Para Car seriously useable?

[Pace]

Dont know whether you saw the Para Car on UK TV? but not only does it look good but useable too.

The two drivers/ pilots intend to fly/drive through Spain and Africa.

The car achieves 100mph on the road and in the air. With the flick of a switch becomes a Para Glider.

Safety back up is a Cirrus like ballistic shute system built in.

it does look like a practical road /air machine


Flying car really takes off - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/3919058/Flying-car-really-takes-off.html)

Pace

[Barshifter]

Looks a bit on the hairy side to get the landings right

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | By flying car from London to Timbuktu (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7821979.stm)

[BackPacker]

Is this typically English? Why can't people simply admit they do this for the adventure? Or call it "product development", "innovation" or "small step for man, giant leap for mankind" even. But why does it have to be under the pretense of charity?

From the Telegraph article:

With the help of their sponsors, supporters and expedition patron Sir Ranulph Fiennes BT, OBE, the team aims to raise more than £100,000 for a number of charities including an African orphanage.

From the BBC News article:

With the help of sponsors, the team has invested about £250,000 ($380,000) developing the vehicle.

[LH2]

Cue the obligatory article from El Reg (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/13/timbuctoo_flying_car_exped/)

[Pace]

I am somewhat puzzled why they have gone for a 4 wheel vehicle.

A three wheeler with one wheel in the nose a la Bond Bug would seem more aircraft like and a better "lander" than four?

That was apparent in the landing video where it was bouncing around on the two front wheels.

The reliant Bond bug was a very capable road car with three. An air Car with three would also have the benefit of weight saving.

Pace

[TheGorrilla]

good way of getting home after a fart, beer and a curry without breaking any laws. My heros!

[Captain Smithy]

Looks good fun... I fancy a go.

Smithy

[effortless]

The reliant Bond bug was a very capable road car with three Used to get airborne quite quickly a well, one took off in front of me in a stiffish wind. No one hurt but a lot of fibreglas lying around.

[doubleu-anker]

Yes I think it is a fine piece of kit, indeed. However I think the £50,000 price tag is way too much. I cant see how they can justify it actually, considering what other flying machines that are available for that money.

British made = British price tag. I.E. rip off Britain.

[Captain Smithy]

Must try it myself a cheaper way, e.g. sticking a paraglider to the top of the Fiesta, see if that works. :uhoh:

[VP959]

A very similar bit of kit has been flying for a while in France, I believe.

Here's a link to it (with a reasonable video): Site officiel du Bugxt'air : le buggy volant (http://www.bugxtair.com/en/present.html)

The curious thing about the SkyCar is that it doesn't yet have any paperwork as an aircraft, AFAIK. Apparently the CAA have been approached as to the basis for certification, but that's about as far as it's got.

Mind you, like true adventurers, they aren't going to let a lack of paperwork stop them.

VP

[Fake Sealion]

I am the only one confused?

Have seen/read several bits in the media about this machine in the last week. Each time it states it is a new invention and names the inventor.
The French version as per the link in post from VP959 shows an apparently identical machine with a different inventor!

Any ideas?

[savile]

From the website:
"The Bugxt’air will prove itself useful in a variety of leisure and professional activities such as :
Ridind
Airdrop
Agricultural spearing
Breeding
And so on ..."

Breeding??? It has two seats so you never know!

[VP959]

I think the simple answer is PR spin.

Parajet are very good at this, remember they did the paramotor flights near Everest, with Bear Grylls, so have got very good PR contacts plus expedition planning experience. The chap that runs Parajet is also a very energetic chap, with masses of enthusiasm.

The media are almost certainly making stuff up, too, as they do. The basic idea is not at all new, there have been several different people who have developed similar machines, including that French one I linked too (which isn't identical, it's just similar).

Most other machines like this have been developed as microlights/ultralights, which makes approval/certification and pilot licensing a lot easier. The Skycar is far too heavy to fit into this category, so the CAA are thinking about letting the BMAA extend the terms of their current approval in order to certify it as a light aircraft. Like any other light aircraft it will require airworthiness approval, a permit to fly, registration and the pilot will have to hold an appropriate licence (at present that means a JAR or NPPL SEP, as there is no other licence that might apply, due to it's weight).

If anyone wants to look at some of the sorts of powered parachute trikes and other contraptions that have been built, this link has more details on them than you might need: TrikeBuggy: Other PPG Trikes, www.TrikeBuggy.com (http://www.trikebuggy.com/othertrikes/index.htm)

VP

[007helicopter]

I saw this on a stand at the Goodwood Festival of Speed last year, quite incredible if it will be actually legal to fly, good luck to them.

[highonsnow]

I'm curious though, I just watched the CNN bit, they're suggesting flying around the 9000-10000ft mark .... what about IFR? Are they not going to be entering controlled airspaces??! Is this legal?

Just questioning what I heard, but would like to know what others have to say about this.

[VP959]

Just flying it is illegal at the moment, as it has no certification, no permit, the CAA don't know what licence you need to fly it and as far as I can tell from G-INFO it isn't registered, either. The company that have built it hold no approvals, either CAA, EASA or whatever, so it's a long way from being legally able to fly, at least in UK airspace, and even further away from being able to be sold ready built.

Kit sales will be possible if the CAA agree to extend the conditions of the BMAAs Exposition from the 450kg microlight limit up to 600kg, and Parajet can get it through CS-VLA approval. My guess is that this will take maybe 6 months of work, if they get a clear run at it.

Then some form of licence will need to be created, as the current powered parachute licence is an NPPL microlight licence variation and only covers up to 450kg MTOW, I believe. It may be possible to extend the NPPL to a greater MTOW, but that then restricts operation to UK airspace. AFAIK, a JAR SEP might not cover a powered parachute, although I am fairly sure that an old CAA PPL will, just as it does for flying microlights (one of those odd licence anomalies!)

As for making it legally IFR capable, then the answer is that it'd be near impossible. It will have to operate on a Permit to Fly, unless Parajet can get themselves EASA approved as a manufacturer of certified aircraft, a process that will be expensive and take a long time. If it operates on a Permit (as a kit built type), then it's restricted to day VFR only.

VP

[fyrefli]

Just flying it is illegal at the moment, as it has no certification, no permit, the CAA don't know what licence you need to fly it and as far as I can tell from G-INFO it isn't registered, either. The company that have built it hold no approvals, either CAA, EASA or whatever, so it's a long way from being legally able to fly, at least in UK airspace, and even further away from being able to be sold ready built

Sorry but how's it any less legal than a normal PPG / trike combo? As for the licence, why wouldn't a normal PPG rating cover it? I think the El Reg article (I read it yesterday) said Mike C-J's Paramania made the wing as a special, but it's surely just a particularly fast Reflex variant, so that shouldn't present any problems to certify either.

[VP959]

Sorry but how's it any less legal than a normal PPG / trike combo? As for the licence, why wouldn't a normal PPG rating cover it? I think the El Reg article (I read it yesterday) said Mike C-J's Paramania made the wing as a special, but it's surely just a particularly fast Reflex variant, so that shouldn't present any problems to certify either.

A PPG (foot launched) is legal because foot launched powered aircraft are free from regulation. There is an exemption in the ANO that means that if they weigh less than 60kg (solo), 70kg (tandem) empty weight, have no more than 10 litres of fuel and are launched on foot, then no licence or airworthiness approval is required.

Once you add a trike to a PPG it becomes a microlight in law and a licence, noise certificate, insurance and registration is required. If the trike/PPG combination weighs more than 115kg (weight without fuel or pilot), or if it has a wing loading of more than 10kg/m² based on weight less pilot and fuel, then it falls outside the Single Seat De-Regulated microlight category and the aircraft needs approval or certification against a recognised airworthiness standard.

If the powered parachute weighs less than 450kg MTOW and has a stall speed, or minimum flying speed, of less then 35kts CAS, then it can be approved against BCAR Section S. If it weighs more than 450kg MTOW, or has a stall speed, or minimum flying speed, of more than 35kts CAS then it needs to be approved against one of the recognised light aircraft standards, most probably CS-VLA or CS-23.

Just to correct your point about a "PPG rating" and flying a PPG trike in the UK. If the rating in question is a BHPA or BMAA one, then it does not cover flying a PPG trike in any way. To legally fly a PPG trike in the UK you must hold either an old, current, CAA PPL Microlights (with or without the powered parachute limitation) or nowadays an NPPL Microlight (Powered Parachute). Certificates of Experience and medicals must be valid,too. The trike must also be registered, the registration must be carried on the wing, a noise certificate (or exemption) must be held and the aircraft must be insured to the minimum laid down in EU regs.

The law is clear, if a bit odd. Once you add wheels to a PPG it becomes a microlight and is subject to microlight regulations.

With regard to certification, I agree. Mike's been around in the business for as long as I can remember, so it should be able to pass. One slight problem is that there is no certification standard that applies to a canopy with this wing loading or load carrying capability, so the CAA or EASA will first have to develop the code for approval.

VP

[BackPacker]

VP959, isn't this *exactly* what the "experimental" category is for? So that the CAA can issue a Permit to Fly to anything that doesn't fall within established design categories?

We usually associate a PtF with LAA-type homebuilds (kitbuilt or plans) but the CAA can also issue these directly, thus bypassing the criteria the LAA has established for itself.

There is footage of the aircraft flying, so does it have a Certificate to Test?

[VP959]

VP959, isn't this *exactly* what the "experimental" category is for? So that the CAA can issue a Permit to Fly to anything that doesn't fall within established design categories?

We usually associate a PtF with LAA-type homebuilds (kitbuilt or plans) but the CAA can also issue these directly, thus bypassing the criteria the LAA has established for itself.

There is footage of the aircraft flying, so does it have a Certificate to Test?

Yes, it would be, if there were such a thing as an Experimental category in the UK (there isn't, unfortunately, although life would be a great deal easier if there were).

AFAIK this particular aircraft has not been given a Permit to Fly by exemption, I'm not at all sure that the CAA have ever done this for a type that has never been approved, although I think they do have the power to do so under the ANO if they wish.

Normally a Permit to Fly is issued for the following reasons (excuse the outdated language - the basics remain pretty much the same):

1) The aircraft is a type that is no longer supported by a Type Certificate holder and has no means of being maintained and serviced to the requirements of a C of A. This applies to some of the ex-production types that are operated on CAA PtFs (and some legacy aircraft, like a few Cubs, on LAA PtFs, I believe)

2) The type is an ex-military or historic type that never held a Type Certificate, but was approved against a military airworthiness code, an obsolete code or perhaps no code at all in the case of a few vintage types. Again, these aircraft can't be maintained or serviced to C of A requirements, so are issued with a CAA PtF

3) Microlights, whether factory built by an CAA A1 Approved manufacturer, or whether kit or homebuilt, are issued with a PtF by either the BMAA or LAA. The reason is that they are not designed or approved to C of A requirements, so again cannot meet those maintenance and servicing requirements.

4) Homebuilt light aircraft that are not microlights are issued with a PtF by the LAA, for exactly the same reasons as above. They have a greater degree of restriction placed on them in terms of servicing and maintenance than microlights, including the need for some licensed engineer oversight for certain tasks.

The Skycar cannot be flying under B Conditions for test, as Parajet is not an A1 Approved (or EASA approved) manufacturer, so cannot issue a Permit to Test under B Conditions. Similarly, the BMAA (the delegated approval body that is trying to obtain a basis for approval for them), do not have the authority (at the moment) to issue a Permit to Test under their B conditions as their Exposition does not include aircraft of over 450kg MTOW. Anyway, a Permit to Test wouldn't normally be issued until the structural and other compliance demonstration work has been completed. At the moment, the CAA haven't agreed the basis for approval, AFAIK, so this compliance work cannot have been done yet.

Even if a Permit to Test was in place under someone's B Conditions authority, or, perhaps, an extraordinary CAA exemption, then the aircraft would still have to be registered and the pilot would need to hold the appropriate licence. There is no trace of any registration for it AFAICS.

To be honest, despite all this chat about legal stuff, I admire them for just getting on and doing it. If they'd stopped to get all the paperwork done beforehand they'd probably have died of old age before getting underway. More power to their elbow!

VP