InsideTech

it would certainly be safer, there are less fatalities on a plane than in a car, so go ahead with the idea, I think that you would have to crash 3 747s a day to get the same number of fatalities as driving a car, but I am not sure of those figures, I just heard that somewhere

Well if we have nuts that get on the US Interstate highways and go the wrong way what makes us think that people will be able to fly safely? Ya it is a cool idea and so was the car that became a boat. I just don't think that a flying car is going to make my life better. Oh ya how do you pull a flying car over for a traffic ticket.

after reading some of the posts that reflected a more negative view...here's my two cents:
you have to have a pilot's licence to fly one, just because you have a driver's licence doesn't mean you can fly this thing - and for those out there who have never taken a flying lesson...it's a wee bit more difficult than your high school driver's ed course. on average it takes most people 50 hours to get certified. most people think, hmph, 50 hours? that's nothing. but that equates to about 6 months time and $7500 in costs. not to mention, flying is NOTHING like driving. most importantly, you have 3 dimensions, not just the 2 you deal with on the ground.
and because you are dealing with 3 dimensions it actually makes it safer...more space to manuever, there is no bumper to bumper traffic in the air. people don't get fender benders in the air. you have to toss away all of your preconceived notions and look at the situation with fresh eyes. not the tired worn out ones you use to drive to work with...
the other thing, yeah, it's $200,000, but brand new planes usually cost more than that. and used ones have a high resale value. especially the ones that have been retrofitted with GPS and glass cockpits (it's a misnomer, a glass cockpit means it's been upgraded from analog to digital instruments...)
this allows those people who already have a pilot's licence an alternative, not just to get to and from work, but to meet business clients in the next city over. time is money. the less time you spend it in a parking lot called the interstate, the better.
yes, you still have to drive to a local airport, file a flight plan, take off, fly to a local airport of where you want to end up, land, drive to where you want to be...and then turn around and do it all over again. but you are literally saving tons of time flying then spending it on the ground. the biggest disadvantage will be the driving to and from the airport. which - you would have to do with a normal airplane anyway...

downsides - you get into a fender bender on the way to the airport, that will most likely prevent you from being able to use your car as a plane...day ruined. there's an intense flight check-off before you even get into the plane, driving your plane around town with all the pot holes and crappy drivers out there seems like your just begging for something to happen to put your car/plane on the no-fly list...

I am amazed at the short sightedness of the people commenting on this. If you can have airport communities in which people can hanger airplanes at their houses and taxi to an airstrip running in front of the houses, you certainly can have people driving to small airports and taking off. Just about every small to town has an airport with a 4,999 foot runway (5,000 feet puts the airport in a different category) that is used by the general public. You could drive to the airport take off, then land at an airport near your employment and drive to your parking lot. This would let you commute longer distance in shorter time and relive some of the traffic on the road ways. It should also be remembered that most commuters do not want to pilot an aircraft and will not be jumping from their cars and buying an airplane. For those that will, this could solve a small part of the transportation problem. Oh one more thing. If the design and distance is right the air-car can get as good or better fuel efficiency as some cars.

Yeah this is what we need. A bunch of people who can't drive flying their car to work everyday. Yes I read the many articles and it's suppose to be used as a vehicle that can be driven from work to the strip flown to a strip close to home and then driven home. I just see putting thousands or ,when they come down in price, tens of thousands of these things in the air as a huge accident waiting to happen. Image getting in a car/plane wreck in the air. You think 30 mph is a rough accident on the ground image that same accident with flying speeds and see if you can walk away from that one.

hate it when people get exposure for worthless ideas. It is not a fying car. It is a stubby plane with four wheels, sized to fit within a lane on the road. There probably isn't a single innovative idea on this thing (certainly not from looking at it), which will be required for a true plane/car hybrid. When(?) I have a 1700 foot driveway, I still won't buy one of these things. It's a lousy plane and pointless on the road.

A good way to get around traffic problems