Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Flying Car Makes Successful Maiden Flight

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the I-still-want-my-jet-pack dept.

Transportation 249

MistrX writes "The Dutch company PAL-V completed its first series of test flights with its flying car, the PAL-V One, successfully. The PAL-V One flies like a gyrocopter, with a minimal runway length of 165 meters, and drives around like a trike on the road. Furthermore it offers 2 passengers a maximum speed of 180km/h both on land and in the air. The company aims with the PAL-V One at usage within the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, because private flying is more commonplace."

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not a flying car (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548977)

A roadable aircraft. A flying car needs VTOL capability.

And until it's legal to take off and land anywhere, even a true flying car could still only be used like a roadable aircraft.

Re:Not a flying car (4, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549041)

If it's a roadable aircraft, does that mean that the cop will have to accept my excuse of "I'm flying low" when he clocks me at 110mph on the freeway?

Re:Not a flying car (3, Funny)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549057)

Actually, there's an interesting question. How long before the first car chase where one of these guys flips on his takeoff mode....

Re:Not a flying car (2, Informative)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549123)

They usually get helos on site fairly quickly in car chases. Take off and you're asking to be shot down.

Re:Not a flying car (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549293)

I'm pretty sure that the police do not have jurisdiction to shoot down aircraft.

Re:Not a flying car (4, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549373)

Au contraire, utter the words "possible terrorists" and all bets are off.

Re:Not a flying car (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549573)

Nope. Because if an aircraft needs shooting down, it's the Air Force who comes to play.

The police don't even have the equipment (good thing) to do the job.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549421)

yet :)

Re:Not a flying car (2)

Real_Reddox (1010195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549497)

No but when you have a flying object that refuses to obey orders the common reaction is to launch fighter-jets.
That car chase might end up quite different than the perp had in mind

Re:Not a flying car (0)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549655)

I already said that [slashdot.org] .

Re:Not a flying car (2)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549639)

All my research in police buddy comedy movies and CSI derivatives, this is remarkably common, happening once or twice a week. And when put in order of frequency of police events, it falls between hanging out of a broken window of a skyscraper and chasing a bad guy(s) in a swampboat.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549643)

I never saw a police helicopter with rocket launchers. The worst they can do it put holes in the plane in hopes of killing the pilot.
That is the last thing they want to do.

No quick getaways (5, Informative)

cruff (171569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549137)

Apparently it is a 10 minute process to convert from road to flying mode. You'll need a team to keep the cop at bay until you can take off, assuming you have about 540 feet available for the take off roll.

Re:No quick getaways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549483)

Well, that sounds good enough for the next Vin Diesel movie: Fast and F666ous or whatever they'll call it.

Re:Not a flying car (2)

darth dickinson (169021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549203)

Not sure about this particular vehicle, but if this is anything like the Terrafugia Transition [terrafugia.com] you have to come to a complete stop before you can deploy the wings, and they take a couple of minutes to deploy.

Re:Not a flying car (2)

milkmage (795746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549461)

no wings.
but the rotor blades automatically fold back.

http://pal-v.com/the-pal-v-one/transformation/ [pal-v.com]
Converting the PAL-V ONE from airplane to automobile is a very easy process which takes about 10 minutes. Once the engine stops, the propeller folds itself automatically into the driving position. Pushing a button then lowers the rotor mast into the horizontal position. The same motion lowers the tail. The outer blades are folded over the inner blades via hinge mechanisms. The last steps in the process are to push the tail into its driving position and secure the rotor blades. This conversion can be executed by the driver/pilot after just a short training lesson. To convert from driving to flying mode, simply reverse the sequence.

Um, subby.... (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549285)

How about a link to their website instead of a dumbass yahoo article without even a photo of the thing?

http://pal-v.com/ [pal-v.com]

Re:Not a flying car (2)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549135)

Only if your wheels are off the ground. Although, I wonder if you're supposed to take off and land under the speed limit?

Re:Not a flying car (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549261)

You'd rather deal with an FAA violation than a speeding ticket? Really?

Re:Not a flying car (2, Funny)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549045)

I'd say also that a flying car needs to not have big dangerous spinning things sticking out.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549085)

It all folds neatly onto the back of the vehicle when driving.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549559)

but it's safer. helicopters can auto-rotate and [crash] land safely (more or less).. certainly better than gliding into a house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_(helicopter) [wikipedia.org]
The most common reason for an autorotation is an engine malfunction or failure, but autorotations can also be performed in the event of a complete tail rotor failure or following loss of tail-rotor effectiveness[6], since there is virtually no torque produced in an autorotation. In some extreme situations, autorotations may also be used to recover from settling with power, if the aircraft's altitude permits. In all cases, a successful landing depends on the helicopter's height and velocity at the commencement of autorotation (see height-velocity diagram).

Re:Not a flying car (4, Informative)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549047)

You are correct - and it's not a car. It's a two seater trike.

Re:Not a flying car (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549115)

Like an Aptera, T-rex or Morgan 3-wheeler?

Re:Not a flying car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549193)

Less car, more like a "Lean Machine" with an autogyro mod. Cool that they got it to work though.

Interesting... Also comes from the same country as the Carver One. Wonder if it's the same company or a related spin-off?

Re:Not a flying car (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549075)

What crack are you smoking. Maybe that's the definition in your head but not in reality. Do you call all birds that don't have VTOL capability non-flying birds?

Re:Not a flying car (2)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549153)

Airplanes have wheels; does that make them flying cars? This is basically just a gyrocopter with fold-up flight parts.

Re:Not a flying car (4, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549169)

In all of science fiction flying cars have flown directly from the starting point to destination with no driving to or from airports in between (except some Asimov works where the world is apparently littered with runways). So to follow that definition, this is not a "flying car."

Re:Not a flying car (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549291)

GI Joe.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549533)

Do you call all birds that don't have VTOL capability non-flying birds?

Technically..... yes :)

Ostriches, Emus, Penguins, etc. fall into that category. Can you give an example of a bird without VTOL (Starts flying from a perched position) that can fly otherwise?

Re:Not a flying car (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549661)

Ducks. All birds, all can fly, and all need a run-up to get airborne.

Re:Not a flying car (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549131)

You need to drive to your nearest highway entrance too, and then follow the highway, take exits where they are built... you can't accelerate to 100 km/h from your driveway and go to your destination in a straight line either.
What's the problem driving to your airport, take off, fly to the next airport, land, and drive the last bit? It would be practically identical to the current highway system.

Also, this PAL-V seems quite capable of VTOL (vertical take off and landing), as it has no wings and therefore should not require any particular velocity to get lift.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549183)

From their site: "Take off roll 540 ft."

Re:Not a flying car (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549281)

Depends on head or tail winds. At a real airport, no problemo. Along the interstate, well..

Re:Not a flying car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549547)

That's great for this spot [g.co] in Nevada.
That segment is straight for 52000 feet.

One question remains - 100LL or regular?
$8/gallon at 15mpg will keep me grounded.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549211)

This is a gyrocopter not a helicopter. It handles much like a fixed-wing aircraft including the need for runways.

Nothing's wrong with using a roadable aircraft as intended but it's nothing like the sci-fi concept of a flying car.

Re:Not a flying car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549449)

Also, this PAL-V seems quite capable of VTOL (vertical take off and landing), as it has no wings and therefore should not require any particular velocity to get lift.

False. It is not a helicopter, it is a gyrocopter. The spinny thing on top is a big, passive, spinning wing.

Re:Not a flying car (2)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549621)

Gyrocoptors do not have a powered rotor for lift. The lift-rotor(s) auto-rotate due to induced "wind" from the horizontal thrust of the aircraft (or gravity, when you stop thrusting).

Re:Not a flying car (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549139)

IT looks like it is at least STOL....

Of course, if you are saying VTOL is a must due to practical considerations, then at what point is it practical? A vehicle that VTOL might still be unable to lift itself out of a traffic jam because it would need more area around it clear to really get off the ground than the nearby cars would afford it.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549263)

Yeah it is STOL. VTOL is practical for use in a "flying car" when it can take off with little more room than the vehicle's own footprint. The only reason a true flying car may not be able to take off from a traffic jam is exhaust heat. A series-hybrid electric system would take care of this, since exhaust heat could be concentrated and directed straight down from the center of the craft, or maybe even purely electric drive could be used near the ground.

Re:Not a flying car (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549197)

Because it has 3 wheels in the States it would be legally considered a Flying Motorcycle. A roadable aircraft would still be handy for some folk. Where they need to travel say more then 40 miles. Where you travel 5 miles to a small airport. Fly 30 miles to the other small airport. Then drive to you destination 5 miles away. So a trip taking you 1 hour to drive would take 25 minutes...

Re:Not a flying car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549219)

As a helicopter pilot, I wouldn't trust a flying car to take off anywhere. The main problem is wire strikes, one wire can easily bind the thrust system, control surfaces and could even cause decapitation to meat based decision maker.. Another problem is that people refuse to accept the noise of an aircraft capable of VTOL during landing and take off.

Re:Not a flying car (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549225)

And until it's legal to take off and land anywhere, even a true flying car could still only be used like a roadable aircraft.

Not necessarily anywhere, it could be solved by building landing ports similar to a car park for flying cars, but there needs to be plenty of them. The problems are mostly legal, with friendly legislation flying cars would be a reality by now.

Re:Not a flying car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549299)

Dr. Emmett Brown: Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Re:Not a flying car (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549445)

A flying car needs VTOL capability.

[[citation needed]]

Re:Not a flying car (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549539)

See: All of science fiction

A glowing hot sword isn't a light saber either.

It's not so much the VTOL i'd be concerned with (2)

gerf (532474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549553)

But bump and runs can screw you over. Any aircraft that is in any kind of collision needs to be inspected for airworthiness, especially if it involves the engine or prop. You don't want to lose power at 1000m after all.

So the jerk who backs into you in the parking lot and drives away without a word could really screw you over. The article doesn't say much other than the rear prop folds up, so maybe it has a really good cage around that?

Video (5, Informative)

HellKnite (266374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549005)

As the linked article is basically a wall of text, here's the website which has a video of the maiden flight on the front page:

http://pal-v.com/

Re:Video (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549453)

As the linked article is basically a wall of text, here's the website which has a video of the maiden flight on the front page:

http://pal-v.com/

They might have been able to make it uglier if they tried really, really hard. Looks like an overweight gyrocopter with really basic road-going abilities. Can't wait for Jeremy Clarkson to get hold of one (well, James May would be more likely I guess, what with his pilot's license and all) - looks tippy [youtube.com] ;)

MPG? (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549009)

Because we need gas hogs now more than ever.

Re:MPG? (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549069)

28mpg claimed on their page.

Re:MPG? (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549103)

MPG?

38 mpg on the road, 21 mpg in the air (calculated). I pulled stats from the chart here: googleusercontent.com [googleusercontent.com]

Re:MPG? (3, Informative)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549213)

MPG?

38 mpg on the road, 21 mpg in the air (calculated). I pulled stats from the chart here: googleusercontent.com [googleusercontent.com]

But, according to the newer page here: pal-v.com [pal-v.com] , we have 28 mpg on the ground and about 12 mpg in the air (calculated).

Re:MPG? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549185)

Oh Boo Hoo and man up.

Meh (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549015)

http://pal-v.com/ [pal-v.com]

I'm not flying or driving in that thing.

Re:Meh (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549035)

Looks like a pretty standard kit-gyro. I'd fly it, why not?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549277)

Simple physics, for starters the drive system for the main blade looks flimsy and there will be no spiraling in for a survivable landing in that thing, if the drive fails or engine stops you're dead, also the wheel base width is too narrow and too high making it unstable in the slightest breeze or least little corner you turn.

To sum it up it looks like a flimsy piece of junk that I wouldn't trust my life with and is being hyped up as the next thing.
My thoughts are "why drive at all if you can fly there" so a "flying car" is going backwards IMO.

Re:Meh (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549491)

It has active carving suspension - it leans into the corners.

The main blade system isn't driven, it's a gyrocopter and suffers from all the inherent safety issues they have. I assume it has a parachute like most similarly-sized aircraft.

Is it powered by useless apostrophes? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549067)

In that case slashdotters could fuel it for a trip to Andromeda.

"completed it's first series of test flights with it's flying car"

"completed it is first series of test flights with it is flying car"

Really? WHERE did you learn that? STOP IT!

Awesome (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549097)

Now all someone has to do is invent drivers who aren't complete morons and we'll be in business!

MULTIVAC also would be an acceptable answer (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549199)

Now all someone has to do is invent drivers who aren't complete morons and we'll be in business!

skynet, err, google is working on that

That's it (1)

Shinaku (757671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549117)

We're officially in the future now.

Re:That's it (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549155)

Does this mean I can't use my "BUT WHERE IS MY FLYING CAR?" question any more?

Re:That's it (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549243)

Of course you can. This is just another in a long line of roadable aircraft.

Re:That's it (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549259)

Wake me up when It can fit both me and my android girlfriend with our jetpacks on.

Re:That's it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549325)

We're officially in the future now.

Please, the fact that pretty much everyone have their personal portable communication device should be a pretty good indication that we have been in the future for a while now.

Who is going to afford (2)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549119)

the mechanical inspections for this thing if they want this contraption to be commonplace. I can see industry using it but yah you really want to leave it parked on the side street, nothing could go wrong with that mid air.

Exactly (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549667)

This has all the vulnerability of a motorcycle on the road, and all the risks of a Jesus nut in the air. In short, the combined safety defects of the most dangerous forms of transport in their respective groups. All it needs now is submarine capability to create a perfect Bermuda Triangle. It is going to need to travel from locked garage to locked garage, because even gated suburbs don't have the security of an airport. It's a pity; the only way I can imagine a flying car safe enough for the public would require fixed wings, which obviously won't work.

speeling, eet ees to herd! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549129)

Do proofreed the submissions.

About time! (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549133)

I was running out of reasons to not go outside.

Re:About time! (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549357)

I was running out of reasons to not go outside.

At least outside you have a chance of seeing one of these falling out of the sky at you. You really think being indoors will make you any safer?

I think I saw that somewhere else before.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549157)

... oh right! The gyrocaptain in Road Warrior. It's nothing more than a glorified autogyro that looks like an old helicopter and a road going trike mated and had offspring.
Furthermore judging by the lack of bumpers, the non-adjustable tail, and probably a few other things I'm missing, it would never qualify as a road going vehicle in the US, and probably most of Europe, and odds are the tail would be damaged in most urban settings, which, if sold to less than overqualified pilots, would probably result in someone accidentally backing it into a wall, post, etc, and then assuming it doesn't have any damage because 'it was still all together!', will die spectacularly in a crash after their tail shatters due to physical impacts against it's CFRP(Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) rear control surfaces. Additionally, as someone else mentioned: What's it's fuel economy look like? While it's an autogyro and thus should have reasonably good fuel economy, the engine design could have a dramatic effect on that, and even more importantly: what is the lifetime of the bearings and other parts in the rotor assembly? (And engine for that matter!)

Re:I think I saw that somewhere else before.... (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549399)

Motorcycles don't have bumpers. Given that the ground form is a trike, it likely qualifies at least in Europe not as a car, and therefore doesn't need to comply with car regulations.

Maybe better than a genital scan (0)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549201)

I've seen so many of these projects never get off of the ground, but this would be handy for travel to places too near to justify having your genitals felt up and scanned, then treated like a prisoner by gestapo sky waitresses. We need something that goes about 200 mph and hits most major cities. Of course TSA would get their Freudian, genital obsessed guards on the case if rail ever became too popular.

Gyrocopter (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549253)

From the fine website, I cut and paste this WTF moment "A PAL-V ONE flies exactly like a gyrocopter, which is the easiest and safest way of flying."

To be polite, I will just say that opinion is not shared by the majority of aeronautical engineers who are not being paid to say it who know about "old style" autogyros. I'm just mister groundschool with a lot of simulator time and only a couple hours PIC and even I LOLed at that quote. I think they hired that "Baghdad Bob" the former Iraqi information minister for that line.

Autogyros are cool until the rotor stalls and you die, or the rotor seemingly inevitably cuts your head off in a crash landing, or ground resonance sets in and there's nothing you can do about it but die, PIO due to PPO (and possibly PPO is due to PIO?) and you die... There have been some improvements in design which may or may not prevent those control-theory problems, but the "giant rotating wing" cannot be replaced while still calling it a autogyro. Its like saying you could make a motorcycle safe to ride by merely completely enclosing it with windshields and doors, adding conventional seats with seatbelts and airbags, and adding a couple more wheels for enhanced stability, and ta da, a safe "motorcycle", although it not appears to be a Fiat Punto (which is actually a pretty nice small car, I've driven one a couple hundred miles in IRL).

The main problem with a "car autogyro" is likely to be chopping up pedestrians and bikers. Which is traditionally seen as "OK" when done by drivers, so maybe its not going to be so bad after all.

Re:Gyrocopter (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549345)

Autogyros are cool until the rotor stalls and you die,

I will disregard most of your statements because they are based on random buzzwords and TLA. However this is blatantly false. The horizontal blades of a gyrocopter are not powered [wikipedia.org] , ever. There is no risk of the rotor stalling because it is never connected to power in the first place.

Due to the error in that start of your rant, I do not care to take the time to see if any of your other complaints are even physically possible with a gyrocopter.

Re:Gyrocopter (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549571)

Ah but you're relying on the bearings being low friction. Lose a bearing, stop rotating, drop straight down.

OK fine I'll defer to you that a high load bearing is just as reliable as the fixed wing equivalent of the bolts that attach the wings to the fuselage. Sounds unlikely but I'll give you that one. That leaves the rest of my trouble list.

Re:Gyrocopter (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549595)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
In the context of aerodynamics, the term "stall" has nothing to do with the power plant or power train. Also, you are incorrect in your statement about auto-gyros never having power applied to their rotors. Many designs feature a way to transfer power to the rotor shaft to get the wing spinning, not nearly enough to facilitate take-off and hover, but enough to shorten the take-off roll dramatically.
To be fair, the GP's implication that all auto-gyros suffer the "unfortunate" quirks of early designs is far from accurate, as well.

Re:Gyrocopter (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549605)

LOL shows what you know. The rotor can stall in the same way that a wing can stall. Gyrocopters fly a lot like fixed-wing aircraft but there are some quirks you need to be aware of, probably the biggest one being the rotor speed/airspeed lag.

Re:Gyrocopter (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549465)

I had to chortle at the "easiest and safest way" too. But gyroplanes aren't *that* bad, certainly no worse than a helicopter with a semi-rigid 2 blade design (think the Bell 206 Jetranger, or the Bell Huey, or the Bell 222 (aka Airwolf) or the Robinson R22/R44) and lack some failure modes that helicopters have. But ignorance can easily kill you in a gyroplane, too. Just like teetering head design helicopters, low-G manuevers can result in a very bad day. I'd say a typical 3 axis microlight is easier to fly and more foolproof than a gyroplane.

The advantage with the gyroplane for this trike is that the rotors are a lot easier to stow than the much larger wings of a fixed wing aircraft.

Re:Gyrocopter (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549609)

The advantage with the gyroplane for this trike is that the rotors are a lot easier to stow than the much larger wings of a fixed wing aircraft.

How about a traditional ultralight... constructed like a sailboat sail...break it down and stow the parts.

Worthless :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549269)

All these new "flying cars" or "roadable aircraft" are utterly worthless until the day comes when one of them is fully capable of, at the push of a button, making the transition from car to aircraft and take off into the sky while actively driving down the highway.

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549271)

I wish resources would be put towards more practical solutions to our traffic/road problems, like automated transit, ala many sci-fi movies like Minority Report and such. Flying cars will forever be niche and not a replacement for transportation for the general population.

Not for everyone.. (1)

pitchingchris (2591965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549301)

And like small aircraft, a majority of crashes will be due to miscalculating the amount of fuel needed.

Its not a flying Delorean..... (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549401)

So I'm uninterested.

Roll Hazard on the Road... (2)

nweaver (113078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549405)

The problem is the design is a typical forward-trike. It may not be quite as bad as a Reliant Robin [youtube.com] , but its going to be close to it on the road: When in doubt, it will roll, and roll easily.

Re:Roll Hazard on the Road... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549597)

It lean, like a motor bike.

Yawn... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549411)

Just another re-spinning of Molt Taylor's "Aerocar", albeit with the rather large "twist" of employing a rotary wing. Molt's stuff was revolutionary 50-some years ago, but not a commercial success. Modern materials and an auto-gyro aren't exactly ground-breaking. They certainly don't constitute the "flying car" I was promised. I predict another commercial failure.

Another "solution" without a problem (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549437)

The myth of the flying car is one of the prime examples of an undue sense of entitlement in Western culture. Any alleged problem these devices claim to solve are better served with more efficient mass transit running on alternative energy sources.

Flying Motorcycle actually (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549443)

This is a three wheeled flying motorcycle or ATV. It would probably be street legal as it somewhere between a scooter and a motorcycle in size. The gyrocopter or autogyro concept is interesting. It should be pointed out that autogryos require expensive maintenance and inspection of the rotor blades and their linkages which are crucial for safe operation of the craft. The folding prop is also a potential source for expensive maintenance and inspection. An inflight failure of either of these systems would be instantly fatal in most cases. I would check out the safety records of other autogyros such as the famous 'Benson' before considering one of these. I do think it has potential as a sport personal aircraft, but not as serious transportation. BTW I have a private pilot's license and I think I would be comfortable flying an autogyro after a few hours of instruction in type.

Maiden Flight? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549473)

Hardest part wasn't getting the car to fly, but finding an actual maiden...

Super cool! I hope this doesn't become widespread (1)

Synon (847155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549485)

I love the concept of flying cars, I think the world has had a love affair with the idea for almost hundred years. I can't help but think of the old TV shows about the "Home of the future" complete with your own flying car (of course it had a big plastic bubble on top). But it makes me cringe to think what it would be like if that actually happened, if owning one of these was affordable to the average citizen. I know quite a few people who don't take care of their vehicles, routinely run out of gas or have some other mechanical failure, or get in fender benders... and most of the time it's no big deal, you just roll to a stop. The difference with this vehicle is that those problems are now fatal.

I'll say it. (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549509)

Screw the flying car. Who really wants this? If it ever did go into mass production, it would be a disaster. How many times have you seen some moron on the side of the road because they've hit another car? Or simply run out of gas?

If you want to make a useful contribution to the auto industry related to making cars fly, then find a way to make then hover. Not 30 feet in the damn ait, just 1 or 2 feet. Enough to make tires, roads and bridges unnecessary.

Yes folks, I want hoverboard technology. Think of the money that could be saved if we didn't have to constantly repave roads or build bridges. All we'd need would be some markers/bouys to keep everyone in "lanes".

firsLt post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549531)

here, please do CRISCO OR LUBE. get how people can that FreeBSD is turned Over to yet It will be among said. 'Screaming supplies to private

For the US market (3, Funny)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549537)

They will have to call it the NTSC-M One, of course!

A fluff article without any images. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549545)

Nice article. Not a single image of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgHSaNtAMjs

What did they do to get it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39549633)

To be fair... (1)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549635)

They still have three years to perfect it before Back to the Future lied to us.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?