# The concept of a flying car will eventually succeed

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

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
All this blather when a helicopter will do it all...

#### jedi

##### Well-Known Member
I would like to apologize to Aerolight Jack for giving him a rough time over the misunderstanding with the Dutch connection.

I find it very interesting that only a few generations ago I am associated with the branch of religion that still values the horse and buggy over the auto or aircraft and could care less about a roadable airplane. I think that their dedication is commendable.

My grandmother claimed the sinking of the Titanic when she was pregnant with my mother was such a shock that caused her daughter to do the typical things a mother complains about. No one ever got grandma in a airplane and mom only got on a airliner because I gave mom and dad tickets to Hawaii.

Mom did not like to fly. My aunt would not go over any major bridge.

There are a lot of people (99% of the population) that wouldn't pay a dime for a LAM (Land Air Marine) vehicle but that leaves a million or so that would.

Grandma only got in a boat once and did not like it. Don't know how dad talked her into it.

When I was a new hire airline pilot a group of young pilots organized a group of fellow employees to crew the future space flights to the moon. The encyclopedia I studied illustrated a steam engine going to the moon.

Change comes slowly but it does come. Hang on. This is a good ride.

#### jedi

##### Well-Known Member
All this blather when a helicopter will do it all...
Nope! FAA has authority over helicopters. The majority of helicopter operations are limited to established airports. Helicopters are not roadable. I can not purchase a helicopter for $135,000. I do not need a helicopter and do not need VTOL. I do need an aircraft that costs less than$100,000 and I can get on and off the airport secure area and get to most any random address or area that I can drive or ride a bicycle to. If it is a FAA legal Ultralight that gives it two more stars. If it is a registered aircraft subtract two stars.

Last edited:

#### jedi

##### Well-Known Member
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.
I agree with the leg landing gear. It took me years to decide to ditch the wheels for legs.
If it, LAM vehicle, does have wheels the pilot should still be able to use his legs for slow speed operations without having to exit the LAM. Slow speed operations are turning, parking, hangar storage, fuel pump maneuvering, the Starbucks drive thru, and the airport security fence, etc. Even Cessna and Bonanza pilots use their feet for slow speed operations but they have to shut gown the engine and exit the aircraft to do that. The shutdown and exit is a dealbreaker for the LAM.

Having the pilots feet on the ground eliminates the nose wheel, tail wheel, nose or tail wheel steering, tail wheel swivel and locking device, brakes and wheel pants. The wheels and landing gear structure can be much lighter and getting unstuck while taxiing is much easier.

the quad copper on a stick is a great idea. It will be even better when the copter is converted to wings!

Being able to walk and maneuver on the ground is much more important than VTOL. A powered pogo stick with 90 minutes of fuel is probably heavy enough to have wheels to use when you take it into the grocery store and load the milk and potatoes into the backpack.

Last edited:

#### jedi

##### Well-Known Member

=Franz Scoeffman
That’s the idea. Now if it had wings, for when the engine quits, If it could go somewhere it would be useful.

Last edited:

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter

=Franz Scoeffman
That flight went much better than the one that I saw at Sun n Fun years ago. It crashed after going into oscillations. Could have been pilot induced. Only the pilot’s ego was injured. He would not discuss the crash.

BJC

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
I agree with the leg landing gear. It took me years to decide to ditch the wheels for legs.
If it, LAM vehicle, does have wheels the pilot should still be able to use his legs for slow speed operations without having to exit the LAM. Slow speed operations are turning, parking, hangar storage, fuel pump maneuvering, the Starbucks drive thru, and the airport security fence, etc. Even Cessna and Bonanza pilots use their feet for slow speed operations but they have to shut gown the engine and exit the aircraft to do that. The shutdown and exit is a dealbreaker for the LAM.

Having the pilots feet on the ground eliminates the nose wheel, tail wheel, nose or tail wheel steering, tail wheel swivel and locking device, brakes and wheel pants. The wheels and landing gear structure can be much lighter and getting unstuck while taxiing is much easier.

the quad copper on a stick is a great idea. It will be even better when the copter is converted to wings!

Being able to walk and maneuver on the ground is much more important than VTOL. A powered pogo stick with 90 minutes of fuel is probably heavy enough to have wheels to use when you take it into the grocery store and load the milk and potatoes into the backpack.
Not having any wheels eliminates the option of landing and pushing it around and into the hangar. And in dusty conditions, you kick up a lot of debris in a hover, obscuring vision and chewing up rotors. Besides getting all dirty.

#### Attachments

• 20.7 KB Views: 6
Last edited:

#### REVAN

##### Well-Known Member
The IRS allows 56 cents per mile in 2021, there are a lot of automobiles that can't be operated at that rate if all costs are included (depreciation, etc). For an aircraft, it would be a stretch unless we're talking about a very simple ultralght.
The GSA rate for aircraft is $1.26 per statute mile, which provides a little more breathing room. I'll guess there are many small single seat aircraft that can best$0.56/mile. Off the top of my head, the Cri-Cri, Hummel and the Merlin PSA probably all make the mark with margin to spare. What is needed is something that flies like those, but that can drive around and operate from the road.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Somebody remind me again why the German Parazoom "Flyke" is not a viable, reasonable solution for the roadable aircraft discussion?

I can't find it easily now, but they have a video of the guy driving it through the streets of Germany as a propeller-driven tricycle, he drives it into a field, and then in about ten minutes he has laid out the wing (paramotor style fabric canopy/wing), and takes off.

It's demonstrated to be controllable, it requires only a modest amount of flight instruction to operate safely, and here's the best new-age Millennial-approved part: In the event of a total power failure... a proprietary AI algorithm automatically rescues you using an instantly deployed emergency parachute, which is... wait for it... completely steerable!

It's powered by a Briggs & Stratton 4-stroke engine making ~30HP, and probably costs about ten bucks an hour to put gas and oil through it. It does not require any Unobtanium, and the entire package is probably \$30K retail brand new RTF.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I can't find it easily now, but they have a video of the guy driving it through the streets of Germany
I saw a homebuilt flying car, propeller driven, driving in Oshkosh in the early 1970’s.

Still none that meets my definition of useful.

BJC

#### REVAN

##### Well-Known Member

This is likely the state of the art for roadable aircraft today. It does what is does, both drives and flies economically. I'd say that the main issues are that it has very restrictive flying operations. The weather has to be just right and you need a suitable field to fly from and to. You can't just take off from the road because it can't handle cross-wind conditions, so you need a large circular-like open space to get airborne. Also, it flies slower than a car drives, which largely eliminates the hypothetical advantage of a flying car like vehicle. Bottom line; this machine best fits in the fun-fly category, and for that it is pretty cool, but I think it costs a lot more than the usual paramotor trike, or plain paramotor that largely accomplishes the same fun-fly mission.

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
flying cars will need to solve the problem of navigating around buildings:

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
flying cars will need to solve the problem of navigating around buildings:

BJC