StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2014-05-22 01:15pm**

only 85k

"Where are my flying cars?!" is an oft-repeated question from despairing futurists, saddened by the fact that it’s 2014 and we’re still puttering around on mundane surface-bound vehicles that on the whole aren’t too different in basic form and function from cars in the 1940s. The bad news is that while Back to the Future II-style flying cars are still a long way off, a company named Aerofex out of California is more than happy to take your down payment on a flying motorcycle—well, sort of, anyway.

Aerofex’s Aero-X is a "hoverbike"—a platform supported not by wheels but rather by a pair of large ducted fans. The company has had a prototype technology demonstrator operational since 2012, which can be seen in the video below:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kA-B64RACU[/youtube]

According to ExtremeTech, Aerofex is targeting 2016 for the debut of its commercial prototype. Unlike the hastily assembled technology demonstrator, where the operator perches in a decidedly uncomfortable-looking position and appears to have only a modicum of control over the craft’s operation, the commercial version should feature a more enclosed seating position, along with a passenger seat. It’s expected to have a carbon fiber chassis and a dry weight of about 785 lbs (365 kg), with a carrying capacity of a bit over 300 lbs (about 140 kg).

Currently, Aerofex is targeting a maximum speed for the finished vehicle of about 45 mph (72 km/h). You also wouldn’t need a pilot’s license to operate the craft, since Aerofex plans on limiting the Aero-X’s altitude to a max of about 12 feet (about 3.5 meters). This seems like a good thing—after watching the video of the tech demonstrator flying and the level of control demonstrated by the rider/driver/pilot, the idea of going much higher than a few feet off the ground seems utterly terrifying.

But "terrifying" isn’t anywhere in the marketing copy for the Aero-X (well, that’s not surprising, I suppose). According to the company’s site, the Aero-X is "a hovercraft that rides like a motorcycle….you can learn to operate it safely in just a weekend of training. It responds to your movements just as a motorcycle would. And it costs a fraction of even the most basic airplane or helicopter."

link

edit how do you post youtube vids?

Posted: **2014-05-22 01:33pm**

Remove the "s" from https

Posted: **2014-05-22 02:03pm**

i removed the s and still doesn't work

Posted: **2014-05-22 02:15pm**

you also need to get rid of that featured player garbage in the middle of the URL.

Posted: **2014-05-22 06:55pm**

So someone made a low, slow very expensive toy with no possible functionality even as a toy outside of a large obstruction free field? I'd rather just have a proper hovercraft, then at least it could be played with on waterways safely, and be way faster.

Posted: **2014-05-22 07:01pm**

So this is what, the Nth attempt at a functional Avrocar?

Posted: **2014-05-22 07:15pm**

Purple wrote:So this is what, the Nth attempt at a functional Avrocar?

Oh, there's been functional before, as in they actually fly reasonably safely, can be landed and everything. The only problems really are a.) it's more expensive to build something that flies than something that stays on the ground and b.) far, far greater potential for havoc. Let's put it this way-- 6-10 months is a safe bet for a private pilot's license (you could do it in less, depending on what resources you have available). You can learn how to drive a car in, oh, couple hours, probably be able to get your license in a couple weeks' practice.

At least this thing doesn't "fly" but a couple meters or so above ground...

Posted: **2014-05-22 10:25pm**

People have successfully completed a US private pilot license in two weeks. That's two weeks of nothing but working on your license from the time you get up to the time you go to sleep. Not at all typical, though.

I question the "no license needed" claim. That's a frequent claim of developers but the FAA often has a different opinion. It sounds like they're trying to portray this as a hovercraft but I'm curious how they intend to limit the altitude to 12 feet. I think it far more likely the FAA will declare it an aircraft. The good news is that they probably would allow folks to fly it with a Sport Pilot license which is less time/money/effort than a full Private license, albeit with some restrictions in operation.

The two issues I have with it is that if one of your ducted fans fail you're going to crash. Not maybe crash, definitely crash. One fan failure, in fact, might be even more dangerous than having both go out at once but don't quote me on that, it's that that asymmetrical thrust can really fuck up your day. The other issue is a complete lack of protection for the occupants. You're going to be low down where most of the obstacles are with zero crash protection. Not that that stops people on motorcylces, either, but here in addition to speed you can throw in some height for extra hurt.

All that said, yes, it does look like a fun toy. I'd ride one. On the other hand, I am a licensed pilot with some experience with low and slow homemade contraptions. And I'd still think hard about a fan failure.

Posted: **2014-05-23 12:13pm**

The power could be insufficient to let it hover out of ground effect. If the body is shaped for zero lift, then it might be unable to get it to fly (as opposed to be ballistically launched) over 12 feet.

Posted: **2014-05-23 12:29pm**

I haven't run the math, but I strongly suspect 12 feet in altitude is out of ground of effect for something like that. Hell, even for a Cessna 172 the ground effect at 12 feet is negligible even if technically the airplane is still within it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

hoverbikes

hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes

Re: hoverbikes