
Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!) - graffitishark
http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=635469588001
======
codex
Yikes, what a death trap. This monstrosity combines the unreliability of a car
with the dangers of a small aircraft.

Cars are not as reliable as aircraft because they're not maintained as well,
and the operators are far less disciplined.

It is generally accepted that small aircraft aviation is generally 10x less
safe than driving on both a passenger-mile and per-trip basis. And most small
aircraft are flown for recreation, not transportation. When you fly for
transportation there is a need to get from point A to point B on some
reasonable schedule, which pressures the pilot to take all kinds of risks with
weather, maintenance, etc. And that's for a rigorously licensed pilot. I doubt
that the pilots that fly this thing will be up to the quality of even your
average Cessna pilot.

Combine these two factors, and you have a flying coffin. I would not be
comfortable living within even a hundred miles of one of these.

~~~
jaysonelliot
I'm amazed by the "It'll never work" attitudes of people sometimes.

I suppose there's a good feeling that comes from pointing out perceived flaws
and problems in things, or from treating emerging inventions as though they
were fully commercialized products.

I can only imagine what erstwhile tech forums would have read like if they'd
been around when Edison was churning out ideas at Menlo Park, or if there had
been internet commenters looking over Marconi's shoulder, or Bell's.

~~~
codex
I think flying cars will eventually be commonplace, but when they are they
will be piloted by AIs.

------
dools
This is the tribal adoption scenario he's referring to:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincaye>

~~~
jessedhillon
I was also more intrigued by that story than by the car/plane. This is his own
account of the story, and his investigation years after the killing:
<http://www.atanycost.org/images/DidTheyHaveToDie.pdf>

~~~
gaelian
From the PDF:

"Soon they decided to try the bucket drop, a technique Dad had developed to
deliver and retrieve items from missionaries who had no airstrip. He circled
his plane overhead in tight circles while a long cord with the goods attached
was reeled out behind the plane. Air friction on the basket at the end of the
line would make the cord cut to the inside of the circle flown by the
airplane, while the weight of the basket caused the cord to fall. When enough
line was extended behind the plane, the end of the line would actually hang
motionless in the air. Letting out more line at that point would make the line
drop straight down where it could be made to hover just above the ground."

I have never before heard of this technique. Sounds like it would take a lot
of experience to make it work. Very cool.

------
Sukotto

      What we want to do is develop a commercial market. Sell it
      to people up here for whatever they want to do with it. So 
      we can get the quantity up so we can get the cost down so 
      we can serve the humanitarian missions market which is our 
      primary market.
    

I wish the One Laptop Per Child people had taken this route instead of the
"for a limited time each year, we'll force you to buy TWO of these (and donate
one of them) for each ONE that you want" approach that they chose to do.

The end result was noble in that you were contributing to charity. But the
_way_ they did it made me feel like they were gouging people.

------
SeoxyS
The big problem with his "stuck in traffic" scenario is how do you find the
space to take off. Not to mention the legality of the whole thing.

Granted, it's a really cool demo, but he needs to admit that there is little
real-world practicality.

~~~
stretchwithme
His focus is on serving the third world. It is clear in the video you need a
runway and you don't have one when stuck in traffic. Or probably the room you
need to deploy the wing.

I think he should play up the fact that this takes off with half the speed
Marty McFly would need to turn on his flux capacitor.

~~~
Zak
_It is clear in the video you need a runway_

He said it could take off from a football field and clear the stanchions. It
evidently needs a 300 foot unpaved field and a bit of space around it without
anything exceedingly tall. That's pretty good performance, and you can get by
with a lot less than a proper runway, but it can't take off from a traffic
jam.

------
benhoyt
Wow, that's great. Here's a video showing more taking off, flying, etc:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8b0oR0-Pgo>

~~~
sunjain
Thanks. This was very useful and complimentary to the main video; it gives a
better picture of how they setup the mast, take-off and land.

------
yason
If people had these, it wouldn't of course solve any of the classical 50's
flying-car-in-a-traffic-jam problems. Instead, the jam would materialize mid-
air with hundreds of these little flying cars looking for a strip of highway
to land nearby a supermarket before they all run out of gas and start dropping
like flies, unless they've already crashed into each other in the uncontrolled
airspace in a very uncontrolled manner.

Luckily the guy was apparently envisioning usecases for medical and rescue
team, mostly.

~~~
danparsonson
And then there's the unshielded people-blender mounted on the back....

Looks great for the emergency services market he's aiming at, but for the
consumer market he wants to target to help get things moving - scary stuff.

~~~
chrislomax
I thought exactly these two points when he said it's great for when you are
stuck in a traffic jam and you can fly over everyone at 40mph. Well, not if
everyone is already in there air! It would be funny in a weird twist of fate
that if this was adopted an in 1000 years everyone started buying road cars
again to avoid the airways congestion...

I also thought about the props when he was just driving round, I don't know
what laws are like in the USA but if you are caught with a lump of wood
sticking out the back of the car in the UK then you get pulled over, never
mind 6 x 3 foot knives!

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The air is a whole lot bigger than the ground. Roads are 33 ft wide. The air
is - the air! Its miles wide and 3D. It would conceivably be had to collide
with another air car if you tried.

Takeoff and landing is the risky time, and that is mitigated by the timing -
it takes seconds to land this thing (100 yd airstrip) so you'd have to attempt
to land at the same moment as someone else which is in your favor.

~~~
chrislomax
I agree but at the same time you would have hot spots. Shopping centres etc
etc. This car is also not automated so how would you avoid mid air collisions?
You would obviously need to land near your street, so there would need to be
designated landing strips, you couldn't just plonk down in a field somewhere.

It would be like frequencies too, you would only be able to fly in a limited
amount of "space". The rest would be reserved for airplanes and helicopters.

It's only the same as airplanes having to follow flight paths, there would be
directions that car-o-planes could go in.

I know what you are saying but imagine London or New York with flying cars
everywhere. The end result would really be no different. Concentrated areas
with millions of cars flying in it.

Although... <http://www.firebox.com/product/415/Moller-Skycar-M400>

------
jonsmock
My favorite part is at 2:42 when they show the fairly plain dashboard, and you
see a lone toggle switch marked "Fly".

------
jeffool
For all his talk of "flying over traffic," that he realizes how super-rural
areas (places without roads) could be a major benefit from this is great. And
smart.

(Assuming it costs less than a small plane, which I imagine it does, and can
carry an extra person reasonably.)

~~~
lucasjung
The more I think about this scenario, the less sense this vehicle makes.

He says it needs about 300 feet to take off and land--any decent bush pilot
can do that with the right plane, and the best can do far better[1]. A used
bush plane probably costs about the same as one of these things, and you can
go several times faster than 40 mph. You could carry a lot more stuff, too.

But what if the landing strip is any significant distance from the place
you're trying to get to? Well, if all of the terrain in-between is unsuitable
for landing (forest, jugle, or just plain rugged), it's probably too rough for
a tiny little car like this, too. Even if you [i]could[/i] use the car mode to
go that last mile or so, it would still probably be faster to fly the first
several hundred miles of the trip in a bush plane and then go the last bit on
foot (or mule, etc.) rather than fly the first part at 40 mph and drive the
last bit.

If you're talking about shorter trips (tens of miles instead of hundreds)
without roads, it would be cheaper, faster, safer, and more effective to just
get a jeep.

Can anybody propose a (non-edge case) scenario where you _wouldn't_ be better
off with either a bush plane or a jeep?

[1]<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbHSRrcxzq8> (I should note that, while the
plane in the first part only needs a few feet to get airborne, the part it
doesn't show is where the pilot has to stay in ground effect to accelerate for
another 200 feet or so before he can climb away.)

------
smallegan
It seems like the takeoff distance could be greatly reduced if they were able
to momentarily use both the wheels and prop. That or some type of mechanism
that detects when the front wheels are leaving the ground and switches to the
prop.

------
DougLeppard
I recently joined the ITEC team that makes the Maverick car. They desire to
have a car that meets people's needs in remote areas. Often as you work in
remote or even disaster areas, roads stop or are blocked. With the Maverick
you pop up the sail and fly over the problem or take the shorter straight
route. It does take about 10 minutes or less to get ready to fly. Can take off
in 150 feet but 300 is advised for takeoff and landing, which is significantly
less normal small planes.

It is designed so that "everyday" people can fly it, because the sail it is
inherently more stable than a fixed wing aircraft. It has a steering wheel
that you turn right it goes right. To go higher give it more gas to go lower
give it less gas. No ailerons, flaps, rudder or elevator, it uses warping of
the sail to turn.

If you guys have questions about ITEC or the Maverick I would be happy to
answer them. BTW I have not flown in it yet, they only have the one proto-type
and three more are in production. But I have gone 92mph on the ground and it
can easily take my Corvette.

Doug at itecusa.org

------
anateus
Looks like an extended version of the ultralight trike:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_trike>

~~~
gibybo
Even closer to a powered parachute:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_parachute>

------
VladRussian
any flying car discussion can't be complete without mentioning at least
Hiller's, Piasecki's AirGeep and WASP :

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgNlumaVPDw>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SERvwWALOM> (modern attempt to repeat it
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBUOCK3FZxg&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBUOCK3FZxg&feature=related))

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAEi3SMVE60&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAEi3SMVE60&feature=related)

One of the Hiller's is here in Bay Area in San Carlos museum.

------
jbum
It's not a flying car, it's a driving plane.

~~~
nkassis
Actually he makes it clear in the video, it's a good car that can be driven in
excess of 95 mph does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. So it is definitively a flying car
;p

~~~
lucasjung
The only logical use case is as a driving plane, because using it as a car
more than the absolute minimum necessary would be prohibitively expensive.

First: insurance. You would have to insure it as both a plane and as a car,
and insurance companies aren't going to know how to handle that, which means
they'll either refuse to touch it or charge a premium. Even if such vehicles
became common enough for insurance companies to get comfortable with them,
they're still probably on the expensive side for cars, and repairing collision
damage on airplanes costs a lot more than repairing comparable damage on cars.
That's not normally such a big deal because collisions are much less common
for airplanes, but with this vehicle you would combine the high collision risk
of a car with the high repair costs of an airplane.

Second, and more importantly: maintenance. The FAA requires that periodic
inspections and preventative maintenance be conducted at regular intervals,
and those intervals are defined in terms of _the number of hours the engine
has been operating_ [1]. Airplane maintenance is _way_ more expensive than car
maintenance, but every hour you drive this thing on the road will count as an
hour towards maintenance required at airplane rates.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tach_Timer>

~~~
jeromec
_Airplane maintenance is way more expensive than car maintenance, but every
hour you drive this thing on the road will count as an hour towards
maintenance required at airplane rates._

Yes, but this isn't an airplane. It's a flying car ;)

Seriously, the maintenance comparison wouldn't appear to be the same. It looks
like this thing has a propeller attached to a drag style engine. I would
expect maintenance costs to be more akin to a souped up car than an airplane.

Also, by law to drive (in California at least) you're only required to have
liability insurance covering the party you hit. Covering your own vehicle is
optional.

~~~
lucasjung
The reason airplane maintenance is expensive isn't just that airplanes are
generally more complex. It's mainly because you have to pay a certified A&P[1]
to do it. You're not just paying for the work, you're paying for the entire
apparatus of certifications and inspections that backs it up.

> _Also, by law to drive (in California at least) you're only required to have
> liability insurance covering the party you hit. Covering your own vehicle is
> optional._

If you go this route, you have an even bigger incentive to keep it off the
road: if you get into a fender-bender, _you'll_ have to pay to the exorbitant
repair bill on your "car."

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Maintenance_Technician...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Maintenance_Technician#Certification)

~~~
jeromec
Sure, using an A&P is fine. I'd still imagine the maintenance costs on this
thing, consisting mostly of a drag engine, propeller, and chute would be less
costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree?

I do agree it would certainly make sense to opt in for covering the car as
well. I was mostly making the point the liability rule could be a baseline
showing insurance companies had no reason to charge a higher rate than, say, a
sports car (under a minimum coverage scenario where they cover only liability
costs).

It appears this vehicle costs $84K. I believe any person able to afford a 100K
class of car would certainly be able to pay the maintenance and insurance
costs to drive it _as a car_ ;)

~~~
lucasjung
> _Sure, using an A &P is fine._

Not sure what you were trying to say here, but using an A&P isn't "fine," it's
_mandatory_ , and it's very expensive.

> _...less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree?_

Maybe a little, but not significantly. This still misses the point: airplanes
are required to get periodic maintenance _way_ more often than cars, and
airplane mechanics cost _way_ more than car mechanics. The complexity of the
airplane isn't the primary cost driver, the frequent maintenance and the
safety requirements placed on that maintenance are.

> _It appears this vehicle costs $84K. I believe any person able to afford a
> 100K class of car would certainly be able to pay the maintenance and
> insurance costs to drive it as a car ;)_

I know a lot of people who own small planes. Most of of those planes were
purchased for a price comparable to this thing (because they were purchased
_used_ \--they would have cost considerably more than $84K if purchased new).
All of these people are upper middle class, so these planes represented
_major_ expenses for them. They all have to be very careful about how much
they fly their planes or they would break their budgets; using their planes as
cars would be a terrible waste of money.

Becoming certified as an A&P is a very expensive and time-consuming process,
but it pays off in the end for professional A&Ps because they can charge a
premium for their work. However, I know a few people who went through this
process even though they already have great careers and have no intention of
working professionally as A&Ps. Nor were they especially enthusiastic about
aircraft maintenance as a hobby. They did it because, in the long run, it was
cheaper for them to become certified so they could do all of their own
maintenance on their planes rather than pay somebody else to do it. _That's_
how expensive aircraft maintenance is.

~~~
jeromec
_Not sure what you were trying to say here, but using an A &P isn't "fine,"
it's mandatory, and it's very expensive._

I was trying to say factoring in an A&P wouldn't lead me to believe
operational costs would necessarily jump to be prohibitively expensive.

 _This still misses the point: airplanes are required to get periodic
maintenance way more often than car_

But you're still missing _my_ point. It's not an airplane :) In other words, I
would expect the work and associated costs (including a fully certified A&P)
to be quite different on a hot air balloon, let's say with an added engine
driven propeller, than on an airplane. The complexity difference is relevant
because there is less to go wrong for safety and repair.

 _I know a lot of people who own small planes...All of these people are upper
middle class, so these planes represented major expenses for them._

Yes, but I'd wager those planes are capable of more than 40 mph in the air,
and I seriously doubt they would have been bought by under such strenuous
expense if they were not. Boats can also represent a source of strained
expense, but, like airplanes, they provide recreational function outside the
normal cost of living. A person buying this vehicle at 84K with the duplicate
function of use _as a car_ , which happens to be capable of 40 mph in the air,
is probably going to be richer than upper middle class.

Hey, I'm just an observer looking in at all this. Maybe Maverick LSA hasn't
thought your points through, and their project path is flawed. My belief is
that it would be workable as a car.

~~~
lucasjung
> _But you're still missing my point. It's not an airplane :)_

I understand what you're saying, and you're wrong. You're wrong because as far
as the FAA is concerned, it _is_ an aircraft, and if you want to fly in their
airspace, you're going to have to follow the same exact rules as any other
aircraft of the same category. They're not going to let you skimp on their
safety and maintenance requirements just because you happen to drive it on the
road part of the time.

> _In other words, I would expect the work and associated costs (including a
> fully certified A &P) to be quite different on a hot air balloon, let's say
> with an added engine driven propeller, than on an airplane. The complexity
> difference is relevant because there is less to go wrong for safety and
> repair._

A hot air ballon _does_ have very different maintenance requirements, mainly
because it doesn't have an engine (the "P" in "A&P" is for Powerplants). As I
keep saying, the main driver of added costs isn't so much things in need of
repair, it's periodic maintenance. The FAA has rules that say, "After every
_n_ hours of engine time, you have to take your aicraft to an A&P for
[inspection or overhaul]." (There are other types of intervals as well, in
terms of airframe time or calendar time.) They don't care if those hours were
spent flying or driving, either way you have to go pay an A&P to do that
stuff. Those costs simply do not exist for cars, where maybe you have to stop
in for an annual smog check. The simplicity might save you a few hours of
labor costs with the A&P, but your cost structure is still going to be much
closer to "airplane" than to "car."

But even when something does need fixing, you're still going to pay a lot more
than you would to get a car fixed. The FAA won't let you go to a car mechanic
to get the "car parts" fixed, they will insist on having _all_ maintenance
performed by an A&P. They are correct to insist on this, because any time you
are flying it isn't 50% car or 40% car or 70% car, it's 100% aircraft.

> _Maybe Maverick LSA hasn't thought your points through, and their project
> path is flawed. My belief is that it would be workable as a car._

I think their target customer is a very small niche: people of means trying to
get around a country with lousy infrastructure. Odds are pretty good that a
country that lacks quality roads also lacks a serious aviation administration,
so all the stuff I've said about satisfying FAA safety requirements probably
wouldn't apply. That still leaves the very real safety issues of flying around
in something that wasn't maintained by someone qualified to work on aircraft,
in a place where the nearest repair and medical facilities are potentially
days away. A lot of this will probably be resolved by the fact that the kind
of person who is going to motor off into the wilderness of a third-world
country is probably the kind of self-sufficient person who gets qualified as
an A&P before venturing off into the middle of nowhere.

------
zizee
A very similar design to these guys:

<http://www.skycarexpedition.com/about_skycar.php>

I wonder who has been working on it the longest?

[http://www.gizmag.com/the-parajet-skycar-britains-flying-
dun...](http://www.gizmag.com/the-parajet-skycar-britains-flying-dune-buggy-
aims-for-timbouctou/9633/)

------
dhughes
To me a flying car is something which you could just decide to go up when
driving along on the freeway not spend half an hour assembling it before you
could fly.

I've always thought a lifting-body blimp/dirigible vehicle such as the size of
a minivan would do well, the majority of the space inside would be filled with
helium. Carbon fibre for the skin and other very light-weight materials would
be used.

It would be low speed and easy to control since it would fly fairly slow but
probably highway speeds.

The biggest problem would be crash protection that would require a lot of
extra material such as bumpers, safety glass, strong seat backs.

~~~
evilduck
_The biggest problem would be_

a massive source of helium.

~~~
dhughes
Plan B is a vacuum in a lightweight super strong carbon fibre shell.

------
jasongullickson
Two questions:

1\. How much 2\. How soon

I love the EAA, if you're attending the fly-in this year ping me and I'll
introduce you to my friend Chuck...

~~~
yannickmahe
1.) 84000 US$

2.) By Oshkosh 2011, which is end of july this year

<http://mavericklsa.com/FAQ.html>

------
BoppreH
Awesome. My only concern is the time to set up the wings, which seems quite a
work. He says the wings are under a zipper, and there's the big mast that
needs to be raised, this can't be quick.

~~~
ericmoritz
It takes about 5 minutes,
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8b0oR0-Pgo&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8b0oR0-Pgo&feature=player_detailpage#t=50s)

------
aphx
<http://motivationaltubing.com/> are the folks that actually designed and
built the Maverick.

------
stephenhuey
Interesting to note: his father was Nate Saint, the Missionary Aviation
Fellowship pilot who was killed with Jim Elliot in the jungles of Ecuador.

------
pitdesi
For those who are wondering about price - looks like it will be sold for
$84,000... not bad!

<http://mavericklsa.com/FAQ.html>

------
rkischuk
Going from 0-60 quickly in a flying vehicle isn't difficult until you hit the
ground.

~~~
DEinspanjer
watch the video. learn something.

------
aurora72
It looks like a HOAX, the video doesn't show the vehicle in a test fly, or
during a take off. 98% of the video either shows the vehicle going on the
ground just like other non-flying cars or shows people discussing about a
flying car.

~~~
hasenj
Why the downvote? it really does look _like_ a hoax.

Plus when people say "flaying car" I expect a sci-fi like flying care: that it
can hover and fly vertically, not have a parachute-like thing attached to it.

This one really almost looks like an april fools joke.

~~~
gvb
"It looks like a hoax" is not a useful comment and has no research to back it
up. The poster apparently did not even read the text under the linked video,
which says "[T]he FAA has also issued the Maverick a S-LSA aircraft
airworthiness certificate."

It is highly unlikely the FAA would issue a S-LSA[1] aircraft airworthiness
certificate to a hoax.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft>

<http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/aircraft_index.html>

