I think a flying car is a bad idea. Car's and planes are very different and if you can afford $148,000 for transportation, get a Honda Civic for under $20,000 and have a real car with real car safety and drive to the airport and rent a plane, charter a plane, or buy a good used aircraft for $128,000 and have the best of both worlds. Cars get in fender benders and take door dings and the like all the time and soft aluminum or light weight composites are going to take real damage that many people will ignore and then suffer a structural failure in flight; cause unlike cars, planes get strength from the skin, particularly on the wing and a little dent can cause it to fail. Just like a Coke can is strong until you dent it a little and then it crushes easily, the wing is strong until you dent the wing pannel and then it loses much of its' strength. Good inexpensive cars are out there, and new light sport aircraft for the price range you are talking about, with greater performance than this thing will have, are available today. The flying car is just not a great idea, unless you take the highway completely out of the picture and have a VTOL craft designed to land in your own driveway and then fly to its' destination. Rich people already have one of those, they're called helicopters; the rest of us shouldn't waste our time on a flying car until the George Jetson kind of thing comes around at a reasonable cost. This isn't it, it is a crappy car, and it will be a compromised and crappy plane...and yes I am a pilot and I own both a plane and a car.

Although another reviewer says what a bad idea it is, I'm sure when the first horseless carriage came out, people said the EXACT same thing. What a bad idea - buy a good horse and a nice buggy; save your money. But little, odd steps like this one are what keep progress... well... progressing. Sure; this first plane-car may not be the best, and it certainly is a bit expensive, but eventually, this is where we all need to go because the roads are ridiculously crowded. I look forward to what ideas like this will spawn in the future. Jetsons, here we come! I think this is exciting and can't wait to see it in 2009!

Flying cars is a natural consequence of our current technological need. It has been coming along for many decades now and the market will slowly, but surely, grow towards this idea. I don't believe that everyone will be flying their cars by 2020, but the flying car will capture a niche market and at some point grow exponentially as the technology becomes cheaper and more accessible to Joe Whomever on the street. As for damage and lightweight materials, most F1 cars are built with carbon fibre bodies that are both lightweght and strong. The McClaren F1 street car has a c-fibre body that utilises a honeycomb structure for increased strength. Technology will become more efficient and cheaper, and eventually there will be a market for the flying car. A typical exmple of an innovation that will eventually mature.

While I like the idea and would like to be among the early adopters of something like this, it seems that based on my years of commuting that many people have a hard enough time with two dimensions - and that's even with roads, lines, traffic lights and such! What would happen if all of a sudden masses of people can travel freely in three dimensions without any kind of markers or visual or physical aids? It's kinda hard to pull over at 1,000 feet after a fenderbender!

Not only am I a pilot, I actually built a 4-place aircraft. Flying is so different from drivingalthough with the newer EFIS equipped aircraft and drive-in-the-sky software it may make it much easier to navigate the airspace. My concerns are that the aircraft is underpowered and that wing design leaves something to be desired. There is in the aircraft construction world a thing called the Jesus boltthat is if a certain bolt failed you would be pushing up the daisies. I have a couple of those in my aircraftand believe me they are inspected at regular intervals and never touched. Breaking the wing in two locations to fold is a bad idea. Imagine taking a highly critical part to life and limb and subjecting it to the vibration, potholes salt and sand that we have on the roads around here. Redesign that part guysthen I'll take a flight in it.

I think this is amazing, and obviously not for everyone. But, I would like to see more work on teleportation, to make travel REALLY fast! As we make progress towards StarTrek products, why not teleporters as well? They had it over 40 years ago! Get cracking scientists.

Personal flight is probably going to become a hot objective in comming years. How about, in the spirit of inovation, we consider abandoning the internal combustion engine as a source of power. I think we need to make a point of weaning ourselves of dependance on fosil fuels. This leap in technology should provide the perfect oportunity to develop new and inovative power sources and the technology to utilize them. I also agree that the wing desin shown needs to be re-thought. How about a delta (ala Space Shuttle), or non-winged design? (Flying Saucer) We might also begin addressing issues of how to manage the increase in air traffic that will no doubt take place. (see 5th Ellement, Bruce Willis) Misshaps in the air have significantly more complex potentials for damage to other people and property than land travel.

As Jeff Richards says, it is really so exciting that I am too can't wait till 2009 to see it flying. I believe, they will describe a bit more about the safety & security of this vehicle.

A few years ago I've seen this concept flying vehicle. To mee it does seem much better than the flying SUV. It has a Very Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (VSTOVL) and price "should be" in the range of a luxury car range. http://www.sparkdesign.nl/en/index.html

It's going to happen! The GPS is in place and the technology has worked. Check out moeller.com and the Skycar. The price is in the ballpark at $50K.

OK folks here is how it is - FIRST - there is a "little thing" called certification - unless it stays as an experimental it will have to be certified - and the FAA is harder to deal with than almost any other department in the US government. rules, tests rules and more rules and did I mention RULES? SECOND - One major issue with this type of aircraft will be the ENGINE - that engine will be collecting time while driving around. Engines and aircraft get inspected yearly and USUALLY engines are expensive to fix - a "light aircraft motor" can cost $20k. Why? Because they can and because the PARTS are so expensive because they have to last "forever" - 2000 hours of operation and the engine is probably "run out" - OK lets rebuild it (BOHICA - that means "bend over here it comes again") At least they could have used a ducted fan for their drawing - would make it more efficient THIRD (mentioned before) - there is that "Jesus bolt" (not TWO but FOUR - 2 each side. Navy aircraft only fold ONCE for a reason - even the "old WWII types" FOURTH - This was tried years ago (FIFTY YEARS AGO) - it was called "Aerocar" asnd there are examples in the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Removable wings, though and calling the cabin/cockpit "spartan" is being kind. The compromise of car-plane didn't work well for EITHER - not to mention that the "new" concept CAR won't be licensable for various reasons - one of which is brakes, another is crash resistance - for starters FIFTH (last in this sequence) - somebody mentioned Moeller. Moeller has been trying to get something going for, what, 15 years now? Maybe longer. A "little problem with power" (sure, not the same design but the concept is similar) IT'S COMING - JUST WAIT and wait and wait... (about the same time FROGS grow WINGS) Just to establish a bit of credibility here - I have a pretty good engineering background (Masters degree in engineering, Professional Engineer's license and I work for the major commercial aircraft maker in the US - in the Seattle area - get the picture?)

Guys..... Trust me when I say this Engineer has thought of ALL of these potential issues you guys are throwing out as stumbling blocks. It's all covered. ;)

At Barber Airport near Alliance, OH is a small hangar which houses the first prototype Airship called the Dynalifter® (blimp/airplane combination) designed and patented by (2) individuals Bob Rist and Bob Martin from Ohio Airships, Inc. who saw a need for transporting heavy loads (cargo/military/disaster relief, etc.) over great distances at a much lower cost and safer between ships and airplanes. It can be scaled from very small: Patroller (ultralight-like) up to football size: Walrus (many cargo containers). It also is designed to compete with high cost: police surveillance/news/emergency helicopters - being that the Dynalifter® needs minimal runway space since it uses dynamic lift from its small wings and helium filled envelope. The smaller Patroller version will be operable by one pilot (no team of people to steady it as a Blimp needs) and be much safer to land in an emergency (will float rather than plummet). Check it out at: Dynalifter.com

How many times have I been driving and all of a sudden out of nowhere a car is passing me. As much attention I pay to the other drivers there are times when I miss something. Now imagine all of a sudden a car is passing you overhead. Enuff to scare the hell out of you. Flying cars are a BAD idea.

So why do we have to have to surround ourself with an SUV? What ever happened to personal jet packs? I saw one fly briefly (30 seconds in the air?) in the 1960's - surely we've made enough technological advances since then to make this a reality??? Add GPS and some software so that Joe Average can't fly out of designated corridors or go against traffic and we have an interesting alternative to short haul commutes.

The French had a flying reconaissance tank (armored car really) BEFORE World War I (not II). There is no doubt a flying car is workable today--with a lot of real work and there is a need for it amongst many. Heck, private pilots already use their planes like cars to make weekend trips, etc. Simply treat the car like an aircraft and require the same pilot training. Anyone who can do the training can fly a plane that "happens" to also be a car. As for wing dents affecting airflow: Place sensors in the appropriate panels hooked to an onboard pc that can "preflight check" the aircraft structure--same can be done with the engine. in fact, go a step farther with the engine and make it an electric hybrid--the aircraft can run on a fuel cell or battery when "groundborne". I wonder how many "gallons per mile" this thing will get?

Wow, seems like a controversial subject! I guess that's normal when different people with varying attitudes about technological evolution are involved. Here's my view - for what it's worth: Maybe you remember a little classic by Jules Verne - 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea? It was written in 1873. 133 years ago. If you read the book in 1873 it would have seemed like the most unbelievable journey of imagination and fantasy ever told. Clearly an impossible story, right? Well, another Frenchman, Jacques Cousteau, made the impossible possible. Verne wrote several other books that were about a century ahead of the times. Another memorable one is "From The Earth To The Moon", written in 1866. Surely the public and his peers must have thought this book another one of Jules' fantasys. But it came to pass! Another great story is the Roger Bannister story. How many respected physicians said the human heart couldn't withstand the stress of running a four-minute mile. Bannister and thousands since made those doctors eat their words! My point is: Despite the fact that there will always be people who say it can't be done (or it shouldn't be done), there will always be people of vision - like Jules Verne - who see only possibilities. With the Peak Oil crisis almost upon us, many technlogical advances will have to be made in order to make any sort of flying car a reality on a large-scale basis. If we truly want to progress and evolve as a species, we need to come up with alternative (renewable) fuel sources. We also need to continue developing and improving upon structural materials for all types of vehicles. Like the composite fiber mentioned in an earlier post, lighter, stronger, non-oil dependent materials need to be perfected. Much like how the introduction of plastics changed forever how we live, these new materials will allow for progress in all areas of human life. In conclusion: I believe flying cars WILL be a reality. I'd estimate it will probably be 2020 or later before an affordable, commuter model will be available on a wide scale. Again, oil has more of an influence on technological progress than most people can even conceive. If you doubt this, read this informative article. It's a real eye-opener: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ So, if better composites and sustainable fuel sources (or new propulsion systems) are achieved, such a vehicle would be a natural progression of human evolution.

No one seems to have mentioned that if this thing becomes reality, the skies could be almost as crowded as the highways are now. People have difficulty enough driving in traffic, let alone a traffic jam in the sky! I hope they equip this craft with machine guns so you can shoot down the nitwits who cut you off or run you out of your own lane of travel. Bad idea!

It has been said that it many times more dangerous to drive than it is to fly. By taking to the air we theoretically could reduce traffic deaths by a large margin. Does this sound reasonable? After 2009 the most popular vehicle won't be the flying SUV. It will be the one that has a roof that can survive an impact from one.

...autopilot better be standard.

First of all, how do you expect to the car past the U.S. Motor Vehicle safety standards??Airbags?? Polution regs? What really stresses a car is not driving but potholes. That pushes up weight. Minor "fender-bender" accidents WILL require that an FAA certified aircraft mechanic sign off on the repair. If you can find one that will due to liability fears. The FAA certifiecation process will take more than 3 years. A conventional a/c from an established maker takes that long. And costs millions of $$. That, the cost of quality control and product liablilty insurance will push that price tag so high that it will not be practical. Not when you can buy a used light twin 6 seater for $180G ready to go. And Moeller has been "developing" his skycar now for almost 30 years. It still has not overcome technical, manufacturing and marketing issues. And probably never will.

The automotive bumper requirements alone will kill it. The high-strength steel beams behind car bumpers have to be somewhat tall to not only accomodate impacts with vehicles of multiple bumper heights, but also to distribute the impact's force as much as possible. The bumper shown on the air-car will either not pass American bumper safety standards for lack of bumper thickness or, once modified, make the plane non-airworthy by having a 3 - 5 inch flat plane facing the wind where there's supposed to be a canard-type forward wing. A canard-type wing cannot be used as a bumper. The body shop costs from even a minor collision (meaning ground-based) would be terminally insane. Cars have been designed since the end of the tailfin era to not slice off parts of people upon impact with those people, and I don't think that design would pass that test well enough. Would it be carrying catalytic convertors and OBD-II onboard diagnostics as cars are required to do? Or would the FAA consider the risk of a clogged convertor and confused sensors aggressively too high a safety risk (as seems likely to me at least)? When Navy carriers were forced to carry on deck extremely tech-laden EF-111B designed-by-committee aircraft in the Vietnam War, the admirals pointed out that if MiGs were spotted, "those turkeys are going overboard." That's what happens when you try to design too much into an aircraft - it becomes an unusable joke, no matter how advanced. Trying to design a vehicle so it is competitive with both cars and aircraft is a fabulous example. I also rigorously agree with the need to simplify the wing hinge design. Those folded wings would also create a truly massive "coffin corner" out on the roads. Remember KISS ("Keep it simple, stupid!")? It's an essential element of aircraft design, and you can't follow it when trying to make a vehicle competitive and certifiable on both the ground and in the air. Drive to your local airport, get in your Cessna/Mooney/whathaveyou and do it right. Hopefully some sort of locally-supported air taxi service will start springing up to ease our dependance on the horrid current spoke-and-hub airliner "service" we have now, and that will be the correct solution to the problem this non-vehicle is trying to badly solve.

Dont know about the laws in america, but this would never be allowed on the road in the UK - that wing/canard on the front would be lethal to pedestrians and cyclists. Not only that but the folded wings appear to stop the doors opening, which would be no good in a pile up. Cant really see the appeal unless specialised low security runways were built near city centres (huge cost).

I see a huge rise in earth-sheltered housing if this type of vehicle becomes commonplace. And I really believe the solution to our transport woes isn't expansion upwards of single-occupant vehicles but compression on the ground - smaller cars, more public transit, better alternatives for human powered transport such as walking and bicycling. Otherwise we're just spreading the problem, not solving it.

Can you imiagine being frounded by a parking lot door ding? I can. Much different mechanical and maintenance standards for aviation and automobiles. Different insurance also.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that those wings are a hell of a blind spot while driving!

As a geek & techie, I just don't see this as a good idea. Jules Verne & all the other free-thinkers aside, there're already small planes & cars. Keeping control of those two modes of transport is already a daunting task- & they have been around for over 100 years! I second the transporter idea (ala Star Trek) as being much better a plan to aspire to. Cooler, too! Also, I'm concerned that the issue we're tackling is one of time/distance. I'd rather see more jobs being tailored to being accomplished online (if possible)- thus removing the need for travel at all? Less fuel expended, less cars on the road (less accidents), less stress, more people at home with their families. Tracy

Yeah, yeah, bla, bla, bla. Readers of 'Popular Mechanics' get the same WORN-OUT story about how these cars are "coming soon...bla, bla, bla.." about every five years or so. PM even has the audacity to illustrate their "fresh idea...bla, bla, bla.." on the cover of that issue. You want a fresh idea? Try a story on amphibious cars! No, wait a minute....bla, bla, bla.....I think Popular Science has the rights to that one...

Innovation must continue. Great ideas are born from a lot of not so great ones. If someone is willing to put up the $, then more power to all involved. There are many reasons why this concept will not make it into production. Some of them are mentioned before this writing and there are plenty more. But once you consider what the insurance company will require you to pay to cover the PAV and the occupants, then you will not see many takers. Just too many possibilities available to cause a problem which would lead to an airborne incident. Maybe you take the properller off and store it after landing. Ohh, that would take a licensed mechanic. Well, it will be great fun to watch it at airshows.

The flying SUV idea is interesting, but after reading the comments posted, there are a whole lot of snags to overcome. I can imagine the sky being filled with angry Flying SUVer's getting road-raged and flippin' the bird at each other. What I think should be worked on is, automating the driving process on major highways. Traffic jams would be substantially reduced if there were onboard autopilots in cars so all cars drove at the same speed. Of course, some smart ass hacker would probably get their kicks off of hacking into the systems and causing horrific accidents. At least I'm glad that people are putting thought toward solutions.

Neat for comic books. Totally impossible in reality. Why not just build more accessible aiplanes to people. I own a plane and a few cars. They have unbeliveably different requirements that are about impossible to reconcile. The solution is not a vehicle that does both things, but to have a car and also a plane. If that is not good enuogh, get a helicopter. This is not about the technology and engineering - it is about infrastructure, insurance, people's competency, etc. Buy a car to drive ont he road. Buy a plane (or rent) to fly around. Perhaps a more progressive idea about society might make this a lot better -

Will the drivers be using cell phones??

I have a little experience here. I am a commercial pilot instrument rated and an Airframe and powerpalnt certificated mechanic, and a former FAA Inspection Authorization Certificate holder, I performed annual inspections on aircraft certifing airworthiness. Nuf said! With the carbon fiber fuselage, canard wing, pusher configuration being a tried and true method of experimental and now recreational/sport aircraft design reality, whay has no one seen one one of these fly at Oshkosh? The premier airshow for antiques as well as new designs? The designers do have a few issues, from a previous post the ducted fan design is safer, but heavier, and a 100 horse power engine (anemic) would preclude the vechile being a four seater, as weight to power would suffer. A 160 hp "aircraft powerplant" is the prefered experimental engine. Because they are reliable! The hinged wing design is a dangerous design, aka the F-4 jet had a few fold in flight with an experienced gound crew forgetting to instll the locking bolts. Many ultra-lights are re-assembled at the flight field and then inspected, and preflighted, which requires a physical walk around to inspect the flight surfaces.So this design could work, but I wouldn't fly in it. A tilt wing makes more sense, a rotating tilt wing even more, counter rotating tilt wings even more, but with complexity comes weight and a technical expertise to maintain it. Certification is expensive, and so are the lawyers that would get involved in the first lawsuit when one crashes and takes that first life.

So what might be a better idea is to do a "purely aircraft" that can be easily transported home. Get rid of the transmission and driveshafts, the combination "car-plane" control systems, go to a single nose wheel, keep the floppy wings and sell it with a small trailer for hauling it home (covered trailer would even make it a "self hanger"). It becomes a lot lighter, less complex and CHEAPER. The "Aerocar" showed the proposed concept of "duality" works, but even those many years ago showed it was "impractical" - a compromise - neither "fish nor fowl". BTW - their website has a much better description - this is by definition a TWO place aircraft. I remember being told that the cost of liability insurance for current light aircraft is 65% of the cost. This might nave a better chance as a "homebuilt". The ballistic parachute would go nicely right behind the canopy

The Navy version of the TFX (which ultimately became the F-111) was never used by the Navy. So...It made no sense to transport an aircraft like that by CARRIER since it could be FLOWN to the next airport. The Navy is "smarter" than that (sois the Air Force) Now if you want to talk about carrier ops for the F-117...

This is an idea that has been tried a number of times and will never work. First is the fact that when you try to make something do two different things it generally doesn't do either very well. As a pilot I know the value of being able to use the many small airfields for travel instead of the agony of commercial airlines. You can buy a nice used small aircraft for less than $50,000, travel to where you need and rent a car. If their driving skills are any indication, I don't want the average "driver" in the air when I fly. It takes more training, skill, and concentration than the average American seems willing or capable of learning. If they were available they would be raining down across the landscape like hailstones. Most airspace in the U.S. in unregulated and the last thing we need is cell phone gabbers, multitaskers and other assorted fools trying to be pilots. The sport aircraft license restricts you to no more than 100 miles from your takeoff airfield, and daylight flying only, so you would only save very little time "flying". Then take the time to change it into a car and what will you save timewise? Nothing. It's a great sounding idea, but a foolish dream. I find it incredible that people are still trying to make this old idea work. It will never happen.

I think most of us would love to have a flying car. From the comments already posted I think we all realize that the requirements of the street and the skys are so conflicting that no practical vehicle can meet both. What we need is a vehicle that could take us from our driveway to the store, work or hospital directly. Eliminating road travel would not only bypass many tough problems but also make the whole idea more attractive. The detour through airports and the reconfiguring are deal breakers. Then there is the price. Check out the cost of a two place certified aircraft today. Even without the road worthy additions they are $500,000. I just don't see it happening for the estimated price. Bypassing road travel introduces another big hurdle though. If the weather isn't very cooperative, it might be impossible to even find your destination, let alone land without being blown into something. Surely this is a tough problem to solve but I'd still really love to have a flying car. Please, someone, make my day! It will happen because there is too much need for it not to happen. I just hope it is within my life time. Concerning teleportation, Scientific American had a series of articles about StarTrek technology and the possibilities of it ever coming to pass. The discussion about teleportation came down to worm holes. Naturally occuring worm holes are typically subattomic in size. To create a human sized worm hole you would need to convert the entire mass of Jupiter to energy. Not undoable I guess but I don't anticipate ever seeing it. I think we may need some entirely new technologies to fulfill either dream.

This is in response to George Elsom's post. While this may be a bad idea. This is the new trend. Look at computer motherboards. Back in the early '80's you couldn't find a MB with an on board floppy disk controller. Now a days, you can hardly find one without an on board floppy controller. What's this got to do with your post? Everything! While it maybe cheaper and better to get seperates, car & plane. Inovation is going toward combining functionality.

Wouldn't it be easier to put steering and driving wheels on a helicopter than wings on a car? Aeronautical Professor, pilot, and lowly automobile driver. Just a thought.

The problem is that when there is dual DIVERGENT usage of equipment - particularly where there are WIDELY differing regulatory requirements, the resultant compromise is "less than the sum of the parts". it's like having a hammer combined with a pair of pliers - the hammer is usually too light to be effective, the pliers are usually uncomfortable (but usable). Sure it takes up less space but doesn't "perform" well enough Jon - and that was a matter of STANDARISATION if nothing else. And look for the FLOPPY controller to disappear and revert back to "add on cards" - there is not much demand for "floppy" drives so there is little reason to support them Oh, and David - go do a little RESEARCH before blindly posting - small aircrat are available for MUCH less than $500k. A "new" Cessna 172 is available for about $250k

I wonder how LAX airport would operate without control towers... Basically, whoever built the first plane had to wait a very very long time until flight would become commercially available. The entire support infrastructure has to be built: control towers (where? how is the airspace divided?) repair shops/training safety issues and more. This is but the beginning of something that may become a reality many years into the future, assuming all obstacles are handled.

I enjoyed your take on the subj and you're on point w/ your comments. The people that come up w/ stuf like this have great *ideas*, but they ALWAYS miss the VERY practical considerations that you mention (as in the Aerocar from the '50s and Moeller's Skycar.) 1) Flying cars will NEVER work, until anti-gravity is real (yeah, right !) There's no way you can take something with wings anywhere close to a city. That is, unless it has serious STOL capabiliity. If one can't operate it as a primary vehicle, it'll never be practical to call that vehicle a car. 2) Since STOL aircraft is significantly harder to operate than conventional TOL aircraft, the flight control system would have to be 2-3 generations beyond what we currently have in general aviation, maybe even more advanced than that. Right now, there are no GA birds w/ fly-by-wire, ala the F-15 and up. 3) With F-b-W, a GA bird could operate w/ a fully-automated, autopilot ala NASA's Highway In The Sky concept. So one wouldn't need to be an experienced pilot to operate this bird. 4) Given points 1+2+3 in an affordable configuration for an individual, "maybe" one could realize a long-range, commuter-type aircraft to fly a route like from the East end of Long Island (in New York) to a landing pad on NYC East River (congestion at rush-hour notwithstanding !) 5) But we forgot about that prop. That's probably the absolute showstopper. The current STOL jets (F/A-35 and AV-8B) have propultion systems that are SO complex that only the US military can afford to buy and maintain them.

Note to David: Actually, certified 2-place aircraft generally start at under $100,000. Even a new place Cessna 172 comes in around $150,000. I don't think their price is too far out. We'll see. I've read most of the posts here. I agree the dual folding wing may be problematic, and a ballistic chute would be a no-brainer for this type of vehicle. I'd sure want to know the mechanism has failsafes built into it. And the canard (a flight surface) being out front would be more prone to casual damage. I don't think that the people involved are expecting this vehicle to darken the skies. They have made no bones about the fact that it's a pilot's machine. And the hassle of getting even a Sport Aircraft pilot's license will weed out a lot of prospective users. The propeller is pretty well protected. A duct is not necessary. On the ground it is surrounded by the elevator and rudders which turn inward behind the prop when on the ground. There must be a transmission to the wheels. I worry more about the road certification, if they are offering a ready- to-fly version. If I remember aright, it was the Department of Highways, not the FAA that killed Molt Taylor's Aerocar III - couldn't meet the crashworthiness standards for cars in the mid '70's. I'm surprised they are putting 4 wheels on it - 3 wheels might make it technically a motorcycle. But I hope they succeed. As a pilot, it would be immensely liberating to be able to drive from the airport to the doorstep of my destination.

Note to David: Actually, certified 2-place aircraft generally start at under $100,000. Even a new place Cessna 172 comes in around $150,000. I don't think their price is too far out. We'll see. I've read most of the posts here. I agree the dual folding wing may be problematic, and a ballistic chute would be a no-brainer for this type of vehicle. I'd sure want to know the mechanism has failsafes built into it. And the canard (a flight surface) being out front would be more prone to casual damage. I don't think that the people involved are expecting this vehicle to darken the skies. They have made no bones about the fact that it's a pilot's machine. And the hassle of getting even a Sport Aircraft pilot's license will weed out a lot of prospective users. The propeller is pretty well protected. A duct is not necessary. On the ground it is surrounded by the elevator and rudders which turn inward behind the prop when on the ground. There must be a transmission to the wheels. I worry more about the road certification, if they are offering a ready- to-fly version. If I remember aright, it was the Department of Highways, not the FAA that killed Molt Taylor's Aerocar III - couldn't meet the crashworthiness standards for cars in the mid '70's. I'm surprised they are putting 4 wheels on it - 3 wheels might make it technically a motorcycle. But I hope they succeed. As a pilot, it would be immensely liberating to be able to drive from the airport to the doorstep of my destination.

My apologies to all for inadvertantly posting the last bit twice. I've been going through Terrafugia's FAQ section. The Transition has crumple zones, a 2.5 mph bumper, a passenger safety cage and airbags. It is also not intended for city traffic, but more for 100-500 mile commutes. There is a clutch to engage either prop or wheels, and the propeller is well protected from road debris, which should reduce prop noise as well. I've studied the problem for the better part of a decade. They seem to have thought out most of the fundamental problems. It is elegant, efficient use of vehicle systems that will make or break the concept. Mr. Roboto wrote that the propulsion system was a problem. Why? There's nothing magic about a simple fixed pitch propeller. And the Transition is not a STOL aircraft (its estimated runway usage is 1500 feet) - and who said anything about jets? It's meant to be used at small airports, which generally are NOT in large cities. They tend more to open country or the 'burbs. BTW, STOL are not harder to fly then regular aircraft. they just land slower and shorter. Why would fly-by-wire be needed for control? I don't know of any light aircraft that need this. It's all wires, bellcranks and/or push-pull tubes. One thing David worried about was weather and getting lost. I wonder if he is a pilot? When planning a cross country trip, pilots usually know where they are every second they are airborne (granted occasionally a careless one will get lost...). With GPS this is even easier. The whole idea is that if you know bad weather is ahead - and pilots always can; they get weather briefings before taking off, and can talk to enroute control towers miles ahead of them for weather updates - you land at an enroute airport and drive through the inclement weather. I think Terrafugia have defined their niche fairly well. Whether it will mean financial success and whether their safety efforts will be enough for the Motor Vehicle people remains to be seen. I fervently hope they pull it off!

Guys, don't be dumb. We have little chance in maintaining our current lifestyles without dreaming of flying cars. Without a MAJOR breakthrough in fuel and material sources this lil thing called Oil will keep innovations way in check for the man on the street. That breakthrough is a big, big IF. It would be the biggest leap Humanking has ever made. Figuring out how to burn/manipulate Oil GAVE us the 20thC (moon landings, A bombs, Freezer cabinets, SUVs dammit). And what we would have to do to fund personal giant car planes would dwarf even that leap we made by using Oil. Or, more likely, find another planet and build flying space monkeys to fly an oil pipeline through the solar system to pump the sweet stuff home.

And Why? will Oil keep us in check/diminish us? 1) It's gonna get scarce 2) Other people want it and need it and will get it before 'us' in the West (See China and Iran making friends) 3) Therefore it's gonna get expensive 4) And stay expensive 5) It's use is heating up the world. Most scientists agree that this has to be controlled. 6) We will need what we can get to keep warm and respond to climate change and run the economy at even modest growth. 7) And make composites for wind turbines/solar panels/ethamol harvesting tractors that WILL save us. NOT to get a bunch of people with no clue how the world works to feel like they are in Back to the Future.... ALTHOUGH that movie was kinda telling...how did Doc Brown fly his car? Using garbage power. THAT is excactly and accurately the kind of sea-change in energy we would need to make this remotely possible.

I don't think this vehicle, or flying cars like Moller's Skycar, will ever see the light of day, at least not in my lifetime. If it does, it will be a very small niche product, like the Segway. However, I do think some type of ground effect vehicle could be made practical for the general public, since it could "fly" over land and water without being able to get any higher than about 10 feet off the ground. That way, it could use the existing road infrastructure for the most part, and new "roads" could be quickly built out of something like plywood ramps, if necessary to ease congestion. A ground effect vehicle would also be much more energy efficient, as noted at sites like: http://www.pacificseaflight.com/wig_technology.shtml For any new vehicle to be adopted by the general public, it cannot have any propellers or jet engines (for safety and noise reasons), must be able to carry kids and groceries, must be air-conditioned, and it must get decent gas mileage. And it has to have at least one major benefit over existing automobiles, like being much cheaper to buy/operate, or being able to safely go places that regular cars cannot go, like over water, snow and ice. I've had what I think is a novel concept for such a vehicle for quite some time, but unfortunately I'm flat broke and can't put any money into developing such a product, so I *still* may never see one in my lifetime...

Gary - "Follow the yellow plywood road"? ROFLMAO. By the way - the Segway comparison is appropriate (speaking of Segway what ever happened to it after the intial hype?) So we go from "Let's pave the world" to "Let's plywood the world" drraylo - Sorry, but the major hole here is that "oil" isn't really the issue - it's (some) combustible liquid fuel. Also - if we want to make composites, where do you suppose the RESIN components come from? Can you say "oil"? I knew you could. The base stocks are petroleum. I suppose we COULD try to synthesize some of the materials from vegatable stocks. One hydrocarbon or another. (Thinking) If we could only understand the origin of the "weak force" (gravity) the problem would be solved (we can see the effects but we can't "block" it) Similarly we can't "efficiently" convert energy forms without massive losses - "man neither creates nor destroys - man only increases entropy" 3230 - It's a nice looking apparently well designed KLUGE, but still a kluge. Except for maybe not getting wet there is little advantage for the duality that a fold-up mo-ped carried in the back of a plane can't do. RARELY (actually, can't think of WHEN) have I had the necessity to get from A to B, do something in B that required MY OWN CAR (meaning that either public transport or rental or cab wouldn't work) and return to A. I could understand a "a strap on power pack" concept (the airframe exists separate from the road pack and the flight power pack) but that would require even more complexity. carrying around the extra components just to make it "dual use" adds a LOT of weight - or at the VERY least detracts from available PAYLOAD) Not everyone out there is an engineer and a good mechanic and would have the patience (maybe obstinacy is a better word) to enable the "transition". Anyway - gettng back to the subject The comment about making it a 3 wheeler to be a "motorcycle" is probably a good idea. At least the vehicle type would NOT be a "car" with its associated issues. I don't understand that people can't figure out that the prop is disconnected for ground operations. The ducted fan comment was initially to try to get better thrust from the system. Small props are inefficient at moving air at fixed speeds as compared to fans (it works as a max speed limiter, too) IF someone does a "history research lesson" they will find predictions of massive quantities of small aircraft/ air-cars/ car-boats and the like in Popular Science or Mechanics from 50/60 years ago and Moeller's vehicles maybe 20? years ago. Now not to be a nay-sayer but they haven't happened yet. Why? "issues" - the duality amounts to using an OX as a HORSE - sure, it works, but it isn't optimum for either (unless your name is MONGO) Nice concept but it will "die" under the weight of regulations (not lack of acceptance by the pilot community) Remember the Robinson Robin - originally conceived as a $25k helo? What are they now - $175K (and I really don't know since I don't do rotary wing)

To aircraft engineer: What's a KLUGE? Actually, the whole idea of the roadable as I see it is a practical VFR flying machine. You can't fly VFR in IFR conditions, but you can land and drive through it. Can't do that with the moped, 'cause you'll be wanting to get your aircraft to the destination as well. It is not a daily-use car according to their website, or at least not one for use in the city. I agree that the prop is smallish. perhaps a duct would increase its efficiency but would it interfere aerodyamically with the twin rudders? These guys aren't expecting automotive-like production quantities. Definitely a niche thing. I also wonder (if they get this thing going) whether they will be able to hold anywhere near their $148K price.

To aircraft engineer: What's a KLUGE? Actually, the whole idea of the roadable as I see it is a practical VFR flying machine. You can't fly VFR in IFR conditions, but you can land and drive through it. Can't do that with the moped, 'cause you'll be wanting to get your aircraft to the destination as well. It is not a daily-use car according to their website, or at least not one for use in the city. I agree that the prop is smallish. perhaps a duct would increase its efficiency but would it interfere aerodyamically with the twin rudders? These guys aren't expecting automotive-like production quantities. Definitely a niche thing. I also wonder (if they get this thing going) whether they will be able to hold anywhere near their $148K price.

A kluge is a cobbled together thing that in the extreme amounts to a "Rube Goldberg". It "functions" but in this case since it is a combination of 2 divergent technologies, does NEITHER optimally (and might do one in particular POORLY - the "road portion") Think of a camel as a horse designed by committee. Well a kluged camel (with government regulations included) would be a PIG with WINGS. It will "work" - heck Mort showed that 50 some years ago. BUT will it SELL? Can it be LICENSED as a VEHICLE? Is it the Segway of the car/airplane world (Segway... what ever happened to them? They were supposed to save the world...)

There's an old saying "There are OLD pilots an there are BOLD pilots, but there are few OLD BOLD pilots" The system tends to stop inadequate (as in "stupid") people from becoming pilots. The inadequate ones who do make it usually wind up being a casualty of chlorination of the gene pool. Sometimes, they inadvertently take a few others with them when they go. The system can't avoid it - but at least it's better than the driver's license system. By the way - I doubt that the FCC would care, the FAA might, though...(I knew what you meant)

...If it hasn't already been mentioned. Let's assume for a moment that the FCC would allow this silliness; who knows, maybe GWB has a friend who would stand to make money here... Anyway, just envision a soccer mom (or dad) with their bluetooth attached at their ear and in full chat, while looking for a CD, and you have the makings of some truly horrendous accidents. At least when one of those morons crashes into something NOW, I can feel relatively safe in my front room. Let's not give these people another axis to play with... Granted, the difficulty and expense of getting a pilot's license SHOULD filter those people out, but I really don't have that much faith in the system.

Just imagine your neighbour (the one with the turbocharged monster SUV who gets up at 5:30am to miss the peak hour traffic) getting hold of a flying car ... Does anyone have any idea how much noise a flying car would make on take-off? No? Even a very small light plane makes a heck of a racket. Flying cars => More "hunting" accidents :-)

Maybe... instead of doing a whole bunch of research on how this idea WON'T work, smart people like our "fantastic" engineers here should figure out better innovations that they feel should be made. Oh wait. You're all stuck in the present and never want to make any changes. What a waste of talent. At least this guy is trying something, even if it wont work. All of you just sick back and blast others ideas, or what reasons? Only reason I can think of, is to make yourself feel like a better, and smarter man. I say let them try it, although I don't think it'll work out entirely, as there are too many downers for this. But its ideas like these that lead to other inventions, so I won't ever say it's a bad idea. It won't hurt anyone if it never takes off, so it can't be a bad idea. Chewing gum was an accident of an innovation, maybe these guys will find something out they did not intend as well. As for flamers, yeah. Go get your toolsets and do something with that massive cantaloupe you call a brain of yours, if you're truely superior engineers. Quit preaching, and start teaching. - Note: I am in no way an engineer, I work with computers.

Wouldn't it be more feasable and safer to go in the direction of personal Zeppelins? I would think that a small version of the zeppelin with enough lift for two people would also be small enough to park, maybe not in the garage, but in the back yard. My question would be what is the volume ratio of Helium to weight lift?

I think a flying car would be beneficial for global travel transport. Yet with modern science and dynamic research science teams. Why can't we open our minds to the possiblity of having magnetic propulsion traveling. Which the theory and concepts of how wormholes in outer space creates a vaccum and creates an air pocket which one can safely travel thru. Thus the concept of telportation is possible if proper numeric calculation is precisely configure. Which will elevate the concepts of having traditional vehicles. One would have to purchase ion propulsion gear and travel portals will be regulated by proper government computer elite travel officiers.