Flying Cars By 2017

Flying cars are completely useless at present.

1) You have to insure it as both an automobile and as an airplane. Aircraft insurance is expensive enough, and since its not a mass produced vehicle you will have to use specialty automobile insurance where you agree ahead of time on a value for the vehicle and they guess VERY high on parts replacement costs for minor fender benders and the like.

2) Cars are built to crash, because you can afford the extra size and weight, but with aircraft they simply aren't built to crash... ever. They are built to fly first and foremost, as its safer to just avoid crashing entirely. So a vehicle designed to be both safe on the road and safe in the air will suck at both.

3) You can't use automotive gas with ethanol in it in any aircraft by law. Period. Even our plane for which 87 octane is MORE than enough and it is certified for auto-gas, you still have to use aviation gas since no gas stations in the Houston area or really any major city will be ethanol free. So have fun finding fuel to drive on the roads.

4) You can't take off or land from roads, you can only do so on designated airports, which would otherwise have been a very appealing aspect of a hybrid car/plane.

So add all that up and it makes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more sense to get yourself a folding wing aircraft that you can tow behind a SUV or pickup truck. That way you don't need extra insurance, no concerns with fuel, you can still park it at home in the garage with the wings folded, and it will be purpose built to be a light FLYING aircraft and not a driving one.
 
Not really anything worth having unless they become like the cars in Back to the Future 2. :) Hover conversion or get out. :D
 
Until they find a way to provide lift without a wing, they should just skip 'flying cars'
 
People are already really dumb when they drive. In fact, there's someone totally doing like a burnout at the interesection where I live while I'm typing this post. Since people never really grow out of that dumb teenager thing, I don't think giving them something that can fly without also requiring they pass the whole FAA pilot test thing is at all reasonable.
 
Shit. People can't drive in 2 dimensions... I would really really really not like to see bubba attempt 3.
 
We can already make aircraft without wings, they are called "copters"... we have single and various dual rotor designs, or even the quad rotor and up scaled ones like large drones. The problem is fuel economy and range, as they are just horribly inefficient and they aren't that fast either.

That's why the V-22 was so special, as it can take off vertically, or take off from a short roll (uses less fuel that way), and then fully convert to normal wing-assisted flight which gives it a much better top speed and fuel-economy/range than would otherwise be possible.
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I don't think giving them something that can fly without also requiring they pass the whole FAA pilot test thing is at all reasonable.
Click to expand...
As article says, you have to have a full pilot's license to fly it.

And while they say that they plan for an automated version in the future that can self-drive and self-fly, there are no plans for the FAA to allow anyone to fly in an aircraft without a registered pilot, autopilot or no.

v-22-osprey.jpg
 
Pretty sure I wouldn't drive an overpriced 2 seater that requires a pilots licence that uses motorcycle wheels/tires.

Somehow I doubt the faa would frown upon the use of motorcycle tires for landing an aircraft.

Not to mention that thing is fugly and would be terrible on any road.
 
That thing looks like a deathtrap.

Give me a rocket pack and 'chute, thanks.
 
Flying cars already exist. They're called helicopters.
 
Steve said:
A flying car built by 2017? I can see that, but I don't see these being sold to the public in the foreseeable future without a pilots license.
Click to expand...

There will never be a time when a pilot's license isn't required. Nor should there ever be! Car or not, it is still an aircraft and subject to FAA rules and laws.

Pilots licenses are about 25 learning to control the aircraft. The rest is about learning the physics of flight, Navigation, Weather, radio work, rules and regulations.....
 
This is NEVER going to happen. Yeah, I know. Never say never. I'm saying never.

The majority of people cannot drive for shit. Does anyone really want them in the air?
 
Before this can happen, lasers will have to be outlawed and made illegal for unlicensed persons.
 
Yeah flying cars are nothing new, they exist (in small numbers) but they do exist Curtis Autoplane is probably the first one, although it was more of a "demo model" that never was used IIRC. Then there was the Arrowbile, Airphibian, ConvAirCar, Avrocar, & Aerocar. It's not a new idea, sure the wings on this look more streamlines and automatically go out with the push of a button, but to pretend that makes it the first flying car is like saying the first window you could roll down in a car was when they got a button to do it rather than a crank.
 
Self-flying or get reamed by the FAA, your choice.

Realistically though, it comes down to both, because you don't want large numbers of multi-ton passenger craft falling out of the sky if you can afford it.
 
Ducman69 said:
Flying cars are completely useless at present.

1) You have to insure it as both an automobile and as an airplane. Aircraft insurance is expensive enough, and since its not a mass produced vehicle you will have to use specialty automobile insurance where you agree ahead of time on a value for the vehicle and they guess VERY high on parts replacement costs for minor fender benders and the like.

2) Cars are built to crash, because you can afford the extra size and weight, but with aircraft they simply aren't built to crash... ever. They are built to fly first and foremost, as its safer to just avoid crashing entirely. So a vehicle designed to be both safe on the road and safe in the air will suck at both.

3) You can't use automotive gas with ethanol in it in any aircraft by law. Period. Even our plane for which 87 octane is MORE than enough and it is certified for auto-gas, you still have to use aviation gas since no gas stations in the Houston area or really any major city will be ethanol free. So have fun finding fuel to drive on the roads.

4) You can't take off or land from roads, you can only do so on designated airports, which would otherwise have been a very appealing aspect of a hybrid car/plane.

So add all that up and it makes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more sense to get yourself a folding wing aircraft that you can tow behind a SUV or pickup truck. That way you don't need extra insurance, no concerns with fuel, you can still park it at home in the garage with the wings folded, and it will be purpose built to be a light FLYING aircraft and not a driving one.
Click to expand...

1) SE aircraft insurance is not expensive at all for something with low horsepower and less than 6 seats. The likely usage would be like an LSA I'm guessing, since it probably wouldn't be much of an instrument platform, or have the legs to go long distances.

2) Airplanes are designed to protect the passengers as much as possible. Mooney, Beech, even Cessna put a lot of work into making their planes as survivable as possible in a crash. They have for decades, but you have to admit inevitability as well: a car getting hit by a train dead center (at speed) isn't going to save you, nor is the plane going to keep you alive if you shear a wing off in turbulence at 5k AGL.

3) Actually I'm not sure about that. I know STC's used for auto gas prohibit ethanol, but really it's an altitude ATSM vapor lock concern, along with the fuel hoses. Ethanol can cause certain types of hoses to "swell" leading to fuel starvation, at higher altitudes (above 10k?) on a hot day you can can get vapor lock in the fuel. There are actually ways around both, not the least of which is a self-pressurized fuel system. I don't know if there is a FAR that would outright ban ethanol, personallu. I think more than a few homebuilders have used various engines (Rotax included?) with pump gas.

4) Depending on where you are it might be legal, but really, it is a terrible idea anywhere populated. Too many obstacles to clip in many places, trees and power lines included.

Oh, but I do agree: flying cars are useless.
 
Inglix_the_Mad said:
1) SE aircraft insurance is not expensive at all for something with low horsepower and less than 6 seats. The likely usage would be like an LSA I'm guessing, since it probably wouldn't be much of an instrument platform, or have the legs to go long distances.
Click to expand...
What do you consider cheap for insurance? $1700? To me that's already a lot of money, so to tack on specialty car insurance on top of that is a tall order is what I'm saying.
Inglix_the_Mad said:
2) Airplanes are designed to protect the passengers as much as possible. Mooney, Beech, even Cessna put a lot of work into making their planes as survivable as possible in a crash.
Click to expand...
Compared to cars, airplanes are not designed for crashing. They have seatbelts and collapsible seats, but airplanes are designed to fly (meaning they are inherently built with aerodynamics and light weight above all other considerations), not crash. Most GA aircraft don't even have anything as simple as forward facing airbags, yet alone the attention and investment in crash worthiness of the cheapest econo-car.
Inglix_the_Mad said:
3) Actually I'm not sure about that. I know STC's used for auto gas prohibit ethanol, but really it's an altitude ATSM vapor lock concern, along with the fuel hoses. Ethanol can cause certain types of hoses to "swell" leading to fuel starvation, at higher altitudes (above 10k?) on a hot day you can can get vapor lock in the fuel. There are actually ways around both, not the least of which is a self-pressurized fuel system. I don't know if there is a FAR that would outright ban ethanol, personallu. I think more than a few homebuilders have used various engines (Rotax included?) with pump gas.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean, that the STC prohibits the use of ethanol in autogas. Functionally, while not an expert obviously, but the ethanol is crazy hydrophilic and just like boats aircraft often sit for long periods unused and that means water in your fuel which translates into corrosion of your typical aluminum fuel tanks and just crap performance in general. The lines and seals and what not aren't certified for ethanol use, and while most aircraft aren't as old as ours, the average GA definitely predates any ethanol concerns. Regarding modifying aircraft, that defeats the point of flying a certified plane and the safety that affords. Also, I hear that the ethanol can separate when climbing rapidly, and then you can end up with even more than 10% in your fuel, which studies have shown even shorten the life of relatively modern vehicles. Pisses me off and is just generally bad news and really annoying, when MTBE was working just fine as an oxygenate (even though even that is unnecessary IMO) and ethanol production from corn is environmentally irresponsible and all just about making big corn (which controls Washington) more money.
 
Just maybe there'd be a market for toys like this out in Saudi or the UAE.
The concept has been around for years but who would ever really want such a lousy compromise or two distinctly different technologies.
Then again someone had that great notion of putting a camera in a ring box :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top