LaBiche's FSC-1TM flying sports car looks lamer than it sounds

Alright, maybe we're just turned off by the totally sketchy concept renders, but we were really hoping the car of the future would look a bit better than some high schooler's CAD project. All the same, LaBiche's claims that "A real Flying Car is finally here!" have piqued our interest, and we're pleased to hear that this FSC-1TM flying sports car thing should be able to hit an airspeed in excess of 275 mph, not bad at all for a pair of retractable wings. So far the most testing this thing has gotten is in the X-Plane flight simulator software, and in a 1/10th scale model plane prototype. A full-size mockup is in the works, and apparently they're all ready to take your money for a $175,000 build-it-yourself kit, but we're guessing it'll be a few years until someone is foolhardy enough to try and get the real deal off the ground.

[Via The Raw Feed]

[n1ce_hat @ Jul 5th 2006 11:50PM]

I'd rather walk, thanks.

[Robert Preseau @ Jul 5th 2006 11:52PM]

175,000 Frosties and you have to put it together yourself??

[cal poly student @ Jul 6th 2006 12:00AM]

this is a joke, right? i know 9 year old kids who can draw more realistic and innovative flying cars than that piece of trash! wow, so you know how to use a computer to do 3d modeling...

[capagotks @ Jul 6th 2006 12:04AM]

you would have to leave that at the airport :(

seriously though, I would have (if i designed it) 4 wings (2 front, 2 back, all even size) and have the prop in the boot so it can pop out easily and maybe do some gliding in mid flight.

The biggest broblem would be chossing to use the car engine or a seperate one. you would need a car with high torque and a lot of gears to get it off the ground.

[Taylor @ Jul 6th 2006 12:07AM]

I love how rediculous some companies are... That looks like someone said "it would be cool if someone made a flying car that looks like this" and then the next day they made a press release about their new flying car design. Don't announce rediculous products untill they exist, mkay? If epson announces a new line of printers with bluetooth or some crap, fine, I don't need an existing product to feel good; but if you're making something rediculous, like a flying car, wait untill you're beyond the sketch on a napkin phase (and yes, I'm saying that rendering is like a sketch on a napkin... a good 3d guy could whip that up in an hour...) to say something, or you'll get made fun of quite a bit when your project inevitably doesn't work out.
-Taylor

[uclatommy @ Jul 6th 2006 12:21AM]

buckle up! ...your parachute

[Techn0mancer @ Jul 6th 2006 12:38AM]

Already been done and with more style: http://www.moller.com/skycar

[Hans @ Jul 6th 2006 1:00AM]

What did you expect from a name like LaBi+ch?

[furtim @ Jul 6th 2006 1:31AM]

And the prize for Most Ridiculous Flying Car Concept goes to...

Seriously, though, why is this getting coverage? I'm not blaming Engadget here, since they got the story from someone else, but this concept is completely preposterous. Shall I pull up one of the Star Destroyer models people have made for Orbiter (http://www.orbitersim.com) and maybe some Lego models and claim that I'm producing a revolutionary new personal spacecraft? Would I be covered on Engadget and The Raw Feed if I did so? More importantly, would people actually give me money for it?

[Merlin @ Jul 6th 2006 1:51AM]

I'd say "lame" applies more to the comments.

If anyone bothered to visit and peruse the site, the case for a 'kit' is very well made, and their intention is to provide relatively local pro support for the builds.

The Moller Skycar someone mentioned is upwards of a million bucks, possibly more, has been around as a "new thing" for nearly a decade. He's been taking 100K deposits for about that long. Major noise problem with it, as well. And 'maybe' available in 2008. Not holding my breath.

Would be interesting to see if any of the whiners above have the creativity or the balls to do anything other than put down those who do.

[Special_K @ Jul 6th 2006 2:12AM]

This looks like something you find at the back of popular science, but sh1713r. I mean, that propeller at the back looks about as functional as an outboard motor, and this is a /plane/ (skycar, sorry) not a /boat/!

[liquid @ Jul 6th 2006 2:18AM]

even if someone did actually get a flying car working and for sell, is it even legal in any of the 50states to operate something like this. I seriously doubt flying cars will ever be the norm. You wont be able to actually go to the supermarket in this thing, so why not just get a private plane?

[furtim @ Jul 6th 2006 2:28AM]

Or an ultralight, liquid.

The Moller Skycar is no better, I'll agree with you there. But everything else you say is stupid. I don't have to be a professional skycar designer to see that this is a ridiculous idea. "Creativity" and "balls" are worthless when they're connected with something that's as fundamentally unsound as this concept.

[Keith L. Dick @ Jul 6th 2006 3:53AM]

I think we are about 50 years or near it until "Flying Cars" would or could become a reality...

They are very old "SciFi News" that never came about tho alot of other things from way back in the 50's and such did become a reality....

[Gan-San @ Jul 6th 2006 4:10AM]

LOL!!! That's a great idea, I think I will put carboard wings on my beater toyota and try the whole flying thing... maybe find a nice big cliff and see how far I can go.

[g3n3tix @ Jul 6th 2006 4:12AM]

Looks like a swiss army knife, but uglier.

[Taylor @ Jul 6th 2006 5:23AM]

And just to clarify for people, they had flying cars literally 50 years ago. I remember specifically two different models i saw on some show on the discovery channel... those people were saying that "in 50 years" we'll have flying cars everywhere.... Hmmm.....
-Taylor

[Todd @ Jul 6th 2006 5:51AM]

Unless they figure out a way to paint driving lines in the sky, we're never going to have flying cars. Yeah, the tech is there, but how would we make it work w/o killing each other? The FAA has a hard enough time keeping track of a few thousand domestic flights per day let alone a few million aerocars.

[Vision77 @ Jul 6th 2006 7:08AM]

Wasn't this car on the Simpsons? Anyway its fugly.

[SK @ Jul 6th 2006 10:16AM]

The Moller Skycar is only $1 million if you are one of the first 100 to get one(it's $500,000 if you're 201 or beyond). They also had SUCESSFUL flights in a physical skycar. Their only problem right now is government regulations.

[Paco Aguirre @ Jul 6th 2006 12:06PM]

jajajajajajajajajjajajajajajajjajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja......oh my god, let me catch some air......jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja......mmmmm.... ok.. think im ok now...that has to be the worst car design ever, do they use etch-a-scetch to design it?

[Francis Wu @ Jul 6th 2006 12:08PM]

LOL, looks like a product of "bring your kids to work" day.

[VBAjedi @ Jul 6th 2006 12:22PM]

SHAME ON YOU if you're ripping this - very few of you gave any indication that you read the site thoroughly, if at all. Very un-Engadgetish behavior.

The fact is that flying cars CAN work with today’s technology, and WILL have a market once they build one that is considered safe and relatively affordable. If FARMERS can learn to fly and see it as an advantage to their work, you better believe that there are people out there with the money and motivation to buy something like this, and the intelligence to learn to fly it safely.

No, the CAD on this one isn't as polished as the product mockups we see all day here on Engadget. But it's a LOT harder to make a nice shiny non-functioning prototype of a flying car than a little MP3 player, and for a small company there’s not much payoff in that when everyone’s waiting until they see the thing WORK anyway.

Their site shows real models in several scales, as well as the first full-size FUNCTIONING prototype under construction. I say the main thing that could trip this one up is funding - not enough development capital or not enough early adopters due to misplaced fears (for a laugh, try reading up on the fears people had about early automobiles). The "51% owner-built" requirement could be a problem, but it sounds like they have a plan to minimize the inconvenience of that.

Flying cars everywhere? Nah. As common as Ferrari's and Cigarette boats? We might be closer than you think. Will this be the one that makes it happen? We’ll see. . .

[furtim @ Jul 6th 2006 1:40PM]

Hahaha. No, shame on the designers who came up with such an unsafe concept.

[Chris @ Jul 6th 2006 4:27PM]

Sure FURTIM....The stuff you're saying is exactly what people were saying about the wright brothers 100 years ago, and now look at us, we fly into outerspace where only god knows what exists. The "Jet Jetson" life is possible, and it will be here sooner than we think. I'll be prepared, will you?
-Chris

[oshean @ Jul 6th 2006 4:50PM]

Uh... Jesse James from the Discovery Channel's Monster Garage has already created a flying car.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/monstergarage/episode/season3/episode_62.html

[RacetrackOwner @ Jul 7th 2006 5:53AM]

1. It won't cruise at 270 MPH if it's shaped anything like the drawing. Dual-prop planes with retractable gear will barely achieve those kinds of speeds for any period of time that matters.

2. Suggesting that this thing could ever manage 170+ MPH on the ground is also pure fantasy. They claim to have plans to use a 450HP supercharged Vette LS2. Why they need to specify a blower is beyond me, a n N/A 450HP LS2 is easy -- and simpler, which is good in a plane. Most higher-end sports cars, which are far more aerodynamic than this bubble-topped abortion, really start to drag above about 160 MPH.

3. What's even more amusing is their weight claim. They state an empty weight of 2455 lbs. With that big bubbly dome, wings, four seats, a prop and the related mechanicals, flight controls, oh yeah, and the fantasy-list of optional equipment: three 13" LCDs, CD/DVD entertainment system, and an oxygen system. Yet it'll be lighter than GM was able to make a mundane ground-only C6 Z06. In fact, lighter than the C6R dedicated racecar. Probably not.

4. Their figures aren't even consistent on the same page. At the top of the specs page it says 450 HP. At the bottom in their little comparison chart, which I'm sure they thought was very clever as it mixes car and aircraft statistics, they state 440 HP. Anybody who knows anything about aircraft knows 10 HP is a big deal. My first plane (a Rutan Quickie) only needed 26 HP to get off the ground and cruise at 120 MPH all day.

5. The full-size mockup that so many people seem to think is so important is really irrelevant. Having built an aircraft before, I can tell you it takes very little effort to hook a model train transformer to a long wire and carve up a bunch of foam blocks into any shape you like. The foam isn't even that expensive. The mockup proves nothing.

This is so clearly not a serious effort -- or at least, not an effort being made by anyone who knows what they're doing -- and it's pretty sad to see it getting serious coverage.

[Mitch LaBiche @ Jul 8th 2006 1:18PM]

In regards to comments and specifically to RaceTrackOwner above:

The FSC-1 vehicle is a serious aircraft and car design. As a professional Mechanical/Aerospace engineer, aircraft pilot, and having worked on aircraft like the F-35, C-130, F-117, RV-7, the Fly-by-wire Advanced Apache AH-64 helicopter, and many others provides myself and the FSC-1 Design Team with the required tools and experience to complete this cutting edge effort.

The FSC-1 is a revolutionary way to look at personal door-to-door travel while using the existing infrastructure for both driving and flying to provide maximum flexibility with minimum hassle and wasted time.

Now to some of the technical points from RaceTrackOwner:
1.How many single engine aircraft do you know of that use a 450HP, supercharged, engine? The drag numbers for the FSC-1 vehicle were measured from our 1/4 scale engineering test model (with an 8 foot wingspan). The calculated top speeds, cruise, climb rates, and other aircraft performance numbers are based on this test data.

Moreover, you can find several independent technical papers written on the FSC-1 that also confirm these calculations. One paper from Virginia Polytechnic Institute even predicts a faster cruise speed, but was calculated using reduced drag numbers. The FSC-1 will cruise at 270 mph while flying above 10,000 feet. As you gain elevation, drag is reduced. At sea level, the top speed is somewhere around 230 mph. Because the vehicle is larger than most light single engine aircraft, it wants to fly higher than your average Cessna 172. The reason most pilots of light general aviation aircraft don't fly this high is because their normally aspirated engines lose power as they climb. Most pilots do not fly above 10,000 feet because it wastes time and their performance (cruise speed) suffers. This leads to the answer to your second question.

2.The reason we specify a supercharged engine is so that we can fly higher and still maintain 450 HP output from our LS-2 engine, despite the thinner high altitude air. The standard LS-2 can produce about 400HP, and with a supercharger it can produce over 600 HP. However, we're more interested in maintaining a constant power output profile from the engine over large altitude changes. In fact, we can maintain 450HP well into flight levels >18k feet because of the supercharger.

3. The FSC-1 vehicle does weigh about 2,500 lbs. In answer to your examples of the Corvette weights, our #1 prototype frame weighs about 255 lbs. The production version of the FSC-1 frame weighs about 230 lbs. We use 4130 chrome-moly steel to build the entire frame. The torsional rigidity (at 3000 ft-lb per deg) and strength of the vehicle is better than most sports cars or airplanes. The latest Corvette all-aluminum frame weighs 285 lbs. We can build ours lighter because we use materials that are optimized for weight and strength, not necessarily assembly-line manufacturing. We can afford to make the compromise because we are not producing 50,000 units a year... yet.

4. We did have a discrepancy on the "PERFORMANCE" page of 10 HP as you stated, thanks for pointing that out. We don't want to short change ourselves by 10HP. That has likely been corrected, by now.

5. The sample construction pictures that you see on our site are not for a "mockup". We do have a full scale, human factors, cockpit mockup that's not shown. The construction pictures show the foam sections used to produce the panel skins for the fully functional (driving, converting, and flying) FSC-1 prototype #1. The foam plug technique is a traditional and proven method for FRP-composite aircraft construction.

Be sure to revisit our website - http://www.labicheaerospace.com for the latest information, videos, and pictures.

Thanks,

Mitchell LaBiche
President, LaBiche Aerospace
Developers of the FSC-1 - Roadable Aircraft

[Nick @ Aug 3rd 2006 4:34PM]

With these crazy crowded southern California freeways. I will treasure the day when we have skycars and can put the skycar on autopilot and get to our destination that much faster.

[Jack @ Nov 3rd 2006 7:40AM]

I am currently wortkingon a hydrgen powered skycar with a newly desighned jet engne able to make it hit over 1000mpH. But your desighned sky car wont even get higher then my head. As i am also a plane desighner.

[Tej Pratap Yadav @ Mar 22nd 2007 9:34PM]

sexxxxxxxxxxxxyyyyyyyyyyyy car

[Skeptic @ Sep 15th 2007 10:44PM]

Mitch,

I am calling bullshit on your FSC-1 prototype #1. It should only take about 10 minutes to take/post some pictures of #1 assembly on your website. I hope that not many people have been suckered out of $20k. The deception you spew on your message boards is obvious.

[mlabiche @ Nov 27th 2007 4:49PM]

Skeptic,
You can call whoever you want, whatever you want.

It's not that we CAN'T show pictures of the prototype #1, that's easy. It is that we DON'T WANT to show pictures of the prototype yet for a variety of reasons.

If you go to the http://www.labicheaerospace.com site you can see pictures taken September 17-20, 2007 at the Los Angeles Convention Center of the full scale body mold and the full scale simulator.

I don't know what "deception" you are talking about, but if you want to see the prototype for yourself, use your name and number and drop us a call or email [e-mail] .

In the mean time, quit hiding behind the name of "Skeptic" and spreading garbage.
Thanks,


Mitchell LaBiche
LaBiche Aerospace
Developers of the FSC-1
The World's First Practical Flying Car

[A. Garcia @ Feb 22nd 2008 12:55AM]

Wow Mitch, your flying saucer looks totally rad’, just like my Honda S2000, but with a lot more style. Hey, I’m new to the aerospace industry, but I’ve heard many good things about you from former colleges. I’m told you did some of your best work on the Northrop Grumman X-47B skins & covers – can you confirm this? Also, can you confirm that the prototype FSC-1 has an anti-glare cardboard box taped around it just like your monitor in Rancho Bernardo?