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?"
Damn, I'll never get that date!
Hmmm.
The last thing we need is flying SUVs.
Given how many people never bother to check water, oil etc until they break down at the side of the road, I really hope these cars will run full diagnostic checks before they let you start them...
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
I live in Boston. Drivers here have more than enough trouble coping with travel in two dimensions. Adding a third is a recipe for disaster.
Will we have to use use "roads" in the air, or can we go as the crow flies? (going around military installqtions and so forth.
I can see the headlines now: "200 people killed when drunk driver collides with office building". If we have problems with people staying on the road in a car, what will it be like if they can fly?
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
We have been fantisizing about flying cars for generations, but in reality, are they ever going to be practical? Sure, you can go faster without all the resistance from the tires, but it takes a hell of a lot of energy to keep such a heavy object in the air. In the Jetsons, we had this notion that somehow we'd be able to overcome gravity and the cars would just float, but to date there's no evidence for such technology. For now, we have to blow a bunch of air down and the corresponding reaction is that the car stays up. Not very efficient for travelling.
I hate to be the skeptic, because I would love to be able to fly to work, but I don't see it being practical in our lifetimes.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
So what is the essential difference between that and, oh, I don't know, say, a plane?
Anyone who wants to take a small light aircraft up (and has one/rents one and has a licence) can pretty much go for it.
Flying cars aren't going to raise your danger from terrorists (which is incredibly small anyway). Crap drivers crashing into your house - now that's a different matter.
There will never be anything but autopilot in the civilian models. Also because of that there will be no licensing in the sense we have today. If you are rich enough your children will be able to use it for pre-programmed routes to school, the cinema, and the like.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
On the other hand, I hop right into my mercedez and take off for work. If something does't feel right or sound right or if I am really low on gas, I figure "hey I'd better do something about that sometime soon", and drive off. I can always pull to the side of the road. I can't do that in my plane. If something goes wrong and I need to "pull to the side of the road" I'm in a bit of a pinch. I have a ballistic parachute installed but I'd really hate to have to use it.
I can't ever imagine what flying would be like if everyone just hopped into their flying cars and took off (after cocktails, in a hurry, low on gas, in a poorly maintained vehicle, without a license, in bad weather, etc). What a nightmare!
Don't get me wrong, I think flying is wonderfull and that everyone should be able to do it, after rigorous training and certification, in a well maintained vehicle, clearly understanding when conditions are right to fly!
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
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.
No, the last thing we need are flying taxis.
Taxi drivers violate enough traffic laws already. Can you imagine what they will do given the ability to fly?
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
Here's something I have yet seen mentioned: What about law enforcement? Unless the cops have these, I don't see how they'll let the general population drive them. It'll be pretty difficult for a cop in a standard cruiser to pull you over if you can just lift off and escape him. Even with radios and helicopters, by the time they can dispatch a chopper, you could be outta there.
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