
Flying car closes in on FAA OK - tokenadult
http://www.bostonherald.com/jobfind/news/technology/view/20220812flying_car_closes_in_on_faa_ok_terrafugia_already_has_more_than_100_orders_for_its_279000_aircraft
======
axefrog
I think it would be more apt to call this a driveable compact plane. It
clearly looks a lot more like a plane than it does a car, it just happens to
be compact with folding wings and four wheels on the base.

~~~
dclowd9901
I,too, wonder how one gets off calling this a car. You even have to launch it
from an airport.

That old joke about "where are the flying cars? Have you ever heard of
airplanes" misses the essential dream: To go into your garage, hop in your car
and lift off and go wherever. _That's_ the flying car. Sadly, unless we make
some strides in the direction of gravitational manipulation or fusion drives,
I'm not sure that'll ever be a reality.

~~~
kemiller
I do agree that that's the true vision of the flying car, but I think there's
still room for something that is more car-like than the vehicle in the
article. Something that functions more or less like a car for short trips but
could replace freeway travel with air travel. And which requires considerably
less training/certification than an aircraft.

Still not an easy problem. Closest is probably the doomed Moller Skycar. Once
we have self-driving land-based cars (and widespread mainstream acceptance of
them), a lot will open up since we could relieve the burden of human control.

~~~
whileonebegin
I don't see how a flying car makes any sense. Instead of accidents on the
ground (which are fatal enough), now you'll have them falling out of the sky.

Granted, I was just in an accident a few weeks ago, and it dramatically
changed my view on driving altogether. Crashes aren't just something that
happens "to someone else". People are very irresponsible, reckless, and
impatient when it comes to moving vehicles.

~~~
kemiller
That's why you need advanced auto-pilot before this is feasible. And bear in
mind that there's a lot more room for collision avoidance in the air. You'd
probably have to have something like special lanes in the air to minimize the
number of directions that another vehicle could approach, and to keep them out
of the commercial airspace. You'd need a special license to go "off-road".

------
jnorthrop
If anyone is curious to see some picture of the vehicle they are here:
<http://www.terrafugia.com/photogallery.html>

It looks a little fragile to perform well as a car. I imagine a significant
pot hole might be enough to damage the skin. I understand the need to be light
and aerodynamic so that it is flight-worthy, but this looks more like a toy
then a real solution. It reminds me of those cars that can also perform as a
boat -- they do neither well, their remarkable feature is that they do both.

~~~
tamersalama
Good point - if as car it goes into a fender-bender. Who'd deem it airworthy?

~~~
jsight
Your A&P (Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic).

------
brk
Hrm... This seems a little like the worst of both worlds. It's horrible as a
car (in the sense of something you'd drive to work everyday), and for the
money it's not the most cost effective airplane either.

Many people seem to think "flying car" == "I can just launch and avoid all the
rush hour traffic, and then land in my driveway". The reality of course is far
different, you have to drive this to/from an airport.

I'm curious what problem this is intended to solve.

~~~
lotharbot
> _"This seems a little like the worst of both worlds."_

We (staff of the Museum of Flight) said the same thing about Moulton Taylor's
Aerocar [0]. It doesn't do either thing very well, and that's a big reason
there hasn't been a hugely successful product in the space yet.

That said, it does solve a specific problem: it cuts significant time off for
those who regularly make trips in the hundreds of miles, particularly between
semi-remote locations.

Imagine you lived in central Kansas, and had radio transmitters, oil fields,
or clients spread all across the state. You could fly from small airport to
small airport [1] in considerably less time than it would take to drive, and
then have a car available to drive out to your destination.

One of the advantages this variant has over other past attempts is that it's
classified under the (new) "Light Sport Aircraft" category [2]. It's much
easier to get a LSA license than a normal pilots license, among other things.

[0] <http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/taylor-aerocar-iii>

[1] <http://www.filmkansas.com/pages/airports> \- map of KS airports

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

~~~
brk
You'd have to be doing a _LOT_ of that sort of travel to offset the
acquisition cost ($280K) and ongoing maintenance (???) of something like this.

Setting your own schedule would certainly be beneficial, but it would take a
long time to justify that cost.

BTW, do you still have the B-17 out front?

~~~
lotharbot
> _"You'd have to be doing a LOT of that sort of travel"_

Of course. Most aircraft are significant investments; you don't drop that kind
of money unless you've got really good reason.

That said, if you're one of the few for whom this particular use case is
relevant, I can't think of a viable substitute. If you try to use a
traditional aircraft, you're left needing ground transportation at various
remote sites that may not have taxis. If you drive from site to site, you
might end up spending an extra 3-5 hours on the road every day. So if you're
running a high-revenue business that requires a high amount of travel, this
(or some other flying car) might be a game-changer.

> _"do you still have the B-17 out front?"_

I stopped working there when my son was born, and left the state a year and a
half ago. This is the first I've heard of the B-17 being out of its hangar,
but apparently it's open for summer tours:

<http://www.museumofflight.org/b-17-boeing-bee-bomber-tour>

------
baggachipz
What's funny to me is that when cruising in the air, it gets ~25 mpg; on the
ground, 35 mpg. <http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html>

~~~
aacook
I'm guessing that's because you're going 105-115 mph instead of 50 mph...
essentially twice as fast.

Surprising to see max speed is 115 mph, for some reason I thought it would be
much higher.

~~~
baggachipz
A lot of US interstates have a speed limit of 80; in that case it's only
marginally faster speed-wise. But, going between two points on a straight line
helps too. I'm more amused, though, that it's _less_ efficient when the wheels
_aren't_ touching the ground. I guess I always just assumed that air travel
was more efficient than a vehicle that touches the ground, creating lots of
relative drag.

~~~
volci
You travel a [generally] significantly shorter distance when flying, and at a
notably higher rate of speed (though normal cruise speed will likely be lower
than max rated)

So a drop in mpg is completely understandable

Also, there is a lot more causing drag (the wings at least) when it is flying
vs when it is on the ground

~~~
wes-exp
Also, planes need to continually lift your weight against gravity. There is
vertical force that needs to be produced in addition to the normal horizontal
travel.

~~~
tocomment
I thought the principal of lift means the aircraft is sort of resting on the
air (in a manner of speaking) and doesn't need to produce vertical force. Much
like a boat doesn't need to produce vertical force to stay above the water.

I may be completely wrong, the concept of lift never made sense to me. It
always seemed like free energy.

~~~
xb95
Sort of. (And caveat: I'm a software guy, I just happen to love airplanes.)

Airplanes generate only forward thrust (unless you're in a VTOL craft which we
won't talk about). This forward force is what ends up generating lift due
mainly to two particular, but separate, applications of physics.

First, wings take advantage of what is called Bernoulli's principle. Picture a
wing: it is longer on top than it is on bottom due to the "chamber" of the
wing. I.e., the asymmetric difference in the shape of the top and bottom of
the wing. This causes the air that flows over the wing on top to be at a
different speed than the air on bottom, since the air on top gets compressed.
(Remember that in a river, if the river narrows, the current speeds up because
you still have a stable amount of water to get downstream. If the volume
status the same, higher pressure = higher speed, roughly.)

So, by Bernoulli's principle, the slower air on bottom has more potential
energy than the air on top -- and that results in more outward pressure by the
air, i.e., it pushes up on the wing harder than the air on top pushes down
(which has more kinetic energy and less potential, due to the higher speed).
Because the wing is not creating energy, the air is merely converting to and
from kinetic/potential.

However, that's not the entire story of lift!

Wings are also angled, with their trailing edge down as compared to the
leading edge. This angle is defined as the "angle of attack". Think about it
like this: when you stick your hand out of the window of your car while
driving down the freeway at high speed, you can tilt your hand up and "take
off". The wind hitting your hand pushes it up because of the angle. This seems
kind of straightforward, right?

If you continue tilting your hand closer and closer to the vertical, at some
point it falls back down. You have "stalled" and are no longer generating
enough lift to fly. Airplanes do the same thing, so they have to balance the
lift they generate with the other factors.

Airplanes fly mainly through the combination of these two things: lift
generated by the relative difference in airspeed above and below the wing,
plus lift generated by the angle of attack.

I hope that is explanatory, and if I'm wrong on anything, someone else will
come correct me!

~~~
mikeash
Your picture of how lift works is fairly off base.

The speed difference being due to asymmetry is wrong. Symmetric wings still
generate lift by having air flow over the top faster than the bottom.
Symmetric wings flying upside down also still generate lift that way.
Asymmetry _helps_ , but is not necessary.

The important thing to understand about aerodynamic lift, and that few people
do understand, is that the Bernoulli's principle action and the air deflection
action are _the same thing_. They are not two different mechanisms which act
in concert. They are two different ways of looking at _a single phenomenon_.

If you deflect air downwards, you _will_ generate a speed and pressure
differential between the top and bottom of your wing. The pressure
differential will produce an upward force on the wing that is precisely equal
to the downward force on the air. Likewise, if you generate a pressure
differential between the top and bottom of the wing, you _will_ deflect air
downwards. They're two different results of the same action.

To truly understand why wings generate lift (which is the same thing as why
wings generate a faster airflow over the top than the bottom, or why wings
generate a lower pressure on top than on the bottom, or why wings deflect air
downwards), you need to understand the Kutta condition.

A wing moving through air has two stagnation points, which where the airflow
splits. There's a stagnation point at the front of the wing. Any air above
that point goes over the top, and any air below that point goes underneath. At
the back of the wing, the stagnation point is the point where the air from the
top and bottom meet again.

The location of the front stagnation point depends on the angle of attack. If
the wing is flat, the front stagnation point will be right at the leading
edge. As you tilt the wing upwards, the front stagnation point moves toward
the underside of the wing.

The Kutta condition says, in short, that air won't go around a sharp corner.
Thus, the rear stagnation point _is always at the trailing edge of the wing_.
This is why wings are shaped like a teardrop, and that sharp edge at the back
keeps the rear stagnation point from moving around.

With the front stagnation point mobile, and the rear stagnation point fixed,
you have an asymmetry that causes circulation. This is a rotational component
to the airflow around the wing which causes air to flow over the top faster
than the bottom, such that the stagnation point is at the trailing edge. This
circulation causes the air to be deflected downward, and causes lift.

In summary, wings generate lift by deflecting air downwards, which is
equivalent to saying they generate a pressure difference between top and
bottom, which is equivalent to saying they generate a speed difference between
top and bottom. Wings accomplish this by having a sharp trailing edge, which
causes circulation that deflects the air. Wings are shaped the way they are
not because the asymmetry is necessary to generate lift, but merely because
it's more efficient that way, by changing where the front stagnation point
occurs, or by generating less turbulence in the air.

------
rdtsc
It is all fun can games until a teenager drives their car into the side of
this and the $300K flying car needs to be replaced.

~~~
blhack
How is that different than some person driving into the side of a lamborghini?

------
joeguilmette
This is more for pilots who want a more mobile aircraft than normal folk who
want a car that flies.

Owning a Cessna means you have to pay for a tiedown or a hangar at an airport.
With this, you can hangar it in your garage. The added expense doesn't really
make sense, but it certainly makes it more convenient.

The same with premium laptops, people like myself don't mind paying an extra
$1000 for a MacBook knowing its an easier, smoother experience. Likewise, a
wealthy pilot might prefer this to a Cessna because it makes things simpler.

------
Kilimanjaro
The first 100 units will be delivered to the cartel of sinaloa, the cartel of
jalisco is on the waiting list for another 100 units.

I am buying stock.

------
mikeash
I seriously don't understand the appeal of this. For the money they're
charging, you could buy a great normal plane, a great normal car to use to
drive to the airport, _another_ great normal car to keep at the other airport
you use most often, and have enough money left over to rent cars at other
airports you visit for the rest of your life.

~~~
kirubakaran
That is the price _now_. Competition and mass production will drive that down
(if not for this particular manufacturer / model, for others in the same
category).

~~~
repiret
Competition and mass production hasn't brought the price of any Part 23 (not
kit) plane below 6 figures.

There's less variety of engines than airplanes, so the engines are produced in
greater volume, but even after years of mass production their prices are still
high - a new 150-200 HP engine will set you back more than a nice luxury
sedan.

------
amurmann
Knowing nothing about aviation, I find air planes with one engine very scary.
Even when I am not traveling in it, since I don't want one to fall on me
either. So I am glad we probably won't see millions of these "flying cars"
being sold. If I imagine to have one of these fall off the sky as often as I
see broken down cars on the side of the freeway...

------
Kilimanjaro
My dream of a flying car is a small harrier in the shape of a porsche.

Vertical take off and landing should be priority number one.

------
joshuahedlund
This sounds cool but I'm not familiar with it. Why is it called a "flying
car"? Is it the price point - is $279K significantly cheaper than most private
airplanes? Or is there something in the construction that makes it more
"carlike" than most private airplanes?

~~~
nsxwolf
"Roadable airplane" doesn't get the web traffic "flying car" does.

If you just want an airplane, you can get a lot more airplane for $279k. You
can get a nice new Cessna 162 for $150k.

I'm not sure what the benefit of the concept is. You're only ever going to
drive it from your house to the airport and back. A routine traffic accident
will be very expensive and will attract unwanted attention and paperwork from
the FAA and NTSB.

If you buy a regular plane you can leave it at the airport for very reasonable
tie down or hangar fees, and know it's going to be safe and well cared for.

edit: Anticipating an objection, one could posit this is good for commuters.
There is actually a segment of the general aviation population that fly
themselves to a job in another city and back every day. You could use a
roadable aircraft to drive to the office.

I'd say it's cheaper and better to buy a car and pay to keep it parked at the
airport.

Still looking for any practical advantage. If anyone thinks of one I'd love to
hear it.

Just thought of another possible objection: "But you don't have to get out,
you can just drive into the airport and take off"... no, you can't. You're
getting out of that plane to do your preflight checks or you have a death
wish.

~~~
gnaffle
I think the biggest motivation for me would be to be able fly to someplace,
maybe a small airfield, and not have to worry about making arrangements for a
rental car or find someone to pick me up.

I doubt this is the final answer, but it's a good start.

------
nateabele
Better headline: "Beat the TSA for under $300K".

~~~
btgeekboy
For what it's worth, you can beat the TSA for under $30k - a used Cessna 150
can be had for around that price. The cost of a rental car at your destination
will take quite a while to add up to the other $270k.

~~~
nateabele
But that's nowhere near as fun.

------
volci
Terrafugia (and others) have been making fantastic technological inroads
across industries: good to see the FAA is taking solid note

------
hammersend
We already have flying cars. We just call them "helicopters".

~~~
alecdibble
It's kind of hard to drive helicopters down the highway.

~~~
mikeash
Not more difficult than flying it anywhere else. Just make sure to watch out
for wires.

~~~
alecdibble
I didn't know flying and driving were synonyms these days.

~~~
mikeash
The only difference is the altitude, and helicopters can go as low as you
dare.

~~~
alecdibble
I assumed driving meant moving on land with a (most likely) combustion-powered
platform that was connected to the land with wheels. No wheels and no ground
contact sounds like hovering to me.

