5 ms·

I feel that it is still too early to approve the use of this vehicle ... Not only does it need an aircraft and vehicle license, this car is a "hybrid car-plane"

I feel that it is still too early to approve the use of this vehicle ... Not only does it need an aircraft and vehicle license, this car is a "hybrid car-plane" and its "transformation" from car to plane on the streets should also be regulated. (Imagine deploying and turning on those propellers in the middle of a narrow street, it would be necessary to take it to a heliport to transform it) apart from the control of the airspace and an endless number of other things (collisions with buildings?). It's the classic pre-"flying cars" regulation from science fiction stories.

CPLX 6y ago
An interesting and non-obvious attribute of autogyros is that the large propeller on the top is actually not powered.
- Dansvidania 6y ago
  wat? that is very interesting and incredibly non obvious.
  - sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
    You can see the pusher prop on the back in one of the photos. Looks like fun
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rkangel 6y ago
    I've linked this elsewhere in the discussion: https://xkcd.com/1972/ https://xkcd.com/1972/
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
This sort of thinking coupled with increasing ease of litigation is why general aviation is more expensive in real terms than it was in the 70s.
- Avtomatk 6y ago
  And... is this (the regulations and standards) good or bad? It is good if you compare the number of air and car accidents before there were "regulatory licenses" and "industry standards" and now
  - iguy 6y ago
    Not an expert, but I hear that one of the effects has been to slow down innovation. Because a newly designed plane (with a rescue parachute, and a modern engine) is so much more expensive than one from the 1950s (leaded gas, possibly with grandfathered certification) everyone keeps flying the old ones. Cars have had many iterations on safety since the '55 Chevy, but planes not so many.
    - Skunkleton 6y ago
      The whole FAA/EASA cert process is burdensome, but it is worth noting that the aviation industry has an impressive safety record. It is not at all comparable to the safety of a '55 chevy.
      - slavak 6y ago
        _Commercial aviation_ has a stellar safety record. The safety record for private and general aviation flying is pretty atrocious, and non-airline commercial operations (part 91, part 135) have varying levels of safety somewhere in between. I think there can be little argument against the assertion that modernizing the general aviation fleet would improve safety. The majority of GA aircraft are using 60's technology carburetted reciprocating engines and running on leaded gasoline, and the cockpit is mostly analogue gauges with mechanical vacuum-driven gyros. Every car manufactured since the 90's uses fuel injection, yet GA pilots still need to worry about carburetor icing. That's not even going into other modern safety improvements like digital autopilot or ballistic recovery parachutes.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > It is good if you compare the number of air and car accidents before there were "regulatory licenses" and "industry standards" and now But for this comparison to make sense you need to assume that the counterfactual scenario involves zero decrease in air and car accidents between then and now. This beggars belief; people seek to avoid accidents for other reasons than "regulators frown on them".
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
It won't get approval to launch from the streets, simply because you already aren't allowed to launch a helicopter or plane from the street. It will remain a two mode vehicle which you will have to drive / fly to an airport or otherwise licensed location before it is allowed to transform / take off / land. This legislation is unlikely to change anytime soon.
- slavak 6y ago
  You can't land/takeoff an aircraft from public roads, for obvious reasons, but it's perfectly legal to do so to/from suitable open terrain, which in the case of light aircraft isn't hard to find. So while you're not going to be taking off directly from the highway (nor would you likely want to), it should be perfectly legal to drive off to a short trail somewhere and launch from there.
  - Avtomatk 6y ago
    Anyway, I don't see it feasible to buy one of these, spend 500,000+ USD to occasionally travel somewhere on your vacation? That is the same reason why we did not buy a helicopter (mainly because we would have it parked throughout the year and also, the energy consumption makes it unviable for daily use). Until a car is created that can take off from the streets and has low energy consumption, it cannot be said that we have a "flying car", at the moment we only have a "car-helicopter hybrid".
    - rkangel 6y ago
      As someone learning to fly, I do see a great usecase though. There are a reasonable number of airfields in the UK and I can usually rely on there being one within a reasonable distance of where I want to go. That "reasonable distance" is still going to be some miles though. The ability to fly most of the way, land at an airfield and then drive the last bit makes a lot of sense.
- nradov 6y ago
  Legislation is less of a factor than the presence of overhead utility lines near most public streets.

CPLX 6y ago

An interesting and non-obvious attribute of autogyros is that the large propeller on the top is actually not powered.

Dansvidania 6y ago
wat? that is very interesting and incredibly non obvious.
- sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
  You can see the pusher prop on the back in one of the photos. Looks like fun
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rkangel 6y ago
  I've linked this elsewhere in the discussion: https://xkcd.com/1972/ https://xkcd.com/1972/

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

This sort of thinking coupled with increasing ease of litigation is why general aviation is more expensive in real terms than it was in the 70s.

Avtomatk 6y ago
And... is this (the regulations and standards) good or bad? It is good if you compare the number of air and car accidents before there were "regulatory licenses" and "industry standards" and now
- iguy 6y ago
  Not an expert, but I hear that one of the effects has been to slow down innovation. Because a newly designed plane (with a rescue parachute, and a modern engine) is so much more expensive than one from the 1950s (leaded gas, possibly with grandfathered certification) everyone keeps flying the old ones. Cars have had many iterations on safety since the '55 Chevy, but planes not so many.
  - Skunkleton 6y ago
    The whole FAA/EASA cert process is burdensome, but it is worth noting that the aviation industry has an impressive safety record. It is not at all comparable to the safety of a '55 chevy.
    - slavak 6y ago
      _Commercial aviation_ has a stellar safety record. The safety record for private and general aviation flying is pretty atrocious, and non-airline commercial operations (part 91, part 135) have varying levels of safety somewhere in between. I think there can be little argument against the assertion that modernizing the general aviation fleet would improve safety. The majority of GA aircraft are using 60's technology carburetted reciprocating engines and running on leaded gasoline, and the cockpit is mostly analogue gauges with mechanical vacuum-driven gyros. Every car manufactured since the 90's uses fuel injection, yet GA pilots still need to worry about carburetor icing. That's not even going into other modern safety improvements like digital autopilot or ballistic recovery parachutes.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > It is good if you compare the number of air and car accidents before there were "regulatory licenses" and "industry standards" and now But for this comparison to make sense you need to assume that the counterfactual scenario involves zero decrease in air and car accidents between then and now. This beggars belief; people seek to avoid accidents for other reasons than "regulators frown on them".

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

It won't get approval to launch from the streets, simply because you already aren't allowed to launch a helicopter or plane from the street. It will remain a two mode vehicle which you will have to drive / fly to an airport or otherwise licensed location before it is allowed to transform / take off / land. This legislation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

slavak 6y ago
You can't land/takeoff an aircraft from public roads, for obvious reasons, but it's perfectly legal to do so to/from suitable open terrain, which in the case of light aircraft isn't hard to find. So while you're not going to be taking off directly from the highway (nor would you likely want to), it should be perfectly legal to drive off to a short trail somewhere and launch from there.
- Avtomatk 6y ago
  Anyway, I don't see it feasible to buy one of these, spend 500,000+ USD to occasionally travel somewhere on your vacation? That is the same reason why we did not buy a helicopter (mainly because we would have it parked throughout the year and also, the energy consumption makes it unviable for daily use). Until a car is created that can take off from the streets and has low energy consumption, it cannot be said that we have a "flying car", at the moment we only have a "car-helicopter hybrid".
  - rkangel 6y ago
    As someone learning to fly, I do see a great usecase though. There are a reasonable number of airfields in the UK and I can usually rely on there being one within a reasonable distance of where I want to go. That "reasonable distance" is still going to be some miles though. The ability to fly most of the way, land at an airfield and then drive the last bit makes a lot of sense.
nradov 6y ago
Legislation is less of a factor than the presence of overhead utility lines near most public streets.