It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The first commercial flying car available now

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

Yeah, It's as unsafe as you can get. It basically uses rudder to keep it from auto rotating from the prop wash.

The design would work and be much more safe with the right kind of powerplant.

This thing only has 100 hp, which I am guessing, without looking, has a Rotax 989, or similar ultralight powerplant.

If it had a turbine engine like most commercial helicopters, I would feel better about it.

Ultralight engines, are basically a snowmobile engine, they can't handle the temp changes that dedicated piston light aircraft engines are designed for. They are usually 2 strokes, because they have issues supplying oil to the right parts in zero, or negative g situations, that slosh the crankcase oil to the wrong places.

Problem with turbines is they start at about 500k for the engine only.

I am not a pilot, my old man is, but am working on my PPL right now.
I have flown a Piper Saratoga2 and a Piper Meridian m500 turbine.

All of these dual designs I have seen so far tend to give up safety and performance, in exchange for dual functions. In other words they end up being unsafe, and bad at both.

From what I hear, power is safety, and you don't really want anything under 300 hp. At that thrust level(in planes)
you can power out of most situations, such as minor icing, or unexpected tailwinds at takeoff.

If you are flying a plane that goes 80 into a 90 mph headwind, you will fly backwards across the ground at 10 mph.
Likewise, if you fly at 80 and your stall speed is 50, a 30 mph tailwind will stall the plane.


So, in other words, these low horsepower flying dream cars, ultralights, piston choppers and Gyros are dangerous as heck.

I wouldn't fly in it.

These concept plane are way overpriced, especially this one.
You can get into a pressurized single piper with de-ice boots and older avionics, over 200knt cruise, and a 1500lb useful load, for 250k if you hunt em down.






posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
That things ugly . Will wait for more sporty version thats not ugly .



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

Well ,I have to see how this turns out . It's approved by the regulations of airtrafic here and internationally so I would presume if wanted to buy this thing all of those questions could be answered about what you're saying.

Let's hope for those buying this vehicle it doesn't crash.
I know we have very strict rules here before something like this goes into production for now I rely on their expertise on this matter and that it's not a prestigious project.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
a reply to: 0bserver1

It's just a bloody helicopter with wheels ffs. And they'd sell a load more if it was cheaper! I don't see the logic in pricing something out of most peoples range. If it was cheaper, more people would buy it... meaning you'd make your cash anyway.

Sell 100 of these at 500,000 = 50 mil. Sell 5000 at 10,000 = 50 mil. which way would you get your 50 mil quicker?


The market is already restricted to those with helicopter licenses - and people who buy helicopters are looking at 500k as the middle of the low end of the range.


edit on Ev31TuesdayTuesdayAmerica/ChicagoTue, 21 Feb 2017 05:31:46 -06005222017b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: d0c134ks
Soon..flying boats


I want a flying bicycle first.

hard to get to the shops on your floating on air boat.

but whatever floats your boat.




posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: 0bserver1



If you are flying a plane that goes 80 into a 90 mph headwind, you will fly backwards across the ground at 10 mph.
Likewise, if you fly at 80 and your stall speed is 50, a 30 mph tailwind will stall the plane.







Your statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of aerodynamics. Speed is not the cause of a stall. A stall is caused by the angle of attack of the airfoil (the angle between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind) exceeding a critical number, causing a separation of the airflow from the airflow. Wing loading affects stall speed considerably. For example, this years CIVA Unlimited aerobatic Q (or known) sequence has a number of vertical down snap rolls. To do a snap roll, the wing must stall and then autorotate. This is done at full power going straight down at a multiple of the "normal" wings level level flight unloaded stall speed. On the other hand, in a hammerhead turn maneuver, the aircraft is pointed straight up at full power and this is maimtained until you just can't go up any more, at which time you apply full rudder to pivot around the vertical axis. Ideally, you reach almost zero airspeed at the pivot point. And yet, the aircraft never stalls, because the angle of attack remains zero the whole time. The wing loading in a multiple snap roll can easily be 6-8 Gs. In a hammerhead, wing loading is zero during the pivot. And tailwinds affect ground speed, not stall speed. If your airspeed is 80 in a 30 knot tailwind, your airspeed stays at 80 but your groundspeed is 110. A momentary wind gust can affect airspeed, but only until the aircraft accelerates back to a stable speed.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Great except for:
Expensive pilot certification
Neighbors complaining about the noise
Hard to park in a parking garage (more airport storage fees)
No time saved if you have to go to the airport to fly it
Think your car insurance is high now? Hoo boy.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: 0bserver1

Yeah, It's as unsafe as you can get. It basically uses rudder to keep it from auto rotating from the prop wash.



The design would work and be much more safe with the right kind of powerplant.

This thing only has 100 hp, which I am guessing, without looking, has a Rotax 989, or similar ultralight powerplant.

If it had a turbine engine like most commercial helicopters, I would feel better about it.

Ultralight engines, are basically a snowmobile engine, they can't handle the temp changes that dedicated piston light aircraft engines are designed for. They are usually 2 strokes, because they have issues supplying oil to the right parts in zero, or negative g situations, that slosh the crankcase oil to the wrong places.

Problem with turbines is they start at about 500k for the engine only.

I am not a pilot, my old man is, but am working on my PPL right now.
I have flown a Piper Saratoga2 and a Piper Meridian m500 turbine.

All of these dual designs I have seen so far tend to give up safety and performance, in exchange for dual functions. In other words they end up being unsafe, and bad at both.

From what I hear, power is safety, and you don't really want anything under 300 hp. At that thrust level(in planes)
you can power out of most situations, such as minor icing, or unexpected tailwinds at takeoff.

If you are flying a plane that goes 80 into a 90 mph headwind, you will fly backwards across the ground at 10 mph.
Likewise, if you fly at 80 and your stall speed is 50, a 30 mph tailwind will stall the plane.


So, in other words, these low horsepower flying dream cars, ultralights, piston choppers and Gyros are dangerous as heck.

I wouldn't fly in it.

These concept plane are way overpriced, especially this one.
You can get into a pressurized single piper with de-ice boots and older avionics, over 200knt cruise, and a 1500lb useful load, for 250k if you hunt em down.


It wouldn't "autorotate from prop wash" It would yaw from torque without an anti-torque tail rotor or rudder application. Ad it has a 200 hp engine, not 100. And if they are selling it for regular use it would need Part 23 Certification, which means it would have to have a certificated aircraft engine, like a Lycoming IO-360 or Continental O-470, both of which are 4 cycle and have been used in tens of thousands of aircraft. If you need 300 hp to be a safe pilot, your flight instructor should be taken out and shot. There are no civilian trainers with 300 hp. The original Piper Cub had 40 hp. The Aeronca Champ had 65, as did the Taylorcraft BC-12D. The Cessna 150 (the most used trainer in the world had 100. The PT-17 Stearman, which trained thousands off military pilots had 220 hp. If you need 300 hp to get your butt out of a situation that you should never have gotten in, you should take up bowling.




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join