1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/17583/flying-car-clears-another-regulatory-hurdle/

Flying Car Clears Another Regulatory Hurdle

July 5, 2011 by

The National Traffic Highway Safety Administration finally cleared The Transition to be on American roadways. How wonderful it would be if the company – and now you see why there are so few involved in this long struggle – could focus on innovating rather than pleasing bureaucrats. This machine seems a bit dated because it is way overdue.

{ 21 comments }

nate-m July 5, 2011 at 1:10 pm

Hrm.

I always thought the AutoGyro would be the preferred device for automobile-flying vehicle. The wings are much easier to store, much less complex then a folding contraption, and it’s much more forgiving in terms of engine failures and such things. It’s almost impossible to stall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro

But I am sure the engineers have good reasons for a folding fixed wing.

P.M.Lawrence July 6, 2011 at 9:21 am

The earliest technical solution actually was an autogyro, with a belt drive to the rear wheel of a reverse tricycle undercarriage and a three bladed rotor with blades that could be unlocked so they could all be folded backwards (the concept has recently been revisited with a two bladed rotor with blades that can be unlocked to hinge part way out, so it can fold to a third of its flying diameter for driving use). It could have been flown from ordinary roads near its garage if they were unobstructed enough, making it a true flying car. If that had been given jump start capability it could have been operated door to door, too. A bit later, there was a car that could be adapted for flight by attaching a set of wings, fuselage, propeller etc. that could be reconfigured as a trailer to be towed when the car was on the road between its base and a suitable runway (so, not a true flying car by my definitions). But see my other comment about air traffic control issues.

Nielsio July 5, 2011 at 1:30 pm

..and a third kind of solution:

Maverick Flying Car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8b0oR0-Pgo

(pole + parachute/glider)

nate-m July 5, 2011 at 1:54 pm

Holy cow. It’s a flying model T super buggy thing

That is one of the coolest things I’ve seen in a long time.

rtburger July 5, 2011 at 2:28 pm

I agree that aviation and automobiles are over regulated, and I say let the market determine the fate of the “flying car” or the “roadable airplane.”

As a guy who flew light aircraft for personal transportation all over N. America and the Caribbean for 33 years, however, I believe this concept merely gives the buyer a bad airplane and a bad automobile all in one device. For serious travel, you are better off becoming an instrument pilot and putting your money into a capable single engine aircraft. For sport aviation, you’ll have a lot more fun in a good sport airplane. But … this device may appeal to some part of the market place. Let the entrepreneur market his product and find out!

Gil July 5, 2011 at 9:31 pm

Indeed, apparently the reason a handful people are fascinated with flying cars is because they were fans of “The Jetsons”.

Jim P. July 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm

That’s quite a blindspot if you’re trying to switch lanes or park. And the insurance!

Regardless, can I get this in blue?

Magneto-Radio-Dynamics July 5, 2011 at 3:16 pm

It’s not a flying car, it’s a CAR OR AIRPLANE but not both at once.

However, Moller’s sky car is the real thing. It can drive on the road, take off and land vertically and even hover. It’s both at once.

Anyways, I am developing a system to generate reference-less magnetic levitation by transition from virtual photons to real photons. You would actually push yourself against radio waves. Instead of pushing yourself against mass, you can push yourself against time.

This could propel air crafts, space crafts, flying cars, drones and missiles.
It’s called magneto-radio-dynamics. It’s pretty straightforward and can operate on continuous wave. However it requires high precision in the picosecond and nanometer to extract it’s full effects, otherwise you get negligible thrust.

Such a technology would make it possible to have an all-electric, reliable and dependable flying car that would not risk falling because of failure, it could accept a highly redundant system.

nate-m July 6, 2011 at 12:28 am

However, Moller’s sky car is the real thing. It can drive on the road, take off and land vertically and even hover. It’s both at once.

Well not actually. It would be nice if it worked, but so far the best example of it flying that I can find is some videos from 2003 showing a prototype hovering a few feet off the ground for a short time.

Meanwhile above you have two examples of people actually driving around on the street with a couple devices that can fly.

P.M.Lawrence July 6, 2011 at 9:05 am

Also, it wouldn’t be able to go on roads. It would just be able to be stored in a garage and flown from the driveway.

I suspect that a roadable car with a roof and engine in the form of a Custer channel wing, with stub wings with end plates or small folding wings, might be able to work as a true flying car. However, the air traffic control issues will always make flying cars problematic outside niches like emergency vehicles (for which helicopters are already adequate). Even computerised systems wouldn’t solve that, because a “solution” like that would destroy the point of a car, i.e. driver freedom.

MB July 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm

Ok, flying car CHECK!

Still waiting for jet pack. and robots.

Windows Hater July 5, 2011 at 6:12 pm

It’s not a flying car, it’s a folding plane, it’s a big disappointment.

The real thing is Dr. Moller’s sky car.

P.M.Lawrence July 6, 2011 at 9:06 am

No, see the comments above on this.

bagoh20 July 5, 2011 at 6:12 pm

That’s nice, but I want a Stepford wife. The proof of concept has been done for centuries, but we need to ramp up production now to get the cost down so it can be within reach of every man and lesbian.

Windows Hater July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Why do you want a wife ?

Also, isn’t a submissive and docile wife something like an enhanced pet dog ?

Human beings have a mind of their own and can contribute more to society when they are not submissive and docile but when they compete for resources and contribute brains and brawns to tasks. It would seem that men who want a submissive and docile woman that shut up don’t want a real woman which can contribute ideas, grunt work, decisions, and spice up with attitude once and while.

A submissive and docile wife would look and feel like a lobotomized person which misses parts of her brains.

You are not much of a male if you need your woman to be weak, submissive, docile and brainless. You are not that strong if you can’t take a fight, if you can’t take arguments, spicing up, confrontation, ideas, discussion.

Real women which have it all are trouble and if you can’t take the trouble you should leave women alone.

Maybe if you don’t want a real woman it is because you are not a real man ?

By the way, I’m a man. Just to let you know in case you thought I was a feminist woman.

bagoh20 July 5, 2011 at 7:27 pm

” isn’t a submissive and docile wife something like an enhanced pet dog ?”

I was thinking more along the lines of cooperative and helpful, and while being someone who respects the attributes of both species, I’ve never come close to confusing the two.

“By the way, I’m a man”

I’ve also never found it necessary to tell people that, myself.

BioTube July 5, 2011 at 10:03 pm

The Stepford Wives were robots(gynoids, to be precise). Most of your rant doesn’t fit(well, “enhanced pet dog” is probably correct).

HL July 6, 2011 at 12:12 am

Intelligent and independent women are great – unti you marry one. The secret of the success of modern “feminism” is that it teaches gals to refuse to submit to men while demanding men submit to their every whim and fancy. A great con.

“Hey, baby, I had a rough day at the office, can you get me a beer and rub my feet” = oppression.

“Hey, baby, I am going to get a second job so you can buy even more shoes and spa treatments” = enlightened and supportive man.

mushindo July 6, 2011 at 9:30 am

dont want to be a party-pooper, but …..while the flying car is clearly possible in principle, and working examples of various kinds have been been built, it is unlikely to ever become ubiquitous. And not because of regulatory obstacles either, the limitations are purely technological.

the characteristics of superior cars on the one hand, and superior aircraft on the other, are fundamentally incompatible. What makes a great car great becomes a liability for flying, and vice versa. by combining the two utilities into one vehicle, you can only ever get one which, at best, does both poorly.

Personal, low-cost aircraft parked NEXT to the car in the garage? Another matter entirely, and its already here and well developed. Small aircraft, and particularly microlights in their infinitely innovative varieties, can already be acquired and/or built from kits, often for less than the retail price of a new entry-level car. This makes the dream of personal powered flight economically accessible to the masses, kind of the aeronautical analogue to the Model T. And it has developed apace under the radar these last few decades DESPITE the ever-more tangled forest of aviation regulation, the only thing still holding it back from widespread popularity.

Gil July 6, 2011 at 10:29 am

What stops people from owning private helicopters and planes already? Nothing. A “flying car” is like a “video phone” – video phones have been out for decades but harly anyone wants to use them. If anything the only thing holding back private airplanes (apart from cost) is that you can’t go flying mindlessly around because if there’s a mechanical failure you’ll come crashing to the ground as opposed to a rolling stop with a car.

Michael A. Clem July 6, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Needing a runway for takeoff and landing doesn’t seem very practical to me–better to have some kind of VTOL system, gyrocopter or rocket system. But of course, those present other problems.

I’m wondering if a hovercar wouldn’t be a better intermediate step towards the flying car; you’d still still have traffic problems, but the roads themselves wouldn’t need to be so expensive.

Or maybe something from the original Tom Swift books (Tom Swift Senior, that is, not Junior): an airship that could function as a blimp/balloon or as an airplane. You use gas to get into the air, but once in the air, you could fly it like a plane (or stick to blimp/balloon for slower, more leisurely travel).

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: