Yeah, it makes more sense overall to make small planes roadworthy and fold-able to fit in a garage. They're working on it, but interest isn't huge.

Flying cars are pretty silly.

Flying roads, however...

Yeah flying cars are pretty silly.

Migs did an an awesome breakdown of why we'll never see them in a /tek/ thread way back: https://plus4chan.org/b/tek/res/2291.html#2631

>>3249
>But the magnetic train? Yeah, that'd be fuck win.
This is a lot more interesting. Connecting all the big cities with magnetic trains would cleaner, faster and safer.

>>3250
I would LOVE to see better, faster mass transit between major cities.

It's such a shame we'll never see it in the US, at least not with our current political climate.

>>3251
I know California is currently attempting to connect it's north and south with a high speed train. If it works, hopefully the rest of the country will follow.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

How many car crashes happen in the states per year?

Here's a flying VTOL vehicle with up to six seats+cargo available to the "masses" for 7 to 15 thousand dollars (ie the cost of a fucking car). Unlike every single one of the shitty designs in your image OP, as well as everything seen so far along the lines of FUTUR TRANSPORTASHUN (fixed wing, helicopters etc) this one CAN NOT crash.

Know why nobody buys them? Because nobody wants to buy them. Because people are used to cars.

>you'd probably have to pass several training courses just to be eligible to drive one,
Funny, I did something similar for my car license. Oh, and gyrocopter training/licenses are included in the purchase most of the time, cost an additional 250$.

>>3249
1. Convenience: A preflight for a gyrocopter is less than a minute, considering the reliability, you don't even need to do it.
2. Landing: Landing a gyrocopter = letting go of the control stick, maybe adjusting somewhat as you come down. Cost of fuel and maintenance is lower than a fixed wing or a helicopter, and there is no exhaust.
3. People are stupid with cars too, you're more likely to die in a car crash than in a robbery or a gunfight in USA. But we still let them drive.

Glad he mentions the gyro.

>>3250
>>3251
>>3253
Completely useless in a western nation...

>>3291
The reason nobody wants to buy one is you can't fucking park it anywhere, unless you work for Pixar or Google or Valve or someplace chill enough to let you land on the roof. The problem with flying cars isn't the flying part, it's storage and parking when not in use.

I've beat this horse to death many a-time. A Flying car is stupid.

1) VTOL craft are hard to fly. The Harrier, for example, is notoriously hard to fly.
2) That's a lot of thrust, you will hurt anyone near by.
3) That's a lot of fuel expended.
4) That's a lot of training if you wish to fly, just drive.

Roadworthy aircraft are only marginally better. You're still going to be spending upwards of $200,000 on a car. Note how I didn't say roadable aircraft. It's still a car and cars don't last anywhere near as long as aircraft. My Cessna is old. My Comanche is even older, but they look like they're pretty new. Not only do pilots baby their machines, they only really encounter precipitation in use. Drivers beat the hell out of their cars. Guess where your roadable aircraft has to go before it can take off at the local airfield?

Not only that, it's still not a matter of just dropping wings and getting on the threshold; you still have your preflight check-
>>3249
Oh, well yeah that was my previous post there. However, for the sake of the lazy (I know that feel, bro):

Are your flight control surfaces free and correct?
Brakes working?
Do you have a battery charge?
Is the prop undamaged?
Is there any body damage?
Are the tires sufficiently filled?
Have you sumped your fuel tanks?
How much fuel do you have?
How's the oil?
What's the weather forecast on the AWOS/ASOS/ATIS?

Once you got all that done, now you can do your engine run up. Not take off, engine run up. You're going to power up your engine to a sufficient level. For the sake of discussion, I'll use the Cessna 172 as an example. Why? If you were go down to the local airfield and ask for a lesson, 95% chance it's going to be in one of these, so it's for the sake of relation to the reader.

You're going to throttle up the airplane to about 1700 RPM. At this point you perform a Magneto check by turning the ignition key to use only the first set of magnetos. You should observe an RPM loss of no more than 100 RPM. After you observe the RPM drop, switch the key back to it's regular position and then turn it to the second set of magnetos. Same shit here, looking for the slight RPM drop.

Then, return the key back to it's normal position (which sets it to both magnetos) and now click off one of your master power switches. You should see a spike in your electrical charge. Then take a glance at your suction gauge and make sure it's in the green. This giving you an indication of the functionality of your gryoscopic instruments (Heading indicator, turn and slip indicator, and attitude indicator). Finally, if it's humid out, and between the temperatures of about -2 to 28 degrees Celcious, you should pull out the carburetor heat (if your airplane isn't fuel injected) and run that for about 15 seconds.

Now, you can put out your calls and depart. If you're at a towered airport, you're doing all this while talking to the tower. That's how you get a simple airplane like the Cessna 172 in the air. An Airplane with fixed gear, single engine under 200 horsepower, and a fixed pitch prop.

So, if you buy a roadable aircraft like a Terrafugia, this is what you're getting:

A $200,000 car that only seats two as it must comply with LSA standards and probably accelerates like shit. You're also buying a mediocre airplane with an ok fuel burn for it's size, a fairly long take off roll, and handling characteristics far outclassed by a $20,000 Piper Cherokee.

In a nut shell, buy a decent car, then spend the rest of that money you would have invested in a toy like the Terrafugia on an Autogyro, or an ultralight, or a decent small airplane, or even a fucking Harvard/SNJ/Texan. You will still come in under $200,000.

I'll glance through an Airplane classified ads for some prices. The Terrafugia is priced at $200,000. Let's say you bought a car at $20,000, leaving us with an airplane budget of $180,000. Take a look here and see what you can find for under $180,000:

http://courtesyaircraft.com/inventory%20table.htm
http://www.worldwidewarbirds.com/WWW_for-sale.html
http://www.worldwidewarbirds.com/CJ6_aircraft_for_sale.html
http://www.worldwidewarbirds.com/Exotic_for_sale.html
http://www.raptoraviation.com/Site%20framework%20pages/Piston%20initial%20page.html
http://www.raptoraviation.com/Site%20framework%20pages/Warbirds%20initial%20page.html

And these are the tiny sites, usually for warbirds. You'll find hundreds and even thousands for sale on a site like http://www.tappix.com

>>3291
>Completely useless in a western nation...
I'm guessing by western nation you mean the American continent or something, because France has it's TGV connecting Paris to multiple major European cities. For example you can travel 500 miles in about 3 hours for less than $50 and it's pretty awesome.

It's kind of like taking the plane but you don't have to deal with the assholes at security and you get to see the country side.

>>3328
This will never be legal in America

Oh and by the time they start building trains we'll have TSA checkpoints at train stations

The CIA will let a single terrorist attack slip through their defenses just to prove to everyone that riding on a train should involve letting rent-a-cops fondle your tits

>>3328
Indeed. The usefulness of a tracked transit system like a MagLev train is entirely dependent upon population density.

Flying cars? No way. Too many problems.

Hovering cars? Maybe. The biggest problem I can think of is braking. Hovercraft tend to drift around haphazardly if you don't know what you're doing, due to totally lacking friction with the ground.

Also, I'm not a physicist; I don't know what kind of fuel efficiency you'd get compared to a wheeled vehicle. Sure, no friction, but that's a lot of thrust you need to keep it off the ground, even just a few inches.

>>3334
You pretty much can't beat wheels for efficiency, unless you're a glider or something that can generate some thrust with solar panels.

>>3337
Or on a fixed track.

Really, the function of a hovering vehicle (both for existing hovercrafts and the theoretical "float a couple feet off the ground" kinds) would be for terrains other vehicles can't go through at all and for obvious reasons most people aren't going to live near those.

On the subject of VTOL, Eurocopter X3 debuted at the Paris Airshow. I have a feeling this is the future direction for helos.

Paris Air Show 2011 - Eurocopter X3

Sikorsky's X2 demonstrator
Sikorsky X2 Technology helicop…

>>3365
What keeps the X3 from spinning? Most helicopters have tail rotors and some like X2 have the double spinning in opposite directions or something else. I guess the ones on the wings are enough, or am I missing something?

>>3366
Maybe the ones on the wings are balanced with unequal thrust to provide forward momentum and also counterbalance the turn. I would think it shouldn't really matter where the rotor is as long as it's pushing the craft the opposite direction as the spin.

>>3365
The thrust from the twin props on the pylons should prevent it from spinning. It might still have some yaw tendencies, but all helicopters do and that can be addressed by adjusting various trim settings. I thought it might have a NOTAR system, but it appears that it doesn't.

NOTAR No-Tail-Rotor low noise …
CalSTAR Shows Off New Chopper

>>3371

The X3 Concept

3 minutes in, props provide the anti-torque when hovering, at higher speeds the rotor is slowed and the wings provide most of the lift.

>>3381
Never did care much about EADS' advertisement machine. But, minor gripe.
>at higher speeds the rotor is slowed and the wings provide most of the lift
So, like the Hind or AH-64? That's going to go a very long way towards fuel consumption and keeping it economical. It's no where near as fast as the Sikorsky demonstrator, but EADS' X3 is (IMO) much closer to market. It's so close to the Dauphin it's based on, it'd find a lot of reception with existing operators. The USCG would probably look into it as a potential replacement for the HH-65 at some point.

But goddamn, putting the NH-90's power plant in that tiny little thing?

Oh, the interweb faux pas of the double post!

Here's a good video on Art Nalls' Sea Harrier FA.2 and what goes into flying it. This is on the Airshow circuit, too, remember.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1052416244001

In a nut shell, he has to calculate engine RPM based how much much weight he has in fuel and water in order to safely and successfully pull the Harrier into a hover.

It gives you an idea of how skilled Harrier pilots are and how unfeasible a Jet VTOL would be for civilian users.

Even with ducted fans/rotor blades, you'll have to adjust blade pitch accordingly.

>>3463
>he has to calculate engine RPM based how much much weight he has in fuel and water in order to safely and successfully pull the Harrier into a hover.

Mebbe stupid question: shouldn't computers be able to handle this?

>>3469
Easily, but would you like to be in a mass of aluminum and steal, suspended in the air, at the whim of something that could be subject to something cheap shorting out? You want layers of safety, you want to be able to fall back on something.

>>3463
Isn't the VTOL version of the F35 supposedly much easier to handle?

>>3534
Anything's easier to handle when compared to the Harrier, honestly. So, I wouldn't be at all surprised that an advanced aircraft like the F-35B possesses a much more manageable in a hover.

hey Mig,
considering your aviation knowledge and experience, what aircraft can you suggest that i'd buy:
-I plan on travelling short distances (island hopping), around 500 kilometers (311 miles)
-something that i can land anywhere (does it work that way or do I HAVE to land in an airstrip?)
-I don't care about speed or the time it takes to get to my destination; safety is my main priority (so pref gyros? i dont even know)
-a 2 seater would do, but more is better
-minimal gas consumption (also, side question, how much is the gas consumption in an low-end aircraft relative to a car? 4 times? 10 times?)


also, would a hot air balloon be a better (less expensive, easy control, safer) option for casual air travel (disregarding the speed)?

>>3299
>can't fucking park it anywhere
>takes off and lands vertically
If you can't land a gyro, you probably can't park a car either

>>3365
>eurocopter X3
>future of anything
lolololololol it has three flipping rotors, that arrangement has been tried and abandoned many times before
It's just a demonstrator meant to compete with Sikorsky X2, which is a demonstrator itself

Pic related, this with a turboshaft/turbojet hybrid engine is the future
Minimizes amount of moving parts and maximizes performance

>>3534
You mean the Yak-141, right

>>3592
>takes off and lands vertically
Autogyros don't, though. They're extreme STOL, but not VTOL. It all depends on the principles employed by an Autogyro, with the "jumping" variety seemingly capable of vertical flight. They still aren't and require forward motion to keep their main rotor spinning.
Autogyro beats Helicopter for …

>>3592
>his with a turboshaft/turbojet hybrid engine is the future
Minimizes amount of moving parts and maximizes performance
>minimizes amount of moving parts

Not with two rotor assemblies. Two rotor assemblies would translated to a tremendous hike in annual inspection fees and overhaul fees. Props on a horizontally mounted powerplant are a lot cheaper, even if they're constant speed. And, that statement was that the configuration of rotor and pusher prop was what more and more helos would end up looking like and not the X3 itself.

At any rate, the military enjoys a much better funding situation than civil operators do. Taking into account the cost of operations, annual inspections, insurance, maintenance, and overhaul costs would really cramp a coaxial configuration in the eyes of a civil operator.

>You mean the Yak-141, right
LockMart was already working on the X-35 when they got involved with Yakovlev.

>>3588
Ok let's see what your standards are, then, shall we?
>-I plan on travelling short distances (island hopping), around 500 kilometers (311 miles)
Oh, no worries. There's plenty of nice, safe, easy aircraft you can find that would fit that no problem.
>-something that i can land anywhere (does it work that way or do I HAVE to land in an airstrip?)
Bit dicey, that. Seaplanes don't have an issue with that, I believe. Provided you can get the permission of a land owner, touching down in a field is fine. But, again, you need permission from whoever owns the land. And, I wouldn't like any of my students touching down in a completely unmade strip.
>-I don't care about speed or the time it takes to get to my destination; safety is my main priority (so pref gyros? i dont even know)
Gyros are incredibly safe. You lose your engine, you float to the ground. Autogyros shouldn't be thought of as helicopters, they should be operated more like a fixed wing airplane. So, you'd wanna keep your airspeed up, swoop down into a field and land normally.
>-a 2 seater would do, but more is better
Ok.
>-minimal gas consumption (also, side question, how much is the gas consumption in an low-end aircraft relative to a car? 4 times? 10 times?)
Ok, so I'd recommend keeping your engine size around 100 Horsepower, or even less. Also, let me do a little rough calculation for you.

You'll win in economy against my two airplanes. I'm ok with paying the premium for performance. My Comanche 250 burns about 12 gallons per hour at cruise, going about 160knots indicated. My 206 will burn 14 an hour at 140 (It's a damn sky truck.) The Comanche 250 has 60 gallons (227 liters) total, so it's got some long legs. Trimmed up right and with the right fuel mix setting, she's got close to a 2,000km (1,060 nautical mile) range.

So, a good start would be the Cessna 150 with a Continental O-200 rated at 100hp. I can trim one back to burn about 4 and a half gallons (17 liters) per hour, going about 100 knots. It has a range of about 420 miles and carries 32 gallons (121 liters) of fuel. So, it's not too bad, actually. Mind you, it's still going to be a bit more expensive as 100LL fuel has a 99.8 octane minimum.

There exist better alternatives, as well: There's always kitplanes. A good example is the Sonex. It can seat two, cruise faster than the 150, and burn less fuel. The figure I'm always given is around 3.5 gallons per hour with a max capacity of 16 gallons (60 liters) and it's recommended to use the 85hp Aero-Vee engine.

Tom's Sonex "Explained"
Kansas Sonex flight
One major selling point of the Sonex aircraft, despite economy, is that they're fully aerobatic:
Sonex Sport Acro

Another kitplane of the same vein is the Kitfox. Every owner of one that I've met raves about how wonderful they are.
Kitfox - Back Country

One last one I can think of is the Zenith CH 701/750. Their range is cutting a bit close to your standard at about 370 miles, but their short take off performance is superb; something definitely desirable in soft field operations like you would like:
Short take-off and slow landin…

Anyways, I hope that helped you some.

>>3593
They're VTOL if you prerotate, which every modern gyro has\

>Not with two rotor assemblies
It's a double rotor assembly not two separate ones, and it removes the need for a smaller rotor in the back hence the level of complexity is lower or equal (can't be higher). Good example is that the Mi-28 requires more maintenance hours than Ka-50.

>LockMart was already working on the X-35 when they got involved with Yakovlev.
Yes, but they were stuck until they purchased the 141 plans from Yakovlev. Without these, their B variant would be as so much verkakte in the snow, worse than the Harrier even.

>>3594
>They're VTOL if you prerotate, which every modern gyro has
They still have a take off roll, no matter how short it is, thus still STOL. It's definitely an extreme STOL, short enough to comparable to VTOL vehicles, especially when it comes to jobs like aerial observation of any flavor. There's no reason why a slow moving autogyro can't take someone up to do a traffic report, especially when you compare operating costs between it and a helicopter. However, the biggest problem with the Autogyro is perception; it has the stigma of being but a toy in the eyes of most civil operators, so legitimate workhorses like the 18A get the shaft, sadly.

I will maintain that could do aerial observation jobs just as good from an Autogyro going 30 knots as you could in a helicopter doing the same. However, the operator would be smiling and doing a jig when he looked at his operating costs when compared to the helicopter.

Honestly, unless you need something to lift people or equipment in and out of inaccessible areas, Autogyro > Helicopter for general aviation. It definitely lacks the strength to lift and do hard work, but if you're a local news station trying to remind people stuck in rush hour traffic that they made a grim mistake waking up that morning I see no real reason why the Autogyro isn't better save for the rep it's got as a garage-built toy.

>It's a double rotor assembly not two separate ones, and it removes the need for a smaller rotor in the back hence the level of complexity is lower or equal (can't be higher)
Each rotor set still has the proper pitch surfaces and a job that big would equate to a longer (and more expensive) annual inspection. And, where'd you get the figure that the Hokum has a lower operating cost than the Havoc? I'd be curious to see.

>Yes, but they were stuck until they purchased the 141 plans from Yakovlev. Without these, their B variant would be as so much verkakte in the snow, worse than the Harrier even.
So, just like they are now with the B variant? kekekekeke

>>3595
Ok, if you consider a few meters of roll "STOL" then everything from a Hind to an Apache is "STOL". Either way, if you can drive and park a car you can drive and park a gyro.

>Each rotor set still has the proper pitch surfaces
What do you mean? Every normal helicopter has two rotors with pitch surfaces, and the Eurocopter X3 and Sikorsky X2 have THREE of them. The rotor shaft itself is complex, but the amount of moving parts is reduced.
I heard of the Hokum/Kamov difference on Voyno Delo which criticized the Hokum as a step back in helicopter design.

For a rough example of what I'm talking of, look up the Sikorsky 69 model.

>>3596
The Hind can employ wing mount lift at high elevation for take off (as well as high speed), such as Afghanistan, so yes those are STOL operations. I don't think the Apache needs to, but I know that Soviet Hinds during their involvement in the 1980's required runways to take off, probably due to the Hind being a massive machine.

However, autogyros still require runway distance no matter the elevation and are unable to hover. Thus, they aren't VTOL.

Red Dawn North Texas Style
AH-64 Apache Takeoff

>Every normal helicopter has two rotors with pitch surfaces
I'm talking about annual inspections that all aircraft owners must submit their aircraft to, whether they fly for hire or not. A Coaxial configuration would require more attention and time spent on that portion of the airframe, which is also the most expensive in a helicopter.

As a principal, the coaxial configuration isn't terribly practical for civil operators for that reason.
>and the Eurocopter X3 and Sikorsky X2 have THREE of them.
But, they don't support the aircraft, they provide forward thrust and, like I said, getting a constant speed prop assembly inspected is a lot cheaper.

At least at this present time.

>I heard of the Hokum/Kamov difference on Voyno Delo which criticized the Hokum as a step back in helicopter design.
Well, I wouldn't say it's a step back, lacking a vulnerable part like the tail rotor on a combat helicopter is a pretty nice thing to have on the Hokum.

>>3597
You don't need the ability to hover to be VTOL.
>Can it take of vertically? Yes
>Can it land vertically? Yes
Thus it is a VTOL

>Coaxial configuration would require more attention and time spent on that portion of the airframe
And a non-coax configuration gets to spend time on both the main rotor and the rear rotor. Can you tell me how it's inferior to X2 and X3? And no, neither of them is "constant speed" as you think, in the X3 they are used for turning the aircraft and in the X2 the rear rotor has the ability to reverse thrust to slow the aircraft.
Kamov designs have proved themselves more reliable than other types of helicopters in frontline and support roles.

>coaxial configuration isn't terribly practical for civil operators for that reason.
In case you forgot, we are discussing civilian use for gyrocopters and the future of helicopter design for coax. You seem mixed up.

>wouldn't say it's a step back
Didn't say I agreed with them

>>3598
>Thus it is a VTOL
No, it's not. It doesn't take off and land, vertically. It still needs horizontal motion to gain lift. It needs that forward motion to get the rotor spinning. It needs to maintain that forward motion. The ability to hover is required.

The helicopter's rotors produce the low air pressure effects required for lift and VTOL jets suspend themselves on pillars of gas. Autogyros don't usually have power going to the main rotor and the few ones that do use that to hop and drastically shorten the take off. It's still got a rotational speed, but a rotational speed that's dependent on the RPM of the rotor main.

>>coaxial configuration isn't terribly practical for civil operators for that reason.
>In case you forgot, we are discussing civilian use for gyrocopters and the future of helicopter design for coax. You seem mixed up.
>the future of helicopter design for coax
Then why wouldn't we be talking civil operations? Helicopters are workhorses. That is a tremendous chunk of the market that must be addressed. Without the civil market, a design will suffer when compared to others. You can cite how efficient and reliable the Ka-52 is, but that means very little to the market for helicopters. It can come back to hurt the design later on. It'll stagnate if only one part of the market uses it.

>And a non-coax configuration gets to spend time on both the main rotor and the rear rotor. Can you tell me how it's inferior to X2 and X3? And no, neither of them is "constant speed" as you think, in the X3 they are used for turning the aircraft and in the X2 the rear rotor has the ability to reverse thrust to slow the aircraft.
Yes, they are constant speed, as I think. They're constant speed props. They're blade pitch changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_speed_propeller
I'm not arguing for or against either the X3 or co-axial configuration, I'm stating that the co-axial configuration will probably see higher annual inspection fees because of it's complexity and relative scarcity when compared to the standard configurations.

>Kamov designs have proved themselves more reliable than other types of helicopters in frontline and support roles.

Bringing military applications into a discussion about commuter usage and general aviation isn't very pertinent. At least using the Hokums, that is. Attack helicopters are one trick ponies and Kamov has a lot of multi-mission aircraft, such as the Ka-25 Hormone and Ka-27 Helix. The best airframe to look at, in my opinion, would be the Ka-26 Hoodlum. It's a genuine utility helicopter.

So, there's the start: The Ka-26

>>3599
I derped and hit reply before I finished. My bad.

Anyways, you start with the Ka-26, which has seen a respectable amount of success. Then, you compare it to the operating costs of a similar helicopter. I don't know much about the Ka-26, so I don't really know what it can be compared to.

>>3599
>It still needs horizontal motion to gain lift
DO YOU KNOW WHAT PREROTATION IS MOTHERFUCKER

>I'm not arguing for or against either the X3 or co-axial configuration
>that's what the entire discussion is about
>facepalm.jpg
Communicating with you is a huge waste of time.

RAF 2000 Gyrocopter prerotator upgrade
Two Gyros - Jump Takeoff

>>3601
>>3602
>skip over entire sections of post
>bring up the military applications in a thread about civilian transport
>get corrected on what VTOL really is by someone who's job is teaching people to fly
>derp ur dumb because i dunno teh principals and i move goal posts entirly and i can't admit when i may have goofed

Still not VTOL. Still requires forward motion. It has absolutely nothing to deal with the appearance of the take off or landing, but rather the principals involved. You can do the same in an airplane like a Storch. If you stick a Storch's nose into a strong wind and throttle up, it'll appear to take off vertically. Does that make it a VTOL?

During AirVenture '11, Sean Tucker's act was interrupted by 50mph winds. He turned his Pitts variant into them and hovered. Does that make his airplane a VTOL? No, it doesn't.

It has nothing to do with the aircraft in relation to the ground, either. And who am I going to believe? A knee jerk Anonymous or my FAR/AIM book that's written by the FAA?

>>3593

Thank you for that very informative reply, although you've lost me at some technical lingo.

My standards? I don't really know. I'm not an into flying things. I'm an electronics and communications engineer by the way. The only stuff I know about air travel are the communications devices, navigational aids, protocols and frequencies. I'm not even into motors because they're more electrical or mechanical engineering related.

I felt like aerodynamics would be a good new hobby. I could start with RC helicopters, and eventually I'm planning to buy my own plane, helicopter or whatever.

I'm not a rich millionaire doing off-shore oil operations. I just want something simple. I don't even care about the looks, power, and speed. I care about the efficiency in mileage, low cost of maintenance, and safety. I wish you could point me where to start reading, and suggest models that I could be interested on.

I want to say that I'm looking for the cheapest plane or copter out there but then again, cheapest often turns out as bad investments in the long run.

Also, I know it was a stupid question but please do answer
>also, would a hot air balloon be a better (less expensive, easy control, safer) option for casual air travel (disregarding the speed)?

>>3605
When I said "standards" I meant essentially what you're looking for. And let me see if I can simplify the lingo down the best I can, forgive me if I fail or seem condescending because of it.

Well, first thing's first, I'll answer your last inquiry by saying I don't know. I don't know much about lighter-than-air travel. I know that most blimps have an operating cost about about $3,000 an hour. I know next to nothing about hot-air balloons, sadly. Sorry, man.

When it comes to over all operating costs, it's hard to beat the Autogyro. I can't give any real exact numbers, my expertise is with mostly fixed wing. Their advantages are:

-Extremely short take off distance. A lot of the higher end gyros power their main rotors for a take off hop and performance comparable to a helicopter.
-Fuel efficiency. They don't need a lot of power to get aloft.
-Safety. Lose the engine and you're already in auto rotation. You should try and keep your RPM at the same speed you usually land and you touch down like normal.
-Compact. You can trailer an Autogyro and stow it in garage.
-Durability. You really need to watch those fabric wings on an ultralight or the chute of a powered chute. Autogyros obviously lack those frail components, so last much long.

The biggest downside to the Gyro is the simple fact that it's not the best working vehicle. You really can't go far with it, either. Most are made to be simply toys.

Now, since you expressed interest in general aviation, I can defer some wisdom to you, as well. Gonna be blunt to begin with: No such thing as a cheap helicopter. The Mosquito is about as close as it gets

http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/mbbs2/index.asp Here's it's website.

As for airplanes, go here for the PDF:
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/reachforthesky.html

And, really, the best thing to do would be to find a local airport and call them to see if they have a flight instructor and he'd be more than happy to explain to you what you need to do in order to obtain the proper licensing. Instructors are more than just people that are here to teach you how to fly and then cut you loose; we're here to help. Which, brings me to your next question of suggesting models. Price depends a lot on the avionics, time on the engine, time on the airframe, and condition. If you're thinking about buying your first airplane, I can't stress this enough but get your most experienced flight instructor to come with you. He will tell you if it's a good buy or not. I'll give you some expected prices, though. And, think of an airplane more like a house than a car. They can appreciate in value if taken care of well. They will last for decades upon decades as they don't get subjected to much abuse during operation.

The most economic production aircraft for the guy that wants a reliable and safe flight that I can think of are:

-Cessna 150/152. Two seat high-wing Cessna powered by either a 100hp or 110hp engine respectively. It's a very VERY popular airplane that will have lots of after market parts and such. Expect to spend between $15,000-$30,000 on one.

-Cessna 172. This IS the ubiquitous Cessna. 43,000 manufactured and still counting. About 80% of my hours are in 172s. They have a fantastic safety record and seat up to 4. If you're proficient, you can get them down to about 7 gallons per hour in fuel burn. Expect to pay $25,000-$50,000.

There is a good alternative to the 172 and it's the:
-Piper Cherokee. It's very similar to the 172, usually same sized power plants, but this one's a low wing. However, it doesn't enjoy the popularity and demand of the 172, so you see them for between $15,000-$30,000. It is, in my opinion, the best value aircraft you can get.

One last one I can think of is:
-Alon Ercoupe. They're small, they're cheap to fly, and surprisingly fun. They have this very warbird-ish feel to them. That's a plus for me, cause I'm a warbird guy. Good ones I've seen range between $15,000-$28,000.

The model years to look for are from mid 60's to late 70's on all of these. These are some fairly generalized recommendations, though. Aviation markets are microcosms, with different makers and models being more accessible in different regions. You'll get a feel for what is and isn't while you learn.

Some other random bits I can give are:
-If you see an airplane with low over all time on it's engine and it's only a few thousand more, it might be a better idea to go for that.
-Clean your airplane. People that give annual inspections have to do this anyways, so you can shave some serious cash off of your costs if you do this simple thing.
-HANGAR. Yeah, you can save lots of money by not hangaring and tying down, but do you REALLY want to subject your investment to the elements? So, with that in mind:
-BIG hangar. Don't feel shy about getting a nice big hangar. It can actually turn out cheaper than a small one. Why? Simple! Hangarmates! You're going to meet people and make friends when you get a license, so splitting the costs with someone else and sharing a hangar is definitely an option.
-Keep a nice flight bag with the following items
*First aid kit
*Rubbing alcohol
*Cellphone
*Flashlight
*Swiss Army Knife or some other similar survival utensil
I like to also keep a small portable stove and a lighter just in case.
-Avoid bigger airports. Really, there's no reason to be flying out of major fields. A lot of them have insane disembarkation fees and very high hangar costs. In addition to that, fuel prices will also be much higher.

And there's still one more option: Rent. Renting a little Cessna 150 from a local school shouldn't come out to more than $80 an hour.

So, I hope I helped. If something still needs to be answered, please tell me, I'll do my best to answer it!

>>3604
>complains about me skipping parts of the comment which have nothing to do with our argument
>skips the part where a gyro can take off completely vertically with no forward roll
>thinks trotting his job description out makes him right, lol arguing from authority
>derp herp can't even spell principles, accusing someone of moving goalposts when he doesn't even know where the goalposts lie
Every dictionary in the world defines VTOL as an aircraft which have been engineered with the capability to land and take off vertically, which a gyro can do.
Environmental situations are poor arguments, as neither of the aircraft you mentioned can LAND vertically, and neither have been engineered for VTOL (a gyro which can do this without relying on wind direction). Either you're massively stupid or just too proud to admit you're wrong, having associated an illusion of aircraft knowledge with your trip on this website.

Also, why are you whipping out the FAA as though America is the only country in the world that knows how to fly?
Fuck that shit.... but just for shits and giggles, give me the FAA definition of Vertical Take Off and Landing.

>thinks trotting his job description out makes him right, lol arguing from authority
Hahaha oh wow, we're done here. This isn't philosophy, kiddo.

I've explained many a-time, but you refuse to acknowledge it, at any rate, plus you're acting like a child that wants his ice cream. I've explained that VTOL has more to do with the principles as opposed to the physical path, because by your definition, a Fieseler Storch would be VTOL. I have to laugh at the "environment is a poor argument" quip given that aviation is entirely about the environment around you in the sky. I've explained that it has absolutely nothing to do with the relation to the ground. And, when people who are career pilots and aerodynamic engineering degree holders that say it isn't a VTOL aircraft, and the only people that are saying it is are people without the said qualifications, who am I going to believe?

And, in case you didn't know, the majority of laws with in the FAA's rulebook are homogeneous with other nations. Look up what the ICAO is.

>>3612
If you were a car mechanic and you said I don't need wheels for my car, you would be just as wrong. Your job description doesn't matter when you ignore reality and try and substitute your own twisted version where VTOL doesn't mean vertical take off and landing.

>because by your definition, a Fieseler Storch would be VTOL
No it wouldn't, it can't land vertically and isn't designed to take off vertically either, I said as much in my comment which you refused to read.

>calls me a kid
lol insecurity

>whips out vague "people" with engineering degrees when he couldn't even back up his FAA statement
Even funnier, so far you've clutched at the following straws:
1. Your job (?)
2. Nonexistant FAA definition
3. Some vague engineers which you don't even name

With zero facts thrown in. Do go on!

>>3613
you seriously have no idea what you are talking about, stop typing and start learning

>>3613
I expect these kinds of posts on /baw/, but this kind of attitude on /tek/ is new on me.
My god get over yourself.

>>3616
>>3615
Do you have something to contribute gents?

Over a year ago, Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks lost to Northrop Grumman and HAV for the US Army LEMV project. However, Lockheed Martin has retooled it's entry, the P-791, towards a civil application.

P-791 Hybrid Air Vehicle
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/23/354698/skunk-works-p-791-airship-revived-as-civil-cargo-lifter.html

They've rebranded it the "SkyTug" and one's been ordered by Aviation Capital Enterprises of Calgary, even. This aircraft would be perfect for Canada, IMO. Especially the Northwest Territories given the oil industries need for hardware and heavy equipment.

However, there's a notion that a lot of people discussing this have that I think is not a feasible idea to employ: The Hybrid Airship as an Aerial Cruiseliner. Comfort and flight are almost mutually exclusive, at least in my experience. Then again, most of my time is in 1970's Cessnas and they're the very definition when it comes to being spartan. Perhaps I'm jaded? Anyways, I can't really see this being a good platform for an "Aerial cruiseline."

And, it's not even a safety issue. The issue deals with comfort and practicality. To get something to be a feasible cruise vessel, it'd need to be big as you can imagine. That's not the hard part though. You could create such a craft that would be big enough to house several people comfortably, except for waste disposal. That is, in my opinion, the biggest hurdle. I think it's one that wouldn't be very easily over come, too. Where does the bodily waste go? Do you really want to have a giant vat of material that's considered a bio-hazard held aloft like that? Airliners only stay aloft for a short time, a cruise kind of implies days on end. I don't know, there's a lot of things you'd have to over come for that sort of trip to be possible.

Though an all day flight that was a safari or something would be pretty cool.

>>3621

But...airship cruiselines used to be a thing, back before the Hindenburg exploded and scared everybody shitless. You're saying that something that used to be routine in the early 1900s is impossible.

>>3641

It's not technological, it's economic. Back then, only the richest of the rich could afford to fly, and they were paying the equivilent of millions of dollars to do so - about what the super-rich would pay today to go into SPACE. These gigantic (800-feet long), very expensive airships were carrying less than 100 people, 2/3 of them CREW. The Hindenburg, for example, only had 36 passengers. Can you imagine how much per-ticket would have to be paid for that few people to fly on an Airbus? When it normally carries 800 passengers? Lighter-than-air vehicles have NEVER been economically feasible compared to heavier-than-air. They went out to date - not because of the Hindenburg disaster - but because airplanes were invented.

Also, back then it was the fastest method to cross the Atlantic. There is no demand for slow, relaxing travel these days; everything is fast. Rich people who are flying somewhere have a meeting to catch in five hours, no time to spend two days flying snail-speed in an airship. They'll be taking their own private jets if they are going to pay that kind of price.

>3641
Where did I ever say impossible? It's certainly possible, but highly improbable. For reasons see:
>>3642
As he hit the nail on the head. Any form of lighter-air-ship is going to come up short when compared heavier-than-air travel.

But, that's just Point A to B travel. Cruises are about relaxation over function, obviously. And really, more people would find the ocean more relaxing than the sky. Not only that, a boat would demolish any airship in value when it comes to the amenities offered to guests.

That's why I would have to disagree with people that have the idea that this could be an aerial cruise ship.

>>3592
So you live in a neighborhood where the local soccer moms don't mind your screaming bladed death machine? Or you taking off and landing from your front lawn, right by the sidewalk their kids walk on and the road on which they drive their massive suburban assault child transportation vehicles?
...Can I move there?

>>3642
Technology is much improved nowadays, you can have gigantic shaped airships or hybrid types which are heavier than air yet provide less cost per ton transported than ships and airplanes. Some designs could carry 100+ tons of cargo, which is as much as a C-5 Galaxy at a fraction of the cost.
Can you imagine what that could do to transport poor areas like the myriad of islands in the pacific, Canadian/Russian north, parts of South America and Africa? Those places rely heavily on sea and air transports, which is bleeding their communities dry and keeping them without some of the comforts of life we are used to.

They don't need their cargo instantly, they just need it to get there at specific times cheaply, which is at heart a scheduling problem.

>this thread

>>3662
I think P-791 would be a good remedy for that. Provided you had a nice open space to set down in, everyone would be right as rain. The P-791 platform allows the operator to have some say in that, as well. Being amphibious, you could have it set down just off shore and then move onto a land-based distribution center.

We'll have to see how it performs in the hands of ACE Calgary.

But, I also have to make a note about how much it costs per hour to operate existing blimps; the Goodyear Blimps run between $3000-$6000 per flight hour. It would be nice of Lockheed Martin provided a damn figure on P-791's operating costs.

>aircraft designed for vertical takeoff and landing
>"hurr its not considered VTOL"

If we can make stuff like the Williams X-Jet a.k.a. The Flying Pulpit...

http://www.wimp.com/flyingmachine/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet

I'm sure we will, eventually, make flying cars common, at least in cities. However, they'll probably be self-piloting to minimize the chance of collision, so once Google's self-driving cars take off, similar systems could be developed for flying vehicles.

As for lighter-than-air vehicles, I see those potentially being put into use as cheap and efficient but slow transports, whether for mail, product delivery, or anything else. Heck, it could possibly make direct deliveries, cutting out the middleman. I know, I'm crazy for thinking it, but it's at least *possible*. We can dream, and maybe someday, some other crazy person will try to accomplish it.

>>3908
The first major obstacle I see with a self "flying" vehicle is that you will also need to calculate air density, temperature, and winds. Completely possible, but you will need constant updates. As it stands, the most frequent aviation weather updates we get happen ever half hour, or so. But, like you said, using the internet and automatic weather reporting stations would make it possible.

A bigger problem with weather is an aircraft's vulnerability to high winds. On a nice breezey day, let's say 30 knot winds, a lot of smaller aircraft will be in deep shit. For something as densely populated as New York or something, the flying car (at least to me) just doesn't seem like a viable solution.

That and you still have the same major problems of fuel consumption and the downward thrust being a hazard to those around you.

Now, as a recreational vehicle out in more rural areas, you would find a pretty big market. Make something cheap, easy to fly, able to be put on a trailer, easy to story in a garage or a public storage unit and you have yourself a winner.

larry flies to Phyllis's farm,…

>>3792
>post reasons why Autogyros aren't, not limited to the fact that they need forward motion which can be observed with a change in mainrotor RPM, explain that atmosphere is a dynamic environment, and still have a climb out
>refuse to acknowledge
>greentext
>typicalultralightfapper.png

Keep playing with the toys, kiddo.