Fending off the flying car

[spiderweb]

(The amusing (in a sad way) thing about flying ultralights is that the uncertificated ultralight pilot can fly at altitudes that are off limits to sport pilots, who are required to have formal training. An ultralight aircraft can fly up to the top of Class E; sport pilots aren't allowed over 10K MSL or 2K AGL, whichever is higher.)

That's a good point. That, along with many other things (aircraft or other flying or falling, parachuting, rocketing, etc. objects) is a good reason to always keep eyes outside in VMC.

 

[spiderweb]

Just one of the many services I provide around here.

JOOC, what do you fly? Do you fly a Thorpe?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

JOOC, what do you fly? Do you fly a Thorpe?

Merlin GT - rag and tube LSA taildragger.

My brother built/flew a Thorp T-18. But now he flys a Pitts that he built.

 

[spiderweb]

Merlin GT - rag and tube LSA taildragger.

My brother built/flew a Thorp T-18. But now he flys a Pitts that he built.

Sounds nice. Which Pitts?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Freaking morons on the road vs. in the air - are you kidding me? Getting a pilot cert. takes money, determination, and time - and very little smarts, class, grace, or common courtesy. Those people are *already* up there in the pattern with you and a short trip around any internet forum will reveal them in big numbers.

Disagree. While there are most certainly "stupid" pilots, there is a large population of really seriously unbelievably stupid people out there that most of us are not exposed to on a regular basis.

When I was a truck driver, I got a lot of exposure to these people. While truckers themselves run the gamut from the biggest idiots you've ever met all the way up to some really smart and thoughtful people, some of them were... Well... Idiots. But the other people I dealt with were generally even worse - Shipping clerks and dock workers. There were some who I was surprised could even find their way to work in the morning.

These people are NOT in the sky with us. They would never even come close to being able to pass the written or the practical, or convince a CFI to sign them off for the same, even if they could put together enough neurons to save the money for flight lessons.

They are, however, on the road with you every day.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Sounds nice. Which Pitts?

Basically an IO-540 powered S2 with an Eagle canopy and a few "tweeks" here and there - the round style wing tips but larger ailerons, longer tail post (un-bananna's the profile), larger rudder, wittman style gear, etc. etc.

 

[spiderweb]

These people are NOT in the sky with us. They would never even come close to being able to pass the written or the practical, or convince a CFI to sign them off for the same, even if they could put together enough neurons to save the money for flight lessons.

They are, however, on the road with you every day.

Said much better than I did!

 

[spiderweb]

Basically an IO-540 powered S2 with an Eagle canopy and a few "tweeks" here and there - the round style wing tips but larger ailerons, longer tail post (un-bananna's the profile), larger rudder, wittman style gear, etc. etc.

That sounds reeeeeeeeealy nice!

 

[ChrisRikli]

I stopped riding motorcycles on the street because other drivers were distracted, ignorant, and hurried...three things that will get you good and dead in an airplane.

Actually, you know, now that I'm thinking about it I like this flying car idea; maybe it would get some of these dumbazzes killed and thin the herd a bit.

How's that for elitist and entitled!

 

[PittsDriver]

I stopped riding motorcycles on the street because other drivers were distracted, ignorant, and hurried...three things that will get you good and dead in an airplane.

Actually, you know, now that I'm thinking about it I like this flying car idea; maybe it would get some of these dumbazzes killed and thin the herd a bit.

How's that for elitist and entitled!

Motorcycles are way more dangerous than flying. Back in the day, I rode about 15,000 / year and got hit by an oblivious driver about once a year on average. I was once hit from behind sitting at a red light in Atlanta, by a MARTA bus. I hear what you guys are saying about the barrier to entry in flying but I just don't agree. The only difference in the oblivious a-holes that are trying to kill you on your motorcycle and those that are trying to do it in the pattern is that on the bike, there's less margin for letting your guard down. The big sky theory just doesn't translate to the road very well. But the inconsiderate, inattentive "pilots" are there in both places.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Please. Say it isn't so. You can really order one RIGHT NOW???

Yup....only 350K for an tub that maybe cruises at 100 mph seats two and is VFR only.

 

[Fearless Tower]

What an illogical argument. If they don't speak English, they can't fly. Show me some data that proves pilots for whom English isn't their first language are more dangerous.

English comprehension may be a 'requirement' for a pilot certificate, but that doesn't mean that there aren't unscrupulous schools/DPEs out there who will let them through.

Just try flying around Phoenix Deer Valley and tell me you feel safe.

 

[steingar]

Motorcycles are way more dangerous than flying. Back in the day, I rode about 15,000 / year and got hit by an oblivious driver about once a year on average. I was once hit from behind sitting at a red light in Atlanta, by a MARTA bus. I hear what you guys are saying about the barrier to entry in flying but I just don't agree. The only difference in the oblivious a-holes that are trying to kill you on your motorcycle and those that are trying to do it in the pattern is that on the bike, there's less margin for letting your guard down. The big sky theory just doesn't translate to the road very well. But the inconsiderate, inattentive "pilots" are there in both places.

Gotta respectfully disagree with you. If you got hit from behind by anything, its your fault, unless you were first in line at the light. I always check my six until I see a car at a stop right behind me. I've been riding for decades, the first one more or less daily. I've never been hit by anything, and my only get offs were entirely my fault (and at low enough speed no one was hurt. The bike was even drivable, more than I can say for it right now).

In flying, things can happen to you for which you cannot prepare and cannot control. Loose an engine in any aircraft on takeoff and you're in for a bad day. Loose one at night and all the training in the world will do you no good. Hit bad wx, icing, all kind of things can bring aircraft down. What do Scott Crossfield, Sparky Imeson, and Steve Fossett all have in common?

 

[Fearless Tower]

In flying, things can happen to you for which you cannot prepare and cannot control.

What do Scott Crossfield, Sparky Imeson, and Steve Fossett all have in common?

Not sure I follow those two statements. While I am not as familiar with the details behind Sparky's fatal crash (other than it was in the same spot he had crashed before), both the Steve Fossett and Scott Crossfield fatalities were sadly the results of poor ADM.....not cases of 'stuff' just happpened. In other words, their deaths were well within their control.

 

[bender52]

Hmmm... reading through these posts makes me wonder how much bashing the Wright Brothers would have got if there was a web forum?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Hmmm... reading through these posts makes me wonder how much bashing the Wright Brothers would have got if there was a web forum?

They would have been LOL'd right off the internet!

 

[PittsDriver]

Gotta respectfully disagree with you. If you got hit from behind by anything, its your fault, unless you were first in line at the light.

In the case of the MARTA bus, I was sitting first in line at a light with no one behind me until I got creamed by the bus. I didn't include in my personal average the couple of times the guy behind me hit the guy in front of my right after I jumped off the road.

We'll never know why Steve Fossett hit rocks but Crossfield and Sparky were pilot gods that did something stupid. To my point about relative danger - doing something stupid in an airplane is bad enough but my intuition says that doing something stupid on a crotch rocket get's you killed more often. Maybe we can find some stats somewhere. This is going totally from memory - way back when I rode a lot, the Hurt report said that your chances of getting killed on a motorcycle were 1:9 if you rode something like 12,000 mi/yr and your chances of getting dead in a plane you built yourself was 1:7. I would suspect those numbers are way different now if you exclude ariel organ donors (ultralights).

 

[steingar]

Statistically GA is way more dangerous than bikes. And with bikes you get lots and lots of alcohol related fatalities, which are far more rare in aircraft. Plenty of absurdly stupid things, like stunting with no head protection. ADM is sufficiently complex that experienced high-time professional pilots like Crossfield, Imeson, and Fossett could eat it. And any machine can break, if your aircraft does so over hostile terrain your number could be up and nothing you can do. Like I said, respectfully disagree.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Statistically GA is way more dangerous than bikes.

I disagree. The cross-modal statistical studies I'm aware of generally find that most normalized rates indicate motorcycles are more dangerous than small airplanes - and that helicopters are the least safe mode of transportation. Here's the information I've found:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36229/cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Towards_2010/Cross_Modal_Safety_Outcome_Comparisons.pdf

So far as I know, the U.S. NTSB once said they were going to produce their own cross-modal study but I don't believe they ever got around to it. But I haven't searched for what they may have done lately.

 

[steingar]

I'm not going to argue about this any more. It is utterly absurd. Tell your life insurance agent you ride a motorcycle. Then tell him (or her) you fly an airplane.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'm not going to argue about this any more. It is utterly absurd. Tell your life insurance agent you ride a motorcycle. Then tell him (or her) you fly an airplane.

A reasonable suggestion - but I don't have a life insurance agent, but the net might give some insight. So I did some searching:

According to this link, premiums for a 45-year old male, non-smoking, private, instrument rated pilot for a $500,000, 20-year guaranteed level term life policy ranges from ~$700/year to ~$1200/year:
http://www.piclife.com/compare/index.php

I couldn't find any simple ways to determine what impact motorcycle riding has on life insurance rates, but a couple online quoting systems that appeared in Google ads seem to indicate that the same hypothetical person (sans pilot certificate) for the same coverage gets quoted premiums of ~$1500/year to ~1700/year; e.g.:
http://www.accuquotelife.com/
https://www.thrivent.com/

(Leaving the name and contact info still yielded quotes.)

I am very sorry if you think I am being absurd - when I see assertions on the net that interest me, I go looking for as authoritative information as I can find (without making a career of it) to determine whether they are valid. The truth of some assertions seems to vary with time, and this may be one of those cases.

(If you meant this entire thread is absurd I would tend to agree.)

 

[Dan Thomas]

Hmmm... reading through these posts makes me wonder how much bashing the Wright Brothers would have got if there was a web forum?

The Wright Brothers, I think, didn't try to market an unproven machine. They did their homework and developed the thing without telling the newspapers. Yes, they'd have been ridiculed, and that's likely why they waited until they could prove that it was possible, after which few people were laughing.

Contrast that to today's habit of selling something that's still on paper or in some computer. They take your deposit and use it to design and build the prototype, while leading you to believe that the thing is in production and deliveries are imminent.

I first heard of the Moller Aircar in around 1978 or '80, and he was taking orders then. That's 30 years ago. Wikipedia says he's been at it for 40 years. 30 or 40 years ago and we still have no deliveries. 40 years after the Wright brothers we had P-51s fighting ME109s and both sides were working on jets. Tell me again why I shouldn't be skeptical about flying cars. Just one good reason.

Dan

 

[Fearless Tower]

Flying car.....It's the way of the future.....

Way of the future....

Way of the future....

Way of the...future......

 

[jesse]

Motorcycles are way more dangerous than flying. Back in the day, I rode about 15,000 / year and got hit by an oblivious driver about once a year on average

The statistics don't agree with you.

You also have terrible luck on motorcycles. I've never been hit by a car - I've had cars try to hit me - but I always decided not to let them.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The statistics don't agree with you.

You also have terrible luck on motorcycles. I've never been hit by a car - I've had cars try to hit me - but I always decided not to let them.

I posted links to two cross-modal studies that indicate motorcycles generally result in more fatalities and serious injuries per hour or mile traveled than light airplane travel. If you have references indicating differently they would be appreciated.

 

[weilke]

The sky will be darkened from all the flying cars !! :wink2:

We'll need Next-Gen to control all the air-traffic, and VORs will be shut down next year .

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Gotta respectfully disagree with you. If you got hit from behind by anything, its your fault, unless you were first in line at the light. I always check my six until I see a car at a stop right behind me. I've been riding for decades, the first one more or less daily. I've never been hit by anything, and my only get offs were entirely my fault (and at low enough speed no one was hurt. The bike was even drivable, more than I can say for it right now).
<SNIP>

Would you please explain this so that even a "cager" would understand?

My impression is that, if I rear-end anything, it's my fault in almost any jurisdiction on the theory that I should be able to see what's in front of me and my vehicle and I'll likely be ticketed for careless driving.

This is not to say you shouldn't watch and try to get away- I think you have more ability to do so on a motorcycle than anything I drive.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I posted links to two cross-modal studies that indicate motorcycles generally result in more fatalities and serious injuries per hour or mile traveled than light airplane travel. If you have references indicating differently they would be appreciated.

Around here they're known as "organ-donor machines." The economy was pretty hot for several years and a lot of guys, young and old, bought bikes and ended up dead, usually from head injuries that leave the rest of the organs quite usable. But they often killed their girlfriends, too. Sad. The physics are undeniable: there's nothing much around you to either protect you or to add weight to lengthen the stopping distance in an accident. There's less traction. Any loose material on the pavement increases the likelihood of loss of control much more than it does for a car.

However, the attitude of too many--speeding, dodging in and out of traffic, stunting--raises the fatality rate beyond what the motorcycle alone should be responsible for. If you took out the stupidity the numbers wouldn't be so bad.

Dan

 

[fgcason]

Would you please explain this so that even a "cager" would understand?

My impression is that if I rear-end anything, it's my fault in almost any jurisdiction on the theory that I should be able to see what's in front of me and my vehicle and I'll likely be ticketed for careless driving.

It's not about laws, at-fault rulings, tickets and insurance paperwork. On a motorcycle, good judgment goes way beyond that feel good trivia. Physics doesn't care in the least about some ink of a piece of paper in a filing cabinet somewhere or someones feelings. When you fall off or get hit, you're completely on your own in a very unfair one sided brutal fight against physics.

The law says it's illegal to knife someone however does that mean you're just going to stand there and let it happen to you because it's illegal thus shouldn't happen to you? You'll certainly be in the right however you'll also end up dead because of it. Same thing, different weapon. People have no problem or hesitation to kill you on the road. Some will do it deliberately out because they're too self absorbed or even do it for fun. Whatever happens their insurance company will take care of the problem for them and they'll be driving again in an hour at the most like nothing ever happened.

On a motorcycle, the laws that are in your favor are usually irrelevant. YOU are totally responsible for your own safety. To believe otherwise is suicidal behavior. If you're not controlling your operating environment while riding and keeping others outside your safety buffer, whatever happens to you is pretty much self inflicted most of the time. Of course there is always the near zero reaction time situations of driving anywhere near other vehicles where someone two lanes over well outside of your safety buffer yanks the wheel hard over and slams on the brakes for no reason and even that can be controlled up to a point.


Eliminate stupid rider behavior and motorcycles or any other vehicles are quite safe. Not as safe as staying home or driving a WWII sherman tank around an empty parking lot at 1mph however that's for each person to sort out on their own..preferably without injuring or killing anyone else in the process.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Frank- I'd guess it was my fault if I hit almost anything stopped at a red light. A lot of these nuts try to run into anything, let alone motorcycles.

About safety buffers- you might try telling that to the person who passed me with a motorcycle on the shoulder just as it disappeared because we were crossing a bridge just a few minutes ago and shot down the road like he was on a race track.

 

[weilke]

About safety buffers- you might try telling that to the person who passed me with a motorcycle on the shoulder just as it disappeared because we were crossing a bridge just a few minutes ago and shot down the road like he was on a race track.

Was it this guy ?

 

[bender52]

The Wright Brothers, I think, didn't try to market an unproven machine. They did their homework and developed the thing without telling the newspapers. Yes, they'd have been ridiculed, and that's likely why they waited until they could prove that it was possible, after which few people were laughing.

Contrast that to today's habit of selling something that's still on paper or in some computer. They take your deposit and use it to design and build the prototype, while leading you to believe that the thing is in production and deliveries are imminent.

I first heard of the Moller Aircar in around 1978 or '80, and he was taking orders then. That's 30 years ago. Wikipedia says he's been at it for 40 years. 30 or 40 years ago and we still have no deliveries. 40 years after the Wright brothers we had P-51s fighting ME109s and both sides were working on jets. Tell me again why I shouldn't be skeptical about flying cars. Just one good reason.

Dan

Not saying you shouldn't be skeptical. I'm just wondering how many good ideas are bashed out of existence (or ideas that could emerge from exploring this technology). Burt Rutan founded Scaled Composites in 1982. Not until Richard Branson started funding them did they make any news.

IMO, the real issue here is that there is no immediate utility for the average person so a lot of folks have the opinion that it should be abandoned.

Of course, being the skeptic, that is probably a passing phase too.

‘Some men look at things the way they are and ask why? I dream of things that are not and ask why not?’ -- Robert Kennedy

 

[SCCutler]

Was it this guy ?

Lordy. Is there a motorcycle and its... former operating ooze... in there?

I get a real "charge" out of these clumps of crotch-rocket-riders who like to ride along in packs of five to fifteen bikes, at speeds well in excess of 120MPH, on public roads. One managed to ride into the back of a pickup truck right nearby in the last couple of months... and the herd was thinned.

 

[Joe B]

Burt Rutan founded Scaled Composites in 1982. Not until Richard Branson started funding them did they make any news.

How quickly they forget! Scaled Composites made the front pages in 1986 with the nonstop round-the-world flight of the Voyager.

 

[bender52]

How quickly they forget! Scaled Composites made the front pages in 1986 with the nonstop round-the-world flight of the Voyager.

And 24 years later, have they sold a single one of them? Or was it a stepping stone for current projects?

 

[weilke]

Lordy. Is there a motorcycle and its... former operating ooze... in there?

Yes, that is the imprint of a motorcycle, this past september somewhere near Ocala, FL. The knucklehead did make it to the hospital, dont know whether he made it. The two people on the right are the couple that sat on the middle bench of the minivan when the rider went through between them. They are fine and that is all that counts.

 

[John Baker]

I don't think a true "flying car" will become another method of transportation for the masses until they become 100% automated. The "driver" will simply get in the contraption, then tell the computer where he/she wants to go. The computer will locate the address and navigate the vehicle to it via GPS, and probably a bunch of other Kromen Revelators.

All the driver will do is be a passenger. They will all probably operate below a thousand feet.

"They" whoever "they" are, have been working feverishly on self contained robotic ground vehicles for years. Major air carriers are almost there now, it will not be too long before a pilot simply sits and monitors a bunch of colored lights.

We are already operating unmanned aircraft along our borders and in our assorted war zones.

Until all this emerging technology becomes a practical reality, all flying cars will be is what they have always been, a novelty toy for those who have the money to indulge themselves.

I do not think we are all that far away from actually seeing them as viable transportation. Once the idiot factor has been removed, it will happen.

John

 

[bender52]

I don't think a true "flying car" will become another method of transportation for the masses until they become 100% automated. The "driver" will simply get in the contraption, then tell the computer where he/she wants to go. The computer will locate the address and navigate the vehicle to it via GPS, and probably a bunch of other Kromen Revelators.

All the driver will do is be a passenger. They will all probably operate below a thousand feet.

"They" whoever "they" are, have been working feverishly on self contained robotic ground vehicles for years. Major air carriers are almost there now, it will not be too long before a pilot simply sits and monitors a bunch of colored lights.

We are already operating unmanned aircraft along our borders and in our assorted war zones.

Until all this emerging technology becomes a practical reality, all flying cars will be is what they have always been, a novelty toy for those who have the money to indulge themselves.

I do not think we are all that far away from actually seeing them as viable transportation. Once the idiot factor has been removed, it will happen.

John

John,

I agree that they're probably not that far off. I'll admit that I would have a hard time getting into a vehicle that is pilotless (although some might argue that's what they get when they fly with me). Right now, I believe that unless there's a person at the controls that has their well being on the line to ensure the safe completion of a flight, I probably don't want to be there.

I agree that the technology is coming faster than most want to believe. But a lot of testing and performance data would have to be collected that proves it's safe before I'm willing to travel via this method.

I guess I'm also into flying for the more romantic reasons. I will take steam gauges over glass and GPS any day. For me, it's not about the destination and how fast I can get there. I enjoy the journey and the view along the way.

I'm sure that my biggest beef with these flying Happy Meal toys will be the changes in airspace that they bring that impede on current aviation.

 

[zaitcev]

And 24 years later, have they sold a single one of them? Or was it a stepping stone for current projects?

Scaled is a relatively thriving business of specialty aviation composites. I don't know if you can call it a mass production, but for example they built all of 40-some wing sets for Pegasus, which is essentially a hypersonic airplane. Burt gets all the newspaper fame for one-off oddballs like Proteus, but his company was actually a business. Still is, really. That is why Northrop bought them: for the revenue. They realized Burt was close to the retirement at the time of sale (it was after his heart attack), so they were not buying his design skills.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I don't think a true "flying car" will become another method of transportation for the masses until they become 100% automated. The "driver" will simply get in the contraption, then tell the computer where he/she wants to go. The computer will locate the address and navigate the vehicle to it via GPS, and probably a bunch of other Kromen Revelators.

All the driver will do is be a passenger. They will all probably operate below a thousand feet.

"They" whoever "they" are, have been working feverishly on self contained robotic ground vehicles for years. Major air carriers are almost there now, it will not be too long before a pilot simply sits and monitors a bunch of colored lights.

We are already operating unmanned aircraft along our borders and in our assorted war zones.

Until all this emerging technology becomes a practical reality, all flying cars will be is what they have always been, a novelty toy for those who have the money to indulge themselves.

I do not think we are all that far away from actually seeing them as viable transportation. Once the idiot factor has been removed, it will happen.

John

If we don't find workable alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, including alternatives to the electricity generated through burning fossil fuels, we might not see many flying cars even if they're automated and idiot-proof. Flying consumes more energy than rolling; not many airplanes get good mileage compared to ground-bound vehicles of similar capacity. Only big airplanes do better, I think, in terms of seat-miles per gallon, and they don't do nearly as well as railroads or ships. As oil gets more and more expensive it will be impossible to have millions of flying machines flying around.

Dan