It kinda looks..
..like a baby OV-10 Bronco. Aww!
The Terrafugia Transition "roadable aircraft" - the nearest thing to a flying car yet built - has made its first test flight. Terrafugia says that the flight took place on March 5, and will hold a media briefing at 1430 UK time. Meanwhile pictures of the flight are available on the company's website. The Terrafugia Transition …
I wouldn't normally side with the insurance companies, but I would hope both.
I'm more worried by Stef's very valid point: Owner gets into a light fender-bender on the road. Like most pilots, (s)he's not qualified to certify airworthiness other than the walkaround and pre-flight, but decides it doesn't look too bad.
Takeoff, dangerous out-of-trim condition, and FLONK straight into a school for bunnies.
You'd hope most people would be more sensible than that, but all the evidence is to the contrary.
Side impact bars? Not needed with two sturdy wings either side, tho' visibility might be shafted...
Plus, if you can keep that spinny fan at the back going, it'll sure confuse the hell out of Gatso's (not the front-looking ones, sadly)
Don't like the idea of folding wings, however...They just might when least expected.
Can I get one in black (hence the icon...)?
Walk out of front door to garage, hop into driveable plane, drive to airstrip.
Fly to airstrip closer to work, drive to office car park. In afternoon reverse process.
No need to leave your car at the airstrip and get a taxi into work.
Next step up is driveable helicopter. Fly from your backyard to airstrip (or vacant lot as the Americans put it) and drive into work.
I doubt it would even come close to complying with construction and use regulations here in the UK. Are Merkin regs more relaxed? I wouldn't have thought so.
In particular I suspect that making it comply with crash safety regs would prevent it from flying. All the extra weight of side impact bars, safety cage, airbags etc. would certainly hold it back. However there are now lots of regulations which control the outer shape of a vehicle to enhance pedestrian safety and I suspect these would probably muck up the aerodynamics somewhat.
Then there is the question of handling. Looking at those wheels and their locations I doubt you'd be wanting to round any bends at "highway speed". Would it pass the infamous elk test? Again I suspect that modifying it to comply would muck up it's flying capabilities.
So a big hooray and 10/10 for effort, but qualified by one question: How long before they can build one that is truly roadworthy?
BTW I don't support the last couple of decades headlong rush towards secondary safety. Before we tackle secondary safety lets see what we can do to tackle primary safety and prevent the accidents in the first place. Worse still I suspect that the much trumpeted secondary safety features of modern cars actually lead many people to take less care when driving. If we were all driving round in cars with the secondary safety of a Renault 4 I doubt there would be nearly as many accidents. A friend of mine claims he now drives a lot more safely since he upped his voluntary exess to £500.
Look at all the checks to get hand luggage to the air side.
Terrorists won't need to hijack. They just need to carjack.
On the plus side, side visibility looks good. The wings fold up behind the cabin, so more visibility than the average van.
Whats its MPG?
According to Terrafugia it's a "roadable aircraft", not a flying car. And: "Perfect for trips between 100 and 500 miles, the Transition is not designed to replace anyone's automobile."
In ground mode the front wheels are driven via a CVT transmission (does this make it a DAF?). In air mode power is delivered to the prop through a carbon fiber drive shaft.
Nice to see a company at least trying.
'I doubt it would even come close to complying with construction and use regulations here in the UK. '
Having put a kit car through the Single Vehiclular Approval (SVA) I can say the there is no reason why this cant pass.. As long as it has covered wheels (mud/sprayguards), windscreen wipers, window heater/blower, seatbelts, accurate speedo, balanced brakes, brake light, method of indicating ( hand signs / lights) rear view mirror, not too loud, and not to harmful on the emissions, and has no sharp bits for a pedestrian to cut themselves on then it will be fine....
anythign else safety /comfort is optional...
there are no 'crash safety regs' in the UK.
if the vehicle passes an SVA it does not need type approval.
'Would it pass the infamous elk test?'
In the UK??
surely this is a demonstration not a test. the Merc A class is road legal! as are transit vans..
With very low front/rear overhang wide and long wheelbase with a very low centre of Mass I don't think it'll have any problems with corners.. like most 'pancake' kit cars if its longer than it is wide has a wheel at each corner has a low centre of mass then it will handle fine..
The only thing that worries me about this vehicle is tha sails...would it blow of the road?? it looks lightweight and has big sails (folded wings) in car mode... if its to windy to fly surely its to windy to drive???
"I doubt it would even come close to complying with construction and use regulations here in the UK. Are Merkin regs more relaxed? I wouldn't have thought so."
Actually I would say they are. A thing called the Experimental Aircraft Association holds a very big meeting in Oshkosh Wisconsin. most are home builts which (IIRC) don't have type approval as such. Some have been retro-fitted with rockets.
450miles. A fellow could take off in Mexico and commute quite a long way.
- Some PFY doing doughnuts in some parking lot, then
Immelman turns over said parking lot.
- Will this vehicle withstand the "turbulence" of the couple joining the mile high club?
- Loud rap music as the plane buzzes your house.
People drive bad enough on the ground, much less in the air!
Kit cars only have a Q if they're mostly made from second hand parts otherwise they get a normal plate..
two reasons for not getting a Q...
If its all made from New Parts in one year then it gets a NEW current year plate..
If 5 major parts are all from the same donor vehicle (eg: engine, gbox, steering rack, Diff & shafts, wheel carriers and hubs) you can use its registration year (new reg not same plate!). My H reg Kit from an H reg donor was first registered (new) in 2005 ... caused havoc trying to tell the copper its first registered in 05 so didn't need an MOT for three years.. also causes problems as MOT emissions are for the H reg Engine not the 2005 registered year...
Back in the early days, there were similar fantasies about the helicopter. Sikorski even made promotional movies showing a (small) helicopter with a grocery basket on the nose, landing next to the family car outside the driveway.
It never happened that way. Despite the dreams and fantasies.
What has changed? Nothing much. There is no real market for such transport. Just on the cost side there are a host of issues. Landing fees. Insurance. Etc. Flying is _not_ cheap.
And no ways in hell do I want a low-time "sports pilot" without the faintest idea of airmanship, flying his "car" around my neighborhood.
Nothing new though. Many years ago this was discussed (again) in one of Usenet's aviation newsgroups. As an experiment to see if the flying car concept has merit. Supporters of the concept provide 20 plus pilots to fly into and land on a sport stadium field in R-22's (about the size of these flying car prototypes). And we'll provide the body bags.
RE: Insurance. I would assume you would need specialist insurance for this vehicle and I assume it would be prohibitively expensive and restrictive.
RE: Accident Damage. I would assume here that the law / conditions of insurance would prohibit flying after any accident before the carplane was certified as air worthy.
RE: low flying / speeding. There are laws on low flying that can get you fined and your pilot's license revoked.
RE: Flying car. Never happen in my life time. Too dangerous, too expensive to make & run, licenses will be very difficult to get, most drivers really shouldn't so planes will be no better, air traffic control couldn't handle any great numbers, policing would be very difficult, would have to travel point a-airport-airport-point b rather than just a-b, most trips are local rather than long distance, and it is just a basically impractical idea.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019