5 ms·
I think it would be more apt to call this a driveable compact plane. It clearly looks a lot more like a plane than it does a car, it just happens to be compact
by axefrog 14y ago
I think it would be more apt to call this a driveable compact plane. It clearly looks a lot more like a plane than it does a car, it just happens to be compact with folding wings and four wheels on the base.
- dclowd9901 14y agoI,too, wonder how one gets off calling this a car. You even have to launch it from an airport. That old joke about "where are the flying cars? Have you ever heard of airplanes" misses the essential dream: To go into your garage, hop in your car and lift off and go wherever. That's the flying car. Sadly, unless we make some strides in the direction of gravitational manipulation or fusion drives, I'm not sure that'll ever be a reality.
- kemiller 14y agoI do agree that that's the true vision of the flying car, but I think there's still room for something that is more car-like than the vehicle in the article. Something that functions more or less like a car for short trips but could replace freeway travel with air travel. And which requires considerably less training/certification than an aircraft. Still not an easy problem. Closest is probably the doomed Moller Skycar. Once we have self-driving land-based cars (and widespread mainstream acceptance of them), a lot will open up since we could relieve the burden of human control.
- whileonebegin 14y agoI don't see how a flying car makes any sense. Instead of accidents on the ground (which are fatal enough), now you'll have them falling out of the sky. Granted, I was just in an accident a few weeks ago, and it dramatically changed my view on driving altogether. Crashes aren't just something that happens "to someone else". People are very irresponsible, reckless, and impatient when it comes to moving vehicles.
- kemiller 14y agoThat's why you need advanced auto-pilot before this is feasible. And bear in mind that there's a lot more room for collision avoidance in the air. You'd probably have to have something like special lanes in the air to minimize the number of directions that another vehicle could approach, and to keep them out of the commercial airspace. You'd need a special license to go "off-road".
- mikeash 14y agoMaking an airplane easy enough to fly that most people could conceivably pilot one, with a similar amount of training as currently required to learn to drive, is the interesting and important thing here. It also happens to be something that this airplane does nothing to address. Once you have an airplane that's as easy to fly as a car is to drive, you can do all of what you're talking about, and there's no reason to combine it with something that can drive it on a highway. It's not that big of a hassle to switch vehicles at the airport.
- repiret 14y agoAre they actually making this airplane easier to fly? As far as I can tell, it will have the same flight controls as any other small single-engine plane. More degrees of freedom in the air means more to do to keep the plane going where you want. As far as licensing, you still need (in the US) to get a Light Sport certificate, which is most certainly a higher bar than a drivers license. I agree that the Light Sport standards lower the bar for pilot and airplane certification, and that the result is great for general aviation. But lets not pretend that this airplane plays a big role there.
- mikeash 14y agoAs I said in the previous message, "It also happens to be something that this airplane does nothing to address." In short, the one thing about the "flying car" concept that's interesting in the real world is making the things easier to fly. This "flying car" misses that one thing.
- FixThisPOS 14y agoThey DO call this a "roadable aircraft." They have never called this a flying car.