http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 5th 2006 11:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 5th 2006 11:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 12:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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.]]>Jul 6th 2006 12:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/-Taylor]]>Jul 6th 2006 12:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 12:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.moller.com/skycar]]>Jul 6th 2006 12:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 1:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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?]]>Jul 6th 2006 1:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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.

]]>Jul 6th 2006 1:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 2:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 2:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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.]]>Jul 6th 2006 2:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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....]]>Jul 6th 2006 3:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 4:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 4:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/-Taylor]]>Jul 6th 2006 5:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 5:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 7:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 10:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/]]>Jul 6th 2006 12:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 12:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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. . .
]]>Jul 6th 2006 12:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Jul 6th 2006 1:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/-Chris]]>Jul 6th 2006 4:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/monstergarage/episode/season3/episode_62.html]]>Jul 6th 2006 4:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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.]]>Jul 7th 2006 5:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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]]>Jul 8th 2006 1:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Aug 3rd 2006 4:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/]]>Nov 3rd 2006 7:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Mar 22nd 2007 9:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/
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.]]>Sep 15th 2007 10:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/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 fsc-1@labicheaerospace.com .

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]]>Nov 27th 2007 4:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/05/labiches-fsc-1tm-flying-sports-car-looks-lamer-than-it-sounds/Feb 22nd 2008 12:55AM