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.
Have they done some crash test as a road car?
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.
The Moller skycar is a little more revolutionary, since it takes off and lands vertically, and since it has multiple engines - how many of these Transitions are going to be crashed by celebrities when the one engine conks out? But Moller's stuff has been vaporware for twenty years, so don't hold your breath.
A-Bomb
Well, if anything, it's a great promotion for Benjamin Schweighart's business.
There are roads, not runways, in front of houses, grocery stores and office buildings.
Shouldn't flying cars be VTOLs? I always thought so. I don't think it would be a good idea if a "driver" couldn't just "pull over" (understand, get stationary) and had to properly land on an airport. Just imagine running out of gas in the middle of nowhere..
Anyways, somehow, I feel that in a few decades, we'll enjoy affordable and easily operatable (understand, mostly automated) flying cars, and that we'll mostly enjoy the greater safety, although it would seem counter-intuitive that a flying car would be safer than a normal car (but on a second thought it's easier to avoid trees and obstacles when you're 1,000 feet high, not to mention the cars in the opposite way lane wouldn't necessarily have to come as close as one foot from your vehicle, in the air you have more space).
But back on topic, I don't see people taking off and landing horizontally, too dangerous, VTOLs are a must.
You just got troll'd!
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.
I wish people would quit complaining about not having their flying cars anyway. It's a stupid fantasy that might be possible, but it's just not that practical. Not only is there this issue of requiring a landing strip, which takes land and only one craft can use it at the same time, a dozen cars at highway speed can use the same length of the same strip.
Something optimized for good flying won't do very well on the land.
Not only that, there's ever increasing pressure on energy supplies and people are somehow duped into thinking that they can afford to fly? Airplane fuel costs a little more and you'll be using a lot more of it to stay in the air, maybe two or three times as much. If you don't like spending $50/mo to $100/mo on gas, I doubt you'd like to spend $200/mo or more to cover the same distance. The cost to rent a plane is at least $60/hr depending on your region and the plane. That will cover more distance than two hours in a car, but there's plenty of preflight prep that takes time too. The plane my dad rents wouldn't take four people and cargo, it's four people or you take away people to be able to take cargo. Balance is a big concern too.
It costs about $5000 in training and expenses to learn how to fly. That training expense is not going to go down that much, because there's a lot to learn about flying that's not needed in order to drive a car. Given how so many drivers seem pretty dumb about driving, I don't think I'd want them in the air at all. There's a lot more regulation, for good reason too, damage in crashing a car is trivial compared to the damage you can do in a small plane.
Worry not, the investigative team at the Onion News Network is all over this issue of the blatant lack of flying cars, and are demanding answers from the big auto manufacturers.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mean_automakers_dash_nations_hope
FSM, grant me the serenity to preview that which I cannot change...
This won't happen till we have vehicles that use anti-gravity technology. Relying on forced air levitation is just TOO RISKY, the vehicle needs to loose ALL power and still not fall from the sky.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
I don't know about other people, but around where I live we don't have the infrastructure for the cars people want to drive. One Hummer parked on the side of the road, and there simply is not room for anything bigger than a Vespa to pass. With the building of the houses, many without adequate garages, I find an increasing number of roads to be impassable. Road that just a year ago were navigable and safe, have become impassable and risky due to the vehicles and driving habits of the new residents. God help us if they got a hold of flying cars.
Here is my idea of the use of flying cars. People who want to live in the suburbs can either build their houses for flying cars or drive their regular cars to a departure area. They can then fly to the bus, and take the bus in the 10-15 miles downtown. For may people, it would be no different from what they do now.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Many people think that flying cars would be really cool. I don't (and I love flying.)
Why on earth would anyone want that teenager/clothes changer/parent/eater/drunk driver to be piloting anything over my house, head, or anything else. It's bad enough that we have drunk pilots, but imagine the nightmare when it is really difficult to be "pulled over", as that involves landing somewhere unscheduled.
Not to mention the noise and air pollution. Go up in a hot air balloon, and you'll realize how well sound travels when there is nothing to block it. When you're up, you can have a conversation with two people on he ground at the same time- but they could be a half mile apart from each other. Listen for the airliner flying at 50,000 feet. You can hear it, although faint. Now listen for the cessna flying over head at 1000 feet. Imagine the sky filled with that sound from hundreds of them.
Please people, the fact that we don't have flying cars is a good thing.
The designers must not be familiar with either the United States D.O.T. rules governing cars on the road OR the F.A.A's rules governing manufacturered aircraft. IF such a car/plane could be manufactured to meet both sets of standards it would NOT be under $150,000 or anywhere close. A kit sold in Popular Mechanics for $150,000 maybe, but my guess is that a manufactured version would top $1,000,000 by the time it meets all the regulations, is certified and has product liability insurance on it. For the foreseeable future, flying cars are the stuff of comic books and cartoons....
The reason there's never been a "skycar" has always been computing, not engineering. I look at the idiots I see every day on the roads and the idea of letting them get a thousand or so pounds up where it can do some real damage scares the crap out of me. I'll even allow that I haven't been perfect. Though I've never been in an accident that was my fault, I'm sure that's because some other driver was more alert than I was at some time.
Bottom line: until there was a computer that could fly a plane safely, there's no way any sane person would hand the keys to anything flyable to an everyday driver. We've got that now, so just maybe we can give it a try.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
> But look at all the block the Bush Administration has put on various technologies around cloning.
> I'm not for cloning entire people, but cloning body parts - which reduces the rate of rejection to
> practically nil - is a wonderful idea. I needed a bone graft once and it didn't take from some other
> donor. It would've been nice if that could've been cloned from me.
Amen, brother! Just like you, when I read the question "Where are the Flying Cars", the first thing that popped into my mind was "It's that stupid Bush and his refusal to clone body parts!". Great minds think alike, huh?
- Safety for everyone on the ground.
- Safety for driver and passengers.
- Economics - gas prices will go up.
- Legal issues - Is it a car or an aircraft? It may have to cope with regulations from both domains.
- It will be a great getaway-vehicle for bankrobbers.
- Terrorist anybody?
There may be more reasons too...If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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
A helicopter does not need any.
Something optimized for good flying won't do very well on the land.- If it flies it does not need to work on land.
- Something optimized for good flying and land operation would do very well on both.
you'll be using a lot more of it to stay in the air, maybe two or three times as much.Emphasis maybe. An average car 40 years ago maybe used two or three times as much as an average car today.
because there's a lot to learn about flying that's not needed in order to drive a car.Legacy and irrelevant. A modern small plane does not need a pilot, and can be fully automated.
damage in crashing a car is trivial compared to the damage you can do in a small planeCrashing in high speed into another car: Both drivers die, people in the vicinity get hurt. Crashing in high speed into another small plane: Both drivers die, people in the vicinity get hurt. Safety will increase by magnitudes when you are not restricted to driving in an almost 1-dimensional space, but rather have full access to the air.
c++;
Sorry but I don't think the Government has anything to do with it. But, as a pilot, I can think of two very good reasons why there are no flying cars... 1) It's hard to do. The air moves with respect to the ground, roads don't. So, anything in the air has to deal with that. Any pilot will tell you that flying a plane, at altitude, straight and level, is pretty straight forward - in fact, not much harder than driving a car. But, landing involves a very complex transition from moving with respect to the air, whilst that parcel of air is itself moving with respect to the ground, to getting all the wheels on the tarmac. Which means, if you want Joe Public to fly cars, you'd have to rely on technology to do it, which brings me to my second point... 2) Litigation. The basic private aircraft itself has not advanced much since the 60's. Apart from the advent of GPS, all of the control systems, engine systems, instrumentation systems and so on are 1960's technology. There is not a light aircraft in the sky that even has fuel guages reliable enough that one doesn't need to physically look into the fuel tank and dip a stick before flight. The reason nothing has changed is because the risk of litigation against any manufacturer that introduces something new that malfunctions is too great. So, it's damn hard to do, and if you try to use technology to do it, you'll be in court as soon as it fails. Finally, it's awfully expensive to keep something in the air, and not particulary friendly to the environment.
helicopters have two main problems.
1)They are noisy. Don't underestimate this.
2) under massive use and infrequent repair conditions like the average person treats their car the helicopters would have a high failure rate. Look at Afganastan and Iraq. Choppers go down almost monthly. a large enough percentage of those are just mechanical failures. Even if it is only 5% 5% percent in civilian fleet is thousands and thousands.
What we should have more of though are helicopter taxi's. especially for the short commuter routes in between cities. regions where filling a 20 person plane isn't always possible yet the 3-4 hundred mile drive can be done in an two hours by helicopter, saving the person from 4-5 hours of driving. This also has to be priced accordingly. It can't be much more than $100 person or driving becomes cheaper.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Here is an interview asking the same question.
This direct link appears to work better than the website embedding they have setup.
Direct Link to Movie File
http://www.terrafugia.com/mov_terrafugia_landing.mov
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.
I don't agree with bullet #1. A well designed, 2-4 passenger, general aviation aircraft shouldn't burn all that much fuel. Sure, some burn more than others, but when you consider a Mooney can do about 200mph, at 20,000 feet and burn around a little less than 10 gallons per hour--that's about 20 miles per gallon, which is pretty good considering you're cooking along at 200mph.
The real problem is that features which work good on aircraft (especially aerodynamics which help increase speed reduce fuel consumption) don't translate very well to practical (or safe) ground vehicles.
Bullet #2, you're absolutely right. The barrier to entry in the aviation field isn't really very high, as it is, and under-experienced pilots routinely get themselves, their friends and their families, and sometimes random other people killed. Having even more people who are even less experienced buzzing around the skies sends chills down my spine.
Bullet #3, you're right and wrong. I mean, sure, if you lose your engine in a small plane, it's not good--but it's not like you instantly plummet into a mountain side. However, if you're high enough, smart and trained well enough, and aren't flying in conditions beyond your experience and skill level, engine failure shouldn't be a fatal experience. Also, a ton "engine failure" emergencies are the result of the pilot not watching the fuel meter, or forgetting to switch tanks. This is mostly related to bullet #2, idiots in the air. Airframe and control surface failures are very rare, but are one of those things that can make an airplane a giant lawn dart.
Anyway, good points.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
tornado season, there are lots of them ;)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Walking. It takes less space, works well in crowded areas, the energy usage is low, and the health benefits immense. It is guaranteed to work regardless of gas prices, or shortage. The downside is that it only works at very low speed, so it's best for short distances, which means that people will have to move to cities (or closer to work) instead of living in the suburbs and commuting long distances to work which is somewhere completely different.
There is also a limit to the amount of cargo it is practical to carry while walking. But by pushing or dragging cargo carts, moving something big such as a fridge or a king-size bed, is actually not such a big problem. The main problem is that we're accustomed to something better, which depends upon fossil fuel to work. But walking is actually a quite nice way of transportation. You should try it!
But where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars. I don't see any flying cars. Why? Why? Why. Because billions of people all over the world can work together on the Web 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You don't need flying cars, but you will need a different kind of software.
It's a different kind of world; you need a different kind of software.
Rob
Moller's problem is Moller, not America.
He's had the skycar in development for 30 years, as you say, and in that time it's made one unmanned tethered flight. One. Fucking. Flight.
It's a failure, time to move on.
0 1 - just my two bits
Well, I think flying cars haven't come about because the idea is terrible, but that's not the point I'm gonna make.
The point I'm gonna make: I would imagine these things take up quite a bit of fuel. Isn't this precisely the wrong time for that?
Property is theft.
For a different tradeoff, roller blades and skateboards make fun, rapid, highly portable transportation that requires little cost and maintenance, but does require paved surfaces. Cycling is also good in this respect, though a bike isn't as easy to carry around and usually requires secure lockup facilities. Hitching lifts has gone out of style, but it is still something easy to arrange with friends and coworkers. Even frequent taxi usage can cost far less than car hire or ownership. Swimming is great exercise and large goods such as a king size bed can be floated on pontoons for easy shipping. Rappelling is a cheap and affordable method of descending cliffs. Hang gliding also works, as does transcendental levitation. Lastly, you could get a Segway but you're not quite that desperate to look like a fool.
Broken cars stop. Broken aircraft drop. Flying cars are going to require safety standards far beyond what we are used to for ground cars.
Common misconception. Most people think of a "stall" like a car, where the motor dies. But in a plane, a "stall" has almost nothing to do with the engine, it has to do with the "angle of attack" and the airspeed, and simply means that your wings have stopped lifting the plane. Recovering from a stall is so easy that if you simply let go of the yoke, the plane will almost always right itself and recover automatically.
Most people picture the plane in an engine dying and then it sinks like a brick, like Wile E. Coyote 3 seconds after running off the edge of the cliff. But that's simply not how it is.
When a car motor dies on the freeway your car coasts to a stop. Similarly, when the motor in a plane dies, it glides downward. You have a surprising amount of options below you almost everywhere (except very mountainous areas) that are quite safe to put down a "dead" plane.
Safety note: 8 of 10 reported aircraft incidents involving power failure result in no injuries at all and that doesn't include the accidents involving power failure where no report was made. As a pilot, one of the things you train for is how to keep your head, glide with maximum efficiency (so you have the most time in the air) and safely put the plane down without engine power.
I practiced this maneuver probably 40 times until I was landing spot-on every time before I went for my private pilots' license.
And yes, I'd practically sell my grandmother to get one of these conversion planes if it actually worked...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
1. I looks like the prop could be a huge hazard for anyone that was unfortunate enough to rear end this thing.
2. It seems likely that this thing would have to be made a light as possible how is it going to stand up (or not) when a Suburban crashes into it
3. assuming you had a only minor traffic accident... what would teh procedure(s) be to certify it was airworthy after a accident?
it is also kinda fugly... but that is subjective i suppose.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
The combined an unsafe plane with an unsafe car.
Hilarity will no doubt ensue.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
I had the pleasure of working with several of the core Terrafugia team, particularly Anna and Carl Dietrich, when they were getting their Ph.D.'s at MIT. This group grew out of the MIT Rocket Team, which was working heavily on liquid-fueled engines (ethanol/kerosene and liquid oxygen). They're an experienced bunch, with particular experience exploring the rocket scientist's perpetual tradeoff between the need for power and the need for low weight.
I can tell you that this is a group of bright engineers who really are in love with flying -- just as are thousands of other private pilots around the world. I think many Slashdotters misunderstand their target market. The Transition requires both a pilot's license and a driver's license, so it's aimed at people who are already private pilots but want the convenience of not having to find a ground vehicle once they've landed at their destination airport. The listed price of their vehicle is comparable to other small planes like those from Cessna, and the extra convenience they're able to provide private pilots may be game-changing.
--
Educational microcontroller kits for a digital generation.
Personally, I wouldn't want anyone incompetent driving a car that can move in full 3D in the air, we have enough problems with drivers on the ground. I'd want to see data and EXTREMELY stringent tests on people who get flying cars, you can hit anyone and anything at a moments notice. Not to mention turbelence and then the joy riding stupid people will do.
I imagine during the early years there will be many accidents. Even our airplanes while mostly safe because of the years of experience, still suffer from difficulty of control. I've flown to and from places and when the plane swerves this way and that, it makes me shudder at the idiots being able to drive in the air. I really hope the technology develops to the point where we either
1) Make it idiot proof or
2) It's all automatically for the most part controlled, with a user-failsafe, or you can go manual, but you have "levels" of liscence that you can go unautomated.