Dutch flying car gets permission to drive on European roads(psychnewsdaily.com)
psychnewsdaily.com
Dutch flying car gets permission to drive on European roads
https://www.psychnewsdaily.com/dutch-flying-car-pal-v-gets-permission-to-drive-on-european-roads/
110 comments
Helicopter?
A helicopter that can also drive on wheels and that is rated for driving on public roads.
So no, it's not a helicopter, is a car/helicopter hybrid, a.k.a. flying car.
So no, it's not a helicopter, is a car/helicopter hybrid, a.k.a. flying car.
Not only a flying car, a flying _dutchcar_, which is way more interesting.
Not a helicopter at all, see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24918402
Autogyro. Looks quite cool https://youtu.be/RFpNTykIYM0?t=132
[deleted]
Not a helicopter - an autogyro. The rotor on the top is not driven (literally just spins freely on a bearing). Forward motion pushes air through it, which keeps it spinning and that keeps the aircraft up. In effect the rotor acts like a wing (forward motion results in lift), but without the ability to stall.
I'm learning to fly an autogyro in the UK. They're great fun to fly, and in theory safer than a plane because the short landing distance means that in event of engine failure you have a much greater selection of places to land (in practice modern safe autogyros have only been around 5-10 years so we don't have enough data to compare).
I'm learning to fly an autogyro in the UK. They're great fun to fly, and in theory safer than a plane because the short landing distance means that in event of engine failure you have a much greater selection of places to land (in practice modern safe autogyros have only been around 5-10 years so we don't have enough data to compare).
Can they land safely after engine fails and any electric/hydraulic assists are also gone?
Yes they can. There are no hydraulic assists between the stick and the the rotor head, or between pedals and rudder - straight mechanical linkage.
The only electric (or in some cases pneumatic) assist is the pitch trim. In event of failure that would usually stay in the same place, but in the worst case where it moves to one end of the spectrum you can absolutely control the aircraft against it (your arm just gets a bit tired after a while maintaining the pressure).
The only electric (or in some cases pneumatic) assist is the pitch trim. In event of failure that would usually stay in the same place, but in the worst case where it moves to one end of the spectrum you can absolutely control the aircraft against it (your arm just gets a bit tired after a while maintaining the pressure).
Yes. They're small enough to not need power-assisted controls.
In the case of an engine failure, a helicopter trades its potential energy (altitude) to kinetic energy by allowing the passing air (as it 'falls') to spin the rotors. This is the helicopter's equivalent of gliding, more or less. The condition is called auto-rotation. Gyros are always in a state of auto-rotation, so if the engine quits they simply begin trading potential energy for kinetic energy, which they're really good at.
It doesn't feel possible that the propeller is enough to provide such forward motion that is also used to push the vehicle up
Why not? That's exactly what happens in a plane (or a microlight, or powered parachute).
Well I'm by no means well versed in physics, but my mental model of lift would suggest wings + forward velocity generate a lot more than rotors + forward velocity, and that planes move a lot faster than autogyros, so there's more forward velocity to utilize for lift.
Given how much power appears to go into making helicopters rise, its surprising to see an autogyro do it without actually powering the main rotor.
(fwiw, I'm not arguing that I'm correct. obviously I'm wrong).
Given how much power appears to go into making helicopters rise, its surprising to see an autogyro do it without actually powering the main rotor.
(fwiw, I'm not arguing that I'm correct. obviously I'm wrong).
Well, the seeds of a maple tree fall a lot more slowly when they're rotating so clearly there's some kind of lift being generated. To fly you 'just' need to replicate that effect and forcibly push more air through the rotor than just gravity would.
There is another push/pull propeller that moves plane forward and that one is driven by engine.
There is no engine connected to the blades, it is an autogyro. They are not so uncommon here in Europe, most of them I have seen has been home-build.
Off-topic: some UAV prototypes developed in Europe during the 80s and the beginning of 90s was of the type autogyro, because of its simplicity and short take-off and landing distances.
Off-topic: some UAV prototypes developed in Europe during the 80s and the beginning of 90s was of the type autogyro, because of its simplicity and short take-off and landing distances.
For those interested, there is no engine connected to the blades while in flight. Most gyros have is a linkage called the pre-rotator with a clutch that you engage while stationary on the ground. This allows you to get the rotor to about two thirds of the speed needed for take off at which point you release it, and then do a take off roll to build speed and rotor speed.
This is also how the UAVs in the 90s did it too, but with a screwdriver instead.
Of course without the word "flying" the headline loses some of its impact.
The European Aviation Safety Agency is still examining the company’s request to have the vehicles certified to fly.
The European Aviation Safety Agency is still examining the company’s request to have the vehicles certified to fly.
Presumably it has actually flown at least once in a test flight, under a specific licence for that flight. Otherwise yes, it's vapourware.
The flying tech is well-understood and a bit boring, which is good for this kind of offer. And it is pretty safe (as in: if out of fuel while flying, you won’t drop dead).
So yes, the company does show a few videos of flight tests, even though they are not licensed to sell it to be flown by customers.
Of course, the real struggle is to find enough customers at this high price point. Since customers will still need to drive to the airport and clear a flight plan with ATC when they want to fly, the situations where this drive/fly combination is useful are not widespread.
So yes, the company does show a few videos of flight tests, even though they are not licensed to sell it to be flown by customers.
Of course, the real struggle is to find enough customers at this high price point. Since customers will still need to drive to the airport and clear a flight plan with ATC when they want to fly, the situations where this drive/fly combination is useful are not widespread.
There are little air strips all over the place you could land at and then instead of having to figure out a ride to your destination which can be difficult in rural areas you can drive.
AFAIK a VFR flight requires neither filing a flight plan nor talking to ATC, and I doubt this thing is going to get much IFR time.
Also "European....", which would lead one to think it was equally legal in Italy, Greece...the UK (until 31 Dec) etc.
For those not familiar with autogyros, this xkcd was a major factor in me choosing to learn to fly one:
https://xkcd.com/1972/
It's not 100% accurate though: "Can land vertically" isn't true unless there's a lot of wind (although you can almost always land with very little ground roll). "Cannot hover" is less true. In my aircraft you need 35mph of airspeed to maintain height (when relatively fully loaded). You often have 35 mph of wind at altitude, so a ground relative hover is often possible. "Can often be flown without a licence" doesn't apply in the UK.
https://xkcd.com/1972/
It's not 100% accurate though: "Can land vertically" isn't true unless there's a lot of wind (although you can almost always land with very little ground roll). "Cannot hover" is less true. In my aircraft you need 35mph of airspeed to maintain height (when relatively fully loaded). You often have 35 mph of wind at altitude, so a ground relative hover is often possible. "Can often be flown without a licence" doesn't apply in the UK.
"Common in Europe" isn't really accurate either. I've never seen one.
Can you explain the stall comment in the lower right of the cartoon? I don't get it.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1972:_Autogyros#E... is probably the best way to answer this.
https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1972:_Autogyros
> Extremely safe, unless you do the one thing you instinctively do to escape a stall in a normal airplane, in which case it will crash immediately.
> Autogyros are considered safe due to their slow landing speed, which is important in emergency landings, their forgiving behavior in windy conditions and the fact they are almost impossible to stall. This is thanks to the freely spinning rotor. Unfortunately, as soon as the rotor stops spinning, the whole aircraft falls like a brick and the rotor may be impossible to restart in flight. This is a situation that should be avoided at all costs.
> Normally it is not a problem since the weight of the aircraft keeps the rotor spinning. However, if the weight becomes too low or even negative, the angle of attack will become negative, and the rotor will slow down and eventually stop. It can happen when the pilot "pushes on the stick" and dives.
> Unfortunately, "pushing on the stick" is also how you escape a stall in a fixed wing (normal) airplane as it is a way to regain airspeed. This is actually a counter-intuitive maneuver but because a stall is an emergency, pilots are trained to do it instinctively. It can trick a pilot trained in fixed wing aircraft into doing the one thing that shouldn't be done on a gyro.
> Extremely safe, unless you do the one thing you instinctively do to escape a stall in a normal airplane, in which case it will crash immediately.
> Autogyros are considered safe due to their slow landing speed, which is important in emergency landings, their forgiving behavior in windy conditions and the fact they are almost impossible to stall. This is thanks to the freely spinning rotor. Unfortunately, as soon as the rotor stops spinning, the whole aircraft falls like a brick and the rotor may be impossible to restart in flight. This is a situation that should be avoided at all costs.
> Normally it is not a problem since the weight of the aircraft keeps the rotor spinning. However, if the weight becomes too low or even negative, the angle of attack will become negative, and the rotor will slow down and eventually stop. It can happen when the pilot "pushes on the stick" and dives.
> Unfortunately, "pushing on the stick" is also how you escape a stall in a fixed wing (normal) airplane as it is a way to regain airspeed. This is actually a counter-intuitive maneuver but because a stall is an emergency, pilots are trained to do it instinctively. It can trick a pilot trained in fixed wing aircraft into doing the one thing that shouldn't be done on a gyro.
In a fixed wing plane, one of the big things to worry about is a stall (which isn't possible in a gyro). I a plane, you get out of a stall by building airspeed - nose down and throttle up.
If you do a sudden nose down and throttle up in a gyro at the wrong time a couple of things can happen - you can build up an unsafe amount of airspeed and you can put air the wrong way through the rotor, slowing it down. If you do that too low you'll crash (a gyro without a spinning rotor is just a brick).
Basically avoid doing things which cause negative G. This is important enough that it's printed on a placard on all UK certified Gyros, but is also really easy to avoid doing.
If you do a sudden nose down and throttle up in a gyro at the wrong time a couple of things can happen - you can build up an unsafe amount of airspeed and you can put air the wrong way through the rotor, slowing it down. If you do that too low you'll crash (a gyro without a spinning rotor is just a brick).
Basically avoid doing things which cause negative G. This is important enough that it's printed on a placard on all UK certified Gyros, but is also really easy to avoid doing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Autogyros are cool, not quite a helo and quite a plane. They have several unique advantages and are undergoing a modern renaissance after being used in the very first days of non-fixed wing flight:
-Inexpensive and reliable. Far simpler to build and fly vs a helicopter
-Can fly at very low speeds without stalling
-VERY short landing, pretty much anywhere. Not quite so short take-off, but pre-spooling the horizontal rotary wing can mitigation this.
Cost and low stall speed are probably the biggest factors for their choice of autogyro.
-Inexpensive and reliable. Far simpler to build and fly vs a helicopter
-Can fly at very low speeds without stalling
-VERY short landing, pretty much anywhere. Not quite so short take-off, but pre-spooling the horizontal rotary wing can mitigation this.
Cost and low stall speed are probably the biggest factors for their choice of autogyro.
Some others:
* Cheap to maintain, run and store (take up much less space than a plane)
* Cope much better than a plane with strong cross winds on take off and landing (I've had several lessons when all the fixed wing pilots were stuck in the cafe)
* Much smoother ride when going through turbulence - the rotor does a lot of the moving around and leaves the cabin much less affected
* Often fly around at a lower altitude than a plane, particularly if you're over fields (often cruise around at 1000 ft above ground). This means that get a better view (things on the ground aren't too small), and the cloud ceiling can be lower.
* Manoeuverable and 'fun' to fly
Some disadvantages (limiting myself to the main commercially available pre-built ones, i.e. AutoGyro and Magni):
* Slower than a plane (max speed of any is I believe 125 MPH)
* Can only take two people, and often limited luggage space
* Haven't been around as long (in their modern form), so while they're cheaper to buy than a plane, you are limited to new or fairly new.
* None are instrument rated, and only one model is night rated (in the UK)
* You don't really want to fly them in the rain - erodes rotor and propellor
* Cheap to maintain, run and store (take up much less space than a plane)
* Cope much better than a plane with strong cross winds on take off and landing (I've had several lessons when all the fixed wing pilots were stuck in the cafe)
* Much smoother ride when going through turbulence - the rotor does a lot of the moving around and leaves the cabin much less affected
* Often fly around at a lower altitude than a plane, particularly if you're over fields (often cruise around at 1000 ft above ground). This means that get a better view (things on the ground aren't too small), and the cloud ceiling can be lower.
* Manoeuverable and 'fun' to fly
Some disadvantages (limiting myself to the main commercially available pre-built ones, i.e. AutoGyro and Magni):
* Slower than a plane (max speed of any is I believe 125 MPH)
* Can only take two people, and often limited luggage space
* Haven't been around as long (in their modern form), so while they're cheaper to buy than a plane, you are limited to new or fairly new.
* None are instrument rated, and only one model is night rated (in the UK)
* You don't really want to fly them in the rain - erodes rotor and propellor
> You don't really want to fly them in the rain - erodes rotor and propellor
I'm intrigued, could you elaborate on why this is different from what happens with a helicopter or a plane in the rain?
I'm intrigued, could you elaborate on why this is different from what happens with a helicopter or a plane in the rain?
I believe it's exactly the same problem as with a helicopter. Blade speeds near the tip can be pretty high, so rain can damage some materials. It's apparently not much of an issue with alloy blades, more of a thing with composites. I suspect it's more of a price issue -- gyrocopters are trying to hit a different price point than most helicopters.
Also, plenty of gyrocopter pilots fly in the rain.
Also, plenty of gyrocopter pilots fly in the rain.
Isn't that what polyurethane helicopter tape is for?
> Also, plenty of gyrocopter pilots fly in the rain.
Indeed. I think it's just a question of shortening the life of the rotor a bit.
Another problem is visibility. We had to land in a hurry at the end of my lesson on Monday due to rain arriving at the airfield. I fly a Magni M16 which is an open cockpit and it was quite hard to see with the rain on the windscreen and my visor. There are no wipers or anything to help with that (like you might have on a fixed wing). I don't have the comparable experience in the closed cockpit aircraft though (e.g. Magni M24), so that may be better anyway.
Indeed. I think it's just a question of shortening the life of the rotor a bit.
Another problem is visibility. We had to land in a hurry at the end of my lesson on Monday due to rain arriving at the airfield. I fly a Magni M16 which is an open cockpit and it was quite hard to see with the rain on the windscreen and my visor. There are no wipers or anything to help with that (like you might have on a fixed wing). I don't have the comparable experience in the closed cockpit aircraft though (e.g. Magni M24), so that may be better anyway.
I don't actually know. Some of it is to do with the material they're made of. Some gyros have an aluminium rotor and some composite - the aluminium ones are happier in the rain. It's possible something similar applies to the prop.
I'd imagine that at the speeds that the tips are spinning each droplet of water is almost like a little bullet hitting the rotor due to surface tension /ArmchairPhysics
How's the vibration? I've been a fixed-wing pilot for many years. I recently sold my share in a 182 and have considered a gyro for many of the reasons listed here. All the YouTube videos I've seen look like the thing is going to vibrate itself apart! Although, that could be due to strapping a GoPro to a strut or something!
Very little? A little through the stick, but it's not something I've ever thought about, which should probably answer the question.
I agree that the GoPros attached to the mast vibrate a lot, but I got the same when I attached one to a car on a track. These bodycam shots from James Ketchell don't vibrate very much for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn5gVZ4PnmY
I agree that the GoPros attached to the mast vibrate a lot, but I got the same when I attached one to a car on a track. These bodycam shots from James Ketchell don't vibrate very much for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn5gVZ4PnmY
There is one other practical issue with Gyros in the UK (and is my biggest problem) - there are instructors but not really flying clubs. After passing if you want to keep flying you can't just rent one by the hour, you need to buy one (or buy a share).
I think that's because the cost of owning a gyro can be so much lower than a traditional fixed wing. As little as $20K can get you into old but high quality used or $100k for entry-level new. A fraction of planes.
Not exactly cheap, but neither is spending significant time in a flight club.
Not exactly cheap, but neither is spending significant time in a flight club.
Do they still have the oscillation problem? Where they start to pitch and the pilot over-compensates which results in an uncontrollable pendulum swing until it stalls? I recall that killed quite a few early pilots.
Pilot induced oscillation is possible, and it's something you're trained on avoiding. Modern Gyros are much more stable (have better negative feedback to return them to straight and level) so you need much more extreme control movements to cause it.
More a road-legal autogyro than a flying car.
A three wheeled design was a comical trope in Mr Bean where he frequently topples a three wheeler. And how good are the low profile tires and suspension in imperfect roads and runways (video depicts no shock absorbtion on landing)?
The low profile tires should be fine. I moved to the Netherlands three years ago and I don’t think I’ve seen one pothole in this whole country. But if they drive that contraption into Belgium they’re screwed lol
This is the true purpose of this vehicle... Avoiding Belgian roads when travelling south to Paris!
If you look at the second picture there is far more clearance between the wheels and the body. Maybe that is shock absorption that extends before flight.
Please note that this is a single issue, early prototype license. Those are quite different from somewhat more normal custom build licenses for these kind of vehicles once they are entering limited production. This has not been approved for any other usage like limited production and is only valid for this specific vehicle. While this license is "European" there are lot of issues driving these kind of vehicles with this licenses across Europe legally.
Addendum: This means they cannot sell them yet as they first have to show production compliance. And have more stringent testing for those vehicles.
Addendum 2: It also has no aircraft license so flying is not an option.
Addendum: This means they cannot sell them yet as they first have to show production compliance. And have more stringent testing for those vehicles.
Addendum 2: It also has no aircraft license so flying is not an option.
Figured as much, IIRC a full type license takes dozens of cars to be produced and delivered for destructive testing.
I just hope cars regulated better than the 'Stint' was, whatever that fall under.
I just hope cars regulated better than the 'Stint' was, whatever that fall under.
The car part is like any other car with respect to road legality (in this case an IGC, or individual license) and production compliance is the same as for all other limited production cars (regular 'typegoedkeuring'). The airplane part is a whole different ballpark.
The stint was something different. Those were not tested as they were technically not cars and treated as mopeds which have very limited testing requirements as far as I know.
The stint was something different. Those were not tested as they were technically not cars and treated as mopeds which have very limited testing requirements as far as I know.
I feel that it is still too early to approve the use of this vehicle ... Not only does it need an aircraft and vehicle license, this car is a "hybrid car-plane" and its "transformation" from car to plane on the streets should also be regulated. (Imagine deploying and turning on those propellers in the middle of a narrow street, it would be necessary to take it to a heliport to transform it) apart from the control of the airspace and an endless number of other things (collisions with buildings?). It's the classic pre-"flying cars" regulation from science fiction stories.
An interesting and non-obvious attribute of autogyros is that the large propeller on the top is actually not powered.
wat? that is very interesting and incredibly non obvious.
[deleted]
You can see the pusher prop on the back in one of the photos. Looks like fun
I've linked this elsewhere in the discussion:
https://xkcd.com/1972/
This sort of thinking coupled with increasing ease of litigation is why general aviation is more expensive in real terms than it was in the 70s.
And... is this (the regulations and standards) good or bad? It is good if you compare the number of air and car accidents before there were "regulatory licenses" and "industry standards" and now
> It is good if you compare the number of air and car accidents before there were "regulatory licenses" and "industry standards" and now
But for this comparison to make sense you need to assume that the counterfactual scenario involves zero decrease in air and car accidents between then and now.
This beggars belief; people seek to avoid accidents for other reasons than "regulators frown on them".
But for this comparison to make sense you need to assume that the counterfactual scenario involves zero decrease in air and car accidents between then and now.
This beggars belief; people seek to avoid accidents for other reasons than "regulators frown on them".
I find it funny that people still believe that, in the midst of this pandemic where a decent chunk of the population (10-20-30%?) completely ignore public guidelines or even their best interest.
It might beggar belief but it seems to be supported by data. Motor vehicle deaths per capita only started consistently dropping in the mid seventies.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
And by the same data, that's also doubling from an average ~5,000mi travelled per capita in 1970 to ~10,000mi.
Edit: Interesting to note that pedestrian fatalities took a sharp rise from 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
Edit: Interesting to note that pedestrian fatalities took a sharp rise from 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
> that's also doubling from an average ~5,000mi travelled per capita in 1970 to ~10,000mi.
More than that; the chart shows fatalities per vehicle mile starting at their all-time high and falling steadily thereafter. Exactly like you'd expect if people were trying to avoid fatalities. Nothing special happens in 1970, where fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have already fallen to 4.7 from, say, 21 in 1923.
47 years in the other direction, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2017 are 1.16, a decline of 75.5% compared to the previous 47 years' 77.4%.
More than that; the chart shows fatalities per vehicle mile starting at their all-time high and falling steadily thereafter. Exactly like you'd expect if people were trying to avoid fatalities. Nothing special happens in 1970, where fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have already fallen to 4.7 from, say, 21 in 1923.
47 years in the other direction, fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2017 are 1.16, a decline of 75.5% compared to the previous 47 years' 77.4%.
You're indeed right. Though, I'm not sure how you disentangle effects from shifts in public policy and legal frameworks over that entire time span. My guess is: people died -> loved ones were upset -> political and commercial pressure mounted -> improvements were made.
It might be that commercial interests often align with public safety and perception, but I bet that on the lower-end of the price spectrum, people would be willing to buy cars that endangered themselves and others. If only for lack of options.
It might be that commercial interests often align with public safety and perception, but I bet that on the lower-end of the price spectrum, people would be willing to buy cars that endangered themselves and others. If only for lack of options.
People are notoriously bad at evaluating catastrophic failure event chances.
Most people will say: "Yeah, it's a big unsafe (they won't even phrase it like that), but I will be more careful and it will be all right".
Then the next day they'll go to that party and drive home tipsy.
The cognitive dissonance won't even register.
Most people will say: "Yeah, it's a big unsafe (they won't even phrase it like that), but I will be more careful and it will be all right".
Then the next day they'll go to that party and drive home tipsy.
The cognitive dissonance won't even register.
Not an expert, but I hear that one of the effects has been to slow down innovation.
Because a newly designed plane (with a rescue parachute, and a modern engine) is so much more expensive than one from the 1950s (leaded gas, possibly with grandfathered certification) everyone keeps flying the old ones. Cars have had many iterations on safety since the '55 Chevy, but planes not so many.
Because a newly designed plane (with a rescue parachute, and a modern engine) is so much more expensive than one from the 1950s (leaded gas, possibly with grandfathered certification) everyone keeps flying the old ones. Cars have had many iterations on safety since the '55 Chevy, but planes not so many.
The whole FAA/EASA cert process is burdensome, but it is worth noting that the aviation industry has an impressive safety record. It is not at all comparable to the safety of a '55 chevy.
_Commercial aviation_ has a stellar safety record. The safety record for private and general aviation flying is pretty atrocious, and non-airline commercial operations (part 91, part 135) have varying levels of safety somewhere in between.
I think there can be little argument against the assertion that modernizing the general aviation fleet would improve safety. The majority of GA aircraft are using 60's technology carburetted reciprocating engines and running on leaded gasoline, and the cockpit is mostly analogue gauges with mechanical vacuum-driven gyros. Every car manufactured since the 90's uses fuel injection, yet GA pilots still need to worry about carburetor icing. That's not even going into other modern safety improvements like digital autopilot or ballistic recovery parachutes.
I think there can be little argument against the assertion that modernizing the general aviation fleet would improve safety. The majority of GA aircraft are using 60's technology carburetted reciprocating engines and running on leaded gasoline, and the cockpit is mostly analogue gauges with mechanical vacuum-driven gyros. Every car manufactured since the 90's uses fuel injection, yet GA pilots still need to worry about carburetor icing. That's not even going into other modern safety improvements like digital autopilot or ballistic recovery parachutes.
It won't get approval to launch from the streets, simply because you already aren't allowed to launch a helicopter or plane from the street. It will remain a two mode vehicle which you will have to drive / fly to an airport or otherwise licensed location before it is allowed to transform / take off / land.
This legislation is unlikely to change anytime soon.
This legislation is unlikely to change anytime soon.
You can't land/takeoff an aircraft from public roads, for obvious reasons, but it's perfectly legal to do so to/from suitable open terrain, which in the case of light aircraft isn't hard to find. So while you're not going to be taking off directly from the highway (nor would you likely want to), it should be perfectly legal to drive off to a short trail somewhere and launch from there.
Anyway, I don't see it feasible to buy one of these, spend 500,000+ USD to occasionally travel somewhere on your vacation? That is the same reason why we did not buy a helicopter (mainly because we would have it parked throughout the year and also, the energy consumption makes it unviable for daily use).
Until a car is created that can take off from the streets and has low energy consumption, it cannot be said that we have a "flying car", at the moment we only have a "car-helicopter hybrid".
Until a car is created that can take off from the streets and has low energy consumption, it cannot be said that we have a "flying car", at the moment we only have a "car-helicopter hybrid".
As someone learning to fly, I do see a great usecase though. There are a reasonable number of airfields in the UK and I can usually rely on there being one within a reasonable distance of where I want to go. That "reasonable distance" is still going to be some miles though. The ability to fly most of the way, land at an airfield and then drive the last bit makes a lot of sense.
Legislation is less of a factor than the presence of overhead utility lines near most public streets.
That's nice. But very expensive. For that much, you could buy a couple nice autogyros and also a nice car to drive around to the airports where they are parked.
I could see this being a little more viable if it was less than double the cost of a modern autogyro.
I could see this being a little more viable if it was less than double the cost of a modern autogyro.
Well yes, but if you actually want to use it to go from A to B then you gotta deal with having your gyro at B while your car is still at A. My first thought was also "why not get an autogyro and a trailer for it" but it does not fulfill the flying car ideal.
That's true.
It does fold up a lot more compactly than some of the recent flying car designs with conventional wings. One of those looked more like a car plus a small trailer in size.
It does fold up a lot more compactly than some of the recent flying car designs with conventional wings. One of those looked more like a car plus a small trailer in size.
They lost a bunch of points for not calling it "The Flying Dutchcar". Very disappointing.
Probably because the joke does not translate so well into Dutch. The translation of "The Flying Dutchman" is "De Vliegende Hollander", so there is no obvious place to put a car pun (but maybe someone more creative than me can interject here).
dutchman in Lithuanian slang is a driver (typically of a small passenger bus or taxi)
De Vliegende Hollandkar?
If you put a Dutchman into the car, it's a flying dutchman. I don't see why they couldn't just use "Flying Dutchman" as name for this car.
That also puts you in a morass of discussions you don't want to be in. The link between the car and the legend might be problematic because it perpetuates the idea of the "Hollanders" being the only Dutchmen. For the same reason people not from Holland (the region contained by the western most provinces of the country) do not like it when The Netherlands is referred to as Holland in English.
I jest of course. The official English name being "Flying Dutchman" could definitely work, and "Vliegende Nederlander" as the official Dutch name would be funny.
I jest of course. The official English name being "Flying Dutchman" could definitely work, and "Vliegende Nederlander" as the official Dutch name would be funny.
Well the company is based in Raamsdonksveer which is in Brabant but, if my wiki-walking didn't mislead me, used to be part of Holland until fairly recently - 1815 or so. Could be good enough to go with "Vliegende Hollander" on historical grounds :)
Anecdotal data point here, it's totally fine with me if you call us hollanders, and I'm not from Holland itself. Its simply association with our brand as a nation, I don't see any problem there!
You might be interested to know that some Australian aborigines refer to all whites as "Hollanders" (Balanda).
I also expected a similar play on words. But I realized I only know of the Flying Dutchman based on Carl Barks' story, never read about the original myth.
KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines, the oldest airline still operating under its original name) use "The Flying Dutchman" as an advertising slogan, and have done since the 1930s.
It gets about three time the mileage when driving compared to flying - a small reminder of just how energy efficient it is to let the normal force from the ground hold something up compared to expending energy to do so.
It's a gyro-copter. So not a good example of the principle, a fixed wing aircraft would be more efficient.
As an example to disprove the rule, the Grob G 109 motor glider[1] goes 1500 km (vs flying car 1315 road range) on the same amount of gas while probably going faster (180km/h economical cruise).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_109
As an example to disprove the rule, the Grob G 109 motor glider[1] goes 1500 km (vs flying car 1315 road range) on the same amount of gas while probably going faster (180km/h economical cruise).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_109
I like that they made a video with typical Silicon Valley Start-up, epic, up-beat music but kept the guy with the super dutch accent as the narrator (probably the CEO). Is this some standard iMovie music?
Btw, not so nice: This time I already started the movie and only THEN yt ask me if I want to log in (pauses the vid for it).
Btw, not so nice: This time I already started the movie and only THEN yt ask me if I want to log in (pauses the vid for it).
YT has been doing that for about a week or so.
Shouldn't the headline be "Dutch flying car gets permission to _fly over_ European roads"?
/me grabs coat and exits building
/me grabs coat and exits building
Someone brought up a good point in a past discussion --
Think of how many safety checks and procedures you go through with a plane before you entrust your life to it to not fall out of the sky. Are you really going to be wanting to take it on the road, park it in a garage or on the street, and alternate back and forth the use as a car vs. plane? With all the potential abuse a car gets?
Think of how many safety checks and procedures you go through with a plane before you entrust your life to it to not fall out of the sky. Are you really going to be wanting to take it on the road, park it in a garage or on the street, and alternate back and forth the use as a car vs. plane? With all the potential abuse a car gets?
I think the user stories are like this:
When I am grounded due to weather, I can continue my trip.
When I arrive at my destination, at a small airport in middle of nowhere, I don't have to figure out transportation.
So it's really not about going back and forth, it is about making your plane usable in a few extra cases.
When I am grounded due to weather, I can continue my trip.
When I arrive at my destination, at a small airport in middle of nowhere, I don't have to figure out transportation.
So it's really not about going back and forth, it is about making your plane usable in a few extra cases.
I think this is a good way of looking at it - a plane you can sometimes drive, rather than a car you can sometimes fly.
As an aside, I enjoyed how these people got their gyros to Iceland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmwEbjzLtDo
As an aside, I enjoyed how these people got their gyros to Iceland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmwEbjzLtDo
Title is misleading. The car got a single license (i.e, for it's prototype only) and only for Dutch roads, not full Europe.
Haha that's so neat. I wonder if it's a bigger target for break ins/bad stuff. Sucks to think that way, guess no different than owning a super car. What a neat idea though, assuming it has great auto-pilot capability you'd be in same vehicle from home to airport and just sit back.
edit: I have seen different versions of these too in the past(with wings). But still this one looks more compact.
edit: I have seen different versions of these too in the past(with wings). But still this one looks more compact.
Hopefully in a few decades - when we've got self driving problem licked - we can make these fully autonomous on the road, and in the air!
Wonder if this can do pre-rotation, it would be cool to take off like a helicopter.
Prerotation does not allow you to take off like a helicopter. All modern gyros have a prerotator - without one you'd need a very long take off roll to get the rotor up to speed. The prerotator is definitely not capable of flight though, it's only good to get the rotor up to about 2/3 the speed needed to take off.
You can do zero roll jump takeoffs if you have enough rotor speed. Watch this: https://youtu.be/9ISIlgMcb-U