Comments on: That’s not a flying car

By: G. Fisher

G. Fisher — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:44:00 +0000

“… the thought of barely-trained people taking to the skies is terrifying.”

Frankly, driving two-lane highways with barely trained drivers coming at us just inches away at a combined velocity well in excess of one hundred miles per hour is more terrifying.

By: Cknightspot

Cknightspot — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:41:00 +0000

Seriously though i liked the hovercraft version i saw in a article sometime last year. looked alot more “motorcycle” like. we will get there someday but we DEFINATLY need to make it idoit proof and no young or old drivers! j/k.

By: Cknightspot

Cknightspot — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:38:00 +0000

My first thought:
Two men looking down at a body in a pool of blood
…..I believe the term they use is “human-powered wings”. Anyway, it is a nice step along the way to the real flying car. This was never going to happen overnight

By: Wayne McKenzie

Wayne McKenzie — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:25:00 +0000

You’re missing the point, Chris. I think it’s a safe bet you are not a pilot. A big inconvenience of flying a personal plane to a destination is the lack of transportation when you arrive. Some pilots who regularly fly to one destination keep an “airport car”; perpetually parked at the airport waiting for you should you fly there. if you fly to multiple destinations, the airport car solution isn’t practical. That’s where the Transition makes sense. It’s not for “swooping down to pick up your kids from school”. Unless your kids go to school hundreds of miles away, the preflight alone would take longer than driving there.

By: Aaron Baker

Aaron Baker — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:41:00 +0000

Yeah it’s not. Unfortunately Moller (the real flying car) is going to China where his tech will be stolen and they will surpass us with flying car highways.

By: John

John — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:11:00 +0000

Well, nothing in laws of physics or engineering contradicts the possibility of a flying car. It is perhaps more appropriate to argue that engineering is not yet ripe for building a practical flying car. What I am arguing is that this project might be an important milestone for the ideal flying car (whatever that is). I am not an expert on economics, but as far as I know, once a product becomes popular, its cost can be decreased by more advanced production methods. The developers have obviously spent a lot of money on this project, and probably that is why the initial price is so high. As for “why spend a quarter of million dollars,” I think it is irrelevant to the topic that we are discussing, there obviously people out there willing to spend that money, we should ask them I guess.

By: John

John — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:11:00 +0000

By: Phred

Phred — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:53:00 +0000

I always enjoy people who miss the point in order to argue. Design in engineering is about meeting a set of requirements, and in this case, the requirements of flight necessitate light structures built very close to easily being broken in order to succeed. Meanwhile automobiles have to be rugged, and as the author pointed out, the thing is a bit suspect in that respect. Of course it’s fun to ask, “What if…”; but of course one has to be ready for the answer being “No.” This is yet another incarnation of the flying car, which is destined by the laws of physics and engineering and economics to be an epic fail. Why spend a quarter of a million dollars on something that does neither job well, when you can buy a great car and a great airplane for less, and they both do their jobs well?

By: Chrome

Chrome — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:39:00 +0000

According to what you say, all “intellectual exercise”s such as mathematics have no “point,” as they are not immediately applicable or not practical. It is however such exercises that advance the technology to the next level. Same goes for the Wright brother’s “plane” that could only fly a couple hundred meters, what’s the point of that? We now see the point as that basic idea has been developed to something viable.

By: John

John — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:30:00 +0000

Defaming a nice work behind the veil of being kind with unjustified assumptions/arguments while advertising the totally unrelated work of Google.

By: Mannard Mann

Mannard Mann — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:21:00 +0000

It’s not a “real” car until it runs at least 14′s in the quarter mile.

By: Phred

Phred — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:19:00 +0000

Making a flying car is a lot like putting wings on a blimp. It might be interesting as an intellectual exercise, but at the end of the day one is left with “what’s the point?” And while Chris Davies may believe that making driverless cars eliminates human fallibility, well, tell that to the guys were flown into the ground by their own flight control system at the Paris Air Show. If you really want to soar above the traffic, get your employer to let you use the internet to go to work. Then the people that do actually have to physically go there won’t be in gridlock, and those of us who work in cubes can just stay home in our jammys and get the job done.

By: Fox_bradley

Fox_bradley — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:18:00 +0000

Thats One hell of a Blind Spot lol.

By: Jlbrecher

Jlbrecher — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:17:00 +0000

So, the “you can’t do that” crowd is heard from. Anyone who is not opposed progress and free thinking have anything to add?

By: Pablo

Pablo — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:13:00 +0000

“Of course, the cars are only just getting approval for use on roads; we’re a long way off from something that can do the same in 3D space”
actually is more easy to drive an airplane by machine, or entirely by machine in that way, than a car on a common road.

By: ih8ut

ih8ut — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:08:00 +0000

“Still, not everyone is so cynical – or, perhaps,
as patient. Terrafugia says around 100 pre-orders have been placed for
the Transition already, at $10,000 a pop, with the final model expected
to cost $279,000.”

10,000 for deposit or the plane?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:55:00 +0000

Awesome vehicle.
Lame article.

By: jhdale

jhdale — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:33:00 +0000

“it’s not really a flying car.”

I believe the term they use is “roadable aircraft”. Anyway, it is a nice step along the way to the real flying car. This was never going to happen overnight….

By: Mike W

Mike W — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:18:00 +0000

So your argument boils down to:

“It’s not a flying car, it’s a plane that drives on roads.”

/facepalm