Flying Car ?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
5,085
Location
Thunder Bay
Last edited:

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
5,085
Location
Thunder Bay
That thing is the perfect drinking game for pilots. First a group of pilots acquire it, then begin drinking, last pilot standing is first to try and fly it!
Yeah but between my alcohol tolerance and my sober desire to fly everything, that means I’d probably end up in it!

Scariest drinking game ever.
 

lr27

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,822
When I hear the words "flying car", I think of broken promises. Instead we got the internet. Sigh.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,967
Location
Memphis, TN
The helicopter he converted use to be in my hangar before the “owner” was forced to give it back to the government. It was scrapped after. He is just south of St Louis saw his shop on the side of the road going to Oshkosh.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,815
Location
North Carolina
Hmmm, the flying car threads seem to be a lot less frequent now.
But that's OK, we're getting plenty of 'I want to build a 10:1 L/D electric plane' threads instead.
 

Dusan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
205
Location
Canada
An roadable aircraft, certified for road and air operations is a big compromise. It will never drive or fly effectively as the engineering requirements are opposite. Most likely it will be outperformed by a Honda civic or a Cessna 172 in driving and respectively flying modes.

A "flying car" does not necessarily needs to be roadable, but to replace the current usage of the car. For that, a lot of things need to happen, not only from engineering point of view, safety, noise, public acceptance, and now I think the biggest challenge is legality to fly from your backyard to the local grocery store.

What UBER proposes, with a network of hub-vertiports, in order to to go from A to B, you'll need to change 3-4 modes of transports. I think mostly that would be a waste of time and effort. It would be much more time effective to have personal flying aircraft, taking you directly from A to B. For this approach, a 1-2 person VTOL aircraft makes much more sense, commuting occupancy is 1-2 people anyway(it was before Covid-19), engineering is less demanding, safety more reasonable, energy expenditure is less. For this to work, mini-vertipads would need to be installed everywhere, from drive-ways, communities, shopping malls, places of work, etc. They could be inexpensive, a little more than a patch of grass or a square on a parking lot, having an electronic guidance system to help or automatically land an aircraft in poor visibility. Such a guidance system would be affordable, technically not more than a smart-phone.

Nobody would need to develop purposefully a network of vertiports, the users will install them themselves, as well as the business that are willing to attract the "new flying wave" of customers, maybe similar to installing charging spots for electric cars.

Such vehicles will not need to be driven on roads, as virtually every parking lot of interest has a mini-vertiport, at most the vehicle needs to "taxi" to the parking spot. If autonomous, event the parking spots are not needed, after dropping passengers off, the aircraft flying for the next ride-share, or to the charging station.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
3,501
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
An roadable aircraft, certified for road and air operations is a big compromise. It will never drive or fly effectively as the engineering requirements are opposite. Most likely it will be outperformed by a Honda civic or a Cessna 172 in driving and respectively flying modes.

A "flying car" does not necessarily need to be roadable, but to replace the current usage of the car. For that, a lot of things need to happen, not only from engineering point of view, safety, noise, public acceptance, and now I think the biggest challenge is legality to fly from your backyard to the local grocery store.

What UBER proposes, with a network of hub-vertiports, in order to to go from A to B, you'll need to change 3-4 modes of transports. I think mostly that would be a waste of time and effort. It would be much more time effective to have personal flying aircraft, taking you directly from A to B. For this approach, a 1-2 person VTOL aircraft makes much more sense, commuting occupancy is 1-2 people anyway(it was before Covid-19), engineering is less demanding, safety more reasonable, energy expenditure is less. For this to work, mini-vertipads would need to be installed everywhere, from drive-ways, communities, shopping malls, places of work, etc. They could be inexpensive, a little more than a patch of grass or a square on a parking lot, having an electronic guidance system to help or automatically land an aircraft in poor visibility. Such a guidance system would be affordable, technically not more than a smart-phone.

Nobody would need to develop purposefully a network of vertiports, the users will install them themselves, as well as the business that are willing to attract the "new flying wave" of customers, maybe similar to installing charging spots for electric cars.

Such vehicles will not need to be driven on roads, as virtually every parking lot of interest has a mini-vertiport, at most the vehicle needs to "taxi" to the parking spot. If autonomous, event the parking spots are not needed, after dropping passengers off, the aircraft flying for the next ride-share, or to the charging station.

What you are describing is not a flying car, it is a flying taxi. That is a big difference. I do not think there is much of a desire for a flying taxi. All the discussion about a flying car is about the ability to go where you want, when you want in a personally owned vehicle. How often have you been in your car stuck in traffic and said "I wish I were in a taxi paying by the minute"?

If the Uber proposal did in fact "take off" (pun intended) the vertiports would be a congestion point. The vehicle needs to be able to "taxi" out of the way to clear the vertiport or as you suggest to move from the landing spot to the parking spot. Parking lots are congested. It is not fun driving a F-250 with a 25 foot trailer around the Walmart or Costco parking lot but it can be done. The 16x16 foot Uber Lift needs to fly to the parking spot. It can't do that.

It is difficult to find valid uses IMHO for the Cessna 172 in todays world. This is verified by the number of privately owned C-172s sitting on the airport ramp 99% of the time and at most flying, on average, less than an hour per week. Compare how often you get in the car versus how often you get into the plane. The ratio is likely more than 100:1.

If the so called "roadable airplane" were to cost the same as the average car and is only used 0.1% as often it is automatically 100 times more expensive per use. It can not be economical unless personal flying is the only solution for a mandatory trip.

Yet there is a great desire for a roadable aircraft; that is not the same as a flying car.
 

Speedboat100

Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
1,900
Location
Europe
I resurrected this thread as I am now and then sketching a lifting fuselage aeroplane....and to me looks as if the concept with folding wings like in a Corsair might be plausible...as the real wings can be pretty diminutive.

I mean then it could work as a car...when wings are folded up.
 
Last edited:

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,908
Location
SC
Great news my friends ... if you get yourself a flying car you now have a place where you can drive it:


But being a true southerner I don't believe I could live there even if they gave me a flying car as an incentive ... o_O
 
Top