8 ms·

Flying-car venture Terrafugia expands workforce

29 points by prostoalex 9y ago

ilamont 9y ago
I saw a presentation by the founder six or seven years ago. At the time, they had working, flying prototypes that were being tested around northern NY and New England (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw). The idea then was the wings would fold up so you could drive it to and from a standard home garage to the airfield, and then start flying. Clearly there were some major regulatory hurdles they were working through related to licensing and other FAA requirements, but (according to the CEO) they had customers ready to buy and start using them. The new TF-X model looks a lot slicker, and uses computer-assisted VTOL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHJTZ7k0BXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHJTZ7k0BXU Curious to see how this plays out under new ownership.
- jamestimmins 9y ago
  This class of flying car has never made much sense to me. It has to follow auto and aircraft regulations, with multiple different propulsion systems for different types of travel. Why not just focus on creating a small, autonomous, VTOL aircraft (an enormously hard problem by itself), and then assume the rider will use ride share or public transit for the last mile.
  - jsight 9y ago
    That does seem to be the direction that most efforts like this are leaning towards now. I am honestly amazed that Terrafugia is still around. It was a great effort and it was awesome seeing them build a few prototypes, but it doesn't seem to have much hope of getting beyond that.
  - dmckeon 9y ago
    FTA (actually about 15% of the <300 word article): > The company expects its first product, a two-seat, fixed-wing “roadable aircraft” called Transition, to enter the market in 2019. > Its next generation concept is the TF–2, a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft designed for cargo and passenger loadings.
  - romwell 9y ago
    Because hangars are pricey. The whole point of the roadable aircraft is that you don't have to rely on airport infrastructure.
    - asynchronous13 9y ago
      Hangers are insignificant compared to the cost of fuel. 1 month of hangar cost is a couple hours of fuel cost.
  - dmh2000 9y ago
    i think you are right and it sounds like many of the 'flying car' companies are targeting that, not something that can drive on roads.
  - tim333 9y ago
    I guess because things like the Transition can actually be built with present tech while the other stuff is in the future. They are working on a VTOL the Terrafugia TF X but it's still CGI https://youtu.be/pOr6GBKpg8c?t=55s https://youtu.be/pOr6GBKpg8c?t=55s Unlike the Transition which is real https://youtu.be/nnF2yua4KIw?t=1m36s https://youtu.be/nnF2yua4KIw?t=1m36s
ashleyn 9y ago
We've had a "flying car" for generations. It's called the helicopter. It was even able to land on top of Pan Am's headquarters in NYC. The problem, of course, is the high level of training required to operate such a vehicle, plus the cost of the vehicle itself. "Flying car" was never a technical impossibility. It was an economic challenge. "Flying cars" are 50-year long hype.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  ... plus high maintenance costs, a short operational lifetime, limited redundancy, and poor crash worthiness. Otherwise, yeah, helicopters are great.
  - asynchronous13 9y ago
    Short operational lifetime? What's your source on that. There's plenty of Bell 206's from the 70's that are still in operation, and that's just one random example. If 50 years is not adequate, what is? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_group=BELL+206+SERIES&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_... What is "limited redundancy"? Either it's redundant or it's single point failure. I don't know what that term means. Poor crash worthiness? Again, please explain. The American helicopter society published a report in 1994 detailing how the "new" crashworthiness requirements had improved survivability in helicopter accidents. Also noting how many fewer class a/b accidents were occurring due to other safety improvements. The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. I don't know where you got your impressions, but they are not accurate.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - pmiller2 9y ago
      > The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. Are you sure about that? I'm willing to bet that for each crashed vehicle, there are far fewer people on average on each helicopter than in the average airplane.
pankajdoharey 9y ago
Frankly i dont want humans to be flying a car, i want them to be driven automatically using software. A self driving flying Taxi of sort.
FabHK 9y ago
I dislike the confusion between “flying car” as 1) a hybrid vehicle that can both drive on ordinary roads and fly 2) an aircraft that is as easy to fly as a car (is to drive), and possibly doesn’t require a runway to operate. The Terrafugia Transition is an example of the former, but the category has been around for a long time, though without any really convincing entries in my view. Maybe the compromises required are still too great. Many exciting developments are happening in the latter category, specifically in the subcategory that I like to call “PEVA”, namely personal electric VTOL aircraft, for example the Volocopter. That category has arisen because of the improvements in avionics and battery tech. It’ll be exciting to watch what happens there. I wonder whether Terrafugia’s TF-2 falls in the second category.

29 points by prostoalex 9y ago

I saw a presentation by the founder six or seven years ago. At the time, they had working, flying prototypes that were being tested around northern NY and New England (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw). The idea then was the wings would fold up so you could drive it to and from a standard home garage to the airfield, and then start flying. Clearly there were some major regulatory hurdles they were working through related to licensing and other FAA requirements, but (according to the CEO) they had customers ready to buy and start using them. The new TF-X model looks a lot slicker, and uses computer-assisted VTOL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHJTZ7k0BXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHJTZ7k0BXU Curious to see how this plays out under new ownership.

jamestimmins 9y ago
This class of flying car has never made much sense to me. It has to follow auto and aircraft regulations, with multiple different propulsion systems for different types of travel. Why not just focus on creating a small, autonomous, VTOL aircraft (an enormously hard problem by itself), and then assume the rider will use ride share or public transit for the last mile.
- jsight 9y ago
  That does seem to be the direction that most efforts like this are leaning towards now. I am honestly amazed that Terrafugia is still around. It was a great effort and it was awesome seeing them build a few prototypes, but it doesn't seem to have much hope of getting beyond that.
- dmckeon 9y ago
  FTA (actually about 15% of the <300 word article): > The company expects its first product, a two-seat, fixed-wing “roadable aircraft” called Transition, to enter the market in 2019. > Its next generation concept is the TF–2, a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft designed for cargo and passenger loadings.
- romwell 9y ago
  Because hangars are pricey. The whole point of the roadable aircraft is that you don't have to rely on airport infrastructure.
  - asynchronous13 9y ago
    Hangers are insignificant compared to the cost of fuel. 1 month of hangar cost is a couple hours of fuel cost.
- dmh2000 9y ago
  i think you are right and it sounds like many of the 'flying car' companies are targeting that, not something that can drive on roads.
- tim333 9y ago
  I guess because things like the Transition can actually be built with present tech while the other stuff is in the future. They are working on a VTOL the Terrafugia TF X but it's still CGI https://youtu.be/pOr6GBKpg8c?t=55s https://youtu.be/pOr6GBKpg8c?t=55s Unlike the Transition which is real https://youtu.be/nnF2yua4KIw?t=1m36s https://youtu.be/nnF2yua4KIw?t=1m36s

ashleyn 9y ago

We've had a "flying car" for generations. It's called the helicopter. It was even able to land on top of Pan Am's headquarters in NYC. The problem, of course, is the high level of training required to operate such a vehicle, plus the cost of the vehicle itself. "Flying car" was never a technical impossibility. It was an economic challenge. "Flying cars" are 50-year long hype.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
... plus high maintenance costs, a short operational lifetime, limited redundancy, and poor crash worthiness. Otherwise, yeah, helicopters are great.
- asynchronous13 9y ago
  Short operational lifetime? What's your source on that. There's plenty of Bell 206's from the 70's that are still in operation, and that's just one random example. If 50 years is not adequate, what is? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_group=BELL+206+SERIES&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_... What is "limited redundancy"? Either it's redundant or it's single point failure. I don't know what that term means. Poor crash worthiness? Again, please explain. The American helicopter society published a report in 1994 detailing how the "new" crashworthiness requirements had improved survivability in helicopter accidents. Also noting how many fewer class a/b accidents were occurring due to other safety improvements. The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. I don't know where you got your impressions, but they are not accurate.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmiller2 9y ago
    > The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. Are you sure about that? I'm willing to bet that for each crashed vehicle, there are far fewer people on average on each helicopter than in the average airplane.

pankajdoharey 9y ago

Frankly i dont want humans to be flying a car, i want them to be driven automatically using software. A self driving flying Taxi of sort.

FabHK 9y ago

I dislike the confusion between “flying car” as 1) a hybrid vehicle that can both drive on ordinary roads and fly 2) an aircraft that is as easy to fly as a car (is to drive), and possibly doesn’t require a runway to operate. The Terrafugia Transition is an example of the former, but the category has been around for a long time, though without any really convincing entries in my view. Maybe the compromises required are still too great. Many exciting developments are happening in the latter category, specifically in the subcategory that I like to call “PEVA”, namely personal electric VTOL aircraft, for example the Volocopter. That category has arisen because of the improvements in avionics and battery tech. It’ll be exciting to watch what happens there. I wonder whether Terrafugia’s TF-2 falls in the second category.