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

51–60 of 73 posts

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

#51

Post by gvb »

hasenj wrote: post #31
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.

Why the downvote? it really does look like a hoax. Plus when people say "flaying car" I expect a sci-fi like flying care: that it can hover and fly vertically, not have a parachute-like thing attached to it. This one really almost looks like an april fools joke.

"It looks like a hoax" is not a useful comment and has no research to back it up. The poster apparently did not even read the text under the linked video, which says "[T]he FAA has also issued the Maverick a S-LSA aircraft airworthiness certificate."

It is highly unlikely the FAA would issue a S-LSA[1] aircraft airworthiness certificate to a hoax.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft

http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/aircraft_index.html

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

#52

Post by yannickmahe »

jasongullickson wrote: post #49

Two questions: 1. How much 2. How soon I love the EAA, if you're attending the fly-in this year ping me and I'll introduce you to my friend Chuck...

1.) 84000 US$

2.) By Oshkosh 2011, which is end of july this year

http://mavericklsa.com/FAQ.html

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

#53

Post by jaysonelliot »

codex wrote: post #34

Yikes, what a death trap. This monstrosity combines the unreliability of a car with the dangers of a small aircraft. Cars are not as reliable as aircraft because they're not maintained as well, and the operators are far less disciplined. It is generally accepted that small aircraft aviation is generally 10x less safe than driving on both a passenger-mile and per-trip basis. And most small aircraft are flown for recre…

I'm amazed by the "It'll never work" attitudes of people sometimes.

I suppose there's a good feeling that comes from pointing out perceived flaws and problems in things, or from treating emerging inventions as though they were fully commercialized products.

I can only imagine what erstwhile tech forums would have read like if they'd been around when Edison was churning out ideas at Menlo Park, or if there had been internet commenters looking over Marconi's shoulder, or Bell's.

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

#55

Post by Sukotto » 

  What we want to do is develop a commercial market. Sell it
  to people up here for whatever they want to do with it. So 
  we can get the quantity up so we can get the cost down so 
  we can serve the humanitarian missions market which is our 
  primary market.
I wish the One Laptop Per Child people had taken this route instead of the "for a limited time each year, we'll force you to buy TWO of these (and donate one of them) for each ONE that you want" approach that they chose to do.

The end result was noble in that you were contributing to charity. But the way they did it made me feel like they were gouging people.

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

#56

Post by dhughes »

To me a flying car is something which you could just decide to go up when driving along on the freeway not spend half an hour assembling it before you could fly.

I've always thought a lifting-body blimp/dirigible vehicle such as the size of a minivan would do well, the majority of the space inside would be filled with helium. Carbon fibre for the skin and other very light-weight materials would be used.

It would be low speed and easy to control since it would fly fairly slow but probably highway speeds.

The biggest problem would be crash protection that would require a lot of extra material such as bumpers, safety glass, strong seat backs.

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

#57

Post by JoeAltmaier »

chrislomax wrote: post #48
danparsonson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there's the unshielded people-blender mounted on the back.... Looks great for the emergency services market he's aiming at, but for the consumer market he wants to target to help get things moving - scary stuff.

I thought exactly these two points when he said it's great for when you are stuck in a traffic jam and you can fly over everyone at 40mph. Well, not if everyone is already in there air! It would be funny in a weird twist of fate that if this was adopted an in 1000 years everyone started buying road cars again to avoid the airways congestion... I also thought about the props when he was just driving round, I don't kno…

The air is a whole lot bigger than the ground. Roads are 33 ft wide. The air is - the air! Its miles wide and 3D. It would conceivably be had to collide with another air car if you tried.

Takeoff and landing is the risky time, and that is mitigated by the timing - it takes seconds to land this thing (100 yd airstrip) so you'd have to attempt to land at the same moment as someone else which is in your favor.

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

#58

Post by simpleTruth »

lucasjung wrote: post #44
jeromec wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, using an A&P is fine. I'd still imagine the maintenance costs on this thing, consisting mostly of a drag engine, propeller, and chute would be less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree? I do agree it would certainly make sense to opt in for covering the car as well. I was mostly making the point the liability rule could be a baseline showing insurance companies had no reason to charge a…

> Sure, using an A&P is fine. Not sure what you were trying to say here, but using an A&P isn't "fine," it's mandatory , and it's very expensive. > ...less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree? Maybe a little, but not significantly. This still misses the point: airplanes are required to get periodic maintenance way more often than cars, and airplane mechanics cost way more than car mechanics.…

It's not a 84K airplane it's a 30k car + (84 - 30)K airplane. I bought a vary nice car even though I only drive ~5K miles a year. I could sell my car and add an extra ~800-1000$ a month to be able to fly on the weekends, but paying ~90K + hanger fees and still needing a car is much harder.

PS: Renting an airplane is still a better option if you fly less than 10 hours a month, but IMO there is a nitch for a crappy flying car.

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

#59

Post by jeromec »

lucasjung wrote: post #44
jeromec wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, using an A&P is fine. I'd still imagine the maintenance costs on this thing, consisting mostly of a drag engine, propeller, and chute would be less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree? I do agree it would certainly make sense to opt in for covering the car as well. I was mostly making the point the liability rule could be a baseline showing insurance companies had no reason to charge a…

> Sure, using an A&P is fine. Not sure what you were trying to say here, but using an A&P isn't "fine," it's mandatory , and it's very expensive. > ...less costly than that of a traditional airplane wouldn't you agree? Maybe a little, but not significantly. This still misses the point: airplanes are required to get periodic maintenance way more often than cars, and airplane mechanics cost way more than car mechanics.…

Not sure what you were trying to say here, but using an A&P isn't "fine," it's mandatory, and it's very expensive.

I was trying to say factoring in an A&P wouldn't lead me to believe operational costs would necessarily jump to be prohibitively expensive.

This still misses the point: airplanes are required to get periodic maintenance way more often than car

But you're still missing my point. It's not an airplane :) In other words, I would expect the work and associated costs (including a fully certified A&P) to be quite different on a hot air balloon, let's say with an added engine driven propeller, than on an airplane. The complexity difference is relevant because there is less to go wrong for safety and repair.

I know a lot of people who own small planes...All of these people are upper middle class, so these planes represented major expenses for them.

Yes, but I'd wager those planes are capable of more than 40 mph in the air, and I seriously doubt they would have been bought by under such strenuous expense if they were not. Boats can also represent a source of strained expense, but, like airplanes, they provide recreational function outside the normal cost of living. A person buying this vehicle at 84K with the duplicate function of use as a car, which happens to be capable of 40 mph in the air, is probably going to be richer than upper middle class.

Hey, I'm just an observer looking in at all this. Maybe Maverick LSA hasn't thought your points through, and their project path is flawed. My belief is that it would be workable as a car.

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

#60

Post by codex »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #53
codex wrote: post #34

Yikes, what a death trap. This monstrosity combines the unreliability of a car with the dangers of a small aircraft. Cars are not as reliable as aircraft because they're not maintained as well, and the operators are far less disciplined. It is generally accepted that small aircraft aviation is generally 10x less safe than driving on both a passenger-mile and per-trip basis. And most small aircraft are flown for recre…

I'm amazed by the "It'll never work" attitudes of people sometimes. I suppose there's a good feeling that comes from pointing out perceived flaws and problems in things, or from treating emerging inventions as though they were fully commercialized products. I can only imagine what erstwhile tech forums would have read like if they'd been around when Edison was churning out ideas at Menlo Park, or if there had been in…

I think flying cars will eventually be commonplace, but when they are they will be piloted by AIs.
Post reply on HN