6 thoughts on “The MIT Flying Car Flies

  1. Looks like it would make a bad car and a bad aircraft… can someone explain why this is useful? Our current light aircraft barely seem airworthy on their own, without throwing in irrelevant design compromises for the road…

  2. Brian: I don’t think they are planning to overtake the Chevy Malibu in the “most cost-effective transportation” category. They want to sell a few hundred per year to people who want a flying car. I think it would be useful for people who have vacation houses in remote areas. Every house is near a small airport, but not every house is near a full-service airport with loaner/rental cars. Anyway, if you’re looking for value, I think a $20,000 Piper Cherokee and an $8,000 Chevy Malibu bought used from Avis would be hard to beat. But you wouldn’t have a flying car!

  3. I guess that’s pretty reasonable, although I would still be very worried about dinging something important on the plane if I was driving it around. Maybe a C-130 and a Jeep for the real rugged vacationer? =)

  4. Mostly it is the cool factor, just like that fancy new seaplane (http://www.iconaircraft.com/ — hope that they aren’t a casualty of the collapse). You drive out of your garage on a nice day, take off from a small runway 4 miles away, fly for 45 minutes, land and drive to an art museum or restaurant, and then fly back. Will definitely save a lot of money compared to hangaring at an airport, but really who buys a light aircraft except to have fun?

  5. I love the idea. I am a little worried about driving a $200k car on any roads near the airports where I would want to fly this. Right now I land a DA-40 at a tiny strip near Parry Sound, Ontario. I get a rental car there and drive on some (bad) Canadian roads, then some gravel, then some dirt roads. Would I want to bounce along in a $200k vehicle that is later meant to be airworthy to keep me alive at 9,000ft? I don’t think so. And I would need to dump my current plane, which seats four.

Comments are closed.