|
|
Re: potāto, potăto
01/12/14 01:35 PM
|
|
|
> not viable just means nobody was successful in mass producing yet. When the vehicles
> "drove" they were NOT driven by thrust, therefore they were Cars that were converted
> to aircraft, NOT drivable aircraft.
>
> No aircraft has a driveshaft that drives the wheels. ALL of them use thrust to move.
> The only thing that comes close to your description is an ultra-light.
Have you seen this article? It describes all the supposed "flying cars" in question.
#1: never flew.
#2: tiny three-wheeled plane with detachable bits, never produced. There's a picture linked.
#3: "Fulton adapted a plane for the road."
#4: crashed, abandoned.
#5: Couldn't drive it, and it didn't actually "fly."
#6: Finally, a car with wings. But what rules does it fly under? if it were produced, you'd have to drive to an airstrip and follow all the rules for planes. Probably not street legal, either, so where are you driving to?
All of the vehicles above are not flying cars. Fanciers of them are described in the article as "roadable aircraft enthusiasts." That's what they call themselves, because they know what these things are.
Now, look at the Jetsons. Flying cars. They fly, they never use roads, only touching down at their destination. Flying cars. See Moller's Skycar? It flies, and never uses roads. Well, if it ever actually flew. These are flying cars. And they don't exist yet.
|
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: potāto, potăto
Reply
Polar vortex can suck my dick
