Speaking of roadable aircraft....

[rwanttaja]

Zack, replace the words "roadable aircraft" with "WWII fighter." We'll no doubt get tons of interested discussion about what would be the best fighter to own.

But I wouldn't want someone to read what's said here and run out and open "Honest Blogries' Quality Used Fighters." Enthusiasm does not equate to economic sense, and online gab does not equal a valid business case.. A lot of people would like to talk about how a roadable aircraft would change their lives, but few folks are likely to lay the money down on the counter to actually *buy* one.

What *could* you do with the $300,000 a roadable aircraft would cost? You could buy any number of fun planes to fly, and have enough money left over to park Corvettes at your likely destinations. Or buy a Twin Beech and set up a ramp to push an ATV into the cabin. Or buy a used Lancair and get to your destination so fast that the time required to transfer to a rental car is trivial.

For most of us, the sad reality is that we can only afford one airplane at a time. A roadable airplane is almost always a mediocre car and a low-performing aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[steveinindy]

Or buy a used Lancair and get to your destination so fast that the time required to transfer to a rental car is trivial.

It always amuses me when people who will take years to build an airplane complain about the 30 minutes it takes to sign out a rental car and unload their bags from a Vans or Cub clone as though it's a deal breaker.

[Dana]

Yup. But a lot of very talented and very bright folks spend their time and waste their talent on projects that aren't going anywhere. A MIT education is a very expensive and rate thing to waste on a project that is has about the same chances of survival economically as the clinical survival chances of someone shot through the medulla with a high power rifle round.

Yes, an MIT education is expensive... but an engineering degree from MIT (or any other school) doesn't make one an engineer. You can learn theory in school, and that's important, but it takes real world work experience designing things to make a good engineer. Brand new graduate engineers often have clever ideas (and there are some in the Terrafugia) without having the practical experience to evaluate and/or implement them.

How can you make the unfounded statement that the Terrafugia is a "poor design"?

But it is. It's a poor airplane, and an awful car. How would you like to maneuver that thing in a crowded parking lot? Or pass (or be passed by) an 18 wheeler on a windy day?

My impression is that these highly educated but inexperienced started with a few clever ideas like the tricky automatic folding wings that they were unwilling to abandon as being impractical, and built a house of cards on it. As an engineer myself, I know how easy it is to fall in love with a neat idea and base an entire flawed design around it. With experience, it's easier to recognize this problem early enough in the design phase.

[Zack Baughman]

Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning!

[Frank Giger]

I'd love to have a flying car. I'd park it next to my jet pack, which would be hanging on the wall next to my perpetual motion machine.

[Joe LaMantia]

OK this is really fun! How about I change the economic equation a bit, lets develop a "flying" replacement for the 18 wheeler. Now we've got something that could speed-up express freight, reduce overall inventory levels nationwide, (just-in-time squared), and maybe increase fuel economy. We take a million heavy vehicles off the roads, reducing maintenance costs and improving road safety. Since the great bulk of 18 wheelers are fleet owned or leased the investment dollar potential is much larger, also creates great opportunities for the current Mfg'r . We already have govt. involvement on a large scale in this segment so that's not really a big deal. The big challenge will be training the current pool of truck drivers to operate the new designs and of course getting Air Traffic Controllers familiar with CB slang and Country music playing in the background 24/7! Looking forward to your responses!

Joe

[Floatsflyer]

OK this is really fun! How about I change the economic equation a bit, lets develop a "flying" replacement for the 18 wheeler. Now we've got something that could speed-up express freight, reduce overall inventory levels nationwide, (just-in-time squared), and maybe increase fuel economy. We take a million heavy vehicles off the roads, reducing maintenance costs and improving road safety. Since the great bulk of 18 wheelers are fleet owned or leased the investment dollar potential is much larger, also creates great opportunities for the current Mfg'r . We already have govt. involvement on a large scale in this segment so that's not really a big deal. The big challenge will be training the current pool of truck drivers to operate the new designs and of course getting Air Traffic Controllers familiar with CB slang and Country music playing in the background 24/7! Looking forward to your responses!

Joe

Despite your tongue being firmly implanted in your cheek, the concept of heavy lifting cargo airships(aka 18 wheelers in the air), are currently in development by numerous companies. Here's just one example: And no country music allowed

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener... Cargo Airship

[Joe LaMantia]

That's pretty cool. I've seen a number of airship concepts being "floated" around (no pun intended), but that is a niche market compared to the opportunity that our current freight system presents. While I admit my tongue is in my cheek, the economic opportunity is real. We need to come up with a design that will fit into the standard warehouse loading dock, probably one with folding wings, and retractable landing gear similar to the type seen on the C-130. This will need a propulsion system maybe a "take-off" of the one being used by the Marine version of the new F-35. GTW should be 80,000lbs, actual payload 40K to 45K, which reminds me that we could close all those scale houses a save that $ as well. I'm not sure we have the technology to overcome the physics, we have roughly 40000 lbs available to build the vehicle, propulsion system, fuel, and carry the driver/pilot. Oh, I almost forgot, we'll need a sleeper behind the cockpit!

Joe

[rwanttaja]

Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning!

"How about we offer the guy a deal?"

"A deal? What kind of deal?"

"A DEAL deal. Maybe the guy's a Republican...."


Ron Wanttaja

[Dana]

Well, you could always start with a real car:



Carrying on the sacred tradition of flying cars being bad cars...