Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

There'll be flying cars!

StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
The Transition by [URL="http://www.terrafugia.com/"]Terrafugia[/URL] is going into production. You can see it in action [URL="http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93804?fp=1"]here.[/URL]

While it's a commendable step into an interesting direction, I'm not sure it's going to catch on with the general public. You will still need a runway as it is not VTOL capable. It may get a conversation started with your socialite friends, but not much more, I'm afraid.

It's indeed no BR Spinner.

Comments

  • EclecticonautEclecticonaut Elite Ranger
    No VTOL - no benefits.
  • FreejackFreejack Jake the Not-so-Wise
    And you still need a pilots license, abet a more limited one.

    ...and it's ugly, I mean at the very least flying cars should have fins and lots of extraneous chrome.

    Jake
  • HuntSmackerHuntSmacker Firstones Ambassador to Starcraftia
    Looks like a plane to me... except with a steering wheel.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    I guess it will be popular in [url=http://www.killbots.net/gallery/alaska2010/IMG_0325]this neighbourhood[/url].
  • Hopefully the car manufacturers will now take in consideration, that car crash can happen from the above as well.. Need more airbags.
  • bobobobo (A monkey)
    Also popular [URL="http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.570854,-98.467605&spn=0.005179,0.010568&t=h&z=17"]here, near San Antonio, TX.[/URL]
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    Not sure how the Transition stacks up against an autogyro...

    [IMG]http://www.tomotoaviation.com/images/Xenon/aa20.jpg[/IMG]

    [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY8SmllLcIU"]At least you get VTOL.[/URL]

    What I find a bit puzzling is that the autogyro does not need a tail rotor to keep it from spinning on itself. I suppose the blades aren't spinning fast enough to cause this effect.

    In the picture above it only has a pusher prop to help it move forward.
  • MelkorMelkor Elite Ranger
    The very simple answer to your question stingray, is that an auto-gyro doesn't need a tail rotor because the main rotor isn't powered, so there's no torque to counter. The blades are pitched in such a way that they catch the air, which in turn causes the rotor to spin and provide lift. This is also why auto-gyros have a tractor/pusher prop. They need the forward movement provided by a more traditional prop in order to keep the main rotor spinning and to stay in the air. Because of this though, they can't do alot of things a regular helicopter can, such as hover or perform a true VTOL.

    That video actually illustrates that very well. It required a person turning the main rotor until it caught the wind sufficiently enough to allow the pilot to perform a very short takeoff by flying into the wind.
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    And of course there is [url=http://www.moller.com/]Moller[/url].
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    That's a nice design, I've seen it before, I just didn't know it was that far along. Sweet!

    The question remains though, do we really want that kind of traffic above our heads? Does this actually make sense to have a personal flying car? I'm not sure that it does. If you think about how many planes crash every day and those people are trained and skilled pilots. Can you imagine Joe Schmoe flying this thing?
  • I'd approve "flying cars" only if their maximum flight altitude would be only few centimeters above the pavement.

    Having real flying cars sounds too absurd, you'd need to remove the human element from the flight controls to make it even somewhat safe.

    Remember kids, dont drink and fly!
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Flying "cars" of the kind we are used to from movies (not Back to the Future) will be a viable reality only when they are fully-automated. Until then, it's simply not safe for anyone without a suitable license to fly one. That's why the Transition still requires a pilot's license, even if it is a relatively easy-to-get one.
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    I suspect flying cars are only seriously attainable once a non-powered emergency landing becomes viable. The issue with most of the options out there now is largely derived from the immense amount of power required to be maintained on three to five engines just to hold altitude. Losing one or two of these results in a situation that a trained pilot would likely be able to address, but not a casual driver. Ducted fans are nice for packaging and efficiency reasons, but their common use (as seen on the Moller Skycar) is just outright scary in untrained hands.

    Because of this, I [b]love[/b] the autogyro. Mechanically, they're simple as dirt (as explained above by Melkor) and only [i]require[/i] one engine. Several modern designs have come and gone which substantially approved on occupant safety, durability, and cost, but none have caught on due the base design being generally perceived as obsolete and slow (or being mistaken by the press or investors as single point-of-failure vehicles).

    The glorious part about Autogyros is illustrated below:


    No engine? no problem. Forward motion is slowly reduced (if not eliminated entirely) over time by the passive prop, while descent speed remains controlled. So long as there is any forward motion, rudder and pitch control are still available.

    What irks me is why passive rotor assist gyrocopters are not considered as viable. (I know there's a better term for this...) By giving the passive rotor an early spin-up by way of a free-wheeling link to the primary engine, near-VTOL can be achieved with minimal torque-induced spin. Considering that no production car currently has a zero-meter turn radius (given how critical that function is to parking and navigation), I don't see why a flying car would be expected to have a zero-meter launch distance. And as illustrated, an autogyro can most certainly land without incident with full motion cancellation.
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    It's obvious that the flying car is just one side of the problem. As long as we don't have automated highway traffic there is no point in adding another dimension.

    The clip above shows how a skilled pilot can set down his autogyro without his pusher prop and this without causing excessive stress to the frame. Just by the look of it insurance companies would have to raise their prices to compensate for the steep increase in risk. You'd also need to add some infrastructure to accomodate this mode of transportation.

    So far I see the flying car only in special purpose roles in the hands of organisations and not the broad public.

    I don't quite see myself flying to work every day.
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    There's nothing to say a relatively simple GPS-guided computer couldn't simplify the operation of a vehicle. In fact, I doubt it would be at all possible to do anything close to a "flying car" without some dramatic oversimplification of its flight operations.
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    [QUOTE=Stingray;189023]That's a nice design, I've seen it before, I just didn't know it was that far along. Sweet!

    The question remains though, do we really want that kind of traffic above our heads? Does this actually make sense to have a personal flying car? I'm not sure that it does. If you think about how many planes crash every day and those people are trained and skilled pilots. Can you imagine Joe Schmoe flying this thing?[/QUOTE]

    Did you see the research they did with the retrofit Ferrari? OMG, that's so cool... :D
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    What all those "flying cars" fail to do is provide you with a real "car" experience. So far what we've been shown are somewhat ugly planes.

    A car needs to have proper tires that perform well on tarmac. If it rains or worse you need proper traction at reasonable speed. You won't get that with those tiny tires.

    [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk9sVPIAMKs"]As Top Gear keeps showing us, you won't get far with a tricycle.[/URL] :D

    All those "flying cars" work fine as concept designs but they fare poorly in daily use.

    That doesn't mean it won't happen, but as you said, these things need to get a lot simpler, and safer, before they can be let loose on the general population.
  • StingrayStingray Elite Ranger
    [QUOTE=JackN;189032]Did you see the research they did with the retrofit Ferrari? OMG, that's so cool... :D[/QUOTE]

    You mean the [URL="http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128&Itemid=105"]Autovolantor?[/URL]

    It looks like a toy car to me. It's something out of an Iron Man movie. :D

    This doesn't like you would be able to fit any luggage into the trunk, at all. ;) Again, you don't get the real (family) car experience.
Sign In or Register to comment.