Re the 'limit' on speed of a Kasperwing --is this due to the limitation of weight shift in the high wing wire braced one or even the drag moment of the pilot/pod versus the wing drag ? (the old Rogallo "tuck dive' effect might somehow apply also if the surface aft of the D nose is itself flexible ) There would appear to be no inherent reason to limit the attainable speed of a flying wing --the first transonic aircraft did not feature tails in fact (DH Swallow, Messeshmitt Komet etc Bell X5 et al ) -- the loss of reflex with forward stick might reduce stability margins somewhat I surmise but don't look like show stoppers --the Kasperwing is no different in this sense than other swept all wings or is it ? Returning to the theme of road take off and landing -- and being serious about it ; the concept demands that the vehicle MUST convert 'on the run' both from air to road mode and road mode to air mode since you cannot expect other traffic to stop or slow down for you --and there can be no acceleration on either take off or landing since there are not large gaps at convenient locations to suit a take off roll starting slow and sspeeding up . this imposes certain constraints on the conversion process and the intermediate geometry between modes (for example you could not fold one wing in or out at a time --it would just roll over . Neither can the wing be allowed to rotate along the spanwise axis (in pitch ) and least of all be broadside to the airstream --many otherwise feasible conversion systems fail these tests . Neither could the wing extend into the space used by vehicles in adjacent lanes --perhaps being much higher than anything else could qualify but that tends to be susceptible to blow over --the turbulence created by bluff vehicles in front is also a problem (as it is with the aerodynamics of race cars --losing downforce from the upwash of the rear airfoil of the car in front ) Palmer Stiles intended his CarNard to deploy it's wings underway (on a roadway) and to retract them also after landing at highway speeds -- probably being envisioned to only happen way out of busy sections of roads though. Maybe Ken Wernicke thought this was possible for his 'street legal' width Aircar as well (it was never finished and found it's way to a museum in England somehow --it is not unusual for flying cars to dissappear after the designer becomes aware of some oversight after construction. If a valid case can be made for RTOL then it could be done here --it is a definable 'extra' operational mode from the others already nominated and it is clear that not all are convinced of the infeasibility (or concomitantly of the feasibility of ATOL or VTOL for that matter )-- if nothing else the old adage "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still " comes to mind . In terms of patentability the concept of "obviousness" is crucial and yet very hard to define --real life examples as shown by reactions on this thread can well constitute evidence . the comment before about crash survivability and the need for "bull bars" (also known as Roo bars or Boong bars over here to bounce various forms of wildlife off when encountered on the road ,usually at night ) is also not a joke -- cars have to be designed by law for impact unlike aircraft . The Smithsonian book of flight ends with a 'vision of the future' including Paul Mac Cready on solar powered and soaring ultralights and the almost incredible statement " future use of new composite fibres will allow an aircraft to fly into a concrete wall at crusing speed without injury to the pilot " (a close approximation without having it at hand -- I can copy the exact words if disputed ) I find this just about in-credible. But might be needed for RTOL .