The Hammerhead: Is this the flying car we've been waiting for?
The Moller SkyCar. The Terrafugia. The Alfa Romeo Spix flying concept car. All three of these winged machina have been dangled in our faces like a carrot at the end of an impossibly long stick. Jeff Allen Case is hoping he'll be the first to deliver on the promise of flying cars with his Hammerhead prototype. He's a few steps behind the Moller SkyCar and Terrafugia, having only a couple renderings of the Hammerhead and a spec sheet that exists on paper only. The Hammerhead has a three-fan configuration with two forward fans that tilt for both lift and thrust. Though we weren't told what engine would power the Hammerhead, Case says he expects a top speed of 250 mph at 8,000 ft. with a range of 300 miles. It both takes off and lands vertically, and Case claims the vehicle is characterized by being lightweight, easy to operate, safe and fast. The renderings show a one-seater cockpit, but the production version would seat two in tandem. Of course, a production version is the next step that the Hammerhead won't reach until Case finds some funding. He's hoping Jay-Z or P. Diddy might be interested in supplying the Benjamins needed to put the Hammerhead in production, but we suggest he go for that second mortgage and enter his design in NASA's Personal Air Vehicle Challenge. Perhaps he can catch the attention of some deep pockets at DARPA.
Follow the jump for an additional high resolution shot of the Hammerhead.
[Source: Jeff Allen Case]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Hamud 8:03AM (11/12/2006)
It looks like a ship from Half Life 2.
Anyway, looks nice and functional.
Reply
cFoo 11:17AM (11/12/2006)
Humanity is not ready for the flying car.
Heck, half of us still can't drive in the dark if the car doesn't have "automatic on" headlights.
Reply
jacob 11:35AM (11/12/2006)
If it only seats two then what's the point? make it bigger, and if it's cheap enough, it might find a market, but I think we'll never have a truly practical flying car until we invent antigravity or something
Reply
Andalib Danandeh 11:50AM (11/12/2006)
looks like the body acts as its own wing. I hope the thing doesn't rely on its rear fan too much, you know what that means. I think the two front engines just change direction but they could probably bail you out if the rear fan is in a jam.
Reply
Andalib Danandeh 11:50AM (11/12/2006)
what you need is mercedes benz's distronic cruise control LOL!
Reply
retsel 11:57AM (11/12/2006)
take this 2 warrrrrrrr
Reply
Johnny B 1:05PM (11/12/2006)
Yeah, nice drawing...And that's all it is...
I agree with #2, we are not ready for a flying car when most people can't even drive on the ground...!
Reply
FSCCAracer 1:21PM (11/12/2006)
I'm sure ANY flying car would be fully automated (or close to it). Its going to have to be hybrid/electric or a combo. I can't imagine it will get any kind acceptable gas mileage using a turbine or normal engine. Cool idea that will happen eventually!!
Reply
Tiago do Vale 1:22PM (11/12/2006)
#3:
This will not compete with common cars: it will be more expensive, less versatile, but good to make huge distances faster: a bit like the first GTs, made for the wealthy europeans to travel between the "Riviera" and their home countries, in empty highways by night.
I imagine that this sort of "flying-cars" will not evolve too many driving skill: I bet it would depend on a quite automated flight.
Reply
Andy Rooney is an Idiot 1:31PM (11/12/2006)
This is not the flying car I have been waiting for.
Reply
the dude 2:57PM (11/12/2006)
stick some machine guns/lasers on it and you have the Hunter-Killer from Terminator... hmmmmmmm
Reply
nb 6:14PM (11/12/2006)
does it have vtec HAH. no.
looks cool though
Reply
UpIrons 1:08PM (11/13/2006)
I don't think we need flying cars at all. What we need are hover cars that allow us to go over any terrain without wear and tear on roads or grass or whatever you hover over. Imagine how much we would save on road maintenance, especially in winter when cities spend millions trying to clear snow and ice for every storm. Hovering over ice would perform the same as any other surface so weather related accidents would no longer be an issue.
Reply
rocketpunch 1:11PM (11/13/2006)
How much are gas now?? Right! I am sure this thing runs on water.
Reply
Joe Alien 12:45PM (11/14/2006)
So one can fly for about 1 hour (at 250MPH and a range of 300 miles). That borders on poor, with nearly 3 stops between Boston and Chicago. Ducted fans will never work; they are just not powerful or efficient enough for the weight. The Moller Skycar is a perfect example, and we've been waiting for almost 3 decades on that. It's NEVER ONCE FLEW more than 8 feet off the ground and never flown without being tethered to a crane. A jet engine (or engines) similar to what the Eclipse Jet is using is the answer (at least at the moment until we get that anti-gravity engine).
Reply
atomic 8:36AM (4/12/2007)
The current way we fly through our atmosphere is old technology. The problem is that many are not willing to acknowledge it. Being able to deflect gravity from atoms is the next step. Call it Atomicdeflection, trust me it works.
Reply
Robin Haynes 9:19PM (6/21/2007)
I don't wish to dampen anyones enthusiasm, I am a proponent of the Flying Car concept myself, but I think it is time for a reality check. Its a simple matter really - the risk of operating any flying vehicle in uncontrolled areas is far too high, so you are not going to be allowed to take off and land anywhere outside of a designated airfield or remote area - EVER.
We already have functional VTOL aircraft - called helicopters. So you have to ask yourself why we don't use them instead of cars - it is really not just the rotor size. Just look around and see all the cables and pylons and people and buildings that you would need to navigate if you were able to get airborne. So I am sorry, but you are not going to be able to fly up out of a traffic jam, or pop over to Wal-Mart or your girlfriend's house in your flying car.
Apart from the legal and safety issues involved, there is the small matter that we don't actually have anti-gravity technology. Any VTOL aircraft is caused to fly or hover by standing on a howling gale of air - and anyone who has ever been anywhere near such an event knows it is VERY ugly. One other important and oft overlooked point. If a powered lift vehicle looses power, no matter how cool it looks - it has the flight characteristics of a cement turd.
What is possible is a craft that can both drive on the road and fly in the air. Drive to a small airfield (I bet there are several quite close to you right now), fly to an airfield near where you're going, and then drive to your destination. It is kind of like using the air as a freeway - fast, no traffic jams and it should be mostly automatic. I like the idea. I want one! Hey! I've designed one! If you are interested, google "Haynes Skyblazer"
atomic 8:56AM (4/12/2007)
The current way you burn gas is old had also. Go google "Vapor carb" and you will read,
A survey in Technology Review listed ten experimental cars developed by seven major automakers that got highway mileage ranging from 71 to 110 mpg.
A few years ago Renault trotted out a rig that got 121 mpg on the run from Paris to Bordeaux. I'm told the gas mileage record for motorcycles is about 400 mpg, and if you really want to go crazy, a GM subsidiary recently built a solar-powered prototype called Sunraycer that doesn't use any gas at all.
Weighing only 400 pounds, it completed a 1,800-mile race at an average speed of over 40 mph. On the downside, it seats only one, has no trunk or luggage rack, and barely has room for a pair of fuzzy dice. But hey, life is full of trade-offs.
Reply
atomic 9:02AM (4/12/2007)
I am sick of these guys looking to this so called "Air car" as the next way of flight.
Reply
atomic 9:03AM (4/12/2007)
READ THIS!
In 1933 Charles Nelson Pogue made headlines when he drove a 1932 Ford V8, 200 miles on a gallon of gas during a demonstration conducted by The Ford Motor Companies in Winnipeg, Manitoba using his super-carb system.
In fact, many people attested to these mileage claims as The Pogue Carb went into production and was sold openly. However, one of the crucial factors of these systems is the use of "white" gasoline, which contained no additives.
It was at this time oil companies started adding lead to the fuel. Lead is an anti-catalyst that rendered Pogue's carburetor as inefficient as a regular carb.
In his Patent, ( found on page 32) it is obvious he did not understand TCC and in my research have found his system constantly needed readjustment and importantly got the fantastic mileage on wet days.
Reply