Thread: Roadable aircraft in 2011

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

It still needs a runway to take off. How is that any different from a plane? If it's truly a flying car, it would beable to take off almost anywhere. And look as nimble as a car. Not some squished aircraft contraption. Honestly, I'd rather own a hot sports car AND a small plane. Not this hybrid thing.

A bob cat may look similar to a tiger, but it's still a bob cat. NOT a tiger.

Moral of the story. It's not a carplane, but maybe it's a step in the right direction. Also, never take bobcats to tiger fights.

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

A bob cat may look similar to a tiger, but it's still a bob cat. NOT a tiger.

No, DNA defines a bob cat as opposed to a tiger. There can be no existing argument to the difference between them.

Humans invented cars, and humans invented aircraft. As such, humans decide the diference between each. That is why we are arguing. It is not as clear cut as you're making it sound.

The way I see it, it travels on land, and travels in air. it does both efficiently, thus it can indeed be considered both car and plane.

Originally Posted by Akono

Moral of the story. It's not a carplane, but maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Moral of the story: Do not try to sum up a thread with one post.

You'll usually fail.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Moral of the story: Do not try to sum up a thread with one post.

You'll usually fail.

I summed up the previous post with a post. I'm glad you were quick to jump to conclusions.

Originally Posted by Noogah

No, DNA defines a bob cat as opposed to a tiger. There can be no existing argument to the difference between them.

Humans invented cars, and humans invented aircraft. As such, humans decide the diference between each. That is why we are arguing. It is not as clear cut as you're making it sound.

The way I see it, it travels on land, and travels in air. it does both efficiently, thus it can indeed be considered both car and plane.



Moral of the story: Do not try to sum up a thread with one post.

You'll usually fail.

And until they invent something where 99% of ppl agree that it's a flying car, it is not. Clearly the inventors haven't perfected it at this point - or else nobody would be debating about it. And since I'm also human, I've decided that this thing is NOT a flying car.

Clearly you've missed my point. I wouldn't talk so big if I were you. You mistook a runway for a highway. So who knows, maybe you mistook a flying car for a compact plane.

I'm done with this thread.

"Roadable aircraft" is definitely a more specific and descriptive term. When the developers use the term "flying car" for these things, it's hyperbole meant to evoke the image from science fiction, which they can only get away with because no one has built a proper flying car yet (and just due to energy costs, I doubt we ever will, except perhaps something relying on some kind of mag-lev infrastructure).

A transformer like this machine is not a car when it's a plane, and is not a plane when it's a car.

It's still kind of a cool machine, just in terms of the engineering challenges and the look of it, but it's more proof-of-concept than anything marketable. It's something that maybe a car company should have sponsored for the PR and to send around to the car shows, but not something that will ever be built or sold in any quantity. It's like the Segway of air travel

Eh. Honestly, this isn't really even a step in the "right direction," in terms of dramatic aircraft progress. It's nothing new and shows nothing potentially groundbreaking. A fuselage, tail, wheels and wings. Oh, and a runway, still. Whoop-di-doo.

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

Clearly you've missed my point. I wouldn't talk so big if I were you. You mistook a runway for a highway. So who knows, maybe you mistook a flying car for a compact plane.

Haha

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

Clearly you've missed my point. I wouldn't talk so big if I were you. You mistook a runway for a highway. So who knows, maybe you mistook a flying car for a compact plane.

...

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

Clearly you've missed my point. I wouldn't talk so big if I were you. You mistook a runway for a highway. So who knows, maybe you mistook a flying car for a compact plane.

Originally Posted by TamiDoll

It still needs a runway to take off. How is that any different from a plane? If it's truly a flying car, it would beable to take off almost anywhere. And look as nimble as a car. Not some squished aircraft contraption. Honestly, I'd rather own a hot sports car AND a small plane. Not this hybrid thing.

A bob cat may look similar to a tiger, but it's still a bob cat. NOT a tiger.

Fuck. It works as a car. And it flies. It's a flying car.

Planes can't get off ground from any place either -- are they not flying vehicles then?

If it solves your problem, it's a plane-car. If planes are considered flying vehicles, then that thing is a flying car.

Unless you expected Star Wars or Superman stuff. Come back to real life for a moment.

I like the term plane-car a lot better than flying car Kromoh. It puts my mind at ease. *goes back to thinking of flux capacitors*

Well....roadable aircraft suits it fine. Right?

i can't wait for my harley-riding asshole neighbor to take his rebellious coolness into the sky.

Originally Posted by cygnus

i can't wait for my harley-riding asshole neighbor to take his rebellious coolness into the sky.

Haha, that's probably one of the least cool looking things that flies .

haha it doesn't matter if it looks cool, just take the loudness part and hoist it up in the air where everyone can get a clear view of you and now you're a maaan!