# The concept of a flying car will eventually succeed

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

#### Brünner

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I got dizzy just looking at that thing.

#### REVAN

##### Well-Known Member
flying cars will need to solve the problem of navigating around buildings:
Dang... It's like they were aiming for the highest part of the roof line.

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
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.
What rock do you live under?

#### Aesquire

##### Well-Known Member
I like the Flyke. 2 minor corrections.

It's pedal powered on the roads. You theoretically could, probably illegally, use the engine & prop to push you down the road. In fact, I'd BET you everyone who has one has at least tried that on some back road. The Safety issues with prop driven ground ops is kinda obvious, and riding into the grocery store parking lot under power is highly likely to generate hysteria in ( insert your term ) bystanders.

The power module can be any sufficiently powerful Paramotor pack, 2 stroke or 4, presumably with the harness & other bits ( wing bars? ) removed and the trike bolted to the frame.

The use of wheels and seat mean you can use a heavier engine than usual for a back mounted paramotor, since the weight isn't supported by human joints and muscle.

I like idea Flyke, but I'm not sold on paragliders for myself. Personal preference. I'm ok with the limited speed, but the crosswind thing means you're back to Landing Fields and not limited Runways.

But if you live just a few miles from your flying field, it's a heck of a nifty toy. It's a slow, heavy, pedal powered machine, compared to a modern bicycle, so cross country riding is for athletic adventures, not practical transportation. I wonder if anyone has crossed a continent on one, yet.

The Maverick flying car using a powered parachute wing, has similar limitations on flying fields,

The Pal-V, otoh, seems to hit a good balance of roadability and flight ops. But because it's a gyro copter AND tilting trike, it requires 2 specialized skill sets. IMHO any motorcycle rider should have a quick learning period with the tilting trike part, and getting a gyro rating, while uncommon, isn't rocket science. ( It's Gyro Science, which is more confusing. )

Modern 2 seat LSA weight shift trike wing mated to a Ground powered trike similar in concept to the Pal-V would make an interesting "flying car" type.

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
But if you live just a few miles from your flying field, it's a heck of a nifty toy. It's a slow, heavy, pedal powered machine, compared to a modern bicycle, so cross country riding is for athletic adventures, not practical transportation. I wonder if anyone has crossed a continent on one, yet.
I'd want something a lot more maneuverable. A couple of times I've had to dodge other aircraft, and something as sluggish as a paraplane just isn't going to get you out of the way of the guy with his head buried in the cockpit.

#### bmcj

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Dang... It's like they were aiming for the highest part of the roof line.
Must have missed class the day they taught Aeronautical Decision Making.

#### Cardmarc

##### Well-Known Member
Has it flown?

BJC
No, it has NOT. And I have my doubts that a ducted fan will prove out even if they get their engines sorted out!

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
To be brief I will just say ....
Promises, promises, promises.

BJC

#### Aesquire

##### Well-Known Member
Re: sluggish...

Turn rate isn't bad at all.
But at a screaming 60kph getting distance is indeed sluggish.

They envy the instantaneous turn rate but getting out of dodge at 45mph means you're in the same league as hot air balloons.

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
TOP GEAR's Caravan Air Ship:

#### Dillpickle

##### Well-Known Member
Was thinking...has anyone ever seen a hydraulic drive aircraft? I know hydraulic losses in power are in the 80% range, but the drive motors are small and light. Could use one for the prop and one for the wheel. Could mount engine and prop where wanted and use hoses to transmit the power. Was interested in diesel hydraulic drive for a high mpg car, bit never considered ICE hydro for an airplane.

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
Was thinking...has anyone ever seen a hydraulic drive aircraft? I know hydraulic losses in power are in the 80% range, but the drive motors are small and light. Could use one for the prop and one for the wheel. Could mount engine and prop where wanted and use hoses to transmit the power. Was interested in diesel hydraulic drive for a high mpg car, bit never considered ICE hydro for an airplane.
Hydraulics tend to be heavy. To take the pressure, the pumps and motors are usually steel or cast iron. The hoses have significant weight, too. It's been discussed before as a form of redrive that would have little or no torsional vibration issues. The weight and efficiency losses are not at all suited to airplanes. Works well in bulldozers and hydrostatic-drive tractors, though.

Seems to me that someone built a roadable airplane that used hydraulic motors on the main wheels, and the engine had a clutch to disengage the prop while on the road. Likely had a cooling fan behind the prop. It never caught on. IIRC, it was an adaptation of the Durand MKV, but it's a long time ago that I saw it at Arlington. Must be 40 years ago.

#### henryk

##### Well-Known Member
I know hydraulic losses in power are in the 80% range, but the drive motors are small and light.
-russian puls hydro pump/motor >90 % eficiency...

(quasistatic mode)

Last edited:

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
-russian puls hydro pump/motor >90 % eficiency...
A 90% efficient pump connected to a 90% efficient motor means an overall 81% efficiency. That's likely where the 80% efficiency came from. Pretty poor for aircraft propulsion, even for driving the wheels. There is nowhere near that much loss through a mechanical transmission.

#### henryk

##### Well-Known Member
There is nowhere near that much loss through a mechanical transmission.
=electric generator/motor similar,circa 80 %...

HBA Supporter

#### C Michael Hoover

##### Well-Known Member
flying cars will need to solve the problem of navigating around buildings:
If that wasn't sad, it would be funny. I hope the folks on board are OK!

#### Blackhawk

##### Well-Known Member
With the technology that's available today I cannot understand the buzz for flying cars.

If you were to drive your flying car to the supermarket and one of the millions of shoppers who can't even drive a shopping cart runs into your flying car; what would be the end result???

Result; "Flying car grounded - not airworthy"

Even the slightest bump to an aircraft at an airfield renders it "not airworthy"; until it's been inspected and the damage repaired.

How many cars in every country around the world get rear ended each day; I wouldn't like to have a \$240,000 plus Terrafugia rear ended, Result; not roadworthy, not airworthy

I think VTOL is the best approach to having your transport at home, just make sure you live in an area that has approval for VTOL operations. (and where you want to fly to)

The more demand for this type of transport the more it will push governments into action.

#### Blackhawk

##### Well-Known Member
Crude but it works.