14 ms·
> "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 d
by 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 agoThe "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 agoYou'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