BlackFly – the newest flying car

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Blue Shift

Where would they park it?

In the front yard. Not everyone lives in New York City. Really, these objections are just silly! They're fun to read, though!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: schuyler

And costs about $20k for 100 hours of operation. That's not the entire cost either. How many people do you know that are average people who can afford that? I can't.

The motors are all Electric, I would venture the maintenance on it would be way more streamlined than any fuel engine.
We need to go back to dirigibles and get all Steampunk on it!

originally posted by: schuyler
In the front yard. Not everyone lives in New York City. Really, these objections are just silly! They're fun to read, though!

They're not objections. They're concerns. It all sounds nice and Jetson-y, but there are many practical considerations that go along with it, and many of them are difficult for most of us to overcome since we're not rich.

Not everyone lives in New York City, true. But a lot of people live in Los Angeles, a major market that a manufacturer would probably like to sell to, and parking around here sucks and is really expensive.

Rich people in the sky. Poor people living in the garbage below. We already have a wealth disparity and now we're going to add an altitude disparity to the mix.

I'll bet you a whole dollar that you, personally, will never fly one of these things.

a reply to: schuyler

I mean when you use it and go out, where are you parking it?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: schuyler
In the front yard. Not everyone lives in New York City. Really, these objections are just silly! They're fun to read, though!

They're not objections. They're concerns. It all sounds nice and Jetson-y, but there are many practical considerations that go along with it, and many of them are difficult for most of us to overcome since we're not rich.

No, these things are not for minimum wage jockeys, that's for sure. But they will be in reach of people with a will to get them. Even today, there's no reason why someone interested cannot get a Cessna 150, afford it AND the maintenance, and have a good time flying. It's a matter of priorities. "Rich" is relative, but this is within the means of millions of people.

Not everyone lives in New York City, true. But a lot of people live in Los Angeles, a major market that a manufacturer would probably like to sell to, and parking around here sucks and is really expensive. Rich people in the sky. Poor people living in the garbage below. We already have a wealth disparity and now we're going to add an altitude disparity to the mix.

I really don't see either one of these issues being a valid concern.

I'll bet you a whole dollar that you, personally, will never fly one of these things.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. If they get a move on, I may be able to. If they are like every other flying car company so far, maybe not. Bring it to market and we'll talk. I have a place to park it, and I can afford it. That people in LA cannot for whatever reason is really not my concern.

a reply to: schuyler

I looked up average cost to own and maintain a Cessna 150. It came out to be about $20k for 100 hours. At $40 an hour to run this blackfly would cost me about $10k a year. No thanks.

and again and again and again.......
flying cars aren't a good idea

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

In order to not need a pilot's certificate, the vehicle would have to meet FAR 103 requirements. That means:
Only 1 seat max
Must weigh less than 254 pounds empty weight
No operations at night
May not fly over any congested (built up) area
Max speed at full power is 63 mph
May not be used for business or for hire
There are serious airspace restrictions so, for instance you can't fly it within 30 miles of New York City airports, DC airports, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, etc.
Good weather only.
So this is no real help for congestion. And the thought of a bunch of untrained inexperienced non-aviators flinging these things around is not a happy thought. It would be much better to license these things in the LSA category, which requires an easy to obtain Sport Pilot certificate, and would allow weights up to 1340 pounds so more batteries, more range, passengers, night operations, and with proper training and radios more places to fly.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: schuyler

I looked up average cost to own and maintain a Cessna 150. It came out to be about $20k for 100 hours. At $40 an hour to run this blackfly would cost me about $10k a year. No thanks.

(Sigh) Jesus Friggin' Christ, I FLY Cessna 150s/152s. $40 an hour is an average that includes fuel, oil, and incidentals. They run at a little more than 5 gallons an hour and avgas is more expensive than car fuel, so over half that cost is just in gas alone. So for 100 hours, please do the math. All airplanes require an annual inspection which runs about $600 or so, depending on equipment you have installed. Sure, if you have a twin turbo you'll pay a lot more, but Cessna 150s are a single engine naturally aspirated aircraft. So:

1) Your figures on running a Cessna 150 series are overstated by about double. We're not renting here.
2) You persist in comparing a Blackfly to your overrated Cessna numbers with no evidence whatsoever.
3) Since the Blackfly is electric, running costs are likely to be significantly less than a Cessna.
4) Your unwillingness to take on a Blackfly has no bearing on the wishes of anyone else.
5) Parking the damn thing, sir, is trivial.

I'd get one if I could. That you don't want one is immaterial to me. That ATS people have no particular understanding of the issues is about the lowest concern I have. Right now, the point is moot anyway.

originally posted by: schuyler
I'd get one if I could. That you don't want one is immaterial to me. That ATS people have no particular understanding of the issues is about the lowest concern I have. Right now, the point is moot anyway.

Yeah, we're the worst when it comes to "issues," huh?

Neat and all but flying cards will NEVER become a thing

9/11 everyday

originally posted by: underpass61
Well that's fine if you have a nice soft field to land in. Why no basic rudimentary landing gear? First touchdown in a parking lot and you've scratched the paint.

no landing gear saves a fair amount of weight. and since i suspect that this is classified as an ultralight the weight of proper landing gear, would likely have put it overweight for it's class. if it was not an ultralight you would need a pilot's licence for a multiple jet engine aircraft to fly it. (question. is it still a "fixed wing" licence since those wings seem to tilt? or is that yet another licence you would need for a "tilt wing aircraft"?). seriously it's funny to think that this toy if not an ultralight would need one of the higher class pilot's licences to fly lol

a reply to: schuyler

Except you completely miss my point. My actual point is these will never replace cars.

Some more updates this time from Rose Royce



Errr Mandela?? Rolls Royce

Sorry

Rolls Royce develops propulsion system for flying taxi

So people might need A car wash 30 floors up

20 to 30 minute flight time, low speed, unable to carry more than 250 pounds, seems to be impractical for any other use but as an expensive toy.

That would still a big step towards this kind of transportation technology. It may take about 5 years or so before these will be more commercialized and affordable. My brother is a huge fan of flying from drones to RC plane, he would like this one. He recently ordered a few good stuff from 4WheelOnline for his truck, guess he would rather save the money for an expensive flying car.