"Roadable"? Really? I was unaware road was a verb.
Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
41–50 of 55 posts
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a little bit like saying 10 years ago that no one needs a smartphone, it's a crappy phone and a crappy computer, it's too big and heavy and expensive and you can't get data anywhere and it sucks to type on. Just buy a phone for moving around and a computer for getting work done. Things change. Anything could be the Apple Newton of the next big thing :). (Although to be honest, I see transportation moving much…
There's a critical difference between smartphones and planes, which is that a smartphone is better than a computer and a phone in some ways. It's more portable than a computer, which means you can use it in situations where neither a phone nor a computer will work, because the phone doesn't have the necessary functions and the computer is too big. There is, I would argue, no situation where a roadable airplane is bet…
Look through the pre-iPhone pre-3G "smartphones" and the number of years they were in production to from the late 90s onward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History
They were shitty "computers" and very expensive phones. People had been predicting that they would happen for the longest time, and until the iPhone it pretty much seemed like nothing more than a geek dream.
Regarding the roadable car - I can imagine a fantastic use-case for commuters [on okay-weather days]. Let's say you want to live 100 miles from Boston or SF but would be looking at a brutal morning commute. But if some future-model was safe/fast/efficient/less expensive and there was infrastructure to land, all of a sudden you have a real use case.
Now the one in this video looks positively dangerous. But it doesn't mean down the road there can't be one that flies completely autonomously in most weather and can land on short runways in convenient locations in the middle of a city - that you can just drive off into a parking spot. Maybe it starts by costing as much as a tesla roadster.
I don't imagine any of this will actually happen, but if somebody can get you a roadable airplane for $100,000 that flies itself, it becomes a lot more interesting.
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#43It looks like it barely lifts off and even then doesn't look particularly stable.
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#44Interestingly, this also came out today: http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/moller-signs-agree...
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a critical difference between smartphones and planes, which is that a smartphone is better than a computer and a phone in some ways. It's more portable than a computer, which means you can use it in situations where neither a phone nor a computer will work, because the phone doesn't have the necessary functions and the computer is too big. There is, I would argue, no situation where a roadable airplane is bet…
Look through the pre-iPhone pre-3G "smartphones" and the number of years they were in production to from the late 90s onward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History They were shitty "computers" and very expensive phones. People had been predicting that they would happen for the longest time, and until the iPhone it pretty much seemed like nothing more than a geek dream. Regarding the roadable car - I can imag…
How is your 100-mile use case any better with a roadable airplane than with a separate car and airplane?
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#46I just don't get the appeal of roadable aircraft like this. Every single one I've seen is neither a particularly good airplane nor a particularly good car, and they're expensive . For the price of one, you can generally buy a better car, a better airplane, and a second better car to keep at your most frequent destination airport, and have enough money left over to rent cars at other destinations for years. I can't fi…
Your pricing data are wrong. Terrafugia Transition, new: $279,000 Cessna 172 Skyhawk, new: $289,500 The Transition only seats two while the 172 seats four, but I'd personally rather have the plane that also drives. http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transitionR http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skyhawk
And there are tons of used 172's in excellent condition for a third that price.
Or, you could compare the Terrafugia to a two-seat LSA. That would be a fairer comparison, since the Transition is an LSA while the 172 is a real certified airplane. Pipistrel and Icon both sell LSAs for about half the price of a Transition.
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#47I just don't get the appeal of roadable aircraft like this. Every single one I've seen is neither a particularly good airplane nor a particularly good car, and they're expensive . For the price of one, you can generally buy a better car, a better airplane, and a second better car to keep at your most frequent destination airport, and have enough money left over to rent cars at other destinations for years. I can't fi…
Your pricing data are wrong. Terrafugia Transition, new: $279,000 Cessna 172 Skyhawk, new: $289,500 The Transition only seats two while the 172 seats four, but I'd personally rather have the plane that also drives. http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transitionR http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skyhawk
And why, exactly, do you think a brand-new 172 is the reasonable thing to compare against?
There's no reason to only examine new aircraft, but even if you insist on that, you can do vastly better. For example, a Pipistrel Sinus will set you back about $86,000:
http://www.aviationbull.com/sinus
Compared to the Terrafugia, you can buy that, plus two $30,000 cars, and still have $133,000 left over to rent more cars. Or, say, buy a house. The Sinus also carries more weight, flies faster, burns less fuel, has a better range, and requires vastly less runway.
It's also probably substantially safer in the event of an engine failure. I don't see a glide ratio listed for the Transition, but just from looking at its relatively large frontal area, low-aspect-ratio wings, and gigantic road-sized front wheels exposed to the air with naked struts, I'd guess it's probably in the Cessna range of 10 or under. The Sinus has a glide ratio of 27, meaning you can get quite far to an airport if the engine quits. It's actually a decently performing glider in addition to a regular airplane.
If you expand the search to used aircraft, you can get quite cheap. For example, Cessna 152s in decent shape can be had for under $40,000, and that's not even the cheapest option.
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also the pattern of plenty of bad ideas. How does staying in the same vehicle help? Is it really that big of a deal to move between your car and your airplane? Let's not forget that airplanes need a preflight inspection before you fly if you're not suicidal, and having just driven the airplane to the airport doesn't eliminate that need. Quite the contrary: being exposed to the stresses of driving will increase t…
Technically you are supposed to pre-inspect your car before driving every time also. Remember the DMV course taken in high school? Also you don't need a flight plan, that is completely optional (it is essentially a SAR service if you crash). With modern avionics you can dynamically recalculate flight paths on the fly in the cockpit. You really don't need clearances either, unless flying into class B airspace (which y…
The difference is that failing to inspect your car before you drive might put you on the side of the road while you wait for a tow truck. Failing to preflight your airplane will kill you if you do it habitually. This is doubly true when your airplane folds up and you unfold it right before flight.
You absolutely need a flight plan. You do not need to file a flight plan, but you still need a plan. You need to know where you're going, how far it is, what the weather is like, what the weather is going to be like over the course of your trip, what your alternates are, what NOTAMs are in effect, etc. This step is, again, not optional if you enjoy living.
The price premium of these roadable airplanes will pay for decades of hangar rent and car rental, no exaggeration, so I don't see either of those as a disadvantage.
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a critical difference between smartphones and planes, which is that a smartphone is better than a computer and a phone in some ways. It's more portable than a computer, which means you can use it in situations where neither a phone nor a computer will work, because the phone doesn't have the necessary functions and the computer is too big. There is, I would argue, no situation where a roadable airplane is bet…
Look through the pre-iPhone pre-3G "smartphones" and the number of years they were in production to from the late 90s onward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History They were shitty "computers" and very expensive phones. People had been predicting that they would happen for the longest time, and until the iPhone it pretty much seemed like nothing more than a geek dream. Regarding the roadable car - I can imag…
> They were shitty "computers" and very expensive phones. People had been predicting that they would happen for the longest time, and until the iPhone it pretty much seemed like nothing more than a geek dream.
But phones were getting smaller, and more featureful year after year so it made sense to make that prediction.
No similar trend exists in planes/cars that I know of.
Re: Aeromobil: Roadable aircraft
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look through the pre-iPhone pre-3G "smartphones" and the number of years they were in production to from the late 90s onward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History They were shitty "computers" and very expensive phones. People had been predicting that they would happen for the longest time, and until the iPhone it pretty much seemed like nothing more than a geek dream. Regarding the roadable car - I can imag…
> They were shitty "computers" and very expensive phones. People had been predicting that they would happen for the longest time, and until the iPhone it pretty much seemed like nothing more than a geek dream. But phones were getting smaller, and more featureful year after year so it made sense to make that prediction. No similar trend exists in planes/cars that I know of.
There actually is a similar trend in cars. They're getting more featureful and larger. Which of course means they're trending ever further away from being able to double as practical aircraft.