At least they're calling it a VTOL aircaft and not a flying car.
That looks horrifically cramped… and at 25 mile range, I'd still rather have one of the PAL-V series!!
Looks a lot of fun, but…
25 miles isn't far is it, when you need charging infrastructure when you get there.
If this sort of thing ever really happened, I guess we would need way more little airfields all over the place. The nearest to me is 5 miles away, and if I have to get in the car anyway I might as well just drive to where I want to go.
Strikes me as the sort of thing you would want to hire for the afternoon for kicks not practicality.
needs more range but I'd like one :)
This may be the future although there would need to be an automated traffic control system. I expect these things, should they fix the range (although remember that 25 miles line of sight is far more than 25 miles in a car but that's “up to” 25 miles… surely it would make sense to have a solar panel on the roof to top it up whilst you're landed?) would be computer controlled by a central ATC system using mobile networks or something. It would be easier than with cars because the system would “grow up” to be automated primarily and manual secondarily whereas the roads and cars are designed the other way around.
For me, this would be ideal for commuting to work as it's likely around ten miles LOS each way. And I'd get to spit out of the window on all the people stuck on the M1.
philehidiot
For me, this would be ideal for commuting to work as it's likely around ten miles LOS each way. And I'd get to spit out of the window on all the people stuck on the M1.
Much though I would love to have the garden hedge part ready for take off like in Thunderbirds (palm trees won't grow so well around here) I suspect there are rules against me buzzing the neighbour's houses in what is basically a manned quadcopter. That makes commuting hard. Maybe in parts of the States where land is more plentiful.
Even if they keep it under the Microlight regulation weight, in this country you still need a license to fly.
Then there is the worry that in winter I may well want to commute in the dark. ISTR there are a lot more flying regs around that.
Perfect if you live on a mountain and the next city is somewhere below you ;D
DanceswithUnix
in winter I may well want to commute in the dark. ISTR there are a lot more flying regs around that.
Oh aye that's a point. In the UK I'm sure you'll need a pilot's licence and then there will likely be radio licence (for whatever voice procedure is required to talk to ATC, I'm sure there's a licence around that). The US has insanely lax regulations with regards to things like jumping out of plances. I'm sure that their private aircraft licencing is just as lax, although this has probably been designed to subvert the regs.
Now, where did I put Thunderbird 2? I had the die cast one with the flip down legs and a Thunderbird 4 in the pod. Never did get Tracey Island for Christmas…. my parents tried everywhere in Leeds. Days before t'interweb.
In the US, this is an ultralight, which requires no certification to fly. Think similar to a paraglider. They are not permitted to operate over congested areas (Typically a group of three or more structures). They are also limited to 254lbs or 115kg empty weight, and 62mph. So yes, this is definitely built to the rules. There needs to be significantly new battery technology for electric flight to be viable.
TeePee
In the US, this is an ultralight, which requires no certification to fly. Think similar to a paraglider. They are not permitted to operate over congested areas (Typically a group of three or more structures). They are also limited to 254lbs or 115kg empty weight, and 62mph. So yes, this is definitely built to the rules. There needs to be significantly new battery technology for electric flight to be viable.
If you are right about the US ultralight rules, the Blackfly is not built to comply with them as Opener say it weighs 313lbs.
EDIT: Just looked up the rules and you are right and yet, Opener say the blackfly complies.
Friesiansam
If you are right about the US ultralight rules, the Blackfly is not built to comply with them as Opener say it weighs 313lbs.
EDIT: Just looked up the rules and you are right and yet, Opener say the blackfly complies.
That is a good question. The regulation excludes the weight of floats and airframe parachutes. AC103-7 allows 30lbs additional for a fuselage intended to function as a float for water landings, and 24lbs for an unweighed Airframe Parachute, but that's only a total of 308lbs, still shy of the 313lbs that Opener claims. They may be using an actual weight of 29lbs for their parachute system, or they have some kind of waiver from the FAA. Since the Empty Weight excludes the weight of fuel, which that aren't using, that frees up some weight and the FAA would likely consider a waiver for that.
…a safe and affordable flying vehicle that can free its operators from the everyday restrictions of ground transportation
Meh. It's good to work towards finding alternatives, but I fail to see how replacing the cars with flying vehicles (if that was permitted in the first place) is going to solve the traffic congestion. Then, park them where? Not to mention, even a smaller car may transport more than one person and a few bags of groceries, making it more efficient.
Does anyone know what altitude this can reach? Is it capable of true sustained flight or is it an ekranoplan dependent on wing-in-ground effect? The wings look surprisingly steep pitched for conventional flight.
IIRC small single seater/two seater ekranoplan have been used over lake Misouri for a while now. At least according to a documentary I saw circa 2000.
ik9000
Does anyone know what altitude this can reach? Is it capable of true sustained flight or is it an ekranoplan dependent on wing-in-ground effect? The wings look surprisingly steep pitched for conventional flight.
IIRC small single seater/two seater ekranoplan have been used over lake Misouri for a while now. At least according to a documentary I saw circa 2000.
It appears to be capable of flight out of ground effect, although the video is very limited. I agree that the wing angle (Or incidence) looks a little strange. My guess is that it's a trade off between having so much of the lift as a product of induced airflow, along with a requirement to ensure that the wings are staggered in level flight to ensure the rear wing isn't influenced by the wake of the front wing. It looks like in true forward flight, the cockpit seating position would be very awkward.