Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Flying Car More Economical Than SUV

Posted by michael on from the runs-on-vapor dept.

fusion812 writes "The M400 needs 35 clear feet to take off but thanks to its 770 hp engine can whiz to 365 mph - cruise control kicks in at 326 mph - and climb at 6,400 feet per minute. You may hear it before you see it: it emits a rather noisy 65 dba at 500 feet. Interestingly, with a fuel consumption of 20 miles to the gallon on the road, it's rather more economical than a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and looks positively eco-friendly compared to a Hummer."

10 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. MPG not important by jepaton · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Moller said that today's economics give each M400 a theoretical price tag of around half a million dollars, but in volume production it could drop to $300,000 and in really large volumes to below $50,000.

    If you can afford one of these the MPG isn't going to be an issue.

  2. And for the non-americans in here by Mr.+Marabou+Man · · Score: 5, Interesting


    20 (miles / US gallon) = 8.50287411 kilometers per liter

    1. Re:And for the non-americans in here by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just to nitpick, we don't use 8 significant digits when using km/l. 1 is more than enough. 8.5 km/l. Anything more is ridiculous, as the number will fluctuate anyway, and is probably rounded from something.

      Here on Slashdot we often see posts like

      "that's 8.50287411 km/l" followed by "see, this is why we don't want metric - it's too dificult to remember compared to 20 miles/gallon".

      Of course we could do it the other way around as well. 8½ km/l 19.993239674108264552443197350831 miles/gallon. This is of course why we metric people hate imperial - it's too difficult to remember compared to 8½ km/l.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  3. Re:That may be so... by nkh · · Score: 5, Funny

    for learning how to drive/fly one of these things?

    Please, you're on Slashdot, we already know how to drive flying cars! Or have I wasted all these years playing video games?

  4. So what? by divine_13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well i guess that the fact of a vehicle being a bit more "economical" that others does not make it better. There are alot of other features; support, part prices, driving abilities etc.

  5. The future is later by BalloonMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you get tired of waiting for flying cars, try some "life extending" organic almond butter from the good Dr. Moller.

  6. Re:That may be so... by M1FCJ · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Airspace is quite controlled as well, at least in Europe. Where you can fly is pretty regulated. There are volumes of space left for small aircraft but still you are pretty limited (as the roads are).

    The nice thing is given a separation distance, air traffic can still hold enormous volumes.

    On the other hand while driving on the ground I only have to live two seconds worth of distance as a minimum between my car and the guy in front of me. On air, this distance is much much longer. The traffic might be still pretty bad.

  7. The point isn't the practicality of flying cars by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point is how much SUVs suck. There is no excuse for having worse fuel efficiancy than a fucking airplane.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  8. Re:That may be so... by buzzcutbuddha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you have to pay more to get the thing initially. Boo hoo. You can fly at 326mph to your destination and get better gas mileage. So you have save time and cash on your commute, or going wherever. Is it really that hard to see the long-term economic benefits?

    At 326mph I could get to work in 9 minutes. That alone is worth the price of admission.

    And, btw, intelligence is absolutely no indicator of someone's ability to pilot or steer or drive a machine. I've seen plenty of supposedly smart people (think of some professors you've had) that can't drive a car to save their life. And I don't think any of us are going to nominate Dale Earnhardt Jr for a Nobel Prize, but I don't question his driving skills.

    Stop being so damn elitist.

  9. Re:WTF? by Reverberant · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's 65dBa at 500 feet. Since loudness decreases/increases quadratically

    Warrax_666 makes a good point. (and to answer your question, sound usually decays at a rate of 10*log10(D/Dref) for line-sources and 20*log10(D/Dref) for point sources, although ground absorption and atmospheric absorption can cause more rapid attenuation in certain circumstances).

    65 dBA at 500 feet translates to 85 dBA at 50 ft (assuming point source propagation, which is probably reasonable).

    For comparison:

    • Locomotive idling @ 50 ft: 80 dBA
    • Bus idling @ 50 ft: 75 dBA
    • Automobile @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 70 dBA
    • Diesel locomotive @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 92 dBA
    • Transit train (electric) @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 86 dBA
    • Train horn @ 50 ft: 105 dBA

    So in short, it's louder than cars traveling at 50 mph, but not as bad as a train horn. Also keep in mind that if the flying car is, well, flying, there won't be anything to shield the noise from the vehicle, and that may make it louder than normal cars in practice.