ground travel

[twisbar]

Does anybody have a good way to get around on the ground to explore? Once I get to an airport, I have to walk because a bike doesn't fit in a 150 or 172! (Rollerskates are Okay but a little weird in a restaurant) I love flying to the islands of lake erie but I want some better ground travel. Ideas?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Evan Platt" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:29:22 +0000, twisbar
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Does anybody have a good way to get around on the ground to explore?
>>Once I get to an airport, I have to walk because a bike doesn't fit in a
>>150 or 172! (Rollerskates are Okay but a little weird in a restaurant)
>>I love flying to the islands of lake erie but I want some better ground
>>travel. Ideas?
>
> How about a folding bike?
>
> Folds to not much more than the size of a suitcase.
> --
> To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail
> address.

battery powered skateboard

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

>
> "Evan Platt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:29:22 +0000, twisbar
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Does anybody have a good way to get around on the ground to explore?
>>>Once I get to an airport, I have to walk because a bike doesn't fit in a
>>>150 or 172! (Rollerskates are Okay but a little weird in a restaurant)
>>>I love flying to the islands of lake erie but I want some better ground
>>>travel. Ideas?
>>
>> How about a folding bike?
>>
>> Folds to not much more than the size of a suitcase.

I've got a regular full size bike into a Cessna 172, and friends of mine
put two normal full size bikes into a Cessna 170 (plus camping gear).

You just need a bike with quick release wheels, then it only takes a
couple of minutes to get the wheels off and on.

[Ricky]

On Mar 24, 6:29*pm, twisbar >
wrote:
> Does anybody have a good way to get around on the ground to explore?
> Once I get to an airport, I have to walk because a bike doesn't fit in a
> 150 or 172! *(Rollerskates are Okay but a little weird in a restaurant)
> I love flying to the islands of lake erie but I want some better ground
> travel. *Ideas?

> twisbar

If you have the money and they are being produced & sold yet, you
should use a Terrafugia Transition.
Surely the most enjoyaable way of getting around after arriving at the
airport!
Check it out here on You Tube. Don't even have to get out of the
cockpit to start "getting around,
which is cool if it's raining.

Rapture Flight

[Ricky]

On Mar 27, 6:03*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > "Evan Platt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:29:22 +0000, twisbar
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>Does anybody have a good way to get around on the ground to explore?
> >>>Once I get to an airport, I have to walk because a bike doesn't fit in a
> >>>150 or 172! *(Rollerskates are Okay but a little weird in a restaurant)
> >>>I love flying to the islands of lake erie but I want some better ground
> >>>travel. *Ideas?
>
> >> How about a folding bike?
>
> >> Folds to not much more than the size of a suitcase.
>
> I've got a regular full size bike into a Cessna 172, and friends of mine
> put two normal full size bikes into a Cessna 170 (plus camping gear).
>
> You just need a bike with quick release wheels, then it only takes a
> couple of minutes to get the wheels off and on.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow. You got that bike into the baggage comp. of the 172 or did you
use the back seats?

Rapture Fllight

[Vaughn]

On 5/20/2013 4:42 PM, Ricky wrote:
> If you have the money and they are being produced & sold yet, you
> should use a Terrafugia Transition.
Initial deliveries were promised in 2011, yet Wiki tells us:"In January
2013 development continued and the company announced that it might be
necessary to construct a third, completely new prototype, due to the
large number of modifications required. The modifications to date have
improved the previous handling characteristics and also improved
aesthetics."

So keep your nearly $300,000 in the bank for a bit longer!

Anything can happen, and to be fair it looks far closer to reality than
the Moller Skycar. But if history is any guide, this will turn out to
be at best a limited production rich man's toy. At worst, it will
languish on for decades as an attractive sinkhole for investor's treasure.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Vaughn > wrote:
>On 5/20/2013 4:42 PM, Ricky wrote:
>> If you have the money and they are being produced & sold yet, you
>> should use a Terrafugia Transition.
>Initial deliveries were promised in 2011, yet Wiki tells us:"In January
>2013 development continued and the company announced that it might be
>necessary to construct a third, completely new prototype, due to the
>large number of modifications required. The modifications to date have
>improved the previous handling characteristics and also improved
>aesthetics."
>
>So keep your nearly $300,000 in the bank for a bit longer!
>
>Anything can happen, and to be fair it looks far closer to reality than
>the Moller Skycar. But if history is any guide, this will turn out to
>be at best a limited production rich man's toy. At worst, it will
>languish on for decades as an attractive sinkhole for investor's treasure.

Terrafugia recently did a PR blitz for a tiltrotor flying car,
that is quite Mollerish in design. The Transition is closer to
reality, but putting out a Moller-like concept to drum up more
investors isn't a good sign.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Vaughn]

On 5/21/2013 10:51 AM, John Clear wrote:
> Terrafugia recently did a PR blitz for a tiltrotor flying car,
> that is quite Mollerish in design. The Transition is closer to
> reality, but putting out a Moller-like concept to drum up more
> investors isn't a good sign.

I agree. That PR blitz for such an unlikely flying vehicle concept
makes me less confident in the company, not more. At this point they
should be concentrating on bringing their first design to fruition, not
branching out in strange directions.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Vaughn > wrote:

> On 5/21/2013 10:51 AM, John Clear wrote:
> > Terrafugia recently did a PR blitz for a tiltrotor flying car,
> > that is quite Mollerish in design. The Transition is closer to
> > reality, but putting out a Moller-like concept to drum up more
> > investors isn't a good sign.
>
> I agree. That PR blitz for such an unlikely flying vehicle concept
> makes me less confident in the company, not more. At this point they
> should be concentrating on bringing their first design to fruition, not
> branching out in strange directions.

One historical fact: Nobody has ever designed and built either a flying
car or a roadable airplane that wasn't both a poorly-performing airplane
and a crappy automobile. I don't see Terrafugia deviating from this
history.

[gpsman]

On May 21, 4:43*pm, Vaughn > wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 10:51 AM, John Clear wrote:
>
> > Terrafugia recently did a PR blitz for a tiltrotor flying car,
> > that is quite Mollerish in design. *The Transition is closer to
> > reality, but putting out a Moller-like concept to drum up more
> > investors isn't a good sign.
>
> I agree. *That PR blitz for such an unlikely flying vehicle concept
> makes me less confident in the company, not more. *At this point they
> should be concentrating on bringing their first design to fruition, not
> branching out in strange directions.

The vehicle is preposterous. They could only be concentrating on
attracting more $.
-----

- gpsman

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:03:30 -0400, Vaughn > wrote:

>to be fair it looks far closer to reality than the Moller Skycar.

The Terrafugia Transition has actually been flown by a pilot (without a
tether). Here's a link: <http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/image-gallery>.

I don't believe you can say that about Moller's effort, despite its having
many more years in development.

[george152]

On 24/05/13 08:29, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:03:30 -0400, Vaughn > wrote:
>
>> to be fair it looks far closer to reality than the Moller Skycar.
>
> The Terrafugia Transition has actually been flown by a pilot (without a
> tether). Here's a link: <http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/image-gallery>.
>
> I don't believe you can say that about Moller's effort, despite its having
> many more years in development.
>
Like the 'solar powered aircraft' just another toy

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:37:29 +1200, george152 > wrote:

>the 'solar powered aircraft' just another toy


Hmmm... Are you referring to this one
<http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk>?

Two-Place Electric Cessna 172 Skyhawk
By Mark Phelps / Published: Nov 18, 2010

Flying Magazine | The World’s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine
Enlarge Photo

You could say the bad news is that Bye Energy's plan for an electric Cessna
172 will have only two seats and an endurance of two hours. But the good
news for flight schools might far outweigh those drawbacks. For one, the
energy costs to fly the airplane are expected to be less than $10 per hour.
Time between overhauls on the electric motor are expected to be as much as
25,000 hours, decimating maintenance bills. Power comes from a bank of
lithium ion batteries, solar panels and innovative windmill technology that
reclaims energy from the wingtip vortices. The electric motor (rated at the
equivalent of 180 hp) weighs just 42 pounds, and there is obviously no fuel
load to consider, but those weight savings are offset by the battery pack.
The nose will be more tapered, and a six-blade composite prop will provide
more efficient thrust (since its role as an engine-cooling fan is off the
agenda). Weight and balance are said to be unchanged from that of a
conventional Skyhawk. The combination of electric motor and new prop also
promise much quieter operation in the training environment. Bye Energy
President George Bye hopes to have a proof of concept aircraft flying (with
a more conventional two-blade propeller) sometime next year.

Perhaps, but this one is a toy I'd love to own:
<http://electraflyer.com/electraflyer-uls.php>
Introducing the ElectraFlyer-ULS!
21 hours flight time as of Feb1 2013

Technical Details
Motor: 20HP direct drive
Cruise Speed: 40MPH
Flight Duration: 2 hours with full battery packs
Battery Packs: Battery packs 1x4.0kwh standard, 2x4.0kwh option
Weight: Empty weight
Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW)
All carbon fiber construction
245 lbs
525 lbs
Best L/D: 20:1
Min sink rate: 236 ft/min
Price: $59K US ready to fly

And then, there's this one: <http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/>. I wouldn't
characterize it so much as a toy, given that it has successfully flown half way
across the North American continent; more a proof of concept:

Flight Phoenix KPHX - Dallas KDFW

Pilot: André Borschberg, Co-Founder and CEO
Take off time: May 22nd 04:47AM MST (UTC-7)
Landing time: May 23rd 01:08AM CDT (UTC-5)
Flight duration: 18h21min
Average ground speed: 84 km/h ( 45,3 kt)
Highest altitude reached: 27 000 ft
Flight Distance: 1541 km (~832 NM)

To mention any of these in the same breath as Moller is just a little
misleading....

[george152]

On 24/05/13 10:20, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 08:37:29 +1200, george152 > wrote:
>
>> the 'solar powered aircraft' just another toy
>
>
> Hmmm... Are you referring to this one
> <http://www.flyingmag.com/news/two-place-electric-cessna-172-skyhawk>?
>
> Two-Place Electric Cessna 172 Skyhawk
> By Mark Phelps / Published: Nov 18, 2010
>
> Flying Magazine | The World’s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine
> Enlarge Photo
>
> You could say the bad news is that Bye Energy's plan for an electric Cessna
> 172 will have only two seats and an endurance of two hours. But the good
> news for flight schools might far outweigh those drawbacks. For one, the
> energy costs to fly the airplane are expected to be less than $10 per hour.
> Time between overhauls on the electric motor are expected to be as much as
> 25,000 hours, decimating maintenance bills. Power comes from a bank of
> lithium ion batteries, solar panels and innovative windmill technology that
> reclaims energy from the wingtip vortices. The electric motor (rated at the
> equivalent of 180 hp) weighs just 42 pounds, and there is obviously no fuel
> load to consider, but those weight savings are offset by the battery pack.
> The nose will be more tapered, and a six-blade composite prop will provide
> more efficient thrust (since its role as an engine-cooling fan is off the
> agenda). Weight and balance are said to be unchanged from that of a
> conventional Skyhawk. The combination of electric motor and new prop also
> promise much quieter operation in the training environment. Bye Energy
> President George Bye hopes to have a proof of concept aircraft flying (with
> a more conventional two-blade propeller) sometime next year.
>
> Perhaps, but this one is a toy I'd love to own:
> <http://electraflyer.com/electraflyer-uls.php>
> Introducing the ElectraFlyer-ULS!
> 21 hours flight time as of Feb1 2013
>
> Technical Details
> Motor: 20HP direct drive
> Cruise Speed: 40MPH
> Flight Duration: 2 hours with full battery packs
> Battery Packs: Battery packs 1x4.0kwh standard, 2x4.0kwh option
> Weight: Empty weight
> Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW)
> All carbon fiber construction
> 245 lbs
> 525 lbs
> Best L/D: 20:1
> Min sink rate: 236 ft/min
> Price: $59K US ready to fly
>
> And then, there's this one: <http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/>. I wouldn't
> characterize it so much as a toy, given that it has successfully flown half way
> across the North American continent; more a proof of concept:
>
> Flight Phoenix KPHX - Dallas KDFW
>
> Pilot: André Borschberg, Co-Founder and CEO
> Take off time: May 22nd 04:47AM MST (UTC-7)
> Landing time: May 23rd 01:08AM CDT (UTC-5)
> Flight duration: 18h21min
> Average ground speed: 84 km/h ( 45,3 kt)
> Highest altitude reached: 27 000 ft
> Flight Distance: 1541 km (~832 NM)
>
> To mention any of these in the same breath as Moller is just a little
> misleading....
>
A cross country at 45 knots ?????
That's a toy!

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:18:35 +1200, george152 > wrote:

>A cross country at 45 knots ?????
>That's a toy!

Agreed. But a fun, unlicensed toy none the less. Add transponder, and it
could get me from a remote strip atop Point Conception to my airport-car at
KSBA to facilitate grocery shopping. Call me a dreamer ...

Battery technology is constantly improving:

<http://www.gizmag.com/researchers-increase-lifespan-lis-batteries/26911/>:
Though more powerful and less expensive to produce than the more widely used
lithium-ion batteries, lithium-sulfur batteries have typically sported a
comparatively poor lifespan. However, the Dresden-based researchers have
successfully developed a new design that increases the charge cycles of
lithium-sulfur batteries by a factor of seven.

“During previous tests, the batteries scarcely crossed the 200-cycle mark,”
said Dr. Holger Althues, head of the Chemical Surface Technology group at IWS.
"By means of a special combination of anode and cathode material, we have now
managed to extend the lifespan of lithium-sulfur button cells to 1,400 cycles."

IWS researchers expect to refine the lithium-sulfur batteries to the point
where they reach an energy density of up to 600 watt-hours/kilogram (Wh/kg).
This would beat the lithium-ion density record of 400 Wh/kg claimed last year
by Envia, and more than double that of Li-ion batteries currently in use.

"Lithium-sulfur technology might even make electric flying a realistic
possibility,” said Althues. “Although such progress is still a long way off.”

[george152]

On 25/05/13 06:21, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:18:35 +1200, george152 > wrote:
>
>> A cross country at 45 knots ?????
>> That's a toy!
>
> Agreed. But a fun, unlicensed toy none the less. Add transponder, and it
> could get me from a remote strip atop Point Conception to my airport-car at
> KSBA to facilitate grocery shopping. Call me a dreamer ...
>
Buy a microlight.

One I saw had a cruise of 160 knots, two seat four hour endurance :)
Wouldn't be worth getting out of as its as good as any current GA machine