(Page 2 of 2)
"They're doing some interesting things," says Mitch LaBiche, an engineer at LaBiche Aerospace, a company based in Alvin, TX, that has assisted the military in the construction of a wide variety of flying vehicles, from the F-117 to the Apache AH-64 helicopter. LaBiche's company is now working to build a flying sports car called the FSC-1. "[The Transition] is a light sports aircraft, so they're going to have to work hard to meet the weight requirements," LaBiche says.
The greatest nontechnical challenge Terrafugia must face is meeting the regulatory requirements of both the FAA and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). To satisfy FAA regulations for the category of light sports aircraft, the Transition must have a maximum level speed of 138 miles per hour, a one- or two-person occupancy, and fixed landing gear, among other things. For the NHTSA, the Transition must be able to pass the same requirements that a regular car would.
"There are systems in place with both organizations to make working with them as painless as possible," Dietrich says. "It is still a lot to go through, but we've made inroads with both, especially the FAA."
The company plans to build and sell between 50 and 200 Transitions a year, most likely starting in 2009, and it's marketing the vehicle to the roughly 600,000 licensed pilots in the United States. The Transition will be comparable in size to a Cadillac Escalade but won't be nearly as heavy. Terrafugia plans to charge $148,000 per vehicle.
"Very interesting! I would love to have one," says Kenny Huffine, a pilot for a major commercial airline who flies recreationally. "My one concern, though, is about having a plane parked around other cars. If it were pushed or damaged, would that make it unflyable and dangerous?"
Isn't it enough that we have to deal with constant reports of light 'fixed-wing' aircraft constantly falling from the sky due to one particular problem or another, without adding another new set of problems to deal with. I can see it all now. "Press release," Drunken executive takes wrong turn on the High 45. 3 plane pileup as a resuult."
This is a really ignorant view. The small planes that "constantly" fall out of the sky amount to low double-digits per year, maximum. If you want to take a stand on the subject of senseless death, pick driving (40,000+/yr) or smoking (500,000/yr). This country still allows fairly unrestricted flights (unlike Europe) that makes fun-flying affordable. More people are mauled each year during backpacking trips than the number of planes falling out of the sky.
Only an ignoramus whose alma mater comes from amongst the most dim witted of the 'Ignorami' ignores the facts.
With 116 General Aviation incidents (this includes fixed and rotary wing aircraft) reported in 2005, I'd hardly be alarmed by the number of small planes falling from the sky. Total fatalities for 2005 were 562, hardly alarming considering most planes carry multiple passengers. This is significantly lower than motorcycle fatalities. In 2005 motorcycle fatalities were 4,553... I'd rather fly than ride a bike, that's for sure.
It may seem like there are a lot of small planes falling from the sky, but this has more to do with news reporting that actual facts. Aviation accidents make the news because they are rare and novel, ad in a lot of cases they are reported nationally . If your nightly local news reported every automobile accident in your state, it would be a 24 hour channel.
As for the Transition, the biggest roadability issue I see is the surface area of the folded wings. Seems like a light vehicle with that much sail area would be unstable in high crosswinds. Might have to time your driving around small craft advisories.
I just meant that the view was without basis in fact. But if you want to name-call, so be it. You have no idea where I went to school (it happens to be one of the best Engineering schools in the nation), and it is irrelavent anyway.
Out.
Given the fact that aviation accidents occur mainly because of mechanical failure, it would be only a matter of time before these ungainly hybrids, which would not be able to perform one function relatively well, let alone two, start to reveal the flaws in their design performance with what would be alarming regularity.
Aviation accidents are by a longshot caused by pilot error, not mechanical failure.
-Fuel Starvation
-Unplanned flight into IMC
-CFIT (controlled flight into terrain)
-Incorrectly executed instrument approach
-Failure to properly de-ice
-etc...
I agree it's ungainly, but I wouldn't mind trying to drive/fly it. I trust my Cessna more right now...
I did not include pilot error because I knew someone who has been lucky enough not to be a victim of an aviation accident, would most certainly point it out to the rest of us, that most aviation accidents occur because of this fact. Let's all hope that you continue to enjoy the relative freedom of the skies for as long as your able. I just hate to think of what air traffic controllers will have to deal with, however, once the highly skilled and trained flight jockeys of these highly unreliable contraptions start calling in for landing instructions.
1. a car/plane that can only take off and land at an airport is impractical and would a huge burden on airport security.
2. before we have cars that can fly we better come up with a failsafe navigation system to allow the car to fly and land itself because the mechanics required to fly a plane are tenfold over driving a car (Dealing with the snowbirds on the roads is bad enough).
3. What kind of fuel supply are you gonna have on this thing. if it is to be economcial it would need to be able to make long flights on a single tank.
4. we better have houses in the sky like the Jetsons before we have any flying cars because I dont want to be living on the ground when those things start falling from the sky.
You shouldn't worry about the plane's reliability or performance, Phoenix. Fact is, the standards that you set for this thing are pretty similar to what anyone else would expect of it. This plane will never come to market if it does not impress. Even if it does come to market with problems, the thing will be vapor at the first sign of trouble because nobody wants to have a mess like that on their hands, especially the FAA. Plus, the manufacturer would be facing so many class-actions , they would be seeing red until Armageddon.
That's why, If this plane does actually come to market, I think it will be something worthwhile or even amazing. Never underestimate the value of an approved design and the human desire to save one's own ass.
Re: You shouldn't worry so much.
It seems to be human nature to fear what is not understood, and there will always be people afraid of new technology. However, fear and regulation will take a back seat to economics when it comes to determining the success or failure of a new product, including PAV or PAV like products such as the transition, and there will be even more people looking to try something new. This, as with any new technology, opens the opportunity for economic advantage, so unless people spontaneously stop trying to get a better life for themselves, there will be people who will try to use it for personal gain. If they are successful with it, the technology will grow; if unsuccessful, it will die.
I don’t know how successful the Transition will be, but I think it is great that someone is trying to create some new transportation technology. I think it is needed. Don’t worry about public fear, because if it works there will be a far greater public cry for economic expansion embracing the new technology. And, don’t worry about regulation either, because the government is reactionary and will side with the public opinion. If someone can make something that works economically, everything else will fall into place.
I'd rather travel on the road next to one of these, driven by a certified pilot, than an SUV driven by an immigrant redneck 90-year-old teenaged woman putting on makeup while shaving and talking on the cellphone.
(Did I forget to insult anybody?)
The Subaru engine that powers the WRXs is probably as good as any.
Originally developed by Fuiji as an aircraft engine it's reliable, cost effective and already used, and respected, in aviation.
Hum with a little imagination I could see this become practicle. Build takeoff/landing ramps along expresways at spaced intervals. Driving down the highway, you see a sign, Takeoff Lane 1/4 mile. You move into the takeoff lane, then lower your wings, gain speed and takeoff before the lane ends. Could be North bound, and southbound takeoff lanes. Likewise, there could be landing lanes, you land retract your wing and then merge into Highway trafic.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
This document is part of the “How-To Guide for Most Common Measurements” centralized resource portal. This tutorial provides a detailed guide for measurement and device considerations to take temperature measurements using thermocouples. Get an introduction to thermocouples, which are inexpensive sensing devices widely used with PC-based data acquisition systems. Also review some specific thermocouple examples and learn how thermocouples work and ways to integrate them into a data acquisition measurement system.
View full PDF >
Listen to story > 
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
jang929
2 Comments
contradiction?
hmm, aircraft has to be as light as possible, but the car has to be heavy enough so it'll be safe for turning corners... wonder how they're going to achieve that.
Reply
jmccsstanford
3 Comments
Re: contradiction?
It would be useful if it was a reasonably good airplane and safely drivable from home to the airport. It need not be a good car.
John McCarthy
Reply
amulekii
10 Comments
Re: contradiction?
If it couldn't take off from a regular freeway, I wouldn't buy it. I guess this might be illegal, but (a) I'd probably break the law just to show how awesome my new toy was, and (b)even for people who won't break the law, the fact that it could take off from the freeway is what would really be important to them.
Reply
bradwhitcomb
1 Comment
Re: contradiction?
As a pilot who has tried to use my pvt A/C for business travel; I see no problem with driving to the Airport to make the transition from grnd transport into the air system and see it as necessary. I still see myself driving from the airport of intended landing to a visit and on to another airport to again transition into the air to proceed to another airport to again transition to grnd transportation. NO RENTAL CARS!
Of course all this could be easily resolved if electric cars were a Utility Commodity and could be as quickly utilized as a taxi. Where you would enter your credit card and valid drivers lic and unplug and drive off. No need to return but just plug in at your dextination and retrieve your cards.
Reply
wrightr2
1 Comment
Re: contradiction?
duh it will be safe what do you think theyre going to just let it out im sure theyre going to work out any possible flaws in this.
Reply
Monsterboy
92 Comments
Re: contradiction?
Just ideas off the top of my head, give it a low center of gravity to make turns safer... a wide, low profile would probably help generate lift in flight as well.
Reply
advill
18 Comments
Re: contradiction?
Not only that WHY THEY MUST MEET A FAA REGULATION FOR A VEHICLE THAT STILL HAS TO BE INVENTED?
My opinion is that they must be as free as posible to meet the TECHNICAL concerns, and then after having a suitable vehicle the FAA will decide how to regulate it.
We are forcing them to put the carriage before the horses.
Reply
makornitzky
17 Comments
Re: contradiction?
The FAA regulation they are trying to meet is the upper weight limit to be in the Light Sport Aircraft class (which is an international requirement). Meeting the Light Sport Aircraft class weight limit allows a larger market for the aircraft.
Reply