4 ms·

Hrm... This seems a little like the worst of both worlds. It's horrible as a car (in the sense of something you'd drive to work everyday), and for the money i

by brk 14y ago

Hrm... This seems a little like the worst of both worlds. It's horrible as a car (in the sense of something you'd drive to work everyday), and for the money it's not the most cost effective airplane either. Many people seem to think "flying car" == "I can just launch and avoid all the rush hour traffic, and then land in my driveway". The reality of course is far different, you have to drive this to/from an airport. I'm curious what problem this is intended to solve.

ConstantineXVI 14y ago
The plane's need for a runway makes this impractical (unless you start tacking extra lanes on interstates), but for VTOL "cars" it'd make sense to build smaller-scale landing pads that feed into highway on-ramps.
lotharbot 14y ago
> "This seems a little like the worst of both worlds." We (staff of the Museum of Flight) said the same thing about Moulton Taylor's Aerocar [0]. It doesn't do either thing very well, and that's a big reason there hasn't been a hugely successful product in the space yet. That said, it does solve a specific problem: it cuts significant time off for those who regularly make trips in the hundreds of miles, particularly between semi-remote locations. Imagine you lived in central Kansas, and had radio transmitters, oil fields, or clients spread all across the state. You could fly from small airport to small airport [1] in considerably less time than it would take to drive, and then have a car available to drive out to your destination. One of the advantages this variant has over other past attempts is that it's classified under the (new) "Light Sport Aircraft" category [2]. It's much easier to get a LSA license than a normal pilots license, among other things. [0] http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/taylor-aerocar-iii http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/taylor-aerocar-iii [1] http://www.filmkansas.com/pages/airports http://www.filmkansas.com/pages/airports - map of KS airports [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft
- MartinCron 14y ago
  The "Light Sport Aircraft" designation might very well be a big deal. I'm hoping that this is just the first of many light sport aircraft that make flying more practical for more people.
- brk 14y ago
  You'd have to be doing a LOT of that sort of travel to offset the acquisition cost ($280K) and ongoing maintenance (???) of something like this. Setting your own schedule would certainly be beneficial, but it would take a long time to justify that cost. BTW, do you still have the B-17 out front?
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    > "You'd have to be doing a LOT of that sort of travel" Of course. Most aircraft are significant investments; you don't drop that kind of money unless you've got really good reason. That said, if you're one of the few for whom this particular use case is relevant, I can't think of a viable substitute. If you try to use a traditional aircraft, you're left needing ground transportation at various remote sites that may not have taxis. If you drive from site to site, you might end up spending an extra 3-5 hours on the road every day. So if you're running a high-revenue business that requires a high amount of travel, this (or some other flying car) might be a game-changer. > "do you still have the B-17 out front?" I stopped working there when my son was born, and left the state a year and a half ago. This is the first I've heard of the B-17 being out of its hangar, but apparently it's open for summer tours: http://www.museumofflight.org/b-17-boeing-bee-bomber-tour http://www.museumofflight.org/b-17-boeing-bee-bomber-tour

by brk 14y ago

ConstantineXVI 14y ago

The plane's need for a runway makes this impractical (unless you start tacking extra lanes on interstates), but for VTOL "cars" it'd make sense to build smaller-scale landing pads that feed into highway on-ramps.

lotharbot 14y ago

> "This seems a little like the worst of both worlds." We (staff of the Museum of Flight) said the same thing about Moulton Taylor's Aerocar [0]. It doesn't do either thing very well, and that's a big reason there hasn't been a hugely successful product in the space yet. That said, it does solve a specific problem: it cuts significant time off for those who regularly make trips in the hundreds of miles, particularly between semi-remote locations. Imagine you lived in central Kansas, and had radio transmitters, oil fields, or clients spread all across the state. You could fly from small airport to small airport [1] in considerably less time than it would take to drive, and then have a car available to drive out to your destination. One of the advantages this variant has over other past attempts is that it's classified under the (new) "Light Sport Aircraft" category [2]. It's much easier to get a LSA license than a normal pilots license, among other things. [0] http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/taylor-aerocar-iii http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/taylor-aerocar-iii [1] http://www.filmkansas.com/pages/airports http://www.filmkansas.com/pages/airports - map of KS airports [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft

MartinCron 14y ago
The "Light Sport Aircraft" designation might very well be a big deal. I'm hoping that this is just the first of many light sport aircraft that make flying more practical for more people.
brk 14y ago
You'd have to be doing a LOT of that sort of travel to offset the acquisition cost ($280K) and ongoing maintenance (???) of something like this. Setting your own schedule would certainly be beneficial, but it would take a long time to justify that cost. BTW, do you still have the B-17 out front?
- lotharbot 14y ago
  > "You'd have to be doing a LOT of that sort of travel" Of course. Most aircraft are significant investments; you don't drop that kind of money unless you've got really good reason. That said, if you're one of the few for whom this particular use case is relevant, I can't think of a viable substitute. If you try to use a traditional aircraft, you're left needing ground transportation at various remote sites that may not have taxis. If you drive from site to site, you might end up spending an extra 3-5 hours on the road every day. So if you're running a high-revenue business that requires a high amount of travel, this (or some other flying car) might be a game-changer. > "do you still have the B-17 out front?" I stopped working there when my son was born, and left the state a year and a half ago. This is the first I've heard of the B-17 being out of its hangar, but apparently it's open for summer tours: http://www.museumofflight.org/b-17-boeing-bee-bomber-tour http://www.museumofflight.org/b-17-boeing-bee-bomber-tour