- 6,394
- Nantes
- P308R
Aeromobil 3.0
- Thread starter doblocruiser
- 29 comments
- 1,588 views
- 15,460
- Orange County, NY
- GTP_GT916
- Nii916
It's cool, but I don't understand the advantage to having cars in the air instead of on the ground.
- 2,998
- England
- Peasantslayer
It being cool is the advantage.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,334
- United States
Shorter trip times for one.
- 405
- A house
- AbsoluteBarstool
- AbsolutBarstool
But how's it going to handle multi-storey car parks? It sort of feels like 9/11 all over again...
- 2,998
- England
- Peasantslayer
I think flying cars could be the future because it would greatly reduce trip times but the cars would have to be autonomous to prevent mid-air collisions (like a Google car for the sky) and as Robin said they would need to be VTOL. I think this particular car is more of a toy for the wealthy.
Keef
Premium
- 25,182
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Would, would, would, would, would.
This could offer advantages to people who want to be in another place quickly without renting a car.
However, it's probably not a good solution for people who need to be in another place, such as businessmen or whatever. That will only become practical once a production model achieves IFR certification for operation in inclement weather. Right now, the prototype is operating under experimental rules, however similar European rules are to US rules, which means they can do almost anything.
If this company plans on selling certified airplanes, even if they're not IFR certified, they better have some serious cash in the bank because that is usually where small aviation companies hit a brick wall. It's easy enough to design an airplane and offer a kit which is a popular thing to do, especially here in the US, but actually certifying it with the FAA is too much of a hassle and expense for almost everybody. It's very rare that anybody but the established companies will introduce a new certified airplane.
This could offer advantages to people who want to be in another place quickly without renting a car.
However, it's probably not a good solution for people who need to be in another place, such as businessmen or whatever. That will only become practical once a production model achieves IFR certification for operation in inclement weather. Right now, the prototype is operating under experimental rules, however similar European rules are to US rules, which means they can do almost anything.
If this company plans on selling certified airplanes, even if they're not IFR certified, they better have some serious cash in the bank because that is usually where small aviation companies hit a brick wall. It's easy enough to design an airplane and offer a kit which is a popular thing to do, especially here in the US, but actually certifying it with the FAA is too much of a hassle and expense for almost everybody. It's very rare that anybody but the established companies will introduce a new certified airplane.
Last edited:
- 6,394
- Nantes
- P308R
True! I like the design and the effort that is made. It looks nice and not to impracticle. During the video I was wondering if he would take off while he was on the road but that would probably be illegal 
.
.
- 8,642
- London
- GTP_Stotty
During the video I was wondering if he would take off while he was on the road but that would probably be illegal
Not to mention the roofs he'd be slicing off on the opposite carriageway
- 6,122
- Texas
Why is this still the direction flying "cars" are going in? The car bits have to comply with whatever laws and requirements apply, and the plane bits would have to do the same. You'd have to maintain road worthiness and air worthiness. What happens when the first idiot decides, "I want to see what happens when I close the wings mid-air."? Looking at different shots, it looks to be huge as well, and while I can't watch the video (throttled internet), I doubt the tail swings around when driving. I also doubt it would be inexpensive to maintain, I imagine on par with an American RV in costs. I don't see any real benefit aside from paying only one ungodly payment a month instead of two.
We have people trying to make warp speed possible, what would it take for this to take hold?
We have people trying to make warp speed possible, what would it take for this to take hold?
- 2,998
- England
- Peasantslayer
I don't know whether or not this sort of technology could be applied to cars.
RocZX
Premium
- 8,849
- New York
It doesn't look bad but it doesn't look good.
When I see one of these flying cars this is what I'm thinking.......
Why dose it just look like a plane with folded wings......
It should look like a car when it's on the road and a plane when it's in the air. The wings and propeller should be hidden when it's in car mode.
When I see one of these flying cars this is what I'm thinking.......
It has to be both road legal and air legal. It just looks like a plane, I don't think that a plane with pass road car crash test.
Why dose it just look like a plane with folded wings......
It should look like a car when it's on the road and a plane when it's in the air. The wings and propeller should be hidden when it's in car mode.
RocZX
Premium
- 8,849
- New York
The wings should be retractable, like a the spoilers on cars.
They would go out when it's a in plane mode and be flush with the body when in car mode.
The propeller would do the same thing retract in to the body when it's in car mode making it look like a Chaparral 2J or Brabham BT46 fan race cars.
Keef
Premium
- 25,182
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
They do retract.
As for the prop, the only practical reason to do anything with it is to reduce drag. This can be accomplished by feathering the blades which is a mechanism the Aeromobil apparently doesn't have.
This exists:
Stemme S10-VT
But you'll notice that this glider is exceedingly heavy. Its max takeoff weight is similar to a Cessna 172. The only reason it performs and glides as well as it does is because of very long wingspan and extremely low drag when the prop is stowed.
The problem we encounter with a "flying car" is that it is part car and therefore is heavy by default. Aerobmobil doesn't even mention the weight on their side but keep in mind that a Cessna 172 is virtually all aluminum with steel used sparingly and the Stemme glider is made of various fiber, plastic and carbon composites - even the driveshaft and wing spar are CF. But the Aeromobil has four motorcycle wheels and tires to lug around (small planes have three tiny ones), suspension for each (airplanes don't have springs), a transmission with two clutches and drivetrain (airplanes have none of that), and a steering system which airplanes don't have either. It's carrying a lot of crap that airplanes don't have and much of it has to be steel. Their website says the chassis is made of steel also which is ridiculous.
You can tell how heavy the thing is from its attitude in flight. During the video it always had some noticeable AOA, something which mostly disappears on small planes at cruise speed. The takeoff and cruise speeds are interesting - it takes off at 90 mph and has a "max" speed, which I assume is actually a cruise speed, of 124 mph. A Cessna 172 can take off at 55 and cruise at 130. Supposedly it stalls at 40 mph...I'll believe that when I see it. But basically it has a flight envelope of 34 mph which isn't much to work with.
The thing is apparently too heavy for a variable pitch propeller, much less a folding one. And thing wing folding mechanism is about as simple as it gets.
As for the prop, the only practical reason to do anything with it is to reduce drag. This can be accomplished by feathering the blades which is a mechanism the Aeromobil apparently doesn't have.
This exists:
Stemme S10-VT
But you'll notice that this glider is exceedingly heavy. Its max takeoff weight is similar to a Cessna 172. The only reason it performs and glides as well as it does is because of very long wingspan and extremely low drag when the prop is stowed.
The problem we encounter with a "flying car" is that it is part car and therefore is heavy by default. Aerobmobil doesn't even mention the weight on their side but keep in mind that a Cessna 172 is virtually all aluminum with steel used sparingly and the Stemme glider is made of various fiber, plastic and carbon composites - even the driveshaft and wing spar are CF. But the Aeromobil has four motorcycle wheels and tires to lug around (small planes have three tiny ones), suspension for each (airplanes don't have springs), a transmission with two clutches and drivetrain (airplanes have none of that), and a steering system which airplanes don't have either. It's carrying a lot of crap that airplanes don't have and much of it has to be steel. Their website says the chassis is made of steel also which is ridiculous.
You can tell how heavy the thing is from its attitude in flight. During the video it always had some noticeable AOA, something which mostly disappears on small planes at cruise speed. The takeoff and cruise speeds are interesting - it takes off at 90 mph and has a "max" speed, which I assume is actually a cruise speed, of 124 mph. A Cessna 172 can take off at 55 and cruise at 130. Supposedly it stalls at 40 mph...I'll believe that when I see it. But basically it has a flight envelope of 34 mph which isn't much to work with.
The thing is apparently too heavy for a variable pitch propeller, much less a folding one. And thing wing folding mechanism is about as simple as it gets.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Problem with flying cars: a simple vehicle issue on the ground, no issue call AA or your local equlivent.
Same thing happens in the air, everyone in vehicle is now dead.
I can't see it working because it won't be able to go through the refining stage of reliability as the risk of death will be soo high.
Same thing happens in the air, everyone in vehicle is now dead.
I can't see it working because it won't be able to go through the refining stage of reliability as the risk of death will be soo high.
Keef
Premium
- 25,182
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
This is an interesting observation I hadn't thought of before. It's easily solved.
In the US, registering and driving this thing wouldn't be a problem. Simply register it as a custom-built or kit-built car. All states have previsions for this. In some states, the car will still have to pass an emissions check, such as California. That's easy enough.
You also won't have a problem registering it as an airplane in the US. Kit airplanes are actually very popular and can even be certified for IFR. Honestly, the only practical way for Aeromobil to bring this plane to market would be as a kit. The requirements to earn an FAA type certificate would likely bankrupt the company which is precisely why so many new, innovative aircraft are offered as kits initially. Without a type certificate earned by the manufacturer, owners of the plane cannot get a normal airworthiness certificate for their individual plane. What would happen is that after buying the kit and assembling it the owner would get a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category, basically allowing them to fly it at their own leisure.
As for maintenance standards, on the car front this is a non-issue. But on the airplane front it will still have to conform to FAA-mandated maintenance regulations in order to maintain its special airworthiness certificate. Because of this, it will basically be the most thoroughly maintained car on the road.
Keep in mind that airplanes, even small general aviation planes and, surprisingly, experimental category planes, are many times safer than cars on the road. Honestly, with this Aeromobil you'd be much more likely to get in a crash on the way to the airport than to have an incident resulting in damage or injury in the air. Even if the plane's engine fails you can simply glide to the nearest landing spot. Luckily, this thing has large wheels, suspension and a really long wheelbase so you can land on some pretty rough terrain without flipping.
RocZX
Premium
- 8,849
- New York
Yes. I know it's so what impossible. But as they are now I don't see them as flying cars I see them like driveable planes.
If it's not possible to make it look more like a car when it's in car mode then I would rather have something like Plane Driven P2.
- 8,100
- Guelph, Ontario
This isn't made for 50:50 flying and driving.
It's made so that you don't have to get a hire car when you take a short flight down to another city.
Using for a long time as a car would be fun until you have to tell AAA to bring you some 100LL when you can't find gas anywhere.
Apparently you can run that engine on normal gas under certain conditions.
It's made so that you don't have to get a hire car when you take a short flight down to another city.
Apparently you can run that engine on normal gas under certain conditions.
RocZX
Premium
- 8,849
- New York
- 5,065
- Fort Worth
- That_sneaky_azN
