What do you guys think? What we know is extremely limited, so feel free to jump to conclusions and openly speculate.
will it :gameon:or:gameoff:?
Printable View
What do you guys think? What we know is extremely limited, so feel free to jump to conclusions and openly speculate.
will it :gameon:or:gameoff:?
It will sell quantities in the single digits, the company will go bankrupt or shut down, and it will be a highly sought after collector's item in 20 yrs.
people can't drive a regular car properly. the last thing we need is some distracted soccer mom with a flying car. or a guy/girl who doesn't know when to say when. or someone who, late for something across town decides the can probably sneak in under the wires that cross the road somewhere and land there instead of at an airfield.
Not to mention it will have to be maintained as an aircraft, not a car; no taking it to Wal-Mart to have the oil changed. And the end result of breakdowns due to poor maintenance will be much worst. :gameoff:
-James
What has me worried is that it rotates at 70knots and cruises at 100knots. This small gap tells me that it's underpowered. I watched the video, and it sure looked like it was hauling some serious butt to get airborne. I don't know if that's entirely safe to land and takeoff that fast but not be able to climb all that well. It may be fine for regional airports, but not your neighborhood 2,500 foot strip.
It flies. This is a prototype. Prototypes never fly 100% proper. I am sure they will have things worked out in a year or so. The F-16 was almost unflyable when it first flew.
Its gaining alot of attention. Great to see a flying car.
Bill
i didn't know about that. it's very interesting:wavey:Quote:
Originally Posted by tigisfat
The website says that it can get into and out of a 2,500 foot airstrip. a 2 passenger aircraft that cruises at 100 knots should hopefully be able to do a hell of a lot better than that. The pilots here will tell you that advertised performance is only achieved under perfect conditions. If they tell you that the minimum airstrip it can use is 2,500 feet, then you'd worry about a 3,000 foot airstrip.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheezyflier
Whatever do you mean? They don't change the shape of an aircraft for the production model. If they did, it would be another prototype. Such a difference in rotate speed won't be easy to come by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionheart
Great to see a flying car!
When I was a kid, I thought after 10 years a flying car will be born... that was 30 years ago. Now that I have seen one, in real life, (not on flight though) I am just glad someone has thought about it, and made a kid's dream come true!
Now, if this really will click or not, depends on technology. One has set foot on making flying cars, everyone/someone else will follow suit. There will be flaws, but thats what invention is all about. I dont know much about rotate speed, and foot airstrip and all the terminologies, but i am happy one has tried to make one.
You might give them your valuable feedback; There is always room for improvement (IMHO). Thank you Sire!
Eli
Tigisfat,Quote:
Originally Posted by tigisfat
How much do you know about aircraft design and the science of flight?
Do you know its the wing foils that produce lift and not the shape of the fuselage?
You yourself said it is underpowered. Perhaps they will install a larger engine and have a different airfoile that produces more lift at lower speeds.
I have faith that it will 'become' a better vehicle. Its not the shape of the body.. its the wings and powerplant.
When I was test driving Dodge Vipers, they would overheat if they idled at a stop light too long. They fixed it. :d
Bill
Not much, I'm just a humble certified flight instructor, A&P and crew chief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionheart
I know what you're saying, but many high performance aircraft with high wing loading have 'lifting body' designs. Everything affects everything. It's not so simple as to say that the body has nothing to do with the aircraft seemingly being underpowered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionheart
With a vehicle that suits this many roles, I really think that any change would result in a compromise in some other area. Wings with a higher aspect ratio will easily equal less roadability, and make it harder to store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionheart
Any powerplant change will result in possible redesigns of that systems that support it's operation; even the airframe and some sub-structures. It will also affect production costs and thusly, the cost to potential customers.
I was only speculating in the first place to assume they got these wrong. Only time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionheart
Ah yes, such a great car. Who did you work for? I drove them quite a few times when I was a car salesman. I had a knack for selling Vipers. It's probably because I'm a car guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionheart
yeah, i bet they were really tough to sell /eye rollQuote:
Originally Posted by tigisfat
:icon_lol:
I was a factory Chrysler test driver for about a year at their proving grounds in Arizona, now gone.Quote:
Ah yes, such a great car. Who did you work for?
Tigisfat
Amazing cars. The prototype (well known white one that was in all the magazines) was very rough. The later prototypes and then later model versions and variations all had bugs, but thats what its about, ironing out the bugs.
Lets hope the Terrafugia turns out to be one awesome plane and car.
Bill