/pilot/ - Aviation

>>78

Why do you want one? No mater what, they are going to be shitty cars and shitty planes. They will suck as a car because they don't have that much space and they are going to suck as planes because they are carrying around a lot of extra weight and have to be shaped in very weird ways leading them to be unstable, have poor performance, or both. You have to drive to an airport to use these things anyways, they are pointless.

Also, what happens if you get into a fenderbender in one of these? You can't just get them fixed at any auto repair shop, you will either have to take it to an A&P. The parts on it are going to cost so much more than they would for a regular car because they all have to be certified by the FAA. If you hit a deer with that thing you posted, you are going to need a whole new canard and the whole airframe is probably going to have to be inspected. If you hit a deer with a car, you are probably just going to need a new bumper which will cost a few hundred dollars instead of a few thousand.

>>81

How do the wings stow on that thing? Do you have any of the official performance figures?

>>82

Performance is just off wikipedia

Maximum speed: 100 kts (115 mph or 185 km/h)

Cruise speed: 93 kts (107 mph or 172 km/h)

Stall speed: 54 kts [32] (62 mph or 100 km/h)

Range: Flying - 425 nmi (489 mi; 787 km) () ; Driving - 805 mi (1,296 km; 700 nmi)

Maximum speed on road: 70 mph (110 km/h)[7]

Fuel economy in cruise flight: 5 US gal (19 L) per hour, 21.4 mpg-US (11.0 L/100 km; 25.7 mpg-imp)

Fuel economy on road: 35 mpg-US (6.7 L/100 km; 42 mpg-imp)

Certifications: Both FAA and FMVSS certifications planned

>>83

I'm going to be shocked if that goes into production and anyone buys it. A old 172 will easily cruise at upwards of 120 knots and has a far longer range while still having space for 4 people and cargo. My old Sienna minivan can break 100 mph.

Based on the performance of this thing and the fact that it appears to only have space for 2 people and basically no cargo it seems like it is suited best for flying in a region like the northeast where it's basically nothing but large metropolitan areas. Some problems with this that I see are the fact that this going to have poor rear visibility and the wheel fairings are going to get destroyed by potholes. Considering how most airports in these regions have FBO's with crewcars and an abundance of taxis and Uber drivers, I don't see how it would be of that much use even in those regions.

Everyone imagines that the flying car will mean the end of waiting in traffic jams. I wish that dream was achievable but it's just not. A flying car the requires an airport just seems like a pointless toy that rich people can show off. They remind me of amphibious cars, they are not the best cars or the best boats and there really isn't any point to them but to show off (or scare the shit out of your passengers by telling them the brakes have failed as you fly towards a lake like Lyndon B Johnson did).

>>87

Well apparently there is a market for these or development would not have gotten as far as it has. I do agree though that a float/amphibious aircraft would be much better though a suitable waterfront can be difficult to find.

Perhaps their next model will be more practical though from the sound of it they want to simplify it to the point you won't even need to be a /pilot/ to fly. Plus, I can't imagine the neighbors appreciating the noise of takeoff on your morning commute.