Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Aeromobil flying car prototype — Parallax Forums

Aeromobil flying car prototype

Ron CzapalaRon Czapala Posts: 2,418
edited 2013-11-06 19:55 in General Discussion
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/aeromobil-flying-car-goes-road-runway-style-211617565.html

Called Aeromobil, the car was created by Slovakian engineer Stefan Klein, who's background includes work for Audi and BMW. Based on the outlines of a single-engine plane, the Aeromobil version 2.5 draws power from a 100-hp Rotax airplane engine, and can travel 430 miles on a load of fuel in the air or 310 miles on the ground. When not in use, the carbon-fiber wings fold solidly behind the two-person cockpit, disengaging the rear propeller.

Comments

  • ercoerco Posts: 20,256
    edited 2013-11-04 16:15
    Love it.

    Having said that, all those transformers are sofabeds, though. Not a good sofa, not a good bed. Anything light enough to fly probably wouldn't fare too well in an automobile crash test against something weighing 2-6 times more. IIRC, most of the previous Aerocars (and Bucky Fuller's airplane-like Dymaxion) are always in the headlines, yet always one crash away from oblivion. This one looks a bit wobbly in the air, and is there a reason it never gets more than 20 feet altitude? How long is that runway anyway? :)

    For now, I'll stick with my Corvair (with its airplane-like, air-cooled pancake six) and my Cessna.
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,256
    edited 2013-11-04 17:02
    The original Aerocar:
  • User NameUser Name Posts: 1,451
    edited 2013-11-04 18:30
    Better mileage in the air than on the ground seems specious to me. Also, yaw stability seems marginal.

    Some fantasies never die...
  • PoundSign2PoundSign2 Posts: 129
    edited 2013-11-04 23:17
    erco wrote: »
    The original Aerocar:

    James May's mini-car hot-air balloon is, I honestly think, the most practical flying prototype-car. Yes it is not fancy or clever in design but hell it works and he legally flew it on a Top Gear episode. As far as cars in the air go, his design using a hot air balloon was simple and worked. Why more people don't go balloon based I will never know (not an aerospace engineer!) but balloons and blimps, despite the size, can carry large-ish loads and maneuver quite well given their robust size and all.

    09113019-Test-Flight-9.jpg
    09113019-Test-Flight-9.jpg
    1000 x 669 - 477K
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2013-11-05 08:15
    PoundSign2 wrote: »
    Why more people don't go balloon based I will never know (not an aerospace engineer!) but balloons and blimps, despite the size, can carry large-ish loads and maneuver quite well given their robust size and all.
    "Oh, the humanity ...." Herbert Morrison, WLS reporter.

    big_hindenburg_explodes_over_lakehurst.jpg
  • Mark_TMark_T Posts: 1,981
    edited 2013-11-05 08:39
    User Name wrote: »
    Better mileage in the air than on the ground seems specious to me.
    Why? Rolling resistance is gone, transmission losses are gone, you are using a highly optimized aero-engine
    designed for a narrower range of load powers. On the ground it presumably uses a different engine and has
    to push a gearbox, differential, tyres, and there is more turbulent airflow (under the vehicle).

    Generally efficiency decreases with speed, but I don't think this machine is going to be going that much faster
    in the air than on the motorway.
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,256
    edited 2013-11-05 08:43
    Everything comes down to earth. Eventually, if not intentionally.

    An amazing survival story, and at least one careless pilot with a lawsuit on the way.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/video--skydivers-jump-to-safety-after-planes-collide-in-midair-012009809.html
  • GadgetmanGadgetman Posts: 2,436
    edited 2013-11-05 08:50
    The reason it flies so low is probably for safety and legislation.
    And that can probably explain some of the wobble, too... the craft is experiencing excess lift because of ground-effect, and I have my suspicion that it hits the aft end harder than planned.
    Either that, or the ludicrous angle of the 'car' part is causing heavy turbulence for the control surfaces.

    310 or 500miles on a tank?
    How big IS the tank?
    My Citro
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,256
    edited 2013-11-05 12:11
    Then there's the Terrafugia Transition for just $279,000. Of course for that amount, you could buy ten or fifteen older Corvettes and/or Cessna 152s (mix & match) with a proven track record.
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,256
    edited 2013-11-05 12:19
    Then there's "Dr" Paul Moller's Skycar, which has been gracing the classified ads in the back of Popular Science magazine for some 30 years. Flying snake oil!
  • User NameUser Name Posts: 1,451
    edited 2013-11-06 19:55
    Mark_T wrote: »
    Why? Rolling resistance is gone, transmission losses are gone, you are using a highly optimized aero-engine
    designed for a narrower range of load powers. On the ground it presumably uses a different engine and has
    to push a gearbox, differential, tyres, and there is more turbulent airflow (under the vehicle).

    Generally efficiency decreases with speed, but I don't think this machine is going to be going that much faster
    in the air than on the motorway.

    Just basic aerodynamics: Regardless of what airfoil you are using, drag is the price you pay for lift. You can't get one without the other. A car stationed on the ground has 'lift' without expending any energy to achieve it.

    Edit: You've probably heard that the three keys to real estate are location, location, and location. There is a similar rule in aircraft design. Design it light, don't make it heavy, and be sure it doesn't weigh too much. I can't imagine the designer of this craft would have incurred the weight penalty of separate engines for road and air.
Sign In or Register to comment.