gbigs Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 German engineering has come up with probably the best compromise of the newest crop of car/aircraft combo designs. Today they unveiled the first prototype. It seats two, has twin fuselage, has a 151hp engine, four blade folding prop, 120ktas top speed, 109ktas cruise, 300 foot landing/takeoff, has hard rubber tires for real road performance. On the road a top speed of 100mph. http://carplane.de/specs/ http://www.gizmag.com/carplane-flying-car-debut/37190/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=10bf6a5684-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-10bf6a5684-91242709 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 I guess there is a mission for every aircraft, however I prefer this combination ! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 I don't think a combination car/airplane makes much sense. Maybe not to you. It doesn't make sense to me either, but it must make sense for someone. If it didn't people wouldn't be trying to come up with a viable design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 If done right, it could be awesome. Not as a day-to-day car, but the ability to land somewhere and have wheels to get somewhere is enticing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 Yeah, Tom, I can't think of any flying device that had a lot of press and never survived production...can you say Skycatcher????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 The concept is intriguing, but I wouldn't want to drive my airplane in traffic. I'm entitled to my opinion Tom. I'm sure it makes a lot of sense to many people. I don't need a lecture from you every time I post my opinion about something. Just because I quoted you doesn't mean you are not entitled to your opinion. You are always entitled to your opinion Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 I don't need a lecture from you every time I post my opinion about something. There is no lecture in what was said. Please - desist, or disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 There is one big reason why I'd love to see roadworthy airplanes. Taxi's are expensive! As it was said though, I don't think I would trust driving with other people on the road. The amount of rubbernecking would be dangerous, and aircraft won't survive even a gentle collision. There's no crumple zones or anything protecting the flyer/driver in the same manner as cars designed to only be cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted April 29, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 A big reason the car/plane idea is clumsy is because the plane suffers the most and in this case the car only seats two. The weight to make it a car is too costly to get a decent performing aircraft. So what niche is there for a relatively slow aircraft? Likely a taxi between short hauls. The other benefits are fuels at any gas station. Hangared at home. Drastically reducing the cost of operation. So we won't see hundreds of these things in air anytime soon. Not until someone solves the weight issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 I'll be the judge of that. There is history here that doesn't concern you. Actually Al got it right when said there was no lecture, at least I didn't intend it as such. You of course are entitled to your opinion and can judge it however you want. I do my best to try and be a positive asset to this forum by making useful and civil post. Occasionally I will make a coment with humor in mind. You seem to think that I am always out to get you, but that couldn't be further from the thruth. I often avoid threads where you post just to aviod the kind of response you made here in this thread. While it is true that we have had history in the past it will be up to you if it is going to continue in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 You usually end up with the worst of both worlds. Kind of like the Amphicar it was a combination of poor car and poor boat. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amphicar-stuttgart-2005.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 A flying car has major cool factor and the latest designs show a lot of creativity. The engineer in me admires the complexities and trade-off decisions. I'm sure there is a market for these as they've captured the imagination of the public for close to 100 years. That being said, the extra cost of the proposed flying cars in the LSA category would allow me to buy a new LSA, and Audi R8 and a lifetime of Uber Black for transportation away from home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 A tiny, Smart Car sized car with a removable wing package makes more sense to me. Put fuel in the wings with quick-disconnect fittings, and a small 5-10 gallon header tank in the car. Enough to travel 100+ miles. Fly in, take ten minutes to disconnect and leave the wings at the airport, and drive off to lunch or wherever. The car part is not trying to drag wings down the highway. IMO, the biggest error in these designs is trying to make them in LSA weights. a 1200-1500lb car to make crash standards and wings added on leading to a gross flying weight of 1800lb or more makes the most sense to me. The wings would probably have to be large and motorglider-like, since the available engine power is likely to be low, 100hp or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 I wonder if they will meet the U.S. standards for vehicle safety? 5 mph bumpers, air bags, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 I wonder if they will meet the U.S. standards for vehicle safety? 5 mph bumpers, air bags, etc. Not likely. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Make sure they only have three wheels and they avoid all that by being "motorcycles". Kinda like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Or one of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 Or better yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.