
Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft - doh
http://www.aeromobil.com
======
mikeash
I just don't get the appeal of roadable aircraft like this.

Every single one I've seen is neither a particularly good airplane nor a
particularly good car, and they're _expensive_. For the price of one, you can
generally buy a better car, a better airplane, _and_ a second better car to
keep at your most frequent destination airport, _and_ have enough money left
over to rent cars at other destinations for years.

I can't find a price on this one, but I suspect it will be no different.

If you want a light plane, buy a light plane. There are plenty of them out
there, with a large variety. If you want a car, buy a car. Lots of reasonably
priced choices there. I just don't see why anyone would ever want a single
vehicle for both roles.

~~~
axxl
That's a little bit like saying 10 years ago that no one needs a smartphone,
it's a crappy phone and a crappy computer, it's too big and heavy and
expensive and you can't get data anywhere and it sucks to type on. Just buy a
phone for moving around and a computer for getting work done.

Things change. Anything could be the Apple Newton of the next big thing :).
(Although to be honest, I see transportation moving much more to a computer
controlled system rather than this, but just for the sake of argument).

~~~
notahacker
Unlike smartphones, the technology to build flying cars has existed for
decades, and it's fundamental laws of physics rather than Moore's law that the
designers have to combat to try to give them better performance
characteristics than a WWI aircraft.

If you've already lost the time saved by not switching from car to aircraft a
minute or two into the flight it's not that practical except in situations
where there's absolutely no chance of getting a taxi or hire vehicle at the
end. Suffice to say it isn't going to be a cheap solution to that relatively
rare problem.

~~~
wtvanhest
I agree with the general premise that flying cars are not a good idea in the
near future, but I strongly disagree with your point.

1st) "fundamental laws of physics rather than moore's law" is a great analogy
since people over time have continually cited physics as what will stop
Moore's law. Some argue that it has in recent years done just that.

2nd) Like smartphones, the technology to build flying cars has evolved and
will continue to evolve. I'm not an expert on aircraft or cars, but I can
think of some areas that will make this easier right away. A) by moving all
controls to fly/drive by wire, we can reduce weight, B) Materials technology
has improved dramtically. C) Battery technology has improved. Maybe not for
flying, but for systems. D) Weight can be further reduced by having all
controls in one small computer which will eventually be the size of a smart
phone instead of the size of a desktop, E) Fuel economy is improving in both
cars and airplanes.

But... Here is what I think can really make it happen, and what will make it
happen. When cars and planes can both fly themselves with full automatition
from point to point without pilot intervention, we will see flying cars. The
reason stems from the fundamental problem that 99% of people don't know how to
fly, and of those that do, only a small percentage can fly, afford and want to
own a car/plane.

I don't know anyone who wouldn't be interested in hoping in a fully automated
vehicle which would fly them from point to point at 500 mph. You could work
250 miles away from where you live.

It will happen, just not for a long time.

------
dsr_
The appeal of the flying car is imaginary: what people immediately fantasize
about is rolling out of their driveway, finding a clear stretch of road, and
taking off.

Make that one hour commute a lovely fifteen minute flight!

But that can't actually happen. The month of driving practice needed to get a
license becomes a year or more of pilot school. The damage inflicted by motor
vehicle accidents is already horrendous enough without adding a thousand
meters of altitude into the equation.

~~~
SuperChihuahua
We just have to upgrade Google's driverless car. And the drawbacks you mention
are the same drawbacks when we stopped using horses. Why do you need a
dangerous car when you can use a more safe horse without a drivers license?

------
johngalt
Everyone builds a flying car, but I've always thought that motorcycles had
more in common with light aircraft. Narrow body, low weight, high rpm engines
etc...

If I were designing a road/air vehicle. It would be a motorcycle with
detachable wings/prop.

~~~
reirob
[http://www.wimp.com/flyingbike/](http://www.wimp.com/flyingbike/)

[http://www.designboom.com/technology/flying-hovercraft-
bike-...](http://www.designboom.com/technology/flying-hovercraft-bike-by-
aerofex/)

------
SuperChihuahua
It's a good attempt, but I believe the definition of a flying car is a car
that doesn't need to drive to the airport?

~~~
nmcfarl
Given current roadway infrastructure I think that would preclude any sort of
"plane" other than Harrier style VTOL craft, and from what I understand those
are expensive and difficult even for the military. Your other option would be
a helicopter.

For my personal definition this complete works. But I have no clue which of us
is more representative of the public…

~~~
canthonytucci
While technically this is a flying car, I think the Jetsons' version is the
one people are really wanting.

------
monkey_slap
I love these things, I think concepting road to air is a great field that I
encourage people to explore.

However, I think people should refrain from making a business out of this. Use
research funds to push boundaries! I can't help but look at this page and
video and think that they are trying to make money off of it.

Speaking as a pilot, a lot of aircraft are built with crashing in mind. Just
look at the 777 crash at SFO recently. Judging this craft simply by the video,
I have serious doubts that this craft would keep you very safe in an air
emergency. I'd love to see what its glide ratio is.

Another issue with current road->air systems is the need of 2 powerplants: one
for the road and one for the air. For road travel, the extra weight is not
that big of an issue. However, the weight of the road engine (batteries if it
were electric) puts serious limitations on its airworthiness and stability.

------
robomartin
These things keep coming up. Here's the part i don't get: Who are these people
who think it is a good idea to invest in such ventures? Really.

Let's put pen to paper and figure this out.

The cost of an aero car is likely to be in the $300K range. This does not
include maintenance, insurance (insurance!) and other operating costs.

Well, to put it in very simple terms, with $300k you can buy a nicely equipped
Tesla AND an equivalent Cessna and still have up to $200k left in the bank
--depending on the airplane cost which starts $10K.

Going this route means that you'll have ZERO FUEL COSTS while on the road and
a dedicated aircraft that is well-tested, proven and with a history of
millions of flight miles.

But, wait! You can rent an aircraft for somewhere in the $75 to $250 per hour
range. No jets. I am looking at Cessna 152 to 182 class aircraft. The aerocars
are roughly equivalent to the low end of the Cessna range.

If you buy a Tesla and rent aircraft you have zero on-ground fuel costs as
well as over $200K in the bank. Depending on the model you rent you have
enough money for over 2,500 hours of rentals. You also have zero aircraft
maintenance and operating costs. If you play it right 100% of the rental costs
are tax deductible.

It is important to note that this also gives you aircraft at every airport in
the world where such aircraft are rented. This beats owning a plane by a
massive margin.

But, wait! How much do you really fly per year. Really?

Nah, these things are bad ideas. Interesting from an engineering perpective.

Maybe Tesla should market a flying car deal: buy a Tesla and the fuel you'll
save will buy you several domestic flights per month. Maybe they can make a
deal with flight schools to get people certified at a discount and then they
can rent planes at a discount as well.

Again, I have to wonder who invests in these things. I remember reading about
one that got some $40 million from investors. Learn to use a friggin
calculator.

------
tzs
Something doesn't add up. From the specs in automobile mode, fuel consumption
is 7.5 l per 100 km, and the range is 500 km.

From that, we can deduce that it has a 37.5 l fuel capacity.

Now let's look at the specs for plane mode. It says that it has a range of 700
km, and consumes 15 l per hour. At 15 l per hour, it would take 2.5 hours to
go through 37.5 l, but to go 700 km in 2.5 hours takes an average speed of 280
km/hour. The specs say that the top speed is 200 km/hour, so what is going on?
(They do say "and more" for the top speed, but I would not expect the listed
speed to that far under the real top speed).

------
gremlinsinc
I doubt from a safety standpoint they will be allowing this in our airspace- -
people wreck their cars all over the place, the last thing we need is cars
falling out of the sky, or more ways to die. -- Doubt the FAA will ever
greenlight this..at least here in America doesn't seem feasible. Possibly in
30 years - -when there's an automated version -- ie set coordinates and it
handles all routing/air-traffic control mechanisms -- think google auto-
driving car for personal aircrafts... that would be huge.. but still a distant
dream.

~~~
jeffasinger
I think getting it street legal will be a much bigger battle.

There's no reason that this couldn't be certified as a LSA
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-
sport_aircraft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft)).

------
tucaz
I know nothing about airplane physics but looks like this one sways a lot with
the wind. I can't imagine it taking a big wind hit and keep flying. Looks
dangerous.

------
ianstallings
Oh geez, another one. These things never work out because the regulations for
airplanes and cars combined could easily kill a man if dropped from a three-
story window.

------
JDDunn9
Just another toy for the wealthy. I'm still looking for something like the
Moller Skycar with auto-pilot. Getting a pilot's license is too
hard/expensive/takes too long for it go mainstream. It would also be nice if
it used something stronger than a propeller (not sure if jet engines work on
small aircraft). If it's going to replace plane trips, it needs to go a lot
faster than 60mph.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
60MPH was the minimum airspeed. The max was 124. Takeoff was 90.

------
savrajsingh
Great concept, but I call "vaporware" for several years to come. We're all
still waiting for Icon Aircraft, the light-sport aircraft you can tow behind
your car. [http://www.iconaircraft.com](http://www.iconaircraft.com).
Deliveries are waitlisted until 2017 -- and Icon doesn't try to be a car as
well. ;)

------
Nux
The idea of flying car, while very nice and present in many scifi creations
should not happen, at least not with humans controlling it manually.

We have already countless idiots on the roads, I don't want them in the air as
well; I'd be afraid to get out of my house.

------
splendidfailure
Interestingly, this also came out today:
[http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/moller-signs-
agree...](http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/moller-signs-agreement-to-
advance-skycar-development/)

------
mdesq
It looks like it barely lifts off and even then doesn't look particularly
stable.

------
jasonhanley
I'm pretty sure Terrafugia is much further ahead:
[http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transitionR](http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transitionR)

But competition is always good!

~~~
doh
Hm, I don't think so. These guys are working on it almost 20 years. They just
spoke at Bombardier conference in Canada
[http://www.sae.org/events/atc/](http://www.sae.org/events/atc/)

------
Zigurd
If you can afford to own and fly a light plane, you can afford a rental car or
an "airport car" you keep at your usual destinations. The scope of the problem
this solves is vanishingly narrow.

------
nobodysfool
I like that the material it's made out of is called "steal".

------
ksrm
"Roadable"? Really? I was unaware road was a verb.

