Unlike the others, it doesn't have a fixed wing. It's a flying parachute.
The Terrafugia Transition is a more traditional attempt at a flying car (in that it has fixed wings), but as for how useful it will be, that's debatable. Take a look at the performance numbers, and keep in mind that real-world numbers are always worse. The useful load is 460lbs. That is a zero-fuel number; when you fill the tanks, you're down to about 310lbs. Which means for most people, you either have to fly with less fuel to carry a passenger and your luggage (or you can fill the tanks and carry a very skinny passenger). At roughly $250,000, that's a shitload of money for a LSA. Most other LSAs are about half that, so you can buy a car to get to the airport, afford hangar rent for a lot of years and still have money left over to rent a car when you get to where you want to go.
And if you want an airplane that will honestly carry two people and their stuff, maybe three people, you can buy a new Cessna 172 for a bit more than a Terrafuga and have an airplane that is capable of flying IFR.
An Explosion Of Entitlement
5 hours ago
2 comments:
That thing would only weigh three times as much once it's made street legal.
We're going to have to wait for anti-gravity before we can have George Jetson flying cars.
it's wishful thinking as the same physics that limit it and make it costly are still present now as 70 years ago.
Those that want to fly will look past the novelty. With Cessna selling the 162 (LSA version of the venerable 150)
with better number and lower cost which one sells, and succeeds.
I look at C150s, PA28, DC3, DC9 and 737 and the answer is the same, does the job for the most users at best cost to own and fly and shear numbers made prove it.
Car with wings, not so much.
Eck!
Post a Comment