Maximum Air Speed Explained: Jack Baruth To Outrun Flying Car At NY Auto Show
“For 100 years, people have been dreaming about flying cars,” says, well, a promotion video that attempts to drum up investor interest for a flying car. Despite many attempts, we don’t see many flying cars, nether flying, nor driving. At TTAC, the story is as old as the old Farago-era layout. Fear not, flying cars will be here, real soon now, promise. One will even be at the New York Auto Show.
When Jack Baruth takes Manhattan, he will get a glance at the Terrafugia Transition. If that sounds kind of familiar to you, then that is because of said Farago-era article. The story is that old. There also was this one last year. You can already put a deposit on it (which will be appreciated by a cash hungry company.) $279,000 gets you one in 2013. Last year, it was said the Transition would be here this year. Oh well, time moves on. Speaking of moving, at 105 mph airspeed, the Terrafugia will be slower than much cheaper cars on land, especially with Jack on the wheel. Of the cheaper car.
In the Netherlands, a flying car that looks like a high-tech cockroach just finished its first test flights. The PAL-V is a three-wheeler with folding rotors. It is a gyrocopter, and it needs 540 feet of runway to get into the air.
Engadget says that PAL-V does not stand for a European television standard, but for Personal Air and Land Vehicle. A tank of regular is said to be good for 350 to 500 kilometers in the air and about 1,200 kilometers on the ground. It’s a lousy chick-magnet though: It only has one seat, and it does not recline fully. The PAL-V folks are looking for investors.
Bertel Schmitt comes back to journalism after taking a 35 year break in advertising and marketing. He ran and owned advertising agencies in Duesseldorf, Germany, and New York City. Volkswagen A.G. was Bertel's most important corporate account. Schmitt's advertising and marketing career touched many corners of the industry with a special focus on automotive products and services. Since 2004, he lives in Japan and China with his wife <a href="http://www.tomokoandbertel.com"> Tomoko </a>. Bertel Schmitt is a founding board member of the <a href="http://www.offshoresuperseries.com"> Offshore Super Series </a>, an American offshore powerboat racing organization. He is co-owner of the racing team Typhoon.
More by Bertel Schmitt
Comments
Join the conversation
the PAL-V is not a single seater but a two seater.
FYI: Some people, most likely EVERYONE who might buy one of these, would not be doing it as part of a rational desire to save time/money commuting. They would buy it as an awesome toy. Which is would be.
The flying car has always been a terrible idea, on par with the Amphicar but way more dangerous. The compromises are so extreme that you end up with rotten performance overall. The reason cars are so heavy today is due to all the safety stuff plus modern conveniences everyone likes (air con, power windows etc). They are also pretty crashworthy. Weight, on the other hand, is the Enemy in airplane design and degrades performance. Nobody has pointed out here that driving a flying car on the road means you need to give up impact zones, steel beams in the doors, airbags and the rest. If you have a minor fenderbender your vehicle is no longer airworthy until you renew your Certificate of Airworthiness, or whatever your country requires. Light aircraft make sense flying to smaller centres not well-served by airlines but you would never take your flying car to Newark Liberty, for example. New general aviation aircraft are not cheap: a new Cessna 172 is around $297,000 but it will carry four with a modicum of comfort and performance, less with a lot of baggage, and has an excellent safety record for a general aviation airplane. Flying cars will just never work out...but how about that zeppelin idea?
Sprocket, There is an often discussed loophole in the LSA rules for those wanting to fly IFR. (i stay out of those discussions). At any rate, they do indeed plan on driving under bad weather. Also, depending on your region, IFR may be necessary or a 172 won't cut it either. Some areas require deice for a decent dispatch rate, and the low wing loading in the 172 can make it undesirable or even unsafe in many types of weather. It's like the arguments we used to get here about how stupid AWD is. Yes, in the south east it's not much value, but in the Rockies it's priceless. For someone, somewhere, roadable makes sense. For others it's a toy. I try to avoid Team Never.