Currently reading: Matt Prior's tester's notes - of flying cars and fixers
A world without flying cars - and the people trying to build them - would be very boring indeed, even if it will ultimately remain a niche market

The flying car is back in the news, as is its wont every now and again, since long before Henry Ford said, in 1940: “Mark my word: a combination airplane and motorcar is coming.”

The flying car feels like the gag about hydrogen-powered cars: “It’s the fuel of the future – and always will be.” There always seems to be a flying car or two about to go into production somewhere in the world – typically, in the long run, gaining about as much traction as a guinea pig on a lino floor.

Noteworthy this week is the AeroMobil 3.0, a Slovakian design that will be presented to the public at the Top Marques show in Monaco in April. Like most flying cars, it is ugly. It looks a bit like an ugly car. A bit like an ugly aeroplane. But it is very obviously a flying car. Or a driving aeroplane. As you prefer.

Sometimes it seems like there are more people who want to build flying cars than there are people who want to buy them. But somehow, in the same way I think of people who build floating cars, a world without them would be far less interesting.

Why they take it on is beyond me, because they must know that the market is small and the challenge tremendous – probably harder now than ever. Even assuming you can circumvent all the regulations, the sheer practicalities of it are mind-boggling.

A car is built to crash. An aircraft is designed to exist entirely without such an incident in mind and is built only to soar, so it must be light. A Cessna 172 – the world’s most successful aircraft – has four seats and must weigh a bit less than 1200kg. That’s not just on its own, but with fuel aboard and every seat occupied. It simply couldn’t take off if it weighed any more than it does.

So, similarly, a flying car must be light to get off the ground, yet it needs to cope with any road surface, have a gearbox that can propel both the propeller and the wheels individually and be small enough to drive on the road sensibly and big enough to carry its folded wings with it.

And even if you make a 
truly viable flying car, there is still the competition to worry about. There’s already a machine that can leave one precise destination and arrive at another while taking to the air. It’s called a helicopter.

And another thing...

In the 1994 film Pulp Fiction, the fixer Winston Wolf, played by Harvey Keitel, drove an Acura NSX. A deliberate choice, I’m sure, which impeccably suited his unflappable character.

Now Wolf is back. Only in 
an insurance advert, but credit 
to ad execs where it’s due. 
Rates for fixing in post-crunch Britain are clearly not what they were in 1994 Los Angeles, but kudos for giving today’s Wolf a Toyota GT86.

Back to top

Get the latest car news, reviews and galleries from Autocar direct to your inbox every week. Enter your email address below:

Join the debate

Add a comment…
Peter Cavellini 30 January 2015


Bad enough with bad drivers on the Road,what would it be like if in 50,or a 100yrs from now?,flying cars have been around since the 1930's,we,as a species aren't ready for every day transport being a Drive/Fly car,the infrastructure just isn't there,it is too complicated,would you trust a computer to organise Flight traffic?
Deputy 30 January 2015

Lowest Common Denominator

We live in a world where car makers have to use 4 pages in the manual to explain basic cruise control. The average driver has no idea what the warning lights mean on their dashboard, so we will never have flying cars in volume to make them a viable alternative in the next 50 years. When we really have the Google car concept with one green button and speak your destination will we have flying cars in mass production!