Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: EAA design contest?

  1. #31
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by dougbush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja
    Would you be willing to park that quarter-million dollar carplane overnight in a dark Motel 6 parking lot?
    I've never stayed at Motel 6, and I don't agree that it has to cost that much. If I found a good used one for $120,000, I would happily park it in the garage at Embassy Suites, right next to a shiny new Porsche or Terrafugia.
    Someone backs into your $120,000 Porsche, you cuss and drive it with the ding until you get back home. Someone backs into your $120,000 flying car, you're stuck where you're at until you can get an A&P to fix it. Airplanes are MUCH more delicate in comparison to cars. ANY damage, and you're grounded. Doesn't have to happen overnight, either...could happen in the Cracker Barrel parking lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougbush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja
    Would you be willing to park it unattended in the street for several days?
    No, but I don't leave my car in the street for days, either.
    You've never traveled to another town to visit family or friends for a few days? Where do you park your car during the visit?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougbush View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja
    If you answered "yes" to all these, are you going to be willing to pay the premiums the insurance company will require?
    Yes, but I don't expect it to be a problem, because I expect pilots will consider the risks when driving and parking.
    Insurance rates are not driven by the safe pilots, they're driven by the UNsafe ones. My guess is that the insurance for a flying car will run at least the same as for an amphibian...annual premiums can run to 10% of the aircraft's value. It'd be cheaper to buy and abandon a used car at every destination...

    The issue is not whether a flying car is technologically feasible; Molt Taylor proved that fifty years ago. Economic viability is the issue. You end up spending a LOT of money to avoid having to transfer your bags to a rental car when you arrive at your destination. Remember, Molt had a TON of free advertising, with the main character of a popular TV show driving an Aerocar. Didn't translate into sales.

    It's always possible to define a corner condition where a flying car is a viable option (Going to a small town that doesn't have any cab service or rental car companies!) but there aren't that many people who face that kind of situation...and without a market, the flying car cannot be economically viable.

    I'm a bit more optimistic about rotorcraft and powered-parachute style flying cars, as the airfoil sections can be much more easily protected. But you don't get that much of an "aviation advantage" with these types of aircraft since they don't go much faster than a car on the interstate. My little $15,000 econobox can haul me and three friends from Seattle to Portland in about two and one-half hours. For $100,000 more, I can shave a half-hour off that time (less the time required to convert the flying car to/from aviation mode) as long as I leave two friends behind. Not seeing the advantage, really.

    Ron Wanttaja

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon / USA
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    Someone backs into your $120,000 Porsche, you cuss and drive it with the ding until you get back home. Someone backs into your $120,000 flying car, you're stuck where you're at until you can get an A&P to fix it. Airplanes are MUCH more delicate in comparison to cars. ANY damage, and you're grounded. Doesn't have to happen overnight, either...could happen in the Cracker Barrel parking lot.
    Quite likely in this case you could still drive to the airport, where you could get a fix or a waiver or whatever. If you hold the repairman certificate, you could of course fix it (and document it) yourself.


    My guess is that the insurance for a flying car will run at least the same as for an amphibian...annual premiums can run to 10% of the aircraft's value. It'd be cheaper to buy and abandon a used car at every destination...
    Ouch. We should publicly invite insurance companies to explain this. It doesn't feel "right" to me. Amphibians don't have a ten-year life expectancy, do they? Is it just the liability, or the repair? Is it just certificated or all amphibs? Paying a second mortgage to keep your SeaRay in the garage explains a lot about why we see so few these days. And lets face it ... they are practical.

    My little $15,000 econobox can haul me and three friends from Seattle to Portland in about two and one-half hours. For $100,000 more, I can shave a half-hour off that time (less the time required to convert the flying car to/from aviation mode) as long as I leave two friends behind.
    You never come to Portland anyway. :-)

    Ron Wanttaja[/QUOTE]
    Richard Johnson, EAA #395588

  3. #33
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by spungey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja
    Someone backs into your $120,000 Porsche, you cuss and drive it with the ding until you get back home. Someone backs into your $120,000 flying car, you're stuck where you're at until you can get an A&P to fix it. Airplanes are MUCH more delicate in comparison to cars. ANY damage, and you're grounded. Doesn't have to happen overnight, either...could happen in the Cracker Barrel parking lot.
    quite likely in this case you could still drive to the airport, where you could get a fix or a waiver or whatever. If you hold the repairman certificate, you could of course fix it (and document it) yourself.
    Certainly...the point is, it has to be fixed before you can go home, where the Porschogini can be driven home dented. You're going to have to hope the local A&P is willing to drop everything they're doing to replace the sheet metal/re-do the composite, and hope that nothing has to be ordered from the factory, like a windshield after a truck kicks a rock into it.

    If the plane is EX-AB or ELSA, you aren't really better off. I only carry a 10 mm wrench (to disconnect the battery), a screwdriver (built into the fuel tester), a spare inspection disk, a few key screws, and (of course) a roll of duct tape in my Fly Baby. Carrying sufficient tools to do sheet metal or composite repair for a carplane is going to eat into what's probably a fairly low useful load anyway. Plus working on the ramp in the open for several days....
    Quote Originally Posted by spungey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja
    My guess is that the insurance for a flying car will run at least the same as for an amphibian...annual premiums can run to 10% of the aircraft's value. It'd be cheaper to buy and abandon a used car at every destination...
    Ouch. We should publicly invite insurance companies to explain this. It doesn't feel "right" to me. Amphibians don't have a ten-year life expectancy, do they? Is it just the liability, or the repair? Is it just certificated or all amphibs? Paying a second mortgage to keep your SeaRay in the garage explains a lot about why we see so few these days.
    My guess is that it's because the aircraft has to operate in an additional hazardous medium...in other words, you have to pay both aircraft and boat insurance. Same thing for a carplane, which is the basis for my guess.

    Your reference to the SeaRey illustrates the issue precisely. I've done a lot of analysis of fleet accident rates for homebuilts (number of accidents vs. the total number registered) and the SeaRey an accident rate twice that of the Kitfox (higher than the Lancair IV, in fact). But most of those extra accidents involve water hazards, which most Kitfoxes (and no Lancairs) never experience.

    Your carplane insurance will have to cover both aviation and road hazards, and if the plane is worth a quarter million dollars, the rate will be pretty steep. I did a quick online check, and Lambo insurance costs ~$25,000 a year. And I bet none of them guys parks overnight at Motel 6, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by spungey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja
    My little $15,000 econobox can haul me and three friends from Seattle to Portland in about two and one-half hours. For $100,000 more, I can shave a half-hour off that time (less the time required to convert the flying car to/from aviation mode) as long as I leave two friends behind.
    You never come to portland anyway. :-)
    On the plus side, Powell's. On the minus side, my in-laws. :-)

    Ron Wanttaja

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    Because to make it economically viable you'd have to apply it to more than just the existing pilot population.
    You wouldn't have to apply it to a random selection of people out of the phone book.

    Given how poorly the average person handles their own car, putting them at the controls of an aircraft (especially one with the marginal handling characteristics that would result from the design compromises necessary to make a flying car even technically viable) is asking for the GA body count to shoot up sharply. You want to see the FAA put their boot up our collective asses, an increase in the death toll will trigger exactly that.
    You are assuming that everyone who is capable of flying safely is already a pilot. If there are 600,000 pilots now, I think there are easily that many more who are capable and would be pilots but no one gave them a Young Eagles flight.

    AOPA president Craig Fuller says 70-80% of people who start flight training drop out. Some wash out, some run out of money, some have their curiosity satisfied. Others quit because they learn that GA is only practical if you have a regular need to travel 200-400 miles to or from places not served by airlines. Roadable aircraft would make flying practical for shorter trips, greatly expanding the population who would find GA beneficial. They'd still have to take the training and pass the same checkrides as the rest of us. They'd be selected in precisely the same manner as existing pilots. Why assume they would be less capable than existing pilots?

    The "even if every pilot bought one" argument is a non-starter as well. That's assuming that every last one of us wants a low, slow and minimal useful weight flying car. No thanks....a lot of us would rather just arrange a rental car which I don't see that many inconveniences involved in using and I've yet to find an paved airport that you can't get a rental car to especially if there's an Enterprise dealership within 40 miles.
    You can only get a car delivered or picked up when the Enterprise office is open and they have cars and staff available, and you have to pay for delivery.

    As for safety, the issue becomes how well something like the various flying car designs would handle on the interstate or in a crash with a real car.
    I think roadable aircraft owners would still do the vast majority of their driving in real cars, so their exposure to car crashes would be limited. And I don't expect they'd be on the interstates much, because they'd fly to an airstrip close to the destination, and wouldn't go very fast on the road.

    As someone else pointed out, you have to compromise which winds up producing a mediocre airplane and mediocre car that most people won't spend the money on.
    The goal is not to design the ideal airplane or car, but the optimum vehicle to travel, say 100-200 miles and cross obstacles that make surface travel inefficient.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    I love discussions about flying cars; it's second only to amphibious cars and jet packs for passion and hilarity!

    All three are wonderful platforms for developing tech and innovating applications for use on other things that have actual utility.

    The motorcycle pods are a natural; heck, I was thinking that one of those collapseable bicycles would be something I'd seriously look into if I had a two-seat aircraft with useable space and load for one.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  6. #36
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NC26 (Catawba, NC)
    Posts
    2,627
    Don't know about the EAA, but not too long ago Aircraft Spruce announced a design contest and the prize was going to be a gift of the materials to actually build the designed aircraft. There were mega hard feelings when ASS reneged claiming none of the entries were "acceptable." Despite that I believe at least one of the designs was subsequently built and flown.

  7. #37
    Eric Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by dougbush View Post
    The goal is not to design the ideal airplane or car, but the optimum vehicle to travel, say 100-200 miles and cross obstacles that make surface travel inefficient.
    Now you're getting specific about the requirements. I believe that for people to invest in the contest, they would need to know, if not the exact specific terrain / obstacles, at least general goals such as the above.

    I had thought of a couple of scenarios:
    What is the "car mode" for?
    - Surface transport from/to an airport?
    - To deliver the flying contraption "home" away from an airport for storage?
    - Surface transport with an occasional "lift" for the surface vehicle when extensive obstacles are encountered.
    - Land-and-drive when weather gets too bad.

    If the first, I propose to enter my G-IV and pre-position my favorite surface vehicles at the selected airports. On the other hand, we'll just load an appropriate motorcycle into the G-IV (did I mention it has a freight door)... Oh, now you're going to impose a cost requirement? Or some other arbitrary "obstacle" like we have to build it ourselves?
    If the second, I propose to enter the folding-wing Kitfox, the Chevy Suburban, and an appropriate trailer. Cost requirement met.
    If the third, I enter the Maverick.
    If the fourth, you didn't have any business flying that day anyway. Wait for a better day, use a more capable airplane, or just drive. This scenario is an excuse for poor planning, as well as being a dangerous way to pitch a sale of a very complex machine to a non-pilot.

    Alternatively, if the goal is 100-200 miles, I propose to follow the multibillion-dollar investment already made in highways and just drive. If cost is a factor, you can't beat the investment in highways that already exist. I would look for a 40-50mpg car, and claim to "accomplish" the mission on just $8-15 of gas. If schedule is a factor, I'll meet you 150 miles down the road later today! (Entirely bypassing the million-dollar multi-year development process...)

    Come on, you just want a flying car because you want one. Not because it solves any unsolved purpose...

    When you're done, I'll park it next to my roadable personal watercraft, my roadable submarine, and my highway-capable suborbital space ship... (My orbit-capable space ship is not highway capable .)
    Murphy's 13th: Every solution breeds new problems...

    http://www.spoonworld.com

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon / USA
    Posts
    64
    You're inspiring, Eric. :-) With the goal of furthering the discussion ... what are your actual mission requirements? Would a sensible selection of a cross-section of EAA'ers missions provide a good starting point for contest requirements?

    I listed all the farms, roads, beaches, bays, lakes, and airports I'd like to fly to. Then I went to google and got distances. Then I used that information to build the rest. The results astounded me and also reminded me why I'm not current.

    Seats: 2 required (side by side), 4 desired
    Fuel: autogas or diesel, electric or avgas less desirable but not deal killers
    Endurance: 4 hours + vfr reserve (my "average" distance to fly is about 350 miles, greatest single-leg up to 750 miles)
    Speed: 140 mph +
    Economy: < 8 gal / hour
    Ideally, able to haul a couple hundred pounds of cargo and land on floats

    Few options already available. Ignoring Ron's red-hot idea poker, how are those for starting conditions? Too loose? Too severe?
    Richard Johnson, EAA #395588

  9. #39
    Eric Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by spungey View Post
    Seats: 2 required (side by side), 4 desired
    Fuel: autogas or diesel, electric or avgas less desirable but not deal killers
    Endurance: 4 hours + vfr reserve (my "average" distance to fly is about 350 miles, greatest single-leg up to 750 miles)
    Speed: 140 mph +
    Economy: < 8 gal / hour
    Ideally, able to haul a couple hundred pounds of cargo and land on floats

    Few options already available. Ignoring Ron's red-hot idea poker, how are those for starting conditions? Too loose? Too severe?
    Got you covered. Just add money.
    http://tinyurl.com/transport-solution
    Murphy's 13th: Every solution breeds new problems...

    http://www.spoonworld.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •