@@timothytikker1147 It's a kit aircraft, partly to avoid LSA restrictions. Currently you need a private, but with MOSAIC it might be eligible for SPL holders, and might get built as a certified or LSA eventually too.
160mph cruise airspeed, 125mph top ground speed. 450 miles range (unspecified if that's in the air or ground). 2 seats with 575 pounds load. LSA numbers mostly, except a high cruise speed. Sadly probably will be true about price, though
@@LTVoyager It would be if it's all-electric, but it isn't, it's a hybrid. That range is still half that of similar weight aircraft. I think the number seems plausible, especially after moving away from the ducted prop design
@@Xatzimi I still call fantasy on the range. Then again, this project will never see the light of commercialization so it is doubtful we will ever know.
Looks like some interesting innovations here - can't believe that they can make all those folding parts fit into the car - impressive work, and I hope they are able to get this to the market for the price they mentioned.
@@rayray8687Any pilot who was interested in a two-seat aircraft would find the ability to hangar their plane in their garage to be of enormous benefit given what hangar space is going for. The ability to drive one's plane home (as opposed to paying for a hotel and a tie-down) after being forced to divert due to weather is also a very nice feature to have. It's far more "roadable aircraft" than "flying car" in the Jetsons sense, but that makes it more practical rather than less because the people buying it are just normally certificated pilots.
@@rayray8687 Private pilots who want to expand their options for first and last mile transport. Other benefits include fitting in a home garage and filling up with mogas directly at a gas station. If marketed right, it could get more people into GA for its conveniences
I like the concept in general, but the new design would require a multi rating. It should still fall under MOSAIC Light Sport, which is cool. That's likely why they decided on the second motor. Hopefully useful load will improve.
Hopefully it's possible to get an exemption for that or something, the new motors are electric, meaning they have almost a non-existent failure condition and their close proximity offers minimal thrust differential. Requiring a multi-engine rating will likely kill a lot of the market for this
@@Xatzimi It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'd like to see hard numbers on the twin... Useful load, cruise performance, etc. Being electric, the range can't be all that great.
In my state, since it has three wheels, it would be licensed as a motorcycle...No need to conform to automotive safety standards. If I could afford it, I would be interested in obtaining one.
Hit a couple of potholes on the way to a strip where you’re able to take off… is it still airworthy? Are you an FAA qualified mechanic? At that price, it’s just for the very wealthy. The company won’t sell enough units to be profitable.
@@Xatzimi It’s only experimental if you build 51% of it yourself, if licensed in the USA. I don’t think you’re going to build this one yourself. And if you’ve ever driven in the New York metro area, you know there are some big potholes!
@@bruceburris3114 It will release as a kit and follows the 51% rule. I find it hard to imagine suspension built to take landing stress will not survive a pothole. More likely, as a 3-wheeler, it will just be uncomfortable when they can't be easily avoided
@@timothytikker1147: I’ve seen many easily recognizable CGI mock-ups but no real videos. The fact is the machine in this video appears to have no control surfaces on either the wings or the empennage and would be uncontrollable in the air. If it did rotate it would crash almost immediately.
The grey aircraft at the start of the video (N155SB) was shown flying. I'm pretty sure it was not CGI. The red one shown later is just an artist's impression of the next iteration.
@@PiefacePete46 yes, the grey aircraft is the prototype that had its first test flight in November 2023. Before then, it had a red plastic coating, hence the red color of the vehicle in all earlier images. But that coating was removed before the test flight, and has been kept off ever since.
@@rayray8687 It literally has flown in a flight demonstration on Samson's TH-cam channel. If you want to take issue with the fact that it's a prototype or something, fine, but don't just make up facts.
Love innovation, but to date nobody has been able or willing to answer my questions: Insurance--will you need 2 separate insurances--one for the airplane feature and one for the car feature? For that matter, will any insurance provider be willing to insure it? Will the states require a street license plate and in some require a periodic emissions test? Weight--Will the car meet the government safety standards to be considered street legal and if so, how will the safety features affect weight / useful load/ performance? If put into production, the owner will be required to obtain a pilot's license to supplement the driver's license, learn FAA regulations, weather, obtain a medical, have biennial flight reviews, etc. etc. Will the general public owners be willing and eager to participate? Also, if put into production, annual inspections will be required. Will there be IAs that are willing to learn and work on these car/airframes and engines? As a result, the years of implication that a car/airplane for everyone in every garage has been a wonderful concept, but reality suggests that this will be exclusively a homebuilt at best limiting ownership to existing pilots while still facing insurance and street legal requirements. Hate to be a wet blanket as I applaud and admire the concept and engineering efforts, but can this actually be reality when all things are considered?
@@tedgray489 Agree with your owner/builder response which is one of the reasons why I stated that in reality "this will be exclusively a homebuilt at best" and "if put into production, annual inspections will be required".
@@natedanna9155 Oh, I must have missed the idea of production for the masses. Rather than kit production. The last thing I would like is a person "driving" their "airplane" in the NAS with me.
@@natedanna9155: You’re right, the entire concept of ‘flying cars’ has no basis in utility and is just a comic book fantasy for a handful of hobbyists. Even if one were put on the market no one would have any use for it.
How in the actual hell is $170k not a price for the wealthy? My family is upper middle and there's not a snowball's chance in hell I could ever own something at that price. If these guys are targeting more of a middle America, they failed. It may not be cirrus pricing, but I can get a REALLY nice cherokee six for that much, and carry 5 passengers, and faster.
@@RoyGregorio eVTOL, presumably. Personally I think that technology has too many legal and logistical challenges at the moment and the Switchblade offers a great compromise for current-day use.
I disagree. It uses a series hybrid engine which offers the best advantages. It has some pure-electric range, yet uses combustion to generate charge. Automobile hybrids are already proven to be useful, but the bigger advantage is that in the air, it provides an additional safety buffer. Electric motors have like 1 moving part and almost never fail, compared especially to aviation piston engines. Should its generator engine fail, the electric props will still remain operational, giving much better options to land. On the other side, combustion still offers the best power to weight ratio for aviation
If you have to drivet9 an airport, it I notably flying car. It is a moble airplane. A flying car is something that I can take off from home and land at home. What you are saying is that I can drive to my closest airport, take offhand and drivero work. I'm looking g forward to the future.
Yes, and that's still an incredible convenience. It's perfect for spontaneous trips. There are airports everywhere... the problem has always been getting to your destination after landing. Point-to-point drone-like "flying car" vehicles are still a far off concept. The Switchblade, while still something of a stopgap, is great for today
Production model looks even more out of reach with twin motors and the added complexity. Nothing about that screams get it into the hands of as many people as possible.
@@RoyGregorio Moreover, powered lift is much more inefficient and will have even less range. A hybrid of both, like Beta or the Vickers e-Wave are probably the future... but that future is still quite a distance off. Wings work better right now
I think their "production" design is inferior to their concept vehicle. There are more folding parts, including folding propellers which increases the complexity (aka price) of each part, and also the number of things that can go wrong. Instead of going for increased airspeed, they should just focus on making the most reliable vehicle they can, and impress people by delivering something simple that works. Instead of simplifying (to make actual production vehicles hit their price and reliability targets) they are going in the wrong direction, focusing on performance and aesthetics. That doesn't bode well for the future of this company in my opinion.
By the way, their "published price" is an absolute joke. It's like when the Icon A5 initially proposed a price of around $150k, and eventually ended up costing more than double that amount due to the costs of setting up a working production line. These guys are not learning from Icon's mistakes, and will end up just like them, with an amazing vehicle that no one can buy, because the company went bankrupt.
These are fair concerns, definitely. I think the faster, sleeker model is designed to attract more customers and I agree with them that it does *look* nice, but that's all absolutely fair re: moving parts. Furthermore, a drastic redesign at this stage only pushes the production goal further out. It's already a holdout in the space as a CTOL, compared to the many drone-inspired alternatives; if it delays too long it will assuredly be overtaken by that technology. The price is also very optimistic, but Icon isn't an exact apple-to-apple comparison. The A5 is an LSA and the cost factors into the nature of one's production. The Switchblade is a kitbuilt. However, they are doing a builder-assisted 51% which sounds a lot like a production line in all but legality. All that said, if Samson ever ships this at anything close to its estimated price and anywhere close to 2026, I am already on the list waiting for one. Even if they go bankrupt after making 500 of these, there will still be 500 out there in the world. Likewise, Icon keeps going in and out of bankruptcy, but there are plenty of A5s out there for sale right now. The problem isn't even unique to Samson or Icon, being a GA manufacturer is just an uphill battle because GA is so close to dead it's on life support. Things are slowly getting better in a way that they weren't in Icon's time, so only time can tell.
I wish they would just stop using the term flying car. Nobody cares to have both at the same time. Like that Kirby vacuum cleaner that does it all. When it comes to flying I want a flying purposed vehicle only. If I want to drive I want the same. I want the air bags, side impact, and saftey for an enclosed vehicle when on the road. In the air a lightweight rigged vehicle that's not hindered by trying to stay in the rules of a road vehicle.
Personally, I think it offers great convenience for travel by the nature of being a roadable aircraft. It's unlikely to be a daily-driver and for some people it won't even be their daily-flier but I think it has great potential uses by having both modes. Insofar as the Switchblade's engineering, it does seem to be making the best compromises to this end, in my opinion. That said, I also have objections to the term "flying car." This marketing tends to attract know-nothings who consider it DOA due to needing a pilot license or an airfield and can't see the potential advantages.
I can't wait until the flying cars come out in 2025 mass production worldwide when the flying cars come out in 2025 and it'll be just like going to the car dealership buying a car but you'll be buying a flying car and it will be affordable for everybody in the United States I would rather fly in the sky for a new way of transportation
Any flying car worth its weight wouldn't have pieces of wood in front of the tires to keep it from rolling down the driveway. This looks like another funding grift that will never materialize.
I think the convenience is enough of a benefit. It allows a pilot to reach their destination without a taxi or a rental car. It doesn't need a hangar nor does it have to rely on an airfield's fuel. It allows a pilot to divert to another airport with minimal inconvenience and avoids get-there-itis. Of course it will never be a Cirrus nor a Golf, but the numbers on the website suggest it compares well to LSAs, and it will spend minimal time on the ground as it's not a daily-driver.
Thing is, everyone asks about price even before the vehicle is ready. Meanwhile, the product is working, just still in a design refinement stage, what with recent wind tunnel testing.
No, because it would save the not inconsiderable expenses of renting hangar space at an airport, as well as needing to buy aviation fuel. And it provides the convenience of being able to drive away in your own vehicle from the destination airport, instead of renting a car or using public transportation, if such are even available there.
That's a flying car, not a giant drone.
It's like a 1950s lifting body and a medieval plague doctor's mask has a baby
Motorcycle/trike that converts into an airplane, sweet!!
It's an aircraft..so it therefore REQUIRES a PILOT.
Yes, a sport pilot license would be required to fly one.
@@timothytikker1147 It's a kit aircraft, partly to avoid LSA restrictions. Currently you need a private, but with MOSAIC it might be eligible for SPL holders, and might get built as a certified or LSA eventually too.
I didn’t hear range, speed or useful load? And the $170,000 will be $500,000 in the and … at least.
Those can all be found on the Samson website.
160mph cruise airspeed, 125mph top ground speed. 450 miles range (unspecified if that's in the air or ground). 2 seats with 575 pounds load. LSA numbers mostly, except a high cruise speed.
Sadly probably will be true about price, though
@@Xatzimi No way the air range is 450 miles. That is pure fantasy.
@@LTVoyager It would be if it's all-electric, but it isn't, it's a hybrid. That range is still half that of similar weight aircraft. I think the number seems plausible, especially after moving away from the ducted prop design
@@Xatzimi I still call fantasy on the range. Then again, this project will never see the light of commercialization so it is doubtful we will ever know.
Looks like some interesting innovations here - can't believe that they can make all those folding parts fit into the car - impressive work, and I hope they are able to get this to the market for the price they mentioned.
@@dermick: Who would have a use for it?
@@rayray8687Any pilot who was interested in a two-seat aircraft would find the ability to hangar their plane in their garage to be of enormous benefit given what hangar space is going for.
The ability to drive one's plane home (as opposed to paying for a hotel and a tie-down) after being forced to divert due to weather is also a very nice feature to have.
It's far more "roadable aircraft" than "flying car" in the Jetsons sense, but that makes it more practical rather than less because the people buying it are just normally certificated pilots.
@@rayray8687 Private pilots who want to expand their options for first and last mile transport. Other benefits include fitting in a home garage and filling up with mogas directly at a gas station. If marketed right, it could get more people into GA for its conveniences
@@rayray8687 Somebody who is not good at math. A person who knows mathematics would calculate the price of a personal airplane, and a Rent-A-Car.
Should have been a full ducted fan. Inlet distortion is going to be a huge problem.
I like the concept in general, but the new design would require a multi rating. It should still fall under MOSAIC Light Sport, which is cool. That's likely why they decided on the second motor. Hopefully useful load will improve.
Hopefully it's possible to get an exemption for that or something, the new motors are electric, meaning they have almost a non-existent failure condition and their close proximity offers minimal thrust differential. Requiring a multi-engine rating will likely kill a lot of the market for this
@@Xatzimi It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'd like to see hard numbers on the twin... Useful load, cruise performance, etc. Being electric, the range can't be all that great.
@@JabariHunt The aircraft itself is a series hybrid, so I think the range estimate of 450nm is still plausible
@@Xatzimi In that case, it will likely still fall under MOSAIC!
In my state, since it has three wheels, it would be licensed as a motorcycle...No need to conform to automotive safety standards. If I could afford it, I would be interested in obtaining one.
Seems promising. I assume you still need a pilot certificate and that these don’t fall into ultralight status or something along those lines.
Well, sayings as Ultralights have to be less than 255 lbs, I'd venture a guess that they don't qualify...
Hope they don’t end up like icon aircraft.
This aircraft is way more complex than the Icon, i don't see how they can succeed. I would easily bet a grand they will fail before first model sold.
Beautiful! Make it happen…
It's cool but probably needs a 4th wheel.
Lots of new complexity in this redesign. $170k? How about $1 million?
It is a kit, to be fair, but yeah I highly doubt the price
Tail strike looking for a place to happen.
Wing strike, more like. Crosswind landings have to be tough with the minimal ground clearance
I hope it success
Flying cars will be in the medical field in flying cars have been a law enforcement filled
Hit a couple of potholes on the way to a strip where you’re able to take off… is it still airworthy? Are you an FAA qualified mechanic? At that price, it’s just for the very wealthy. The company won’t sell enough units to be profitable.
It's an experimental so you can do the maintenance yourself. You'd have to be hitting really big potholes to damage any vehicle, first of all
@@Xatzimi It’s only experimental if you build 51% of it yourself, if licensed in the USA. I don’t think you’re going to build this one yourself. And if you’ve ever driven in the New York metro area, you know there are some big potholes!
@@bruceburris3114 It will release as a kit and follows the 51% rule. I find it hard to imagine suspension built to take landing stress will not survive a pothole. More likely, as a 3-wheeler, it will just be uncomfortable when they can't be easily avoided
@@Xatzimi won’t make a good aircraft and won’t make a good car. Too many compromises and way too expensive.
It's so low to the ground, the body would take the damage. The suspension would not be the concern.
I like this very much
I want everybody in West Virginia and Kentucky and Ohio just have their own private helicopters for new way of transportation
Maybe WV and KY but there's 10 million people in Ohio
The world certainly has lots of models of flying cars, problem is none of them fly.
This prototype was actually flown in a test flight November 2023.
@@timothytikker1147: I’ve seen many easily recognizable CGI mock-ups but no real videos. The fact is the machine in this video appears to have no control surfaces on either the wings or the empennage and would be uncontrollable in the air. If it did rotate it would crash almost immediately.
The grey aircraft at the start of the video (N155SB) was shown flying. I'm pretty sure it was not CGI. The red one shown later is just an artist's impression of the next iteration.
@@PiefacePete46 yes, the grey aircraft is the prototype that had its first test flight in November 2023. Before then, it had a red plastic coating, hence the red color of the vehicle in all earlier images. But that coating was removed before the test flight, and has been kept off ever since.
@@rayray8687 It literally has flown in a flight demonstration on Samson's TH-cam channel. If you want to take issue with the fact that it's a prototype or something, fine, but don't just make up facts.
Love innovation, but to date nobody has been able or willing to answer my questions:
Insurance--will you need 2 separate insurances--one for the airplane feature and one for the car feature? For that matter, will any insurance provider be willing to insure it?
Will the states require a street license plate and in some require a periodic emissions test?
Weight--Will the car meet the government safety standards to be considered street legal and if so, how will the safety features affect weight / useful load/ performance?
If put into production, the owner will be required to obtain a pilot's license to supplement the driver's license, learn FAA regulations, weather, obtain a medical, have biennial
flight reviews, etc. etc. Will the general public owners be willing and eager to participate? Also, if put into production, annual inspections will be required. Will there be IAs that are willing to learn and work on these car/airframes and engines?
As a result, the years of implication that a car/airplane for everyone in every garage has been a wonderful concept, but reality suggests that this will be exclusively a homebuilt at best limiting ownership to existing pilots while still facing insurance and street legal requirements.
Hate to be a wet blanket as I applaud and admire the concept and engineering efforts, but can this actually be reality when all things are considered?
No need for IA for inspections if owner/builder.
@@tedgray489 Agree with your owner/builder response which is one of the reasons why I stated that in reality "this will be exclusively a homebuilt at best" and "if put into production, annual inspections will be required".
@@natedanna9155 Oh, I must have missed the idea of production for the masses. Rather than kit production. The last thing I would like is a person "driving" their "airplane" in the NAS with me.
@@natedanna9155: You’re right, the entire concept of ‘flying cars’ has no basis in utility and is just a comic book fantasy for a handful of hobbyists. Even if one were put on the market no one would have any use for it.
I need one flying car so how can I book it
Start studying for the FAA written exam for light sport pilot, before you decide to spend that money.
How in the actual hell is $170k not a price for the wealthy? My family is upper middle and there's not a snowball's chance in hell I could ever own something at that price. If these guys are targeting more of a middle America, they failed. It may not be cirrus pricing, but I can get a REALLY nice cherokee six for that much, and carry 5 passengers, and faster.
When the flying cars come out in 2025 in the United States I'm going to fly to Africa and I'm going to fly to Jamaica
I want everybody in the United States just have their own private helicopters
will never work, wing is too low. Tip strike in a crosswind or gust.
That guy with the fake flying car represents AOPA.
and yet U don't show it FLYING
Airplane
Say what you want it's still a airplane a car with wings it's still considered a airplane a true flying car does not have any wings
So how does a "true flying car" fly?
@@RoyGregorio eVTOL, presumably. Personally I think that technology has too many legal and logistical challenges at the moment and the Switchblade offers a great compromise for current-day use.
It's a car and it Flys so it's a flying car
Range? I suspect it's very small.
Samson says the range would be 400-450 miles, cruising speed 160 MPH, top speed 200.
That is a airplane not a flying car
can't drive airplanes on the road
And it's better for it
Would have been better with conventional gas engine.
I disagree. It uses a series hybrid engine which offers the best advantages. It has some pure-electric range, yet uses combustion to generate charge. Automobile hybrids are already proven to be useful, but the bigger advantage is that in the air, it provides an additional safety buffer. Electric motors have like 1 moving part and almost never fail, compared especially to aviation piston engines. Should its generator engine fail, the electric props will still remain operational, giving much better options to land. On the other side, combustion still offers the best power to weight ratio for aviation
good luck...chances are...it'll never happen...people have been "developing" flying cars for over 20 years...nothing on the market...
Nothing on the market cuz normal, blue collar, living paycheck to paycheck, people like us can't afford em!
Way longer than 20 years...
If you have to drivet9 an airport, it I notably flying car. It is a moble airplane. A flying car is something that I can take off from home and land at home. What you are saying is that I can drive to my closest airport, take offhand and drivero work.
I'm looking g forward to the future.
Yes, and that's still an incredible convenience. It's perfect for spontaneous trips. There are airports everywhere... the problem has always been getting to your destination after landing.
Point-to-point drone-like "flying car" vehicles are still a far off concept. The Switchblade, while still something of a stopgap, is great for today
I see up how bout down Good 👍
Fly
Production model looks even more out of reach with twin motors and the added complexity. Nothing about that screams get it into the hands of as many people as possible.
oh no, not another " the future is NOW" aircraft that will never be practical.
The wing concept is to old fashioned. Better off going the drone style route.
I hear this all the time, but a drone will not fly as fast as a fixed wing.
@@RoyGregorio Moreover, powered lift is much more inefficient and will have even less range. A hybrid of both, like Beta or the Vickers e-Wave are probably the future... but that future is still quite a distance off. Wings work better right now
I think their "production" design is inferior to their concept vehicle. There are more folding parts, including folding propellers which increases the complexity (aka price) of each part, and also the number of things that can go wrong. Instead of going for increased airspeed, they should just focus on making the most reliable vehicle they can, and impress people by delivering something simple that works. Instead of simplifying (to make actual production vehicles hit their price and reliability targets) they are going in the wrong direction, focusing on performance and aesthetics. That doesn't bode well for the future of this company in my opinion.
By the way, their "published price" is an absolute joke. It's like when the Icon A5 initially proposed a price of around $150k, and eventually ended up costing more than double that amount due to the costs of setting up a working production line. These guys are not learning from Icon's mistakes, and will end up just like them, with an amazing vehicle that no one can buy, because the company went bankrupt.
These are fair concerns, definitely. I think the faster, sleeker model is designed to attract more customers and I agree with them that it does *look* nice, but that's all absolutely fair re: moving parts. Furthermore, a drastic redesign at this stage only pushes the production goal further out. It's already a holdout in the space as a CTOL, compared to the many drone-inspired alternatives; if it delays too long it will assuredly be overtaken by that technology. The price is also very optimistic, but Icon isn't an exact apple-to-apple comparison. The A5 is an LSA and the cost factors into the nature of one's production. The Switchblade is a kitbuilt. However, they are doing a builder-assisted 51% which sounds a lot like a production line in all but legality.
All that said, if Samson ever ships this at anything close to its estimated price and anywhere close to 2026, I am already on the list waiting for one. Even if they go bankrupt after making 500 of these, there will still be 500 out there in the world. Likewise, Icon keeps going in and out of bankruptcy, but there are plenty of A5s out there for sale right now. The problem isn't even unique to Samson or Icon, being a GA manufacturer is just an uphill battle because GA is so close to dead it's on life support. Things are slowly getting better in a way that they weren't in Icon's time, so only time can tell.
Need a multi-engine rating to drive this on the street
no, you don't need it to drive. Only to fly
🤘
I wish they would just stop using the term flying car. Nobody cares to have both at the same time. Like that Kirby vacuum cleaner that does it all.
When it comes to flying I want a flying purposed vehicle only. If I want to drive I want the same. I want the air bags, side impact, and saftey for an enclosed vehicle when on the road. In the air a lightweight rigged vehicle that's not hindered by trying to stay in the rules of a road vehicle.
Personally, I think it offers great convenience for travel by the nature of being a roadable aircraft. It's unlikely to be a daily-driver and for some people it won't even be their daily-flier but I think it has great potential uses by having both modes. Insofar as the Switchblade's engineering, it does seem to be making the best compromises to this end, in my opinion.
That said, I also have objections to the term "flying car." This marketing tends to attract know-nothings who consider it DOA due to needing a pilot license or an airfield and can't see the potential advantages.
I can't wait until the flying cars come out in 2025 mass production worldwide when the flying cars come out in 2025 and it'll be just like going to the car dealership buying a car but you'll be buying a flying car and it will be affordable for everybody in the United States I would rather fly in the sky for a new way of transportation
The tricycle is no good
It works much better as landing gear than a quad layout, and it's not really meant to drive nearly as often as it flies anyway
If we can't see a fly, who cares?😂😂😂
Any flying car worth its weight wouldn't have pieces of wood in front of the tires to keep it from rolling down the driveway.
This looks like another funding grift that will never materialize.
Doesn’t make a good car, nor a good airplane!
They never do.
I think the convenience is enough of a benefit. It allows a pilot to reach their destination without a taxi or a rental car. It doesn't need a hangar nor does it have to rely on an airfield's fuel. It allows a pilot to divert to another airport with minimal inconvenience and avoids get-there-itis.
Of course it will never be a Cirrus nor a Golf, but the numbers on the website suggest it compares well to LSAs, and it will spend minimal time on the ground as it's not a daily-driver.
I’m waiting for an Elon version
You're giving price without showing a working product that's quite unreasonable. Show us a working product first.
Thing is, everyone asks about price even before the vehicle is ready. Meanwhile, the product is working, just still in a design refinement stage, what with recent wind tunnel testing.
@@timothytikker1147 when we gonna see it hit the skies
Isn't a flying car it's a small plane
Are you allowed to drive small planes on public roads?
A plane that you can drive to your garage or your hotel, and that's awesome
No advancement here! You still need a runway and pilots license. It's a plane with folding wings! How dumb, what a waste of time, money and effort.
No, because it would save the not inconsiderable expenses of renting hangar space at an airport, as well as needing to buy aviation fuel. And it provides the convenience of being able to drive away in your own vehicle from the destination airport, instead of renting a car or using public transportation, if such are even available there.
I think most people would be complaining if you didn't need a pilot's license to fly. Imagine the dangers of anybody being able to fly this.