Slashdot Mirror
A Flying Leap for Cars?
pillageplunder writes "Businessweek has a story about flying cars and how they could be an actual viable thing in less than 10 years. First flying taxis, then, like the Jetsons, personal flying cars. Several are already on the board, with Honda and Toyota already having prototypes of small flying devices. Even General Electric is getting in on the deal, developing a small jet engine for Honda. So...would you buy one?"
moller.com
he's got it for sale now as well. Looks kinda cool.
Wish I had the cash to go out and buy one
No matter how fast computers get, you'll always be waiting - Matt Klem
Last I heard, he was still at it. Unfortunately, his final design is woefully underpowered, and has several stability problems he's trying to solve.
Speaking of which, that's a big problem I see with giving people flying cars. Flying (in the sense of using wings to generate lift) is VERY different from driving. For example, most people don't know that you have to nudge the stick, then move it back into a straight position to properly execute a bank. The bank will continue until you nudge the stick back the other way, and force the plane to level.
Even worse is the shear number of control surfaces that are completely unnatural to a driver. You can't just move the stick. That will cause the plane to slide. You have to give it some rudder. I'm not even going to go into how queasy bouncing on thermals is going to make most people.
To make an aircraft stable enough for the average driver, you're going to need something with a LOT of thrust. (i.e. Apply enough thrust to a brick, and it will fly.) Maneuvering would need to be handled by computer control to simplify the procedure.
Of course, we could just get everyone to obtain a pilot's license. But then I'd truly FEAR for the safety of the skyways.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Moller Skycars
They're not quite for sale yet. They have built one prototype for testing but won't start extensive testing until a second one is near completion. They've been moving pretty slow over the past several years but have been making steady progress. They are taking preorders, but nothing will ship for several years at least.
Mike Scanlon
I'm an environmental nut, and I'm not sure how the economy for small planes is-- but large airliners get something like 90 mpg per passenger, more efficient per person than my civic with an extra passenger.
Economy of scale plays a big part, by cramming lots of people in. But don't lump all air travel into the "automatically inefficient" category-- it was more efficient than I expected, too.
Mr Moller had major problems with testing - nobody would insure him for an untethered flight!
Then there's the matter of airspace and where you can fly. Air Traffic Control would have to make sure nobody flew into populated areas, military airspace, each other etc. This means a massive overhaul and spending on ATC to handle the millions of vehicles in the air simultaneously.
Moller said in the article I read that the amount of airspace around our planet is so large, it was unlikely that you would come across another SkyCar on your journey, even if every family in the world had one.
I doubt if people will be allowed to land in the middle of populated areas, we're more likely to have skyscraper car parks.
I should think Moller has the patent on SkyCars and that he'll make a bundle from car manufacturers (if he's still alive by the time they're mass produced!). I'd say we're looking at 50 years minimum until they become commonplace. Then instead of paying road tax we'll be paying air tax :-(
Current planes are like ancient DOS systems, where you have to type in huge commands, and any mistake is catastrophic.
Bullocks. A modern 777 will keep itself in the air, with or without you. It's airframe is designed such that it WANTS to fly. Try executing a deadly maneuver in X-Plane sometime, using nothing to correct your flight except thrust. The 777 will right itself without much problem. It will probably even climb until it reaches equilibrium.
You don't worry about stabilization, the computer does.
Airframes are usually *designed* to be stable. Especially something like a CS-150 with the wing tips for stabilization. Your real problems with any flight are:
1. Preventing midair collisions.
2. Getting on and off the ground.
The first will become a BIG problem if everyone gets their "flying car". The second one is a big problem, period. Getting off the ground usually isn't so big of a problem as long as you give yourself as much room as possible. Getting on the ground IS a big problem.
When you're flying through the air, your path is determined by the gasses through which you're passing. This can cause your path to skew, and can even result in some roll. The problem is that the ground is NOT moving. Thus you have to attempt to compensate. If you see a plane coming that looks like it's crooked, the pilot is probably NOT drunk. He's compensating. Yet even the best pilots occasionally have a hard landing. Go shopping for a plane sometime, and you'll notice that quite a few of them talk about replacing or repairing the firewall after a hard landing.
Much better to have something where you tell it via some 3D joystic, "Go up, down, left, right, forward, backward", end of story.
You can't go left or right. This isn't a car. You have to roll and execute a banking maneuver. A computer can simplify this, but you can't change the physics of flight. (Again, with "flight" defined as "obtaining lift by passing through the atmosphere" A hovercraft can obviously thrust in any direction it damn well pleases.)
You don't worry about stabilization, the computer does.
Keep in mind that you can only stabilize the craft so much. If it's light, it WILL bounce on thermals and downdrafts. There's very little the computer can do about this other than to make course corrections. The last thing we need is some guy freaking out at a thermal, accidently rolling his plane, getting disoriented, and taking her into the ground.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Current FAA regulations put VFR pilots (those flying visually) at headings from 0-179 magnetic at {3500,5500,7500,..} feet, and those from 180-359 at {4500,6500,8500,...} feet. The even thousands are used for ATC-controlled IFR (instrument) flight.
It's unlikely tighter tolerances than that would ever be safe even with the most advanced computer control, simply because you will not be able to outclimb microburts and such.
It's not that you can't build a small jet engine. It's that the price doesn't decline much with size. Engines sized for small aircraft aren't much cheaper than those built for business jets.
There was an effort at NASA to fix this problem, but it failed and was cancelled in 2002.
An easy one to remember is about 1 cubic meter per kilogram. So, approximaetly 125 cubic meters (or cubic yards, if you prefer). That's the problem, you'd have to make the average car weigh nothing and be 30 feet (or 10 meters) tall.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Here in Washington DC I know lots of people who will live as far away from the city as public transporation allows. We have people who commute from WV, DE, and PA. These people can take trains that get them to work in the same amount of time it take me to take the farthest out bus I could find.
If there were sky(car\bus\taxis) that allowed us to travel quickly (including time to board) and cheaply (No more than $10 a day) then I know that I for one would gladly move further into the wilderness where I could take an hour flight to work.
And I think my live would be better off by living farther out.
The comment has already been made. Let's move it along people. Nothing to see here.