"Flying Car" I'd actually like to own.

dans2992

dans2992

En-Route
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
4,016
Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
OK, so all of these are either a pipe dream, or are such poor aircraft that nobody would really want them.

I realize it's probably got a snowball's chance in hell of being completed, but this one looks interesting if they can pull it off:

http://www.krossblade.com/

Basically, it's a quadrotor with retractable blades, and a wing designed to fly fast. The wing can be built that way because takeoff/landing performance is not a concern. Seems like a good concept.

Also appears to propose a combustion engine powering a generator, with electric motors driving the aircraft. Probably enough power to land under control if the combustion engine goes out, but I wonder what happens when the electric motor dies? Engine out "gliding" landing is likely not pretty...
 
Oh, and the only "car" function I'd use of this thing would be enough to drive from my house down the street to a cul-de-sac where I could take off. Would not drive this thing on the road.
 
dans2992 said:
Oh, and the only "car" function I'd use of this thing would be enough to drive from my house down the street to a cul-de-sac where I could take off. Would not drive this thing on the road.
Click to expand...

That is the problem with most of these flying car deals. Who would want to risk totaling it on a normal road where other people are?

Unless the price drops to be comparable with both a car and a plane, it will be too risky, and a waste of money.
 
dans2992 said:
OK, so all of these are either a pipe dream, or are such poor aircraft that nobody would really want them.

I realize it's probably got a snowball's chance in hell of being completed, but this one looks interesting if they can pull it off:
Click to expand...

I'd like this one if they could pull it off:

USS_Enterprise-A_quarter.jpg
 
SkyHog said:
That is the problem with most of these flying car deals. Who would want to risk totaling it on a normal road where other people are?



Unless the price drops to be comparable with both a car and a plane, it will be too risky, and a waste of money.
Click to expand...


Yes. I'm thinking that the "car" function is just useful enough to get it from the house to suitable vertical takeoff area. I don't have enough land to even handle a VTOL aircraft.

Car insurance would be a nightmare, although someone insures the Bugatti Veyron, so I guess it should be available.
 
The problem with flying cars is the flying. And the car.

It's not that they can't be built it's that in order to do both things the vehicle ends up compromising on both the driving and the flying side. And it necessarily ends up as the worst of both worlds.

Then there is the fact that they face two *very* daunting obstacles: The NHTSA and the FAA. Either is enough to kill even a company with a solid design (see Adam Aircraft for a recent example) much less an undercapitalized company running BOTH gauntlets.

That anyone would invest in flying cars actually astounds me. But nothing ventured nothing gained I guess. That's the beauty of America.
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
Then there is the fact that they face two *very* daunting obstacles: The NHTSA and the FAA. Either is enough to kill even a company with a solid design (see Adam Aircraft for a recent example) much less an undercapitalized company running BOTH gauntlets.

That anyone would invest in flying cars actually astounds me. But nothing ventured nothing gained I guess. That's the beauty of America.
Click to expand...

To add to that, it would be hard enough to get a mediocre airplane through those obstacles. But the claims of 16mpg with a hybrid (aka heavy) propulsion system that is suitable for level flight and VTOL, combined with a cruise speed faster than any comparable aircraft in production today makes me think they are a tad optimistic.

Just certifying a plane that can carry four pax 300+ mph on that little fuel would be a monumental challenge (and shake up the Cessna TTx/Cirrus SR22/PA46 market).

It seems like a lot of these concepts are put forward by folks that either lack knowledge of technical/regulatory issues, or worse, those who want to use fancy CG renderings to solicit money. Either way it is sad, because it takes capital away from viable investment opportunities and the inevitable failures of such projects further denotes general aviation as a risky investment.
 
dans2992 said:
Oh, and the only "car" function I'd use of this thing would be enough to drive from my house down the street to a cul-de-sac where I could take off. Would not drive this thing on the road.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point!:rofl: I think the quad rotor design has the greatest potential.
 
SkyHog said:
That is the problem with most of these flying car deals. Who would want to risk totaling it on a normal road where other people are?

Unless the price drops to be comparable with both a car and a plane, it will be too risky, and a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Why would you drive it on the road?:confused: With V/TOL capabilities it's unnecessary. You use the wheels to get from the parking spot to the launch pad.
 
Henning said:
Why would you drive it on the road?:confused: With V/TOL capabilities it's unnecessary. You use the wheels to get from the parking spot to the launch pad.
Click to expand...


Yes. Frankly, I wouldn't care if it were street legal. It would be a cool enough aircraft with just the quadrotor / wings.

The advantage I see is that the wings could be designed for pure speed while completely ignoring low-speed handling characteristics.
 
That seems very impractical on SOO many fronts, starting with the handling on the ground.

just get a Vette and a PA18
 
Henning said:
What about the ground handling concerns you?
Click to expand...

It's long and super narrow, on little pizza cutter wheels, looks like it would roll over if you even looked at a corner funny, I doubt it stops on a dime ether.
 
James331 said:
It's long and super narrow, on little pizza cutter wheels, looks like it would roll over if you even looked at a corner funny, I doubt it stops on a dime ether.
Click to expand...

Why would you drive it any further than from the landing spot to the parking spot?
 
It's not even feasible guys - cmon, really ? It looks like something a sixth grader drew up. Total vapor ware ! Why has it even generated this many posts ? I've seen things out of comic books that have more potential than this. Zero autorotative capability.
 
Henning said:
Why would you drive it on the road?:confused: With V/TOL capabilities it's unnecessary. You use the wheels to get from the parking spot to the launch pad.
Click to expand...

So how does it differ from an airplane with V/TOL Capabilities, that is not a car then? If you're just driving it from the parking spot to the launch pad, it is an airplane.

We call that move the "taxi."
 
SkyHog said:
So how does it differ from an airplane with V/TOL Capabilities, that is not a car then? If you're just driving it from the parking spot to the launch pad, it is an airplane.

We call that move the "taxi."
Click to expand...


That right there
 
SkyHog said:
So how does it differ from an airplane with V/TOL Capabilities, that is not a car then? If you're just driving it from the parking spot to the launch pad, it is an airplane.

We call that move the "taxi."
Click to expand...

How many airplanes with V/TOL capabilities do we have available?:dunno: That's the reason we don't have flying cars, zero practicality if it needs a runway. The thing about The quad copter design is with modern software it's a "fly by wire" platform unlike a helicopter.
 
The stock music riff in the video instills loads of confidence. I think they'll get it done. soon. :) Seriously though, hopefully they can raise funds and push technology.

Quad copter for personal transport intrigues me; however, this "flying mechanical engineering class project" has far, far too many moving parts (critical ones with high load factor).
 
Last edited:
Looks like a group of kids getting paid to show up at an office at 10 a.m. unshaven, play around for a few hours before going back to their apartments to spend the rest of the day on xboxlive. If they expect to be taken seriously, why they would put that picture of themselves on their website is baffling.
 
Gerhardt said:
Looks like a group of kids getting paid to show up at an office at 10 a.m. unshaven, play around for a few hours before going back to their apartments to spend the rest of the day on xboxlive. If they expect to be taken seriously, why they would put that picture of themselves on their website is baffling.
Click to expand...


I thought the same thing. That picture needs to go!
 
Gerhardt said:
Looks like a group of kids getting paid to show up at an office at 10 a.m. unshaven, play around for a few hours before going back to their apartments to spend the rest of the day on xboxlive. If they expect to be taken seriously, why they would put that picture of themselves on their website is baffling.
Click to expand...

Some people, young engineering types in particular, don't think a lot about personal appearance.

I'm pretty darn close to that myself, unless my wife says it's required I generally don't wear anything but jeans & t-shirts/button up shirts.
 
SkyHog said:
That is the problem with most of these flying car deals. Who would want to risk totaling it on a normal road where other people are?

Unless the price drops to be comparable with both a car and a plane, it will be too risky, and a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Not many places where prices go down, When I think of flying cars I always think of the movie: Back to the future. Once scientist figure out a way to master gravity they can pretty much get any object to fly.
 
James331 said:
That seems very impractical on SOO many fronts, starting with the handling on the ground.

just get a Vette and a PA18
Click to expand...

I'd bet people were saying the same thing about the Wright Brothers and how impractical their inventions were. I think the idea is make a prototype that works and perfect it as you go along.
 
Henning said:
That's the whole point!:rofl: I think the quad rotor design has the greatest potential.
Click to expand...

Quad rotor aircraft with people in them will never be practical until we finally develop a electric energy storage system that has a high energy density, so that the rotors can be powered by electric motors just like the drones have. Piston engines and even turbine engines just aren't practical.

In addition, it is an incredibly inefficient way to move through the sky. Any successful design would have to be much like the OV-22 Osprey and have the ability to transition from hovercraft to airplane. For any of this to make any sense, to need to use electric motors for their incredible reliability, light weight and low cost.

The "vision" in the OP's link is ridiculous. If anybody gives that guy any money, PT Barnum is to be congratulated on his insight... once again.
 
I was just thinking, if everybody has one of these, half of our population will be in prison for busting VIP TFRs, not to mention stadium and Disneyland TFRs. We'll need a new fleet of F-16s (of F-35) to take care of these TFR busters.:D
 
cowman said:
Some people, young engineering types in particular, don't think a lot about personal appearance.

I'm pretty darn close to that myself, unless my wife says it's required I generally don't wear anything but jeans & t-shirts/button up shirts.
Click to expand...

First, if you put pictures of you and your crew dressed in jeans and a tshirt up for your business website that's not geared toward the under-25 crowd then you don't know your audience.

But it's really the entire website that's a mess. And look at their bios. ugh. And the comment about helicopters being inferior to aircraft (not airplanes, but aircraft)...doesn't exactly instill confidence.
 
Dav8or said:
Quad rotor aircraft with people in them will never be practical until we finally develop a electric energy storage system that has a high energy density, so that the rotors can be powered by electric motors just like the drones have. Piston engines and even turbine engines just aren't practical.

In addition, it is an incredibly inefficient way to move through the sky. Any successful design would have to be much like the OV-22 Osprey and have the ability to transition from hovercraft to airplane. For any of this to make any sense, to need to use electric motors for their incredible reliability, light weight and low cost.

The "vision" in the OP's link is ridiculous. If anybody gives that guy any money, PT Barnum is to be congratulated on his insight... once again.
Click to expand...


Yep, power density has always been a stumbling block of V/TOL. Stability has been the other. At least the quad rotor design has stability worked out so it can be operated without training or practice. If the electric motors and generator can be made light enough, a Diesel Electric or turbine electric high voltage drive system could work.
 
Last edited:
FloridaPilot said:
I'd bet people were saying the same thing about the Wright Brothers and how impractical their inventions were. I think the idea is make a prototype that works and perfect it as you go along.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, yes, yes. Here is someone who is living that dream. Has been for about 40 years. He will gladly take your venture capital and make you a partner.

http://moller.com/dev/index.php/sky-car/m400-specs

2014-05-21-Cruise_w_background_5122512x384-thumb.jpg
 
At least the physics of Moller's design make its flight somewhat remotely plausible. ... given some improvements in energy density.
 
WBI Flyer said:
At least the physics of Moller's design make its flight somewhat remotely plausible. ... given some improvements in energy density.
Click to expand...

I think the physics of a quad rotor design make more sense, the larger and slower the thrusters, the more efficient.
 
Henning said:
I think the physics of a quad rotor design make more sense, the larger and slower the thrusters, the more efficient.
Click to expand...

absolutely. good point. I was still stuck on comparing it to the...the.... what was the name of that thing that this thread is about? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top