CAR WITH PROP (Oct, 1955)
Filed under: Automotive — @ 7:43 pm
Source: Mechanix Illustrated ( More articles from this issue )
Issue: Oct, 1955
| Buy on Ebay
Source: Mechanix Illustrated ( More articles from this issue )
Issue: Oct, 1955
| Buy on Ebay
CAR WITH PROP
Unique Argentine Aerocar can do 100 mph and is being considered for mass production in the U.S.
THIS peppy-looking buggy with the unorthodox propeller on its tail is the new Argentine Aerocar powered by a 90-brake horsepower Chevy engine and with a top speed of about 100 mph. Designers and builders Eugenio Grosovich and Gianfranco Bricci claim the only bad feature of the car is poor acceleration up to 40 mph. A California manufacturer is interested in buying the prototype and producing the vehicle in large numbers in the United States.
is being considered for mass production in the U.S.
Really? Was this seriously considered?
I used to laugh how the batmobile had a jet engine (Thrust power) yet would spin its tires.
Comment by Mike — December 7, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
Well fender-benders are going to get more interesting. Try and tailgate me now.
Comment by Eamon — December 7, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
I wonder if that California manufacturer was a resident of the State Psychiatric Hospital?
Comment by John M. Hanna — December 7, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
“This is the OnStar command center. We’ve detected a collision between your car and a fan-car. We’re dispatching a lawyer to your location.”
Comment by Toronto — December 7, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Can’t you naysayers read? It states clearly: “. . . the only bad feature of the car is poor acceleration up to 40 mph.”
Comment by Don — December 8, 2008 @ 9:58 am
“. . . the only bad feature of the car is poor acceleration up to 40 mph.” and the death-potential for any pedestrians who happen to get close to the exposed propeller!
Comment by Mark — December 8, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Is the big gaping maw in the back of the car for the storage of propeller-related debris?
Comment by Jilly — December 8, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
>and the death-potential for any pedestrians who happen to get close to the exposed propeller!
Is that important? It wasn’t mentioned in the article . . . .
;^)
Comment by Don — December 8, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
I’d rather have a car with an afterburning turbofan…..
Comment by Tracy B. — December 8, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Well, they do need small fillers sometimes to complete the page. Some of their 12 YO readers may actually have believed that this was a viable proposition. Do you suppose they’d have used ‘39 Ford headlights and taillights in the production models? Is the some reason that the famous Tom McCahill road tests are never included in the selection of articles? Those would really be fun to read now.
Comment by Gutie — December 8, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
I thought this was cute, from a comment at gizmodo:
Don’t cry for me Argentina/
The truth is my car is deadly/
All through the city streets/
It kills people dead/
I kept on driving/
The blood runs red.
I don’t post most of the McCahill reviews because they’re kind of boring. Do people want more of those? It’s just an auto review of a 60 year old car. I guess after having read them I stopped giggling at 0-60 in under 20 seconds being defined a blistering pace.
Comment by Charlie — December 8, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
I like it.
If the Batmobile isn’t absurd enough for you, now it comes in prop.
Comment by Torgo — December 8, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
I used to love “Uncle” Tom’s reviews. Even 30 plus years later I remember a quote from a review of the 1972 or 73 Chrysler Imperial; “Although quality of workmanship isn’t apparent here, you still won’t be slumming in the new Imp.”
Of course I used to like “MiMi” too.
Comment by Neil Russell — December 9, 2008 @ 12:02 am
>I don’t post most of the McCahill reviews because they’re kind of boring. Do people
>want more of those? It’s just an auto review of a 60 year old car. I guess after having
>read them I stopped giggling at 0-60 in under 20 seconds being defined a blistering pace.
Uhhh . . . yeah; once in a while. I really liked Tom’s reviews when I was a kid, so reading some of them again might be a hoot. But only once in a while to spare those who are going to be bored by them — one of the attractions of this site is the incredible variety, after all . . . .
Comment by Don — December 9, 2008 @ 12:04 am
I can’t help but think about the time I was riding my bicycle and rear ended a car when I was about 13. eep!
Comment by LightningRose — December 9, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
I’ve flown light planes, and after taxiing for awhile, you quickly learn why cars aren’t driven by propellors — they’re lousy with hills, low speed, and nearby pedestrians, traffic, and foreign objects. Imagine backing into a parking space. Or driving under low-hanging tree branches. Or hitting the throttle to back out of your spot at the supermarket and sucking the nearby grocery cart into your prop. Or applying enough thrust to slowly inch your way up the hills on San Francisco city streets in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Not to mention the noise. And they say the ONLY fault they could find was poor acceleration?
Comment by Richard C — December 9, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
I don’t know what i enjoyed reading more, the article or the comments!
Comment by Taylor — January 20, 2009 @ 4:03 pm