×

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 Crashes In British Columbia

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the flying-education dept.

Transportation 91

First time accepted submitter vawarayer writes "An experimental car has crashed near a school in British Columbia, Canada. Only five cars like this have been produced. From the article: 'A release from the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) confirmed the flying car was "an American corporately registered I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute" that had crashed. The vehicle, known as "Maverick," uses a 100-metre runway to take off and flies under a parasail. But it also needs a 100-metre runway to make a safe landing.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

91 comments

Not A Flying Car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43702979)

The vehicle ... uses a 100-metre runway to take off and flies under a parasail ... also needs a 100-metre runway to make a safe landing.

That is not a flying car. It's an experimental aircraft ... that crashes.

Toy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703169)

Yes, the video leaves out the part where you gotta take off and fold up the parasail after landing. This isn't a jump in, drive to strip, take off, fly, land and just drive away.

This isdrive to strip, attach parasail, make sure it's spread out so that it'll unfold properly to give life, take off, fly, land, take off parasail, fold it up, drive to where you're going.

It's a nice toy - but impractical.

Re:Toy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704081)

Agreed.

Awesome, but Impractical.

Re:Toy. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year ago | (#43704145)

It seems to have a pole a the front of the para-sail which keeps it (at least) vertical. Otherwise it would get tangled in the fan.

Re: Not A Flying Car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703179)

did ghostwriter try to buzz the tower?

Re:Not A Flying Car (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43703189)

It is a streetable car, and it does fly. What was the specific complaint? That it doesn't look like you want one to look, and has more constraints on the flying cars you want? It's a powered paraglider contained within a car. You can drive the car to the runway and takeoff and fly. No, it's not the futuristic looking jet cars (like the Moller, 5 years away from approval/sale for 30 years now), but I fail to see how "flying car" doesn't apply.

Re:Not A Flying Car (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43705439)

It is a streetable car, and it does fly.

The Maverick --- designed for medical missionary work and similar applications --- is an ATV that can take to the air with a reasonable payload when needed. Top speed in flight is a modest 40 mph. It was never intended for use in high winds or other extreme conditions.

When it's time to fly, the Maverick's central telescopic mast raises and acts as a wing spar for its chute, properly known as a ram-air wing. The flip of a switch diverts engine power from the rear wheels to the rear-mounted five-blade propeller, which propels the car across the ground, up to its take-off speed of 40mph (64km/h). Thanks to its ram-air wing design, the Maverick can take flight in only 300 feet (91 meters).

Once in the air, the vehicle's electronic fly-by-wire system allows the pilot to steer it with the steering wheel, just like they would on the ground. According to I-TEC, existing sport pilots can learn to fly the Maverick within 12 hours. A dash-mounted Garmin GPS allows for both aerial and ground-based navigation. In flight mode, it has a maximum payload of 330 pounds (150 kg).

The Maverick flying car [gizmag.com]

Re:Not A Flying Car (1)

Drethon (1445051) | about a year ago | (#43708551)

Personally I think its a cool prototype (meaning does not need to be practical) but IMHO a flying car should have a performance improvement while in air. When this thing can go 2.5 times faster on the ground than in the air, it seems like it will be faster, and more efficient, to be on the ground 99% of the time (for my understanding of use of such a vehicle anyway).

Just my bent $0.02...

Re:Not A Flying Car (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year ago | (#43709569)

IMHO a flying car should have a performance improvement while in air.

In L.A., going 40 MPH in the air would be a 1000% improvement over going 4 MPH on the highway. Seriously though, it's not rocket science. First, you're limited to speed by the speed limit, so it's not a 2.5x difference, it's more like 2x difference. Than, you factor in all of the perks of flight such as direct A to B navigation (Yes, I know that if you need a runway, you can't exactly do A to B navigation, but the idea still holds). The term, "As the crow flies" applies here. Depending on where you are going, being able to fly in a direct line could cut down 20-30% of the travel distance. For instance, I live in Michigan. If I want to go to Wisconsin, I could save a crap ton of time by flying over Lake Michigan. Also, highways don't always go where you want to go. Even a somewhat direct route over 55mph roads with stoplights, stop signs, and traffic would bring your MPH average down significantly.

Having said all that, this company states in TFA that they were designing it for medical missionaries. I'm guessing that in the areas these people are operating, they aren't choosing between I80 or I75 to get to their destination. I'm sure that flying above the trees in Brazil or Africa could save you a ton of time. Also, coming into a primitive village in a flying machine gives you instant "God Cred".

Re:Not A Flying Car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43710027)

In any case, it is not a flying car. It *could* be a formerly-flying car.

Re:Not A Flying Car (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#43703237)

Yeah a flying car needs to be a functional replacement for the automobile. You need to be able to go to the groceries with it. Fly it to work. Fly the whole family on vacation. This is only useful for recreation.

Re:Not A Flying Car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703319)

By that logic a Miata isn't a car.

Re:Not A Flying Car (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704069)

Of course it's not. It's a Mazda.

Re:Not A Flying Car (3, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43703509)

It's a car that flies, so it's a flying car. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your Jetsons dreams.

Re:Not A Flying Car (1, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | about a year ago | (#43705965)

Here is a board that's white, so it's a whiteboard. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your "but I need to write on this" dreams.

Re:Not A Flying Car (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about a year ago | (#43707233)

It's a car that flies, so it's a flying car. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your Jetsons dreams.

I don't know if a two-seater kit-car with no cargo-space qualifies as a car by today's metric. It's a glorified motorcycle attached to a parasail.

It can fly and drive. But it doesn't look very maneuverable in the air (by nature of the high-drag parasail) and I wouldn't want to be in a road accident with it either... the other car will drive right though it.

Also, they make it street legal with a loophole: It's sold as a "kit car" and wouldn't pass the full road certification (no crash tests) required by what most people consider cars. You might as well try to drive a Cessna down the road and call it a kit.

Personally, I think that it's awesome, but it's clearly only meant for remote areas and not high traffic areas. Apparently it also needs a terrain avoidance system.

Re:Not A Flying Car (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43714577)

I don't know if a two-seater kit-car with no cargo-space qualifies as a car by today's metric."

Yeah, because things from Lamborghinis to Smart cars don't get described that way.

But it doesn't look very maneuverable in the air

Probably a good thing. Slower means more time to recover from mistakes, less maneuverable means less temptation to do something stupid, and being a paraglider it means if the engine fails or the pilot has a heart attack it will land itself mostly safely (for people on the ground).

I wouldn't want to be in a road accident with it either... the other car will drive right though it.

SUV drivers say the same things about, well, everything smaller than an SUV. Doesn't make any of those things any less cars.

Also, they make it street legal with a loophole: It's sold as a "kit car" and wouldn't pass the full road certification (no crash tests) required by what most people consider cars.

Just like all classic cars if they were built today. Still cars.

I don't think the thing is worth anywhere near $100k, and I seriously doubt it's practical for anybody's daily city commute, but it is definitely a car that flies. I actually looks like of like a model T.

Re:Not A Flying Car (1)

doccus (2020662) | about a year ago | (#43713901)

It's a car..like the old saying goes " if it looks sounds and behaves like a rabbit it's a rabbit".. In fact it looks like a dune buggy, as the original article suggests.. although this "contraption" is actually registered as a.. wait for it.. a *parachute!*

Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (2)

TigerPlish (174064) | about a year ago | (#43702999)

Still waiting for my flying car..

Re:Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#43703147)

If God had wanted Man to fly, they would've used a Mopar.

Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (2)

pr0t0 (216378) | about a year ago | (#43703225)

And a JATO pack.

Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (1)

TigerPlish (174064) | about a year ago | (#43703619)

And a JATO pack.

On me, or the car? Either way, that's a win.

Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#43705983)

Either way, that's going to hurt. a lot.

But it'll look great on YouTube.

YouTube - Documenting human stupidity since 2005.

Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (1)

TigerPlish (174064) | about a year ago | (#43727479)

I imagine it'd look like frog-in-a-blender streaking by at something near mach 1 with fire at the tail end.

Ewww.

Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#43759971)

I would so totally pay $20 to watch it live online.

Apparently charging people to watch suicide or homocide or otherwise physically severely injured or death is illegal in most countries. Well, unless it has to do with large crowds, multi-million dollar player contracts, and something called "sport"

Re:Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703239)

You might be waiting for a train that will never come.

If and when, expect government regulation that will make it near impossible for the "average joe" to own/operate one. Not just from the accident potential, but imagine what the "terrorists" could do with one!

In fact, BAN FLYING CARS now, save a life in the future!

Re:Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703487)

Actually, they will ban "flying cars" only because of the accident potential. Terrorists are not bound by legal constraints, and will use real airplanes illegally obtained. As we have seen so many times . . .

Re:Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704255)

Well, you laugh now, but right now we already kill people with the justification that we believe their life will suck in the future, so a proactive flying car ban makes complete sense. Think of all the children you will save!

Re:Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#43706115)

    If you compare modern aviation to the early days of aviation, the "average joe" is already restricted from building and/or owning aircraft.

    It wasn't that long ago that anyone with a few bucks, a bit of technical ability, and a grasp of the basic concepts could have happily built an airplane. They could have barnstormed, performed impromptu aerial acrobatic shows, and revolutionized air travel.

    To the best of my knowledge, barnstorming is long since dead. Pilots and aircraft have to be licensed, certified, and recertified. There are some experimental aircraft out there, but there's still enough to make it impractical at best.

    Still, some folks will be such deathtraps, and some will fly them. I'm not sure I'd get within miles of that thing. Really, an exposed prop, and a parasail just begging to get tangled in it?

Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (2)

wjsteele (255130) | about a year ago | (#43707809)

You should check into ultra light aircraft... There is no requirements for licensing, registration or airworthyness. A lot of the modern design new ultralight aircraft don't even look like ultralights of the past... They're made with carbon fibre and are fully enclosed. I saw one this year down at Sun-n-fun that was an electric motor glider and could fly for two hours under power... But could sail as long as your bladder could hold out... Which is about the same capability as any other plane. Times are changing for the better in the national airspace. Bill

Re: Got more air time than Moller SkyCar (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#43708395)

Ultralights still fall under a rather strict set of restrictions. (FAR Part 103)

    One seat. Less than 5 gallons of fuel. Empty weight of less than 254 pounds. Top speed of 55 knots. Max stall speed of 24 knots. They can only be operated during daylight hours, and over unpopulated areas. All operations have to be in uncontrolled airspace.

    That pretty much ensures you won't be doing any sort of cross country flying. You won't be flying into any airport other than your home airport, which can't be in controlled airspace.

    I'd be curious to know how the electric glider you mention fell within the rules. It most likely classified as experimental instead of ultralight. Those have their own set of rules.

One bad thing about flying cars (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703003)

Compared with normal cars, you have 50% more directions you can crash into something and gravity weakly prefers one of them.

Re:One bad thing about flying cars (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43705055)

A bit orthogonally limited are we?

Re:One bad thing about flying cars (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#43711365)

Considering you have about 90 degrees of forward-backwards movement in either direction in a normal car, but you have that plus close to a full 360 degrees of vertical-horizontal movement in a flying car, there's a lot more ways to crash a flying vehicle. And yes, you can crash into things going up.

Re:One bad thing about flying cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43714681)

What my evil twin Anonymous Coward (who even shares my name) meant was...

Cars can effectively move in 2D space (aka, the ground), giving essentially Forwards/Backwards, Left/Right movement.
Any other vector of travel is just a combination of these 2 dimensions of freedom.

These flying (or crashing, so it seems) contraptions allow movement in 3D space by adding in the Up/Down degree of freedom. And once again, any of those "infinite" directions of travel is merely a combination of 3 component vectors that follow the orthogonal axes (perhaps we can call them, x y & z?).

So let's see, 2 degrees of freedom, 50% of that being 1. And 2 + 1 = 3. Yup, "50% more" makes sense to me.

images (5, Interesting)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a year ago | (#43703067)

A quick google image search [google.com] its just a motorized paraglider with a car body.. I've flew a friend's motorized paraglider about 15 years ago and it was pretty scary getting off the ground with the extra weight and higher than I was used to speeds.. Once in the air, it was still subject to gusts of wind deflating the wing.. There are many safer ways to fly for $94,000.. But... glad no one was seriously hurt...

Sounds like the perfect hobby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703081)

... for Larry Ellison

I figured out the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703103)

I'm guessing that the US-made car actually requires a 100 meter runway, but the Canadians substituted a 100 metre runway.

p.s. Insert obvious jokes about yards (or about rods and hogsheads) below.

Re:I figured out the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703145)

A 100 metre runway would satisfy the requirement of a 100 yard runway.

Re:I figured out the problem (2)

alexhs (877055) | about a year ago | (#43703279)

If a meter is not equal to a metre, where are we going ? A liter not being equal to a litre ? A ton not being equal to a tonne ? A gallon not being equal to a gallon ?

Re:I figured out the problem (4, Informative)

PNutts (199112) | about a year ago | (#43703357)

If a meter is not equal to a metre, where are we going ? A liter not being equal to a litre ? A ton not being equal to a tonne ? A gallon not being equal to a gallon ?

He demonstrated that an ass is the same as an arse.

Re:I figured out the problem (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year ago | (#43704159)

Actually, a ton is *not* equal to a tonne. A metric tonne, and an Imperial long ton are pretty close, by pure coincidence, but the long ton is about 1.5% larger. If you're talking short tons, which most Americans call simply, a "ton", then the metric tonne is over 10% bigger.

Then there's the mess with American vs. Imperial gallons. The gallon that the rest of the world uses (or at least, recognizes as a gallon) is over 20% larger than the American gallon. That's one of the reasons why people think American cars are so fuel hungry. It's not that they use more fuel, it's just that the measurement is screwed up, in a uniquely American way. It appears American cars use 20% more fuel than they actually do, simply because the American gallon is smaller than the rest-of-the-world gallon.

Re:I figured out the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43708531)

The gallon that the rest of the world uses (or at least, recognizes as a gallon) is over 20% larger than the American gallon.

The rest of the world doesn't use gallons, we use liters.
It's only the UK and their old colonies which insist on using outdated measurement units.

Re:I figured out the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43709571)

Hence the "or at least, recognizes as a gallon" part of the post.

Seriously, looking for something to feel superior about so intently that reading comprehension becomes elusive?

Re:I figured out the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704175)

Hint: Americans can guess what 'arse' means, but we have no idea what you mean when you type 'metre' or 'colour' or 'aluminium'.

There are three different gallons (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year ago | (#43704337)

Actually, a gallon isn't the same as a gallon or the same as a gallon, if we mean Imperial gallons vs. U.S. liquid gallons vs. U.S. dry gallons.

Re:I figured out the problem (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about a year ago | (#43705513)

If a meter is not equal to a metre, where are we going ? A liter not being equal to a litre ? A ton not being equal to a tonne ? A gallon not being equal to a gallon ?

A ton isn't equal to a tonne. One's non-metric, the other is metric - and the weights (or masses, if you prefer) are different. And a gallon may not be equal to a gallon: there's a US gallon and an imperial gallon. Litres and metres are ok, barring quantum physics...

Note To Flying Car Manufacturers (3, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#43703135)

Naming your flying car "Parachute" suggests you expect it to fail and necessitate the use of a parachute. Kind of like Dodge Aries [youtube.com] implies your 22 hp hunk of metal is intended to ram into things.

I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute (1)

jspoon (585173) | about a year ago | (#43703983)

That's not the only thing wrong with the name. Take another look at it.

I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute"

The first flying card I get in will not be named after wild cattle. It might be name after the most loyal of tame creatures or one of the more sedate birds (preferably one that floats too).

Re:I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year ago | (#43704183)

That's not the only thing wrong with the name. Take another look at it.

I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute"

The first flying card I get in will not be named after wild cattle. It might be name after the most loyal of tame creatures or one of the more sedate birds (preferably one that floats too).

The I-Tech Maverick, by any other name, would still crash as hard.

Re:I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43708141)

That's not the only thing wrong with the name. Take another look at it.

I-Tech Maverick SP Powered Parachute"

The first flying card I get in will not be named after wild cattle. It might be name after the most loyal of tame creatures or one of the more sedate birds (preferably one that floats too).

thundercougarfalconbird

Re:Note To Flying Car Manufacturers (1)

Reziac (43301) | about a year ago | (#43714557)

Crap, and here I was expecting that video to be two Aries going at it head-on, just like their namesake.

100m runway? (1, Interesting)

Raptoer (984438) | about a year ago | (#43703217)

If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane?
A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...

Re:100m runway? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43703937)

If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane?
A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...

because it's registered as a car, I suppose.

Re:100m runway? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#43704765)

If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane? A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...

Really? I've never seen a helicopter that was capable of traveling on a road before. Could just be me, though.

Oh, you mean you automatically expect "flying car" to mean "VTOL capable"? Why? Sci-fi movies? Absolutely nothing in the concept of "flying car" in any way implies that it doesn't need a runway. All it means is that it is a car (i.e. capable of traveling on a public road or highway) that is also capable of some form of flight. This can do both, therefore it is a flying car.

flying car? (1)

kie (30381) | about a year ago | (#43703275)

When I hear the term flying car I picture something like the PAL-V (http://pal-v.com/), which had its maiden flight last year.
rather than a dune buggy with a powered parachute (as per the description in the article).

Re:flying car? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43703541)

And when I hear the term "car," I think of a compact, while most Americans seem to think of an SUV. What's your point?

Re:flying car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43709623)

Furriners is all pansies?

Oh The Humanity! (1)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#43703281)

Note to the manufacturer: substitute the paragliding gear with a hydrogen-filled, metal-framed dirigible. Ya, that's the ticket for great press coverage.

Re:Oh The Humanity! (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year ago | (#43704195)

Note to the manufacturer: substitute the paragliding gear with a hydrogen-filled, metal-framed dirigible. Ya, that's the ticket for great press coverage.

Don't forget the flammable paint. That was actually the issue with the Hindenburg, not the hydrogen.

Let's kill these selfish dreams from yesteryear (2)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year ago | (#43703337)

The real solutions are better urban planning that pulls people out of the wasteful suburbs and public transportation.

So many have tried. And failed.. (1)

fluor2 (242824) | about a year ago | (#43703347)

People have tried for so many years now, and I think we are seeing a trend here now. It's almost impossible to create a flying car that hoovers stable with the technology available today, tomorrow and I predict the same for the next 30 years. And even if they get them stable, the cars will be so dangerous concerning in-air malfunction that they would require a complete double set of engines and fuel and at least two pilots.

You do the math.

So many have tried. So many companies has invested and lost their money. Still people seem to think that this will come and they think of how much they could earn in patents etc if they are able to materialize a stable solution.

Re:So many have tried. And failed.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703647)

Put wheels on a helicopter, connect those wheels to the engine and you've got a flying car. Perfectly doable. The problem is that helicopters are too expensive for the consumer market, they don't make great cars because they have to be light and flying in your car isn't useful enough to make up for the disadvantages. If you really need to fly, just use a plane.

Re:So many have tried. And failed.. (2)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | about a year ago | (#43705461)

Helicopters are

1. Hard to fly

2. Have a problematic requirement for a long tailboom with a torque countering thrust at the end of it

3. Or counter-rotating rotors with complex drive requirements

4. Have rotors that are long and ungainly and need to be stowed

5. Need large amounts of power to generate all required lift

Making one into a car means solving all those problems, AND adding all the safety equipment etc that is required for a modern car, AND still having it light enough to get off the ground safely.

Fixed wing, Gyrocopter, or Paraglider based machines are a much easier task than a helicopter based flying car, as evidenced by there being actual existing modern examples of all three (Terrafugia, PAL-V, Maverick), and no existing examples of a helicopter based one.

Re:So many have tried. And failed.. (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#43704079)

So many companies has invested and lost their money

Ummm, no. Many companies have tried and lost someone else's money, less a little something for the proprietors. That's how the flying-car scam works.

Re:So many have tried. And failed.. (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year ago | (#43710423)

Lest we forget that even if you made a device that flew safely and satisified all of the requirements from the safety boards, you'd still have what I'd imagine as a giant gas guzzler of a car/plane. You thought a 10 MPG SUV was bad, wait till you see the 2 MPG flying vehicles of tomorrow!

Re:So many have tried. And failed.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715475)

People have tried for so many years now, and I think we are seeing a trend here now. It's almost impossible to create a flying car that hoovers stable

So you want a car that Vacuum cleans a barn?

Pending Patent Frenzy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43703603)

for doing X 'using a car'

well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43704347)

At least it's it's here finally.
  where's mine?

Re:well, (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#43704469)

What are the rules for found flying cars in trees? Same as model rockets/kites? Finders keepers, get it down in one piece and it's yours?

Was seen earlier this month on Daily Planet (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43706825)

If you're in Canada, Daily Planet [discoverychannel.ca] carried this car earlier this month. They mentioned they were doing test flights.

OF course, you get to see a rather interesting takeoff int he clip. Alas, I think it's Canada only - not sure if the US Discovery channel has it on any of their channels (it's a Canadian production).

Guess we might see an update shortly.

Flying car,bad,baD,bAD,BAD,BAD idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43710173)

How many of you would like to see a 100,000 cars flying over or near your house twice a day. Even if there are lanes in which the cars stay, what % of cars would crash and come down?

4 more to go ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43712023)

waiting the second one...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...