Hello,

Have a look at the following page:
https://www.pal-v.com/en/

Bertus

 

Interesting but...
I am concerned with how little they show the flying part of the vehicle - and the one scene from inside the cockpit is simulated ground. As they said, launching in 2017. I'm afraid "launching" is the only way this will really get off the ground. I'm waiting for more evidence of real flight before I get excited.

 

It's actually a Gyrocopter

 

 

Interesting but...
I am concerned with how little they show the flying part of the vehicle - and the one scene from inside the cockpit is simulated ground. As they said, launching in 2017. I'm afraid "launching" is the only way this will really get off the ground. I'm waiting for more evidence of real flight before I get excited.

Oh come on. It is on the interweb. It HAS to be real. I think you should put your order in for a half dozen right now. These things are going to go fast!

 

Flying cars have been around since the 1950's. There are a handful that survive from that era that are attractions at airshows (I think, I haven't been to a large airshow in a couple decades, so it has been awhile since I've seen one fly). Every decade since we see a reappearance of the claim that the age of the Jetson's is at hand and that there will be a flying car in every garage within ten years. The reason that this never comes to pass has far less to do with any technological or even economic hurdles, but far more with airspace congestion and operator training and proficiency requirements. That is not going to change until truly reliable autonomous flight in all allowed flight conditions in unbelievably congested airspace becomes a reality (if it ever does).

 

 

Flying cars have been around since the 1950's.

I have seen this car but I don't remember if it ever flew. Looking at it I doubt it ever got out of the ground effect.
http://futurshox.net/blog/2009/09/forney-museum.html

 

Perhaps cars that can fly themselves will some day overcome the training/skill and congestion problems.

 

Perhaps cars that can fly themselves will some day overcome the training/skill and congestion problems.

google flying cars $50,000 after rebate

P.S. I want one

 

I have always wondered one thing.. What is the difference between https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/4f/ed/6a4fed1d3e2dde4d96e844e10cc0592f.jpg and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rlds-flying-car-roads-year--just-130-000.html
Both can fly, both have wheels, both can move on the ground and in the air, both have doors etc... And in both cases, and I might be mistaken here depending on where you live, you need a pilots licence.
The thing that really gets me is you can get yourself a Piper cub or a Foxbat for MUCH less then any of these "flying cars". What is the point of developing them?

 

Remember when we were going to get flying Pintos?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Mizar

 

I have always wondered one thing.. What is the difference between https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/4f/ed/6a4fed1d3e2dde4d96e844e10cc0592f.jpg and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rlds-flying-car-roads-year--just-130-000.html
Both can fly, both have wheels, both can move on the ground and in the air, both have doors etc... And in both cases, and I might be mistaken here depending on where you live, you need a pilots licence.
The thing that really gets me is you can get yourself a Piper cub or a Foxbat for MUCH less then any of these "flying cars". What is the point of developing them?

There is a big difference. A flying car not only "can move on the ground", but it functions like a car. You can park it in your garage, drive it to the grocery store, or do anything else you can do with a car. The common notion (fantasy) is that little Johnny can just hop in the flying car, find a suitable section of road near the house, takeoff, fly straight to a suitable section of road near his destination and just land and blend right in with the local traffic. It's hogwash, in my opinion, but that's pretty much what Joe Public envisions when they think of a flying car -- they think the Jetsons.

 

There is a big difference. A flying car not only "can move on the ground", but it functions like a car. You can park it in your garage, drive it to the grocery store, or do anything else you can do with a car. The common notion (fantasy) is that little Johnny can just hop in the flying car, find a suitable section of road near the house, takeoff, fly straight to a suitable section of road near his destination and just land and blend right in with the local traffic. It's hogwash, in my opinion, but that's pretty much what Joe Public envisions when they think of a flying car -- they think the Jetsons.

Only of the wings can come off..

Point I am trying to make is I just can't see how this thing is going to be used. Like you say, you can't just take of and land where ever you like. The regulations around flying just don't allow that sort of usage, and I just don't see it changing any time soon.
So if you need and can use a aircraft, just get a aircraft for far less.

Besides, I recon I could "drive" my cub to the supermarket

 

The wings either come off or fold on every flying car I've ever seen or heard of. Proponents counter by saying that the "realistic" way that flying cars would be used would be to drive to a traditional small airport (of which they claim more would be built to handle the increase in demand) and then you fly to a similar airport near your further destinations. At the other end there would be no need to rent a car. They claim frequent business travelers would be the first customers. I claim they are smoking things they shouldn't be smoking. A person traveling on business isn't going to spend hours and even days getting to their destination because they have to use something that will fly at around 100 mph, give or take, and have maybe a 300 to 500 mile range instead of something that travels at 500+ mph and can fly nonstop coast-to-coast just to avoid renting a car.

One of the things that I've never heard discussed by the proponents of flying cars is that ground vehicles take a lot of abuse from the roads they drive. By comparison, aircraft are pampered. The result is that a reliable car is heavier than a comparable aircraft both because the car needs to be more sturdily built and because weight is at such a premium in an aircraft. So you have very diametrically opposed design constraints that mean that any flying car is going to be a hopelessly compromised hybrid that can't do either function well. I know I wouldn't want to be flying around in something that has been driving around pot hole filled city streets and being bumped into by other cars in parking lots and taking the wear and tear of stop-and-go city driving.

 

I want to see the Road/Fly/Water, Car.

kv

 

I want to see the Road/Fly/Water, Car.

kv

Actually, I think there was (at least) one of those. Flying boats, of course, have been around for a long time and many such craft are amphibious. But I seem to recall seeing a small two-passenger home-built flying boat car that some guy made for grins-and-giggles.

 

One of the things that I've never heard discussed by the proponents of flying cars is that ground vehicles take a lot of abuse from the roads they drive. By comparison, aircraft are pampered. The result is that a reliable car is heavier than a comparable aircraft both because the car needs to be more sturdily built and because weight is at such a premium in an aircraft. So you have very diametrically opposed design constraints that mean that any flying car is going to be a hopelessly compromised hybrid that can't do either function well. I know I wouldn't want to be flying around in something that has been driving around pot hole filled city streets and being bumped into by other cars in parking lots and taking the wear and tear of stop-and-go city driving.

I will also love to see how the owners will feel when it comes time to service there "car". Not sure about the US, but here in Aus there is only a small number of things I am allowed to do to a aircraft before I need to take it to a LAME. Oil and filter change every 100 hours (engine time) at a normal cost of $900 will make most people think that maybe this was a stupid idea. (I am assuming these cars only have one engine, and it will have more then 600Kg max take off weight).

So many downsides, so little advantage. I still don't see the point.

 

Here any light aircraft used for commercial operations (including rental or flight instruction) have to have the oil changed every 50 hours and have an inspection every 100 hours and annually. I don't think the oil changes are too outrageously expensive, but the inspections are not cheap. I don't know what the requirements are for privately owned and operated aircraft used for strictly non-commercial operations.

How car-planes would be regulated is completely uncharted (well, not completely) territory. There are several categories for small, experimental aircraft that have significantly different rules, generally restricting what you can do so that they can relax how you can do it or how much doing it costs. If it ever does start panning out, I would expect new categories of aircraft to be defined and rules set up accordingly. But I don't see any viable way to allow the kind of operations that would make them at all useful without imposing requirements that most people would find completely onerous.

As an aside, the regulations are actually not very rational. Few states have any kind of vehicle safety inspections any more (Colorado did have, years and years ago, but now we just have emissions tests in the Denver metro area). So you can (and lots of people do) drive around with bald tires, worn out brakes, less-than-worthless windshield wipers, non-functioning lights of all kinds,... you name it. Yet the failure of any of these can (and frequently does) result in accidents causing significant damage and injury to OTHER people. But in the case of light aircraft, it is very, very rare that a crash causes any significant damage or injury to anyone else.

 

Indeed, the regulations are different so I can only talk about down here in Aus.
In general if the aircraft is more then 600Kg MTOW (this includes the people sitting it it) it must be on the VH register and treated like any other aircraft. Oil change (filter if needed) is every 100h unless the aircraft is on a AOC (making money for someone, then it gets complicated). I would think it would be hard to make a car that light as it would still need to meet crash regulations on the ground. Aircraft are not really made to survive a crash of any sort. (You can puch a hole in most small aircraft with your fist).

What I see happening with flying cars is what is going on now down here is Oz with what we call the RA-AUS (Recreational aircraft) register. These are free for all, do what you want just stay out of controlled airspace type aircraft that are under the 600Kg MTOW limit. What ends up happening is you get people putting lawnmower engines into glorified hand gliders and going out and killing themselves. The government turns around and "thinks that was not a good idea" and spends the next 5 years trying to workout the mess. Most of the time changing existing regs around flying that effects (always badly) VH register owners.

But in the case of light aircraft, it is very, very rare that a crash causes any significant damage or injury to anyone else.

I would say it is rare because there is just not that many (relative speaking to cars) light aircraft. It is also harder to get a licence for a plane so you get less, but not zero, people that don't have the ability to use a aircraft.
At the end of the day, most people cant deal with driving a car in 2 dimensions. Think of what they would do when you include a up and down part.

In Aus, we normally have a fatal crash about once a month with light aircraft, so I would not say it is that rare anyway.

I just don't see this idea "getting off the ground".