>>>>>>>http://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2014/oct/29/flying-car-prototype-unveiled-vienna-technology-show-video
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ground clearance looks a bit slim.
>>>>>>>Also a pity that with a claimed top ground speed of 124mph its air cruise speed appeared to be about 50mph.
>>>>>>>But I guess the wheels will at least get it to V2 quite quickly :-}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pretty sure the wheels are completely disengaged when in flight mode. Only the propeller accelerates it for takeoff.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if that's true. There's only one power unit - why not use the wheels to shorten the take-off run ?
>>>>>But you're probably right - might be difficult, or even dangerous, to supply power to both drive trains as the same time..
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's their spec: http://www.aeromobil.com/specification.
>>>>>
>>>>>>There was a light-plane chase plane taking some of that video, and visible in some parts going at the same speed as the prototype. Even if it's a Piper Cub cruise is about 120kph, if it's a Cessna 180 etc. could be up to 200.
>>>>>
>>>>>But the stall speed is less than 40 knots. And in the clip it's being visibly overtaken by a car in the background. Seems like the specs (max. ground 100mph, max air 124mph) differ from what is quoted in the article anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting that it has variable attack wings (but still a very high Vr at 90mph). Must admit the cockpit looks pretty professional though.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, we can debate the specs but AFAIK it's the most advanced fixed (although folding) wing car/aircraft hybrid. I haven't seen video of a test flight that's not barely out of ground effect, though.
>>>>
>>>>Over the years there have been some buggy/parasail hybrids e.g. http://fly-skyrunner.com/ . Those actually have some appeal for off-road/remote use. You could fly over otherwise impassable terrain e.g. swamps, rocks/crags etc.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I'd seen that - severely limited by wind conditions though.
>>>Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a viable production model. But the quote on their web site says it all:
>>>
>>>"Mark my word: A combination airplaneand motorcar is coming. You may smile, but it will come" Henry Ford, 1940.
>>>
>>>He's been wrong for 75 years.
>>
>>Some would argue we're currently in a golden era of sorts for light aviation. On the one hand there are significant advances in materials science as seen in craft such as Solar Impulse: http://www.solarimpulse.com/
>>
>>On the other hand computerized real-time systems for aviation are increasingly well-understood and becoming more affordable for light aviation. Check out http://gizmodo.com/5888117/breakthrough-quadcopter-does-previously-impossible-acrobatics - bear in mind that video is nearly 3 years old. It may not be too long before we see autopilots for craft such as Aeromobil that are better than any human pilot in almost all conditions.
>>
>>Even 30 years ago there were military aircraft that were inherently unstable and required computerized control to be able to fly at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29
>>
>>From a technical POV, unless you're talking about doing something provably impossible, it's a bad idea to bet against smart people in general, and smart engineers in particular ;)
>>
>>There may also be some military trickle-down e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_Reconfigurable_Embedded_System
>>
>>As I see it the fly in the ointment is legal. Legal restrictions or regulations can hurt in at least 2 ways:
>>
>>- Impose unnecessarily onerous performance or safety technical requirements e.g. must have STOL capability, must have Ballistic Recovery System
>>
>>- Impose non-technical barriers e.g. driver/pilot training/licensing requirements, restrictions on where and when they may be flown. Even if you have an excellent technical solution, no-one will buy it if the powers-that-be won't let you fly it
>>
>>I believe that if the rate of technical progress exceeds the rate at which restrictive regulations are applied, then flying cars will eventually fly (as it were :))
>
>The quadcopter clip was very interesting. The clever bit was not just adding variable pitch but allowing 'negative' pitch.
>
>All your points are valid but:
>
>I would have thought good STOL characteristics would be essential - having to drive to the nearest airfield to take off would be a bummer.
>VTOL would be ideal - but at that point why have the 'car' behaviour at all - just build a cheaper helicopter :-}
>
>If the vehicle has to be flown by the operator (rather than being completely computer controlled) then they would surely need to meet the same licensing requirements as any other light aircraft pilot.
>
>End of the day, I can't see the business case for this type of vehicle - for the foreseeable future it would remain a rich man's toy.
>
>FWIW I spent about two years commuting from Wales to London using (mainly) a Comanche PA24-260.
>30 minute drive to the air strip in Wales, 30 min pre-flight, 40 minutes flying, 50 minutes drive from the London airfield to the office. Total 2.5 hrs - on a good day.
>If I'd driven the whole thing it would have been about 3.5hrs - far cheaper but less fun :-}
>On top of that the Welsh strip had no ILS etc. so weather, especially in winter, would often be a show stopper.
>
>If the 'Aeromobile' had been available then I don't see how it would have improved the situation. OK - I needed two cars plus the plane - but I don't see driving an Aeromobile in London traffic as being a doable thing in practice

Sounds like you would have been a good candidate for a working flying car, I can see your interest.

You talk about both "business case" and "fun". What business would want is:

- Get in vehicle
- Say, "Office, James"
- Vehicle files flight plan, navigates itself to closest piece of road suitable for takeoff, reconfigures for flight, and takes off
- Autonomous flight to suitable road near destination. Of course, you're not enjoying the flight, you're working on business
- Autonomous landing on road, reconfiguration back to road use, autonomous road travel to final destination
- Drops you at the door, then autonomously parks itself

No need for pilot's license etc. Busy execs have no time for that sort of stuff.

"Fun" is probably a lot more DIY. Technically easier to achieve, but with a much smaller potential market.