Terrafugia, a real flying vehicle: hybrid car plane

[abyssin3]

No, it doesn't fly, otherwise it wouldn't be called Aptera. Besides, flying is not really the purpose of adapting it (it is rather rolling)

[Olivier22]

Aviation professionals will confirm or deny what I said, but I wandered around a lot forums aviation, in particular concerning sky lice (Mignet formula) and planes with duck tail at the front.
It would seem that putting the propeller in the back is not a good choice because it increases the drag. In addition to the front winging is not a good aerodynamic choice too and even if it gives a lift to the front it poses piloting problems. Some sites said that it was more fashionable than some in aeronautics.
So in my opinion it must be a car with a lot of drag, monstrous blind spots and a plane maybe deplorable.

Well, theoretically already, the duck jibe seems better because no negative lift surface (therefore unnecessary drag); next, the best performing light aircraft (LH, Rutan) have a duck jibe, but there may be other factors at play.
As for handling, I am not an expert but I think that in the end it is like a classic plane, it is enough that the center of gravity (and lift) is in front of the hearth, which is surely just a question of front and rear door geometry

Edit: I just noticed my dumpling, it is theoretically impossible that the hearth is behind the CDG if the depth is at the front. Maybe the rear control surfaces are coupled? In any case the solution exists, because it works (well: the Rutans are used in aerobatics by the Réva patrol) without having enslavement of Rafale

[Woodcutter]

[...] It would seem that to put the propeller at the back is not a good choice because it increases the drag. [...]

Here I bounce on it to ask a question: why the drones (at least the amloques) have the propeller in the back?
Is it because of all the "hodgepodge" of watching and pointing they have forward? (convergence with the animal world on this one, by the way ...)

[Christophe]

Yes Lumberjack I think this explains it, there may also be a story of ... noise with respect to "observed"?

Should ask Naudin, the "buddy" at JPP

[Other]

Hello

Anyway, you need an airplane license for this type of vehicle (and yes ...). And that excluded in addition to being able to take off and land outside an aerodrome. Not very practical.
In the genre, the concept will fitis definitely a better idea.

Outside the aerodrome it is for you Europeans, At my place you can land almost everywhere.

As for an auto plane. it will do the same thing as a car, a bad car and a bad boat.

Already among the know there is no universal plane, a Cessna 150 will never be a good plane to frequent wild tracks
A PA18 piper is a good airplane for a rustic runway and a seaplane, but not a good travel plane.
Each aircraft has a fairly specific use
an acrobatic sports aircraft, a stable travel aircraft, an economic aircraft just for small local flights, an aircraft to transport equipment in the bush are very different
Already the pilots no longer want to fly planes with tail rollers ...

Andre

A guy I know who takes pleasure in flying on a lake in the north (an economic bush Caddy plane with rotax 912 engine)
polivalent either wheel, ski float ..
Recent Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vprUa7Ad ... r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBMcB2XJ ... r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c8i7tgN ... r_embedded

Forum quebecois
http://www.ailesquebecoises.com/viewsujet.php?t=6680

[louphil]

In the same spirit, there is that too:
http://www.moller.com/

It's dreamy, but we just see take off, but neither roll nor fly , apart from a 3D anim ...

[Remundo]

I had seen a report a few years ago on this machine.

It is technically interesting, but is more of a 4-rotor helicopter than an airplane. Stability is delicate.

For horizontal flight, I think that its wings (too small) lack lift, and that the horizontal / vertical passage is very "jaw-dropping".

it wakes up the neighbors ... and in terms of consumption ...

On the other hand, a machine like that which would be perfect would find its usefulness for emergencies, the transport of troops or equipment, etc ...

Dr. Moller has long worked on VTOLs, see:
http://www.moller.com/m150.htm

[bebeours]

It would be an interesting vehicle for doctor without border or other.
In Africa, it could find its place. or in huge countries. I can see an Australian having that to be able to go to the nearest city.

[Other]

Hello

[...] It would seem that to put the propeller at the back is not a good choice because it increases the drag. [...]

Here I bounce on it to ask a question: why the drones (at least the amloques) have the propeller in the back?
Is it because of all the "hodgepodge" of watching and pointing they have forward? (convergence with the animal world on this one, by the way ...)

A propeller placed in the back and poorly supplied with air it undergoes turbulence and restriction of the fuselage, which generate vibrations, in the rear is quickly limited by the diameter
a propeller forward the suction is without restriction or turbulence

In practice we only consider the blade tips that protrude from the hood, On some propellers (Hartzel) the beginning of the blade is almost round, see oval, the pitch of the propeller is practically limited to the thickness of the propeller , the real pitch is only reached around a diameter of 1 meter
A propeller too stuck (Piper J3) on the hood loses efficiency, that's why we put spacers to move the propeller away

The drones it is for reasons of noise it poses propellers of small diameters, large blades which turn slowly, in reverse for, to have the field of vision before completely cleared
A drone is a lightly loaded aircraft.

A small propeller diameter is incompatible for a short takeoff aircraft that wants to carry load.
2,10 m propellers are installed on Piper floats
at 2600rpm it's noisy, but efficient.

I have never seen a farm tractor with 14 inch wheels


Andre

[Christophe]

It has just been approved: http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/entrepris ... 58353.html

The device, half airplane and half car, manufactured by the Terrafugia company can now take American roads.

The first flying car could soon travel on American roads. Indeed, according to information from the Wall Street Journal, taken up by Slate.fr, no more obstacle would come to oppose the marketing, across the Atlantic, of the futuristic car developed by the company Terrafugia.

The device, half-plane, half-car, called Transition had already been authorized to fly since 2010: the machine had indeed received approval from the US Federal Aviation Administration. But, the Transfugia company was still awaiting an authorization so that its "baby" could use American roads.

It's done. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has just given its approval, and has not hesitated to waive the regulations to do so. Indeed, several characteristics of Transition do not meet the standards in force to which a "classic" car must meet. According to the American newspaper, the flying car is fitted with "plastic windows instead of standard windshields and tires which are normally not regulatory for multi-purpose vehicles".

Terrafugia is now free to market its first models, which should be delivered by the end of 2012, for the tidy sum of 146.000 euros.