Printable View
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!
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.
....and of people not learning to properly weld prior to building an aircraft....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by seastar
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
Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by seastar
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.
Hi Zack, the flying motorcycle has been around for several years. Go the www.thebutterflyllc.com to see the super sky cycle.
The Aurora Butterfly has the best advertising!
Joe;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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
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.
Actually that wasn't my first thought. That would be "well there goes the entire useful load of most GA aircraft". ;)Quote:
PS – Before someone says, “you can’t store a motorcycle like that…”
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!
Actually my first thought was "that's one way to actually make the drive to the airport more dangerous than the flight itself".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
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
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!
+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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburntsts
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SBaircraft
220 lbs is pretty light for a motorcycle.Quote:
At just 220 pounds dry, the motorcycle is easily carried in place of passengers.
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.Quote:
The tie-down straps and anchors were designed to secure the motorcycle to Part 23 standards, including the 9g forward crash case.
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.
....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.Quote:
However, the designers included an enormous 85 gallon tank for those occassional long trips
*-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".
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.Quote:
In this particular case, the tie-down system was designed to handle, by itself, conservative crash loads.
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. LOLQuote:
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.
(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.