Aeromobil to unveil new flying car

[Jim Young 2,356]

Believe I posted this first concept back in 2014 and it now appears to be a reality -

http://www.designboom.com/technology/aeromobile-3-0-commercially-available-04-11-2017/

 

[n4gix 4,947]

Although it looks really nice, realistically I'll have to agree with the only commenter thus far recorded.

"Jim" writes that he sees potential structural damage from every landing given how low the clearance is with the front wheels along with the tail wheels low profile...

[Chock 17,769]

Yeah, I could really see myself parking something like that on a street, returning to it hours later, being absolutely certain nobody had tampered with its airworthiness integrity, then confidently launching myself several thousand feet into the air in the thing lol.

[Jimm 437]

I keep seeing visions of Bladerunner in our future.

[Ted Striker 338]

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

potential structural damage from every landing given how low the clearance is

Worried about ground clearance Bill? They've got you covered, the flying dune buggy:

Ted

[HiFlyer 9,339]

52 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yeah, I could really see myself parking something like that on a street, returning to it hours later, being absolutely certain nobody had tampered with its airworthiness integrity, then confidently launching myself several thousand feet into the air in the thing lol.

Don't all of these new flying thingies all have parachutes, nowadays, anyway?

[Jim Young 2,356]

3 hours ago, n4gix said:

sees potential structural damage from every landing given how low the clearance is with the front wheels

Think this was discussed when the first announcement in 2014 was released.  The video clearly shows the aircraft taking off and landing.  Still, the clearance looks a bit close.

 

3 hours ago, Chock said:

Yeah, I could really see myself parking something like that on a street, returning to it hours later, being absolutely certain nobody had tampered with its airworthiness integrity, then confidently launching myself several thousand feet into the air in the thing lol.

Your point is well taken.  There are many places, in large cities, where you would not want to drive this car/aircraft and park.  The way I understand the operation of this car/aircraft, you get up in the morning and drive it to the airport (I would hope the owner parks it in his/her garage) and take off (with proper clearances from ATC).  You land at an airport and then drive it home or back to the office.  I would think your drive to the airport would give you an indication of whether someone messed with the engine or whatever.  Like any good pilot, you would want to make sure of the air-worthiness before taking off.

I personally am not for any general public use of this aircraft.  They would need to be trained and licensed.  For those who can afford it and are trained and licensed to fly it, they could drive to their local airport or airfield and take off and land at an airport/airfield near their office and drive to the office.  Complete their massive workload (much like the workload here at AVSIM) and drive/fly back home using the same method as arriving.  I would suspect the insurance requirements would be high too but not any higher than those already for Beechcraft or Piper aircraft.  If I had a few hundred million, I would get one.  Harrison Ford would have a ball in this aircraft... I mean car.

Jim

[mwilk 1,100]

I live in Texas. These fools can't drive an earthbound vehicle to save their lives. I certainly don't want them flying one of these things over my head.

[HiFlyer 9,339]

Which is another thing. Aren't most of these vehicles highly automated?

[Jim Young 2,356]

47 minutes ago, mwilk said:

These fools can't drive an earthbound vehicle to save their lives. I certainly don't want them flying one of these things over my head.

Don't think you have to worry.  They are in Europe.  US lacks the expertise to build one of these gadgets but I'm sure we can steal the technology and build a 4-seater!   

[OmniAtlas 93]

This is not for the masses.

The only way we're going to get vehicle 'flying car' civilian done is with drones and automated drop off points -- I like the way Airbus has visioned it; theres also a chinese company launching in Dubai with their flying drone already in production.

The airbus method allows you to dock your vehicle onto their flying drones -- more practical that way. 

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Yea I don't have enough faith in peoples driving ability let alone letting the masses fly.

Also Aviation progress has been declining in some ways, back in the 60's we thought the future so bright and yet the most popular plane is still the 737, we have also lost Supersonic Transport and Space Shuttles etc etc when we thought by now we would all be George Jetson vacationing on the Moon

We have only really been moving forward with technology behind producing and flying aircraft and reducing costs, but to be honest that has only led to a lighter weight 737 with lower production and operating costs, but no real milestones anymore. 

But on the other hand you can buy really cool Drones for under $500 and have hours of enjoyment....that is progress I guess 

[Paraffin 2,197]

15 hours ago, OmniAtlas said:

This is not for the masses.

The only way we're going to get vehicle 'flying car' civilian done is with drones and automated drop off points -- I like the way Airbus has visioned it; theres also a chinese company launching in Dubai with their flying drone already in production.

The airbus method allows you to dock your vehicle onto their flying drones -- more practical that way. 

I saw that Airbus promo video somewhere. It will never happen the way it's envisioned in that video unless the propulsion tech gets a LOT more sophisticated than it is now... like anti-gravity level sophisticated.

The problem is noise.

Have you ever noticed how videos showing off drone capabilities almost always have music in the audio track, instead of the actual sound of the rotors? Ever hear a medium-sized camera drone up close? Now imagine that scaled up to the size of a VTOL drone that could lift two passengers. Maybe not as loud as a conventional helicopter, but it sure won't be quiet.

I just don't see something that loud being allowed to overfly houses and businesses at low level, and taking off and landing from the equivalent of an urban or suburban parking lot. I think this is going to be a stumbling block for Amazon's dream of drone-delivered packages too. Who wants a squadron of these airborne lawn mowers and leaf blowers flying around your suburban neighborhood every day of the week?

Noise can be reduced to an extent (and usually at the expense of lift efficiency), but there's still a limit to what can be done when you're pushing air as a means of propulsion. Maybe in 500 years we'll have dead quiet, anti-gravity engines.

P.S. Regarding this aeromobile thing, the first thing I thought of was how expensive an otherwise minor fender-bender would be, if another car bumped that prop on the rear. 

[n4gix 4,947]

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

Noise can be reduced to an extent (and usually at the expense of lift efficiency), but there's still a limit to what can be done when you're pushing air as a means of propulsion. Maybe in 500 years we'll have dead quiet, anti-gravity engines. 

No, by then "they" will have developed means to transmit noise through vacuum. How boring would it be to not be able to hear the graser/laser bursts, explosions, et cetera during a space battle? Not to mention the roar of the propulsion system! 

As for the risk of collision damage, that is a very good point... It's obviously not very crashworthy, is it?

[OmniAtlas 93]

On 4/14/2017 at 2:52 AM, Paraffin said:

saw that Airbus promo video somewhere. It will never happen the way it's envisioned in that video unless the propulsion tech gets a LOT more sophisticated than it is now... like anti-gravity level sophisticated.

The problem is noise.

 

 

 I agree. Fly zone highways will have to exist away from urban centres. You'll have to drive to these drop/pick off drone mount points.