Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys

Personal SUV of the Sky 253

Posted by michael from the speed-demon dept.
BoomZilla writes "While we're all waiting for the personal jet packs we were promised in the magazines of our youth, another 'personal flying car' has entered the fray. The Taero 4000 will exist in the car/plane category, but will require a pilot's license and will operate from airports (...no lifting off from the back yard). The Taero has an interesting folding wing concept: '[the] wing fold system will enable automatic transformation from air to land travel with the wings folding to a position parallel with the fuselage'. The target base price for the Taero 4000, in assembly kit form, is $400,000 U.S. dollars (does not include assembly[!] or optional extras). According to the site, 'Taero is scheduled for first delivery in 2007'. The FAQ makes interesting reading. Competition for Moller International's SkyCar?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Personal SUV of the Sky More

Personal SUV of the Sky

Comments Filter:

  • How is this better? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ericspinder ( 146776 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @06:55PM (#7650670) Journal
    Looks like a delorian with a plank across the top and an airplane fin on the back. I clicked on the "more information" button and got a page with a "nice" flash animation. The caption says, "click on a name above to see and hear what the experts say.", I did, Dr Douglas Ikeler (the only expert) makes a couple of glowing statements, Of course he is the founder, so that is completely unexpected. The first line in the FAQ was "Is Aerospectives planning to become a publicly traded enterprise?" which tells you where their heart is.

    Really how is this more efficient than leaving you car at the airport and renting one at the other end? For 400,000 dollars you get the worst of both worlds.

    • Re:How is this better? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrgodzilla ( 730416 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:11PM (#7650758) Homepage
      My thoughts exactly.. you pretty much nailed
      what my thoughts were as I read through the
      site -- and to top it off, the performance
      stats are really too good to be true for any
      folding design.

      I don't see how they can list a price if they
      don't even know how long it will take to
      assemble -- woudln't you need to know something
      basic like that to be able to price it out?

      -- godzilla
      • My question is, how many people with $400,000 lying around are do-it-yourselfers?
        • Plenty. The new generatoin of "plastic" planes like Cirrus and Lancair, which cost around the $300K range, started out as kits, but are now certified and selling like hotcakes.
          • Wow! [lancair-kits.com]

            How long does it take to build a Lancair airframe?

            It takes about: 700-1000 hours to build the Legacy, 500 hours to build the Legacy FG, 1300-1500 hours to build the Lancair ES, 1300-1500 hours to build the Lancair IV and 1500-1700 hours to build the Lancair IV-P/Propjet/Sentry. These hours do not include firewall forward installation, electrical, paint or upholstery.

            1500 hours and $300K. After that I'd have live next to the airport in a shack to watch over my life's work!

        • I don't believe that it's a kit because they expect anyone in this market to be a DIY type. The motivation is almost certainly to avoid the essentially limitless liability for crashes they would have if they delivered it assembled which has all but destroyed the U.S. hobby airplane industry other than a couple outfits which basically state up front "we have no assets, so don't waste your time suing us."
    • Looks like a delorian with a plank across the top and an airplane fin on the back.
      Wait...I recognize this!--this thing can travel through time!
    • That's no Delorian. The Delorian had panache. That *thing* looks more like a mutant Ford Focus or Honda Insight, another freakish-looking vehicle.

      I personally don't think a "flying car" would be worth the effort unless it was a VTOL like the Moller is. Why should one have to get stuck in traffic on the way to the airport when your flying car is supposed to keep you out of traffic?

    • Re:How is this better? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) * on Saturday December 06, 2003 @08:00PM (#7650967) Journal
      You're absolutely right. The design parameters for a road vehicle and an airplane are compeltely different. You might as well try to build a combination submarine/helicopter. Good freakin' luck. On the other hand, you could buy, say, a Mercedes SUV for like $50k, and then a nice used Cessna 172 for, say, $80k, and have both a good SUV, and a good airplane! What a concept!
    • The least that they could do is add AM-FM radio. Good grief!
      • Well, it probably has an ADF (automatic direction finder -- basically a radio compass), which can receive AM signals.

        As for FM, the frequency band for VORs (a dedicated radio navigation system) is just above the FM band; a nav radio might be able to pick up some of the higher-frequency FM signals.
    • Or you could use your 400,000 dollars to get a second hand *real* aircraft.
      And you would still have enough left to get a respectable car and an aircraft-license.
      Hell, the Cessna at my dropzone was only about 50,000$!

    • 4000 lbs of Hype ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zymano ( 581466 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @02:06AM (#7652334)
      This thing doesn't look safe at all. Very heavy also. I don't trust Kits . The website is sparse like it was made by one person company. No one should faith in what that website is saying . Seems like alot of exagerations .
      • There is nothing wrong with kitplanes. More Kitplanes are made each year then GA aircraft in the US. This thing however is just.... well a load of bunk. The jet engine will not push that through the air at the speed they claim. You can not go 400+ miles an hour in a minivan shaped airplane using a turbo jet engine and carry enough fuel to go any where. THe drag, weight, and fuel consumption are all too high.
        Until it flys it is a dream.
        When I read a fight test in Sport Aviation then I will believe it.
    • Take at look at the pictures of him in "Experts" and "About." He looks like a cross between John Denver and Terry Gilliam after a hefty line of bathtub crank.

      His website also has these gems describing him...

      ...launching an international speaking career to guide veterinarians worldwide to achieve transforming results from their practices...

      "Innovation ... in systems thinking ... insight ... business acumen ... passionate persistence ... Aerospectives innovates ... systems architecture ... methodologie

  • Amazing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by npistentis ( 694431 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @06:56PM (#7650677)
    The Skycar goes 350 mph, and yet still gets way better gas mileage than my escort.

  • I hope it can... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jpetts ( 208163 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @06:57PM (#7650684)
    ..stay up longer than the Taero web site!!!

    • Specs - from website (Score:4, Informative)

      by calebb ( 685461 ) * on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:12PM (#7650765) Homepage Journal
      How will the TAERO perform in flight and on the road?

      The TAERO 4000 is currently in prototype design development for initial introduction as an experimental owner-operator assembly craft. The following represent the most current target specifications to which the design team is committed. Refinements in performance specifications will be posted as design development proceeds.

      PERFORMANCE - Tearo 4000
      Takeoff - 1,050 ft
      Takeoff (50' object) - 1,475 ft
      Max rate of climb - 2500 Ft/min
      Cruise speed @ 75% power - 350 KTAS (402.5 MPTA)
      Stall speed w/flaps - 61 KIAS
      Maximum range:
      ....Air - 1,200 nm
      ....Land - 350 miles
      Landing (ground roll) - 850 ft
      Landing (50' object) - 2,030 ft


      ENGINE
      Air Power:
      ....Manufacturer - General Electric
      ....Model - CJ610/J85
      ......(Base Price Assumes J85 Refurbished)
      Land Power:
      ....Manufacturer - To Be Determined
      ....Model - IC - Front Wheel Drive

      DIMENSIONS
      Length - 27'
      Height - 7'11"
      Wingspan - 36'
      Wing Area - 140 sq ft
      Cabin Length - 132"
      Cabin Width - 60"
      Cabin Height - 55"
      Landing Gear - 4 wheel


      DESIGN WEIGHT & LOADING
      Max Gross Wt - 4,000 lbs
      Std Empty Wt - 2,800 lbs
      Maximum Useful Load - 1,200 lbs
      Fuel Capacity (Usable) - To Be Determined

      ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
      A private pilots license, is required for operation of the TAERO. In addition, a current drivers license is required.

      The occupancy of the TAERO 4000 is four passengers, while the TAERO 8000 is slated to accommodate eight passengers.

      The estimated target base price of the TAERO 4000 as an assembly craft is $400,000.

      The TAERO 4000 and 8000 are being designed for take-off and landing form private, general aviation and commercial airports, and will be subject to all FAA, DOT, and local regulations.

      At this time, the target date for TAERO availability as an assemble craft is 2007, subject to change in the course of prototype development.

      • A private pilots license, is required for operation of the TAERO.

        That Private license also needs to include a type rating. As other people have correctly pointed out, the J85 is a turbofan engine. FAA regulations (I'm too lazy to go look up the specific code, but it's in Part 61) require that the pilot-in-command of any turbojet-powered aircraft have a type rating for the type (turbojet includes turbofan, in this case).

        How many people are going to want to spend two weeks at FlightSafety so they can lea

  • Flying Cars.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by c_oflynn ( 649487 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @06:58PM (#7650690)
    People seem to have trouble driving while using a cell phone - do you think most people are ready for complete 3D navigation? I guess thats why this thing needs a pilots license...

    I really don't see whats so great about this. Seems like a homebuilt aircraft, as you still need all the normal things (pilots license, airport, etc).
    • What id it was fully automated?

      I understand what you are saying. I would imagine wide spread use of flying cars would look more like 5th element. Where everybody(except our hero) flies along a flat plane. essential making it 2d.

    • Re:Flying Cars.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @01:37AM (#7652248) Homepage Journal
      You are right though, people are such goons with automobiles. I can only imagine that they'd just kill themselves within 30 days for not doing proper pre-flight checks and not paying attention

      These projects AREN'T going to happen, I doubt anyone would be able to actually be able to legally use one in any developed country. IMO, Moeller is at best a fraudster, I think he has been just blowing hot air about his aircraft projects for longer than most slashdotters have been alive.

      The FAA is basically on to him, he can't demonstrate the stability of the Skycar so it cannot be operated without a tether. If you want an airplane, just get an airplane, if you want a car, get one, if you want both, just rent a car at the airport wherever you land.
  • this [slashdot.org] type of design is the most likley one for a personal home flying 'car'.

  • OSQ (Score:5, Funny)

    by xao gypsie ( 641755 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @06:59PM (#7650693)
    did anyone else instantly think of the Canyonero?
    Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!!!!

    xao

  • Flying cars? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:00PM (#7650702)
    Most people can't handle a car that stays on the ground. I shudder to think what would happen if personal airplanes became common for commuting.

    Fortunately, this looks more like a half-assed grab for investment money than anything else. I rather doubt we'll ever be seeing one of those things barrelling through the sky. The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars.
    • The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars.
      I think the obvious solution to this is most definitely flying trains! Hmm, wait a minute...

    • Re:Flying cars? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Bat_Masterson ( 250306 )

      The future of transportation is improved mass transit, not flying cars.

      Actually, I could see the Moller SkyCar (with VTOL capability) being the backbone of a "taxi" service in many city locations. Using "vertiparks" (I think that's the term Moller uses), commuters could live in the suburbs, commute to the vertipark, hop a skytaxi into the city, and use a Segway to get to work. At each step, you have individualized transportation, so do not have to spend time waiting for intermediate commuters to get o

      • At each step, you have individualized transportation

        The problem with individualized transportation is that the vehicle that you ride in takes up a proportionately large amount of room. In this case, it would make the sky look very messy to see tons of vehicles flying over your home. There are some planes now, but I can tolerate that.

        When mass transit is implemented without the politics [almost impossible, unfortunately], then you can have an extremely efficient system. We had a lot of politics go into ours

        • When mass transit is implemented without the politics [almost impossible, unfortunately], then you can have an extremely efficient system. We had a lot of politics go into ours, but it's not too bad.

          When mass transit can quickly take people from lots of different places to lots of different other places then we can have an extremely efficient system.

          Basically, the problem with mass transit is getting a mass of people all going from the same place to a the same destination. For most commutes, e.g. to a

          • Basically, the problem with mass transit is getting a mass of people all going from the same place to a the same destination. For most commutes, e.g. to and from the office, this simply is not the case. Unless you want to force everybody who works in a certain office building to all live in a certain suburb.

            An interesting point about the transit system in the GVRD [Greater Vancouver Regional District], which I use, is that it has a few long lines of travel. In other words, because it is long, & because

    • Most people can't handle a car that stays on the ground. I shudder to think what would happen if personal airplanes became common for commuting.

      A lot of high-paying jobs would sudendly become available...

  • Taero vs. Moller (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:03PM (#7650712)
    Dueling vaporware.
    • Bet they run Microsoft Embedded Windows XP Professional. It's probably as ready as they ever will be.

  • extras? (Score:4, Funny)

    by slobber ( 685169 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:03PM (#7650714)
    does not include assembly[!] or optional extras

    Wait a second... you mean parachute is an extra???

  • Flightpaths? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IANAL(BIAILS) ( 726712 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:04PM (#7650718) Homepage Journal
    I wonder what kind of FAA regulations there would be for such a vehicle. Even if you did have your own personal landing strip for the car/plane/thing, I can't think that you'd be able to fly it just anywhere anytime. There would be flightpaths from other (commercial) airports to worry about... would you have to file a flight plan anytime you wanted to take off?

    • Re:Flightpaths? (Score:2, Informative)

      by markfinn ( 239661 )
      Flight plans are not required for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight.

      Most airspace below 18,000 ft is uncontrolled, and as long as you avoid airports there is really a lot of sky out there with relativly few planes filling it.

      Of course, It's still really easy to hit something.. notably the ground. That's why you need a license to fly this.

      Personally I'd rather have an actual DeLorean and a small jet then this thing... and for .4 million dollars plus assembly, They would be easier to afford.

    • General aviation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:29PM (#7650835) Homepage Journal
      At this time, general aviation aircraft do not have to file a flight plan - just stay out of certain volumes of the sky. I have a friend who has a hangar attached to his garage, and a runway out back.

      Just last weekend the weather was unusually nice, and he said "Let's get Mr. Cessna's aluminum kite out" - so we hopped in the 182 and took off - buzzed another friend's farm, flew around, practiced stalling, and so on.

      We just had to make sure we stayed out from the airbase's airspace.

      So, this would be little different than owning a Cessna in that regard.

      However, unlike a car, an aircraft has to go in once a year for its annual inspection, where they tear the thing down and make sure all is well. I would assume that this thing would be no different.

      So the question is, can you do without your car for a couple of weeks of the year?

      • Re:General aviation (Score:3, Informative)

        by Avihson ( 689950 )
        Not only is there an annual, but there is a 100 hour inspection. 100 hours can get eaten up pretty fast when you also use this as ground transport. Most pilots I know have problems changing sparkplugs in accordance with the FARs, and catch hell from mechanics and inspectors like my father ( Pilot, A&P Mechanic, and IA). Who is going to sign the logbook that this is air-worthy after a minor fender-bender? I live 5 miles from the local airport, 30 miles from the controlled airport. It is faster to dri

    • would you have to file a flight plan anytime you wanted to take off?

      In good weather, you can fly under VFR (visual flight rules). You are not required to file a flight plan, although some people do anyway. You are rersponsible for staying clear of other aircraft and of various restricted flight space. Since 9/11 large portions of previously unrestricted flight space around major cities has become restricted.

      In poor weather, you can fly under IFR (instrument flight rules). An air traffic controller

    • Don't get the idea that any joe can just pony up the $400 grand and use the car to take off on I-25 on their way to grandma's house. You'd be breaking all sorts of laws. First of all, this car not a propeller driven junker, it's a jet. You're got to be licensed and qualified to fly the thing. That means you have to obtain (a) a medical certificate from an FAA licensed doctor, (b) a private pilots license, (c) IFR rating, (d) commercial rating, and (probably) (e) type-specific rating. The minimum you can ex

      • A light jet for under $1 million new? Still yet to be done. Granted, it is a kit plane--that brings the price down quite a bit. You sacrifice reliability to get an uncertified aircraft that you get to assemble yourself. No guarantees. Hope you didn't forget that last screw.

        Worse, the $400k price is assuming a refurbished engine (read the specs page carefully).
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • There are a couple video-interviews with the founder of Taero, Dr. Douglas Ikeler. It sounds like they have a substantial team of aviation engineers working on this project - and he is confident that there are no more potential show-stoppers - it's just a matter of finalizing the design & production at this point.

    Also, the FAQ indicates that you'll need to use aitports for takeoff & landing. I wonder if an old sideroad that doesn't get much traffic would work for takeoff? :-) And along the sam

  • No taking off from your backyard unless (Score:5, Interesting)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:06PM (#7650738) Homepage Journal
    you live in a fly-in community [conway.com]. Where people have aircraft hangars as a part of their houses, and a 3500 ft runway is their door to the world.

  • I'll believe it when I see it fly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l810c ( 551591 ) * on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:13PM (#7650771)
    This is a pipe dream.

    I've been following the Moller skycar for over 20 years.(I'm not kidding, he gets an articale in Popular Science every couple of years). We should have been expecting a flying prototype each year in the past 20 years, still nothing more than short hops and tethered jumps.

    So these people are going to build a prototype next year sometime when they find facilties and have this thing working in a year or two? yea right, next...

    • I've been following Moller for about 15 years. They do seem to have come a long way, but very slowly. I suspect the real problem is how insular the entire operation is. There's no doubt the guy is something of a genius, but he's obviously a paranoid control freak. This is a great example of how better management would lead to greater commercial success, and how technical know-how alone is not enough for a company to be successful. They could start by having a marketing and PR person write the company's

  • Pfft.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Wigfield ( 730339 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:17PM (#7650788) Journal
    Looks like something from Spaceballs.

    What next? A tacky van with wings driven by a dog?

  • At last! (Score:5, Funny)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:17PM (#7650790)
    Darwin will finally take care of SUV owners!!

  • Is it voice activated? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Beek ( 10414 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:21PM (#7650805) Homepage
    I won't make the purchase unless I can lift off with a simple "go go gadget wings!"

  • The SUV of the sky? (Score:5, Funny)

    by duckpoopy ( 585203 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:24PM (#7650816) Journal
    What could be more annoying? The jetski of the sky, perhaps?
  • It's a new target for a slow and painful /.ing! Granted, it's already graphics-heavy, but it's crawling like a stunned yak. . .

  • hang gliders (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mks180 ( 442267 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:31PM (#7650846)
    I once got a change to meet Francis Rogallo, the inventor of the hang glider. He told me that he envisioned it originally as a wing for cars that you'd deploy, fly where you needed to go, then stow it after you land and park the car.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:33PM (#7650853)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Ask The Experts... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nick_davison ( 217681 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:39PM (#7650883)
    Arguably the funniest part of the site is What the experts say [taero.com].

    Among the massive pannel of international experts, you can choose from: The founder... uh, the founder... um, the founder... and, uh, the founder. Nope, that's about it. One expert. And that's the founder of the company.

    They have, however discovered the secret of efficient flight: Vapour.
  • I get it - just like SUV owners never take their vehicles off-road, owners of these will never actually fly them.
    • Considering that SUVs
      - really can't drive "off-road" (they can manage dirt roads and back roads OK, and flat field driving - are not as off-road as a pickup (which isn't all that great either, when it comes down to it)

      I'm guessing that this will:
      - not fly very well in it's equivilant to "off-road mode", occasionally "getting stuck" (IE, falling out of the sky)
      - not compare well to the slightly capable small, single-prop airplanes, at an inflated cost

  • aerocar of 1968 (Score:5, Informative)

    by bender-high ( 639380 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @07:52PM (#7650932) Homepage
    Looks awfully similar to the "aerocar" of 1968:
    http://www.museumofflight.org/collections/craftdis play.html?ID=3 [slashdot.org]
    Manufacturer: Aerocar
    Model: Model III
    Year: 1968
    Serial No.: 1
    Location: Museum of Flight
    Viewable? Yes

    Span: 34 feet
    Length: 26 feet
    Wing Area: 190 square feet
    Empty Weight: 1,500 pounds
    Gross Weight: 2,100 pounds
    Cruise Speed (Road): 60 mph
    Cruise Speed (Air): 135 mph
    Service Ceiling: 12,000 feet
    Range: 500 miles
    [museumofflight.org]
    • Now I know I saw something like that in the Man with the Golden Gun (old bond flick for those who don't know).

      The bad guy turned his car into an airplane in about 5 minutes.

      -CPM

  • Finally... (Score:2, Funny)

    by filtur ( 724994 )
    I can get a date with that snobby Judy Jetson, my "ground" car just wasn't good enough.

  • Experimental Class (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sir Banana ( 22536 )
    Since this is a kit plane it will be in the experimental class. Unfortunatly this means that you wouldn't be able to fly it over built up areas making pretty restrictive for a $400k general purpose vehicle :(
  • This Taero 4000 reminds me of the Sokol A400 Flying Car [afaco.com]. I haven't looked deeply, but I'll bet some of the same people are involved.

    It's ashame that the Solotrek [solotrek.com] died so fast (see more about it here [gizmo.com.au]).
  • to sell to you.

    I sense the niche market of people with $400k burning a hole in their pocket. I will get a Doctorate degree from one of those e-mails I keep getting. Then, I will get a picture of a Geo or Yugo and strap a sheet of plywood across the back of it with duck tape (all DIY's love duck tape)and only charge $395k.

    Naturally, this is only in pre-prototype and Photoshop, but hey, there has to be at least one taker out there who will pay me for the hour I used to set up the web site. Two takers wil

  • Proof that it's vaporware (Score:5, Informative)

    by Goldenhawk ( 242867 ) on Saturday December 06, 2003 @09:45PM (#7651454) Homepage
    IAAAE (I AM an aero engineer)...

    It's impossible to state the range (1200nm), and then later in the same paragraph, to state that the usable fuel capacity is "to be determined". Fuel capacity determines the range. (Gee, thanks, Sherlock... that's true of any vehicle.) But in an airplane, it's even more critical, because fuel capacity determines structural weight (more fuel requires more structure, which in turn demands more fuel to move it, which demands more structure, etc.). Until they've nailed down the fuel load, this thing is hardly an aerodynamically developed system.

    This thing is a pipe dream - if you read the FAQs, there are far more "to be determined" than details.
    • It's impossible to state the range (1200nm),

      well gosh, it should still be safe to say that the range is at least 1200nm, right? That is one-thousand-two-hundred nano-miles, right? Or about 8/100's of an inch?

      Oh, wait...
    • IANAAE (though I've read a few books on it).

      I am, however, what you might describe as an "aviation enthusiast."

      Even considering the GE J85 is the engine from the F-5 Tiger fighter and you *might* be able to pick one up fairly cheap from a gov't surplus auction, it seems to me that $400K is a bit optimistic for this thing.

      First, it's going to be carrying around a lot of extra pounds. (For an airplane; keep in mind this thing has to be road-worthy AND airworthy, and that requires a fair amount of structura
  • What the hell is michael smoking today that he'd actually post this, then actually allow a comparison. To wit, the Taero is a non-existent vaporware ford-focus with a surfboard wing wannabe. The Moller Sky Car actually flies, exists, and has existed for years.

    The Taero is a pipe dream at least - deceitful vaporware at best, and most likely a venture capital scam in progress. There is no reason this story should be on slashdot - except for the probably lameness of slashdot. The Jihad [anti-slash.org] is right.
  • Man, that is one ugly vehicle. Well, I guess it is better than the aztek, but it looks like an cougar with wings strapped on.
  • This is the stupidest thing _ever_ on Slashdot. So, if I put up a cheap-ass website detailing my plans to sell "personal rocketships" (travel NYC to Tokyo in just 2 hours!),and I cobble together some bad photoshop artwork that shows my "prototype concept", can I also get a posting on Slashdot?

    Because if so, I'll start making that illustration now. Hey it doesn't have to work, or be aerodynamic, or even be based on a shred of reality. If it's on the web, it must be real!

  • Even more hype than Moller (Score:3, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday December 07, 2003 @02:09AM (#7652347) Homepage
    Moller [moller.com] has been spewing hype about his VTOL craft since 1967. I have his 1974 brochure, in which the thing was to be available Real Soon Now. It's still Real Soon Now. He did an IPO a few years back, got in trouble with the SEC, paid a fine, and throttled back the hype a bit.

    This new guy is worse.

    The numbers on this thing are amusing. It's way overpowered. Unlike Moller, this thing uses a jet engine. Hanging a CJ610, with about 3000 pounds of thrust, on a 4000 pound aircraft is overkill. Two of those engines power a 20,000 pound Learjet. CJ610 engines cost about $250,000 used and overhauled.

    It's unclear why the takeoff distance is so long.

  • I think the Moller Skycar (or equivalent) has a brighter future than this. This is just a car-plane hybrid, nothing new here; all they did was stick two wings on a car. Bah.
  • Stupid.Useless.Vehicle. Yet another way for Americans to show their greed and amazing materialism...
  • I think there is a market for maybe 5 flying cars in the world.

    Nobody needs a flying car in their garage.

    The flying car is dead.

    50 years from now, you will be able to look at a flying car for 30 minutes, and 70% of the time not be able to tell if it's an airplane, or it's a car.

    100 years from now flying cars will be twice as fast, 10,000 times bigger, and cost so much only the richest kings in Europe can afford them.
  • what would Jesus fly?

    because transportation is a moral issue [whatwouldjesusdrive.org]...
     (especially to some [capmag.com] people)

    *scoove*
  • This isn't new. It looks way too much like the car [nildram.co.uk] from the James Bond film, The Man with the Golden Gun. The car used was the AMC Matador [artsycs.com], a hideous vehicle from the 70's that looks far too similar to this new flying car for my tastes.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close