Flying Car Cleared for Takeoff

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
It took awhile to get the necessary permissions which were holding back the production of the Terrafugia Transition, but the details have been worked out to the satisfaction of all. You may mistakenly think that the holdup was on the aircraft side with all of the stringent FAA regulations, but it was safety regulations on the automobile side that were road blocking the project (pun intended) :D
 
The problem of course, is that to make flying cars viable, we need a new propulsion system that does not require wings, or airlift. Some sort of antigravity engine is the only thing that will truly make fying cars a reality of what we picture a flying car should be. We also will need advanced computer and gps systems that can fly the car automatically, and control it in the air. You think drivers are bad now, on the ground, imagine drivers in the skies, it'd be a nightmare if we had to manually fly them. We need a computer controlled flight scheme so people wouldn't be running into each other, or dropping like flies on peoples houses, or whatever other mayhem could occur with humans behind the wheel of a flying car.
 
Somehow, I wouldn't want to be in the air (or land) when a grandma decides to take off in one of these...
 
This really doesn't make sense, it's not a flying car because it still needs a runway and still requires old fashioned flying skill. I don't even want to think about the havoc at ATC if even 5% of the population owned one.
 
The "flying car" as portrayed in sci-fi movies, cartoons, etc. (Fifth Element, for example) is completely unrealistic. Aerodynamic lift makes flight possible because of its high energy efficiency - using wings (or rotors, as in a helicopter) to create a pressure differential is genius, because it only requires reasonable forward velocity to generate enough upward force to overcome gravity. (Einstein's general relativity prohibits "antigravity" ... since gravity is caused by mass, to overcome Earth's gravity, you'd need a mass greater than the Earth itself!)

Contrast that to any type of propulsion system that wouldn't require wings/rotors. Assuming you could deliver the needed energy density in the future, what about supplying enough energy to every flying car out there? Without the efficiency of wings/rotors there'd be no way for everyone to operate flying cars, or even if we discover huge energy supplies, no reason ... why waste it?

An example: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2008/04/ironman_physics It's not about the propulsion used, it's about the energy required to overcome gravity.

I imagine a future personal transportation system (for mass transit, see "vactrains": http://english.eastday.com/e/100803/u1a5369373.html) would look much like that seen in Minority Report, with lots of high speed rails and automatic driving. Even with autopilot there seems to be little advantage to having everyone flying around.

If they can produce these at a cost less than that of a beginner plane and an average car, it might be a reasonable option for amateur pilots. Since that's unlikely, I don't see much use for these. Would still love to have one.
 
I would not go crusing the streets in that hunk of shit. Thats more of a plane with retractable wings thats allowed on the road, not a flying car.
 
Heh. They did testing at Plattsburg.....I was stationed there for a while.:D

Besides the fact that we couldn't handle 250 Mil+ flying cars instead of ground vehicles, who really needs one? Even if I wanted to fly to work every day (which doesn't make any sense because I'm only a 20min ride away), I would need to fly to the nearest airport, and then drive to work from there anyway - a longer trip.
Who could afford one? Lets see..........$250,000 for flying car - $20000 for ground car.
Cost of auto license with free study booklet and free lessons from parents.. $40 - flying lessons and private pilots license $6000 to $10000
 
It's impressive but as monkey34 says the cost of entry is very high and I wouldn't like to see the repair cost after getting into a minor collision with the thing. Those complex folding wings are exposed right on the outside of the car.

IMO parajet automotive have a more practical approach creating a vehicle that can be both flown and driven. By using a flexible wing that can just be rolled up expensive folding mechanisms are eliminated and the wing is protected on the ground. Further their vehicle seems to be designed for unpaved runways while terrafugias looks like it needs paved runways.
 
the real problem is that the majority of the populace is too stupid to safely control a flying vehicle which is why it will never take off. (pun also intended)
 
conscript said:
the real problem is that the majority of the populace is too stupid to safely control a flying vehicle which is why it will never take off. (pun also intended)
Click to expand...


The majority of people are too stupid to safely drive any car, let alone one that flies.

Meh, this will be priced outside of what the masses can afford, and toss in a license to fly and this will be a vehicle that gets a few sales, but never becomes widespread.
 
You don't even need an airport strip, just attach it to an hot air balloon tethered to your house, and fly in circles until you have acquired enough speed to release. And you can land on it too! ^-^
Frankly, this kind of vehicle will stay confidential for years. Just get on an ULM for the same experience.
 
matt9669 said:
(Einstein's general relativity prohibits "antigravity" ... since gravity is caused by mass, to overcome Earth's gravity, you'd need a mass greater than the Earth itself!)
Click to expand...

Nobody really knows if there is another way to make gravity. Nobody even knows what gravity is. It would be a bit premature to say you need mass greater than Earth. We don't need lightning to make electricity or magnetic rocks to make magnets.
 
$250,000k. Plus the maintenance and insurance will probably cost more than the average car annually. And who says the economy is bad?
 
Monkey34 said:
Heh. They did testing at Plattsburg.....I was stationed there for a while.:D

Besides the fact that we couldn't handle 250 Mil+ flying cars instead of ground vehicles, who really needs one? Even if I wanted to fly to work every day (which doesn't make any sense because I'm only a 20min ride away), I would need to fly to the nearest airport, and then drive to work from there anyway - a longer trip.
Who could afford one? Lets see..........$250,000 for flying car - $20000 for ground car.
Cost of auto license with free study booklet and free lessons from parents.. $40 - flying lessons and private pilots license $6000 to $10000
Click to expand...

That's true - they could always make an ultralight (no license required), but I'd assume getting such a vehicle street legal would be the challenges there.

http://www.uflyit.com/license.htm
 
I'm betting it would be cheaper to just rent space for your plane at an air field and drive to and from it in your far more practical car.
 
Man.... You guys didn't know the only reason flying cars wont get off the ground is due to giant automaker conspiracy ...

Proof in the video..
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hGjl3zcJMk"]YouTube - ‪Mean Automakers Dash Hope For Flying Cars‬‏[/ame]
 
Spiko said:
I'm betting it would be cheaper to just rent space for your plane at an air field and drive to and from it in your far more practical car.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but how do you get away from the airfield you landed on? Most small airfields don't have rentals, and getting a cab can be very expensive because airfelds are most often far away from populated areas. Also, hangar space can be very expensive.

These are "drivable airplanes", not flying cars. They are made for people who already fly small airplanes, who want go from point A to B by flying and without having to get a cab or rent a car at the destination airfield.
 
Getting rear-ended in traffic by a gawker is going to be the most expensive accident ever. No one would be able to afford the insurance here!
 
jbgg.jpg
 
Uh, oh, if Joe Average gets this new toy the skies will not be safe, nor the ground.
 
I would never fly that thing.

2 problems with the design. 4 actually

as a plane
1) landings would be unforigiving at best and impossible in a crosswind. the wheels are way to close to the body, plus the wings are on the bottom. so tilt a few degrees to either side and your scraping the ground with wings on landing. crosswind, you are skewed in position and the way the wheels are on that thing give me the feeling it could go cartwheeling down the runway after a crosswind landing.

2) the mechanism that holds the winds unfloded would need to be robust enough that the wings wouldn't decide to fold up on you in midair. and in a small light plane that would be tricky to accomplish. as it is I wouldn't trust it to hold up in rough weather.

as a car
3) with folded wings in the way, you have complete crap visibility behind and the blindspots that cars have are even worse in this thing. If theres some sort of triple rear view camera system this might be less of an issue.

4) it's a low rider. Going to require optimal roads to drive it.
 
You guys are completely off the mark... this sort of product won't be intended for average joe. This will be a toy for the rich, drive to the airport with your son, fly a hundred miles or so to go to some event like a theme park or something, then fly home in the same day...

It's a novelty, but that is good because everything everyone is saying today is what they said about cars too I bet, just a novelty for the rich etc... Then someone will make a Model T of the airplane world and we're off...

Additionally, it runs on gas. That is a huge bonus, especially for the above scenario.
 
matt9669 said:
(Einstein's general relativity prohibits "antigravity" ... since gravity is caused by mass, to overcome Earth's gravity, you'd need a mass greater than the Earth itself!)
That is not correct on a couple of points.

1) First of all, what you are explaining isn't "anti-gravity" but local relative gravity negation by putting an object between two masses so that it appears gravity does not exist.

2) Depending on distance, you would not need a mass "greater" than earth.

True anti-gravity would not be explainable by Einstein's theories as the system in which they are based include gravity to be a constant. There are some theories of anti-gravity that are realistic, but unobtainable at our current state of knowledge and technology ... like changing the local vibration of atoms so they are out of phase with the pulling body.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Taldren said:
matt9669 said:
(Einstein's general relativity prohibits "antigravity" ... since gravity is caused by mass, to overcome Earth's gravity, you'd need a mass greater than the Earth itself!)
That is not correct on a couple of points.

1) First of all, what you are explaining isn't "anti-gravity" but local relative gravity negation by putting an object between two masses so that it appears gravity does not exist.

2) Depending on distance, you would not need a mass "greater" than earth.

True anti-gravity would not be explainable by Einstein's theories as the system in which they are based include gravity to be a constant. There are some theories of anti-gravity that are realistic, but unobtainable at our current state of knowledge and technology ... like changing the local vibration of atoms so they are out of phase with the pulling body.
Click to expand...

I think most idea's are fed by popular science fiction. Like a localized variable gravometric field to oppose the earth's pull on an object ( vehicle or whatever)so you could fly around.
There's a big jump between star trek and the like, and current technological reality.

If they could do it, then you might be able to eliminate wings, flaps, ailerons, etc by varying the direction and intensity of the field.

Again..............a BIG jump.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BPxF1mLYFM"]YouTube - ‪"We don't need roads"‬‏[/ame]
 
eh, the best one I have seen was one that looked like a regular car with a para-sail. It had a rod that would go up 40' to lift the para-sail. From there the wind would catch it. Very safe, assuming you don't tear the thing. the concept was to be able to fly emergency supplies in 3rd world countries. should be affordable too compared to this thing.
 
abe2000 said:
That's fine, but how do you get away from the airfield you landed on? Most small airfields don't have rentals, and getting a cab can be very expensive because airfelds are most often far away from populated areas. Also, hangar space can be very expensive.

These are "drivable airplanes", not flying cars. They are made for people who already fly small airplanes, who want go from point A to B by flying and without having to get a cab or rent a car at the destination airfield.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I was thinking about it as something you go fly around for a bit and then go back home. I guess people tend to go places in their planes.
 
My biggest concern are those wings and the mechanism used to hold them in place while flying. It'd be so easy to snap those right off if you were in an emergency situation and were trying to pull too man G's.
 
derek533 said:
My biggest concern are those wings and the mechanism used to hold them in place while flying. It'd be so easy to snap those right off if you were in an emergency situation and were trying to pull too man G's.
Click to expand...

That is a problem with any aircraft period. You fly it outside it's safety envelope, it breaks apart.

Fold out wings can be quite safe. It's not like fold outs are some unproven tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top