Retirees plan to take to the skies with flying car

Proving that flying cars are not just a dream for the young, a pair of retirees in their seventies have set out to take themselves airborne in style, pouring their own money and know-how into their self-designed vehicle. As The Dallas Morning News reports, the duo has already invested about $70,000 in the car, dubbed the GT Flyer, and they're now seeking some $1.2 million from investors in order to actually make a prototype that gets off the ground. That will apparently be based around a 232 horsepower engine from a Mazda RX-8, which will drive the vehicle's front wheels when it's in "car mode," and spin the rear-mounted propeller when switched to flight mode, topping out a comfortable cruising speed of 150 mph. As a little added incentive, they're also hoping to enter the car into NASA's Personal Air Vehicle Centennial Challenge, which could net them between $250,000 and $550,000, although we somehow doubt they'd use that to retire.

[Via Gadget Lab and CNET, photo courtesy of The Dallas Morning News]

[Yayaja @ Apr 6th 2007 11:45AM]

Two old geezers "plan" a flying car and that makes it to engadget? People have been planning the flying car for decades, and I don't see any evidence that says these two might be even remotely closer to realizing the goal then anyone else.

[Paul @ Apr 6th 2007 12:02PM]

RX8 engine? Horrible choice... the torque curve will result in that thing falling out of the sky...

[Leonard Nimrod @ Apr 6th 2007 12:19PM]

If you think that then I'm glad that these geezers are making it and not you.

Most of the Mazda line, including the RX-8, uses a Wankle engine. More commonly referred to as rotary engine. The main benefits of this engine over your typical reciprocating piston engine is that it has:

1) Higher performance for its displacement compared to a typical engine. About half the size of a typical engine with the same power.

2) Less moving parts which makes it more reliable. This includes no valves or valve train and the rotor is geared directly to the output shaft.

There are many other advantages as to why these engines have been the de-facto choice in the flying car prototypes but the I've mentioned should be enough to make you realize the benefit.

[Paul @ Apr 6th 2007 12:48PM]

you are on to something in that a wankle is a wonderful engine in those respects (if you dont mind burning oil). HOWEVER the RX8 application is a horrible example of it - it is a low power bastardization of the RX7.

When looking at an torque curve it should be smooth throughout the power band which results in more torque (or in this case thrust) when you increase combustion. HOWVER the RX8 has FAILED to do this on a consistent basis and has frequently seen jagged torque curves in unpredicatble manners. the RX7 engine is appropriate... this one is not.

[Brandon West @ Apr 6th 2007 12:03PM]

Looks like it's not so much a flying car; more like an airplane you could drive on a highway.

[ksmith @ Apr 11th 2007 12:31PM]

Errr..only the RX-8 uses the Wankle. None of their other current products do, even if the Miata (I'm not calling it an MX-5) should.

It's a great engine though, and will probably be well suited for this type of work, where weight means far more than it does in a car. Anyone telling you differently is an ass-hat.

[aeo @ Apr 6th 2007 12:23PM]

Well hey, at least they chose a more interesting way to die than sitting in front of a TV.

[Falcom @ Apr 6th 2007 12:34PM]

@Leonard

if by "Most of the Mazda line, including the RX-8, uses a Wankle engine. More commonly referred to as rotary engine. " you mean "ONLY the RX-8, uses a Wankle engine. More commonly referred to as rotary engine." Sure the predecessor the RX-7 used a rotary as well, and in the past they even had a pickup, neither of those are anywhere near current models. The RX-8 is in fact the ONLY production vehicle that currently uses a rotary engine. Sure the benefits you listed are true, but how about the pitfalls?
1. The Apex Seal is a paticularly vulnerable part of the engine and is extremely prone to failure, I wouldnt trust that engine much past 60-80 thousand miles before the seal goes. Once it goes, your flying car will be a falling paperweight.
2. Very dirty motor. Rotary's by nature are one of the most polluting motor design due to the way it opperates.

The only real reason they are the engine of choice in aircraft is due to their relatively high power output at a relatively low rpm. In an aircraft the lack of a high torque curve at low rpm isn't such a problem since it will be operating at high rpm constantly, much unlike driving a car. My thought is that this will contribute to an even earlier failure of the apex seals.

[David @ Apr 6th 2007 1:03PM]

the apex seal hold up just fine up to at least 100k, unless, like the rx-7, its turbocharged (or any forced induction, actually). mazda, knowing this was one of the major downfalls to the 13b engine, put in beefed up seals and something else (been a while since i looked into this, so i don't remember exactly what the other thing they did is) and now the rx-8 can last easily to 100k before needing major engine work. even then, rotory engines are known for being extremely easy to work on, if you know what you're doing (read: if you know rotory engines)

[Falcom @ Apr 6th 2007 12:43PM]

The only real reason they are the engine of choice in aircraft is due to their relatively high power output at a relatively low rpm

should read
The only real reason they are the engine of choice in aircraft is due to their relatively high power output at a relatively low WEIGHT.


typo.

[3rdsun @ Apr 6th 2007 12:45PM]

I hope they don't kick the bucket before they finish it

[anonymouspimp @ Apr 6th 2007 1:00PM]

LOL, good lord...

I have drawn up "plans" for a teleportation module which completely circumvents the need for vehicles altogether. I have drawing of it. I have spent $12 on components to date (mostly spent on markers and construction paper for the drawings) and I plan on raising another $250-300 dollars to complete this. I am hoping to get government grants (eliminate traffic and pollution resulting from vehicles? I shouldn't have problems getting them)... So give me a call when you want to run a story.

Actually, in all seriousness, good luck guys. I too would like to someday cruise around in a flying car. But I wouldn't want to be in your vehicle when the timing belt goes out.

[Mark @ Apr 6th 2007 1:04PM]

I think they built this on Monster Garage on the Discovery Channel.

[SHOTT3R @ Apr 6th 2007 1:31PM]

Because old people aren't dangerous enough in vehicles when they don't have gravity to contend with...


/i keed, i keed

[James @ Apr 6th 2007 1:56PM]

Why don't they just un-retire and go to work for Paul Moller? He's been at this for decades -- I figure the technology support (rotary engines with high power-to-weight ratios, carbon fiber, etc.) should finally be catching up.

[Boyd @ Apr 6th 2007 1:56PM]

Something about old people and flying cars... just seems like a bad idea...

[gregger @ Apr 6th 2007 2:08PM]

They're totally going to leave the turn signal on...

TTFN

[shecks @ Apr 6th 2007 2:13PM]

I'm enjoying reading all of comments, you people are making me laugh!

I have a Kia I can donate to them. I'd like to see that fly over my house.

[Z @ Apr 6th 2007 2:41PM]

Why are people working on flying cars? Maybe the military would use these, but apart from the military, we're never going to see people in general flying around in cars, and here's why:

1.) Flying cars will demand much more skill to operate than a typical car. That's why you have to have a pilot's license to fly a plane - there's more to defying gravity and dealing with turbulence (things you don't have to deal with when driving on the road) than just hopping in and driving away.

2.) It's clear that we have too many idiots on the road who drive drunk, angry, reckless, don't pay attention by multitasking while they drive, don't take care of their cars, forget to fill the tank with enough gas to get where they're going, or who simply can't operate a car, period. Couple all those things with the added skill, attention, and responsibility required to safely operate a flying machine, and we'll end up with a society that's roughly 10,000 times more dangerous than it currently is. Yeah, good luck with that.

3.) Imagine the above... and then imagine all the resulting 2000+ pound "boulders" we'd have falling from the skies and dropping on peoples' heads and homes due to the idiots behind the "wheel". Not to mention, since being in the air means you can fly anywhere you want, it also means you can fly into the sides of buildings. Uh, no thanks.


Flying cars for society? "The Fifth Element" concepts brought to fruition? Yeah. Dream on. Never gonna happen.

But the military will have fun with them.

[Dan @ Jun 11th 2007 7:58AM]

The idea of EVEN ONE of these cars plummeting to the ground and killing an innocent is UNACCEPTABLE. Flying cars would be a luxury (as opposed to a "necessity"), and the risk is too high for a luxury. If a school building full of third graders was leveled due two a 2000 pound inferno plummeting to the ground, I would not stop at outrage. That means war. I have composed a letter (in a VERY serious tone) offering a solution to this problem and my sentiment, that has already been delivered to one flying "car" manufacturer. This letter will be delivered to all of the manufacturers I can find, to the media (as many as I can send it to), and our elected officials. A "margin of error" CANNOT be accepted in gauranteeing the safety of the people on the ground. PEOPLE MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PILOT THEM. PERIOD. If you want anonymity, and freedom of control, stick to the ground. If you get in one of these things, you enter a destination and it takes you there automatically. No amount of money in "savings" on the vehicle's design and emergency landing system will be too much to spend on the safety of the people on the ground. Think of hundreds or thousands or even millions (and that could happen if the technology goes unregulated) of cars plummeting from the sky simultaneous thanks to a single, well placed EMP weapon. A suicide "bomber" could kill millions almost instantaneously. That is only the beginning. Put parachutes and extra emergency landing propellers or rockets to slow the descent to an inch or two a second and have that system capable of selecting uninhabited plots of land to crash into. A 2000 pound bomb falling from the sky typically denotes an attack. WE typically consider that war. The proposition of the flying car is no different. I would, at MINIMUM install an automated "falling car liquifyer" in my back yard. As far as I am concerned, failure to ensure the 100% safety of the people on the ground is a decleration of war. (The people in the plummeting cars made the choice to fly them. The people on the ground have no choice.)

[az @ Apr 6th 2007 2:58PM]

Z is correct.

This is a pipe dream that retirees and losers like Moser like to prattle on and on about, but they simply won't happen. People won't be able to handle them properly and the first time one crashes into a house at 3am because someone was dumped by their girlfriend and drunk-flying, there will be enough outrage to get these rich-kid toys grounded.

Why not spend the time, energy and resources on developing an energy efficient car, or a decent high-soeed train system in the U.S.?

(in other words - ANYTHING would be of more use to the U.S. population)

[Court K. @ Apr 6th 2007 3:01PM]

Oh God, everything thinks the world will end! It's no wonder we have no innovation with comments like these! Geeze come-on people! It's no wonder the Wright brothers stopped listening to all the people around them, it's part of what the attribute their success in flight to. Back then they were told "If man was meant to fly, God would have given them wings."

Now the modern day version is a bunch of comments about how 'crazy' the idea is.

People can make ANYTHING they want, if they put their minds to it. I for one think it's great to see this spirt of this, and hope great ideas come out of this!

[anonymouspimp @ Apr 6th 2007 3:03PM]

Geez guys, who pissed in your corn-flakes this morning?

To say something like this will "never" happen is a pretty bold statement. You know... eventually population will dictate how we travel... you think traffic around 5pm is bad now... wait 10 years. And adding another lane or two to highways aren't going to do anything. Sure there may be other advances in travel between now and flying cars... but come on... society will "NEVER" have personal flying vehicles? Pretty bold statement, IMO...

There were people like you who said the Wright Brothers were crazy...

[anonymouspimp @ Apr 6th 2007 3:04PM]

Oh snap... you beat me to it! lol

[sdsdv10 @ Apr 6th 2007 3:53PM]

@ anonymouspimp
"but come on... society will "NEVER" have personal flying vehicles? Pretty bold statement, IMO..."

Well at least, not in these guys lifetime...
(Oh, did I just say that... ouch)

[macona @ Apr 6th 2007 4:14PM]

Heres the thing. You need a runway even if they build what they need. And you still need a pilots license. Those are very expensive. Until there is a VTOL personal aircraft that literally flies itself from point a to b you will never see people flying to work.

[Z @ Apr 6th 2007 4:19PM]

Bold or not, it's still the truth. And what I'm saying is NOT the same as someone saying that the Wright brothers' efforts aren't going to happen - please learn analogy 101. I didn't say we're not going to have flight - we already have that. I'm talking about a specific application of flight in the form of flying cars, and what I said about it is that they're not going to be available to just everybody. Maybe the military, but not society at large. Planes are not just operated by just anyone. People have to go through flying lessons and a licensing process and endure costs of ownership that are far more extensive than anything you'd go through or deal with in relation to a owning and driving a car, because flying requires more skill, responsibility, and money, and is more hazardous to the one piloting the craft and to others, than driving a car. Not to mention, most often pilots have to deal with flight towers, they can only land in specific locations (due to the need for an airstrip, safety, and other formalities), and you have to have annual FAA inspections on your plane, etc. It's not just you hopping in some flying car to go over to your girlfriend's house and safely taking off without communicating to anyone and landing anywhere you want.

Re-read what I wrote in my previous post and think through it.

I'd tell them to keep working on the technology - I'm sure it will have specific military and industrial applications. And I'm sorry if you feel my comments put you out, but this isn't the Jetsons, and your dreams of flying to work or having a night out on the town with your friends in a flying car simply aren't going to happen for the all the reasons I've mentioned in both my posts. Society would never be able to handle it.

Blather on.

[anonymouspimp @ Apr 6th 2007 4:37PM]

If you construed my Wright Brothers analogy to mean I thought you were implying we're "not going to have flight," then maybe you should "learn analogy 101."

And not to sound repetitive, but I would also bet on the fact that there were many people who said "Even if the Wright Brothers built a flying machine, I couldn't see anyone using it outside of the military."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this... I think you greatly underestimate science. I don't even necessarily think something like this could happen in my lifetime (and i'm only 27)... But I would certainly never suggest something like this "couldn't happen" and be available to mainstream society. Just like people need to learn how to (and get a license in order to) drive a car, I suspect something like this would require that as well.

Color me optimistic.

[Z @ Apr 6th 2007 5:11PM]

"If you construed my Wright Brothers analogy to mean I thought you were implying we're "not going to have flight," then maybe you should "learn analogy 101." "


Well, it wasn't your analogy, first of all. It was Court K's, above. That is, unless you're posting as Court K. and then reposting as anonymouspimp to agree with yourself. And his (your) analogy was still out of place.

Secondly, you obviously haven't read through my points very carefully and devoted any thought to it. What you're not understanding is that my words have nothing to do with me underestimating science or man's ability to build these machines; rather, they're addressing the ability of society at large to operate flying machines.

Color me realistic.

[Z @ Apr 6th 2007 5:42PM]

Btw, I can see now that you made a short reference to the Wright Brothers in your first post (which I initially missed), but it was Court K's analogy that I was addressing initially. The rest of my post was addressing your points. (Just wanted to clarify).

(The analogy was still out of place, though). ;)

[macona @ Apr 6th 2007 4:49PM]

Plus there is no way most people could keep up with the required service and maintenance schedules of an aircraft. Logbooks must be kept accurate and parts must be FAA certified (Unless it is experimental)

[B.S. @ Apr 6th 2007 5:40PM]

Why everyone is focusing in people driving the cars. It's XXI century, we already have very advanced ever-evolving computers. It will happen.
Teleporting would be cooler though =)

[Z @ Apr 6th 2007 5:57PM]

Now we're going from flying cars to teleportation, eh?

Let's bring this back to reality.

We're addressing people operating the cars, because that's what these particular vehicles are all about - human operated flying machines.

If you're hinting at the concept of autonomously flying vehicles, I don't doubt that will happen, but not while people are inside. Robotic, remotely operated flying vehicles would be a military or industrial application, and there would still be human involvement on some level. In fact, remote flying machines (albeit much smaller in scale) are already being tested for the military.

We don't even have cars that will drive themselves. How long do you think it would take for flying machines to take us wherever we want to go without human intervention? 1000 years? This world will be long gone before then.

[SkeetaRock @ Apr 6th 2007 8:19PM]

Everybody....Z is from the future and he's here to tell us to stop dreaming about human operated flying machines! Only the military will use these so called human operated flying machines. Well time to go get in my Cessna. Tah tah for now.

[Z @ Apr 6th 2007 11:10PM]

Everybody, SkeetaRock is from planet Dumbsville, located far, far away in the DreamOn Galaxy, and doesn't understand how to read english or understand what people are saying, especially when points have been made crystal clear and repeated more than once.

Better hop in your Cessna indeed, Skeeta. Your mom's calling you. Nanu nanu.

[Andy Chapman @ Apr 7th 2007 6:23AM]

Who's a stick in the mud then? Look it totally will happen, just like homicidal robots, brain implants and good home coffee machines. I want my flying car!

[Z @ Apr 7th 2007 1:36PM]

Oh, poor babies. Did witto Z crash da party?

C'mon, man. Who's got his head in the clouds then? You guys who think our skies are going to look like "The Fifth Element" one day, crack me up. You're so naive, it's mind-boggling. Science will develop these cars, but society's degree of irresponsibility will be the leash that keeps them from being made available to everyone. And none of you idealists have the slightest bit of understanding as to the dangers and complications of navigating the skies. What do you think would happen then, if we were to clog up those skies even further with millions of flying cars? Get REAL.

Let's see...
- On the ground, we have ROADS that help keep us on track. Not in the skies.
- On the ground, we have sidewalks, concrete medians, and paint on the roads, to help direct traffic. Not in the skies.
- On the ground, we have traffic lights and barring that, police and workers with signs directing drivers. Not in the skies.
- On the ground, we have law enforcement to help take dangerous people off the road and to enforce order. Not in the skies.
- On the ground, law enforcement can pull someone over. Not in the skies.
- On the ground, it's really two dimensional. Not in the skies. There, it's three dimensions - you can fly up and down, not just left and right. Maybe some of you forgot that part, or didn't even realize it. So if you want to take a nosedive and end up faceplanting yourself into the top of someone elses flying car, you can.
- On the ground, is where you'll find my feet.

And even though there's probably no safe solutions to any of those things while flying, we'll just clog up the skies anyway with hundreds of thousands or even millions of flying cars one day - flying cars that travel at cruising speeds of 150mph, or more, which would be double or close to triple (or more) the current maximum driving speeds we have on the roads today (which many people can't even deal with).

Ridiculous.

Did you also forget that we have air traffic control towers whose entire job is to regulate and direct airplanes round the clock so they don't crash into one another? That's how crowded it is up there. And that's how complicated it is up there. It's impossible for pilots to keep track of each other, that these men and women who pilot jumbo jets and multi-engine aircraft for a LIVING - and who know more about flying than all of you put together and have more instrumentation in their jets than you'd ever have in a flying car, and who may also have one or two other pilots assisting them - still can't keep track of the traffic all on their own. They still need the help of air traffic controllers on the ground.

Did you think it would just be you up there?

Accidents happen on the ground ALL THE TIME. You don't think they'd happen up in the air? Do you guys think that because people are flying, that they'll just magically become perfect drivers? What do you think would happen when we fill the skies with flying cars, and take the number of accidents that happen on the ground and apply that to the air (a number of accidents that would undoubtedly exponentially increase due to the all the points I've made above about the complications of flight)? Falling 2000+ pound boulders everywhere.

Time to wakey-wakey little snoozies.

I'd love to be able to fly around in a car. But I'm being realistic when I say the things I say. Some of you are romanticizing everything to such a degree that you're not paying attention to any of the facts. You're just daydreaming. But I guess those are the natural characteristics of those who haven't lived on the earth for even thirty years.

Just because science can develop it, doesn't mean that society at large gets to handle it.

I'll tell you what I WOULD love to have. A car that could float or hover and manuever one or two feet above the ground. That would be great - to drive around and never feel the road - no more bumps and potholes. Just a superiorly smooth ride.

[Eric Norberg @ Apr 7th 2007 4:10PM]

Anyone ever driven in and around Dallas before? Good gosh that's all that place needs - cars in the sky. That soft glow in the night sky would be Eastern Texas burning to the ground.

[SkeetaRock @ Apr 7th 2007 8:12PM]

Color me crazy, but I dont believe we've always had "roads that help keep us on track, sidewalks, concrete medians, paint on the roads to help direct traffic, traffic lights"
Weren't these things invented to accomodate the invention of the automobile?
/sigh @ Z

Never is a strong word.

[Z @ Apr 7th 2007 8:50PM]

The point Skeeta, is that those things are there and have been there for a looooong time. This isn't the early 20th century where we're just seeing cars for the first time. It's now and we realize how important they are, which is why they were constructed in the first place. Get it? The point, Skeeta, is that it's going to be a bit hard to construct those things (anything for that matter) in the sky and have them float there, don't ya think? Keeping those things in mind, the point, Skeeta, is that since flying is much more dangerous than driving on the ground, it would be even more imperative that we have these things in place in the air to maintain order, but since this isn't possible, heavy civilian traffic in the air won't happen.

Unbelievable.

[The Schizo @ Apr 9th 2007 9:16AM]

What you guys are missing here is that you can't just fly with any engine. As previously stated, the Renesis engine is lightweight and spacialy conservative. What some of you have ignored is that when you get in the air, your propellers depend more on speed than power. Since it is generally a BAD IDEA to have a gear box on an airplane propeller, you need an engine that can spin it fast enough to achieve flying speeds, and hard enough to help prevent stalling. The Renesis easily cruises at 9k RPM, and with come computer mods (removal) can hit 11k.

No matter what it's power curve or road driving characteristics are, when those wheels come off the ground, you need that propeller spinning as fast as possible. Airplanes have 1 speed gear boxes, all acceleration comes from increasing engine RPMs.

The bad apex seal is an old RX7 issue, fixed in the RX8.

I guarantee you can not find a better engine for this application considering cost, size, weight, power, and RPMs.

[AiboPet2003 @ Apr 10th 2007 6:47PM]

Ummmm.....DON'T WANT !!

Take the two dimensional, for the most part physically regulated act of acceleration, braking....left and right, and take pretty much ALL the barriors away?? NO THANKS !!!

Good Show Z !!

This flying car thing would be "cool" to see on Discovery Channel someday for some purpose-built vehicle. The only thing it takes to qualify pretty much ALL of Z's comments, would be your drive to and from work today. I could only imagine what carnage your common idiot could manage in a three dimensional vehicle. Always remember that an accident in the air.....IS going to also be an accident (or several) on the ground.

Maybe this could happen in some FAR distant future, but it isn't gonna be your common citizen behind the wheel.

Just think of all the things you see everyday...from roadrage to just plain STUPID when you are out on the roads. And when a car is not being properly maintained, it tends to be quite obvious when you are following it from 30 feet back. Now imagine a vehicle coming at you from ANY direction, and at fantastic speed, and the owner hasn't been keeping up on his repair logs, maybe has some duct-tape keeping something from banging against his paintwork, etc. When something goes wrong, that vehicle comes DOWN. A "flying car" by definition, isn't going to glide very well, and it wont autogyro. It will rely on brute force in some way or another to remain airborne, and likely VERY complicated computers/firmware/software to keep you from hurting anyone, including yourself. Insuring something like this would be a NIGHTMARE. Your little insurance policy would have to account for 200kia speeds, an accident in midair between two or more vehicles....and then ALL involved vehicles and occupants falling at LEAST hundreds of feet to the ground to their likely deaths. This wouldn't even account for the poor soul walking, minding his own business on the ground.....or if this mishap happened over or INTO a building.

I could go ON and on about this. You two guys...COOL....GO FOR IT!! I hope you two actualy come up with a working prototype. You'll ALREADY be way ahead of Mohler if it costs you FIVE million. I just hope to see this VTOL craft involved in something worthwhile, and not this whole Bladerunner/StarWars/Fifth Element vision.

[Simon6071 @ Aug 9th 2007 12:55AM]

I don't not want to see flying cars above the city unless they have a very reliable means of levitation which precludes them from droping down like a bomb when the movement propulsion system is dead.

Any concept of flying car should be based on levitation instead of gliding in air or hovering with jets or propellers. We already have private planes and helicopters, we don't need any flying car based on old technology.

Call me a dreamer but I do believe that someday we will have private levitation flying machines but we won't be calling them flying cars by then just like we don't call cars 'horseless carriages' anymore.

[Richard A. Strong @ Aug 16th 2007 10:02AM]

You are cordially invited to visit my website,
http://www.strongware.com/dragon ,
to see my flying car project.

Rich Strong, P.E.
(Major,USAF,Retired)

[Richard A. Strong @ Aug 16th 2007 10:10AM]

Your comments err on at least two points:
1. Obviously, you are not a licensed pilot, that is, a person who has taken courses, passed the written test, passed the physical exam, and flown at least 40 hours with a Certified Flight Instructor and passed the flight test.
2. My aircar design is estimated to have the same glide ratio as conventional airplanes.

[Simon6071 @ Aug 26th 2007 5:47AM]

Mr. Strong, you are right that I am not a trained pilot but that does not disqualify me from commenting based on commonsense.

Given the solid credential that you have, I have no doublt that you would come up with a working flying car that can be useful to people living in the suburb who have both driver and pilot licenses and don't want to wait for the secret of levitation to be discovered in the distant future. But the biggest drawback of your design is the requirement of an airstrip for taking off and landing thus limiting its operating areas.
How about inventing a flying car by coupling a car with a helicopter with the two rotors folding back parallel to each other on the top with support when not flying? Such a machine do not have the limitation of having to use an airstrip. It should be designed to be used mainly on roads to save gas but can be driven off road to fly like a helicopter when necessary. Good as suppoting vehicle for firefighters to fight spreading fires since they can escape when surrounded by fire. It's good for rescue mission, too. Of couse people need to have both a driver license and a helicopter pilot license to drive such a machine.