Thanks to everyone who sent me information on the Moller aircar. Moller's machine is definitely a step in the right direction, but it still seems a generation or two away from being a true flying car. For now it will require pilot's license and takeoff and landing at an airport. And the advantage of purchasing one of these over an airplane is...?
Still, it's fun to watch the video of the test flights. I'm eager to see one where they don't have the thing attached to a crane. Based on this particular video, it looks like Christine Peterson raised a sound objection: noise.
Reader Larry J provides some historical information on Molt Taylor's aerocar, which was an earlier and quite different take on the idea of a flying car. The aerocar was more of a Chitty Chitty Bang Bang kind of idea — a car that the driver turned into an airplane by adding wings to it.
Note: Here are some reasons that various folks have given for why we don't yet have flying cars.
Posted by Phil at September 7, 2003 07:18 AM | TrackBackYea, I think noise will be the biggest problem once the technology is actually there. It won't be that big a deal when the things are hugely expensive, there will only be a few in each city. But can you imagine the racket when whole neighborhoods of 120 decibel cars take off for the morning commute?
Posted by: Matt Moore at September 8, 2003 01:11 AM