7 ms·
Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
- JDDunn9 13y agoJust another toy for the wealthy. I'm still looking for something like the Moller Skycar with auto-pilot. Getting a pilot's license is too hard/expensive/takes too long for it go mainstream. It would also be nice if it used something stronger than a propeller (not sure if jet engines work on small aircraft). If it's going to replace plane trips, it needs to go a lot faster than 60mph.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago60MPH was the minimum airspeed. The max was 124. Takeoff was 90.
- SuperChihuahua 13y agoIt's a good attempt, but I believe the definition of a flying car is a car that doesn't need to drive to the airport?
- nmcfarl 13y agoGiven current roadway infrastructure I think that would preclude any sort of "plane" other than Harrier style VTOL craft, and from what I understand those are expensive and difficult even for the military. Your other option would be a helicopter. For my personal definition this complete works. But I have no clue which of us is more representative of the public…
- canthonytucci 13y agoWhile technically this is a flying car, I think the Jetsons' version is the one people are really wanting.
- gremlinsinc 13y agoI doubt from a safety standpoint they will be allowing this in our airspace- - people wreck their cars all over the place, the last thing we need is cars falling out of the sky, or more ways to die. -- Doubt the FAA will ever greenlight this..at least here in America doesn't seem feasible. Possibly in 30 years - -when there's an automated version -- ie set coordinates and it handles all routing/air-traffic control mechanisms -- think google auto-driving car for personal aircrafts... that would be huge.. but still a distant dream.
- jeffasinger 13y agoI think getting it street legal will be a much bigger battle. There's no reason that this couldn't be certified as a LSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft).
- monkey_slap 13y agoI love these things, I think concepting road to air is a great field that I encourage people to explore. However, I think people should refrain from making a business out of this. Use research funds to push boundaries! I can't help but look at this page and video and think that they are trying to make money off of it. Speaking as a pilot, a lot of aircraft are built with crashing in mind. Just look at the 777 crash at SFO recently. Judging this craft simply by the video, I have serious doubts that this craft would keep you very safe in an air emergency. I'd love to see what its glide ratio is. Another issue with current road->air systems is the need of 2 powerplants: one for the road and one for the air. For road travel, the extra weight is not that big of an issue. However, the weight of the road engine (batteries if it were electric) puts serious limitations on its airworthiness and stability.
- mikeash 13y agoI just don't get the appeal of roadable aircraft like this. Every single one I've seen is neither a particularly good airplane nor a particularly good car, and they're expensive. For the price of one, you can generally buy a better car, a better airplane, and a second better car to keep at your most frequent destination airport, and have enough money left over to rent cars at other destinations for years. I can't find a price on this one, but I suspect it will be no different. If you want a light plane, buy a light plane. There are plenty of them out there, with a large variety. If you want a car, buy a car. Lots of reasonably priced choices there. I just don't see why anyone would ever want a single vehicle for both roles.
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoI guess if you travelled around a lot, rarely visiting the same location. E.g. a rambling vacation, or a traveling salesman.
- dorkrawk 13y agoSo you think that a flying car could efficiently solve a traveling salesman's problem?
- axxl 13y agoThat's a little bit like saying 10 years ago that no one needs a smartphone, it's a crappy phone and a crappy computer, it's too big and heavy and expensive and you can't get data anywhere and it sucks to type on. Just buy a phone for moving around and a computer for getting work done. Things change. Anything could be the Apple Newton of the next big thing :). (Although to be honest, I see transportation moving much more to a computer controlled system rather than this, but just for the sake of argument).
- notahacker 13y agoUnlike smartphones, the technology to build flying cars has existed for decades, and it's fundamental laws of physics rather than Moore's law that the designers have to combat to try to give them better performance characteristics than a WWI aircraft. If you've already lost the time saved by not switching from car to aircraft a minute or two into the flight it's not that practical except in situations where there's absolutely no chance of getting a taxi or hire vehicle at the end. Suffice to say it isn't going to be a cheap solution to that relatively rare problem.
- jasonhanley 13y agoI'm pretty sure Terrafugia is much further ahead: http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transitionR http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transitionR But competition is always good!
- doh 13y agoHm, I don't think so. These guys are working on it almost 20 years. They just spoke at Bombardier conference in Canada http://www.sae.org/events/atc/ http://www.sae.org/events/atc/
- johngalt 13y agoEveryone builds a flying car, but I've always thought that motorcycles had more in common with light aircraft. Narrow body, low weight, high rpm engines etc... If I were designing a road/air vehicle. It would be a motorcycle with detachable wings/prop.
- tucaz 13y agoI know nothing about airplane physics but looks like this one sways a lot with the wind. I can't imagine it taking a big wind hit and keep flying. Looks dangerous.
- ianstallings 13y agoOh geez, another one. These things never work out because the regulations for airplanes and cars combined could easily kill a man if dropped from a three-story window.
- Nux 13y agoThe idea of flying car, while very nice and present in many scifi creations should not happen, at least not with humans controlling it manually. We have already countless idiots on the roads, I don't want them in the air as well; I'd be afraid to get out of my house.
- savrajsingh 13y agoGreat concept, but I call "vaporware" for several years to come. We're all still waiting for Icon Aircraft, the light-sport aircraft you can tow behind your car. http://www.iconaircraft.com http://www.iconaircraft.com. Deliveries are waitlisted until 2017 -- and Icon doesn't try to be a car as well. ;)
- robomartin 13y agoThese things keep coming up. Here's the part i don't get: Who are these people who think it is a good idea to invest in such ventures? Really. Let's put pen to paper and figure this out. The cost of an aero car is likely to be in the $300K range. This does not include maintenance, insurance (insurance!) and other operating costs. Well, to put it in very simple terms, with $300k you can buy a nicely equipped Tesla AND an equivalent Cessna and still have up to $200k left in the bank --depending on the airplane cost which starts $10K. Going this route means that you'll have ZERO FUEL COSTS while on the road and a dedicated aircraft that is well-tested, proven and with a history of millions of flight miles. But, wait! You can rent an aircraft for somewhere in the $75 to $250 per hour range. No jets. I am looking at Cessna 152 to 182 class aircraft. The aerocars are roughly equivalent to the low end of the Cessna range. If you buy a Tesla and rent aircraft you have zero on-ground fuel costs as well as over $200K in the bank. Depending on the model you rent you have enough money for over 2,500 hours of rentals. You also have zero aircraft maintenance and operating costs. If you play it right 100% of the rental costs are tax deductible. It is important to note that this also gives you aircraft at every airport in the world where such aircraft are rented. This beats owning a plane by a massive margin. But, wait! How much do you really fly per year. Really? Nah, these things are bad ideas. Interesting from an engineering perpective. Maybe Tesla should market a flying car deal: buy a Tesla and the fuel you'll save will buy you several domestic flights per month. Maybe they can make a deal with flight schools to get people certified at a discount and then they can rent planes at a discount as well. Again, I have to wonder who invests in these things. I remember reading about one that got some $40 million from investors. Learn to use a friggin calculator.
- nobodysfool 13y agoI like that the material it's made out of is called "steal".
- dsr_ 13y agoThe appeal of the flying car is imaginary: what people immediately fantasize about is rolling out of their driveway, finding a clear stretch of road, and taking off. Make that one hour commute a lovely fifteen minute flight! But that can't actually happen. The month of driving practice needed to get a license becomes a year or more of pilot school. The damage inflicted by motor vehicle accidents is already horrendous enough without adding a thousand meters of altitude into the equation.
- SuperChihuahua 13y agoWe just have to upgrade Google's driverless car. And the drawbacks you mention are the same drawbacks when we stopped using horses. Why do you need a dangerous car when you can use a more safe horse without a drivers license?
- ksrm 13y ago"Roadable"? Really? I was unaware road was a verb.
- mdesq 13y agoIt looks like it barely lifts off and even then doesn't look particularly stable.
- splendidfailure 13y agoInterestingly, this also came out today: http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/moller-signs-agreement-to-advance-skycar-development/ http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/moller-signs-agree...
- Zigurd 13y agoIf you can afford to own and fly a light plane, you can afford a rental car or an "airport car" you keep at your usual destinations. The scope of the problem this solves is vanishingly narrow.
- tzs 13y agoSomething doesn't add up. From the specs in automobile mode, fuel consumption is 7.5 l per 100 km, and the range is 500 km. From that, we can deduce that it has a 37.5 l fuel capacity. Now let's look at the specs for plane mode. It says that it has a range of 700 km, and consumes 15 l per hour. At 15 l per hour, it would take 2.5 hours to go through 37.5 l, but to go 700 km in 2.5 hours takes an average speed of 280 km/hour. The specs say that the top speed is 200 km/hour, so what is going on? (They do say "and more" for the top speed, but I would not expect the listed speed to that far under the real top speed).