Flying car closes in on FAA OK

http://www.bostonherald.com/jobfind/news/technology/view/20220812flying_car_closes_in_on_faa_ok_terrafugia_already_has_more_than_100_orders_for_its_279000_aircraft

by tokenadult • 14 years ago

47 61 14 years ago

bostonherald.com

axefrog• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

I,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.

kemiller2• 14 years ago

I 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.

hammersend• 14 years ago

We already have flying cars. We just call them "helicopters".

alecdibble4• 14 years ago

It's kind of hard to drive helicopters down the highway.

mikeash11• 14 years ago

Not more difficult than flying it anywhere else. Just make sure to watch out for wires.

nateabele2• 14 years ago

Better headline: "Beat the TSA for under $300K".

btgeekboy• 14 years ago

For what it's worth, you can beat the TSA for under $30k - a used Cessna 150 can be had for around that price. The cost of a rental car at your destination will take quite a while to add up to the other $270k.

nateabele2• 14 years ago

But that's nowhere near as fun.

jnorthrop• 14 years ago

If anyone is curious to see some picture of the vehicle they are here: http://www.terrafugia.com/photogallery.html

It looks a little fragile to perform well as a car. I imagine a significant pot hole might be enough to damage the skin. I understand the need to be light and aerodynamic so that it is flight-worthy, but this looks more like a toy then a real solution. It reminds me of those cars that can also perform as a boat -- they do neither well, their remarkable feature is that they do both.

tamersalama• 14 years ago

Good point - if as car it goes into a fender-bender. Who'd deem it airworthy?

_ea1k• 14 years ago

Your A&P (Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic).

mikeash11• 14 years ago

Light aircraft get into accidents and are repaired and returned to airworthiness with some frequency. This isn't a mysterious unknown. Getting it fixed is going to be way more expensive than patching up a regular car, though.

joshuahedlund• 14 years ago

This sounds cool but I'm not familiar with it. Why is it called a "flying car"? Is it the price point - is $279K significantly cheaper than most private airplanes? Or is there something in the construction that makes it more "carlike" than most private airplanes?

alecdibble4• 14 years ago

It's street legal [1] and supposedly fits into your average sized garage[2]. You can't really drive a Cessna down your local neighborhood.

1: http://www.terrafugia.com/images/photogallery/March10_2012%2...

2: http://www.terrafugia.com/images/photogallery/LeavingGarageW...

piotrSikora2• 14 years ago

> is $279K significantly cheaper than most private airplanes?

No, it's not. You can buy lower-end models of Cessna and Cirrus at similar price... and Cessna Skycatcher costs only half of that ($149,900).

mikeash11• 14 years ago

And this is if you buy new. There's a huge market for used light aircraft out there, as they last for decades. You can buy a nice light airplane for less than 1/3rd of what these guys are charging, and something one could consider entirely decent for less than 1/5th.

nsxwolf• 14 years ago

"Roadable airplane" doesn't get the web traffic "flying car" does.

If you just want an airplane, you can get a lot more airplane for $279k. You can get a nice new Cessna 162 for $150k.

I'm not sure what the benefit of the concept is. You're only ever going to drive it from your house to the airport and back. A routine traffic accident will be very expensive and will attract unwanted attention and paperwork from the FAA and NTSB.

If you buy a regular plane you can leave it at the airport for very reasonable tie down or hangar fees, and know it's going to be safe and well cared for.

edit: Anticipating an objection, one could posit this is good for commuters. There is actually a segment of the general aviation population that fly themselves to a job in another city and back every day. You could use a roadable aircraft to drive to the office.

I'd say it's cheaper and better to buy a car and pay to keep it parked at the airport.

Still looking for any practical advantage. If anyone thinks of one I'd love to hear it.

Just thought of another possible objection: "But you don't have to get out, you can just drive into the airport and take off"... no, you can't. You're getting out of that plane to do your preflight checks or you have a death wish.

gnaffle• 14 years ago

I think the biggest motivation for me would be to be able fly to someplace, maybe a small airfield, and not have to worry about making arrangements for a rental car or find someone to pick me up.

I doubt this is the final answer, but it's a good start.

amurmann• 14 years ago

Knowing nothing about aviation, I find air planes with one engine very scary. Even when I am not traveling in it, since I don't want one to fall on me either. So I am glad we probably won't see millions of these "flying cars" being sold. If I imagine to have one of these fall off the sky as often as I see broken down cars on the side of the freeway...

rdtsc• 14 years ago

It is all fun can games until a teenager drives their car into the side of this and the $300K flying car needs to be replaced.

blhack• 14 years ago

How is that different than some person driving into the side of a lamborghini?

baggachipz2• 14 years ago

What's funny to me is that when cruising in the air, it gets ~25 mpg; on the ground, 35 mpg. http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html

aacook• 14 years ago

I'm guessing that's because you're going 105-115 mph instead of 50 mph... essentially twice as fast.

Surprising to see max speed is 115 mph, for some reason I thought it would be much higher.

baggachipz2• 14 years ago

A lot of US interstates have a speed limit of 80; in that case it's only marginally faster speed-wise. But, going between two points on a straight line helps too. I'm more amused, though, that it's less efficient when the wheels aren't touching the ground. I guess I always just assumed that air travel was more efficient than a vehicle that touches the ground, creating lots of relative drag.

brk2• 14 years 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• 14 years 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.

lotharbot2• 14 years 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

[1] http://www.filmkansas.com/pages/airports - map of KS airports

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft

MartinCron• 14 years 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.

brk2• 14 years 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?

volci2• 14 years ago

Terrafugia (and others) have been making fantastic technological inroads across industries: good to see the FAA is taking solid note

mikeash11• 14 years ago

I seriously don't understand the appeal of this. For the money they're charging, you could buy a great normal plane, a great normal car to use to drive to the airport, another great normal car to keep at the other airport you use most often, and have enough money left over to rent cars at other airports you visit for the rest of your life.

kirubakaran• 14 years ago

That is the price now. Competition and mass production will drive that down (if not for this particular manufacturer / model, for others in the same category).

mikeash11• 14 years ago

People still have to buy it now for that to happen, so wondering about the appeal is still completely pertinent. Also, when was the last time an airplane, or even a general type of airplane, started out expensive and then got cheaper as time went on?

repiret2• 14 years ago

Competition and mass production hasn't brought the price of any Part 23 (not kit) plane below 6 figures.

There's less variety of engines than airplanes, so the engines are produced in greater volume, but even after years of mass production their prices are still high - a new 150-200 HP engine will set you back more than a nice luxury sedan.

joeguilmette• 14 years ago

This is more for pilots who want a more mobile aircraft than normal folk who want a car that flies.

Owning a Cessna means you have to pay for a tiedown or a hangar at an airport. With this, you can hangar it in your garage. The added expense doesn't really make sense, but it certainly makes it more convenient.

The same with premium laptops, people like myself don't mind paying an extra $1000 for a MacBook knowing its an easier, smoother experience. Likewise, a wealthy pilot might prefer this to a Cessna because it makes things simpler.

Kilimanjaro2• 14 years ago

The first 100 units will be delivered to the cartel of sinaloa, the cartel of jalisco is on the waiting list for another 100 units.

I am buying stock.

Kilimanjaro2• 14 years ago

My dream of a flying car is a small harrier in the shape of a porsche.

Vertical take off and landing should be priority number one.

Flying car closes in on FAA OK

Related Stories