Truth is, a number of attempts have been made in the past and are currently in process.

The focus has been:

1. On a vehicle that could fly directly to and from a point without using roads. This applies primarily to light helicopters of which there are many really good designs available. The problem here is safe take-off and landing points. A helicopter is limited to using established helipads in built-up areas. Use of a ground vehicle is necessary for destinations beyond the helipad.

2. A car with retracting or folding wings that requires a runway to take off and land, also known as a roadable aircraft. This concept is only feasible for relatively long distance travelling, as the nearest airport may be further than the destination.

The only practical way to make a flying VTOL commuter vehicle, usable on the road, is by utilizing rotors in one form or another.

Helicopter blades provide the most efficient form of lift for this application. Small diameter turboprops have been tried, but the result is unstable and very difficult to control.

The large diameter helicopter rotor that is required to lift a small car makes it impractical

The difficulty in flying a helicopter plus the cost of pilot license makes it impractical

CAA certification extremely difficult

Long time high costs in aviation industry due to limited production runs make any form of aircraft costlier than the utility factor of being able to fly.

Earlier accident rates in the rotorcraft industry led to decreased development funds being made available by governments.

Development of the tilt rotor fixed wing was considered to be the way of the future because of the higher speeds attainable

Because there is no friction when the craft is in the air, changes in direction and stopping is slow, making it dangerous in built up areas. This is a major issue with the original thinking in the design of commuter aircraft. They cannot be flown in the suburbs. Period.

Most of the existing designs require a runway, albeit a short one as used by autogyros. Establishing new landing strips is expensive and costly to maintain.

Automobile design and aircraft design are poles apart. Automobiles require high impact resistance and levels of comfort, which make them heavy. Aircraft on the other hand require to be very light, to optimise flight characteristics. A very difficult task for the designer.

So far, nobody else has realized that less may be more when it comes to rotor design and that the only safe development is where safe take off and landing areas are used, such as a network of helipads which are relatively inexpensive to establish and maintain. A helipad can be a paved or concrete area, 10m x 10m with a windsock and a 360 degree clear approach. There are already thousands in existence in shopping malls, industrial areas, hospitals and on top of buildings.

Truth is, a number of attempts have been made in the past and are currently in process.

The focus has been:

1. On a vehicle that could fly directly to and from a point without using roads. This applies primarily to light helicopters of which there are many really good designs available. The problem here is safe take-off and landing points. A helicopter is limited to using established helipads in built-up areas. Use of a ground vehicle is necessary for destinations beyond the helipad.

2. A car with retracting or folding wings that requires a runway to take off and land, also known as a roadable aircraft. This concept is only feasible for relatively long distance travelling, as the nearest airport may be further than the destination.

The only practical way to make a flying VTOL commuter vehicle, usable on the road, is by utilizing rotors in one form or another.

Helicopter blades provide the most efficient form of lift for this application. Small diameter turboprops have been tried, but the result is unstable and very difficult to control.

The large diameter helicopter rotor that is required to lift a small car makes it impractical

The difficulty in flying a helicopter plus the cost of pilot license makes it impractical

CAA certification extremely difficult

Long time high costs in aviation industry due to limited production runs make any form of aircraft costlier than the utility factor of being able to fly.

Earlier accident rates in the rotorcraft industry led to decreased development funds being made available by governments.

Development of the tilt rotor fixed wing was considered to be the way of the future because of the higher speeds attainable

Because there is no friction when the craft is in the air, changes in direction and stopping is slow, making it dangerous in built up areas. This is a major issue with the original thinking in the design of commuter aircraft. They cannot be flown in the suburbs. Period.

Most of the existing designs require a runway, albeit a short one as used by autogyros. Establishing new landing strips is expensive and costly to maintain.

Automobile design and aircraft design are poles apart. Automobiles require high impact resistance and levels of comfort, which make them heavy. Aircraft on the other hand require to be very light, to optimise flight characteristics. A very difficult task for the designer.

So far, nobody else has realized that less may be more when it comes to rotor design and that the only safe development is where safe take off and landing areas are used, such as a network of helipads which are relatively inexpensive to establish and maintain. A helipad can be a paved or concrete area, 10m x 10m with a windsock and a 360 degree clear approach. There are already thousands in existence in shopping malls, industrial areas, hospitals and on top of buildings.