Flying Car gains certification

[Pace]

World's first flying car on the roads from next year - yours for just £130,000 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1097324/Worlds-flying-car-roads-year--just-130-000.html)

This neat machine will be available from next year!!! FAA Clearance

Terrafugia Transition flying-car cleared by the FAA (http://www.gizmag.com/terrafugia-transition-flying-car/15584/)


I could see that in various desert areas with long obstacle clear roads in the USA it would be possible to land, takeoff and drive. Nip into the filling station for Mogas.
What is the legality in the UK of landing or taking off from a public highway albeit in a sparse deserted area?
Dont think the M1 on a busy friday afternoon would suffice :ugh:

But even keeping it at home driving to the local airfield filling up enroute would save a lot in hangarage and parking costs.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

If, and I would emphasise IF, this really does what it says on the tin, then I think it could have a sound future, if maybe not in the UK. One of the issues with flying for any sort of utiility purpose is what you do at the other end. I would see this being used for conventional flights between airports, but offering the ability to drive to the final destination.

When I fly on business I find compared with a car it is surprising just how far the destination has to be away before flying offers any real time saving taking into account getting to the airport, getting off the ground and making the onward journey at the other end. I am lucky because I have some very good clients who collect me. Even so the journey needs to be several hundred miles before in reality there is any time advantage flying, and I reckon I can be airborn within 20 minutes of arriving at the airport. Of course flying is much more pleasant and a lot less stressful, and only one traffic jam is needed to really ruin your day.

The problem is this really does not look like an all weather aircraft. Moreover how often would you pick up bumps and scrapes driving the thing which would render it perfectly safe on the road but not airworthy. Then there is the issue of airports becoming accustom to the idea of releasing you from the airport directly into the big outside world - just think of the security issues. In the UK and Europe landing any where but an airport I can imagine would be fraught with all sorts of issues and a non starter.

I do like the idea it has a parachute. It also seems very cheap.

I will not be holding my breath, but worth keeping an eye on how they get on.

[Pace]

The problem is this really does not look like an all weather aircraft

Fuji does a PA28? the plus with this is that you could land at a small airfield and complete the trip by road if the weather ahead looks suspect!

Would love to see a flight test and road test to see how good it is in both deprtments but the big plus is landing at an airfield driving out to your destination.

You could even put in for one as a company car ;) Think of the reps productivity increase:rolleyes:

Day trip to to the isle of wight, jersey, isle of man,lake district etc and just drive off sightseeing for the day.

At least with FAA approval the thing is a reality. Still dont understand why they have two wheels at the front which will add drag weight etc.

The tried and tested Bond Bug concept of 2 wheels at the back and 1 wheel in front and more in line with conventional aircraft would surely have improved the landing ability as well as speed, climbrate, carrying capacity etc makes no sense.

Pace

[Dave Unwin]

Not the first certified Flying Car though. The Taylor Aerocar I flew a few years back was certified in the 1950s, while the Aerobile flew in 1937 and the Airphibian in 1947!

[yakker]

2 wheels at the back and 1 wheel in front and more in line

Top Gear answered that last week.

So Dave, when can we look forward to your road/flight test of the Terrafugia Transition?

[BackPacker]

Oh, so many questions.

The one I'm particularly interested in is how the Rotax 912, which is still partly air cooled (the cylinder barrels) is going to behave in a traffic jam.

Oh, and what about the "carrying capacity" of 195 kg? That's two adults, no baggage, no fuel. Seriously?

But I still think it's a load of media hype about nothing. From what I gather from the article, the only reason for this press announcement is that the FAA have increased the weight limit for a Light Sports Aircraft so that this thing will (or should I say "may eventually") fall under LSA rules. But the OP heading "gains certification" seems to be very far from the truth right now.

[Dave Unwin]

Actually Yakker, they're quite keen as I gave them a copy of my report on the Aerocar at Sebring, and they liked the idea of me flying theirs as I'm one of the few people that's actually flown a flying car. I'm certainly game.:ok:

[Pace]

Top Gear answered that last week.

Never saw top gear last week :ugh: what was the conclusion which required 2
wheels at the front? As stated reliant were masters at building 3 wheel cars with one at the front and while you would never win a race in one (well maybe inverted) :E The range were fine for normal careful driving at speeds up to 70 mph and to just get around.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji does a PA28?


True - so strictly VFR then.

As to landing on any old grass strip or patch - well maybe, it would be good if it could, have you seen the performance figures? They are probably on their web site but I havent got around to looking.

I really dont know, maybe I am as brainwashed as many by convention, but I recall being told a long time ago whether it floats, flys, and I cant remember the third :), then if it looks right and it feels right it probably is right, whereas this just doesnt look right (I have no idea what it feels like though).

[Pace]

then if it looks right and it feels right it probably is right,

Fuji what are you talking about? If it doesnt look right then just turn off the lights and imagine. If it doesnt feel right either you do have a big problem and I stress the BIG problem which will then turn into a small problem :E If when feeling it in the dark you find some bits which should not be there then RUN!

As to landing on any old strip or patch dont say any more :\

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Think I have been found out.

[martinprice]

I've been following the Terrafugia loosely for a while. It not something I'd ever be in the market for (too expensive, not aerobatic enough, and needs about 200% more power :-) but I have to admire the guys trying to solve the vast number of engineering problems involved in building a flying car. Sorry, "roadable aircraft".

Something's been bugging me, though. The whole pitch seems to be that you drive it to the nearest airport and take off from the runway. Nice in theory but, in the US at least, have you tried "just" driving into an airport lately? I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and the three nearest GA airports (all within 25 miles) are Oakland, Hayward and Livermore. Oakland is a fortress and the other two are almost as tightly locked down. It's not like there's a security guard at the gate who can check your ID and let you in, either - if you don't have a badge/smart card you're not getting through the gate. Even more remote, non-towered airports are getting harder and harder to get a vehicle into.

I haven't seen any evidence that this problem has been considered or solved yet, at least in the US. Any ideas?

[Deeday]

It would be interesting to compare the fuel burn (and range) in road mode vs. aircraft mode. I bet it does more miles per gallon plodding along on the ground. Anyone knows?

[Dave Unwin]

Don't know about the Terrafugia, as I haven't flown it yet. In still air, the Aerocar's range is essentially the same whether driving or flying - 400 miles.

[cessnapete]

The other rule of course, if it flies, floats or f-(can't remember the third!) rent it don't buy it!!

[aviate1138]

Terrafugia Transition needs 1640 feet to lift off at 80 mph. According to one report.

Terrafugia claim 1700 feet to clear 50ft. Manufacturers data on tarmac/concrete not grass.

Stalls at 51 mph.

Ugly sucker and one blind grannie in a car lot could cost you so much money!

Have tried it on an X-Plane 9.55 simulator and it climbs like a brick outhouse. I think the Rotax will be operating at Max continuous for most of its life! :oh:

[Pace]

If you look at the picture and instead of seeing the two cowled wheels imagine a sharper nose with just the one wheel then this aircraft/plane would work.

There would be much less drag, less weight, better performance.

I asked the question WHY 2 wheels when most aircraft have a single nose wheel which would also improve the landing ability.

I was told that the need for 2 wheels was explained on top gear but still no explanation as why?

This aerocar COULD be a real winner but NOT in the MK1 version they have churned out.

Pace

[jxk]

I suppose it has passed all the vehicle crash checks that are needed on new cars these days or do they have some sort of exemption?

[astir 8]

1 wheel at the front, 2 at the back (e.g Reliant Robin) - the engine mass is effectively balanced on 1 wheel and the driver is sitting outside the roll axis (lines between the front wheel & the back wheels) and the arrangement is intrinsically unstable. Hence a heavy person such as J Clarkson, with a bit of help from a downhill left hand turn and probably an abrupt steering input and a dab of brake to further shift weight to the front can overturn this configuration relatively easily (as shown on Top Gear the other week although one must take any "reality" shown on Top Gear with a pinch of salt).

2 wheels at the front, 1 at the back (e.g. Morgan 3 wheeler) the engine is centred between the 2 front wheels and the driver is more or less sitting on the roll axis so his weight is at least not assisting the overturning moment. Hence it's a lot more stable (they used to race Morgans at Brooklands)

And as you may have noticed, single engined aircraft with a single nosewheel are relatively unstable on the ground in roll :uhoh: Probably more so than a tail dragger

[yakker]

Sorry Pace for not replying promptly, been away, and thanks to Astir 8 for doing the job for me. But Pace maybe this is more to your liking Samson Motorworks (http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/switchblade.shtml)

The flying car is a difficult problem, you end up with a mediocre aircraft that is a mediocre car. But it seems to me the Terrafugia maybe the best effort yet. We will need to wait until Dave has tested it:ok:

[yakker]

Then there's this The Butterfly LLC (http://thebutterflyllc.com/index.htm)

or this http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=57