Flight Tests for Terrafugia Flying Car


On March 5th, 2009 the Terrafugia Transition achieved first flight at Plattsburgh International Airport.

Soon people can stop complaining that there is no flying car so the future we have is inferior to what was promised, but instead just complain that they cannot afford the future.

* The Transition® is only 6’9″ tall and 80″ wide with wings folded.
* The Transition® offers true door-to-door transportation for pilots.
* The Transition® uses high-octane unleaded [Premium unleaded] auto gas.
* The Transition® has front wheel drive on the road.
* Become a Sport Pilot in as little as 20 hours of flight time in a Transition®-specific course. For existing pilots, get comfortable quickly with the familiarization training included with every Transition® delivery.
* You can order today: Place your fully refundable $10,000 airframe reservation deposit here. Anticipated purchase price: $194,000.
* It’s a Plane… That Drives

Specs

Terrafugia Transition specs

Cruise: 100 kts (115 mph)
Rotate: 70 kts (80 mph)
Stall: 45 kts (51 mph)
Range: 400nm (460 mi)
Takeoff over 50′ obstacle: 1700′ Fuel burn: 5 gph
Fuel tank: 20 gallons
Useful Load: 430 lbs
On road: 30 mpg, highway speeds
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA)

About The Author

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.

5 comments

by Newest
by Best by Newest by Oldest
1

Added in details on tax brackets for the sixties and seventies and correlated to median income and multiples of median income for 200k-250k equivalent of today.

The point is that even when income tax rates for tax brackets are higher it triggers tax avoidance strategies.

Just as many tax strategies today revolve around AMT avoidance.

The current international rates are shown so that it can be seen that wealthier people have lower tax rate jurisdiction options. If one is wealthier it is far easier to change citizenship and tax home.

Increasing the tax rate on the rich for "fairness" or for tax revenues will not work to get more money so tax revenues do not increase and "fairness" is not increased if no more money is obtained.

The holdings (net worth) of the already wealthy is mostly not touched because there is no tax if assets are not sold. There has to be taxable events.

2

The tax rate is just one variable, exceptions and other rules are very important as well.

The Laffer curve doesn't mean tax cuts = more tax revenue, that works only if the tax rate is too high, beyond the optimum.
The U.S. is likely already short of the optimum due to past cuts.

3

Two things:

1) The percentage tax levied on the highest earners is only a very small part of the total tax picture. The income bracket at which that rate kicks in, used to be $400K when it was 90%, in 1988 and 1989 it was $88K when it was 28%. That's a big difference in who's paying that 19.5% to the government.

2) And about that 19.5% percent. The revenue and income tax revenues are all squashed down because of the high numbers in the percentage lines. This hides the fact that income tax revenues decreased when the Bush tax cuts took effect. If you look carefully, though, you can still see that there's a lot of activity in those two lines, but you can't see it at the vertical scale chosen in this graph.

3) Economists accept the Laffer curve, they just think it doesn't apply when the overall tax rate is as low as it is in the US. For total taxes rates below 40%, cutting taxes, cuts revenue, period.

The graphics in this post are dishonest and the arguments are misleading. They are the economic equivalent of a physicist trying to convince you he has a perpetual motion machine.

4

It seems the argument says that progressive tax rates including the rich have a minor effect because the wealthy are a minor percentage. "3% reported income between $200,000 and $500,000; fewer than 1% claimed income above half a million dollars."

But this impression clouds the tremendous holdings of this small factor. One percent or less owns 49% or more of the whole and entire planet!

One, we know too little about these rich. Two, we know too little to settle. Three, the bottom is the challenge, the duty, and the path to both our sustenance and prosperity.

We've been suckered, I'm saying, at least a generation and maybe forever.

In my view, no argument about taxation is valid if relief is an option but obligation is the task.

5

Good analysis, but Obama isn't interested in higher tax revenues and doesn't care if his plan works or not.

All he is interested in is a tax plan that he deems "fair." He believes the "rich" should pay higher taxes because he feels that is "fair." This is what he has been saying on the campaign trail.