Brilliant design and great to see some decent real-life flight evidence, proving that the concept actually works safely.
Pierre Collet
Wonderful video for what looks to me like one of the first really usable flying cars. As a pilot, I don't know what makes you think it is front-heavy (is it because the front is painted black?

Or rather... when analysing the takeoff, I see what is happening... and what made you think so...

There are 2 categories of normal planes: taildraggers (2 main wheels on the front of the center of gravity and a small wheel or skid on the back, look for the photo of a DC-3 or a Pitts) and planes with a tricycle landing gear (one small front wheel in front of the center of gravity and 2 main wheels behind the COG, look for a Cessna 152 or any recent Boeing / Airbus).

This car is certainly not in the taildragger category, but nor in the tricycle category, because it has 4 wheels... and there lies the difference... on a tricycle plane, the rear wheels are very close to the COG, meaning that you can easily lift the nose of the plane by moderately pressing on the tail of the plane (this is what occurs at rotation when the pilot pulls on the yoke: the elevator points down and pushes on the tail so that the nose lifts off). Because the main landing gear is so close of the COG, when you take off, rotation only needs a small pull on the yoke (the plane has a natural tendency to fly when above stall speed), so virtually no effort is needed on the yoke to for a standard tricycle gear plane to take off at (or beyond) rotation speed.

Here, when you look at the video, you see that the pilot is pulling briskly on the yoke, then pushing back briskly again, probably to avoid a stall and to reach safe climbing speed while staying in ground effect...

I think this is necessary because the back wheels are really aft, a lot behind the COG of the plane, so they prevent it from rotating naturally even when rotation speed is reached. This is why the tail extends so far on the back of the car, so that the elevator has enough down power to lift the nose of the car in spite of the very aft position of the rear wheels wrt the COG.

Then, when you managed to lift of the nose of the car thanks to this ample yoke movement, you risk having the nose of the car point really up and get the car to stall at such a low speed due to a too weak engine power, so once it is off the ground, you need to briskly push back on the yoke (but not too much because you don't want to hit the runway nose down) in order to get back to a horizontal flight and accelerate in ground effect thanks to the realtively low position of the wings until you reach proper climb speed...

So I believe that this "heavy front" sensation you had comes from the fact that for the car to drive safely without getting its nose up in the air if you drive over a bump on the road (this would happen if the rear wheels were as near from the COG as they are on a tricycle gear plane), the COG needs to be well in between the front and rear wheels, and even extending the tail cannot pull back the COG near enough the "main" rear gear so as to guarantee a smooth takeoff as in standard tricycle gear aircraft.

Non-pilots may now ask how taildragger aircrafts proceed for taking off knowing that when they are still, their rear wheel is on the ground (meaning that you cannot push down lower than the ground for rotation)... Well, if you observe an old DC-3 taking off (or any taildragger taking off), you will see that before rotation, upon acceleration, the pilot starts by raising the tail so that the aircraft takes on a flying attitude with a horizontal tail... (the COG is quite on the front of the plane due to the weight of the engine, so it does not take much speed to raise the tail) so the tail wheel is up in the air well before rotation, (and the pilot "drives" the plane with the rudder and possibly ailerons to counter possible side wind), and when rotation speed is achieved, a very light pull on the yoke will get you naturally up in the air...

Hope this helped (and hope I'm not too off the real explanation of why this (shockingly for a pilot) brisk and ample pull on the yoke for takeoff).
Paul Aarden
Neat indeed even if it may not make any money - would prefer the actual flight sounds etc to the inane bloody elevator or lift music - doing your best to turn us away from a fascinating video - can you stop it?
Great job. But he forgot the cup holder.
Super cool articulated tail and wing process! Popular Mechanics and Popular Science stories of 40+ years ago finally getting the closest to reality in several varieties. But this one seems to fit on the road the best.
This one looks nicer than the other cars. It actually looks like a car while still looking stylish in the air. What's the full weight take-off, length of runaway for take off and landing ?
Better wing storage than the Terrafugia. Can't wait to see some performance specs. Still for a post apocalypses zombie world the skyrunner is probably more practicle!
Vernon Miles Kerr
Damn! It's a sexy design! No question about that. I'd love a two-seater roadster with that frontend. But I fear fixed-wing aircars are anachronistic A multi-rotor platform with various interchangeable passenger and cargo pods will be the way things go, IMHO.
Nelson Hyde Chick
The flying car idea is so impractical to ever happen, so why can't it die?
Yet another flying car design that will probably run out of $$$'s before it is certified as both a car and airplane. But people have to keep trying, I guess!?