A new, high-tech flying car: Will anybody buy it?

 

While I was at Sun 'n Fun I stopped by the impressive exhibit of Terrafugia, the start up company that's in the process of buliding a flying car or, as they prefer to call it, a "roadable aircraft." If they want to emphasize the aircraft nature of the machine, I'd prefer "drivable airplane." Nobody says "roadable."

Whatever you want to call it, the air/road vehicle made its first flight just the other week out of Plattsburg, New York, and it was a success, in the sense that it flew and the company attracted an enormous amount of publicity, including from the mainstream media. 

Now, as you might know, there were actually a number of flying cars that were buit and, in at least one instance, certified back in the dark ages, that is, before I was born. There were only a handful built, and a couple are still flying. They were built out of sheet metal and used conventional aircraft engines and folding or removeable wings. The best known is Molt Taylor's Aerocar, which came from the year 1949, exactly 60 years ago.

Unlike the Aerocar, the Transition, on the other hand, is made largely out of composites, and the engine is an aircraft engine, a Rotax 912 piston engine. The pilot/driver can choose to drive the prop in back, spun by drive shaft (not my favorite thing in an airplane; has there ever been a successful civilian fixed-wing airplane design with a drive shaft?) And the wings on the Transition, from which it gets its name, are electrically foldable. Carl Dietrich, an MIT grad who founded the company, demonstrated the folding mechanism for me in Lakeland. It works great, takes only a matter of sedonds and seems to put the wings in a position where they're largely out of harm's way for when you're ready to go "roading." There's both a steering wheel and a stick, and the prop is disconnected from power when it's time to hit the road.

I asked Terrafugia's director of business development Dick Gersh to tell me, "why now?" And he rattled off a list of advantages to a carplane--I might like that one best of all--that mostly sounded as though they were right out of a story from the 40s. You can, he told me, drive it from the airport (no need for a rental car), drive it home (no need for a hangar), and drive it home if the weather is bad. The Transition does have a road range of around 600 miles, Gersh told me, so it is a real car, and it can easily drive at highway speeds.

As an LSA, it can be realistically "certified" too. I don't think the FAA would sign off on such a vehicle these days. So will Terrafugia get the Transition to market? I'd bet they will. And is it a very cool idea and a lot of fun? You bet.

Will it be a sales success and create a new niche for GA?

I highly doubt it. The problem with the Transition is that, as a carplane, it won't be optimally designed  to do its best as either a car or a plane. And at an estimated sales price of just under $200,000, it's not cheap either. At that price you could buy a conventional LSA or a really nice used airplane and rent cars and hangars until the cows came home. And while the design is ingenious, and a testimony to the cleverness of the team that created it, it fails to overcome the basic objections to the concept, the main one being, is there a need for this product?

I just don't think that there is. I kind of hope I'm wrong, because, as I said, it's a fun product and it has generated a lot of good press for aviation at a time when we sorely need it.

By Robert Goyer

Comments

[Mike Macina]

I worry about the vechicle traveling on the ground and then transistioning to the air. As a car it will be subject to the many small injuries ground vechicles incur due to rocks and other highway debris. Can the folded wings and control surfaces be damaged? Does ground transport pose a serious threat to flight safety? I realize you'd never take this vehicle airborne without a proper walk-around but roads do things to engines the air does not and visa-versa. Finally, what about the fact that the car is made of aircraft material? Can a car that's a plane take the punishment of the open road?

Mike

[Robert Goyer]

Good questions, Mike. And it occurs to me, how do you determine total time and engine TBO on a roadable aircraft. I suppose you'd have to count the entire time the engine was running, whether it's powering the wheels or the prop. That puts the economics in a whole new light.

[Jeff Rodengen]

I'm afraid that a pervasive liberal bias is revealed from the author of this article. "Is there a need for this product?" he muses. Is there a need for a Ferrari? Is there a need for a dishwasher, when soap and sponge will do? I believe he meant to say, "Is there a market for this product?" Rather than applaud the engineering entrepeneurial courage demonstrated by the designers of the Transition, he belittles their choice of the word, "roadable," and considers the "dark age" of aircraft development as those years that preceed his oh-so-hip-and-recent-birth. Perhaps the laziest aviation journalism I have read since "the dark age." --Jeff Rodengen

[Kelly Myer]

With all those virtical wing surfaces jutting up into the sky I also wonder how safe this vehicle would be on the open road in a heavy crosswind. I would imagine it is a light vehicle due to the fact that it's a plane too. Light is good for flying but not so good in ground crosswind conditions. It looks like it might be grounded for driving home in a 40-50mph crosswind on the highway, like empty semi trucks and mobile homes typically are. It is a wonderful concept though and I wish the company all the best.

This would be a wonderful concept as a fly only model for those with home built airfields. They could store their plane in an inexpensive garage as apposed to having to build a wide door hanger or pole building. I wonder if the inventors have considered an optimized aircraft only with those folding wings? I would imagine dropping the roadability hardware and reconfiguring the design for flight only (keeping the folding wings) would provide a more efficient aircraft.

[Dave Johnson]

I too saw the Transition at Sun N' Fun, and when I left KLAL Saturday morning in my Cherokee I made it all the way to W05 by 7:00 P.M. The rental car office was closed in town and I waited 45 minutes for a cab. When I left in the morning I waited and hour and a half for the cab at my hotel. Every pilot has had experiences like this and we all accept it as an inescapable part of flying.

I'm a 3300 hour private pilot, I own two airplanes and I live at an airport. There has never been a time in my life when I could have afforded a new airplane of any type. New airplanes have always been expensive, period. But in my twenty nine years of flying, if I had one dollar for every minute I had spent walking into town from the airport or waiting for ground transportation to materialize, I could literally buy a Transition.

As pilots we value time and freedom. Arriving at an unattended airport deprives us of both. The Transition will succeed because it gives us back both of those.

Previous "carplane" designs have not succeeded because the the "car" mode was a fragile, barely roadworthy vehicle and the time and labor to go from the "car" mode to the "airplane" mode was substantial. The Transition appears to have adequately addressed both of those shortcomings.

I think the Transition will transform general aviation because it solves the ground transportation problem once and for all. When they have been around for awhile maybe I will even be able to afford a used one.

[Andrew Hartley]

There is nothing political whatsoever about this article, and I'm offended by your accusation of "liberal bias" in this article. If you want to talk politics, go to a political blog, not an aviation one.

[James Douthit]

I especially like what Jeff had to say about the author. Well said. Maybe the author should ponder the many other things in the world that we don't need. (Like negative journalists that use their influence to discourage innovation...)

I also think some very inovative concepts/products could result from the technology of the Transition. Look how many more aircraft could fit into a hangar if the wings folded. My best wishes go to the company and to the engineers. Thank you for devoting this part of your life to advancing aviation.

[John Ewald]

I think it's a really neat idea. There are plenty of people out there with the means and the desire to plunk down $200K on a new toy. I see many of the comments above address questions on how it will handle the open road. I really don't think the creators of the Transition intend on people using it as their primary source of ground transportation. I think the idea is it's just used for transportation between home-airport-hotel. Not as a touring vehicle like a Harley.

[Elijah]

I am getting my pilots license specifically to get one of these in 2 years.

I can't wait to fly and drive one of these!

Cheers,

Elijah

[Robert Goyer]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the concept of there being a "need" for a product one of the cornerstones of capitalism? I think the comment by Dave Johnson was right on the money. He said that he has a need for the product, because he wants a car handy when he gets to the airport. Rental cars or crew cars have always fulfilled that need for me and, I believe, the vast majority of pilots. And then there's the question of compromise. It's not a political question at all. If in order for it to fulfill dual roles (here, car and airplane) a product needs to be compromised so much that it doesn't satisfy the customer's needs in its primary role (airplane here), then will the product find market acceptance? If the need for it is very great, then maybe customers will accept the compromise. Early smart phones spring to mind here. But if the need isn't great, then why would consumers turn to a product that is less satisfying to them than one optimized for that mission? It's the whole idea of convergence. When things converge, there have to be a whole host of benefits to outweigh the inevitable compromises. An aviation example, seaplanes, spring to mind. They have established a very strong market niche because there's a need (to land on water in places where road or airport access is poor), and the compromises are workable. It's economics 101.
And "pervasive liberal bias?" Well, that's a first for me. Keep the comedy coming, Jeff.

[JUstin Allison, CFI]

I agree with mike. Even though it is roadable, I would be very concerned with the nicks bumps and scratches incurred from a road trip, let alone being rear ended. However, I doubt that would stop me from buying one.

There are a substantial number of people that have long daily commutes, sometimes exceeding an hour. At least on nice days the carplane could make a difference, if one were to overlook the obscene amount of money it would take to get his hands on this.

[Dave Zorychta]

Fellow Pilots:
I am for this car...however, when landing "after normal hours" , at airports that voluntarily with Homeland Security fences locking up your route to go into town in this flying car, can it jump security fences or go through the people swing gate? Not at our airport.

Dave Zorychta
Hope AR

[Allan McElroy]

Security fences? I like the idea that I could land and take this puppy off from the road!

[Michael McMahon]

What "road" are you going to use with wings extended for take-off? That doesn't seem like something that the "roadable" police are going to look favorably upon.

[Charles WIlcox]

Clearly this is aviation innovation based on book learning and not practical experience. There are reasons why airplanes look and function as they do. It is called certification criteria whether it be for Part 23, 25, 121, or even the ASTM criteria for LSAs. These guys are blowing smoke to get investors money because they will not ever get it certified by FAA, ASTM, or even DOT.

[W.C. Nedbalek]

Whether the idea is new or not, it is new to a lot of people. And whether it's new or not, it shows guts and creativity and conviction to "go for it" and try to produce it and take it to market. I love that this team did that. Do I love the product? Probably not. I'd rather see the innovation (or acceptance of doing something "different") focused on engine technology (getting away from magnetos and moving to electronic ignition, for example) or "administrative technology" (ie., less bureaucracy) than this sort of thing. I can't imagine dealing with the airworthiness issue after having had a fender bender. I can't imagine paying that for it. As mentioned before, I'd rather have a $100,000 used something and spend the remaining $100,000 on gas and insurance and an extra car parked at the place I most frequently go (assuming that's relevant for you.) But who knows? In 20 years we all might be "driving" this thing's descendants.

[chuck harral]

Speaking of "roadable" police, sure you could use a road for a runway. how much trouble are you going to have finding one without obstructions (including oncoming auto's) and a sufficiently high speed limit? what will the police system do when you break somebody's precious speed limit, then fly away from the pursuing officer? Will said officer just start shooting when he sees you on your takeoff roll?

Maybe that's moot, will this vehicle go from car to plane while moving?

[Mark Hodgson]

How many people in the late '70s looked at the personal computer as having any serious utility? Read Dave Johnson's comments. He gets it. This will be a new and ultimately solid market as people slowly realize how practical it can be. As the demand goes up, so will the industry supply and thus the price will go down in that same process that brought the automobile to the middle class in the 1920s, the TV in the '50s, the computer in the '80s and the internet in the '90s. Comments about problems with the existing bureaucracy are simply ignorant of the fact that this vehicle is registered with a legal license plate even on the first prototype, and meets ASTM standards. Welcome to the 21rst century folks. And if you've got the money, get your deposit in because Terrafugia's order backlog keeps growing.

[Dr. R. Katz]

The comments seem to conflate several domains of evaluation and concern: marketability, innovation, intended use versus actual use, plus some folks have thrown in their personal emotional responses in the political arena as well.

Interesting.

So my comments.
1 Neat engineering and really creative.
2. I'm sure there will be some people who like it and can afford it and will therefore purchase it.
3. Functunality or actual use: limited in both domains of flying and driving. LSA's are not designed as transportation devices as most 4 place GA aircraft, whereas cars are designed as transportation devices, and this device seems to fragile (in terms of real onroad conditions) to be a "daily driver"....
But as a fun toy that can take you from an airport to home or hotel, as long as you are not travelling "heavy" with passengers and baggage, and don't really need to follow a time bound schedule, then this is a neat idea.
Let's see if the market for such a toy will be strong enough to support a company for ten years, to ensure that those who purchase it will be able to keep it running with service and repair!

[Charles WIlcox]

The design is attempting to meet ASTM standards. It has yet to do so. So far it has barely staggered into the air. The 1320 pound gross weight limit will be extrememly tough to meet especially with any useful load as will the 45 KCAS flaps-up stall speed. If it can meet those, it still has handling, stability and control, stall and spin requirements to over come. Mr. Hodgson, welcome the the 21st Century and reality. Your subscription to Popular Science is failing you. Try Aviation Week and Space technology or a book on aerodynamics and Federal Aviation Regulations.

[Brian]

I wouldn't drive it over the Mackinac Bridge. I bet it's lighter (being an LSA and all) than a Yugo and everyone remembers the poor young lady who crossed with hers Yugo on a breezy day.

[Ed Dolejsi]

I loved reading all the comments, regardless if they were negative or positive. At the end, however, and because I am a “glass half full” kind of a guy, and accepting that this thing is going to work, I had to ask myself a question. Would I park it at a local hotel over night? I don’t think so. There are so many opportunities, and ways, for an evil mind to compromise the machine, that an inspection before the next flight would take me much longer than the wait for a cab to take me to the airport. And even after my best inspection effort, I still couldn’t be 100% sure that all is right. How would I even know what to look for? Since I didn’t design it, or built it, where would I even start? Cut brake lines on my conventional car could get me killed, but a compromised control system failing in flight, would very likely get me killed. What a wonderful world would it be, if all of us were good and decent people, then I wouldn't have to worry about any of this.

[Mark Hodgson]

Mr. Wilcox, if you must get personal let me say that I am a pilot and appreciate the accomplishments of this team and the very real promise of their product, the development of which I have been following for three years through my local chapter of EAA and the fact that their plant is close to my home. Prior to its first flight it was taxi-tested to 95+ mph and by all accounts handles very well, using the canard and elevator in fixed positions specific for ground handling. The flight videos speak for themselves regarding the off-ground handling, although as you mentioned much remains to be tested, mostly with the second prototype now that they have proof-of-concept. The airframe is all carbon-fiber, alas contributing to its cost but putting the lie to accusations of "fragility." It has flown in spite of the crumple zones, side-beams, and airbags built into it. It has, in fact, been overbuilt with a number of off-the-shelf components which will be refined in the second prototype to decrease weight without compromising required strength. As an LSA it does not require FAA certification. And the state bureaucracy has been cooperative with the team--exercising something called "foresight." Of course, the team still has a long way to go, but they've gone a lot farther than any in the past toward realization of such a self-contained transportation concept. Belief in their product fits easily within the domain of rationality--that is my 21rst century and you're welcome to join it.

[Charles WIlcox]

Mr. Hodgson, You are correct that an LSA does not "require" FAA certification. It does require compliance with ASTM 2245 standards for an LSA and FAA concurrance with FAA ORDER 8130.2 that defines what is a Light Sport Aircraft. Other LSA manufacturers have a difficult time achieveing a practical useful load and ASTM compliance using Rotax power, carbon fiber construction, etc. without meeting DOT requirements, having the additional weight of a ground operations drive train, extra wheels, etc. Oh by the way, having a legal license plate on the prototype doesn't mean squat for flight worthiness. Good luck to your friends. I do hope they prove me wrong but I doubt they will. I commend you on your ability to believe in a dream and the fact that you are a pilot. You are free to believe as you wish and throw your money away. I see Moller has his SkyCar on sale on E-Bay. It's been under development for over 30 years and fits your 21st century transportation requirements. PS - it doesn't fly too well either.

[Mark Hodgson]

Bertrand Piccard (worth Googling if you don't know who he is) once said, to paraphrase, that the biggest obstacle to benefitting from new ideas is not so much getting them but instead overcoming the inevitable social resistance to them. Mr. Wilcox keeps attempting to defeat the concept of the Transition with incorrect assumptions. A license plate simply proves that issues of road legality and insurance can be and have been resolved--extremely significant real-world issues, but who said they have anything to do with flight worthiness?
The SkyCar is a powered-lift vehicle and after 30 years is still struggling to convincingly go from point A to point B or even demonstrate straight-ahead cruise speed flight. And eight unmuffled engines are only one obstacle to social acceptance of this bird even if it were production-ready today. The Transition has gone from first concept to controlled actual flight in 4 years. The comparison of the two is just silly.