Speaking of roadable aircraft....

[Zack Baughman]

Both the Terrafugia Transition AND the Pal-V made their maiden flights recently. For more on the Terrafugia, check out this link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-04-02_transition.asp.

For more on the Pal-V, check out the maiden flight in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SgHSaNtAMjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SgHSaNtAMjs

And here is the Pal-V's website: http://pal-v.com/

Being a bit of a gyro nut, I kind of like the Pal-V design. It looks very promising.

Zack

[steveinindy]

The Pal-V is a very neat looking design (as opposed to the Terra-fugly-a which is just plain (plane?) ugly) but I can't help wonder how it would stand up in a collision with a "regular" car or G-d forbid an SUV. I think the road safety regulations are going to be the biggest hurdle from a technology standpoint for these sorts of vehicles. The flying part of the design is the "easy" part. The regulations related to car design are going to be a much tougher issue. Anyone who thinks the FAA has restrictive regulations in place needs to take a look at the regulations involved in car design and qualification around the world. We in the experimental community have it pretty sweet.

[Zack Baughman]

I'm guessing the Pav-V would more than likely be classified as a flying motorcycle/trike. Far fewer hoops to jump through to license a motorcycle.

[tdm]

Surprised that I haven't seen this Pal-V before. Seems like a very mature design, might even be efficient. What is the country of origin? Also, I might be missing something, but I can't see in the video what happens to the rotor after transforming into "road-mode". Is it simply removed?

[steveinindy]

Yeah, but then again, I wonder what the market really is for a high priced vehicle like that. That seems to be one of the major issues on the business side of the equation: those who are true believers in the concept (any concept for that matter) tend to overestimate its appeal to a broader audience or the price that audience is willing to pay.

[Zack Baughman]

Surprised that I haven't seen this Pal-V before. Seems like a very mature design, might even be efficient. What is the country of origin? Also, I might be missing something, but I can't see in the video what happens to the rotor after transforming into "road-mode". Is it simply removed?

The company is located in the Netherlands. Watch the video closely and you'll see that the rotor is hinged and when in "road-mode" is folded upon itself so that it lays on the "fuselage" back towards the tail. You can kind of see a photo of what I'm talking about here: http://pal-v.com/press-media/images/?afg0_page_id=2

[Joe LaMantia]

This is pretty neat! It isn't going to become the next "big thing", but it may have a market niche. Certainly would appeal to the current gyro market, keep it in your garage and "drive" it to the local airport, I assume it runs on mogas, another plus. I'd buy one if I won the lottery, but that in itself would put a smile on my face!

Joe
:cool:

[steveinindy]

I'd buy one if I won the lottery, but that in itself would put a smile on my face!

If I hit the lottery, I wouldn't limit myself to some odd little contraption. I'd be finding myself the data plate off of a B-17 or B-29 and "restoring" one. Then again, I'd also like to build a replica of either a Bf 110 or Bf109 in the markings of Fighter Group II./JG 77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JG_77) "Herz As" as I have an ancestor who flew both aircraft with that particular unit during WWII.

[aosunaiv]

That's hot!

[Joe LaMantia]

Steve,

I like your thinking! I buy lottery tickets for the entertainment value provided. When the mega millions goes ballistic you can really dream big, here in Ohio we have "Classic Lotto" with better odds, ( 1 in 14 million) and smaller jackpots but even with only a meager $6.5 million it would get a nice hanger and "several" new toys. The state uses it's "take" for additional school funding, so when I lose, and I always do, I don't feel too bad. It is fun to dream big, i think we have had several threads on that subject.

Joe
;)

[Auburntsts]

Yeah, but then again, I wonder what the market really is for a high priced vehicle like that. That seems to be one of the major issues on the business side of the equation: those who are true believers in the concept (any concept for that matter) tend to overestimate its appeal to a broader audience or the price that audience is willing to pay.

I concur. For me, this roadable aircraft stuff is just a novelty. IMO, the design compromises results in a mediocre car and a mediocre airplane. I do see the value of something like the Maverick which is a is a road-legal powered parachute (basically a dune buggy under a chute) for use in austere environments with limited infrastructure, but until they come up with technology like the flying cars in the movie Blade Runner I’m not buying.

[rosiejerryrosie]

I don't really know how many people fit into this category, but I know a guy who, for years, communted from South Central Pennsylvania to Southern Virginia in his Cessna 190. He says the many's the time during all those years, he would have loved to be able to convert his airplane into a car, so he could drive home in bad weather. It would also be very handy when flying to those small, interesting airports that are not served by Hertz, Enterprise or Avis..... I'm in the market once the price comes down to around $2000 for a used one (if I live that long)
;)

[Jim Hann]

I don't really know how many people fit into this category, but I know a guy who, for years, communted from South Central Pennsylvania to Southern Virginia in his Cessna 190. He says the many's the time during all those years, he would have loved to be able to convert his airplane into a car, so he could drive home in bad weather. It would also be very handy when flying to those small, interesting airports that are not served by Hertz, Enterprise or Avis..... I'm in the market once the price comes down to around $2000 for a used one (if I live that long)
;)

Jerry, are you talking about Tom H?

[rawheels]

There seems to be this big push for aircraft you can keep at home. Who pays to keep the airport open? Seems like the end result of this craze is going to be marina-like launch fees, wide spread landing fees, and/or the loss of a lot of the small local airports. Hope everyone likes driving these vehicles, because the airports are going to get further and further away.

[Auburntsts]

There seems to be this big push for aircraft you can keep at home. ....


IMO, this is a made-up issue by the manufacturer's marketing departments and media wanks pandering to the non-pilot masses. I don't know of a single Kitfox (folding wing) or RV-12 (removeable wing) owner who trailers their planes home, even though they could. I'm sure there's some out there that do, but I think that it's the exception rather than the rule. My 2 cents is roadable aircraft are a solution in search of a problem--the perfect gift for the person who has everything and money to burn.

[Joe LaMantia]

Todd you hit the nail on the head! I remember seeing a short film back in the 50's of this home development in northern Cal. where all the houses had hangers built around a runway with multiple taxi-ways. This was the "promise" of the future. A nice fantasy that was further promoted by the "Jetsons". We still have "air-parks" around the country with most of the homes costing millions, even if a guy wanted to do this on the cheap it would be expensive. How much would it cost you to buy a Robinson copter and maintain it? Assuming you live in "uncontrolled" airspace you maybe able to fly it from your home to someplace. Jerry's friend is the exception not the rule.

Joe
:cool:

[Bill Greenwood]

If a person had a route that they regularly flew to commute to work or perhaps to a vacation house; rather than spending a huge amount on this kind of dual purpose plane, they could easily buy an older used car in good shape, for under $10K, like my 91 Mercedes 300 E, to leave at the destination airport, and have far more useful and reliable road transportation than any plane.
If I recall correctly the price of a Terrafiuga is about $280 k and I know tastes differ, but really that thing is a combination of weird and ugly, as well as slow, cruise is listed as 93knots, and 65 mph max as a car.. For half that price one can buy a nice Mooney or Bonanza and have a real 4 place airplane, that goes almost twice as fast, if you don't try to have it double as a car.
Now although I am not one, I know there are people who wants the lastest, even if it is not the greatest, and they may even sell a few. But I think it will be like a Delorean, and 10 years down the road it will have little resale value.

[Zack Baughman]

Interesting how the conversation has turned to whether or not a roadable aircraft makes economic sense, rather than the merits of the design as a flyer/driver. Frankly, I think the same debate could be applied to most of the GA fleet. I mean really, unless you are using your airplane, helicopter, gyro, ornithopter or whatever on a regular basis as daily or weekly transportation to and from, when does it truly make sense to own any kind of flying machine? Most aircraft aren't cheap to begin with, then you have the maintenance, insurance, hangar space, etc. to pay on top of that. Why bother owning something like that when you could just use an automobile for 80-90% of the traveling you would be doing? Same could be said for my 1976 Honda Goldwing. Why own an old motorcycle? Can't really use it for hauling the kids to soccer, baseball, or football. Can't use it for hauling groceries. Not very useful in a Wisconsin winter. But then again, it brings me tremendous joy to hit the back roads and twisties for an hour on a nice day after work burning up old dinosaur bones. Doesn't make much economic sense, but it it sure is fun! I think the same could be said for 75% or more of the GA fleet. Flying is fun. Doesn't make much economic sense most of the time, but it sure can bring a smile to one's face. Seems to me the same would probably apply to these roadable aircraft being developed.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Jerry, are you talking about Tom H?

Nope - John S.

[rosiejerryrosie]

There you go, Zack, introducing logic into an otherwise perfectly good emotional discussion.:cool: When I want to go somewhere for fun - I fly. If I need to get there in a hurry, I drive.....
After all, rationally considered, it is a 45 minute drive to the airport, 30 minutes minimum to pull the airplane out of the hangar and preflight it (community hangar requires moving two airplanes before I get to mine). That's an hour and fifteen minutes not counting checking the wx, fueling the airplane if I hadn't done it the last time I used it, filing a flight plan if I decide to, and all the other things needed before I get into the air to travel at 85MPH indicated. Factor in a reasonable headwind and I can make much better time driving at 65MPH on an interstate.... Just saying....
;)

[Bill Greenwood]

Zack, that wasn't my meaning. I'm not saying that an airplane has to make transportation economic sense when compared to a car or bus. I am all for flying for fun, ie sport aviation.
I just think of the Terra thing as not so good as either a car or airplane.
To me it's about like one of those 3 wheel motorcycle things, funny looking, slow in the corners, ridden mostly by aging Republicans, and still not protected from the weather like inside a car.
If the Terra was $80K, maybe some market. But at $280K , think of all you could by for that, most any performance gen av single,late model used but in good shape, or an award winning T-6, or L-39 or T-28.
Be careful on that Honda , a pilot friend was just almost killed in a BMW wreck.

[Zack Baughman]

Hi Bill,

I was NOT (left out the "not" the first time) replying to you specifically, just commenting on the direction of the thread in general. Personally, I think you are right about the Terrafugia's price point. Frankly, if I had that kind of money to spend on a "fun" airplane, I'd probably pick up an Icon and a few other things, but that's just me. Still, it'd be a heck of conversation piece to have sitting in your garage! ;)

[steveinindy]

Interesting how the conversation has turned to whether or not a roadable aircraft makes economic sense, rather than the merits of the design as a flyer/driver.

Not really since that is the primary issue that keeps the pipe dream of a flying car non-viable. Well, that and the disconnect between the requirement to have it light enough to fly and yet has to be strong enough to withstand the impact of a typical highway speed car crash.

Also not to mention that a large swath of the population barely has any business being behind the wheel of a car let alone something that leaves the ground....


Not very useful in a Wisconsin winter.

That's simple enough to solve: don't live in Wisconsin during the winter. ;)


Flying is fun. Doesn't make much economic sense most of the time, but it sure can bring a smile to one's face. Seems to me the same would probably apply to these roadable aircraft being developed.

This is true but if you want to fly, build/buy something meant to fly. If you want to drive, buy a car or motorcycle.


If the Terra was $80K, maybe some market. But at $280K , think of all you could by for that, most any performance gen av single,late model used but in good shape, or an award winning T-6, or L-39 or T-28.

Hell, for $280K, I could fund the majority of building myself an airplane (with steam instruments) that could take four people to Hawaii. Why would I spend that kind of cash on something that is, at best, the car and airplane equivalent of the Trabant (for those of you not familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant)

[Flyfalcons]

Hi Bill,

I was replying to you specifically, just commenting on the direction of the thread in general. Personally, I think you are right about the Terrafugia's price point. Frankly, if I had that kind of money to spend on a "fun" airplane, I'd probably pick up an Icon and a few other things, but that's just me. Still, it'd be a heck of conversation piece to have sitting in your garage! ;)

A flying car doesn't have to be practical but it does need to be more practical than just using an affordable, purpose-built airplane, and an affordable, purpose-built car rental at your destination. Some people will buy into the novelty value but most aren't interested in spending a good chunk of change on something that sucks at being a car and sucks at being a plane.

[Dana]

But I think it will be like a Delorean, and 10 years down the road it will have little resale value.

Or the resale value may be high due to the rarity, because I seriously doubt many will ever be made...

[Floatsflyer]

Zack, I concur completely on the critical importance of separating the design merits from the economic metrics. Firstly though, some factual info. The Terrafugia that flew last week for the first time is the Production Prototype(2nd generation). The Proof of Concept Prototype first flew over 3 years ago and many testing hours were flown off on it over the intervening time.

The MIT grads that formed the company to design, engineer, develop and fly this roadable aircraft have long ago proven that it can drive and fly and therefore is unquestioned. The merits of their design is not just proven and impressive, but they have also taken the design innovation and dream of a flying car to a place that could never have been envisioned by former dreamers like Molt Taylor. Terrafugia has pushed the envelop of outside the box thinking and creativity in this category in terms of a truly practical design that creates a self-contained, convenient and simplistic reality(i.e. no attachment or detachment of any parts).

It's a design of concept breakthrough that should be loudly applauded and appreciated for their unique contribution to the advancement of integrated land-air technology. This must remain seperated from the secondary issue/debate of economic sense and everyday practicality with the resulting criticsm and pessimism.

Some on this forum have said here and before on another thread that the design compromises undertaken result in a lousy car and a lousy airplane. I have no idea if this is correct or not. The buyers and aircraft reviewers will let us know.

But is it a breakthrough that will radically change the idea of personal mobility for the masses(pilot or current non-pilot alike)? The answer is an unfortunate "No" and almost exclusively because of the cost of acquisition. 3 years ago the cost was $194K. Today it's $280K. The final production aircar rolling out of the factory will be more of course. Not exactly for the masses.

If they could be rolled out for $50K they would create a much larger receptive market willing to trade in the Family Truckster for one. Hence, it will be extreme niche market appealing to only a well healed miniscule group who see it as an affordable novelty, curiousity and a must-have new fun toy that operates as intended. And it will be an add-on to the plane(s) they already have in the hangar. So far about 25 have laid down deposits.

In my opinion, the brilliant and talented Terrafugia designers and their financiers, in their quest to create on a scale what no others have ever done, are now blinded to the economic and market realities by their ambition, desire to overcome huge challenges, and a quest for "firsts". They can no longer see or want to see that only a handful of buyers exist.

The company will eventually fold and/or be sold for assets but this will not deter future aircar dreamers from moving forward with their next best, big Holy Grail of aviation thing. Dreamers never die, just the dreamer. And I think we need them to keep moving aviation innovation forward.

[steveinindy]

If they could be rolled out for $50K they would create a much larger receptive market willing to trade in the Family Truckster for one.

Dinner at the restaurant of your choosing in Oshkosh says that if that happens we see the GA mortality rate (adjusted for the increased number of flights and people involved) go through the roof. Also, of all forums (given the "*shakes fist* The FAA needs to leave us alone" attitude prevalent in the membership) this one should be the one least likely to be advocating for an aspect of aviation likely to massively increase the scrutiny of the whole of general aviation by the government as well as the press. Nothing says "new regulations coming your way" like a pile of dead bodies as the result of poor design combined with even poorer decision making abilities.


Dreams never die, just the dreamer.

Neither do conspiracy theories and other crackpot ideas. We're on...what? The fourth generation of UFO conspiracies and about the same for the flying car concept. Just because an idea persists doesn't mean it will eventually yield a net positive result for the world. Religions have existed for millenia and still rank as one of the leading causes of violent death in this world.


And I think we need them to keep moving aviation innovation forward.

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.

[Floatsflyer]

Stevieboy, others have said it on the forum, you are indeed an alarmist. How or why do you equate larger market appeal with a pile of dead bodies? It's irrational, over the top, without merit, and baseless. How can you make the unfounded statement that the Terrafugia is a "poor design"?

I'm glad you were not born of another time...you might have been the father of the Wright brothers or Glenn Curtis. You would have killed their concept ideas.

These MIT guys aren't wasting their time or talents. They are advancing a body of knowledge and innovation.

[tdm]

I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet, but there is the possibility that some future Personal Air Vehicle transportation system could be fully autonomous (or at least heavily augmented) once airborne. This could negate the risk of poor pilot training by removing the pilot altogether.

[steveinindy]

Stevieboy, others have said it on the forum, you are indeed an alarmist.

No, I'm just thinking this through instead of just engaging in wishful daydreaming about how this has some manner of practical application.



How or why do you equate larger market appeal with a pile of dead bodies?

Look at how frequently people have car accidents that are attributable to pilot error or shoddy maintenance. To make this idea even vaguely plausible, you're going to have to do the following things:
1. Drive the cost to the consumer down

2. Demonstrate to the average consumer (many of whom are afraid to fly or have an irrational fear of small aircraft in particular) how having a flying car is going to make their life more convenient. For the average city dweller, that's going to be one tough sell.

3. Either do away with A&P maintenance requirements or somehow convince A&P mechanics to reduce their prices

4. Either simplify pilot training to either below the LSA standard or take the pilot out of the equation all together. The former is likely to result in more pilot error crashes (hence my "alarmist" and "irrational" statement about an increased mortality rate) and the latter is likely to reduce the market among actual pilots. You start requiring 40,50 or 100 hours of training or annual or biennal flight reviews for flying car pilots and you're going to alienate those folks who only see a very slim margin of benefit/convenience under the best of circumstances. It's not alarmist to take a look at how things were before efforts to educate private pilots about safety were put into place (read as: the 1950s through 1970s). It wasn't unusual to see a body count topping 1000 to 1200 a year. Safety education has played a huge role in dropping that number (even when you adjust for the general population decrease). Think about how the average driver you cross paths with handles their car. Now imagine them at the controls of an aircraft on the RIPON/Fisk arrival at Oshkosh during the busy time. You can't cure stupidity but you also don't have to give them the means to make life more difficult for others (and potentially shorter for themselves).


5. Find a way to keep the airlines from blocking the measures as the numbers of flying cars increase which reduces available airspace for real GA aircraft and their airliners. That's not being alarmist, that's a direct step from what they've been trying for years to do with GA. A massive fleet of flying cars would also probably have to have a redesign of the ATC system since see and avoid doesn't work in crowded airspace and if folks really want to try the "commuter flying car" idea like TDM mentions, it's probably going to work even less well once you factor in people eating, talking on their cell phones and applying makeup while at the controls (all things people do now while driving just so you don't think I'm being "alarmist" again).

If you go the autonomous control route, who's going to pay for the system? You start charging the owners, you'll diminish the market further as it becomes more of a burden. You do it as a government based service and fund it with taxes, people (including a lot of the advocates for it now) are going to use it as an example of "big government". How about the launch and landing sites? Where are there funds and land for that in going to come from?

There's a lot more to this than just designing a more or less functional flying car which Taylor did how long ago? That's what people seem to be forgetting.


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

It's published performance statistics are pretty mediocre by either car standards or aircraft standards given its weight. That would, in most peoples' opinion make it a generally "poor design". Also honestly would you chance being in a collision with that versus a regular car? I wouldn't.


I'm glad you were not born of another time...you might have been the father of the Wright brothers or Glenn Curtis. You would have killed their concept ideas.

Actually, I probably would have been working right alongside them or competing with them. You seem to forget that I'm not just some guy who takes the easy way out and goes and gets one of Van's kits and puts it together. I'm a researcher and designer. Just because I don't see things the same rose-colored way you do doesn't mean I want to quash potentially useful concepts that have some grounding in reasonable application.


Here's the big difference: The Wrights and Curtis were working towards solving a practical problem.

The Terrafugia crew isn't. They are trying to prove something that we already know: that you can have something that both can move along the ground and fly. The problem is there is no market need for it. It's a solution looking for a problem. It's a really neat technological idea but it's not going to be a revolution or anything like that. Hell, 40 years ago when Rutan came on the scene, there were folks predicting we'd all be flying laminar flow wing equipped canards because of a bunch of folks who pushed the envelope. The problem was that each new solution opens up new problems and eventually you butt up against something that makes it simpler to go back to what has worked in the past. In the case of LF and canards, people just kept building traditional aircraft. In the case of the flying car, people are going to keep flying real airplanes and driving real cars.


I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet, but there is the possibility that some future Personal Air Vehicle transportation system could be fully autonomous (or at least heavily augmented) once airborne. This could negate the risk of poor pilot training by removing the pilot altogether.

So you go from two-dimensional to three dimensional traffic jams around cities. That sounds like a rocking good time.


These MIT guys aren't wasting their time or talents. They are advancing a body of knowledge and innovation.

Something is only an innovation once it generates something meaningful to society. That is the difference between simply being a technological advance and an innovation. I've yet to see any meaningful contribution come out of anything they have done.

[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!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwTGGHaCHAE

[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/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/avd/2011/03/24/02.xml&headline=Lockheed Martin To Develop 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
:rollseyes:

[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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/AVE-Mizar-1973-N68X-XL.jpg/800px-AVE-Mizar-1973-N68X-XL.jpg

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

[Hal Bryan]

Ahh, the poor Mizar ... Somehow, the fact that, when you get to your destination, you can drive off in a Pinto just isn't a selling point for me... and I'm one of those guys who gets all starry-eyed at the thought of roadable aircraft and flying cars!

[Ron Blum]

So besides not being a type certificated airplane, not being able to leave the airplane parts at the airport, not being able to just use the car portion to drive around, and not being able to back up safely and efficiently, how is Terrafugia better than the Aerocar that was all of these? And TCd in 1956?

A good, used airplane for $80K and $200K for rental cars sounds a lot more practical to me. In addition, I don't have to pay it all up front, either.

[steveinindy]

Well, you could always start with a real car:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/AVE-Mizar-1973-N68X-XL.jpg/800px-AVE-Mizar-1973-N68X-XL.jpg

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

....and of people not learning to properly weld prior to building an aircraft....

[seastar]

I live in a cabin in the Superior National Forest in the summer just 3 miles from Canada in the Arrowhead of Minnesota.
The closest airport is 35 miles away over very difficult forest roads - at least an hour drive.
I have a Cubcrafters Carbon Cub but no place to put a strip on my Forrest property.
I have been considering buying a Maverick that I could fly from a gravel road about a mile from my house.
I could keep it in my garage.
I think it would work but ITEC has not started production and I don't know if their car/airplane is vaporware or real.
Has anyone been to the "factory"?
Are they real or just have the one they truck to air shows?
Bill

[steveinindy]

I live in a cabin in the Superior National Forest in the summer just 3 miles from Canada in the Arrowhead of Minnesota.
The closest airport is 35 miles away over very difficult forest roads - at least an hour drive.
I have a Cubcrafters Carbon Cub but no place to put a strip on my Forrest property.
I have been considering buying a Maverick that I could fly from a gravel road about a mile from my house.
I could keep it in my garage.
I think it would work but ITEC has not started production and I don't know if their car/airplane is vaporware or real.
Has anyone been to the "factory"?
Are they real or just have the one they truck to air shows?
Bill

At this point in time, there is no practical viable option that is useful for the application you are talking about.

[Hal Bryan]

I've never been to their headquarters, but I know they brought at least 3 Mavericks here (to Oshkosh) last year, as we drove them and 2 AeroCars to a local drive-in for lunch. All 3 Mavericks were very real.

Also, in 2010, they didn't truck the prototype to Oshkosh, they drove it 1,400 miles:

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=635469588001

[Jim Hann]

I think it would work but ITEC has not started production and I don't know if their car/airplane is vaporware or real.
Has anyone been to the "factory"?
Are they real or just have the one they truck to air shows?
Bill

Bill,
A former member of Chapter 32 is an employee of ITEC. One thing about them, the Maverick is a means to an end, not the end. They are a missionary organization that developed the flying car to further their mission. Look here: http://itecusa.org/about.html to learn about them. I saw our former member at OSH in 2010, and we talked about the Maverick a bit (all the ITEC folks were popular to talk to about it!) and about how it would help them in the bush. The last minute or so of this video explains that also: http://bcove.me/r86zulfq

Jim
PS, I believe Troy (former member) is the one doing some of the flying you see in the video, he is wearing a tan baseball cap. He started in PPCs but I believe he is now a commercial/instrument rated pilot also.

[Stan]

Hi Zack, the flying motorcycle has been around for several years. Go the www.thebutterflyllc.com to see the super sky cycle.

[Joe LaMantia]

The Aurora Butterfly has the best advertising!

Joe;)

[Zack Baughman]

Hi Zack, the flying motorcycle has been around for several years. Go the www.thebutterflyllc.com (http://www.thebutterflyllc.com) to see the super sky cycle.

Yep - well aware of that - I interviewed Larry Neal for Timeless Voices down at SNF years ago when he was still working on developing the idea. He's had the finished product here for AirVenture a couple of times now. It's a BIG machine.

Here it is driving around town: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxtv2TaV--I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxtv2TaV--I

And here it is flying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Wypa1CySI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Wypa1CySI

And here's Larry talking about it with Aero-News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTlrKmc_g_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTlrKmc_g_Y

[SBaircraft]

The new MotoLOAD system, designed by young EAA members, first flew in February 2012. A system of ramps and dollies allow the pilot to load and secure a street-legal motorcycle inside his airplane. A built-in winch system does all the work and it takes just two minutes to transition from flying to riding.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVOGFQwXyBY

The designers actually have roots in roadable aircraft but founded MotoPOD LLC to develop more practical ground transportation solutions for pilots. It doesn’t have as much “cool” factor as a roadable airplane but it’s an obvious winner in terms of speed, range, useful load, price, handling, parking, insurability, etc.

The ramps and fixtures are all TIG welded aluminum. The 225cc motorcycles comfortably haul two adults with safe highway performance. They are custom built with compact suspension, smaller wheels, carbon fenders, folding handlebars, non-spill plumbing and even decals to match the airplane. There’s no aircraft alterations or installation required. The aluminum fixtures fit snuggly inside passenger foot-well and everything secures with ratcheting tie-down straps which clip into existing seatbelts. The motorcycle setup can be inserted or removed from an airplane in about 30 seconds.

The prototype flew on Valentine’s Day and the first production unit is being delivered this week to a customer in Texas. The customer uses his airplane for work and play and has a growing collection of junk cars at airports he visits most frequently. These will soon be replaced with just one motorcycle.

PS – Before someone says, “you can’t store a motorcycle like that…” Fuel safety was a top consideration and redundant safety has been designed into it. The motorcycles have a custom non-spill plumbing system and cant’ spill a drop. For added protection, there’s a generous spill pan beneath the entire motorcycle that’s lined with enough fuel absorbent to contain a catastrophic fuel spill.

[steveinindy]

PS – Before someone says, “you can’t store a motorcycle like that…”

Actually that wasn't my first thought. That would be "well there goes the entire useful load of most GA aircraft". ;)

The only safety question I have is: What is the load rating on the tiedown straps and their attachment points?

By the way, I think this is a rather cool idea. If I were a motorcycle rider, I think I would buy one of these assuming that I owned a large enough aircraft to haul my bike and the tiedowns were sufficiently strong to keep the bike in place during a crash or hard landing. This is a much more practical way to deliver both air and ground transport as opposed to producing a car/airplane combo with mediocre performance as either. Congrats to the designers!

[Flyfalcons]

Actually my first thought was "that's one way to actually make the drive to the airport more dangerous than the flight itself".

[SBaircraft]

Actually that wasn't my first thought. That would be "well there goes the entire useful load of most GA aircraft". ;)

The only safety question I have is: What is the load rating on the tiedown straps and their attachment points?

By the way, I think this is a rather cool idea. If I were a motorcycle rider, I think I would buy one of these assuming that I owned a large enough aircraft to haul my bike and the tiedowns were sufficiently strong to keep the bike in place during a crash or hard landing. This is a much more practical way to deliver both air and ground transport as opposed to producing a car/airplane combo with mediocre performance as either. Congrats to the designers!

I love the term useful load... I think a motorcycle is very useful :) But more seriously, we found that some 90% of all personal flights were conducted in 4-place airplanes with at least two empty seats. So, we've focused on two place transportation solutions for four place airplanes. That typically gives us some 300 pounds to work with.

At just 220 pounds dry, the motorcycle is easily carried in place of passengers. For example, the RV-10 hauls my girlfriend and I, the motorcycle, full fuel and a hundred pounds of luggage. The PA 32/34 airplanes haul even more. Admittedly, some older airplanes have very limited useful load but it's usually possible with reasonable fuel management.

The tie-down straps and anchors were designed to secure the motorcycle to Part 23 standards, including the 9g forward crash case. In addition, the aluminum fixtures are designed to chalk the load in place behind the wing spar.

I'm not a motorcyclist either. I got my motorcycle license through a weekend course and I ride strictly so I can get around with my airplane. According to an AOPA readership survey, 19.4% of aircraft owners currently own motorcycles and I think nearly half of all pilots know how to ride them. I guess we really like our toys!

Yes, we found this approach to be more practical than car/airplane combos in many ways. In fact, the designs originated from several years of roadable aircraft research. There are around 2,400 documented roadable aircraft attempts and we figured it might be wise to try a different approach to the problem.

[SBaircraft]

Actually my first thought was "that's one way to actually make the drive to the airport more dangerous than the flight itself".

Actually, we did a lot of safety analysis and I was very surprised to learn that airplanes and motorcycles have nearly identical fatality rates on an hourly basis. The old saying that, "The most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport" is only true for airline travel. Naturally, motorcycles aren't for everyone... but anyone willing to get in a small airplane shouldn't be too concerned with motorcycle safety. However, we do promote safety and include free helmets with all our products. I'm a bit fan of risk management rather than avoidance.

It turns out... the biggest danger comes from more places to go and things to do with an airplane. Convenient ground transportation has really changed my flying habits and I now fly about twice as much as I used to. I guess that technically doubles my risk :)

Here's a quick video of our first design. In EAA spirit, it was originally developed in a small garage, on a shoe-string budget, by a 25 year-old engineer. It's flying on a few RV-10s and getting closer to flying beneath certified airplanes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dpoSsKZ8T4

[Ron Blum]

Great idea, and wonderful implementation. One minor comment is that it is older airplanes that have more useful load than the newer ones (less pilot/passenger amenities). Use the Cessna 172 as a good example ... the new ones are really 2-place airplanes.

I hope the certification doesn't slow you down. Again, great thinking!

[Auburntsts]

+1 on the MotoPOD concept. Although I haven't purchased the pod yet (I have some higher priority purchases to still make, like a prop :eek:), I have bought and installed the hardpoints on my RV-10 and I'm sold on the concept after talking to David and crew at Oshkosh and seeing the products up close and in person.

[SBaircraft]

+1 on the MotoPOD concept. Although I haven't purchased the pod yet (I have some higher priority purchases to still make, like a prop :eek:), I have bought and installed the hardpoints on my RV-10 and I'm sold on the concept after talking to David and crew at Oshkosh and seeing the products up close and in person.

Hi Todd, how is your fuselage coming together? I must say, one important element in any new technologies is adopters. We've been fortunate to find a handful of awesome folks willing to try things another way.

[SBaircraft]

That's a great point Ron. I meant older (172) vs newer (SR-22) aircraft designs. It certainly is true that a given aircraft model tends to gain weight over time. We're working on an STC for the Cirrus SR-22 and we're finding that newer airplanes are loaded with turbo chargers, FIKI, air conditioning, etc. Even so, they really do have a pretty good useful load. However, the designers included an enormous 85 gallon tank for those occassional long trips. Yet, we're finding a lot of folks who keep the tank topped off and complain about useful load.

In the case of the Cirrus SR-22, the useful load is pretty good, especially on older ones. However, the designers included an enormous 85 gallon tank for those occassional long trips, even though most cross-countries are under 200 nm. Inevitably, some folks keep the tank topped off and complain about useful load. Fortunately, that can be addressed with a little fuel management.

[Auburntsts]

Hi Todd, how is your fuselage coming together? I must say, one important element in any new technologies is adopters. We've been fortunate to find a handful of awesome folks willing to try things another way.

Cooking along. I’m trying to finish up soon, getting close to the 90% done, 90% to go phase. I’ve got 3 major purchases left to make (prop, Fire-wall-forward items {alternators, exhaust, hoses, etc}, and radios) and I’m trying to get my financial ducks in a row to get it all ordered. Meanwhile I’ve fitted my cabin top and I’m currently in the process of mounting my overhead console (OHC) to it before the top is permanently mounted to the fuse – it’s easier to work on the OHC with top off the plane and upside down. With the exception of one small tailcone skin, all the major sheet metal work is complete and it’s basically fiberglass work from here on out.

[steveinindy]

At just 220 pounds dry, the motorcycle is easily carried in place of passengers.

220 lbs is pretty light for a motorcycle.


The tie-down straps and anchors were designed to secure the motorcycle to Part 23 standards, including the 9g forward crash case.

Just a heads up but you do realize that most/some of the Part 23 standards are pretty low so far as the scale of survivable crashes since it's based in part on some 1940s ideas about the tolerance of the human body to deceleration (like that 18 g was the whole body cutoff for escape from a crash without injury). There's a reason why the seat standards for most aircraft are between 16 and 24 g now. This is kind of my area as I work with crash survivability data for a living so if you need any help with it, feel free to PM me.

[SBaircraft]

We use the engine and frame from a lightweight 225cc Yamaha (238 pounds dry) and do a lot of work to make it even lighter (220 pounds). It's a great fit... light enought to carry in many airplanes... and it still hauls two adults down the highway.

Thanks for your concerns. We do treat Part 23 as a minimum standard and adopt greater load factors for our structural engineering, even on our non-certified projects. In this particular case, the tie-down system was designed to handle, by itself, conservative crash loads. In addition to this, the welded fixtures were designed to distribute forward crash loads against the wing spar.

[steveinindy]

However, the designers included an enormous 85 gallon tank for those occassional long trips

....or to make the crash sites easier to find. There's a reason why they are known as "Ronsons*" in the aviation safety community. You just follow the almost trademarked pall of black smoke. That whole line of aircraft has to be one of the best arguments against the integral fuel tank.


*-For those of you not old enough to remember, Ronson was a cigarette lighter brand with the slogan "It lights the first time, every time".

[steveinindy]

In this particular case, the tie-down system was designed to handle, by itself, conservative crash loads.

The problem is that a "conservative" crash load (according to the FAA) tends to be about half of what a person can survive. There's a reason why a significant number of people tend survive crashes only to perish in the post-crash fire.


We use the engine and frame from a lightweight 225cc Yamaha (238 pounds dry) and do a lot of work to make it even lighter (220 pounds). It's a great fit... light enought to carry in many airplanes... and it still hauls two adults down the highway.


That's pretty cool. I guess my definition of weight so far as bikes has been kind of skewed growing up around my uncle and his friends who all ride Harleys. LOL

[Ron Blum]

(tongue in cheek) There isn't a Cessna single in the world that hasn't taken off over gross (and I believe that 10% is legally allowed in Alaska). Fuel is actually a wing stress reliever ... except on landing. None of these airplanes had a published, maximum zero fuel weight (but I believe that it is the same as the aircraft gross weight). Sounds like you're doing it right. Useful load in my P172D was 1,100 lbs.