3 ms·
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 differe
by 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 agoThat 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 agoFTA (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 agoBecause hangars are pricey. The whole point of the roadable aircraft is that you don't have to rely on airport infrastructure.
- asynchronous13 9y agoHangers are insignificant compared to the cost of fuel. 1 month of hangar cost is a couple hours of fuel cost.
- dmh2000 9y agoi 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 agoI 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