https://www.terrafugia.com/tf-x/
Ah, the Terrafugia Flying Car, how I love thee. Maybe it's the magic required to make you work, from the lack of control or yaw control surfaces to the reliance of autonomous flight, but it looks totally legit to me.
Plus it's a four passenger flying car that can be operated with just a Sport Pilot license! Neat.
I dig the computer animation halfway down this page:
https://www.terrafugia.com/terrafugi...ysis-contract/
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Hey the TF guys have been coming to Oshkosh for 15 years. When the brought the plywood mockup of the original transition I was in the "they'll never get the thing to fly" camp. They showed me wrong. We'll have to see with the X.
In addition to the lack of pitch control surface (I can see the "gull wing" being used for yaw like a V-tail), I think they're going to have to see a big improvement in battery technology before an electric vehicle with 500 mile range that you're going to get into the air at any speed (let alone 200 MPH). Tesla isn't even getting those kinds of range with their rather heavy and substantially slower ground-based vehicle.
And that's what ticks me off about Terrafugia and so many other so-called aircraft companies like them in the past 20+ years. They're not an aircraft making company, they're a conceptualization enterprise. They make NOTHING unless you count press releases. For 15 years the hype goes on. Ya, ya, I know, they flew the proof of concept about 6 years ago and I saw them fly the machine at Oshkosh 3-4 years ago. Proof of concept only for years with no production deliveries since.Originally Posted by FlyingRon
They have not gone through the ASTM certification approval process yet. Nothing made and delivered. They got their SLSA weight exceptions from the FAA approved and still to date nothing made and delivered. And yet they have the temerity, the unmitigated gall to continue to ask for and take deposits. They continue to do no actual manufacturing because they have few customers to manufacture for. Even if they were to start production tomorrow, no more than 100 deliveries will ever take place for this pure novelty item called a Transition. So why do they continue to exist, send out press releases and exhibit? Who pays to keep the doors open, who pays these guys their salaries?
And now for the past year they have had the audacity, affrontery and impudence to introduce further new concept BS flying car the TF-X before they've even delivered on the first BS flying car. It should be a criminal offence to engage in this kind of business fantasy practice. These guys should all go to prison. Since that's never going to happen, wishful thinking aside, the CEO should take a lesson from The Right Stuff when the NASA guy said, "No big bucks, no Buck Rogers." You've got an Aeronautical Engineering degree from MIT...go do something productive and useful for mankind.
At least they got the prototype to fly. Better than dozens of companies that proposed aircraft. Don't even get me started about Moller.
So they got the prototype to fly, so what. They were supposed to do that! They took deposit money. They said they were designing and building a flying airplane and company to produce them. Your expectations are very low. There is a rather large segment of the GA fraterternity who exhibit such an emotional attachment and euphoric high to a gotta-have-it new design that all normally applied common sense and smarts used in other parts of their lives goes flying out the window. Down go the deposits which are then lost when the companies go in the toilet as they almost always do.
Fact is that almost all newly proposed GA aircraft do build a flying prototype only to be followed by the common denominator that kills them all--a complete lack of financing and capitalization to get them through to the production stage. This is because the perpetrators are airplane freaks, engineers and dreamers, not financial managers, financial controllers and analysts and investors who always think about the end game which is product out the door. The GA landscape is littered with huge failures, tens of thousands of disappointed, pissed off and broken-hearted deposit holders and investors and billions of dollars squandered. To name just a very few that took deposits off the top of my head:
Original Eclipse-the largest financial failure in all of GA history-$1.6 billion
Adams Aircraft
Bede and so many various associated companies- a particularly bad dude
LISA Akoya- 3 days after they left Oshkosh they declared bankruptcy
DreamWings Valkyrie
Moller and his many different companies- a Walter Mitty bad dude but a very bright academic
Icon Aircraft seems to be in a class all by itself. Despite going on 10 years now since first introduced, multi-millions taken in deposits, enough hype, free marketing, press releases and free promotion and publicity to stuff a family of T-Rex's, about $100 million in private/VC investment, another $10 million in non-refundable deposits from the first special 100 deposit holders, plus an additional 1700 deposit holders AND STILL NOT one single delivery. Unbelievable. And please, nobody dare bring up that bogus, farcical Oshkosh delivery in 2015 to EAA Young Eagles. Icon CEO Hawkins read The Art Of the Deal....aka Bullshit Baffles Brains. And now all production and fabrication is slated for a new factory in Mexico(sometime this millennium?) with assembly in California. They terminated their deal with Cirrus to fabricate all composite parts.
A company called Cobra Aircraft is telling anyone who will listen that they have the next best thing and bragging that they've taken $50 million in deposits. And all they have right now is a CGI mock-up.
Ion Aircraft, who have exhibited at Oshkosh for many years, is the only no-deliveries-yet new start-up North American company with integrity and ethics, IMO. They have had a gorgeous flying prototype test flying for many years and refuse to ask for or take deposits. The reason has a lot to do with the fact that the company is made up of screwed deposit holders who lost all their money when DreamWings went t#ts up. How or why they carry on is beyond my scope. They have been stagnant for years because they have not been able to raise financing for production. The guys who run this company are terrific people who really want to succeed. If anyone well heeled out there wants to make a major aviation investment, this is the company to do it with, IMHO.
On the bright side, American Legend Cub is the only new start up in North America that I'm aware of that went into production and continues to deliver airplanes to customers. They started with an empty sheet of paper and delivered the first production airplane to a customer in less than one year in 2005-6 or around then. How they accomplished that short turnaround, I have no idea. But they sure were determined and probably had an angel investor.
If EAA truly and honestly wants to promote, protect and support all recreational aviation with a mission to grow participation in aviation, they must also, in addition to these objectives, take a vital business of aviation stand and strongly vett who exhibits at Oshkosh. I believe you have a fudiciary duty to protect your members from those that will do financial harm at the "convention". Because PT Barnum said it best and often, "there's a sucker born every minute..."
I assume these startups begin with a legitimate idea by someone who thinks it is possible to achieve their stated objectives, IF they get OPM (other people's money) to fund the effort. In most of 'em, the realities eventually become apparent and it becomes obvious that it'll take a lot more OPM to achieve the goal, if it can be achieved at all.
At some point, it almost seems there has to be a crossover where the folks behind the efforts (consciously or unconsciously) shift from "gonna accomplish something amazing" to "Let's string this thing out on OPM while we all pull down a boatload of money until the money runs out." I can point to a number of very large companies outside of aviation and a few inside aviation which are following that business model today.
As to the EAA picking winners and losers, I wouldn't go there. It isn't their job and they'd probably be wrong. Like all of those folks who threw in with Langley about 115 years ago...
While the cautionary tale for consumers/attendees is always caveat emptor, I do think that EAA should take some kind of responsibility and accountability on behalf of members and non-members for the exhibitor choices they make and take big fees from. I've never looked closely at the language on my weekly pass receipt bought online but I would be surprised if there wasn't some kind of waiver covering all types of claims and damages.
Hey, change never occurs until the status quo is challenged.
Cubcrafters has done well because they filled a hole in the market using a proven design with updated materials and avionics.
They didn't re-invent the wheel, and never claimed to have. Nor did they go over the top with claims or ideas of huge sales.
They will make and sell you an LSA eligible aircraft for 200,000 USD. Or they will sell you a kit to build one yourself for 75,000 USD (starting - man those tires are expensive!).
The realm of money pit is hybrids. Icon is trying to make an sell an LSA amphib to a market that it is hoping to create; bringing people into a niche (amphibs) within a niche (flying) is a hellava gamble. Flying cars are a pipe dream because what makes a good car makes a crappy airplane, and what makes a good airplane a crappy car.
What both Icon and Terrafugia should have done was sit down with an old airplane manufacturing exec that lived through the late 1940's and early 1950's for some perspective - something I suspect the CubCrafters people did.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Ain't no limit on wishful thinking. There are a half a dozen examples of people trying to bring back already proven and certificated designs and getting mired.
Reuters and other media reported yesterday that Airbus, the worlds largest or second largest aerospace company(depending on whose financial statements you subscribe to)is developing a "flying car" prototype by their new Urban Air Mobility division. They expect to have it flying by year end and the Airbus CEO said,"we take this development very seriously".
While Airbus certainly meets the requirement of having the big bucks to be Buck Rogers that I spoke of in an earlier post here, I don't believe for one moment that this means or could mean the legitimization or fulfillment of the dream of the consumer flying car in every driveway. Just remember Cessna and the lsa Skycatcher.
I'll look forward to seeing it fly(it looks very sci if cool)but I'm pretty certain it'll be the only one built just like Terrafugia.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote