About Damn Time: Science Finally Gives Us The Flying Car
If Back to the Future, The Fifth Element and The Jetsons have taught us anything, it's that our future will contain flying cars. There is no doubt about this. It's a fait accompli as certain as Death Stars and the robotic uprising that will destroy humanity.
Admit it, when you envisioned the year 2009 as a kid you saw flying cars. And are unspeakably disappointed that the vision did not come to pass. Well, 32-year-old MIT grad Carl Dietrich was also pissed about the lack of such wonders, but unlike you he's actually gone and done something about it. The man has built a sky-ride with potential to get this party started.
The Orlando Sentinel's Steven Cole Smith reported that Dietrich's Terrafugia Transition flying car, which can cut people off on the street or in the air, converting between the two in 20 seconds at the touch of a wing-sprouting button, has had six test flights so far, including one March 5 in New York.
But you can't have it. Yet, anyway. Dietrich plans to begin deliveries at the end of 2011. The price: $194,000. A refundable deposit of $10,000 will hold your place in line. He'd like to sell maybe 200 a year but can make money at half that volume.
It will take 20 hours of flight training to get behind the wheel, because the vehicle will be classified as a light sport aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration. But after a lifetime of longing, what's 20 more hours?
Flying car is no pie-in-sky dream [Orlando Sentinel]
(Photo: Steven Cole Smith, Orlando Sentinel)
Post a comment
Comments:
Flying cars can never logistically work. I'll take Hover crafts though.
I'm still holding out for jetpacks. Or balloon chairs.
Finally - the flying car!
Ok, you first.
Great, now we can get used to regular mid air collisions and debris raining down upon our neighborhoods will become commonplace, after all, you can't paint median lines or put traffic signals in the sky.
That's not a car. That's a little airplane.
I want one like in Blade Runner.
That's not a terrible price for it, considering.
I mean a small airplane is a couple million, right?
We have a lot of work to do before the flying car is a reality.
For one, air traffic controllers are already overworked and under a ton of stress, they don't need to add soccer moms to their workload. We need a system capable of handling autonomously the added burded these small aircraft would contain.
Two, there needs to be an easy way to file your flightplan (something internet based, perhaps?)
Three, idiots already can't drive. We expect them to fly?
@Yankees368: Especially if it's being driven by an idiot who would park his car sideways or horizontally!
It looks like a toy. I think it could be a moonbounce, if you took the top off and filled it with air.
@WiglyWorm: Not only would it make an average person's life easier, but think of those people who live maliciously...
Science could have given us the flying car a long time ago. Really, we're just waiting on logistics to give us the flying road system. Considerably tanglier undertaking, that.
I wonder what kind of fuel is used? Regular octane gasoline? 194k sound reasonable (minus the cost of flight school) but maintenance on that thing has got to be pricey. I doubt you could fly this thing into Jiffy Lube for a $20 oil change, ect.
I've seen this thing a few times, at Oskosh last year and Sun n' Fun this year. I have a couple of clients who have deposits. If it does what they say it's going to do it will be awesome.
Don't worry - you will never see soccer moms "driving" this around to Safeway and soccer practice.
1 - this is a sport aircraft, like a glider, and a sport pilot with 20 hours cannot fly in class B airspace. ATC will not be dealing with them
2 - most major population centers reside under class B and C airspace - and again the training required for a "real" pilot's license takes 40 hours, plus a checkride and written test by the FAA.
You may see this out in the coutnry, and for a novelty someone might depart from a small airport, land at another, and "drive" to someone's farm for lunch - but you'll NEVER see this driving off a major general aviation airport and onto the freeway.
3 - to obtain a sport pilot cert you still need flight training. Most CFIs are profressional folks and they won't just sign off on any dimwit with 20 hours.
4 - flight training is expensive, up to $75 an hour plus equip. rental.
just some thoughts from someone who has their PPL but hasn't flown in a while :)
real flying cars can hover.
@jamesdenver: Up to $75? That'd be nice - I've been paying $150 + CFI fees for most of my 4 years of training (PPL - CPL, Inst, now CFI).
And another thing to consider - if it'll be rated as a LSA, most heavy maintenance will need to be done by an A&P and (to the best of my knowledge) would require overhauls and annuals (which can cost thousands depending on use and wear - not 100% sure on all LSA and sport pilot requirements though)
@snowburnt: Cessna puts a blanket cost of a 172SP at $297,000 (Cessna Skyhawk Pricing). This of course only increases depending on options and add-ons. And there are cheaper aircraft out there.
I got my PPL in 2001, and have been bad about keeping proficient due to owning a house and trying to save money :)
I agree - maintenance eats up TONS of costs - and I didn't mention it but plenty of folks live in areas of low cloud ceilings and IFR conditions half the year, (michigan, northeast, seattle.)
If "get there itis" is bad among lowtime pilots know - imagine what it would be among oversceduled workers.
Again - I predict this will strictly be used at airshows and as novelties.
I COULD see someone in a rural western area - Nebraska, Wyoming - taking it out to another rural town 100 miles away for commuting - but again not in the cities.
But it you need an airport already to take off why not just drive your car to the airport, get in the plane and go - Like I've enjoyed doing so many times flying 172s.
@Skankingmike: The headline is wrong. It's specifically NOT marketed as a 'flying car'. They call it a 'roadable aircraft'. It's for people who are already pilots and want the ease of being able to drive their aircrafts on streets when they land.
@asplodzor: I know but the idea of "flying cars" is just not likely or feasible.
And i doubt many states would allow this "aircraft" on the road.
@jamesdenver: From what I understand, the idea is mobility at the destination - plus no hangar fees.
Are there any aircraft currently that run on normal gasoline? I mean, if there isn't a legitimate aircraft engine in there, I'd hate for anyone to go too high with a Chrysler engine...
If nothing else, It'd make a great getaway vehicle.
@asplodzor: And that'll be a definite bonus to owning a Terrafugia. It's just not the flying car that everyone's dying for (yet).
@Yankees368: The wings fold up when it's driving; it is the standard width of a car.
Also - the makers are quick to say that it's not a flying car, it's a road legal airplane. Meaning, even though it gets pretty good gas millage on the road, it's not meant to be a commuter car. You wouldn't drive it to work every day. (Unless you flew.) The problem that it's meant to solve is allowing hobbyist pilots to keep their plane at home in their garage instead of spending 10,000 a month or more for hanger space at an airport.
The "Flying car" will most likely not happen.
Why? Well if you have a problem with your normal car, 90% of the time you can coast to the side of the road, and get it fixed.
If you have a problem in a flying car - crash
The airplanes have a good safety record because each airplane is well maintained - most people's cars are not well maintained - maybe someone will add oil occasionally, or have a shop do it - but for the majority of people - cars only get maintenance when there is a problem.
Hence - flying car will most likely not happen.
I just wanted to brag that I know the folks behind this -- they are really great people. Nice and super-smart. So glad they are succeeding with this endeavor, as it's been in the works for a long time.
Most people dont change the oil in their cars when they're supposed to. What makes them think that they'll know how to maintain a vehicle that requires more than a pedal and a wheel to work? Flying cars will also turn drunk drivers into human torpedoes. Probably not the most practical idea. . .
@Skankingmike: RTFA. It will be registered as a Multi-Purpose Vehicle, which means they've already determined that it will meet DOT requirements.
@Hoss: Lots of small aircraft are certified to run on 91 octane auto unleaded. The pilot must ensure, however, that the fuel has no ethanol content, which is getting harder these days.
As asplodzor noted, this is not a flying car. It's a roadable aircraft. The main difference being that this vehicle requires a runway for (legal) takeoff and landing.
Moller International, on the other hand, has been working on an ACTUAL flying car for over 20 years. Nice (and rather typical of the press at all levels, from independent blogger to huge multinational news site ) to see that they have been conveniently ignored here.
Actual flying cars will probably not be available to the general public for another decade, at minimum.
@coan_net: You just need to think outside the box. Since we're discussing technology that doesn't exist, anything conceivable is the solution. The technology yet to be invented that enables a car to fly could also include anti-crash properties. If it is simply propulsion on an anti-gravity device, with the two systems independent, the concept of crashing could be irrelevant. You could simply hover if your flying car stalls. Imagine how fun that'd be to describe your location to AAA.
@Skankingmike: What about the Hummercraft: "A unique blend of heft and submersion, the Hummercraft can easily mutate from turning without signaling on land, to creating high wake near dock."
@WiglyWorm: Lets see...an integrated system that will allow for the control autonomous handling of air-based traffic...can we call it SkyNet?
This roadable aircraft already exists.
Maintenance is specified by the FAA and if you don't follow the plan, then your airworthiness certificate get revoked.
As far as the drive a normal car to the airport, and fly folks... what happens when you land at a remote airport and want to go somewhere? Especially somewhere that lacks rental car options?
This is a perfectly feasible roadable airplane. It's likely to be fair to poor at both jobs, like most hybrids (dual purpose not fuel). After all, the amphib/cars are generally not good boats, and they have so much weight that they're less efficient cars to boot. Dual purpose vehicles do offer the convenience of eliminating transitions from one vehicle to the other, and offering road transport at the other end of your water or air journey. That is what you are paying for here.
For almost 200K I can buy a better aircraft (DA-20 will get you 500+nm at 30kts faster) and a better car (anything that goes over 65 mph and gets better than 23 mpg).
It looks like a typical electric car - something you'd be caught dead in even in a minor crash. Nothing on their site says that it is road approved or passes NHTSA crash tests.
@Sean Masters: Agreed on the Moller SkyCar being the real flying car. This isn't even anything new, there was a roadable aircraft called the Taylor Aerocar (6 built, never hit mass production). Not a viable source of daily transportation (as my soul sighs because I won't see a pilotable flying car in my lifetime, or when humans all evolve altimeters in their labyrinth).
They've been conveniently ignored because Moller Skycars is bigger vaporware than Duke Nukem Forever. They've been promising it for 20 years and haven't really gotten anywhere with it.
That thing will take more parking spots than an H2!