Slashdot Mirror
Fabulous Flying Machine Progress
HobbySpacer writes "A SoloTrek video shows a recent tethered hover test of the one person VTOL vehicle.The company has DARPA and NASA support and has
carried out a number of sucessful wind tunnel
and power tests.
Meanwhile, the
CarterCopter RotorWing demonstrator may
soon show for the first time that a vehicle with a rotor can safely achieve very high airspeeds (e.g.400-500 mph) where the
tip speed is actually slower than the vehicle speed. This has been a great
project to follow since they are so open and honest about the
various
problems and fixes during the development.
Just wish Moller
was as transparent about the Skycar.
At least a video
and some images
were recently posted showing the nose of the craft lifting off
under its own power."
The CarterCopter does not spin because it is not a helecopter, it is a gyro. The main roter is not connected to anything and is autorotating. The engine is driving a push prop.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
True but this is more than made up for by the fact that the aircraft has more drag at low altitude. Check out any turbocharged or jet aircraft performence chart.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
They are still smoking something, if you have an engine that can deliver 150 hp sustained and burn 1.5 gph I would be very suprised. The Rotax 912 engine burns about 4.2 gph and only delivers about
70 hp (80 is takeoff power but by the time you have climbed a few thousand feet you are down in the 60-70 hp range). So even if it used *HALF* of what the Rotax (Which is a 4 cylander) it would still be burning 2.1 gph/engine times 8. And I don't think you can get that kind of speed out of that kind of thurst.
--Zach Kessin
Private Pilot
Erlang Developer and podcaster
IF the engine dies you glide. Same as in an airplane. You do practice this a million times before you go solo.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The class (Powered Lift) has been in the FAR's for a while. The Moller one will nevery fly but Bell and Boeing are working on something like a Civilian version of the V44 Osrprey that will be a powered lift craft. It will be smaller then the one that they are making for the marines. And when Bell and Boing announce they are building an aircraft unlike Moller I actualy belive them.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
This applies to the US only, other countries may vary.
First of all to fly eather of these things you will need to have a pilot's licence, which requires a fair investment in time and money to get.(At *LEAST* 40 hrs of flight pass a test etc)
They Gyrocopter can be treated as an Airplane by ATC except for takeoff and landing. In addition if it is as high powered as they are saying then your insurance company is going to make sure you meet a set of training requirments far above what the FAA will want to see.
Also they will not be as cheap as people are claiming the cleapest 4 place certified aircraft these days costs about $145,000 new. (The Cessna 172)
Erlang Developer and podcaster
No feathering is what you do to a twin when an engine fails. It takes the prop and makes sure that it does not spin and create a lot of drag. From what I know about autorotating that is more or less right for a helicopter. Note that this does not apply to a gyrocopter. One of these days I want to learn to fly a helicopter, but at $200/hr and up it won't be soon.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The specs say it will cruse at 15mpg and 350 mph. That means that it will be burning 24 gallons per hour. But it apeears to have 4 engines, which means that it will be using 6 gph per engine. I would love to know where they plan to find a Jet Engine that uses 6gph and still can turn out the type of thurst that they will need to go 350 mph, even at 25,000 ft.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Well sort of, they use the engine to spin up the roter, but once you are airborn the roter just spins due to the air passing threw it. Helecoptors can do this as well, its what you do if the engine dies. Gyrocoptors can be setup to take of and land with basicly no runway, but they can't hover or take of verticaly. So they need a clear space to climb over obsticals or whatever.
I would get a gyrocoptor rating if I could find flight school around here that gave them, but for now I will just stick to my little airplane.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
You are comparing an efficiency (2/3 hp/lb) that was actually measured in the real world, to one of Moller's outrageous figures pulled out his ass.
Moller is a con artist of high caliber. Every time his company is running out of money, he announces some new breakthrough, but doesn't show it to anybody. I'll believe in his flying machine when it actually flies, and not a day earlier.
Actually, I don't believe that any of these personal flying machines will achieve the goal of making flying accessible to non-pilots. There are just too many factors involved in the judgement involved in being a pilot to believe they could ever be automated. And car drivers are far more prone to "get-home-itis", but rarely die from it. In a plane, you just can't pull over until the thunderstorm passes - if you're in it, you'd better have an up to date will, because it's too late to do anything except hold on and hope you don't die.
--
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Wankels were used for early high performance Mazda automobiles.
Yeah, and they ate gas and produced smog at a prodigious rate. Moller is claiming much higher power at much lower fuel flow than any engine known in the world. Has any independant lab tested Moller's miracle engine? I don't think so.
Moller has given demonstrations to everyone.
You mean like that so-called "hover test" which actually shows the thing dangling on a wire? Looks like those "yogic flying" demos, or some of the worst of the UFO film, except Moller has less credibility than either of those two groups.
Moller's been working for over 20 years on this stuff. Show me one "aircar" that he's produced that can hover under its own power, and fly with a pilot on board. So far, all he's done is make a lot of claims, shown a couple of rigged demos, and redesigned his fuselage a few times to make it look cooler but less aerodynamic.
--
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
They also need to feather the rotors at precisely the right moment, to generate lift that will keep them from smoking into the ground.
If you fail to feather soon enough, you impact the ground... very hard.
If you feather too soon, you actually gain altitude, then lose the ability to autorotate, and plummet to the ground... very hard.
If you do it just right, you generate just enough lift to achieve no velocity just at the moment the helicopter touches down. Or, more likely, almost no velocity, so that you impact the ground gently.
(I think it's "feathering." Something like that.)
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
From the SkyCar technology page:
"Moller rotary engines were developed from technology obtained from Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) and are of the Wankel-Type. During each rotation of the rotor a four-stroke spark ignition combustion process occurs in each of the three pockets of a triangular rotor. After one full rotation of the rotor the engine has completed the four-stroke process three times. They therefore provide a high power-to-weight ratio at a reasonable cost and are very small for their power output. The 150 HP model used in the M400 can be easily carried by one person. Eight Rotapower engines are used in the production model volantor."
They're not using a jet engine, they're using rotary engines known to be incredibly efficient.
Check out this site for some good reading on the technology: http://www.freedom-motors.com/
While these machines are pretty neat, they look rather spartan. I mean, where is the cellphone, the makeup mirror, cupholders, entertainment center and web terminal? God forbid the driver should have to devote the entirety of their travel time, to just piloting the craft.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
flight patters
"I tailed up, flogged out, he dicky-birded, and the nabber tickled on the tocker-bang."
My apologies to Monty Python for that terrible, terrible paraphrase.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Don't forget the kids who can jump over one of these suckers. These flying cars will add a wonderful new set of Jackass stunts.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
They promised us jetpacks! I want my jetpack! Where the hell is my jetpack?!
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
yeah, but shorter runways, like a hundred feet i think. and engine failure just means you have to land NOW, rather than crash.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Yeah but its pretty easy to program in a few more "sky lanes" for rush hour
Trust me, it's not. Airspace noise restrictions are a major problem today: if you get hundreds of low-flying planes every day over your house you watch property values tank. People will fight any such action tooth and nail: I've seen it for small airports that want to allow a few more corporate jets/week in, much less this level of traffic.
Add to that the complication of existing routes around major cities. Anywhere you'd want to avoid traffic is probably class B, or at least class C airspace. There are control towers that move all traffic around these areas for a 30-mile radius at the minimum. It's just not going to be as easy as people seem to think.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
And what I hear from people who've done it is that it is, marginally, preferable to boring a hole in the ground. Apparently the chopper spins one way and the rotors another. At the same speed. Barf-o-matic.
Best Slashdot Co
The centrifugal force from 55-pounds of depleted uranium in each blade tip keeps the rotor rigid and stable at the reduced rotor rpm and high forward speeds.
Uranium? That's what they use in Nookyooler reactors, and those are EVIL and will DESTROY THE WORLD! The CarterCopter must be STOPPED!
I really like the look of the Moller SKycar. It looks like the Mach 5, but with jet engines instead of wheels.
Whatever happened to Dean Kamen's mysterious Ginger project? Could that be some sort of flying machine? And why does Amazon lilst it under "Electronics"? Enquiring minds want to know.
http://www.nastran.com/website/files/skyrider/m
This inventor had the rather brilliant idea of using an electric transmission to drive the fans. It looks to me like he might actually deliver what Mosher has been promising for the last few decades.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Its bad enough when a bird hits a glass window but now we have some adult with a huge hunk of steel strapped to their back ramming the patio doors
The CarterCopter is being modeled and flight tested with X-Plane by Laminar Research. It is the most advanced consumer flight simulator that uses blade element analysis too calculate ALL of the real physical forces acting on the aircraft! Check out the X-Plane Front Page for pics of the CarterCoptor test pilot taking a test flight on a new Apple G4 (in the hanger with the actual plane in the background).
A SoloTrek video shows a recent tethered hover test of the one person VTOL vehicle.The company has DARPA and NASA support and has carried out a number of sucessful wind tunnel and power tests.
Um, and exactly what do you do when the engine dies? Oh, yeah, that's right, YOU die. The rotors are too small to have enough inertia for successful auto-rotation. DARPA and NASA support do not signify this will ever be available to the public, or even USED in the military. If anything, this is a "see where the technology goes" program, not something anyone envisions ever being viable. Did you LOOK at the video? That isn't a "teathered FLIGHT", that's hanging from a wire. No proof of ability to actually produce enough lift to fly under it's own power. No proof of any kind of controlability when not supported by the wire.
Meanwhile, the CarterCopter RotorWing demonstrator may soon show for the first time that a vehicle with a rotor can safely achieve very high airspeeds (e.g.400-500 mph) where the tip speed is actually slower than the vehicle speed. This has been a great project to follow since they are so open and honest about the various problems and fixes during the development.
Umm, what about all that DRAG from the rotor system? Sure, they've "solved" retreating blade stall by flying the thing on the wing at altitude, but since the rotor system is still turning, the energy to turn the rotors is pure drag. You mean Gulfstream and Bombardie and Cessna have wasted all that money making thier aircraft aerodynamic? The Gulfstream IV is only certified to 45,000. They obviously aren't going to power the "real" one with a piston engine, but even a turbine will only output a fraction of sea level power at that altitude. So far, they've achieved something like 2000 feet, and they've only crashed 3 times!
Just wish Moller was as transparent about the Skycar. At least a video and some images were recently posted showing the nose of the craft lifting off under its own power.
Moller. How long has this guy been promising "real soon now"? And the pics show the nose being lifted by "2 of the 4 front engines". How many engines are in the back? Probably at least 4 more. Where is all the fuel to run all these engines going to be stored? And oh, by the way, Avgas is about 6lb/gal. At his claimed speed of 350mph, and 15 miles/gallon, that works out to 23 gallons per hour. Total. For ALL the engines, not each engine. Wonder why most twins suck around 15-18 gal/hour/side and don't go anywhere near that fast? And, oh, by the way, looks like if you run it out of fuel, you die.
Aviation is full of this kind of crap. Even Eclipse, a relatively convential design promising a 365 knot jet for under $900k is smoking crack. They claim first flight will be July 2002 with certification by the end of 2003. Not a chance. Even presuming that thier first aircraft is fully conformed and doesn't need any tweaks requireing more than extreamly minor redesign, you can't certify a twin jet in 18 months. There's too much flying, too much testing, too much red tape to cut through.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Merde, il pleut encore!
Courtesy of Apple - I chucked the video on my idisk. It's 1.6 meg Quicktime. Kick Apple's server in the nuts and see how it holds up under the slashdotting, I've always been curious. :)
TomatoMan
-- http://frobnosticate.com
BTW ultralights probably fit into this same exact category as these machines, and again, rocket fired parachutes can save your but even from very low altitude.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth"
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I still can't wait for my own personal air travel. It's coming, but I will believe it when I see it, or can buy it. After all how many times has the Mosler vehicle been on a the cover of Popular Mechanics or another similliar publication?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth"
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
They probably make sense in a ducted-fan VTOL machine though - less weight means you need a less powerful engine to provide a controlled descent during engine-out scenarios.
There's a big NASA-funded push to get the cost of small jet engines down. Jet-powered general aviation would be a big win. Jets are more powerful, quieter, and more reliable than reciprocating engines. They just cost too much to make. This problem is just about to be cracked.
That's the big news. With cheaper jets, lots of aircraft designs marginal with reciprocating engines will make sense.
Very, very few people can do really good mechanical design. All the mechanical teletype machines were designed by Ed Klienschmidt. Williams, the designer of the EJ22, designed the jet engines for cruise missiles, and the backpack jet engine for the 1960s flying backpack. He's been responsible for most of the innovation that worked in small jet engines. He's in his 80s. Unclear if anybody can replace him.
D.F. Jones, who wrote the Daedelus column in New Scientist for years, suggested this idea years ago. He proposed one spherical wheel, but you don't really want to do it that way; driving a sphere is a pain if the sphere can get dirty. (Think of the mouse ball problem.) Nor do you want to build a self-balancing unicycle. (A friend of mine at Stanford's robotics lab did that. It works, but there's no neutral position for that geometry, and it works too hard standing still.) Two separately-driven wheels, as Kamen's wheelchair uses, are the way to go.
There's a lot of noise about a Stirling-cycle engine for Ginger, but I'll bet it turns out to be the standard powerplant for indoor operation - a 4-cycle internal combustion engine running on butane. Thousands of lift trucks work that way. Stirling-cycle engines aren't that efficient.
The reason it's supposed to be a big deal is that it's a vehicle that can cross the boundary between indoors and outdoors. This could lead to downtown areas with big parking structures nearby but no cars in the built-up area.
Of course, a skateboard has much the same advantages, except that it requires a skilled operator.
Cartercopter! Good Lord I never seen it! This is why keep reading slashdot. I have little resources for it, but this stuff is in my blood. Along with NASA's programs http://sats.nasa.gov , the Cirrus http://www.cirrusdesign.com and Eclipse http://www.eclipseaviation.com projects etc. It feels like a long sought renaissance in General Aviation! Potential Aviation Geeks: Know that as we speak, the great pilgimage to Mecca is happening. OSHKOSH!!!: http://www.airventure.org I wish I was there. When I lived in the midwestern US I went every year. Even if you are not into aircraft its truly a hackfest of another color that anyone here would goosepimple at. (If 50 WWII warbirds roaring overhead at once doesn't do it - Lots of workshops, commercial exhibits, NASA, tons of aircraft; homebuilts, experimentals, ultralights, rotorcraft that you can actually examine up close.) It's truly a wonderful event. And if you can't make Oshkosh, there are smaller Airshows hosted by the Experimental Aircraft Association. http://www.eaa.org/ I just went to the one up here in Arlington WA US and it was great. The EAA is a great organization. These guys are the DIY set of GA and they've kept the open source spirit of grassroots technology sharing since the ENIAC days. Oshkosh! I'm just assuming all active Flying Geeks already know about it or are there.
That seems to match up with reason. As they point out, most helicopters and cars average 5 times the cost of their engines. Given their freedom motor spinoff info, the engines are going to cost 2,000$ each initially. Multiply that times 8 engines, that's 16,000$. Multiply by 5... ;)
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
They have new FAA regulations in the works. If you'll browse around on Moller's site, you'll find that the FAA has already created a new license class (powered lift) for vehicles like these.
-= Rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Am I the only one looking at those choppers and going, "ummm..."?
:)
110 lbs of depleted uranium? incredibly delicate balance issues? not even the slightest hint of a pricing estimate on the page, or even clues that pricing was a concern at all during the design?
These are clearly not designed for mass production. They should not be classed in with "skycars", but with helicopters.
Another thing: their engine is getting less than 2/3 hp/lb. Thats a really poor ratio compared to Moller's, and given their engine setup, probably very fuel inefficient.
I won't be holding my breath waiting for one of those. I'll wait for my Skycar.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Oh, you could have so much fun with ground lights, or even directional spotlights (strobes? colors? Disco ball?) ;) What would be great would be something like the goodyear blimp had, where you can have it post messages ;)
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Um, the wankels moller uses are already in use in many other places. Under a DARPA contract, they produced a honda civic designed for fuel efficiency which got 3/4 HP/LB. Their outboard engine, designed for performance, gets 2.5HP/LB. The engines have already been tested - the engine manufacturing company has already had a complete spinoff. Wankels were used for early high performance Mazda automobiles. They were discontinued because their model had weak seals and tended to leak oil, but the engines themselves performed quite well. So, first off, quit accusing people of fabricating data when you don't have any yourself.
The ones Moller is using for the M400 get over 2HP/LB in the lab (the number they used to brag about), but in the field, the number is actually about 1.5. Still far, far better performance than this chopper.
Moller has given demonstrations to everyone. Name something they have claimed to have developed but never shown. I'm waiting.
As for your last point, that may be true, it may not be. But, if you're going to make claims like your former ones, please back them up.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
"will never fly".
I'll take issue with that. Their past two models have flown out of ground effect. I see no reason to believe this one won't. The question is whether it'll make it to mass production.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
"Yeah, and they ate gas and produced smog at a prodigious rate."
These were on *race cars* in the *1970s*. The engine itself was only designed during the 1950s - its usage has been skyrocketting since then (the smallest combustion engine in the world is a microscopic wankel engine). Freedom Motors has 500,000 production orders, and they just incorporated. You might as well try and claim that the engines used in (insert some random car) don't work - this is a legitimate company with a legitimate product, that already exists in legitimate on-the-market products, has defense contracts for its use, etc. Do a quick search for 'wankel "freedom motors" engine'. This isn't "Moller's Miracle Engine". This is a Freedom Motors' mass-produced commercially-used-design engine.
"You mean like that so-called "hover test" which actually shows the thing dangling on a wire?"
There are several tests. I'm assuming you're referring to the M200, their first model to fly - there's a good video out there of it flying out of ground effect. The "dangling from a wire" is a silly concept - its obvious from the video there is no tension on the thing, its for insurance purposes so they don't get killed if something went wrong (as prototype craft often have unforseen problems).
"Moller's been working for over 20 years on this stuff"
Over 50 years. The M200 and the M150 can both hover outside of ground effect. Some of their earlier models can hover within ground effect. They already produce aerobots for defense contracts, as well.
-= rei =-
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
I just hope Solotrek's vehicle is more reliable and stable than their web server...
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
The technology implied in this article are not auto-gyros, but personal flying craft that can literaly 'take off from your drive way'. Now, if they can actually make these craft is another story altogether, but for the sake of the point, I was assuming they can.
The real issue at hand has to do with the way air traffic is handled. The technology implicit with this kind of craft assumes a greated degree of control that a triditional aircraft does not have. Using your figure of 160 knots for a stall speed (and you don't want run jets in a controled envrionment right at stall speed), there is very little margin for error. (Imagine if cars would blow up if they travled less then 182 miles per hour unless they performed a carefully orchistrated manuvers in special areas). Hence the need for a very advanced air traffic control system manned by experienced, trained professionals.
Now, take away the required for speed to stay aloft. Take away all the special areas to land, and suddenly you can be far more flexible with how you control things in the air.
The Internet is generally stupid
But this technology thows that out the window. If we can get a personal vehicle to cheaply take off vertically and reach high crusing speeds, most likely, we can do it with a large commerical/passenger vehicle. If a 400 passenger literal 'air bus' can land in a city block in your down town, shoot up to 30,000 feet and and then reach speeds close to our current airliners, I doubt the triditional airports (and aircraft) will see much business.
If we ever get this sort of thing to ever actually work, it's not too unreasonable that in a few years conventional air traffic control will be a thing of the past. While we may not get total automation to prevent people from running into each other, it should be pretty easy to install a GPS in these things with pre-programed 'rules' that govern the piloting style (ie, you are above a city. You can not drop below 3,000 feet unless your hortizontal speed is at zero).
Of course, just because things CAN be done this way, does'nt mean they should.
The Internet is generally stupid
Airplanes have a rigorous inspection process before each takeoff. This one-person flying machine sounds like a recipe for disaster when the least mechanical failure happens. Plus, there are no wings to save you from free fall!
You're posting a fake link, pretending to abuse sourceforge. Why?
Do you really think casual users of this kind of craft will have the skill to pull off an auto rotation maneuver?
If you can handle limitations in speed and greater space requirements for landing and take-off, then you can have your own personal motored aircraft for less than 10,000 dollars.
A paramotor! Yeps, it's a pretty simple concept - a paraglider (= a steerable parachute) with an engine on your back. Check out pictures and real video1 and 2.
It sounds experimental, but this is old stuff - pilots have covered 100s of kilometers in this way. There are restrictions on flight over inhabited areas (at least in most of Europe), and you are not able to go much faster than 40 km/h.
I bought a 2nd hand wing + harness for less than 1,500 dollars, and you can get a good engine for around 5000 dollars. Depending on what wing you get, you can have up to 350 kg. of luggage with you! With the right harness and certificate (or just a liberal country) you can even bring a friend as co-pilot.
I'm doing my paragliding certificate in Denmark at the moment, and even though I really want a paramotor, cliff soaring still rules.... several hours of natural wind borne flight along the coast of Denmark just beats anything....
-Kraft
-Kraft
Live and let live
Well, I really don't understand all this fuz about it.
First, this is not practical the way it is. Sure, this is a good research step, that _might_ lead to something useful for us all in the future. But this kind of transport is simply not viable for large scale marketing. Imagine the amount of air being moved around by 10 or so of these things. Not to mention the way the air moved by one of these monsters can influence another one near the first.
Hell, if I want a way to fly, I can just grab a paramotor (or whatever it's called in USA. It's a Paraglider with an helix attached to your back) and just fly around, with much less trouble, and running with much less gas.
---
morcego
I don't know about SoloTrek, but the cars Moller is working on look so very cool I can't wait. I'm very curious as to what Moller's vehicle will cost; I couldn't find mention of price on the website. I think maybe its "if you have to ask you dont want to know".
___
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Paraphrasing: "Cruise at 350 mph from point A to point B" "No speed limits" "No tickets". Totally incorrect.
The speed limit under 10,000 feet is 250 kias (knots indicated airspeed). So there IS a speed limit. Near any major airport, the speed limit is 200 kias. If the FAA catches you breaking any FARs (aviation rules) you WILL get fined, and you CAN lose your (pilots) license.
To drive these under present law, you'll need a private pilot certificate. That'll take quite some time, energy, and money; but thank god it will get rid of most of the people who think this is a good idea.
These vehicles won't help you get to your job in the city, as most cities are under "Class B" airspace (that is, you need clearance to enter), and if the controllers get too busy they won't let all of these new-age commuter pilots in.
Oh, and weather: Don't expect to drive these things in the rain, clouds, fog, snow storm, etc. You'll need a LOT more training for an instrument rating on your pilot's certificate, and then you'll need clearances to take off and go to your destination. Have you ever sat in a 757 at the gate when the the captian says he's waiting for the takeoff clearance? If these things ever became popular, you'd be sitting in your driveway for hours waiting for your clearance in IMC (bad weather).
I'll stop ranting now.
Everyone seems to be drooling that thisll some day be theirs, but the fact is that if its ever used in our lifetime, itll probably be for police cars ("Pull Over!", coming from above), and ambulances (no high-speed weaving through traffic), and such.
I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.
I wonder if those vehicles would have to conform to the existing air traffic regulations as far as ID, communication, flight patters, or if new ones would be created. Would there be police patrols on the same vehicles to enforce them?
Beside the obvious concerns regarding to safety of the commute, I wonder how you could make it cooler. Can't seem to lower it or add alloy wheels to it. I guess you could make the flight stick smaller and put some UV light underneath it, but it's still not the same thing now is it...
Finally I'll be able to drive home on that damn gravel without having to wash the car every time it rains! Just fly over it!
.is that a good thing? I mean, sometimes people can survive a head-on collision at 100km/h. If they can do that, it should be a cakewalk to survive a 200km/h collision and then a 100m fall.
But seriously, you put your average AC "Phl4m3-m4St3R" in one of these and just wait until the deathtoll racks up.
Or wait. . .
This could officially be Darwin in action.
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
We have people running over 16 pedestrians while trying to pull out of a parking space. We have teens smashing up 6 cars and one pedestrian while trying to park during a driving test. I can't wait for the RealTV footage when everyone is zooming around at 400 MPH!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Better enjoy the last years of relatively clear skies, where nature is free to take its course, planes can fly easily, etc etc :)
I predict a boom in roof repairs when this technology is introduced ..
--
You were expecting a sig?
I might be able to get to the Mall in 10 minutes instead of 50. Big improvement. Now if I could only put two giant lasers on the front of my car and when the pr*ck in front of me is going 350 when the speed limit is 400, I could ...
----
Just because a bunch of people believe or do something stupid, doesn't make it any less stupid.
90mph in a car just wasn't fast enough for me. :) Seriously, this should be able to help alleviate the traffic problems somewhat for those with long commutes like me. Of course I'll probably be dead before it's legal to be used... *sigh*
--