your mileage may vary....
Near population centers there used to be a lot more of them, but many have been destroyed and turned into housing or industrial. Every day another one closes, and that's been going on for 40 years. And no new ones.
I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Roadable airplanes like these (which require a runway to take off or land, and therefore are not "flying cars" — ironically, the fact that it's an airplane with wings is what really ruins that whole idea) try to solve the hangar fee problem by making the plane more expensive. The only way in which it might really make sense is if you're frequently flying between more than two nearby airports where hangars are expensive, and where your destination is a very short drive away. You don't want to put a lot
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
That chassis is very low (Score:1)
I guess they are afraid (Score:4)
The article is only readable if your VPN exit is in the US.
I know that we're not supposed to RTFA but at least it should be theoretically possible on the WORLDWIDE web.
Access Restricted (Score:2)
I noticed the same thing.
This particulary common with US "news" websites. Usually because "gdpr" (really, the cookie law), because they like to sell out their visitors' data and are too arrogant to ask permission. For bonus hate, return a "451 for legal reasons" reply. It's not "legal reasons", it's fuckheadedness. The prevalence with US-based broadcasters' websites is curious.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is only readable if your VPN exit is in the US.
Australia works too. How many countries did you try?
Re: (Score:2)
Might just be restricted in GDPR countries or something. I've noticed European/UK people being very quick to assume a site blocks most of the world when it's just them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I was able to read it though, not that it was worth the time really. Flying cars FFS."
Exactly.
But I felt like bitching anyway.
These are (Score:2)
going to end up being called "Switchblade Doctor Killers" because the rich will buy them and not take their use seriously.
Just google 'forked tail doctor killer' to see what I'm talking about
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting toy, and that's it. (Score:5, Informative)
Flying is serious business. There are days it seems like it can be easy... until it's not. Even in an age where cockpit automation on small planes is quite impressive, this will always be a niche.
If they stayed in the realm of small production runs for enthusiasts, that's fine. If the company founders think they are on the verge of making some sort of fundamental shift in how many people fly light planes, that's a pipe dream. There just aren't enough people who want to learn how to fly, and, more important, to retain proficiency. It's not easy. As an example, look at the Light Sport Aircraft industry. They reduced training requirements by half. Made sure the planes were fairly easy to fly, with a low top speed and a low stall speed. And yet, they have never really 'taken off.'
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later there will be certified flight control systems that essentially fly the aircraft for you, like in all the latest military aircraft, or any typical quadcopter. A $3 Arduino can handle dynamic control of an aircraft, literally; Though I understand the reasons why that's not safe, it does illustrate the point that it's not actually a very hard job for a computer with sensors that are much more reliable than a human's senses, and which can react a hell of a lot faster, too. And then pilots are o
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, look at the Light Sport Aircraft industry. They reduced training requirements by half. Made sure the planes were fairly easy to fly, with a low top speed and a low stall speed. And yet, they have never really 'taken off.'
It's fundamentally dangerous, it's more dangerous the smaller the plane gets, and it's fundamentally expensive. Electric airplanes are getting much better — a friend of mine has one, and it's really a quite credible thing — and as the battery prices fall they are really going to bring the TCO of aviation down. Not needing expensive engine rebuilds on a short schedule makes doing a lot more flying a lot more practical. But nothing is going to change the physics of getting into a small plane in a
Re: (Score:2)
unexpected gust inverted his plane immediately after takeoff
Wake turbulence is a bitch. Though they are easily avoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
There just aren't enough people who want to learn how to fly
Minor quibble that doesn't contradict your main point: Lots of people want to learn how to fly. I wanted to learn how to fly - even took a half-hour lesson once. What people don't want is the time, expense, difficulty, inconvenience and danger of learning how to fly.
If I could step out my door and flit around like a dragonfly or soar over the beach like a seagull, without all that expense and danger, I'd totally give it a go.
Advantages/disadvantages? (Score:2)
Re: Advantages/disadvantages? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Approximately nobody thinks everyone is going to take up flying anytime soon. There are many reasons why this is not just a niche product, but why it's an extremely small niche. In fact, I would suspect that this product would not substantially increase the number of people who fly, but instead would attract sales from people who already fly, and want to show off.
The usual nonsense (Score:2)
Their web site doesn't mention this milestone (Score:2)
This sounds like a big deal, so why doesn't their web site mention it?
"After passing the FAA inspection, his team wasted no time in beginning the high-speed taxi test." sounds just silly. You mean they didn't test driving on the ground before calling the FAA? You don't need their approval for this. I can add wings to a home made go-kart and drive around all day without calling the FAA.
This is the 20 second long video of "Samson Sky Switchblade Flying Sports Car Begins Flight Test Process [2022]"
https://w [youtube.com]
If it flies, it needs maintenance (Score:2)
"How much does it cost to maintain a Piper Warrior?
Based on 450 annual owner-operated hours and $7.25-per-gallon fuel cost, the PIPER Warrior III has total variable costs of $65,587.50, total fixed costs of $19,785.00, and an annual budget of $85,372.50. This breaks down to $189.72 per hour."
So I'd prefer to fly commercial and call a cab.
No VTOL? I'm out (Score:2)
Heaven help us all! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We have people that can't use turn signals, run stop lights, and all sorts of crap. And you expect them to be perfect in the air?
We also have people, the majority actually, who do use turn signals and don't run red lights. Don't extrapolate your behavior out to the rest of the population. But since current pilots, even commercial ones, aren't perfect I don't know why you would even propose setting the minimum bar at perfect. Safety improves over time and perfect is a good target to aim for, but it is not and should not be the entrance criteria.
"...the Switchblade can achieve a brisk 125 mph" (Score:2)
Do they give away free reconstructive surgery to remove the horrible horrible scars you'll inevitably get after crashing this unstable thing at these silly speeds?
I'd be happier if it were also ready for landing (Score:2)
And by that I mean *controlled* landing. Not just "we'll be on the ground shortly."
Fantomas gets his car (Score:2)
That's not a flying car, it's a driveable plane. (Score:1)
airport (Score:2)
You still need a runway, which generally means you need an airport. This is a vehicle that you drive to the airport, take off on a runway, fly to another airport, and then drive around. It's not a "flying car", it's a "roadable airplane".
It sounds like a lot of fun to me, but it will be of limited utility. It will not be able to hold anywhere near the amount of bags, let alone people, that your car can.
"Rich People" will not like this thing at all. They will much prefer to get picked up in a nice car, with
Terrible Name (Score:1)