backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by jRaskell.. on Mar 23 at 1:38 PM


  (Source: Terrafugia)

The maiden flight  (Source: Terrafugia)
We're one step closer to flying cars

The Terrafugia Transition car/plane may seem like a concept straight out of Back to the Future II or The Jetsons, but researchers want to prove that it's for real.

The Massachusetts-based company's part-car, part-airplane flew for 37 seconds before successfully landing on the runway.  The Transition apparently leans towards being a "roadable aircraft" that is an airplane capable of being driven on the highway.

"The first flight is great, but first landing is what matters," Terrafugia co-founder and COO Anna Mracek Dietrich told Discovery.  "The flight was remarkably unremarkable.  The point of the test was to prove this could both fly and drive."

Powered by regular unleaded fuel, the Transition has a regular steering wheel, telescopic stick, and rudder pedals located on either side of the gas and brake pedals.  A single tank of gas allows it to travel up to 500 miles.

The vehicle is able to go from drive mode to fly mode in just 30 seconds, which is the length of time it takes for the wings to fully extend and lock into place.  Furthermore, Transition needs at least 1,700 feet of runway space to take off.

While Transition is in folded driving mode, it is 19-feet long and 80 inches wide, while six feet, 9 inches high.  It's a few inches shorter while ready to fly, and has a total wingspan of 27 feet, 6 inches, Terrafugia said in a statement.

Engineers will study the first test flight and begin to make slight modifications that will help improve future test flights.

To fly Transition, pilots must have at least a light sport plane pilots license, which allows pilots to fly planes less than 1,350 pounds in total weight.

Terrafugia hopes to have the Transition on the market before 2012.  To date, around 40 people have dropped $10,000 as a deposit for the vehicle that will cost a total of $194,000.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fly Mode FTW
By abraxas1 on 3/20/2009 9:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
Oh how I wish I could go to "fly mode" when stuck in traffic.




RE: Fly Mode FTW
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/20/2009 9:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Transition needs at least 1,700 feet of runway space to take off


Doubtful :)


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By rdeegvainl on 3/20/2009 9:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
maybe if they combine this with the osprey concept, for helo like liftoff, or maybe the JSF they are making for the marine corps.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By Calin on 3/20/2009 9:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
Osprey is very difficult to fly - and one would need both a helicopter and a plane license to fly it.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By rdeegvainl on 3/20/2009 10:22:09 AM , Rating: 2
talking from an engineering standpoint only. I think that getting flying cars licensed at all will be quite a headache, and insurance.... forget about it. This will be reserved to the rich for at least a few decades after there is a system in place for them.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By Lightnix on 3/20/2009 1:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
That's a lot of runway considering the plane has a range of 400nm.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By AnnihilatorX on 3/20/2009 10:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
400 nanometres? :P That's got to be the greatest flying invention of mankind.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By Jedi2155 on 3/21/2009 5:03:38 AM , Rating: 1
nautical miles

I suggest getting out of the seat every once in a while and study other fields.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By AnnihilatorX on 3/21/2009 1:35:36 PM , Rating: 4
I know.
I suggest you to switch on your humour detector.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By SlyNine on 3/22/2009 8:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
He went to turn it on, but to his dismay it already was on.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By shaw on 3/20/2009 2:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
When does the V/STOL model come out?


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By shin0bi272 on 3/21/2009 1:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
www.moller.com


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By kevinkreiser on 3/21/2009 9:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, it is doubtful. Instead try this on for size:
http://auto-gyro.com/

I saw it on swiss tv the other day.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By akosixiv on 3/22/2009 4:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
nah.. all you need is the lowered trunk of the car in front of you. Just speed up before you hit the roadblock, you'll have more than enough airspeed to fly off his back.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/20/2009 10:09:18 AM , Rating: 3
It must take flight from an airport...


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/20/2009 10:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Nice someone marked me down for stating FAA regulations. I'm not a pilot, but did watch an interview with the creator of this vehicle and he stated, "this most take off from an airport." You still have to follow FAA regulations.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/20/2009 10:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
sorry, must not most, my bad.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By ajfink on 3/21/2009 8:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but how many people in the west would just hit a stretch of highway and take off anyway? Probably a good number.


RE: Fly Mode FTW
By mmntech on 3/20/2009 1:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Just put some fresh garbage in the Mr. Fusion and you're off. If I don't get my flying DeLorean by 2015, I'm going to be seriously mad.


from their website
By invidious on 3/20/2009 9:38:25 AM , Rating: 3
Performance
Cruise: 100 kts (115 mph)
Rotate: 70 kts (80 mph)
Stall: 45 kts (51 mph)
Range: 400km (460 mi)
Takeoff over 50' obstacle: 1700' Fuel burn: 5 gph
Fuel tank: 20 gallons
Useful Load: 430 lbs
On road: 30 mpg, highway speeds
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA)




RE: from their website
By Screwballl on 3/20/2009 9:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
now the question is... 500 miles per tank driving only? or can it go 500+ miles flying?


RE: from their website
By Fracture on 3/20/2009 10:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
Math to the rescue!

Fuel tank: 20 gallons
On road: 30 mpg, highway speeds

20 x 30... you've got roughly 100 more miles than you're asking for with typical highway driving.


RE: from their website
By Silverel on 3/20/2009 10:29:57 AM , Rating: 4
More math for ya.

20 gallon fuel tank

115mph cruise speed in flight

5gph (gallons per hour) in flight

Nominally with full tanks it could go 575 miles a trip. Factor in takeoff, landing, and any turns, it'd come back down to around 500 miles.

Also, 20 gallon tank x 30mpg = 600 miles, with a little more loss for stopping, standing, traffic, gawkers etc.

500 miles per tank is an appropriate measurement for either air or ground, and even a bit conservative, imo.


RE: from their website
By Krotchrot on 3/20/2009 11:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, I'm no math whiz but wouldn't 5gph use up 20 gallons in 4 hours? And wouldn't that make it about 460 miles at 115mph? With a 45 minute reserve that's required when flying then you could legally go approximately 380 miles.


RE: from their website
By afkrotch on 3/20/2009 12:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
There's more to factor in also, aside from this. Your mileage would vary. As the fuel is consumed, it becomes lighter, so your mileage increases.


RE: from their website
By SlyNine on 3/22/2009 8:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Drop tanks FTW.


RE: from their website
By camylarde on 3/23/2009 6:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Wind! Go with the wind!


BAD Reporting...again
By mjcutri on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: BAD Reporting...again
By dsraa on 3/20/2009 9:57:29 AM , Rating: 3
OMG LOL! I didn't think it looked like a car either!


RE: BAD Reporting...again
By TA152H on 3/20/2009 10:46:13 AM , Rating: 5
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man.


RE: BAD Reporting...again
By shin0bi272 on 3/21/2009 1:28:01 AM , Rating: 3
Shakespeare burn ftw


By Imaginer on 3/20/2009 11:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
Which means that anyone that wants one will have to get at least a private pilot license for VFR flying (not IFR or cloudy skies flying).

The license is not like your silly driver's test which is easy to pass. Getting the license means you learn everything about the rules of aviation, navigation, communication, even reading the weather. Your exam consists of a computer based knowledge exam, an oral examination where you converse with an aviation instructor that you know your stuff, mainly what you do in the course of flight planning and finally your practical checkride.

Even if flying cars can exist, not everyone will be assured one. The FAA will make very certain about that. Hell, you have to sort out proper takeoff and landing coordinations so you don't have everyone take off at once or land in a mess. Something that will have to be addressed.

While cool, and can bypass roads if you want that shortcut, it will be awhile (administratively) before flying cars can be had in my opinion.




By Nfarce on 3/20/2009 12:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Which means that anyone that wants one will have to get at least a private pilot license for VFR flying


Actually you only need a "Recreational" pilot's license or a "Sport" pilot's license to fly this thing. Both mandate no flight into Classes A-D airspace which requires both transponder and ATC communications if I remember correctly (unless additional training is completed and the aircraft has said equipment), daytime flying only, altitude at or below 10,000 MSL (or 2,000 AGL, whatever is higher), and carrying no more than 1 passenger. The recreational ticket requires an FAA 3rd class medical and limits flights to 50nm from the aircraft's home base.

But to your point, those limitations limit the point of owning this aircraft to begin with. The aviation world and the terra firma world are two entirely different domains and will always remain so. Flying cars in our society as grocery getters and work commuters to and from the city and 'burbs will always be something out of fantasy. People have been working on the concept since radial piston engines powered our airliners.

If anyone wants to get an idea of what real flying is like and what all is involved from pre-flight to shut down and securing the aircraft, he or she can take a $100 introductory flight at the local airport. There are plenty of starving flight instructors out there who need the business.


By Imaginer on 3/20/2009 12:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot about the sports license. I did not consider it.

But it still is limited to being just something out of recreation rather than a means of practical transportation. If one were to take this craft seriously as something for transportation, getting a license that is not as restrictive is still very far off for many.


Another way to take off...
By wordsworm on 3/20/2009 11:10:02 AM , Rating: 1
is to get a treadmill: http://www.lostweekend.tv/2008/01/plane_vs_treadmi...

That's probably my second favorite off of mythbuster's, right after the mouse and elephant experiment. It's too bad they didn't get it to land in the same way. That would've been too cool.




RE: Another way to take off...
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 4:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
You are misunderstanding their experiment. The plane did not stay in the same geographical location, the "treadmill" was moving at a speed but the plane was still moving in the opposite direction, but at half the distance relative to it's wheel travel.

In other words, it did not shorten the plane's takeoff distance or speed at all, the plane would've been able to take off in the same distance and speed without the treadmill.

The key factor is air velocity over the wings, meaning unless there is straight wind blowing at the wings, the plane has to be moving forward at a sufficient rate (all else being equal, lift from wings, weight, air density, etc).


RE: Another way to take off...
By wordsworm on 3/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Another way to take off...
By dailo23 on 3/21/2009 1:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
you got the myth wrong, the myth was if the conveyor belt is going backward(matching the speed of the wheel), the plane will stay in the same location and cannot take off. The result shown is that the plane is still going foward and will take off. It doesn't matter if the conveyor belt is going 1000km/h backward.. as long as the propeller is pushing the wind, the plane will still goes forward and takeoff.


RE: Another way to take off...
By jRaskell on 3/23/2009 1:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, it did stay in the same geographical location. Rewatch the experiment.


Perhaps you should rewatch it. The plane did not remain stationary in any way, shape, or form. It finally lifted off at a point considerably forward of where it started, a point that was previously marked as it's normal lift-off point without any sort of opposing belt (meaning the presence of an opposing belt had zero affect on the plane's takeoff).

The video, quite simply, proves exactly the opposite of what you're trying to say here.


No market
By blowfish on 3/20/2009 10:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
It's wrong to look at these kind of vehicles as being in any way mass market.

The way people round my neck of the woods drive - 90% don't know what a turn indicator is for, and have cell phones clamped to their ears at all times - you know that there will never be masses of people flying around instead of driving.

At least Moeller tried to deal with the potential air traffic control issues by using computers to control his flying car, but it won't be long before he gives up on it.

I'm surprised anyone can find investors for this sort of thing - it appeals to such a tiny market, and if the bonus tax bill gets passed, maybe an even smaller market.

About the most successful and practical "flying car" to date was Molt Taylor's Aerocar.

This one looks nice and wacky, it just goes to show you can make any kind of shape with composites these days.

Personally, and with a lot more disposable income than I currently have, I would choose to tow a small composite plane behind a proper car!




RE: No market
By HotFoot on 3/20/2009 1:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Flying cars or 'roadable aircraft' have been designed and built numerous times over the last several decades. I fail to see why this one is any different. Like the OP said, where's the market?


RE: No market
By acase on 3/20/2009 2:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. And it seems to me that by the time all of the details were worked out to allow civilians (with pilots licenses) to fly in these "air roadways" it won't be worth anything for it to drive on the road because you could get everywhere in the damn air.


How about a flying 1-car garage
By bildan on 3/20/2009 9:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
Aviation and automotive technology advance at different rates. The "flying car" concept ties the road function to the flying function so that any advance in one requires change in the other.

I think a better approach is a small cargo aircraft that can carry a tiny "smart" car or motorcycle in it's hold.




RE: How about a flying 1-car garage
By afkrotch on 3/20/2009 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't a hovercraft be just as good. I mean, it doesn't need an actual road to drive on. Course it's not going to fly over a canyon either.


RE: How about a flying 1-car garage
By acase on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
See ya coppers!
By Stillone on 3/20/2009 9:35:08 AM , Rating: 1
I can already imagine all the new shows on Cops now. The crook gets away by jumping on the highway and taking off.

That's one small step for crooks, one giant leap for crook-kind.




RE: See ya coppers!
By Alpha4 on 3/20/2009 10:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
I still have the bat article on my mind as well. ;)


This is nice but
By shin0bi272 on 3/21/2009 1:39:52 AM , Rating: 3
Me personally I like Dr. Moller's idea better. Its a vtol craft that doesnt try to be a car but a personal flying craft. A "roadable" craft is a horrible idea if you need hundreds of feet to take off and you're stuck in traffic. Dr Moller has put in decades of research with very little funding to come up with a superior concept while being laughed at by everyone. He had to get funding for his flying car concept by selling mufflers for motocross bikes. You know how many mufflers you have to sell to be able to build a million dollar flying car? Quite a lot.

There are Russians working on a thing that looks like a sports car that has vtol ability, there are a few others that are working on a car that turns into a helicopter, and now theres this monstrosity. Why dont we get some more people behind the best of the best and invest in moller international?

http://www.moller.com or GTFO




Why bother?
By Stillone on 3/20/2009 10:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking that if you are going to spend that much money to fly, you need a runway to take off and land, and you need a pilot's license, why not just buy a small plane to begin with?!




By TA152H on 3/20/2009 10:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
This airplane seems to have a significantly worse aerodynamic shape than a car. It's damn ugly too, so it's not for styling. Look at the windshield angle. The Aptera is just a car, but it looks way more advanced in the aerodynamic category. I guess it's so slow it doesn't matter that much, or they were waiting for the next release to really work on things besides just getting it to work in the air or fly, but it's bizarre looking.

A good stock tip - start looking into companies that sell Flak guns. If these things every become popular, so will they.




Engineering Details
By FormulaRedline on 3/20/2009 11:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
Carl (CEO of Terrafugia) was my TA when I was at MIT. I remember him working on the foam scale model for the wind tunnel at the time. Glad to see his dream has become reality, at least in prototype form.

For anyone interested in some of the engineering details, about how they solved some of the problems such a project entails, this interview from Oshkosh last year is pretty good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyR2E1QGTCk&feature...




BSG
By Spookster on 3/20/2009 11:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
Kind of looks like a Raptor.




So... its an airplane
By ZachDontScare on 3/20/2009 3:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
They keep calling this a flying car... but its just a small plane that happens to have a drive that can power its wheels too. I just dont think its all that revolutionary.

A true 'flying car' will be a vehicle that people can launch from their driveways, take to work, and land back in their driveways... and do it so the 'masses' can operate it. Unfortunately, thats a long way off.




One reason why...
By bighairycamel on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: One reason why...
By invidious on 3/20/2009 9:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
when is the last time you heard about two plains colliding in a head on mid air collision?


RE: One reason why...
By rdeegvainl on 3/20/2009 9:42:44 AM , Rating: 5
when was the last time every joe sixpack and his 16 year old daughter could fly in the sky?


RE: One reason why...
By KingstonU on 3/20/2009 10:08:35 AM , Rating: 3
A lot of these movies, like Star Wars or The 5th Element seem to imagine that the flying cars will for the most part fly themselves on computer delineated air highways. Were already developing road cars that can drive themselves (not quite as good as in I-Robot or Demolition Man but the concept is there) and air crafts already have full autopilots except for take off and landing.


RE: One reason why...
By Ilfirin on 3/20/2009 10:58:53 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, today, planes have no trouble at all landing themselves (see mythbusters episode on whether there'd ever be a situation where an untrained person was 'talked' through landing a plane.. or the wiki on 'Autopilot').


RE: One reason why...
By kkwst2 on 3/20/2009 10:09:26 AM , Rating: 3
Whoa, dude. Not since the 60's.


RE: One reason why...
By wordsworm on 3/20/2009 10:33:32 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
when was the last time every joe sixpack and his 16 year old daughter could fly in the sky?


When was the last time every joe sixpack and his 16 year old daughter had close to 200k for a car and pilots' licenses?


RE: One reason why...
By GTVic on 3/20/2009 5:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
So, can we infer that you believe all people with money are highly intelligent, have excellent motor skills, etc, etc?

How do you account for George W. Bush?


RE: One reason why...
By wordsworm on 3/21/2009 2:58:25 AM , Rating: 3
People with money are rare. That means less air traffic for a collision. Anyways, you don't need to be highly intelligent to drive. Have you ever traveled with truckers?


RE: One reason why...
By Mytho on 3/20/2009 10:56:18 AM , Rating: 3
"...To fly Transition, pilots must have at least a light sport plane pilots license, which allows pilots to fly planes less than 1,350 pounds in total weight."

so i guess not everyone will be driving/flying these...


RE: One reason why...
By rdeegvainl on 3/20/2009 11:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
when cars first came out they had the same problems with money requirements, and then licensing. Though they are expensive now, as they develope and get better, they will also get cheaper, more available to the general public. They will see the flying car, want the flying car, *NEED* the flying car, and get their license. The volume of scale will drive the cost of these things down over time. But the effects of a collision in the sky is still much greater than grounded vehicles. If they make a complete autopilot system, great. I wish they would get that in my grounded car first though.

TLDR; the context was "future" where people will get licenses like they do now for cars.


RE: One reason why...
By rdeegvainl on 3/20/2009 11:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
when cars first came out they had the same problems with money requirements, and then licensing. Though they are expensive now, as they develope and get better, they will also get cheaper, more available to the general public. They will see the flying car, want the flying car, *NEED* the flying car, and get their license. The volume of scale will drive the cost of these things down over time. But the effects of a collision in the sky is still much greater than grounded vehicles. If they make a complete autopilot system, great. I wish they would get that in my grounded car first though.

TLDR; the context was "future" where people will get licenses like they do now for cars.


RE: One reason why...
By 91TTZ on 3/20/2009 1:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when was the last time every joe sixpack and his 16 year old daughter could fly in the sky?


From about the early 1900's until now.

You can buy a used plane for much cheaper than you can buy this flying car. Chances are that "joe sixpack" will be flying in a Piper Cub or a small Cessna than this thing.


RE: One reason why...
By The0ne on 3/20/2009 1:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
or when you have millions and millions of people flying in the air :)


RE: One reason why...
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2009 10:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
God, it's bad enough we have to try to reduce crashes in 2-D.


RE: One reason why...
By wordsworm on 3/20/2009 10:45:28 AM , Rating: 1
I suspect we'd find exactly the opposite would happen. As another poster has mentioned - airplanes are pretty much autopilot. By the time these babies are selling for $40k, certainly they'll have that technology. 3D traffic - can you imagine how much traffic that would free up? That would be like adding freeways over the regular freeways. Taking short cuts would be a breeze.

The way I figure it, road ways set by altimeters or some other such technology would make it 2D again.

But imagine a world where all cars drive themselves and they don't need to eat up land space in order to do so. How much space would be freed up? No longer would the land be destroyed for the purpose of a car. Rooftop landing pads would be all the rage.

Anyways, if that stuff ever happens at all, it'll be well after we're all long gone.


RE: One reason why...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/20/2009 10:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
This is what I call a real flying car..

http://www.brysonmeunier.com/monetizing-mobile-app...

It has a built in safety parachute incase of accident or runs out of gas – whole unit floats down to the earth.


RE: One reason why...
By 91TTZ on 3/20/2009 1:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
And this is what I call a flying car:

http://www.kayewade.com/Stunt/CarJump.jpeg


RE: One reason why...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/20/2009 3:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
true, but not for long distance flights... More of a puddle jumper type...:)


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki