Video: Aeromobil Roadable aircraft 2.5

[fly_tornado]

[medio=full]398[/medio]

 

 

[Guernsey]

Good in America or Europe....left hand drive.

 

Alan.

 

 

[pylon500]

Well, I guess it proved it could fly, not sure it could prove it can climb?

 

The undercarriage layout will make it a bitch to land!

 

Not sure why they went with a cantilever wing when it swings from a point that could have had a strut fitted, much lighter...

 

Maybe fold out wingtip extensions will give it that last little bit it needs, other than that, looks OK.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Agree about the undercarriage layout. Too many other compromises too. If you want something that drives well and flies well, buy a car, a trailer and a plane.

 

 

[Cosmick]

3.0 flying

 

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Well, I guess it proved it could fly, not sure it could prove it can climb?The undercarriage layout will make it a bitch to land!

Not sure why they went with a cantilever wing when it swings from a point that could have had a strut fitted, much lighter...

 

Maybe fold out wingtip extensions will give it that last little bit it needs, other than that, looks OK.

Of course it can climb mate, it's at about 1000ft already. Why go higher on a trial flight. As for landing, looked easy enough to me. Just get your wheels in line and flare at the right time.. IMO it's a beautiful piece of engineering that all the nay-sayers would dearly love to own.

 

 

[onetrack]

I find it hard to understand why people continue to throw funds (well, mostly OTHER peoples funds) at the flying car concept. To put it mildly, the concept will never get off the ground (pun intended).

 

The simple fact remains that the gulf between aviation and motoring is just too great to create a cross-over. On the road, you have to put up with every imbecile that can't even keep to lanes, or keep a vehicle upright on straight roads, in broad daylight.

 

You park your Aeromobil, and some idiot is bound to back into it, or bounce off it, just turning around near to it. Then they drive off without a care in the world - leaving you to figure out the damage, how it will affect the flying ability, and who's going to pay for it.

 

What happens when you get a "parking bingle" in a wing of this thing? You're grounded until it can be certified to fly again - at great cost. What happens when you strike road debris, that bounces up into the fuselage or wing?

 

I regularly see road debris that gives me the horrors. Pieces of steel, bolts, gluts from trucks, star pickets, and God only knows how much lightweight rubbish like plastic bags, cardboard, ply, and even pieces of furniture.

 

All of this road debris has the potential to immediately create enough damage to a flying car to render it dangerous to fly. This doesn't even begin to mention the animals that frequent roads, that create regular body damage to vehicles.

 

Cars are cars, and aircraft are aircraft - and the strict requirements of aviation ensure that the chances of building a cross-over that can cope with regular road and traffic conditions, and still be able to fly after incurring normal road damage, is next to nil.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

As things/designs are today, you may be right but, to say quote" the concept will never get off the ground (pun intended)" is so closed minded to be an insult to man's ingenuity. It wasn't all that long ago when they said only birds could fly, how wrong they were. It WILL happen but maybe not in our life time, depending on how old you are.

 

As my signature says, Dare to think outside the square.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

As things/designs are today, you may be right but, to say quote" the concept will never get off the ground (pun intended)" is so closed minded to be an insult to man's ingenuity. It wasn't all that long ago when they said only birds could fly, how wrong they were. It WILL happen but maybe not in our life time, depending on how old you are.As my signature says, Dare to think outside the square.

Sorry to say desk pilot but I reckon one track is right and that to think otherwise is not thinking outside the square it's actually thinking INSIDE the square - the square that has existed since the first of those flying cars were invented and failed in the 1930s and 40s. The concept is not that the vehicle exists but rather that the vehicle can exist in a manner that make it viable for anyone other than the inventor with his one or maybe two prototypes to own. In failing to become to become a viable business/source of the aircraft then the craft will disappear.

 

"Inside the square" includes only the engineering that is needed to make a flying car without looking outside at the total environment that exists where the car/plane will be flown. But even inside the square there are factors that continue to make the concept non-viable.

 

These include cost ( bigger than buying a normal plane and a dozen cars parked around every airport you are likely to fly to), all hybrids end up being compromises, legislational requirements ( currently the so-called "roadable aircraft " can't be "flyable cars" because they have to have roadworthy stuff like crash safety stuff and pollution limiting stuff which make them too heavy) the manufacturers get around this by calling them roadable planes and as they don't actually have rules yet for such devices they can get by without a lot of standard requirements in cars but governments are apparently looking at closing that loophole - so much so that the developers of the "Switchblade" have had to downgrade it to a flyable motorbike further limiting future usefulness.

 

Back to outside the square:

 

The issues of ground movement damage is a complete game closer for anyone but the most enthusiastic well heeled owner. Almost certainly not enough of these to keep the company going.

 

In "around the bar discussions" with an pilot/aircraft owner/insurance broker he was pointed out that the roadable aircraft will be uninsurable because of the extreme high risk of damage, even minor damage that can lead to future structural failure. No insurer would take the risk that even a slight ding in a supermarket carpark would not lead to catastrophic failure sometime later.

 

The "outside the square" stuff is unchangable. You can't have a machine to drive on roads without the downside of the driving on roads.

 

I'm not saying they can't be built - they already have been. The issue is whether we would see any outside the factory where the one or two prototypes were made. With enough money anything can be done these days. But That doesn't make it a viable machine.

 

 

[kasper]

Actually if you tore out all that rubbish car stuff, fixed the wings put a proper trigear on it and THEN market it as an LSA it might have a chance of commercial success ...

 

As it stands it is in my opinion an horrendously expensive car with all the problems of being a rather delicate aircraft ... I just wondered what your average scroat keying the leading edge does to the airworthiness ... then along came two posts before me covering much more ground and a overly heavy underperforming aircraft. Basically the worst of both types being rolled into something that is the least worst :-/

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Re-read my last post................maybe not in our life time. Think Jetsons, with no vulnerable wings. Personal flying vehicles will come about to replace cars per sey.

 

 

[kasper]

So Deskpilot ... this is by your post an entirely dead end design path and by implication all the comments on it being a crap idea as a car and a crap idea as a plane are correct.

 

Maybe we should just wait for the helicopter/autogyro versions (I know of the Dutch gyro thanks) ... but they also have vulnerable 'wings' ... so really its jetpacks or await anti-gravity.

 

Hmmm. Oh we could go for a bike or motorbike in a plane that is within the rec space ... now I seem to recall there being a Jabiru inspired airframe with clam shell cargo doors and top mounted engine like that already in existence ... or maybe we need a Miles Aerovan / Short Skyvan updated to lighter weights ...

 

 

[Deskpilot]

All journeys start with one step. This and the other current 'flying cars/roadable planes' are but the first steps to the future, so no, not a dead end design. One idea leads onto another and to another so eventually we will have a vehicle that can/could do both jobs perfectly. Maybe, the road side of it will become redundant. Who knows! Look to the future and hope you're still around to see it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You park your Aeromobil, and some idiot is bound to back into it, or bounce off it, just turning around near to it. Then they drive off without a care in the world - leaving you to figure out the damage, how it will affect the flying ability, and who's going to pay for it.

insurance companies, they will love these things $20K premiums