Flying Car

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-02 18:59:00

This new topic is offered for any of the breed of flying vehicles that also can navigate on roads with ordinary cars.

The vehicle shown in the youTube video at the link below seems to be the real McCoy ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAnIjww … e=youtu.be

The vehicle drives to the airport, unfolds wings and tail assembly, and flies to another airport, where it transforms back into a car and drives off.

***
This topic is available for any NewMars member to post a competitive design, or more on this one.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-11-02 19:49:12

Previous topics entries

tahanson43206 wrote:

New Hampshire is taking the lead in authorizing road worthy aircraft, if I understand the article at the link below correctly:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hampshi … 03548.html
It appears that the time horizon for either (or any) of the three competitors to have a flying vehicle appears to be about 10 years.
Regulatory approval would seem to be designed to attract venture capital into the state.
(th)

Japan's 'flying car' gets off ground, with a person aboard

In a video shown to reporters on Friday, a contraption that looked like a slick motorcycle with propellers lifted several feet (1-2 meters) off the ground, and hovered in a netted area for four minutes.
Tomohiro Fukuzawa, who heads the SkyDrive effort, said he hopes “the flying car” can be made into a real-life product by 2023, but he acknowledged that making it safe was critical.
“Of the world’s more than 100 flying car projects, only a handful has succeeded with a person on board,” he told The Associated Press

BB18sj1j.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f

SpaceNut · 2020-11-02 19:50:43

tahanson43206 wrote:

For SpaceNut re Japanese flying motordrone ...
If you can find a video of that test flight, I'd really like to see it !!! The sound level would be of interest, for one thing.
The "flying car" is ** just ** over the horizon << grin >>
(th)

Japan's 'flying car' video

tahanson43206 wrote:

For SpaceNut re #248
SearchTerm:FlyingCarVideo http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 05#p171605
Thanks for finding the video. The sound level is significant. The operator might need ear protection.
Some modern airplanes come with a parachute installed for emergency landing.
The heavy duty drone shown in the video might be a candidate for something like that. It might be workable to separate the passenger compartment from the vehicle, and provide a parachute for the passenger compartment, to reduce chances of the propellers shredding the parachute.
The control of the vehicle demonstrated by the pilot (augmented by electronics I'm sure) was impressive.
Ducts around the fans might improve performance, but they would add weight.
For the purposes of the demo/test flight, I would expect they would not have been wanted.
***
Looking more closely, I see a show stopper for me .... Without a duct around the fans, the fans are ** right ** at decapitation level
The gent who flew that test flight was either unaware of the danger or pushed through the risk.
The forces at work at the hubs of those propellers are significant. Obviously the design of the propeller/hub assembly was up to the challenge.
(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-11-02 19:52:46

louis wrote:

Ehang are well advanced with their PCDs:
https://gulfbusiness.com/video-dubai-fl … st-passeng
Lots of drones in the race:
https://www.dronerush.com/drone-taxi-pa … nes-10666/
I think it's a mistake to think of a PCD as a flying car - I don't see it that way.
I am sure someone else must be thinking of a battery changer appraoch to extend range...we'll see.

As much as we want a flying car how about a drone?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets … li=BBnbfcL

SpaceNut · 2020-11-02 19:55:48

Sharing a road for a runway requires many changes to how we make roads to not have over head bridges or overpasses, No electrical wiring would be allowed as well and then you still need other drivers to not get in the way for when the aircar is landing or taking off.

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-03 07:54:29

For SpaceNut re #5

It will not be necessary to change the infrastructure. After you have a chance to watch the video, you'll have a better understanding of how the new vehicle works.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-11-03 19:34:10

So its an airplane with fold up wings which can navigate on a road but I am sure not all that well....

kbd512 · 2020-11-03 21:30:02

SpaceNut and tahanson43206,

Does anyone here really think we're going to have passenger-carrying flying motor vehicles without certificated pilots to fly them?

That seems highly improbable to me. The FAA would basically have to allow people to fly without training. In what would undoubtedly be densely populated and therefore heavily restricted airspace, that would be a recipe for disaster. Apart from emergency landings, I've never seen anyone operating any type of aircraft from a highway, either. Cars are specifically designed to operate from roads and aircraft are specifically designed to fly efficiently. It's all but impossible to meet the requirements for both types of vehicles using a single chassis / airframe. The Taylor SkyCar was the only vehicle ever certified to operate on highways and as a type-certificated aircraft, but that was a complete dud.

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-04 06:54:08

For kbd512 re #8

When I watched the video, I recognized that the vehicle operator is a certified pilot. My view is that a person with the financial capability to afford this vehicle would have the means and the motivation to become a certified pilot.

For SpaceNut ... The ability of the vehicle to operate as a "car" seemed adequate to me. It can go forward, backward and it can climb or descend hills.

It can turn left. It can turn right. Is there something else a car can do that this vehicle cannot?

The size of the market is hard (for me at least) to measure ... Certainly it takes a spirit of adventure, combined with wealth and the qualities that enable a person to become a certified pilot. However, we have 7 billion humans on the planet now, and there could be as many as a million people with the qualities needed.

For SpaceNut ... Elon Musk recently described the "near death" of Tesla just before the Model 3 succeeded. He'd exhausted his friend's ready cash, and put everything he had left on the line, before the venture succeeded.

I bring this up because job creators take risks, and compensation of the employees is reduced to zero if the venture fails.

In this case, the devotion of the employees to the shared goal allowed for success to occur, and their reward is to still have employment at whatever level Elon can afford.

Many ventures fail despite the dedication of the employees, if the market itself fails, or if the market wasn't there in the first place.

In the case of the flying car which started off this topic, it is not clear there ** is ** a market of sufficient size to justify the investment of the founding partners, but clearly they have decided the risk is worth taking.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-11-04 07:05:29

Here is a set of Google Snippets about the company which developed the vehicle shown in the video in post #1

What I find interesting is the summary in the last snippet, showing that Dr. Klein has been attempting to design a flying car since the 1980's. Clearly he has had the means to follow this quest, including the support of friends. The company itself was founded in 2017. I'm guessing that legal step occurred after the technical design was firmly in place, and the following three years have been devoted to engineering and manufacturing.

Google Search for: klein-vision s.r.o.
Search Results
Web results
Klein Vision – Flying Carwww.klein-vision.com
Copyright © 2019 Klein Vision, s.r.o. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2019 Klein Vision, s.r.o. All rights reserved.
Contact – Klein Visionwww.klein-vision.com › contact
info@klein-vision.com. press@klein-vision.com. KleinVision s.r.o.. Slovakia, Nitra, Dlhá 180, 949 07.
Klein Vision s. r. o. Company Profile | Nitra, Slovakia ...www.dnb.com › ... › SLOVAKIA › NITRA
Find company research, competitor information, contact details & financial data for Klein Vision s. r. o. of Nitra. Get the latest business insights from Dun ...
AirCar - The Flying Car Passed Flight Tests. Next Stop: Driving ...www.prnewswire.com › news-releases › aircar---the-fly...
7 days ago — About Klein Vision, s.r.o.. Klein Vision is a research and development company that turned professor Klein's 30 year old dream into reality.
Vision | KLEIN automotive s.r.o.klein-automotive.cz › company › vision
Vision · WE ENHANCE OUR STANDARDS DESCRIPTION It is our common goal to provide products and services to meet the requirements and expectations of ...
KleinVision s.r.o. - Slovakia | Airframerwww.airframer.com › direct_detail
Oct 28, 2020 — KleinVision s.r.o.. Contact Details. Address, Dlha 180a, SK-949 07 Nitra, Slovakia.
Klein Vision s. r. o. :: Slovakia :: OpenCorporatesopencorporates.com › companies
Free and open company data on Slovakia company Klein Vision s. r. o. (company number 46327941), Dlhá 108, Nitra, 949 07.
Stefan Klein - Founder - KleinVision | LinkedInsk.linkedin.com › stefankleinaeromobil
KleinVisionEcole nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts ... Stefan Klein is a Founder of KleinVision. ... Managing Director at Schmolz + Bickenbach Slovakia sro.
Klein Vision s. r. o. - historický názov: BLUE TUNA s.r.o. - zisk ...finstat.sk › ...
Translate this page
Spoločnosť Klein Vision s. r. o. v roku 2019 znížila stratu o 2 % na -391 591 € a tržby jej klesli o 1 % na 441 429 €. IČO 46327941; DIČ 2023331541; IČ DPH ...
Klein Vision promises flying car for land and skywww.motorauthority.com › News › Videos
Sep 25, 2020 — Klein Vision was co-founded by Stefan Klein in 2017. Klein has been attempting to develop a flying car since the late 1980s and was previously ...

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-11-11 18:01:46

Central Florida lands hub for Jetsons-like 'flying cars'

Quite a bit different but we will have many variety to them.

The main issues for a car entering an airport security island is it will be inspected before being allowed to taxi down a runway. The reverse will also happen when a car plane lands for being able to exit the runway area for customs inspection of items brought along for the ride.

SpaceNut · 2021-02-07 10:14:38

The Airspeeder Mk3 Is An Unmanned Flying Electric Race Car BB1dsgK6.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

The flying vehicle is called the Airspeeder Mk3, and it looks like a cross between a drone and one of those high-performance Red Bull aerobatic planes – small, sleek, and maneuverable. The electric vertical taking-off and landing vehicle has an octocopter layout for the propellers – one at each corner. The company says the Mk3 sports a 96-kilowatt-hour powertrain that provides the vehicle with a thrust-to-weight ratio that’s above two. Unmanned, the craft weighs about 100 kilograms (220 pounds), and it’s capable of fly at speeds above 120 kilometers per hour (75 miles per hour).

GW Johnson · 2021-02-07 16:21:51

I've seen a lot of "flying car" designs over the decades. They're far better now than long ago, almost practical now. But, Kbd512 is quite right: anything that flies is going to require some kind of pilot's license, with a great deal of appropriate training. And, it will require some new airspace rules. Plus, the required instrumentation in the "flying car" will NOT be trivial, especially as the airspace gets more crowded.

That's quite clear.

GW

louis · 2021-02-07 19:33:48

I'm not sure that follows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Hm-rmLQcU

This electric drone is intended to be self-flying. No need for the passenger to take any complex tests. We know even big aeroplanes fly on auto...in fact you could land them on auto if you wanted but passengers probably would take some getting used to that.

You might have a system where flying drones connect to wheeled chassis to convert to road transport or they might have wheels embedded.

Tyres are pretty big and heavy though, so I don't think we'll see those attached to a drone for a while.

GW Johnson wrote:

I've seen a lot of "flying car" designs over the decades. They're far better now than long ago, almost practical now. But, Kbd512 is quite right: anything that flies is going to require some kind of pilot's license, with a great deal of appropriate training. And, it will require some new airspace rules. Plus, the required instrumentation in the "flying car" will NOT be trivial, especially as the airspace gets more crowded.
That's quite clear.
GW

SpaceNut · 2021-02-07 19:43:13

The flying car is not on your own property but in an air port so all air services are cleared via radio tower for take off and departure so it can not just take off any time and it does come under the FAA rules for anything that is air born. The vehicle for remote operation would then require 360 plus degree spherical area of view in order to know when its ok to go into the sky....

tahanson43206 · 2021-02-15 18:44:54

Here's another update for this topic ...

https://flipboard.com/article/faa-gives … a1%2Fco.uk

Daily Mail
FAA gives approval to 'flying car' that reach altitude of 10,000 feet
Dan Avery For Dailymail.com 4 hrs ago

This particular design has been a long time coming, but apparently they've achieved a milestone of regulatory approval for the flight kit.

Road operations is still pending.

It's hard (for me at least) to see how they're going to meeting road worthiness standards as they've evolved in the US.

(th)

kbd512 · 2021-07-04 21:39:13

If that Terrafugia TF-X "flying car" actually weighs 1,300 pounds, then it won't qualify for Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) status with any passengers aboard. Since their "pod" has a pair of 670hp electric motors, I know for sure that it doesn't qualify as a LSA, and would in fact be considered a high performance (more than 300hp) and likely also a complex (retractable gear or variable-pitch propeller) aircraft. Beyond a private pilot's certificate, operating a complex or high performance aircraft requires special logbook endorsements. It's not hard to get, but you do need the additional training. Since it contains more than one engine, you also need a multi-engine rating. A multi-engine rating require significantly more training and would substantially increase the cost of training. I would wager that you need to be an instrument rated, multi-engine rated, commercial pilot (200+ hours of flight training and flying experience) to operate the TF-X aircraft.

The definition of what a LSA pilot may not do, is as follows:
1. No flying for hire or for business purposes (meaning, the flight is undertaken purely for recreational enjoyment or personal travel)
2. May not act as Pilot-in-Command (PIC) in Class A / B / C / D airspace (excludes pretty much every major airport in the world, as well as the airspace above most cities)
3. May not act as PIC when flying at more than 10,000ft above sea level or 2,000AGL
4. May not act as PIC if visibility is less than 3 statute miles, or at night, or under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions (day VFR only)
5. May not act as a pilot aboard any aircraft that requires 2 or more crew members (no piloting commercial type aircraft, but may be in the cockpit; it's an increasingly common practice to put junior pilots in the cockpit of much larger / more complex aircraft to "learn the ropes" under fully qualified crew members and to entice them to complete their training to become ATP rated, and to act as an emergency backup pilot)
6. A sport pilot may not act as PIC when carrying more than one passenger (basically, sport pilot plus a single passenger is permitted)

The definition of what a LSA pilot may legally fly is as follows:
1. 1,320lbs max gross takeoff weight (single engine land) 1,430lbs max gross takeoff weight (single engine float plane)
2. 120kts CAS (Calibrated AirSpeed) max speed in level flight at max continuous power setting
3. Single reciprocating engine allowed, no turbines (no specification for electric motors, but a single electric motor was recently deemed legal)
4. Fixed landing gear required, meaning no retractable gear (only exception is for amphibious float planes that include floats and wheels that can be retracted for water landings)
5. Fixed pitch propeller required, meaning no constant speed or variable pitch propeller
6. Max stall speed of 45kts CAS at max gross weight
7. Non-pressurized cabin

If you want all of those restrictions lifted, then you need a private pilot's certificate with complex aircraft and high performance aircraft endorsements. You really should get IFR rated as well, and have operative IFR-required equipment aboard, to preclude having serious problems with flight under IMC. That's approximately $20,000 worth of training, with another $6,000 worth of training for a multi-engine rating. At that point, you'll have your 200 hours and can qualify as a commercial pilot who can fly for hire.

If you make it a point to do all of that training, then you can fly nearly any aircraft (except for helicopters or gliders or hot air balloons) that doesn't require an airframe-specific type-rating, such as a turboprop or turbofan powered commercial aircraft or piston engine airliner type aircraft. All pilots who fly aircraft like the Douglas C-46 (large multi-piston-engine passenger / cargo aircraft operated in austere environments or for parachuting) or Cessna 208 (turboprop powered cargo aircraft) or an Airbus / Boeing airliner, all have to obtain a type rating for that specific airframe.

Anything turbine powered or more than 12,500lbs max gross takeoff weight requires a type rating. All pilots who fly more than 8 passengers for hire must become Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) rated, and are generally also Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) rated, because CFI status is the path of least resistance towards obtaining 1,500hrs with minimum out-of-pocket cost (the flight school and student pilots pay for your fuel / maintenance bills, along with a very modest salary). An ATP rating requires a minimum of 1,500hrs of total flight time, 100hrs of night flying, 75hrs IFR flight, 20 takeoffs and full stop landings at night, 250hrs PIC time, 500hrs of cross-country flight, 50+hrs of in-type flight (cockpit time in the specific type of airframe you'll fly as an airline pilot), and completion of a first class medical screening.

I think I completed a second class airman's medical screening during my flight training because I'm not interested in flying for the airlines and I'm a cheapskate, which only qualifies me to be second in command. Everything surrounding aviation requires lots of money, or so it seems. Unless my only employment option is to fly for an airline service, I will never be caught dead flying anything with a turbine engine. That's cool kid territory, but I'm not one of those. The noise that a jet engine makes is awesome, but I lived with the racket of after-burning turbofans and stench of kerosene for 6 years in my past life in the Navy, and much prefer the sweet perfume of aviation gasoline.

The more pilots, the better, but this requires a lot of time and money to accomplish, and there are no "short-cuts". From experience, flying a simulator is not like flying a real aircraft. If you crash in a simulator, which is still very clearly the best place to do it, then you can always press the reset button. There's no reset button to press if you screw up an actual take-off or landing, which tends to bring the importance of realistic training into proper focus for people who initially think it's all a big computer game. The very first close call you experience will both capture and hold your attention, again, from experience. I never gave too much thought to the pre-flight checks until I had a catastrophic control system failure when I started to taxi. Then I was like, "Yeah, let's double-check that just to be sure." Trust, but verify.

SpaceNut · 2022-01-27 20:55:20

Seems that we now have models which can be flown.
Flying car approved for takeoff after more than 200 test flights

The test flights were compatible with European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) standards... vehicle is powered by a 1.6L BMW engine, and runs on "fuel sold at any gas station." He added that it can fly at a maximum operating altitude of 18,000 feet.

kbd512 · 2022-01-28 01:56:31

SpaceNut,

This is another complex computer-controlled, high-performance, multi-engine aircraft, a hybrid powertrain helicopter with zero auto-rotation capability by any other name. If you want to fly for minimal money, then you can make your own 25hp to 50hp single-engine land STOL ultralight aircraft that can takeoff and land in mere feet, that does not require any special license to fly. For whatever reason, people with more money than uncommon sense refuse to give up on this bad idea. They have squandered incredible amounts of time and money on something that simply will not work the way they want it to, for any reasonable cost. The military gave up on this silliness decades ago, because they begrudgingly accepted that it was never going to work the way they wanted it to. After they killed enough good young men and women who were not given appropriate flight training to fly these types of complex machines, they scrapped all such programs or limited who could fly to appropriately trained pilots. If the military can't make personal flying machines work in a world of functionally unlimited development and training budgets with minimal bureaucratic red tape, then that should be a better than average indicator of the likelihood of success of these "flying car" projects.

Molt Taylor designed the only true "flying car", a FAA-certified single-engine land airplane and a NHTSA-certified highway legal car. That was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

Taylor Aerocar

Taylor Aerocar Specifications
General characteristics
Crew: one
Capacity: 1 passenger
Length: 21 ft 6 in (6.55 m)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 7 ft 6 in (2.29 m)
Wing area: 190 sq ft (18 m2)
Empty weight: 1,500 lb (680 kg)
Gross weight: 2,100 lb (953 kg)
Fuel capacity: 23.5 gallons
Powerplant: 1 × Lycoming O-320 air-cooled flat-four, 143 hp (107 kW)
Propellers: 2-bladed Hartzell HA12 UF, 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) diameter
Performance
Maximum speed: 117 mph (188 km/h, 102 kn)
Cruise speed: 97 mph (156 km/h, 84 kn)
Stall speed: 50 mph (80 km/h, 43 kn)
Range: 300 mi (480 km, 260 nmi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 ft (3,700 m)
Rate of climb: 610 ft/min (3.1 m/s)

The Taylor Aerocar weighed 2,100lbs, seated two people, was powered by a 143hp Lycoming O-320 flat-four engine, and performed much like the Cessna 152s of that era, albeit with less range and performance while consuming more fuel. They were not any easier to fly than existing light aircraft, and arguably more difficult since performance was reduced when compared to purpose-built machines.

Cessna 152

Cessna 152 Specifications
General characteristics
Crew: one
Capacity: one passenger (plus two children not exceeding 120 lb (54 kg) on optional baggage compartment bench seat)
Length: 24 ft 1 in (7.34 m)
Wingspan: 33 ft 4 in (10.16 m)
Height: 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m)
Wing area: 160 sq ft (15 m2)
Empty weight: 1,081 lb (490 kg)
Gross weight: 1,670 lb (757 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Lycoming O-235-L2C flat-4 engine, 110 hp (82 kW)
Propellers: 2-bladed fixed pitch, 69-inch (180 cm) McCauley or 72-inch Sensenich propeller
Performance
Maximum speed: 126 mph (203 km/h, 109 kn)
Cruise speed: 123 mph (198 km/h, 107 kn)
Stall speed: 49 mph (79 km/h, 43 kn) (power off, flaps down)
Range: 477 mi (768 km, 415 nmi)
Ferry range: 795 mi (1,279 km, 691 nmi) with long-range tanks
Service ceiling: 14,700 ft (4,500 m)
Rate of climb: 715 ft/min (3.63 m/s)

If ever our well-funded but ultimately misguided day dreamers accept that the requirements for a good aircraft are incompatible with the requirements for a good car, then perhaps they could focus their considerable creativity on making a superb but inexpensive light aircraft that performs at least as well as a Cessna 172, for a lot less money. The fundamentals of powered flight haven't changed one iota since it began. Computerized engine control technology hasn't become significantly more reliable than the analog technology that preceded it, when constant high power output is the basic requirement. Electronic ignition and spark advance has provided the maximum practical efficiency gain over magnetos, which is real but still relatively minor at the end of the day. The most reliable engines available for light aircraft are air-cooled opposed-cylinder / "boxer" type engines with a pair of magnetos, swinging a fixed-pitch wood or composite club with superb climb rate and reasonably good forward airspeed in cruise flight. If such engines were mass-manufactured like motorcycle and lawn mower engines, then they would be far less expensive, yet only a few thousand are made each year and so they've become absurdly expensive. There are already FAA-approved self-powered electronic ignition magneto replacements available for these engines.

You can obtain more horsepower from smaller displacement liquid-cooled automotive engines, with or without computer control, simply by revving them faster and using a gearbox to reduce the rpm to something usable by an efficient propeller. However, you can't do it for less total complexity or weight or equivalent reliability. Some of these auto engine conversions can be considerably cheaper to purchase and overhaul, but none of them will fly as many hours prior to engine overhaul, not that most owner-operators could ever afford the fuel bills associated with taking their automotive engines to their natural overhaul points. The same "achievement", if you can call it that, has been made in the world of purpose-built aero-engines by making the same sacrifice in reliability and a lower number of operating hours prior to engine overhaul. The advantages that the automotive engines bring to the table are a lower total cost, greater parts availability, and auto mechanics who know how to work on them. If the FAA ever certifies their A&P mechanics to work on the various LS or BBC / BBF / BBM engine families, then you could see a significant cost reduction by flying behind well-proven small block and big block V8 engines.

If a tiny fraction of the money squandered on this "flying car" silliness was instead devoted to making a good light STOL aircraft that uses a proven small block V8 automotive engine design (a considerably stronger aftermarket engine block from Dart or World Products or any number of other aftermarket designs, nothing you could actually buy from any automotive engine manufacturer as a crate engine containing parts strong enough to withstand the constant high power output demanded of all aviation engines), then it's probable that every American capable of owning a luxury car could own a simple car for city driving (not the monstrosities sold today) and a simple aircraft capable of reliably transporting their family either within a city (using a car), or cross-country (using a light personal aircraft under newly proposed FAA rule making regarding what constitutes something you don't need a PPL and airman's 3rd class medical certificate to fly).

If the formulas for successful aircraft design are followed, then what you'll end up with is going to look a lot like 1930s-era engine and airframe technology, mixed with modern iPad navigation and flight information organization. Imagine having a folding-wing Piper Super Cub, appropriately sized for a family of 4 to 6, using a carbureted automotive V8 engine with electronic ignition, same steel tubing and fabric airframe design with refinements to account for the aerodynamics lessons learned since the original models first flew.

This is what you end up with:

525hp LS-Powered Murphy Moose

6bd817b66527cc6380e480eb6026db4f?AccessKeyId=C08B3D3BF4C4917E63B7&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Edit to add some real performance data for the LS-powered Murphy Moose:

TAKE OFF PERFORMANCE:
Elevation: 2100’ MSL
Temperature: 76 F
Wind: Quartering tail wind 10 kts.
Aircraft Weight: 2,820 lbs (Empty weight 2036 lbs, Gross weight 3,500 lbs.)
Aircraft Configuration: Some minor increased drag with our Horizontal Strut Brace, 26” tires, no VG’s, 20 degrees flaps, 5200 engine rpm (2,600 prop), 28” MP
Take off roll: 475’
ROC at cruise climb of 100 mph, 4,500 rpm (2,250 prop) 22" MP: 1,500 fpm; 90 mph indicated 1,800 fpm; 70 mph indicated 2,000 fpm.
NOTE: some variations indicated under somewhat choppy winds aloft conditions, so these figures should be considered as general ball park only.
As an interesting comparison, the check pilot helping to collect our data later departed in his well equipped 300 HP Cessna 185 with installed leading edge cuffs and VG's. His take off weight was approximately 2,400 lbs. His ground roll under the same conditions described above was 575’.
The point is not to suggest "We're better", but to simply provide comparative information with another outstanding backcountry aircraft.

Last edited by kbd512 (2022-01-28 02:02:07)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-03-06 07:31:06

This Swedish company has built a fully electric 'flying car' it says anyone can fly

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/03/0 … ne-can-fly

There have been many suggestions on how to solve traffic congestion in our cities in the future, including Air Taxis etc. This Swedish company thinks it has the answer its prototype "flying car". Inspired by sci-fi comics as a kid, one of the co-founders of the company believes these fully electric crafts could help with short hops. It can stay airborne for 20 minutes, and in the US doesn't need a permit to fly.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-07 10:06:38

The 'Switchblade' Flying Car is Ready for Takeoff

https://www.abc27.com/news/flying-car-c … m-takeoff/

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-30 11:53:33

Here's an update on the "Switchblade" per Mars_B4_Moon's #21

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/s … 7480ba61eb

(th)

Calliban · 2022-08-30 16:37:31

A flying car is a sci-fi idea that is entirely impractical in reality. For an efficient sub-sonic flying machine, you need a high lift to drag ratio, which means long wings. That isn't practical for a road vehicle, which needs to drive in lanes, needs to park and must therefore be compact without extended surfaces. You also need thrust based engines that aren't efficient at low speeds in automotive situations. The design requirements of an aeroplane and automobile are really too different to practically combine them into a single vehicle. There may be ways of making it work in a purely technical sense. But the solution is likely to be a poor fit for both applications.

If you are interested in personalised flying machines, then the best option is something like an autogyro or a STOL piston engine aircraft, as KBD512 eloquently explains. Maybe it makes sense for more people to hold a pilot license for light aircraft. But the aeroplane and car are ootimised to different applications and are really too different to combine. You fly the plane between airports and then drive road vehicles to and from the airport. Both machines are optimised to different design requurements.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-08-30 16:40:28)

kbd512 · 2022-08-30 20:23:12

A "flying car" is an airplane or helicopter. Thus far, no acceptable substitutes for real airplanes and helicopters have emerged. Any flying vehicle requires an appropriate pilot's license to fly, if only for your own well-being. Even if you don't care about anyone else, if you still care about being counted amongst the living, then you will seek out good training and complete the FAA-approved training courses for demonstrating and maintaining proficiency in your skills as an aviator.

For the money spent on this "Switchblade" design, which is around $170K USD according to the MSN article, that amount of money will easily purchase a Vans Aircraft RV-10 kit, including the engine and good IFR-ready avionics for pilots with the training to do IFR. The RV-10 comfortably seats 4 people, the build kit costs about $54K USD and a brand new Lycoming IO-540 engine runs about $65K. RV-10s full fuel payload is 740lbs, so 1 man, 1 woman, and 2 kids. RVs are known as "fast planes" for what they are, and are a low-wing design like the Switchblade, but the bottom of the wing is much more appropriately located about 4 feet above the ground. For about the same money as the RV-10 airframe build kit alone, you can also purchase a good used Cessna 172 in flight-worthy condition with no squawks. For $150K, you can alternatively purchase a good used Cessna 182, which will fly as fast or faster as the Switchblade, is a true 4-American airplane, very comfortable to fly in, and very sturdy. 152s / 172s / 182s are some of the most thoroughly proven airframes on this planet. RV-10s are also thoroughly flight-proven, built on the same riveted Aluminum technology as the other Cessnas mentioned, but as-fast or faster, especially in economical cruise performance. Zenith STOL and Cruiser designs, while considerably slower than RVs, also have superb short field / rough field takeoff performance, good climb, and can carry heavy loads. Everything is a tradeoff. Big wing generating big lift equals slower top speed but more payload and slower landing speeds. RV-10s would be perilously close to falling out of the sky at the low speeds that the 4-seater Zenith CH-801s can fly and land at. Both use or can use the same flat-six Lycoming IO-540 ("I" = fuel-injected, "O" = opposed-cylinder vs "R" for radial or "V" for vee-type engines, 540 cubic inches of total displacement; all aircraft piston engines are designated this way) engine. CH-801s can use flat-four Lycoming IO-360s, but then they're under-powered.

Where a low-wing aircraft's wing should be located above the ground (at waist-level):
Mark-Easton-RV-10_03.jpg.webp

Where Switchblade's wing is located above the ground (at shin-level):
AA11fA2D.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1170&y=480

The Switchblade design, as-shown in the pictures, is a crosswind landing accident ready to happen any time the winds are less than perfect. That wing is stupidly close to the ground, and I chose the word "stupid" because it aptly describes the design tradeoffs made there to enable that vehicle to use traditional car tires and suspension, which are even better than what most aircraft have, but also very heavy. I'm sure it's great for driving on the road, but you couldn't pay me enough to take off in that thing. Switchblade is also stunningly beautiful, which is a shame, because the first pilot who merely wags his wings a bit while landing in crosswind or turbulence will go cartwheeling down the runway. Make no mistake about it, much like the BD-5 design, Switchblade is something best flown by a very experienced pilot who is as smooth as glass on the controls.

There were 988 flying RV-10 examples (not kits in some "stage of build", but finished airframes that have received FAA's special airworthiness certificates and at least flown their first test flight) of the Experimental Amateur-Built RV-10 as of last year. Between Zenith STOL (CH-601/701/801) series and Vans Aircraft series, amateur builders have turned out vastly more flight-worthy airframes than the rest of the aviation industry combined. There's a reason they call it "Vans Air Force"- Dick Van Grunsven's RV series of low-wing designs have put more aspiring pilots in the air than many Air Forces ever have. Beyond that Zenith's Chris Heintz, and now his son, have put countless bush pilots into the skies. Ditto for John Monnett of Sonex Aircraft, at least until his son Steve died in an aviation accident- hundreds to low thousands of flying examples built over the years. RVs were all low-wing designs until the RV-15 was introduced at EAA Air Venture in Oshkosh this year. Zenith has had both high-wing (like the Cessna 152/172/182) and low-wing designs, and I think Chris started with low-wing designs.

I've noticed that riveted Aluminum kits tend to get completed more often than any other type of construction, even though many thousands of tube-and-fabric type aircraft have also been finished. Aluminum is pretty easy to work with after you understand the basics. The newest kits have so-called "matched-hole" construction, some even drilled out to final dimensions, so it's more like an assembly job than a fabrication job. You have to de-burr the holes, protect the metal from corrosion using paint or a chemically-applied coating either before or after riveting, and then rivet the work pieces together. Using modern CNC machines to drill out all the holes, we could easily produce as many aircraft per month as we did during the entirety of WWII. Every year now at EAA, they start with a kit in a box (no pre-assembly or "quick-build", just parts) and a bunch of people with a few minutes of training produce another airworthy example of a Zenith or RV or Sonex or whatever, in less than a week. That's going from a pile of parts to a finished flyable aircraft (fuselage, wings, tail, landing gear, lights and avionics wiring, engine and prop install and run) to FAA DAR signoff and first flight in 1 week. All of our WWII aircraft were produced by men and women with an average of a 6th grade education, with some still flying today 75+ years later. There's about 5 to 6 people working 24/7 and the rest are crowd volunteers who buck a few rivets or help move the engine or wings, fasten bolts, etc. Every one of them has both flown and been flown afterwards, some cross-country back to EAA next year.

Avionics in the EAB has improved by leaps-and-bounds over the last two decades, with instrumentation often being as good as or superior to what you get in commercially-built / FAA-type-certified aircraft such as the factory-built Cessnas, to include light business jets. Purpose-built avionics from Garmin often grace the cockpits of EAB machines, which are the exact same components used in type-certified aircraft, but without the very costly paperwork attached to it- one of many EAB advantages for those willing to invest "sweat equity" in their personal aircraft. Zenith offers a gigantic arm-mounted movable touch-screen display for their STOL series that looks a lot like the main MFD from a F-35 stealth fighter, but for a tiny fraction of the cost. Once looked down upon, iPads have also become a staple in all well-equipped cockpits, to include the major airlines. Electronic engine monitoring and data logging hardware / software is also increasingly seen in low-dollar aircraft cockpits. In terms of avionics, Boeing 747s from the 1960s and 1970s were not as well-equipped as some modern personal aircraft. Some low-dollar imaging radars have become so light and cheap that people willing to spend an extra $10K to $25K can equip their personal aircraft with a radar system to peer into clouds. For $100K, I think, you can now buy reliable turboprop and turbofan engines, with an Australian form promising a fuel-efficient turboprop in the 150hp to 300hp class for $25K to $35K.

At least one old timer built a two-seater high-wing airframe, including engine, for only $6,500 USD total. He was very creative in his use of available materials and scrounging in junk yards or purchasing leftovers from his friends who built their own aircraft, to include the use of old spoons to latch the cowling around the engine and some more aerodynamic oval vinyl plastic siding to create a fairing around the wing struts (a cylinder / tube is one of the shapes that produces the most aerodynamic drag at high speed, a tad worse than a square tube if that was used), but the FAA inspects the quality of your build and conformance to plans. The term "aircraft quality" refers to both the materials and how well machined or fabricated they are. There are inappropriate uses of common materials, but at least one enterprising builder purchased everything for his airfame from "The Home Deppo" (my feeble attempt at putting his strong Southern accent into text). That guy was a hoot. At the end of the process, despite being a simple man of modest means, he produced an airworthy airframe from low cost materials. His engines were lawn mower engines, also purchased from Home Depot (this was a small single-seat aircraft). I think he even carved his own props by hand using plans or instruction.

The point is, you don't need crazy amounts of money to produce or procure a high quality aircraft, but you do have to put the time in to select materials that meet the strength requirements and apply old-world craftsmanship to your build. If money is no object, then you can pay for finely machined chunks of Aluminum or beautiful carbon fiber composite moldings, but those are expensive and not very practical to make for most builders. Prior to WWII, most aircraft were thin-wall welded high strength steel tubing (SAE 4130) and fabric. After WWII, riveted Aluminum (2024 / 6061 / 7075) was preferred. By the late 1970s to early 1980s, mold-less fiberglass (mostly lower-cost E-glass / "boat glass" vs higher-cost S-glass, which is more similar to carbon fiber in terms of strength / stiffness) and foam composite construction became popular for "go fast" machines, which works for one-off builds that do not have to conform to specific dimensions for the parts repeatability required of type-certificated airframes, which is why we only saw civil aircraft make extensive use of composites much later. Molded or mold-less composite construction remains a time-consuming and therefore expensive way to make aircraft parts, but it does work. Process control is very important with composites for repeatable strength and stiffness, whereas a sheet of Aluminum or tube of steel that was properly tempered will have very consistent mechanical properties.

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-31 10:05:40

For kbd512 re #24

Thanks for your substantial and insightful (and interesting) contribution to the topic.

While there was a ** lot ** in that post, one detail stood out for me .... the possibility of crosswinds causing instability sufficient to lead to contact with the runway.

I have a "little" flight experience, but nothing like that of yourself and several other members of the forum, so I ** really ** appreciate your observation.

With that in mind, here are a couple of questions, based upon the near certainty that the designer, all his helpers, and the FAA would have thought of this issue:

1) Could this have been tested and found not to be a problem?
2) Could modern fly-by-wire aircraft controls deal with an issue like this?
3) Could a pilot avoid having to land in crosswinds ( I recognize that winds can shift in the time a plane is in the air)
4) Could a pilot receive video/simulation training sufficient to prepare for shifting winds?

For SpaceNut or Mars_B4_Moon ... please look for any detail that might exist about the designer or the FAA considering this issue.

For Calliban ... It would appear you are not a likely customer.

Update at 13:18 local time ...

https://www.samsonsky.com/media-inquiries/

The web site has some promotional information, and an invitation for a media organization.

It would be a stretch to call NewMars a "media" organization, but (on the other hand) that ** is ** a category for this operation.

The difference is that everyone admitted to membership is a "publisher".

The Flying Car has not yet (apparently) carried out flight trials in the Real Universe, but I would imagine the engineering staff have run computer simulations, and (hopefully) wind tunnel tests.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2020-11-02 18:59:00

Flying Car

#2 2020-11-02 19:49:12

Re: Flying Car

#3 2020-11-02 19:50:43

Re: Flying Car

#4 2020-11-02 19:52:46

Re: Flying Car

#5 2020-11-02 19:55:48

Re: Flying Car

#6 2020-11-03 07:54:29

Re: Flying Car

#7 2020-11-03 19:34:10

Re: Flying Car

#8 2020-11-03 21:30:02

Re: Flying Car

#9 2020-11-04 06:54:08

Re: Flying Car

#10 2020-11-04 07:05:29

Re: Flying Car

#11 2020-11-11 18:01:46

Re: Flying Car

#12 2021-02-07 10:14:38

Re: Flying Car

#13 2021-02-07 16:21:51

Re: Flying Car

#14 2021-02-07 19:33:48

Re: Flying Car

#15 2021-02-07 19:43:13

Re: Flying Car

#16 2021-02-15 18:44:54

Re: Flying Car

#17 2021-07-04 21:39:13

Re: Flying Car

#18 2022-01-27 20:55:20

Re: Flying Car

#19 2022-01-28 01:56:31

Re: Flying Car

#20 2022-03-06 07:31:06

Re: Flying Car

#21 2022-08-07 10:06:38

Re: Flying Car

#22 2022-08-30 11:53:33

Re: Flying Car

#23 2022-08-30 16:37:31

Re: Flying Car

#24 2022-08-30 20:23:12

Re: Flying Car

#25 2022-08-31 10:05:40

Re: Flying Car

Board footer