Tech | October 27, 2010 | 41 comments

Subaru-Powered, Flying Car Gets FAA Approval

pjacobs51
The I-Tec Maverick, a roadworthy dune buggy powered by a Subaru engine, has won the first certification from the Federal Aviation Administration for a flying car. Its first mission: Saving the Third World.

Steve Saint runs i-Tec, which stands for "indigenous people's technology and education center." A Christian missionary, Saint started the firm to solve technological problems for remote tribes of Central and South America, and spent six years working on the Maverick.

With a 250-hp, 2.4 liter Subaru four-cylinder built into a canvas-covered frame, the Maverick can run up to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds. But its real trick comes when it deploys a cloth wing on a 22-foot mast and takes flight. After years of testing, the FAA in September certified the Maverick as a "powered parachute." That's different than the Terrafugia and similar vehicles which are classified as roadworthy planes.

Saint says since the Maverick needs just 100 yards to take off, it could help missionary pilots and jungle tribes become self-sufficient without having to abandon their way of life. His current estimated price for a production Maverick is $80,000, but hopes that sales to recreational pilots drive down the cost.



http://gizmodo.com/5674928/subaru+powered-jesus+supporting-flying-car-gets-faa-a...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Bike
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

41 comments // Subaru-Powered, Flying Car Gets FAA Approval

  • Maricha_Knight_van_Heerden
  • bailey78
  • Paratus
  • bailey78
  • keepthinkingboo
  • Paratus
  • fun_size
  • dadevil
    • +2
      dadevil  
    • Image
    • I'll be impressed when they have a flying backpack.

      Another day, another flying car, right? the FAA has just awarded the Terrafugia Transition an exemption which will allow the 1,440-pound car/aircraft hybrid to fly under a "light sport" designation, even though it hits the scales at a hefty 120 lbs. more than the rules allow. A light sport pilot license only requires 20 hours of seat time – far less than what a full license would demand.

      http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/29/terrafugia-transition-flying-plane-gets-speci...

    • 1 year ago
  • transfire
    • 0
      transfire  
    • Fantastic vehicle. But could you please just leave the natives be. They don't need you to "save" them. This isn't the 1600s.

    • 1 year ago
  • Darnell_White
  • musicjohnny
    • +1
      musicjohnny  
    • transfire:

      Actually I'd argue they could use quite a bit of help what with the rampant disease, sanitation issues, poverty, and starvation. I think you misinterpreted when they said "saving the third world" because the only kind of saving that the ever mentioned was that "Saint started the firm to solve technological problems for remote tribes of Central and South America". Nothing in the article suggests they've going in and doing 1600's style evangelism. They're simply helping out people in need. Why be against that?

    • 1 year ago
  • Chris_Corl
  • Chris_Corl
  • transfire
    • 0
      transfire  
    • musicjohnny:

      If that's all it is then okay to some extent. If you ever watch Star Trek then you know about the "Prime Directive" --a concept born out historical retrospect on colonialism. Introducing new technologies to a society too quickly can be extremely destructive. As for there being no Christian indoctrination component here, I have serious doubts.

      A good book on the subject, "Savages" by Joe Kane.

    • 1 year ago
  • transfire
  • ilikeike
  • musicjohnny
    • +1
      musicjohnny  
    • transfire:

      OK, I will resist the urge to comment on the merits basing aspects of your foreign policy opinion on Star Trek, but your point is valid. Obviously trying to thrust an archaic civilization in to modern times would be potentially overwhelming. But here's where my opinion stems from: think about the people here in the United States who are homeless, think of all of the aid we send them to help get them rehabilitated and back on their feet and get them out of poverty and starvation and free from the unsanitary, disease ridden conditions that plague their everyday life. We spare no expense for them because we know that we can make an improvement in their lives and standard of living. Now think about Africa, where social injustice runs rampant and famine, disease, crime and war destroy lives and ruin families and entire cities are literally burned to the ground be rivals and corrupt governments. Doesn't your heart just break for them? Mine does. It's why we send them aid like there's no tomorrow...because for some of them there literally won't be.

      Now lets travel a different place. There are a people called the Urarina who are facing literal extinction from ecocide. Their environment is being destroyed as they occupy it, their food is being destroyed and stolen by the government of their own country. Who's helping them when they can't help themselves?

      Next are the Alacaluf, a people who are essentially "sea nomads" and travel from island to island in search of nothing more than daily sustenance. They don't always find it...in fact, they rarely find it. Their average life expectancy is in the 30's because of starvation and disease from exposure to their own excrement in their boats. Who's helping them to overcome their circumstances?

      Last are the Yagua, who are succumbing to a rather odd plight: they've been building their villages farther and farther apart and are actually dying because they can't get the resources they need to survive and their settlements are too far apart to facilitate trading. They're in desperate need of food and clothing but can't get it due to their location.....kinda sounds like they could use a better form of transportation doesn't it?

      Now, you might have guessed where these people are located. They're in South America. specifically Peru, Chile, and the Amazon Basin. Now can you honestly say that nothing should be done for them? Do you value their culture over their existence? If you do....lets just say their won't be any culture left for you to revere in the very near future. Why don't we feel compassion for them like we do for people in Africa or even the homeless here in the United States? You're putting these people up on a pedestal and saying that because of their traditions and culture that they've somehow got it all together and are just fine in the world today. Well I've got news for you: they're not. And without aid they never will be. It's a shame that the real world isn't as simple as Avatar (hey, you used Star Trek) with indigenous people who can sustain themselves and who lack nothing, but we live in a world where that's not the case, and frankly it's selfish of you to not admit that. While I do respect their culture and traditions, it's incredibly naive to think that that's enough to sustain them when they're dying in front of our eyes.

    • 1 year ago
  • musicjohnny
    • +1
      musicjohnny  
    • ilikeike:

      To answer your question, I think there are a lot of groups like that, I've worked with and donated to several of them. And yes, many are Christian organizations, but their goal is to help people, not do 1600's style missionary work to force cultures to change. It's also incredibly interesting to me how come there are so many Christian groups that are doing work like this to bring people out of poverty and rescue them from disease and crime and yet so few secular groups with the same goals...liberals in particular always present themselves as the group that holds compassion for the little guy and the disadvantaged so why aren't their tons of liberal organizations out in the field right now trying to help? In contrast, conservatives are always painted as the group that only cares about self and big business, and yet for some inexplicable reason, conservative aid groups outnumber liberal aid groups by 5 to 1 in Africa and East Asia according to a 2009 Newsweek article (they didn't have stats on South America).

      Frankly I don't care who helps as long as help and aid are provided, but those stats are pretty interesting aren't they?

    • 1 year ago
  • ReverandG
  • pjacobs51
  • rhetoricallyineffective
  • EmperorThan
    • +4
      EmperorThan  
    • My problem with 'flying cars' is all the flying car proposals I ever see have wings. Wings = plane, not car. If things with wings count as a car then we already have flying cars, they're called Cessnas.

      Two, the MAJORITY of drivers on the road are complete fucking morons who don't know how to drive, what would these assholes be like if they could fly?

    • 1 year ago
  • ReverandG
  • Ares
  • BKsaysAction
  • Chris_Corl
  • fchfyjh
  • pjacobs51
  • Einsam_Data_Old
  • pjacobs51
  • Alaskajoe
  • Alaskajoe
  • derk
more from Tech:

top videos