Slashdot Mirror
Where Are the Flying Cars?
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Complaints of the non-existence of flying cars as expressions of disappointment in the failure of the present to measure up to the glory of past predictions have long been a staple of popular culture but all that is about to change when Terrafugia introduces their $148,000 "Transition," a 19-foot, two-seater that the company describes as a roadable light-sport aircraft. The problem is that the U.S. doesn't have the infrastructure in place to make landing in front of your house a viable alternative yet and a sky filled with people who don't have pilot's licenses could also be a problem. The idea is to take advantage of the 6,000 public airports in the U.S. so a pilot can fly into a small airport (video) and instead of getting a rental car, just fold up the wings on the aircraft and drive away. Terrafugia expects the first production model to be ready in 2009 and says they've already received advanced orders for 30 to 50 Transitions."
Man those folded up wings make for some gigantic blind spots when you're driving on the road.
So what is the Highway Patrol going to do when some jerk decides that the speed limit is meant to be broken and flies above the commuter lane? Normal road driving is scary enough as it is.
The tail fins kinda remind me of a '57 Chevy. I noticed thespecs on the transition mentioned a 100hp engine. Will that engine drive both the prop and the wheels? If so, my mom's neon would leave this thing in the dust.
In all, I see this as a largely impractical vehicle. I would have a good laugh if I saw a car with wings folded vertically going down the highway.
The game.
Do you want the same people you see tailgating, talking on their cell phones, and doing 45 in the fast lane, or drunk flying in the air?
I didn't think so.
Only way it would work is if it was all fully automated with no or little human intervention.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I don't think flying cars will ever make much sense. Barring some absolutely physics-defying discovery, it takes a relatively huge amount of energy to keep a vehicle off the ground, and it's not clear to me what the advantage is (other than being terrifically cool). When you're traveling point-to-point on the surface of a ball it's just not worth it most of the time.
Steering, stopping, and idling in the air are far more expensive and imprecise because you've got nothing fixed to hold on to -- we get a lot of freebies by being in contact with the ground.
I think it's apparent too (or soon will be) that one of the great challenges for mankind going forward is how to do everything we do more efficiently, not less. The technology bottleneck is going to be energy acquisition.
So sure, this may be a nice addition to the lineup of available planes, but I don't think we'll see "flying cars" in our lifetime, if by that we mean "ubiquitous airborne personal transportation".
Does your significant other love shoes?
Too right. Helen Keller in a flying car is only marginally more dangerous than your average soccer mom in a SUV on her cell phone with two kids squalling in the back seat.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Personally, I'd rather they work on a hoverboard.
From the article:
"We're not going to have a flying car, as people think of it, for a while," said Anna Dietrich, chief operating officer of the Woburn, Mass.-based company. "I would never say it's not going to happen, but today the infrastructure is not there, nor is the training, nor are the avionics that would make the training unnecessary... What makes sense right now is a roadable aircraft."
Ok, sure. THAT'S why we don't have a flying car--we don't have the infrastructure, training, or avionics. Give me a break.
What about a viable PROPULSION SYSTEM. I mean give me a break, you really think what's holding back flying cars is "training" and "infrastructure"? That's like saying what's holding back faster-than-light travel is our schools just aren't graduating enough hyperspace drive engineers.
Okay, here are some pictures from what happened in our apartment's parking garage just last night.
Someone drove through the wall fast enough (in a parking garage) to cause a hole through the wall and their car fell off into the street.
Now, imagine a world full of these drivers, flying their cars over our houses and schools. Oh yeah, joy.
I mean, VTOLs are a great idea, but as long as they don't land on *my* terrace I am happy. There is no dearth of idiot drivers in this world and all that.
There are three huge problems that need to be solved
I imagine that we'll have flying cars in our garages some day. But not any time soon.
So I guess that basically I agree with you.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Uh, I'd assume that such an anti-gravity device would also need power, and that its power failing would still end up with a nice fall, but a very nasty stop at the bottom.
Flying cars aren't really impractical
:) But I'm guessing that the thought here is instead of these ground hugging vehicles, that putting them off the ground would add some value. Well, I guess you would not be bound to the existing roads, you could travel a straight line or a more scenic route, or something, but every day I hear about traffic accidents, traffic jams, road construction, and all of this.
I believe they are impractical. I've flown a plane, been in planes, and known people that own planes, and for almost all transportation needs, planes simply suck.
Planes are great for long distance travel (today). Going from say New York City, to London, I would take a plane over walking, swimming, boating, cycling, or anything. A plane is a no brainer for that travel with today's technology.
But traveling by plane 1/4 to 1/2 of the distance across the US, is not as clearly a winner as going from NY to London. Timewise, it takes at least 1/2 to one full day to fly. When you fly, you have to leave behind lots of materials that you might want to take with you. Flying costs go up basically linearly with each passenger (loading up a car actually goes down in cost). Flying is not really that fun. You spend lots of time in overpriced airports with silly things to occupy your time until your connecting flight arrives.
Flying cars? (Didn't read article
To me, a better way of expending ones efforts is in some kind of mass transit or people mover kind of thing. I'm American, so I have little experience with these things. Cabs, busses, trains, moving sidewalks, trollies, all of these things simply do not exist in much of the US. We drive cars. Many of us now drive unarmored tanks to get to work and to buy things at the store.
I believe that the answers for this is in the educated/research community along with government regulations and forethought. Left up to individuals, if the gas prices here would not keep going up, I would guess that people would be picking up their kids from school and driving to work in M1 tanks or something.
I do not have an answer, but I can speak the question. The question is: What is the best way in terms of cost, speed, and environmental factors to move people and goods from place to place that works well at high volume times (rush hour) AND for those occasional times (like moving, new construction, or whatnot)?
As it stands now, people suck at answering this question, probably because nobody has actually asked it.