Flying Car

[Little Endian]

Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.

"Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Little Endian wrote:
>
> Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
> and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.
>
> "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
> wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
> 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
> you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
> end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html
>

"A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a two-seater
airplane that moonlights as a car."

Has the timetable slipped? Wasn't the proof-of-concept vehicle supposed to
fly in 2008?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Little Endian wrote:
> >
> > Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
> > and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.
> >
> > "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
> > wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
> > 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
> > you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
> > end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."
> >
> > http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html
> >
>
> "A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a two-seater
> airplane that moonlights as a car."
>
> Has the timetable slipped? Wasn't the proof-of-concept vehicle supposed to
> fly in 2008?

One thing for sure about "flying cars", "Skycars," etc. is that balonium
is NOT in short supply!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 24, 5:55*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Little Endian wrote:
>
> >> Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
> >> and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.
>
> >> "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
> >> wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
> >> 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
> >> you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
> >> end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."
>
> >>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html
>
> >"A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a two-seater
> >airplane that moonlights as a car."
>
> >Has the timetable slipped? *Wasn't the proof-of-concept vehicle supposed to
> >fly in 2008?
>
> It's slipped more than that! POC was set for 1947, and again in 1958, then in
> 1965,71,78,85,91 etc etc. . .
>
> I figure at any given moment there must be a half dozen car-planes in various
> prototype stages around the world, each seeming to claim they have invented
> something no one ever thought of before. When a slow news day comes along,
> journalists have a shortcut key "CTRL-SHFT-CP" or something and out pops a
> fully developed story about the new invention.
>
> In reality, as the years go by this "invention" becomes less and less viable,
> because of increasing regulatory environment and liability concerns. Now we've
> added fuel prices and "green" politics to all that! It "almost" could have been
> possible for a limited production run for some of the post-war versions, when
> you could pretty much do what you wanted if you could afford it, but today it
> is completely impossible. Hard to imagine how or why any developer would waste
> time and resources on an inherently non-viable concept.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How many airports have taxiways that provide immediate access to
roadways? Those we use have gates and getting them open, especially at
odd times, would not be easy.

[VOR-DME]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Little Endian wrote:
>>
>> Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
>> and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.
>>
>> "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
>> wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
>> 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
>> you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
>> end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."
>>
>> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html
>>
>
>"A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a two-seater
>airplane that moonlights as a car."
>
>Has the timetable slipped? Wasn't the proof-of-concept vehicle supposed to
>fly in 2008?
>
>


It's slipped more than that! POC was set for 1947, and again in 1958, then in
1965,71,78,85,91 etc etc. . .

I figure at any given moment there must be a half dozen car-planes in various
prototype stages around the world, each seeming to claim they have invented
something no one ever thought of before. When a slow news day comes along,
journalists have a shortcut key "CTRL-SHFT-CP" or something and out pops a
fully developed story about the new invention.

In reality, as the years go by this "invention" becomes less and less viable,
because of increasing regulatory environment and liability concerns. Now we've
added fuel prices and "green" politics to all that! It "almost" could have been
possible for a limited production run for some of the post-war versions, when
you could pretty much do what you wanted if you could afford it, but today it
is completely impossible. Hard to imagine how or why any developer would waste
time and resources on an inherently non-viable concept.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 24, 6:19*am, a > wrote:

> How many airports have taxiways that provide immediate access to
> roadways? Those we use have gates and getting them open, especially at
> odd times, *would not be easy.

I'm just trying to imagine how many people want to set aside $30/hr
for engine overhaul as they cruise down the freeway.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Jan 22, 9:48*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Little Endian wrote:
>
> > > Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
> > > and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.
>
> > > "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
> > > wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
> > > 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
> > > you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
> > > end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."
>
> > >http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html
>
> > "A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a two-seater
> > airplane that moonlights as a car."
>
> > Has the timetable slipped? *Wasn't the proof-of-concept vehicle supposed to
> > fly in 2008?
>
> One thing for sure about "flying cars", "Skycars," etc. is that balonium
> is NOT in short supply!

Yeah. Another attempt resulting in another lousy car and lousy
airplane. The two just aren't compatible in any efficient way. So many
compromises have to be made that they just don't make practical sense.
After more than 40 years of following such things I'm amazed that
people are still trying it.
Just think: One of these that's light enough to fly will have
rotten crashworthiness as a car. It will blow off the highway in a
strong crosswind. It will suffer awesome parking-lot damage. And it
will attract large numbers of curious tire-kickers that will damage
it.
So it won't be light at all, once it's strong enough to take
some abuse and has some resistance to being tossed around by the wake
of every passing semi. Its weight will make it a poor airplane with a
high stall speed. Adding to the weight will be the wing folding and
locking mechanisms, wheel drivers, sturdier tires and heavier brakes,
propeller clutches, cooling system (gotta keep it cool somehow with no
prop blast) and so forth. So many, many expensive compromises. That's
why Molt Taylor's Aerocar is in a museum and not found on used-car
lots.

Dan

[Sylvain]

a wrote:
> How many airports have taxiways that provide immediate access to
> roadways? Those we use have gates and getting them open, especially at
> odd times, would not be easy.

How does it work these days when you drop in with an aircraft on a trailer?

The earliest article I have read about flying cars was in a magazine
(something similar in spirit to popular mechanics, but different and not
in English -- it was called 'Je Sais Tout', i.e., I know everything, a
bit presumptuous but quite neat) published in 1929 (I believe I still have
it around); it is definitely not new.

The thing that I find interesting with such projects (e.g., the TerraFugia
project) is that it might lead to the development of techniques that could
be actually usable (even though it falls far short of the intended goal);

For instance, a more practical way to fold / unfold wings than is available
with sailplanes (which more often than not require heavy lifting by several
very patient and skilled participants...); something that would make it
possible for one person to easily store into a trailer (to take home, or
park at the local airport far cheaper than in a hangar) and back to a
flyable condition, could be quite a neat thing.

--Sylvain

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:

> a wrote:
> > How many airports have taxiways that provide immediate access to
> > roadways? Those we use have gates and getting them open, especially at
> > odd times, would not be easy.
>
> How does it work these days when you drop in with an aircraft on a trailer?

The one time I showed up at a larger airport with an aircraft trailer
(albeit with the aircraft in the airport, and the goal being to get it
*out*...) we had to hunt down someone official-like, who then sat in his
truck watching us suspiciously while we took the thing apart and loaded
onto the trailer.

If we had had the misfortune of trying this when nobody official was
around, I think we would have simply been screwed.

> For instance, a more practical way to fold / unfold wings than is available
> with sailplanes (which more often than not require heavy lifting by several
> very patient and skilled participants...); something that would make it
> possible for one person to easily store into a trailer (to take home, or
> park at the local airport far cheaper than in a hangar) and back to a
> flyable condition, could be quite a neat thing.

Sailplane assembly isn't as bad as you make it sound. *Most* of the
time, it takes one reasonably strong guy who knows what he's doing and
one medium-strength guy who can follow directions, and the process of
putting the wings on just takes a few minutes. When you have a heavy
two-seater that nobody has assembled in a year then, yeah, heavy lifting
by several very patient and skilled participants is accurate. But that's
a small minority.

In addition, nice rigs can be obtained for a relatively small price
(relative to aviation, anyway, typically 1-2AMU) which allow a single
person to assemble relatively quickly. And yes, they are neat. :)

Something that would self-fold to trailering size at the push of a
button would be very nice. With the somewhat laxer weight and
aerodynamic constraints of a powered aircraft it seems that such a thing
might well be possible, and it would certainly save a lot on hangar fees.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

On Jan 24, 3:55*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Little Endian wrote:
>
> >> Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
> >> and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.
>
> >> "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
> >> wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
> >> 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
> >> you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
> >> end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."
>
> >>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html
>
> >"A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a two-seater
> >airplane that moonlights as a car."
>
> >Has the timetable slipped? *Wasn't the proof-of-concept vehicle supposed to
> >fly in 2008?
>
> It's slipped more than that! POC was set for 1947, and again in 1958, then in
> 1965,71,78,85,91 etc etc. . .
>
> I figure at any given moment there must be a half dozen car-planes in various
> prototype stages around the world, each seeming to claim they have invented
> something no one ever thought of before. When a slow news day comes along,
> journalists have a shortcut key "CTRL-SHFT-CP" or something and out pops a
> fully developed story about the new invention.
>
> In reality, as the years go by this "invention" becomes less and less viable,
> because of increasing regulatory environment and liability concerns. Now we've
> added fuel prices and "green" politics to all that! It "almost" could have been
> possible for a limited production run for some of the post-war versions, when
> you could pretty much do what you wanted if you could afford it, but today it
> is completely impossible. Hard to imagine how or why any developer would waste
> time and resources on an inherently non-viable concept.

Here's another one:
http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=669&WT.mc_id=081128epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

Tell me: How could the wing be a hollow telescoping affair
and still have spars in it? Maybe it has no spars. And look at those
tiny inlets for the ducted fan! How much thrust do they think they're
going to generate?

Dan

[Darkwing]

"Little Endian" > wrote in message
...
> Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap between GA
> and the practicality of using small airplanes for commuting.
>
> "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the steering
> wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take off. You can fly
> 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded -- and when you land,
> you simply fold up the wings and drive where you want to go. At the
> end of the day, you fly back, drive home and park inside your garage."
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html


I'm just waiting for them to be able to put a hover conversion kit on my
DeLorean.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 24, 3:55*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Little Endian wrote:
>>
>> >> Quite interesting.. this sort of machine can bridge the gap
>> >> between GA and the practicality of using small airplanes for
>> >> commuting.
>>
>> >> "Either way, it boils down to this: You sit down behind the
>> >> steering wheel, drive to the runway, unfold two wings and take
>> >> off. You can fly 500 miles on a tank of gas -- regular unleaded --
>> >> and when you land, you simply fold up the wings and drive where
>> >> you want to go. At the end of the day, you fly back, drive home
>> >> and park inside your garage."
>>
>> >>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/22/flying-car.html
>>
>> >"A Boston-area company plans to begin flight tests this year of a
>> >two-se
> ater
>> >airplane that moonlights as a car."
>>
>> >Has the timetable slipped? *Wasn't the proof-of-concept vehicle
>> >suppos
> ed to
>> >fly in 2008?
>>
>> It's slipped more than that! POC was set for 1947, and again in 1958,
>> the
> n in
>> 1965,71,78,85,91 etc etc. . .
>>
>> I figure at any given moment there must be a half dozen car-planes in
>> var
> ious
>> prototype stages around the world, each seeming to claim they have
>> invent
> ed
>> something no one ever thought of before. When a slow news day comes
>> along
> ,
>> journalists have a shortcut key "CTRL-SHFT-CP" or something and out
>> pops
> a
>> fully developed story about the new invention.
>>
>> In reality, as the years go by this "invention" becomes less and less
>> via
> ble,
>> because of increasing regulatory environment and liability concerns.
>> Now
> we've
>> added fuel prices and "green" politics to all that! It "almost" could
>> hav
> e been
>> possible for a limited production run for some of the post-war
>> versions,
> when
>> you could pretty much do what you wanted if you could afford it, but
>> toda
> y it
>> is completely impossible. Hard to imagine how or why any developer
>> would
> waste
>> time and resources on an inherently non-viable concept.
>
> Here's another one:
> http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=669&WT.mc_id=081128epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan
>
> Tell me: How could the wing be a hollow telescoping affair
> and still have spars in it?


It's ben done. There were several experiments in varible geometry wings
that telescoped in the thirties. They weren't really worth it..



Bertie

[Dana M. Hague[_2_]]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:41:57 -0800, Sylvain > wrote:

>How does it work these days when you drop in with an aircraft on a trailer?
>
>For instance, a more practical way to fold / unfold wings than is available
>with sailplanes (which more often than not require heavy lifting by several
>very patient and skilled participants...); something that would make it
>possible for one person to easily store into a trailer (to take home, or
>park at the local airport far cheaper than in a hangar) and back to a
>flyable condition, could be quite a neat thing.

My airplane (a Kolb) is stored, wings folded, in an enclosed trailer
all the time. During the warm weather I keep the trailer at the
airport for convenience, for the same price as outdoor tiedown (about
1/4 the cost of a hangar); in the winter I keep it at home and tow it
to the airport when I want to fly. All the local pilots, even those
who don't keep their planes there, know the gate combination.

Unfolding and preflighting the plane takes about 15 minutes, and I can
do it alone.

The other local airport, which sadly just closed, didn't even have a
gate.

-Dana
--
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.-- Albert Einstein