Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

eaavideo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#11

Post by stretchwithme »

SeoxyS wrote: post #9

The big problem with his "stuck in traffic" scenario is how do you find the space to take off. Not to mention the legality of the whole thing. Granted, it's a really cool demo, but he needs to admit that there is little real-world practicality.

His focus is on serving the third world. It is clear in the video you need a runway and you don't have one when stuck in traffic. Or probably the room you need to deploy the wing.

I think he should play up the fact that this takes off with half the speed Marty McFly would need to turn on his flux capacitor.

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#12

Post by lucasjung »

nkassis wrote: post #4
jbum wrote: post #3

It's not a flying car, it's a driving plane.

Actually he makes it clear in the video, it's a good car that can be driven in excess of 95 mph does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. So it is definitively a flying car ;p

The only logical use case is as a driving plane, because using it as a car more than the absolute minimum necessary would be prohibitively expensive.

First: insurance. You would have to insure it as both a plane and as a car, and insurance companies aren't going to know how to handle that, which means they'll either refuse to touch it or charge a premium. Even if such vehicles became common enough for insurance companies to get comfortable with them, they're still probably on the expensive side for cars, and repairing collision damage on airplanes costs a lot more than repairing comparable damage on cars. That's not normally such a big deal because collisions are much less common for airplanes, but with this vehicle you would combine the high collision risk of a car with the high repair costs of an airplane.

Second, and more importantly: maintenance. The FAA requires that periodic inspections and preventative maintenance be conducted at regular intervals, and those intervals are defined in terms of the number of hours the engine has been operating[1]. Airplane maintenance is way more expensive than car maintenance, but every hour you drive this thing on the road will count as an hour towards maintenance required at airplane rates.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tach_Timer

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#13

Post by ericmoritz »

BoppreH wrote: post #10

Awesome. My only concern is the time to set up the wings, which seems quite a work. He says the wings are under a zipper, and there's the big mast that needs to be raised, this can't be quick.

It takes about 5 minutes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8b0oR0-Pgo&feature=playe...

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#14

Post by graffitishark »

SeoxyS wrote: post #9

The big problem with his "stuck in traffic" scenario is how do you find the space to take off. Not to mention the legality of the whole thing. Granted, it's a really cool demo, but he needs to admit that there is little real-world practicality.

Exactly. I think the only 'practical' use would be in very rural areas (where laws may be very lax...or bendable).

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#15

Post by jeromec »

nkassis wrote: post #4
jbum wrote: post #3

It's not a flying car, it's a driving plane.

Actually he makes it clear in the video, it's a good car that can be driven in excess of 95 mph does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. So it is definitively a flying car ;p

Yes, he drove it 1400 miles, and it does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, with a top speed over 95 mph. In the air it goes 40 mph, so it's definitely more able as a car. But it's also a boat and a snowmobile! "The propeller has 3 uses: in the air, on the water with pontoons, and on the ice it'll really go."

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#16

Post by stretchwithme »

aurora72 wrote: post #5

It looks like a HOAX, the video doesn't show the vehicle in a test fly, or during a take off. 98% of the video either shows the vehicle going on the ground just like other non-flying cars or shows people discussing about a flying car.

And here it is taking off:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN6IlPBNRMQ

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#19

Post by duck »

lucasjung wrote: post #12
nkassis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually he makes it clear in the video, it's a good car that can be driven in excess of 95 mph does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. So it is definitively a flying car ;p

The only logical use case is as a driving plane, because using it as a car more than the absolute minimum necessary would be prohibitively expensive. First: insurance. You would have to insure it as both a plane and as a car, and insurance companies aren't going to know how to handle that, which means they'll either refuse to touch it or charge a premium. Even if such vehicles became common enough for insurance compa…

I don't know for sure, but maybe it gets around both of these because it is not a fixed wing aircraft?

Re: Flying Car (and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds!)

#20

Post by jeromec »

lucasjung wrote: post #12
nkassis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually he makes it clear in the video, it's a good car that can be driven in excess of 95 mph does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. So it is definitively a flying car ;p

The only logical use case is as a driving plane, because using it as a car more than the absolute minimum necessary would be prohibitively expensive. First: insurance. You would have to insure it as both a plane and as a car, and insurance companies aren't going to know how to handle that, which means they'll either refuse to touch it or charge a premium. Even if such vehicles became common enough for insurance compa…

Airplane maintenance is way more expensive than car maintenance, but every hour you drive this thing on the road will count as an hour towards maintenance required at airplane rates.

Yes, but this isn't an airplane. It's a flying car ;)

Seriously, the maintenance comparison wouldn't appear to be the same. It looks like this thing has a propeller attached to a drag style engine. I would expect maintenance costs to be more akin to a souped up car than an airplane.

Also, by law to drive (in California at least) you're only required to have liability insurance covering the party you hit. Covering your own vehicle is optional.

Post reply on HN