It's illegal for it to go faster than 55 knots. They're certifying this as a Part 103 Ultralight, and under the regulation, it: "Is not capable of more than 55

It's illegal for it to go faster than 55 knots. They're certifying this as a Part 103 Ultralight, and under the regulation, it: "Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight." Since this is a multicopter with ostensibly some sensors, it's quite possible they're limiting this in software, but it is extremely disingenuous to say this can do 100 mph. It cannot, because that's illegal. Additionally, the previous version of the Kitty Hawk Flyer, basically a decacopter with a seat, weighed 220 pounds, per reports. The new version of the Flyer has significantly more structure, and the weight limit for Part 103 ultralights is 254 pounds. I would hazard a guess that there's more than 34 pounds of chassis and fiberglass on the latest version. It's questionable if the 'floats' count toward that weight, in which case I would like to congratulate the Kitty Hawk team in engineering around the regulations. But a Part 103 'flying car' is just about the dumbest idea ever. It can't be used to commute; you can call your local FSDO and confirm that yourself. You're also not going to fly it in San Francisco between Hunters Point, Pacifica, and San Mateo; there's an airport in the way. To say this is a 'flying car' is disingenuous and goes along with the SV philosophy of, 'screw laws and regulations, we're innovating'. I honestly can't believe this got funding. I'm not surprised CNN is lapping it up; they're traditionally terrible with aviation-related news. I would guess that's why they were given the exclusive.