"I'm sure that the company can rebuild the vehicle given that it is a prototype, but if that was a customer's production vehicle in ordinary use it would be a write off. Since when did a total write off classify as "seemingly limited damage"?"
Make your mind up.
If it's a write off, then it can not be repaired. If it can be repaired, it is not a write off. Pick one.
"One of the biggest problems with the whole idea of flying cars is what will happen to them after impacts on the road, even at parking speed. Anybody who flies light aircraft will tell you that you're not going to take off in a craft with any visible external damage. How do you fancy your flying car being grounded for very expensive investigative and repair work every time some idiot bumps it? You can't just pop the panel out and hope for the best after somebody biffs it at the pertrol pump."
I would have thought the fact that if you run out of petrol, you can't really push it to the nearest filling station would be a wee bit more of a problem.
But not being able to fly a damaged plane..
Why is that a problem? Seems a sensible safety measure.
Plane with visible or invisible damage must be deemed airworthy by a qualified person.
If a goose crashed into the wing, and bent a control rod, would the plane be airworthy?
Why should a bump from a car be any different if it happens at ground level or in the air?
Because when someone e wishes to fly in it, it stops being a car, and becomes a plane.
"But the attraction of flying cars is limited in reality anyway."
As is the attraction of hovercraft, boats, submarines, dune buggies, formula one racing cars, rally cars, off road vehicles, and stamp collecting.
"You're still going to need an airstrip to take off and land. The authorities aren't going to let you do that on the road you know."
I think pretty much everybody knows that.
"As a friend of mine says. The nearest airstrip to his house is about half an hour's drive away. OTOH he can land his R44 behind his house and right across the road from his office. When he can't land near his destination he gets a taxi. That, he reckons, is much faster and more convenient than driving to somewhere he's allowed to take off and then converting the car into a plane."
Question.. Which has the longer range.
Will the R44 make it from London to Paris, for a romantic dinner with the other half, or the mistress, or the secretary or who ever?
Because lets face it. If one can afford a flying car, one is not going to drive to the nearest Nandos.
Because the thing is..
This is NOT A PRACTICAL PURCHASE.
There is no business case to put forward. There is no rational reason to have one.
This is in aviation terms.. A jet ski.
But the thing that will clinch it for an unknown number of people is that it is FUN!!
This is a rich mans toy. Not a practical mode of transport. So trying to justify it like that is a waste of time.
A Yacht will not get me from England to Spain to pick up a case of Paprika for next week's dinner party quickly and cheaply. But it will get me there in an enjoyable way. And I can pick up a case of wine, and some tapas while I'm at it.
Renting a narrow boat will not get me from A to B as fast as a car, but I can enjoy the scenery as I go, and have a nice holiday.
It isn't always about practicality. Or ostentation.
Sometimes.. it's just fun.
Mine's the one with room for a third nipple.