# The concept of a flying car will eventually succeed

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Aerolite jack

##### Active Member
Nope. The Pal-V is a tilting trike. Like a motorcycle. Pretty good road manners.

Trikes come in 2 basic configurations. "Arrow" with the single wheel in front. "Tadpole" with the single wheel in back. Sidecars, asymmetric arrangements, are not considered trikes for this discussion.

The Robin Reliant is an arrow trike. Like a tricycle geared airplane, if the pull in turns from gravity and side loads wanders outside the imaginary triangle of the tire contact patches, it tips over.

The Bond Bug ( obscure older trike ) and the Slingshot, are tadpole designs. Far better cornering. There is a price to pay in complexity! Instead of a single front wheel with caster/camber/rake etc. to build and get the angles right, you also must consider Ackerman geometry and connect the two wheels so they point the right direction. ( not necessarily the Same direction )

Introduce a tilting component where you lean to keep the combined pull of gravity and cornering working through the tire contact patches, and it's a different critter.
The bond bug was the same configuration as the reliant three wheeler and the engine was beside you in the cabin just like the reliant and single wheel at the front.Tilting the wheel will help but the cof g is high blades and boom on top these are heavy items .

#### Dusan

##### Well-Known Member
Current state of Batteries? Electric cars pre date ICE cars by 30 years. So well over a hundred years later we are where we are. Batteries will never compete with ICE. Something about Laws of Physics. I have a VW Touareg Turbo Diesel SUV which weighs slightly over 5000 lbs. Recent trip from North Idaho to Reno and back it got 33 mpg.
Depends on mission: If designed for short endurance, under 30 minutes, the electric propulsion system (motor, controller, batteries, wiring -all) is lighter than comparable certified piston engine, fuel and it's systems. This is because the power to weight ratio of electric motor is much higher than piston ICE.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Depends on mission: If designed for short endurance, under 30 minutes, the electric propulsion system (motor, controller, batteries, wiring -all) is lighter than comparable certified piston engine, fuel and it's systems. This is because the power to weight ratio of electric motor is much higher than piston ICE.
Probably true in most cases, if we constrain our options to "certified piston engines." (BTW, are the electric options similarly "certified"?)
But, if we remove the constraints and allow for an ICE engine optimized for HP/weight (e.g. a high-reving 2 stroke with gearbox), the ICE/gasoline system for 30 minute duration can/will have lower mass than an electric system of similar power (if we're talking about power enough for carrying people aloft for that time, present commercial battery technology, etc). The higher energy density of liquid fuel overcomes the higher HP/weight of electric motors at fairly low levels of total stored energy.

Apples to apples.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
Just End ..... well, that would violate the rules.

BJC

#### Pops

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
Why is all the flying car's designed by people that might know cars but know very little about an airplanes. Because it looks good doesn't mean it will be successful as a flying car. Must be designed by artist only.
I haven't seen one design where the wing will go to the needed AOA for takeoff, all have the rear wheels far to the rear of the CG. The designs are limited to very long runways only where the flying car has to takeoff and land at almost cruising speeds.

#### Aerolite jack

##### Active Member
I am a retired airline pilot with more need for a "flying car", and if really necessary ability to purchase at $135,000, than most anyone I know personally. I have a delivery slot on the Switchblade but no deposit and do not expect to ever own one. I have seriously considered BJC's question posted above and repeated here: "Just curious: would anyone here buy a “flying car” if one were available for$135,000? Assume whatever performance that you think would be achievable. "

As an asside I would like to say yes but for a retired pilot with Pennsylvania Dutch (Pennsylvania Dutch - Wikipedia) background I can site 137,000 reasons not to purchase one of those fandangled contraptions. Family lore is that my grandmother kept a pair of pliers it the kitchen drawer so that she could pinch her pennies.

The catch is the bit about the "Assume whatever performance that you think would be achievable. "
I have a pretty good imagination but even that does not match reality yet so my qualified yes has a lot of reservations. "If you have reservations about something, you are not sure that it is entirely good or right."

I can say that I can certainly see why the typical flying car is not a success and I have my own opinions as to what can be a success which I would gladly share with interested parties.

To be brief I will just say that the road to a successful flying car is very long and narrow. To be honest the term "flying car" is part of the problem. The flying car asks for to much. What I want is a roadable off road vehicle (RORV). A RORV is not to be confused with an ATV (All Terrain Vehicle), It should be a LAM (Land Air Marine) vehicle. The land and air is the priority medium with the "marine" a desirable option. The LAM can therefore be redefined for this discussion as a Land Air Medium vehicle. It has no more in common with the common "car" than a pogo stick has to the family SUV. (you figure that one, SUV, out )

Summery: The pogo stick is the current LAM state of the art. (Recall the early hang glider days where anything that left the ground was an airplane and required FAA approval.) The pogo stick is a LAM ultralight. Now all that is needed is to put some wings and a motor one it. That is if you do not believe in man powered flight. Would I pay $135,000 for a pogo stick? No fing* way. But, fortunately Wall Mart is still in business so their is no need to give in to BJCs propose priced gouging even with today's forecast of inflation. PS. Yesterday I watch as my pilot student paid$5 for a nickel (in 1930s dollars) cup of coffee. Wasn't the 1930s about when Waldo Waterman developed and went into production with the first practical flying car.
Waterman Arrowbile - Wikipedia

Henryk; Notice how many features of the Waterman aircraft are found in the "Kasper" aircraft.

Edit, Just one more thing: Note that the trampofoil is the marine equivalent of the pogo stick. There is current LAM technology to "Build Back Better" with. Joe, can you spare me a dime? Sylvania

*Fing - F' ing - A sex neutral term suggested to the FAA to address the current issues of gender neutral terminalogy. See post xxx (references required see further edits. HBA post in Rules and Regulations has been closed. See ‘Because words matter’ — General Aviation News or government web sites for more details). It is a contraction of the more common GA (General Aviation) word "Flying" which has degenerated into the almost registered trademark of a common "Rag" (Slang term for a trade journal or magazine, the magazine has no connection to the former common tube and rag type of aircraft construction).

Sorry for the rant - Gota go now!

JEDI

PSS: I have a gold star for the first pilot to secessfully translate JEDI into USA Federal Government right wing terminology.
Pennsylvania Dutch what did they fly never heard of them ?

#### REVAN

##### Well-Known Member
Just curious: would anyone here buy a “flying car” if one were available for $135,000? Assume whatever performance that you think would be achievable. BJC$135,000?

If it could carry me and a descent sized backpack without refueling from point 'A' to point 'B' (A and B being up to 300 miles apart and neither A nor B being an airport) at a cruise speed of 100 to 120 mph and while getting about 30 mpg on regular gas station fuel, all while requiring no vehicle transformations and extra pre-flights or in-rout airport stepping stones to complete the journey; then yes, I think that would be worth $135,000. I think the key point here is that I don't want the vehicle to need an airport to do this mission. While 300 miles is a limit, the vehicle needs to be optimized for trips in the range of 50 to 100 miles. As such, the need for using an airport is going to be a deal breaker for me. If it needs the airport to get airborne, the 50 mile trip will be faster driven on the ground than flying. I would not replace a$35k car with a $135K single seat vehicle that does a worse job than the car. If it is not a transportation system similar to what's described above, if it is just a fun-fly machine, then my price threshold is going to be much lower. A fun-fly machine will need to be able to compete with ultralights, ATVs, motorcycles and trailered boats. Probably more like$25K to $50K, depending on what it does. Anyone else have inputs??? #### DennisK ##### Active Member To be brief I will just say that the road to a successful flying car is very long and narrow. To be honest the term "flying car" is part of the problem. The flying car asks for to much. What I want is a roadable off road vehicle that is not to be confused with an ATV (All Terrain Vehicle), It should be a LAM (Land Air Marine) vehicle. The land and air is the priority medium with the marine a desirable option. The LAM can be redfined for this discussion as a Land Air Medium vehicle. It has no more in common with the common "car" than a pogo stick has to the family SUV. (you figure that one, SUV, out ) lol, I have actually considered the possibility of making a "quadcopter on a stick" for short hop flights, where the arms fold down for easy carrying. Functionally equivalent to Mary Poppins' umbrella It would be hilarious to make it double a pogo stick, so you can bounce along rather than carrying it. But you know what is the ultimate LAM? A goose. It actually would be more useful to put legs on a VTOL/STOL aircraft than car wheels. They may not be very fast, but they require no ground infrastructure (roads, airports), and if you're going to cover much distance you do it in the air anyway. And you can kick them underwater to swim. #### Brünner ##### Well-Known Member I think it's actually rather easy to build a flying car - wait, make that a flying motorbike. Wanna see it? Here it is. Now, the problem is that the trike is not a good road vehicle, as we all know. But I believe that this concept is actually sound. In other words: take a light, small car which is roadable and mate it to a wing large enough to support it. The trick is to remove the wing after landing and store it somewhere. #### jedi ##### Well-Known Member Pennsylvania Dutch what did they fly never heard of them ? Pennsylvania is a USA state. It was one of the original 13 colonies. Dutch comes from Holland. Does the name Folker ring a bell? Germans driven out of Germany went to Holland. When driven out of Holland they went to England. When driven out of England they went to North America. I suggest you research https://www.google.com/search?q=third+reich&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1. "The Third Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918)." These were some of the people that saved England from the intended German invasion of the Third Reich a few years ago. Please notice that the URL was included in the post. There is no need to remain ignorant even if you are British. I can not say more or the internet Nazi will attack one or both of us. warm . Last edited: #### Aerolite jack ##### Active Member Real flying car: View attachment 118190 The only way to drive a VTOL ‘flying car’. View attachment 118191. Aeromobil 3 had a stall speed of 37 mph test pilot stalled it and it spun he deployed the chute and walked away however aeromobil 3 is no more shame it looks good. They have now brought out aeromobil 4 and that is even better looking it’s still got 3 road wheels but the right way round two at the front . #### BJC ##### Well-Known Member$135,000?
That is roughly the cost of a factory new RV-12.

#### jedi

##### Well-Known Member
$135,000? If it could carry me and a descent sized backpack without refueling from point 'A' to point 'B' (A and B being up to 300 miles apart and neither A nor B being an airport) at a cruise speed of 100 to 120 mph and while getting about 30 mpg on regular gas station fuel, all while requiring no vehicle transformations and extra pre-flights or in-rout airport stepping stones to complete the journey; then yes, I think that would be worth$135,000.

I think the key point here is that I don't want the vehicle to need an airport to do this mission. While 300 miles is a limit, the vehicle needs to be optimized for trips in the range of 50 to 100 miles. As such, the need for using an airport is going to be a deal breaker for me. If it needs the airport to get airborne, the 50 mile trip will be faster driven on the ground than flying. I would not replace a $35k car with a$135K single seat vehicle that does a worse job than the car.

If it is not a transportation system similar to what's described above, if it is just a fun-fly machine, then my price threshold is going to be much lower. A fun-fly machine will need to be able to compete with ultralights, ATVs, motorcycles and trailered boats. Probably more like $25K to$50K, depending on what it does.

Anyone else have inputs???
I will settle for 100 miles at 60 mph if the price is under \$100,000. Keeping the cost affordable is more important than increasing range and speed. The popularity of powered paragliding demonstrates this to an extreme.