CAR WITH PROP (Oct, 1955)

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.

17 comments
  1. Mike says: December 7, 20089:06 pm

    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.

  2. Eamon says: December 7, 20089:36 pm

    Well fender-benders are going to get more interesting. Try and tailgate me now.

  3. John M. Hanna says: December 7, 20089:40 pm

    I wonder if that California manufacturer was a resident of the State Psychiatric Hospital?

  4. Toronto says: December 7, 200810:46 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.”

  5. Don says: December 8, 20089:58 am

    Can’t you naysayers read? It states clearly: “. . . the only bad feature of the car is poor acceleration up to 40 mph.”

  6. Mark says: December 8, 200812:32 pm

    “. . . 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!

  7. Jilly says: December 8, 20081:28 pm

    Is the big gaping maw in the back of the car for the storage of propeller-related debris?

  8. Don says: December 8, 20082:29 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 . . . .

    ;^)

  9. Tracy B. says: December 8, 20085:01 pm

    I’d rather have a car with an afterburning turbofan…..

  10. Gutie says: December 8, 20086:35 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.

  11. Charlie says: December 8, 20087:21 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.

  12. Torgo says: December 8, 20089:02 pm

    I like it.

    If the Batmobile isn’t absurd enough for you, now it comes in prop.

  13. Neil Russell says: December 9, 200812:02 am

    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.

  14. Don says: December 9, 200812:04 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 . . . .

  15. LightningRose says: December 9, 20084:36 pm

    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!

  16. Richard C says: December 9, 20085:20 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?

  17. Taylor says: January 20, 20094:03 pm

    I don’t know what i enjoyed reading more, the article or the comments!

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.