Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Air Age
Lovejoy writes "Sixty years ago in The Atlantic Monthly, Igor Sikorsky wrote The Coming Air Age. "Any of us who are alive ten years after this Second World War is won will see and use hundreds of short-run helicopter bus services." He goes on to write about personal helicopters which fit in large garages and that helicopters that are easier to drive than cars, etc.. So, will personal flight ever be viable? Do wildly wrong predictions like this give futurists pause? I think they should."
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
When a man who makes helicopters tells you everyone needs a helicopter, doesn't it sound a lot like a man who makes computers telling you that everyone needs a computer?
Or an Internet connection for that matter...
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
The problem is that ground is better. Cars go quite fast enough, and while traffic is really bad the fact remains that after a small collision nobody falls to their deaths. And can you imagine the noise pollution from the rotors? Think of one of those things taking off from your neighbor's driveway! Cars are fine for me, where I don't have to worry about watching for other vehicles in 3D, hey it's hard enough when you don't have cars coming up from underneath you cutting you off! We're still on the ground all the time because it's just a better place to be.
//TODO: signature
I'll admit i'm not expert on this. But i do believe the faster you push something through the air the less fuel efficient it becomes. Also, keeping something In the air requires a lot of fuel. You'd think that cramming a lot of poeple into a fast flying machine would eventually become fuel efficient the more you put in, but its a fact that traveling by train is much more fuel efficient than a 767.
My car goes about 300-400 miles on a 15 gallon tank of gas. Imagine how much gas a any kind of helicopter burns in 300 miles keeping itself up and pushing itself through the air, especially with all the crazy turbulence the roters makes.
I have no doubt that fuel will get cheaper in the future and global warming is bunk, but i dont want a bunch of hippies bugging me.
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
We've got cars like the new Audio made of all lightweight alluminum. We've got advanced engines like the VW 1.9L TDI that gets over 40mpg(same as Toyota's low hybrid electric car) and Mazda's new rotory coming in the RX8.
Other than the reasons others have metioned (basically cars are easier to drive and accendents are less fatal) is there any reason if there was demand for millions of helicopters per year we all couldn't have personal helicopters instead of cars?
I think it's a good thing that futurists predictions are further ahead than reality. We might be more inclined to push ourselves if we think we are behind schedule...
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
Every now and then, some popular technology magazine writes an article about some former aircraft designer (etc.) who built a flying car that operates on gasoline.
The problem is that while one can reasonably well observe what happens in 2D, this is hardly possible in 3D. I would suggest that there is an evolutional reason for us to be moreless focused onto what lies ahead and on the ground rather than looking up into the air.
Even with 2D driving, there are a lot of fatal traffic accidents. I wouldn't want to imagine what happens if I run out of gas 100 yards above the streets of Manhattan/a lake/someone's house etc..
Flying cars would only really make sense if one could fly not just around roads, but also cross-country, which would probably cause privacy and safety concerns and raise noise levels.
where's all that Karma?
I see many posts here about things like "2001" and other futuristic stories that now seem quaint, laughable, etc.
There's an important distinction between predicting the future and telling a story in the future. Movies such as 2001 just randomly pick a date that's "in the future" -- a time far enough away (from when it was made) that the viewer/reader can adequately suspend disbelief for the purposes of the story. Any date, really, will suffice.
You can laugh at people who make bona fide predictions that "X will happen by year Y". Those are people who actually believe such things.
But when taking in entertainment, always remember that Star Wars actually has the best blanket statement to suspend disbelief: that whole "In a galaxy far, far away" bit is nondescript but serves all purposes.
- Matt
The FAA requires all of the following:
The end result is that the FAA has made it almost impossible for manufacturers and aircraft owners to improve their products. That means that aircraft safety can't improve, nor can the cost. So the only way to significantly improve an airplane's safety or cost is for the manufacturer to come out with a completely new design go through the entire certification process outlined above.
People believe these things about aviation because the mass media (movies, news reports, etc.) has portrayed aviation in this light in order to make the news more spectacular and to make movies more exciting. But of course, that kind of excitement isn't what you're after when you're flying for real.
The bottom line is that I don't think affordable personal aviation is ever going to happen because I don't believe the FAA will ever let it happen. The trend for the past 30 years has been for airplane prices to increase while at the same time production volume has decreased. These are the symptoms of a dying market.
To resurrect affordable personal aviation, a large manufacturer (like Toyota) will have to get into the game. It will require an investment of billions (most of that will go into the mass production machinery required) and at least a couple of decades. The manufacturer will have to sell moderately capable (150 knots, 1000 mile range, 18,000 foot service ceiling, 4 seats), simple to fly airplanes for between $50,000 and $100,000. They will have to manufacture their own engines because the current manufacturers are still building engines that were designed back in the 1940's, using 1940s production techniques, for a minimum of $20,000 apiece. This will kill just about any other airplane manufacturer, who won't be able to adapt themselves to that kind of competition because the FAA won't let them. It will seriously depress the used airplane market, because nobody in their right mind would pay $70,000 for a 30-year-old 120-knot 4-seater when they can get a 150-knot brand new 4-seater for the same price.
It'll be opposed by everyone: the FAA because they're 0wn3d by the airlines, the airlines because they'll lose a lot of short to medium range business, and many current aircraft owners, who view their aircraft as investments (used aircraft currently appreciate, not depreciate).
But that's what it'll take to make affordable personal aviation a reality.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
air traffic control is probably the biggest problem.
the ATC system is already overtaxed in busy areas and part of how they cope is by discouraging general aviation. it's certainly technically feasible for personal aircraft to be reliable, affordable, and about as easy to fly as it is to drive a car IF you can get enough people to use them. but if you get enough people to use them you have a traffic management problem far worse than anything we've ever seen on the ground.
face it, one reason we want to travel by air is to avoid traffic jams - but as soon as we put everyone in the air we need to find ways to keep everyone from hitting each other, and to do that we end up imposing the same kinds of constraints we have on the ground. at least on the ground we can often survive collisions between vehicles.
Keith
One problem with choppers is that they are hard to fly. They are harder than planes, and planes are harder to fly than cars are to drive. This used to be a big problem, but I think we are fast approching a time when any idiot could fly a chopper using a force-ball (you know, some 6-axis controller) and having a PC do all the work of controlling individual axis. On a side note, I think that it's much more likey that gyrocopters will ever be common than 'standard' helecopters.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Well of course it assumes a few things...like the rotors are intact...but let's deal with only one emergency at a time. The truth is that it's extremely rare to loose a rotor. Much more likely is the loss of engine power, or hydraulics, or maybe a dynamic component malfunction. I've practiced 100's of autorotations without incident and suffered one intermediate gearbox malfunction. The gearbox malfunction resulted in a crash.
As far as a place to land is concerned, any parking lot, large backyard, baseball diamond or other area large enough to accommodate the length of the bird is sufficient...something you can't say about any airplane. Also, helos glide pretty well. So finding a spot to set down isn't that hard unless you're in some really rugged terrain. If you're in flight flying low (nap of the earth) in anything and loose power you're toast (unless you have an ejection seat...not available on most civilian aircraft), but a good pilot doesn't need much altitude to successfully auotrotate and walk away from the landing.
And there's no way you can compare loosing power in a car with loosing power in an aircraft...unless it's comparison out of ignorance.
I guess it would be ironic when we finally achieve sustainable (from an energy point of view) ground transportation, that we will desire to go to the air which will definately be not sustainable for a while longer. Since I live in California, I'll use the following examples. People already live in the Central Valley and commute to San Jose (60 miles). I mean do we really need to live in Lake Tahoe and commute to San Jose (230 miles)? I've never really understood people who insist they must commute over an hour a day. This will just make the distance longer and the total energy consumed per commute much greater while keeping convience constant. I mean it's one thing to go and visit someone, but another for every day transportation. Don't get me wrong, it would be uber cool to fly around and not have traffic and get places faster, but at what expense?
The coming Air Rage
Seriously, it's not so hard to make automated systems for collision avoidance. Much harder is to create pollution-free and cheap fuel engines (fuel cells? cold fusion?).
Much much harder to resolve all the landscape and noise issues. Near Washington DC even small helicopter pad to which 6 or 7 helicopters expected to be landed created a lot of rage and crying from residents. Result is that that pad has never been built. And I think it's good.
I've read a bunch of threads from people who talk about how dangerous it will be to have so many people flying around, and I am reminded of how when cars first appeared, they would be escorted in town by sentries waving red flags because it was thought that the cars would be so inherently dangerous.
As a pilot I can tell you, affordable flight already exists. Expensive, yes, but no more expensive than a nice car. IF, of course, you are willing to shop, buy used, and don't require 'sexiness' in your aircraft.
... whose mechanic has had his car for over a month. I've never been without my airplane for a month.
A two seater Cessna 150 or 152 in good condition goes for about $20k, and will generally do 95-100 knots TAS and burns about 7 gallons per hour.
A Beech Sundowner (my personal choice) will hold 3 adults plus fuel, has a range of six hours (more than most people's bladders), does about 105-110 knots, goes for around $40,000 and burns 8-9 gallons / hour.
Annuals typically run $1,000-$2,000, fuel typically costs $2.50/gallon. Insurance is typically $800/year or so (post 9/11), less if you get your instrument rating.
1. The FAA also mandates inspections by FAA certified aircraft mechanics each year at the maximum or after so many hours of flight.
Part 91 (personal aircraft) only requires an annual. Commercial air carriers must submit to more rigorous inspections, such as 100 hour inspections, etc.
If you miss an inspection the aircraft is forbidden to fly as it is not airworthy.
In Germany, if your car misses its biannual inspection, it is illegal to drive.
The inspections can take some time and any defects found must be corrected before the craft can fly.
Some defects which affect air worthiness must be fixed. Others, which may be a good idea for safety but are not required to insure air worthiness you can either fix or put off. A wise pilot chooses to fix such things, but there are those who do not. Part of getting an annual done is discussing and working out with your mechanic what should be fixed now, and what makes more sense to put off.
A Piper Navajo inspection costs upwards of $2,500 and the aircraft may be out of service for some time.
As for time, annuals typically don't last more than a week or two, unless something is seriously wrong or a part is backordered.
Which is what happened to a colleague of mine
2. Detailed logs must be kept of each flight, each repair, and each add-on. If the logs are not correct, spanning the whole life of the aircraft, it is not airworthy.
Not true. First, you are confusing pilot logs (logs of each flight, kept by and for the pilot in their own log book) with aircraft logs, of which there are two: airframe logs and engine logs.
Second, the only thing that has to be certified is that the aircraft is currently airworthy, i.e. a certified aircraft mechanic has performed an annual within the last twelve months and signed off that the aircraft is airworthy. If logs are missing that is irrelevant, so long as the log showing the most recent annual is intact. Missing logs will decrease the value of the plane, they will not affect its air worthiness unless you've had the bad luck to lose the log book containing the most recent annual.
3. The manufacturer and FAA provide notices of problems that sometimes require inspections, repairs, and replacement. The repairs must be complied with. You are not allowed to fly around with defects.
If you are part 91, most ADs are to be complied with at the next annual. Commercial aircraft have more stringent requirements, of course. If an AD does require immediate inspection and repair (it happens, but is rare), that is akin to an automobile recall.
4. Avionics are expensive to purchase, install, and maintain. The last time I checked three or four years ago a collision avoidance system cost $25,000. This would tend to put the price of the aircraft out of reach of most folks.
Avionics are vastly overpriced. But most private planes do not have collision avoidance systems, moving map GPSes (Garmin 540 goes for about $14k installed). Most have the basic radio stack and navigational instruments, which are included in the prices I mentioned before. But yes, if you are feeling greedy for the latest fancy equipment it will cost you dearly, as will the latest, faster aircraft. So don't be greedy, fly an older, reliable, less sexy aircraft instead.
All in all, I think that the typical person is not well suited to this degree of complexity, care, and expense and it won't happen any time soon.
Agreed. However, the Germans don't just let anyone drive. A drivers license typically requires about $2,000 for the training and a fairly rigorous exam. Not as rigorous as a pilot exam and checkride by any stretch, but far more rigorous than the silly tests we in America take.
However, if everyone were given rigorous flying lessons in high school (as we are drivers ed) and the prerequisites to becoming a private or instrument rated pilot remained as they are (fairly rigorous), I think the majority of people could become very competent pilots. Not every idiot, as we have with cars, but perhaps as many as 70-80%.
Of course, the skies would be vastly more crowded, and that would present its own set of problems. Those issues are being addressed (smart autopilots, vastly better navigation and guidance equipment, etc.), but alas, that will be expensive.
However, if someone wishes to become a competent pilot and fly today, in America at least it can be done on a budget, if you are careful and willing to forego the latest, sexiest toys in favor of used hand-me-downs.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Why didn't this happen?
1. No matter how much automation is used to reduce manufacturing costs, air transport would use far more real resources than cars currently do. I mean more fuel, more materials, higher grade parts....everything would have been more expensive.
2. Lets face the truth here. As a whole, the human race isn't really that smart. The average individual makes countless poor and irresponsible decisions, gets stuck in stupid patterns and addictions, stops learning most new things past a certain age...(the list continues) I'd also say that most slashdotters (myself included) fall into part of this category. I know I've made plenty of dumb mistakes, even when I was aware that I was doing so.
There are simply not enough individuals in society capable of safely piloting these vehicles to put them into common use. There are not enough responsible mechanics who could keep fleets of these things running safely. Its not a lack of education : I'm saying we couldn't really find enough people to run this system who would be responsible enough.
3. The current system of cars for (relatively) short distances and planes for long distance does work. While many complain of long commutes, citizens do make it to work...the system functions. It would take considerable investment to build a short distance air transport system that was really significantly better than the compromise in use today.
How can this be built in the future?
By removing the human from much of it. At some point (it may require computers "Turing capable") it should be practical to build computer controlled flying vehicles where the human may lack even manual overrides.
To ease the maintainence problem, the flying machines moving parts would all be embedded with arrays of diagonostic sensors and the vehicle would refuse to start if a fault were detected. Any monkey of a mechanic could hopefully then swap out the faulty component, safely repairing the vehicle.
So if we ever see widspread personal flying, I wouldn't be surprised if it was using some form of ultra-light, with speeds in the 50-100 mph range.
As for personal helicopters - the things are hell to maintain. I know people who think getting a tune-up at 100,000 miles is a pain. Imagine trying to fly a chopper for ten years with no maintenance...
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Here's how you make BAD PREDICTIONS:
Flying cars could never have been LESS expensive than cars (fighting gravity costs more energy), and safely flying the things in 3D virtually requires guidance computers that are only now just capable.
--
Power to the Peaceful