flying car (again)

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

"make the transition today" - they say:
http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html

#m

[george]

On Mar 21, 7:38*pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> "make the transition today" - they say:http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft..html
>
> #m

There was an item on TV about it.
The rate of climb left a LOT to be desired

[vaughn]

"george" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> "make the transition today" - they
>> say:http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html
>>

>There was an item on TV about it.
>The rate of climb left a LOT to be desired

Hmmm; I didn't even know it had flown. Their web page does not address
climb rate, but 50-foot clearance takeoff distance is listed at 1700',
which compares well to the 152's book value of 1820'.

Considering that they claim the final product will be light enough to
qualify as an LSA yet roadable, I am quite impressed so far. Given the
history of such projects, being impressed is not the same as predicting
success though.

Vaughn

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"vaughn" > wrote:

> "george" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> >> "make the transition today" - they
> >> say:http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html
> >>
>
> >There was an item on TV about it.
> >The rate of climb left a LOT to be desired
>
> Hmmm; I didn't even know it had flown. Their web page does not address
> climb rate, but 50-foot clearance takeoff distance is listed at 1700',
> which compares well to the 152's book value of 1820'.
>
> Considering that they claim the final product will be light enough to
> qualify as an LSA yet roadable, I am quite impressed so far. Given the
> history of such projects, being impressed is not the same as predicting
> success though.
>
> Vaughn

I think that they may be using a liberal amount of balonium in it to get
the claimed performance.

Just a cursory look at it comes up with lots of drag-producing
intersections and shapes.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 21, 7:00*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article

> I think that they may be using a liberal amount of balonium in it to get
> the claimed performance.
>
> Just a cursory look at it comes up with lots of drag-producing
> intersections and shapes.

Once they add the required hundred pounds or so of DOT required
bumpers and crash worthiness structure I'd be surprised if it could
get off the ground in any category; much less LSA.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 1:16*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 7:00*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > I think that they may be using a liberal amount of balonium in it to get
> > the claimed performance.
>
> > Just a cursory look at it comes up with lots of drag-producing
> > intersections and shapes.
>
> Once they add the required hundred pounds or so of DOT required
> bumpers and crash worthiness structure I'd be surprised if it could
> get off the ground in any category; much less LSA.
>
> -Robert

They won't need to add all that, as it will be classified as a
motorcycle for road use,
not a car.

Still, I won't predict any kind of success for it. Tools that are
designed to do multiple jobs
hardly ever do any job well.

Minimal performance in both roles and a target price of $200k, somehow
I expect the
market to be rather limited. I'd be amazed if they ever turn a profit
or even manage to
stay in business beyond making a handful of prototypes while burning
through all their
investors' money.

So says my crystal ball.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:16Â*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 7:00Â*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > I think that they may be using a liberal amount of balonium in it to get
>> > the claimed performance.
>>
>> > Just a cursory look at it comes up with lots of drag-producing
>> > intersections and shapes.
>>
>> Once they add the required hundred pounds or so of DOT required
>> bumpers and crash worthiness structure I'd be surprised if it could
>> get off the ground in any category; much less LSA.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> They won't need to add all that, as it will be classified as a
> motorcycle for road use,
> not a car.

Good luck on that.

Most states define a motorcycle as having 3 wheels max, or 4 max
with a sidecar and this thing has 4 wheels and no sidecar.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
wrote:

> Still, I won't predict any kind of success for it. Tools that are
> designed to do multiple jobs
> hardly ever do any job well.
>
> Minimal performance in both roles and a target price of $200k, somehow
> I expect the
> market to be rather limited. I'd be amazed if they ever turn a profit
> or even manage to
> stay in business beyond making a handful of prototypes while burning
> through all their
> investors' money.
>
> So says my crystal ball.

Yep, I agree. At that price, you can buy a better airplane, a better
car, *and* have enough money left over to rent better cars at your
destination airport for years and years.

I really don't understand the appeal of these "flying cars". A *real*
flying car, which can be flown by the average joe, and which can take
off and land in a typical driveway, now THAT would be something. But
this kind of hybrid car+airplane which you can drive on roads to an
airport, reconfigure, take off, land at another airport, reconfigure,
and drive away, I just don't get it. It's not *that* difficult to move
your stuff from one vehicle to another at the airport, and it certainly
saves no money to combine them.

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

[Sylvain]

Mike Ash wrote:

> off and land in a typical driveway, now THAT would be something. But
> this kind of hybrid car+airplane which you can drive on roads to an
> airport, reconfigure, take off, land at another airport, reconfigure,
> and drive away, I just don't get it. It's not *that* difficult to move
> your stuff from one vehicle to another at the airport, and it certainly
> saves no money to combine them.

I understand the appeal having more often than not found myself in the
middle of nowhere at some remote airport without any kind of rental car or
ground transportation nearby; and flying mostly on weekends, I also found
out that, even when available, rental car companies tend to be closed on
sundays in such places (e.g., enterprise)... it might not be an issue if
you fly mostly to/from larger airports, but yes, it would be neat to have
some kind of workable (i.e., motorized and street legal) means of
transportation that I could bring along during such flights.

That said, I wouldn't want to expose an aircraft that I am flying to the
hazards of road traffic (a minor 'parking rash' could prove problematic if
it affects a flying surface... and you might not find out until you are
back in the air)

--Sylvain

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Sylvain > wrote:

> Mike Ash wrote:
>
> > off and land in a typical driveway, now THAT would be something. But
> > this kind of hybrid car+airplane which you can drive on roads to an
> > airport, reconfigure, take off, land at another airport, reconfigure,
> > and drive away, I just don't get it. It's not *that* difficult to move
> > your stuff from one vehicle to another at the airport, and it certainly
> > saves no money to combine them.
>
> I understand the appeal having more often than not found myself in the
> middle of nowhere at some remote airport without any kind of rental car or
> ground transportation nearby; and flying mostly on weekends, I also found
> out that, even when available, rental car companies tend to be closed on
> sundays in such places (e.g., enterprise)... it might not be an issue if
> you fly mostly to/from larger airports, but yes, it would be neat to have
> some kind of workable (i.e., motorized and street legal) means of
> transportation that I could bring along during such flights.
>
> That said, I wouldn't want to expose an aircraft that I am flying to the
> hazards of road traffic (a minor 'parking rash' could prove problematic if
> it affects a flying surface... and you might not find out until you are
> back in the air)

Makes sense to me, however I would guess that most of the time you could
find *somebody* to chauffeur you around if you tried real hard. It would
be expensive, but probably still not nearly as expensive as buying this
car/plane.

I can see some appeal in a *cheap* car/plane, but not at this price....

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

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 23, 9:37*pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:

> That said, *I wouldn't want to expose an aircraft that I am flying to the
> hazards of road traffic (a minor 'parking rash' could prove problematic if
> it affects a flying surface... and you might not find out until you are
> back in the air)

I think I would feel every bump on the pop hole filled road. I can't
imagine flying in something that has been bounced around on the road.

-Robert

[george]

On Mar 25, 3:04*am, Mike Ash > wrote:

> Makes sense to me, however I would guess that most of the time you could
> find *somebody* to chauffeur you around if you tried real hard. It would
> be expensive, but probably still not nearly as expensive as buying this
> car/plane.
>
> I can see some appeal in a *cheap* car/plane, but not at this price....


If I knew I was going to end up way out in the middle of nowhere I'd
land in the nearest 'big' town and arrange a rental car to meet me way
out in the middle of nowhere.
It worked.

[Sylvain]

george wrote:

> If I knew I was going to end up way out in the middle of nowhere I'd
> land in the nearest 'big' town and arrange a rental car to meet me way
> out in the middle of nowhere.
> It worked.

Of course, but you are being boringly practical here, we were talking
about a dream machine thing that appeals to the whole 'self sufficient'
fantasy that we all (don't we? or is it just me?) enjoy at one point or
another :-)

That said, there are neat little airports nowhere near any available car
rental (I am thinking about a few neat little places in the Sierra Nevada)
and where driving from the nearest 'big' airport is not necessarily a
practical -- or at least enjoyable -- option; besides a car rental company
might not be willing to go out of their way just for a one day (or one
weekend) deal...

--Sylvain

[[email protected]]

On Mar 24, 2:33*pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > If I knew I was going to end up way out in the middle of nowhere I'd
> > land in the nearest 'big' town and arrange a rental car to meet me way
> > out in the middle of nowhere.
> > It worked.
>
> Of course, *but you are being boringly practical here, *we were talking
> about a dream machine thing that appeals to the whole 'self sufficient'
> fantasy that we all (don't we? or is it just me?) enjoy at one point or
> another :-)
>
> That said, *there are neat little airports nowhere near any available car
> rental (I am thinking about a few neat little places in the Sierra Nevada)
> and where driving from the nearest 'big' airport is not necessarily a
> practical -- or at least enjoyable -- option; *besides a car rental company
> might not be willing to go out of their way just for a one day (or one
> weekend) deal...
>
> --Sylvain

That ultra light duty thingy isn't going to stand up to much pounding
on
poorly-maintained mountain roads.

Here's a different fantasy fulfillment combo: put a motorcycle into a
pod
under your airplane:

http://www.motorcyclepilot.com/News.htm

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 9:37 pm, Sylvain > wrote:

> That said, I wouldn't want to expose an aircraft that I am flying to the
> hazards of road traffic (a minor 'parking rash' could prove problematic if
> it affects a flying surface... and you might not find out until you are
> back in the air)...

Just imagine trying to keep people and their kids from fooling
with it while in a parking lot. Kids climb on stuff, people move props
and control surfaces. None of them understand the fragility of
airplanes. It's bad enough at an airshow; leaving this thing in a
restaurant or hotel parking lot would definitely be risky.

Dan

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 2:33 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > If I knew I was going to end up way out in the middle of nowhere I'd
> > land in the nearest 'big' town and arrange a rental car to meet me way
> > out in the middle of nowhere.
> > It worked.
>
> Of course, but you are being boringly practical here, we were talking
> about a dream machine thing that appeals to the whole 'self sufficient'
> fantasy that we all (don't we? or is it just me?) enjoy at one point or
> another :-)
>
> That said, there are neat little airports nowhere near any available car
> rental (I am thinking about a few neat little places in the Sierra Nevada)
> and where driving from the nearest 'big' airport is not necessarily a
> practical -- or at least enjoyable -- option; besides a car rental company
> might not be willing to go out of their way just for a one day (or one
> weekend) deal...
>
> --Sylvain

That ultra light duty thingy isn't going to stand up to much pounding
on
poorly-maintained mountain roads.

Here's a different fantasy fulfillment combo: put a motorcycle into a
pod
under your airplane:

http://www.motorcyclepilot.com/News.htm


------------------new posts begins-----------------

That is obviously aerodynamically superior, but the idea and practice of a
motorcycle strapped onto a light airplane is nearer to eighty years old than
it is to seventy!

I can't seem to find a picture at the moment, but have seen some in books.

[Sylvain]

wrote:

> Here's a different fantasy fulfillment combo: put a motorcycle into a
> pod under your airplane:
>
> http://www.motorcyclepilot.com/News.htm

brilliant! thanks for the link.

--Sylvain