Graduates of the Moulton Taylor School of Aeronautical Engineering((at MIT)

[Floatsflyer]

Such as?

The reference was in comparison to the Aerocar: All the design, technology and engineering features that make it a self-contained unit that eliminates assemblies and disassemblies.

[Floatsflyer]

Paul Bertorelli, Avweb writer, in response to the press release, says he's flying car fatiqued. He appropriately uses the Texas oil patch phrase, "big hat, no cattle" as a metaphor to describe Terrafugia's current status and futuristic initiatives.

[Joe LaMantia]

Well if they do actually get passed the FAA and can meet highway safety standards I'll become a believer. I did post something about aviation and dreams on another thread recently, so I'll suggest a theme song for their marketing effort...."Meet George Jetson"! While Molt was successful in creating a vehicle that flew and could be driven, it wasn't a great car or a great airplane, but he was working on this when "The Jetsons" were the public model of the future. We have had some educational experiences since Molt's time, like Mr. Bede, Enron, and the recent implosion in the banking industry to help temper our passion for the future.

Joe

[steveinindy]

The reference was in comparison to the Aerocar: All the design, technology and engineering features that make it a self-contained unit that eliminates assemblies and disassemblies.

Once they come up with something that does that and doesn't look like it was designed by someone who never realized that aesthetics play a huge role in marketability, then we will talk. That thing is a perfect example of why all mechanical and aeronautical engineers should be required to take aesthetics or art courses.

Paul Bertorelli, Avweb writer, in response to the press release, says he's flying car fatiqued. He appropriately uses the Texas oil patch phrase, "big hat, no cattle" as a metaphor to describe Terrafugia's current status and futuristic initiatives.

I want to buy Paul a beer or dinner for summing up my feelings on the subject so succinctly. You have a few true believers (and those looking to bilk the true believers), a lot who think "that would be nice but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it" and those who are like "Oh not this **** again!". I fall squarely in the latter camp not because I don't believe it could be done from an engineering standpoint. My disdain comes from the lack of a market and the impracticality of mass operations of such aircraft.

[Floatsflyer]

Once they come up with something that does that and doesn't look like it was designed by someone who never realized that aesthetics play a huge role in marketability, then we will talk. That thing is a perfect example of why all mechanical and aeronautical engineers should be required to take aesthetics or art courses.

It's not so bad looking, given the mission and intended use it meets the widely held school of thought professing "form follows function" quite well.

Now I happen to think that the Flight Design CTS is in the top 5 of the ugliest airplanes ever. I do not understand for one moment it's appeal and popularity. But what the hell do I know--it just happens to be the best/most selling LSA in North America. Once again proves the addages, "Nobody knows nothing" and "there are courses for horses and horses for courses." Translation: there's a market for everything. Must be why there are menus in restaurants.

[steveinindy]

This is true I guess. However, I will say that I agree that the Flight Design is ugly as well.

[SBaircraft]

Aesthetics are not stopping roadable aircraft. There's no point in making it sexy if you can't first get it to work. I wouldn't expect the first generation of practical roadable airplanes to be sexy... perhaps that will be addressed by the second generation.

[steveinindy]

Aesthetics are not stopping roadable aircraft. There's no point in making it sexy if you can't first get it to work. I wouldn't expect the first generation of practical roadable airplanes to be sexy... perhaps that will be addressed by the second generation.

We are already on the fourth or fifth generation. The issue is that it's a solution looking for a problem. That it can fly and drive is not the problem. Molt proved that quite well several decades ago.

[SBaircraft]

We are already on the fourth or fifth generation. The issue is that it's a solution looking for a problem. That it can fly and drive is not the problem. Molt proved that quite well several decades ago.

I meant the first generation of "practical" roadable aircraft, if we ever get there. There have been approximately 2,500 documented designs and we are still far from matching the overall utility of a conventional airplane.

I agree with you about the solution, searching for a problem. Imagine if someone invented a teleportation watch. It would completely eliminate the need for air travel and yet, many of the same folks would continue trying to make their airplanes drive! That said, I do believe there is a serious problem. There are about 2,000 convenient destinations for my airplane, and about 20 million drive-in destinations for my car. We do need better ground transportation solutions, but perhaps roadable aircraft are not the most feasible solution.

[martymayes]

Aesthetics are not stopping roadable aircraft. There's no point in making it sexy if you can't first get it to work.

The concept works. Problem is, when in flying mode, you have a poor flying plane and in ground mode, you have a very poor performing car. I think that will always be the biggest challenge regardless of how the vehicle looks in either mode.

I've been waiting for the ultralight crowd to develop a flying motorcycle. Still no joy......