Flying Car Passes First Flight Test

waderoush writes "Terrafugia — the Massachusetts company building a 'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me) — revealed at a press conference Wednesday that the Transition vehicle has been taken aloft for its maiden flight. The craft, which can fly up to 460 miles at 115 mph and then fold up its wings for 65-mph highway driving, was the subject of two hotly debated Slashdot posts on May 8 and May 13 of last year. The company said the first flight took place in Plattsburgh, NY; retired Air Force Colonel Phil Meteer was at the controls."

Comments

The future of the past

[MrEricSir]

Flying cars, robot vacuum cleaners... the future of the mid 60's is getting closer every day!

Re:The future of the past

[2.7182]

I want my television-phone!! Oh wait...

Re:The future of the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying cars, robot vacuum cleaners...

Don't forget black monoliths

I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[yoder]

Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.

This one could possibly be different, but I'm just not holding my breath.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[somersault]

Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.

That would make a great line in a song, sung in a monotone

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[eln]

I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks. Most of our traffic problems are caused by people following too closely and overreacting to developments ahead of them (braking harder than necessary, etc), not to mention the general scourge of distracted driving. If the whole process of freeway merging, maintaining safe distance, responding to stimuli outside the vehicle, etc, was handled by an unemotional computer (perhaps interfacing with a central traffic planning computer in more congested areas), things should smooth out.

Of course, we're still years away from that sort of computing power, but various aspects of the self-driving automobile have been under development for years, and we should eventually get there. At any rate, I find the prospect more realistic than the idea of thousands or millions of flying cars zipping around above New York City.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Mr2cents]

I know at least one reporter that's going to be thrilled...

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[MozeeToby]

To me, this is more of a drive-able airplane than it is a flying car. I know, maybe there isn't any difference but to me a flying car is something that flys which replaces my car. This is something that I can drive on regular roads that replaces my airplane.

It's a different market, a different use, and a very different price point. It might succeed, but personally I still wouldn't call it a successful flying car.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Big Boss]

The problem with self-driving cars is that they ALL have to be self-driving for it to work properly. I suppose you could designate certain roads as automated only, but how do you enforce it if you do?

I guess you could add sensors of some kind all around to keep the car from hitting other cars that don't report position data. But if even one of them is off calibration by a little bit.... crash. RADAR isn't great, as there just isn't enough space for independent transmitters. LIDAR might work, but has similar problems.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Onaga]

A roadable aircraft is not a flying car despite the implication in the summary. It is meant to be a plane. It is not meant to be a daily commuter that is capable of flight. It is meant to be a plane that can be driven to/from the airfield on regular roadways.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[jargon82]

I honestly think we are pretty much there with regards to computing power. The problem is taking peoples freedom to drive recklessly away.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Managing auto-driving car positioning from a central location is a very bad idea. For this to work realistically the cars need to be able to position themselves independently.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Whalou]

This one could possibly be different, but I'm just not holding my breath.

You will probably have to hold your breath since the summary says the car can fly up to 460 miles. Sounds more like a shuttle replacement than a flying car.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Narpak]

Every time I turn around I see another "flying car" that just can't get off the ground financially or technically.

This one could possibly be different, but I'm just not holding my breath.

I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.

I reckon for flying personal vehicles to be actually feasible you need anti-gravity, a portal powersource capable of powering said anti-gravity-device, and some sort of master control network capable of automating and coordinating all such vehicles in the air to ensure they don't collide (among other things). So I would say the likelihood of personal air vehicles becoming feasible is rather slim at the moment.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[petermgreen]

Indeed, while I think flying cars like this one may find a niche. I don't think they will ever take off on a large scale.

You will still need a pilots license (albiet only a light sport pilot license asusming terrafugia meet thier weight goals). You will still need a registered airfield to take off and land legally so it will only be worth using for longer trips. Finally it is rather expensive ($200000 iirc).

So I don't see there being enough of them in they sky to have a significant impact.

Of course that doesn't mean terrafugia won't be successfull. A small buisness (Which afaict is what terrafugia are) can be perfectly successfull with a niche product.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[vertinox]

The problem with self-driving cars is that they ALL have to be self-driving for it to work properly. I suppose you could designate certain roads as automated only, but how do you enforce it if you do?

I dunno. I guess write them a ticket like they do for every other traffic infraction.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ground roads are pretty well shot, but it's still early enough to fully automate air vehicles. If we can get the skies fully computer controlled, that'd take care of a vast number of problems as-is. There would need to be very specific 'landing areas' which could also be automatic, but from there, the person would need to manually drive to their final destination.

I think it's got possibilities.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're already willing to accept mass casualties for our roads. I'm perfectly willing to accept them for our skies.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Colin Smith]

Of course, we're still years away from that sort of computing power

http://www.atsltd.co.uk/

 

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[QuantumRiff]

You have something like a car-pool lane, with very, very steep penalties. (you could even had RFID readers like toll-booths to make sure every mile or so) Couple that with the lower insurance costs for drivers, and it would pick up pretty quick.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

SkyNet, coming to a Toyota dealer near you in 2010 :p

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[eth1]

This issue gets brought up every time this thing is mentioned.

It's NOT a replacement for garden-variety cars. It's a replacement for light aircraft that solves the last mile problem and allows for home storage without living on an airport.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

A horse, while not having human emotions, most certainly "feels" something when you aim it at another horse and try to make it gallop full speed.

I propose the exact opposite of what you suggest. I propose designing a "driver assist" AI that acts much like a horse.

For examples: if the road becomes slippery and wet; the AI will decide to take a potentially self preserving action of lowering the top speed. Or if you try to merge directly into that car in the next lane over while traveling at 75mph, the AI notices there is another "horse" in close proximity and stiffens up the steering to prevent the lateral impact. Maybe if you were too busy scolding obnoxious passengers or fiddling with the audio or climate controls to notice all the break lights up ahead; the AI detects that traffic has halted and begins a calculated deceleration.

$.02

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[FatAlb3rt]

GPS, proximity sensors, RFID chips embedded in the middle of the lane. That'll get you started. Then sync up cars in a line, 12 inches off the bumper in front of them.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[delirium of disorder]

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks.

This has been deployed all over the world, for over 50 years.
Cars are obsolete.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[sycodon]

Their target market is not the folks who take 45 mins to an hour to drive 5-10 miles to work in 45 rush hour traffic.

More like folks living 25-30 miles from an urban center who fly into the local airport and then take 45 mins to an hour to drive 5-10 miles in rush hour traffic.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[poetmatt]

Self driving cars on defined tracks? No, we already define where people can drive pretty well, having it be narrowed even further would depend on the implementation.

I guess you are trying to, I don't know, reinvent a railroad? /facepalms, not trying to be ad hominem

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[91degrees]

But such cars have been produced before. You end up with a not so good plane, and a pretty hopeless car. It is by all accounts not cheap, so why is it better than just calling a cab when you get to the airport and paying plane parking fees?

I'm sure there are a few people who fly to a lot of different regional airports that don't have a good taxi service nearby, or people who are just control freaks who insist on driving, but it seems a remarkable small market.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a heinlein story idea - where you can use the highspeed lane, but only under automation. and you can switch to manual control, but it bumps you down to a lower possible max speed and a different lane.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Akido37]

Self driving cars, managed by a central computer? It's called a train. (Subways to those of you in major metro areas)

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[koiransuklaa]

I love rail transport as well, but you are overlooking some of of its downsides. It needs massive amounts of people to work and is infrastructurally very expensive/slow: New lines need to be planned 10 years in advance and any mistakes are costly as hell.

Rail transport won't work without a supporting private transportation network that routes around any bottlenecks in the rail network and balances load.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is taking peoples freedom to drive recklessly away.

Oh no, how will they ever get along without their ability to kill or injure people.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[SkyDude]

Of course, we're still years away from that sort of computing power, but various aspects of the self-driving automobile have been under development for years, and we should eventually get there.

Will they be running on Microsoft Windows 777?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[$1uck]

If I ever had an absurd amount of expendable money, I wouldn't be very interested in a flying car. What would pique my interest is a Flying RV especially one that could do VTOL.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[smellsofbikes]

20 years ago, Connie Willis wrote a short story called "Last Of The Winnebagos" that, while it wasn't about this, had it as an aspect. The government started building super-interstates that were limited access, only for computer-controlled cars, and slowly converted all the roads over, one by one, until there were only a few very slow back roads that the old computerless cars could travel. It's a very good and very sad story.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[street struttin']

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks.

you mean like subway/metro trains?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Karganeth]

The problem with self-driving cars is that they ALL have to be self-driving for it to work properly.

Wrong. There have already been successful completely automated cars driven on motorways which could overtake other cars when it needed to. And this was over 10 years ago... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUREKA_Prometheus_Project

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with self-driving cars is that they ALL have to be self-driving for it to work properly. I suppose you could designate certain roads as automated only, but how do you enforce it if you do?

It's a simple solution. You create special lanes for auto-driving cars only. You know, just like we have bus only lanes, car pool only lanes, toll booth roads, etc.

You enforce it the same way you enforce normal traffic laws, with police.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Most trains aren't self driving.

The only exception I can think of is the Las Vegas Monorail.

(which is working fine now, and is running an operational surplus, i.e. revenue is more than expenses (not including bond payments) so it is profitable in that sense and is hardly the disaster people make it out to be).

Unlike this site, which is giving errors like "It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" and I AM logged in, and NOT posting anonymous! 4 is greater than 2 people. Fix the server!

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[SirGarlon]

Of course, we're still years away from that sort of computing power

I disagree; I think the computing power is available now. What we are years away from is being able to accept the public safety implications of a self driving car. For my part I think a machine can already do a better job than 90% of the drivers out there under typical circumstances. It's the atypical circumstances, when something unexpected happens, that I worry about.

But you're right, in order to make "flying cars" practical we'd need very good, automated collision-avoidance systems. And if we had those, traffic congestion problems would become a moot point...

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Verdatum]

...and you make a neat gun for the people who are still alive.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[D Ninja]

Indeed, while I think flying cars like this one may find a niche, I don't think they will ever take off on a large scale.

Hahahaha. Whether you intended it or not, this was actually a pretty funny joke. Flying cars...not taking off. Get it?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[TheLink]

From the article: "with a mean time between human interventions of 9km"

It's a decent step, but that is far from completely automated.

Most beginner human drivers don't need that much intervention after a few lessons, and they're still far from good enough at that point.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[baxissimo]

It would basically be a railroad, yes. But a railroad without rails and one in which the "trains" are composed of autonomous units which can join and detach at any time without the entire "train" having to stop. And that means a "train" that is capable of taking you door-to-door instead of picking you up 30 miles from your point of embarkation and dropping you off 20 miles from your final destination. Maybe these roads of the future could even allow cars to tap into overhead electric lines, so as to take advantage of the economies of bulk power generation.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Molochi]

Sikorsky S-61C. Room for the whole family. 7000 hours till next inspection. Only flown on Sundays. usd 2.4million cheap. No Dealers.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[mtrachtenberg]

You know, I live in a rural area about five miles from a very low traffic airport, and 300 miles from San Francisco. The drive to SF takes five hours, to SFO airport takes six, and the airlines charge as much to get from here to SFO as they charge to get from SFO to New York. If I had $200,000, I'd be in line now.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[IndustrialComplex]

In my case, I have a place to store an aircraft in a local home, and on my vacation property. I have a house in upstate NY which I would like to go to, but it is a 6-7 hour drive from my current location.

The ability to store this thing in my home garage, drive it to a local airport, fuel, and then fly to NY would be wonderful. I could land in a podunk airport, and drive the last 3 miles to my vacation home and store it in my garage there. I'm not too keen on arranging to park an aircraft at a field and pay a fee to do so when I could have the option of storing it in my own climate controlled garage (would it be a hangar then?)

If they can get it down to the sport craft limitations, this thing would be awesome and I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[IndustrialComplex]

You could have a system that provides resistance for a slight amount, but then disengages and emits an alert tone (like your lights are still on) if you continue.

That way, you get the initial resistance to prevent accidental movement, but the human can still override the system if they really want to make that maneuver w/o feeling restricted or 'stiff controls'.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[kipsate]

So while it is impossible to invent a flying car because cars would run into eachother in the air, it is at the same time possible to implement a computer system that avoids just that on the ground?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Doctor Jonas]

He'd rather register the lyrics or REM will be first in line to put music to that line...

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[KillerBob]

Ah, but in order to enforce it properly, the police would have to be driving an automated car, too. That wouldn't make for a very interesting high speed chase.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[drinkypoo]

It's a very good and very sad story.

That does sound sad. Self-driving cars instead of PRT? That's not progress.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having cars travel on a predefined track I believe has already been tried by at least two companies. One was Aurora and the other Tyco. I found judging the turns were tricky as cars would slide off the track.

Things could get pretty hazardous too if the guide pins break. But maybe they have the technology better now to keep them on the track at all times.

Predefined track cars

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[JoeMerchant]

I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.

For self-driven vehicles, it would be nice to be able to hover for better impromptu traffic handling.

At the present price point, and with no VTOL capability, I don't think crowding the skies will be a problem (i.e. the number of these things flying will be trivial.)

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks.

I think we're likely to see designated robot flying lanes before we get them on the ground. Construction costs are many orders of magnitude lower for new "flying lanes."

That's not really this product's niche, but there's a great deal more airspace to expand into, and the traditional (human piloted) traffic can route around the robot areas.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[hacksoncode]

You enforce it by only allowing the automated cars on the road.

You just have toll gates that inflict severe tire damage if you try to enter them without a transponder (that part's only 1/2 joke).

In a true emergency (like a psycho with solid tires), you'd have to have some kind of mechanism to do a controlled shutdown and return to local control.

The *real* problem is how you deal with hardware failures. Deliberate hacking is a bit tricky too.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks

Oh, you saw Minority Report Too?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[hot soldering iron]

"The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult."

Who said that you had to let craft fly over urban areas? Air traffic over cities is usually confined to certain altitudes/directions/areas. Why change this for flying cars? If it's flying, it's governed by FAA flight rules.

Please think before acting (speech is an act).

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[geekgirlandrea]

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks. Most of our traffic problems are caused by people following too closely and overreacting to developments ahead of them (braking harder than necessary, etc), not to mention the general scourge of distracted driving. If the whole process of freeway merging, maintaining safe distance, responding to stimuli outside the vehicle, etc, was handled by an unemotional computer (perhaps interfacing with a central traffic planning computer in more congested areas), things should smooth out.

Congratulations. You have just handed the government the ability to monitor and control the movements of everyone, everywhere. Now aren't you proud of yourself?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[petterb]

Not necessarily, the first self-driving car to follow a ordinary car could do this at a safe distance, and self-driving cars following this one would just follow in a normal self-driving kind of way (1 meter behind or whatever). The lead self-driving car would then smooth out any errors made by the ordinary car, and overall make for a smoother ride for all. Then you would have eliminated at least a bunch of drivers and all their errors.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[ghjm]

...which is maybe why Terrafugia calls it a roadable airplane?

The only mention of "flying car" is from Slashdot.

-Graham

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

realistically, the biggest problem isn't really computing power, or an all-inclusive system.

I've thought about this a lot over the years, and the single-most serious concern I have is security of the system. The beauty of humanly-operated vehicles is the decentralized nature of it. We don't have real-life versions of Matt Parkman, so it's kinda hard to hijack all the cars at once and cause mass casualties. Second to that, I think there is a certain euphoria surrounding the notion of a car that drives exactly like a human. We really just need improvements on the grunt work of transportation.

    - Cars should be able to report position/origination/destination information regardless of the automated driving feature.
 
    - Another key ingredient to a successful system like this is what I'll call locally dynamic coordination & cooperation. Essentially a subset of actions & functions that people take for granted (and, incidentally, are the primary cause for traffic, IMHO). Signaling turns/lane changes, merging, switching lanes to allow better merging/traffic flow, proactive braking, etc. These types of things can be implemented in stages as helpers to the human driver. I need to exit up there .. I put on my blinker ... cars in my immediate vicinity see that I'm trying to get over 2 lanes ... I don't have to get eye-contact from the guy to my right to make sure he's going to let me over .. likewise this information cascades to the cars around his car, etc etc. Pretty soon it's easy to see how a network of decentralized mini-functions react very similarly to that of a collective of human drivers, except faster and (in most cases) better!

We're not going to see railed roadways with automated cars anytime soon. What's the process for converting existing infrastructure? Vehicles? I'm not even sure a railed system is really what we'd want, anyway.

Whatever the pipe dream is (think Minority Report), we're a long way from completely automated travel. This causes a slight issue, because independently, the pipe dream may actually be relatively easy to pull off. The problem lies in the gray transitional period. Inevitably, converting from human to automated must result in a more complicated solution. Unfortunately, this combined with the desire we all have to go out and drive at our own leisure will slow adoption of any new automated system to a near stop.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

...something like self-driving cars on defined tracks.

Sounds great! People could also 'car pool' - particularly useful for that morning commute. A few 'cars' could be chained together to make the process more efficient. Some sort of route plan would likely be needed to get everyone where they need to go, along with regular traveling times to help get them there on time. For safety, someone would probably have to keep an eye on the automated driving system and make any necessary adjustments. Maybe metal tracks or 'rails' could be used to help guide the vehicles. This would remove some of the problems of automated steering. Such a 'rail transportation system' sounds like it would be very useful....

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Weasel Boy]

"self-driving cars on defined tracks"

We have these. They are called "trains". And they are very efficient, too.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[moose_hp]

[...] The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.[...]

Just like normal cars!

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[geekoid]

No he didn't, stop being a paranoid melodramatic whiner.

People like you are holding things up. You could easily develop this system based on a mesh that doesn't maintain specific legacy information.
You could also draft laws then ensure a court order is needed to get any information.

Guess what? If a guy with a Billion dollars can't hide, then anybody can b track down now. Sure, it might take a couple of days, at worst.

Gah.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[geekoid]

"It's NOT a replacement for garden-variety cars."

Then it sucks~

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[compro01]

Can your train add and remove arbitrary cars on the fly?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have a freedom to drive recklessly when you're on a public road, presenting a danger to everyone else. That's why cops can pull you over.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[MooUK]

UK examples: Docklands Light Railway. The old Post Office underground (closed years ago). The London Underground, mostly - pretty much the driver presses a button to close the doors and another button to go, and then grabs a newspaper.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Neflyte_Zero]

And it ended much the same way as Prometheus himself: splattered on a rock with a hungry bird pecking at the poor bastard's liver.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[geekgirlandrea]

No he didn't, stop being a paranoid melodramatic whiner.

I will when you stop being a boot-licking fascist enabler. Yes, I know being ordered around and punished by authoritative people in uniforms can be really hot, but kindly keep your submission fetish in the bedroom.

People like you are holding things up.

Holding what up, exactly? Are you going to make the trains run on time?

You could easily develop this system based on a mesh that doesn't maintain specific legacy information.

Yeah, right. It doesn't even need to know any identifying information about vehicles to map them to their owners. You see a vehicle move from point A to point B, you assume it was the same one you last saw at point A. Now you have a complete history of each vehicle's movements even without them transmitting any individually identifying information. Next, look and see where each vehicle spends the largest amount of time parked. This will be the owner's residence.

Not that anyone would actually have to go that much trouble. Just because it's possible to build a system like this in ways that might make it slightly difficult to abuse doesn't mean it actually would be built that way. Do you honestly believe that the same people who are eager to keep on installing traffic cameras are going to go out of their way to design a system that respects people's privacy?

You could also draft laws then ensure a court order is needed to get any information.

Yeah, because the cops have never, ever gotten a judge to rubber-stamp a court order, or just gone ahead and broken down someone's door in the middle of the night without one. Not to mention all the victimless 'crimes' they could use to justify oppressing people even if all the procedures were carefully followed.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[emjay88]

If I had points, I'd mod you up, both for the informative post and the subtle(?) Heroes reference.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks.

Funny, I hear that they have something like that in Europe. What was it called again....oh yeah, trains.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[petermgreen]

the trouble with public transport is the ammount of time you spend getting between the stations/bus stops and the final destination and waiting at the stations/bus stops (which is exasperated if you have to change).

A trip that would take less than an hour by car can easilly extend to over 2 hours with public transport.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Chyeld]

The point being however, a 'driverless' car can co-exist with a 'driven' car on the road. The premise that all they need to be segregated or everyone has to convert is faulty, and thus the argument following it moot.

A car built a decade ago was able handle a 1000 mile trip on european roads, with a max speed of over 100 mph and on average only needed human help once every five miles. With stretches where it went 100 miles without intervention.

A decade ago.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[discord5]

Congratulations. You have just handed the government the ability to monitor and control the movements of everyone, everywhere. Now aren't you proud of yourself?

The IEMI in your cell phone, combined with your sim number makes for a well enough tracking device. You might want to apply a few extra layers to that tinfoil hat, the old 5mm ones stopped working about 10 years ago.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

And with dancing kittens in Nazi hats

AC

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[MBGMorden]

So, a total trip size of 1000 miles, and and AVERAGE intervention rate of once per 5miles, but with stretches of over 100 miles without intervention. With 100 miles (apparently more than once) in there to skew that average, that's saying that there had to be a lot of really small distances in there dragging the average back down to 5.

Somehow I have a feeling that other cars had a lot to do with those frequent interventions and an open road with the long stretches.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Ihmhi]

Wouldn't it just be better to improve mass transit, stuff like trains?

Anyone who's ever ridden a train in Germany knows how much our trains are like crap in comparison. Sure, stuff like the NY/NJ Path train, subways, etc. might be nice, but I'm talking interstate trains.

I can't remember the exacts but Germany spends something like 10x on their trains compared to what we spend on our trains nationally.

The bottom line is that trains lose money - you can't have their true cost come down to ticket sales, because it will be too expensive for most people to bother with them. However, federally subsidizing the trains (as pretty much every industrialized nation does to some degree) will be a net benefit. Less cars on the road, less idiot drivers on the road, etc.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[MBGMorden]

You will still need a registered airfield to take off and land legally so it will only be worth using for longer trips.

That's actually not a legal requirement - if you have some land of your own (or permission from a land owner) you can certainly take off and land as you wish without worrying about any legal problems. Bush pilots land just about wherever they find room, and float planes can use any sufficiently large body of water. Heck while I was doing a bit of taildragger practice (in a Piper J3 Cub :)) down in Florida we were doing take offs and landings in the instructor's (unoccupied) cow pasture. It was actually pretty fun.

That said, this thing certainly doesn't look very well suited to grass field operations.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is until the conductor puts the controls in the hands of a 12 year old so busy texting that he can't even notice the train heading right for him!

-Oz

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Strake]

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like trains on defined tracks.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Chyeld]

I'm sure they did.

And I suppose the critical question would be, how much impact would they have today using today's tech?

With the follow-up question being how much impact in another decade?

Granted, my vision is less "A car that drives everywhere, itself" and more "A car that drives the long tedious parts that people tend to screw up because they aren't designed for long tedium, itself."

But the nice thing is, the more of that car on the road, the more "long tedious" parts become available for it to handle.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[packeteer]

I think you are worrying about self driving too much. Self driving cars are not simply going to blindly following a path only to have a tiny nudge throw off everything. They will be constantly aware of their surroundings and be making sure they are on course. Arguably we have the AI to do this today or very soon it just has not been implemented into a car.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but then you have to be on the trains path, on the trains schedule, making the stops it makes instead of your own.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

You did read the article, didn't you?...oh wait...Slashdot, sorry..

Erm, this flying car is classified as a light sports aircraft, a class of aircraft which are not actually allowed to fly over large urban areas. It's not meant to replace cars, it's meant to replace the need for a car or taxy to get to your airport hangar.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[JNSL]

You act as if this freedom exists to be taken away. It most surely does not.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[mcrbids]

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks. Most of our traffic problems are caused by people following too closely and overreacting to developments ahead of them (braking harder than necessary, etc), not to mention the general scourge of distracted driving.

OK, I'm following....

If the whole process of freeway merging, maintaining safe distance, responding to stimuli outside the vehicle, etc, was handled by an unemotional computer (perhaps interfacing with a central traffic planning computer in more congested areas), things should smooth out.

Assume you have a number of lanes. Assume that you are spacing cars 2 seconds apart. (The minimum distance that most people can drive and still have enough response time to not hit the car in front in an emergency)

Now run cars on your highway, spaced exactly 2 seconds apart, all going exactly 30 miles per hour. Count the number of cars that pass on the highway in a given period of time. Now, run those same cars on the same highway at 60 MPH, and notice how many cars pass on the highway during the same amount of time.

It's not going to be much different! Yes, the cars go faster. Yes, individual cars get home faster. But the actual throughput of the highway doesn't rise much as you speed up a well-spaced highway, because by definition, basing the capacity of the highway on a fixed response time (2 seconds) you limit the actual maximum throughput of the highway.

And most highways are already much denser than this theoretical throughput, now. People don't tend to drive a whole 2 seconds apart. And putting l337 computers in charge won't change things much - only about 3/4 of one of those 2 seconds is actually spent in response time. The rest is spent in actually braking the car. If a computer was in charge, you'd only slightly more than double the safe limit capacity on a highway.

It's an improvement, but probably not much (if any) over the amount that the highways are carrying today. How do you plan to deal with the actual limits of driving?

Want less congestion? BUILD MORE ROADS. How hard is that to understand?

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Rulian]

Well... yes. It's called stations. You just don't need a car to travel from one point to another... You have feet (well, maybe not, but 99% of us do), it's plenty enough in most case. OK ,ok, in your car, you may listen to the music you like, it's warm and you can fart whenever you want. Nothing a good jacket, an mp3 player and some education can't fix if you decide to use your own feet instead of a 4WD, 2 tons, oil hog.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Dan541]

What do we do about the driver problem?

Throwing an extra dimension at people who can't drive in the two they already have seems like a really bad idea.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Dan541]

Alternatively introducing some sort of qualification requirement to operate a road vehicle would also go a long way.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Eivind]

I actually think railable cars is a much better solution than *flyable* cars. There's multiple concepts for regular cars that have a "slit" under the middle that make it possible for them to drive on a monorail.

The advantages are many, compared to normal car:

For longer commutes, you can spend the time on the rail sensibly (catching up on news or email, for example)

Higher capacity, on the rail the cars can form a "train" with zero inter-vehicle distance, which means a single rail can have the capacity of 4-5 lanes. Also, doing this reduces wind-drag a "train" of 10 cars does *not* use the same energy as 10 individual cars.

Potentially higher speeds.

Electric vehicles can get power from the rail, solving one of electric cars achilles-heels, namely the short battery-range and long recharge-times.

Making the car capable of self-driving when on the rail should be MUCH easier than self-driving on a road. A self-driving car can get you somewhere while you relax.

At the same time, the fact that these vehicles are *also* normal cars mean you can get one even if there isn't a rail going to *everywhere*. When a rail is available, you use that, when not, you drive the normal way.

Have a look at http://www.ruf.dk/ for one such example.

Yes, there's engineering-challenges in this too, but they're MUCH simpler than those assosiated with flying cars. And the advantages are many.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue gets brought up every time this thing is mentioned.

It's NOT a replacement for garden-variety cars. It's a replacement for light aircraft that solves the last mile problem and allows for home storage without living on an airport.

Exactly! It's not a flying car, it's a driving plane. Big difference...

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are now hearing Leonard Cohen singing it.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[glennpratt]

Self-driving cars shouldn't do things humans wouldn't, at least not a first. Safe following distances and more will be automatically followed by the car.

We already have cars with self-following cruise control and lane departure avoidance (nudges you back in the lane). I think it will be a gradual transition.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the whole process of freeway merging, maintaining safe distance, responding to stimuli outside the vehicle, etc, was handled by an unemotional computer (perhaps interfacing with a central traffic planning computer in more congested areas), things should smooth out.

I think that is called an electric train.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[alexo]

The answer to our traffic woes is probably not flying cars, but rather something like self-driving cars on defined tracks.

In other words, mass transit (trains, trams, etc.)

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Starcub]

I think it's a waste of time. The logistics involved with actually having a non-trivial number of these things up in the air over urban areas without mass casualties are just too difficult.

More accurately, it's a waste of money. I don't think you'll have to worry about traffic problems. These things are too expensive to be worthwhile to anyone who doesn't have money to burn. In fact, even ultra-lights which are much less regulated, are still too expensive for the average consumer.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[rts008]

Sounds like my A.R.S.E. I was posting about several days ago.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Self-driving cars on defined tracks" would be a required technology for flying cars. I, for one, would not be comfortable have the guy behind me on the interchange this morning following me down a runway.

Re:I've been patiently waiting for 35 years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagree. The cars should be able to operate autonomously to stay in their lanes and maintain emergency separation but will still need traffic control (traffic lights, speed limits, lanes, holding areas, emergency routing, access control etc.). Consider a blocked lane where there are two lanes available and in use. You would like the cars already in the blocked lane to merge to the unblocked lane through the bottleneck until the road is cleared. In the autonomous case, the cars have no foreknowledge of the blockage so each one comes racing up to the scene of the accident and performs an emergency maneuver to stop or avoid. If the roads are sufficiently busy, the emergency behaviour should eventually flatten out to a normal stop with the blocked lane becoming a parking lot. I could also see the cars having algorithms to merge alternately but I cannot see how that protocol is engaged reliably in this situation (and how inefficient it would be. In the central control case, CC slows the traffic approaching the accident down slightly and staggers the two lanes so that they can just zipper together through the bottleneck. It would also be able to create operating areas around the accident and drop the emergency equipment there (something else difficult to do in an autonomous scenario...how do you autonomously drop a tow truck downstream of an accident?)

Not really what the market wants

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people are really looking for airable roadcraft.

These guys are making just the opposite.

Driver licensing?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It seems like a cool idea, but I bet the licensing requirements are prohibitive.

Re:Driver licensing?

[Anonymous Coward]

That and imagine how dangerous the skies would become. Road traffic is extremely dangerous as it is now imagine thousands of planes flown by people who can barely drive.

Re:Driver licensing?

[oodaloop]

That's a bet you would lose. The FAA has a new license for crafts like these that's much easier to get than a traditional pilot's license. It's the whole reason these vehicles are being built now.

Re:Driver licensing?

[petermgreen]

Afaict assuming terrafugia meet thier design goals and you are in the US (which seems to be thier target market at least to start with, rules elsewhere will of course vary) you will need a "sport pilot" or higher license to fly it.

Looking at wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States#Sport_pilot ) the requirements to get such a license don't seem that onerous. I'd imagine most people who could afford to drop $200K on a terrafugia transistion could afford the instruction needed to get a license.

Re:Driver licensing?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

From the rules:

Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English

Which is considerably stricter than needed for a driver's license! :)

Re:Driver licensing?

[element-o.p.]

I don't have to imagine; I'm a flight instructor.
:D

Re:Driver licensing?

[furby076]

Getting a light aircraft pilots license generally runs about $5,000 with instructors, required air-time, and instructional materials.

In all honesty, unless this is computer controlled I would not want to see it. I drive on 95 between PA/DE 5 days a week and I see or feel the effects of an accident about 2 times a week. Air traffic? Yea how about a flying car landing in your home.

Re:Driver licensing?

[hurfy]

But does it really qualify?

I see they talk about the sport license but looking at that plane i don't see how it gets under the weight. It certainly looks husky :) And is it even possible to build a street legal car (we are driving it to the airport LEGALLY, right?) at that weight much less able to do both.

That is half the weight of a mini-cooper is it not? It is less than my 70's Opel which is pretty thin and has no airbags, ABS, side-impact,etc

Now i need to look into finding LSA aircraft as it appears i am able to fly one :)

Re:Driver licensing?

[Deadstick]

Oh, you say you'd like to be able to get to work when it's cloudy/snowing/raining? OK, now we're talking Private Pilot Certificate minimum, with Instrument Rating. And an aircraft capable of operating in the ATC system. And an airport at each end with instrument approach equipment. Oh, cold weather too? Let's talk about deicing equipment...

rj

Re:Driver licensing?

[oodaloop]

This isn't made for daily commuting; it's made for long-distance travel. Nice strawman though.

Re:Driver licensing?

[ngg]

Well, if they made the traction motors electric, they could call it a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, and avoid most of those pesky safety requirements that most street-legal cars have to meet.

Re:Driver licensing?

[ngg]

What? Clouds don't exist between cities? How is pointing out the limitations of the Sport Pilot License a strawman argument? Or are you just assuming that people have infinite time to wait out the weather when taking long trips (ie when not commuting)? In some parts of the country during some parts of the year, having an IFR rating significantly boosts the utility of your certificate.

Re:Driver licensing?

[Deadstick]

Loop, instrument weather can get in the way of ANY kind of air travel. If you're not equipped and qualified for it, your every flight depends on the weather, which puts a bit of a crimp in business use.

Oh, just traveling long-distance for pleasure? Like to bring anyone else along, maybe some baggage too? Note the figures "Fuel 20 gallons" and "Useful load 430 pounds". Useful load includes fuel...so 430 pounds minus 20 gallons of fuel at 6 lb/gal = 310 pounds = two fit adults and a 10-pound bag.

Oops, no, forgot to deduct for the oil in the engine, so maybe a 5-pound bag. You're gonna get a bit smelly while you wait out the weather somewhere out on your course.

rj

Re:Driver licensing?

[oodaloop]

You're gonna get a bit smelly while you wait out the weather somewhere out on your course.

You could always, I don't know, DRIVE IT! Or land, fill up, and either fly or drive. Despite it being a flying vehicle, this isn't rocket science. Plan your trip, watch the weather, watch your gas gauge. Just like what you do for any trip.

It's a TRAP!

[SoundGuyNoise]

Transition® Roadable Aircraft Proof of Concept.

TRAP Concept? Oh, sign me up!

lame movies now have new areas

[Anonymous Coward]

What was once "I disables his brakes" will go to "I reversed his aileron cables".

Re:lame movies now have new areas

[Jay Maynard]

Part of the pre-takeoff checklist for every aircraft I've ever seen is "FLIGHT CONTROLS: FREE AND CORRECT". You move the stick and make sure the control surfaces move in the proper direction. It's not just (or even primarily) for detecting sabotage; it's because mechanics have been known to hook cables up backwards during maintenance.

Re:lame movies now have new areas

[robinesque]

Instead of tying a chain to the bumper you'll tie a chain to the empennage?

Re:lame movies now have new areas

[Shakrai]

Given that your typical civilian can't even bother to check to see that all four of his tires aren't flat before leaving his driveway, color me skeptical that they will follow a "pre-takeoff checklist" before powering up the flying car.

Re:lame movies now have new areas

[Jay Maynard]

You're assuming that "your typical civilian" would be flying one. This is not the case: it requires at least a sport pilot license. The requirements for that license are substantially the same, for those privileges that are common, to those for the private pilot license. (I've got the test standards right in front of me; I'm in the final phases of preparing for the CFI-Sport Pilot checkride.) Those standards most certainly include using checklists for all phases of flight. If they don't use them, they don't pass.

Re:lame movies now have new areas

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't use them, they don't pass.

Yeah, and if you can't parallel park you can't pass your drivers test, so that must be why everybody is an expert parallel parker ;)

Re:lame movies now have new areas

[Thumper_SVX]

Then they'll never get even a sport pilot license... problem solved I think.

Doesn't stop some nimrod getting in one and trying to fly it... but then again, it never stopped anyone from doing that with light aircraft either (and it has happened... just not often)

Re:lame movies now have new areas

[FlightTest]

Driving inspectors aren't checked nearly as closely as FAA Designated Examiners. The guy I took my IFR checkride with got his DE yanked a couple years after my IFR ride. The FAA called me with some questions about my checkride, and I found out later he was playing fast and loose with some paperwork.

The checkride was honest, and the CFI's I talked to all thought his checkrides were fair - it didn't seem to be a matter of passing unqualified pilots or flunking qualified pilots, just paperwork issues.

As long as you still have to go to an FAA D.E. for the checkrides (which I doubt will ever change), there's really no comparison between drivers license tests and flight tests.

Not really a "Flying Car"

[A. B3ttik]

This has been beaten to death over and over again, and I thought that, by now, people would understand that this product isn't a Jetson's "Flying Car," but already, with just two comments, we've got someone confused on the subject.

This is not a Jetson's style "Flying Car" for everyone to keep in their driveways. It is a plane that can fold its wings and has enough lights such that it is street legal. It is meant as something for private pilots (with pilot licenses) such that they can store their planes at home and "drive" them to the local airport before taking off on a pleasure flight.

It is NOT meant for people to fly to work after taking off from their garages, merging onto the skyway, and passing some old geezers flying outdated DeLoreans.

It's just a plane that you can also legally 'drive' on the road. That's it.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[teknopurge]

We needed a starting-point. This is it.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

I sincerely doubt we will ever be passing old geezers flying outdated DeLoreans.. For that to happen, we'd need to find ways to make over a ton of machine fly at 25 mph.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[eln]

Nobody is interested in an airplane the super-rich can drive to their villas after their day trip to the Bahamas. Everyone is interested in flying cars. If you put up an article about something that looks like it could someday lead to flying cars, people are going to comment on flying cars and what they would mean and how plausible they are.

Without the flying car connection, this article is more suited for some magazine that sells over-priced crap that no one needs like SkyMall, not Slashdot.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[A. B3ttik]

I agree entirely. My comment was specifically targeting the naysayers with comments like "I've wanted a flying car for 30 years! All promises and no delieveries. Why will this be different."

My point is that this _is_ different.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 100 mile commute. I could see using this as a commuter vehicle. Yeah, I get the whole take off and land at airports bit, but I live near an airport and there is an airport near the office.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[jellomizer]

Back in 2003 I had to travel for work about 120 miles every day (60 miles too and back). I wished I had a flying car every day. I could leave from a small airport in my City land at a small air port at my destination. Drive to the office. I could probably go from from point to point in about 1/2 the time. if I had a flying car (about 1/2 hour travel). I would say something like this would be perfect.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[reeherj]

Excellent point. You also should note that that same pilot could fold up the wings and drive the airplane at thier destination as well, say to a hotel or festival or something without having to rent a car.

It would make private airplane ownership much more enjoyable for actual trips and such.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[A. B3ttik]

It IS an innovation in technology... and Slashdot is about Technology.

We have articles on Jetpacks and stuff that only the rich can afford... this is no different.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a super-rich drivable airplane pilot, you insensitive clod!

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[Shakrai]

For that to happen, we'd need to find ways to make over a ton of machine fly at 25 mph

Yeah, if only we could figure out how to do that.....

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody is interested in an airplane the super-rich can drive to their villas after their day trip to the Bahamas"

How about the super-rich?

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[Slumdog]

and Slashdot is about Technology.

Really? I thought Slashdot is about moderators!

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[JoeMerchant]

Nobody is interested in an airplane the super-rich can drive to their villas after their day trip to the Bahamas.

Au contraire! If I can start a company that separates the super-rich from their money in large quantities, I am very interested.

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[geekoid]

really, this is it? not the last hundred years or so?

Re:Not really a "Flying Car"

[Deadstick]

You had your starting point with the Taylor Aerocar in 1949. You didn't buy one. In fact, in those post-WW2 years when lots of people had a good job and a pilot's license (or could get a license for about $200), there weren't enough orders to put it in production.

rj

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

"Terrafugia -- the Massachusetts company building a 'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me)

A roadable aircraft (a plane that can use the roads) is not the same thing as a flying car. Just like a laptop that's set up for VOIP is not the same thing as a mobile phone that can run applications. Similarities, yes, but big big differences.

Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Jay Maynard]

The video voice-over says that the Terrafugia's empty weight is 890 pounds. With a maximum gross weight of 1320 pounds set by the Light Sport AIrcraft rules, this leaves a useful load of just 430 pounds. Gasoline weighs 6 pounds per gallon. With two real people aboard, it won't have much range...

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[gfxguy]

Yeah... unfortunately, the kind of thing I'd really want something like this for is visiting my family in Florida (from Georgia). At 550 miles, it's way over the maximum range of this thing, and I have two kids. And two dogs. And, of course, luggage.

Otherwise I'd buy one of these in a heartbeat. If they took a slightly postdated check, that is.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[slacktide]

Luckily there is a pretty significant movement to change that the LSA gross weight limit to 1600 lbs. A lot of the current LSAs are payload limited by this regulation, but are structurally capable of 1600 lb MTOW.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Jay Maynard]

Not gonna happen. The 1320 pound/600 kg max gross weight limit is something the FAA is dead set on keeping. Yes, it excludes a large number of certificated aircraft - but it was intended to: the goal was to create a market for new airplanes.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Shakrai]

this leaves a useful load of just 430 pounds. Gasoline weighs 6 pounds per gallon. With two real people aboard, it won't have much range...

Or just one American ;) *rimshot*

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Thumper_SVX]

Nothing stopping you landing en-route and filling up... like a car :)

Honestly, a 550 mile range at 115mph... that's about what I'd expect from an LSA (Light Sport Aircraft); about 4 hours. You measure in fuel burn, not distance, because range in distance can change with wind.

But yeah... the two kids, dogs and luggage... yeah, this isn't your aircraft :)

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[element-o.p.]

Welcome to the state of the art in light airplane design. This is woefully common.

Back in the early '90s when I had just earned my pilot's license, I flew a Cessna 152 that had been modified with a slightly larger engine and had the extended range fuel tanks (due to the slightly larger engine). Due to the weight of the larger engine and the bigger fuel tanks, I was limited to about 350 miles range (plus FAA required reserves) if I was flying solo, IIRC. I *couldn't* legally fly it with a passenger, unless I had someone tow me aloft :( Still, it was a kick in the pants to fly!

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[ksheff]

One fuel stop wouldn't be that bad. You would have to do that with most cars anyway.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Jay Maynard]

BTW, is that 115 MPH, or 115 knots (about 135 MPH)? Most modern aircraft report speeds in knots.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Jay Maynard]

Yeah, I know...my Zodiac's useful load is only 470 pounds. I can carry me and a passenger and fuel, but I have to be careful about how much fuel - but that's still on the order of 20 gallons, which takes me as far as I want to go in one leg anyway.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Thumper_SVX]

According to TFA and the various other articles I've read... 115mph.

Of course, that's in the air speed... your ground speed... well, literally YMMV :)

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[JoeMerchant]

Two kids, dogs, and luggage put you into negative fuel capacity. This is the first model, if it has any success, I'm sure they could fit a bigger engine, take a bigger check and have a little more range and capacity.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[Jay Maynard]

Yeah. There's enough confusion between knots and MPH that I wanted to make sure which we were dealing with. I finally went to Terrafugia's site, where they said it cruises at 115 MPH (100 knots). That's kinda disappointing, though with as much frontal area as the Transition has, making it go faster on the Rotax 912S's 100 HP would be problematical at best. They're probably well into the range where more power would only marginally increase speed, too.

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[BarefootClown]

You are aware that you can land and put more gas in, right?

Re:Nifty idea, but marginally too heavy

[joe_frisch]

It takes a while to descend, fuel the airplane / car, taxi back and take-off again. Not the end of the world, but it starts to eat into the speed advantage. I typically loose 1/2 hour in a re-fueling in my plane.

What is the big deal?

[SirGarlon]

Seriously, I don't understand this Slashdot obsession with flying cars. You would need a pilot's license and really it becomes the same thing as flying an airplane. Even in the highly unlikely event you could find takeoff and landing space for your daily commute, you would still need clearance from an air traffic controller to get airborne. You'd be trading a traffic jam on the road for a traffic jam in the airspace.

Re:What is the big deal?

[oodaloop]

No. The FAA has a new license category, I believe called Sport Light. It's easier to get and does not require an air traffic controller. This new license is what has been driving (no pun intended) the production of these new flying cars/roadable aircraft.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even in the highly unlikely event you could find takeoff and landing space for your daily commute, you would still need clearance from an air traffic controller to get airborne."

False. There are hundreds of unmanned airports that are not in any sort of controlled airspace. All you have to do is announce that you're taking off and keep your eyes open. You only need clearance from a tower-controlled airport.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Stele]

You don't need clearance from anyone to fly an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (class G - below 700 ft or below 1200 ft near uncontrolled airports).

Further, you can fly VFR in class E (pretty much everywhere except near airports, and below 18000 ft) without any clearance whatsoever. In fact, you are not required to talk to anyone at all if you don't want to.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I don't understand this Slashdot obsession with flying cars.

What kind of /. Geek are you? You don't understand were all obsessed with future technology promised to us by the masses that never existed. Where's my personal robot that's what I want to know.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Colonel Korn]

You don't need clearance from anyone to fly an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (class G - below 700 ft or below 1200 ft near uncontrolled airports).

Further, you can fly VFR in class E (pretty much everywhere except near airports, and below 18000 ft) without any clearance whatsoever. In fact, you are not required to talk to anyone at all if you don't want to.

I knew so many airline pilots who died or barely survived crashes because they thought they were too cool to use their radios in their private planes. Anyone not talking to potential local traffic or the local/regional tower is begging for death.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Jay Maynard]

Those who don't use their radios are indeed taking unjustified risks...but it's quite common for airplanes not to have radios at all. (Some airplanes don't even have electrical systems.) You can't assume that the pattern is empty just because nobody's talking. You have to look. Depending on the radio is just as foolish as depending solely on your own abilities to see and avoid.

Re:What is the big deal?

[element-o.p.]

...and does not require an air traffic controller.

Eh???? You can legally fly *any* airplane without talking to air traffic control with a conventional pilot's license, as long as you remain clear of certain types of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D airspace, specifically).

Of course, your personal 747 won't do you much good if you remain clear of Class A airspace, and you'd better have a really big back yard to build your private 10,000 foot airstrip on so you don't have to fly in Class D airspace.....

Re:What is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot and the mods are idiots too, if you stay out of controlled airspace you don't need to speak to an air traffic controller irrelevant of what you have. Ultralight aircraft licensing has been around for a while

Re:What is the big deal?

[ngg]

First of all, it's a Sport Pilot license that allows you to fly Light Sport Aircraft (which are not certified aircraft, by the way--the FAA only certifies that they are not certified aircraft).

Secondly, as others have pointed out, whether you talk to a controller is exclusively determined by what type of airspace you are in, though your license and ratings may preclude you from flying in certain types (Class A, for example exists only at altitudes for which you need an IFR rating, and large Class Bs are often (on a case-by-case basis) off-limits to holders of Student Pilot licenses.

And finally, the purpose of the LSA category and Sport Pilot License is to reduce to cost of flying--which the vehicle in the article doesn't do. I can buy, today, (if I had the money) a number of other LSAs from manufacturers with longer track records for roughly $100k less than I might be able to buy this vehicle some years from now. You could rent a pretty nice car more than 1000 times before you made up that difference. Even then, you're never going to come out ahead after you pay for insurance--which costs more, insuring a $100k airplane, that is virtually guaranteed never to get into a fender-bender with a car plus a $20k car that drives on public streets; or insuring a $200k vehicle that drives on public streets?

Re:What is the big deal?

[jholden215]

The point is that with a Light Sport Pilot License your aircraft is limited in weight (a maximum gross weight of 1320 pounds set by the Light Sport Aircraft rules) but it much easier to obtain than any other pilot license. Interesting about the classes of airspace though. Where do you find out more about which locations are which classes?

Re:What is the big deal?

[Starcub]

The Light Sport catagory requires half the flight time of a private pilots licence and you still have to pass a written exam. It's still somewhat expensive to get that airtime (~$3000), so not everyone is going to want to get one. In addition, the aircraft themselves are prohibitively expensive for most.

If you want to fly in controlled airspace or land at an airport under controlled airspace, you will still need to be certified to do so. I would imagine that this would also include having a radio to recieve ATC direction. Even VFR aircraft require a minimum set of instrumentation for this purpose.

One thing that did concern me, though I haven't researched it completely, is that there appears to be no flight time maintenance requirement or re-testing requirement for licencees.

Re:What is the big deal?

[element-o.p.]

Oops, I haven't checked replies in a while, so I don't mean to resurrect a dead thread. But to answer your question, all airspace is depicted on aeronautical charts and airport facility directories. You can find aeronautical charts on-line at skyvector.com.

Basically, Class A airspace is all airspace over the U.S. between 18,000 and 60,000 feet. Class B airspace surrounds the largest, busiest airports in the country (Seattle/Tacoma, Chicago-O'Hare, DFW, etc.). Class C airspace surrounds selected other air carrier airports that aren't quite busy enough for Class B designation (Anchorage, Alaska is the only one I know off-hand, although there are many, many others -- I just live and fly in Anchorage). Class D airspace is around any airport that has a control tower (and there are far more airports without control towers than with). In Alaska, Class D airspace exists in Anchorage (Merrill Field), Juneau, Kodiak, Iliamna, Fairbanks, Bethel, Kenai...and I can't remember the 8th one.

HTH!

Crash safety?

[girlintraining]

This thing won't be more than a novelty if it's light aeroframe can't survive an impact with one of those giant SUVs driven by some guy yelling at his girlfriend on a cell phone... You'll be the jelly between two pieces of fiberglass. Plus, until it can land on a public street, and pull into a parking spot, and then take off again on the same street, without violating the speed limit, I don't see it having much practicality to Joe Average.

That said... Good job. We here at Slashdot love seeing what bored engineers are capable of. Especially if it has high speed internet wired into it.

Re:Crash safety?

[element-o.p.]

The speed limit isn't typically the problem. The FAA limits single-engine airplanes to a minimum controllable airspeed ("stall speed", if you want to get technical) of 65 knots -- that's around 70MPH. There are many, many light airplanes that can take off and land near 50MPH, so it isn't *that* difficult to find a road that you could take off or land on without exceeding the speed limit.

However, many (most?) municipalities frown on taking off of landing on roads in their jurisdiction as a matter of course. And even if you can find a muni that doesn't care -- it used to be legal to fly off of roads in Alaska outside of Anchorage, but I don't know if that's still the case -- there are practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, your wings are often 30+ feet from wingtip to wingtip, but a two lane road is only about 16 feet wide. If there are trees, powerlines or signs along the road, you are probably going to have a clipped-wing airplane in the near future (oops...).

Re:Crash safety?

[drinkypoo]

This thing won't be more than a novelty if it's light aeroframe can't survive an impact with one of those giant SUVs driven by some guy yelling at his girlfriend on a cell phone... You'll be the jelly between two pieces of fiberglass.

The issue is whether YOU can survive the impact. As long as there's a crash cell to protect you, it's feasible.

Plus, until it can land on a public street, and pull into a parking spot, and then take off again on the same street, without violating the speed limit, I don't see it having much practicality to Joe Average.

Do you have any idea how many airstrips there are in the USA?

Roads?

[ohnotherobots]

Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Re:Roads?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking forward to retirement too... can't wait until everything is a road; outdoor markets, sidewalks, neighbors living room...

Hmmm. Don't want one.

[wiredog]

Think it'd have trouble towing my bass boat.

Re:Hmmm. Don't want one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think it'd have trouble towing my bass boat.

So, you want the roadable, floatable, aircraft.

Re:Hmmm. Don't want one.

[D Ninja]

Think it'd have trouble towing my bass boat.

Yeah. Especially while in the air...

Re:Hmmm. Don't want one.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why I hate public transport advocates. I tell them, "when the train or bus comes to my front door at 4:30 am, hooks up my boat, tows me to the lake, launches me, and comes back to pick me and my boat up at some previously undisclosed time, then I will take up riding the bus or train". However if I could fly my car, I'd install landing pontoons, pack my float tube and rods, and become my own "bush-pilot"

-Oz

Re:Hmmm. Don't want one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think it'd have trouble towing my bass boat.

Yeah. Especially while in the air...

Easy solution. All we need is flying boats.

If you're driving down the road

[irright]

how much crosswind can it take before you are upside down in the ditch?

The Fifth Element

[yumyum]

Wake me up when the cars can fly like those from The Fifth Element

That's when I want one...

Let me see if I got this right

[0xdeadbeef]

What you're saying is... that this is a flying car. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Let me see if I got this right

[themacks]

actually i think he's saying that it's a driving plane

mileage?

[onionlee]

yes... but how is it on mileage?

Re:mileage?

[CompMD]

Probably not bad. My Diamond DA20 gets 29mpg in cruise.

Ground Effect

[MuChild]

From the videos, it looks like it never gets that high off the ground. Just like the Spruce Goose, this thing might only be flyable due to ground effect. Until they have videos of it getting above 40 feet off of the ground, I will remain skeptical.

Re:Ground Effect

[Sporkinum]

Supposedly the video is only of the maiden flight. The article said they made several more "real" flights.
One thing that was disconcerting to me though, was the amount of elevator it took to get airborne. That seemed to me like a not well balanced (CG) aircraft.

Re:Ground Effect

[BubbaDave]

One thing that was disconcerting to me though, was the amount of elevator it took to get airborne. That seemed to me like a not well balanced (CG) aircraft.

It could be other things requiring a large elevator movement to produce much effect:
- the elevator has a lot of flat surface in front of it
- the elevator pivots where it meets the surface in front of it
- a lot of the elevator surface is blocked by the body

Elevator almost looks like a ducks tail.

Dave

You want idiots in the air too?

[Midnight Thunder]

While I am looking forward to a flying car, on the condition it doesn't consume more fuel that the current automobile, I can't wonder who will be driving those things. At least with current aviation you know that people have a pilot's license and have a certain sense of wanting to live, but if I look at some of the drivers around me when I drive, then I can't help wonder whether putting these people at the helm of a flying vehicle would be such a wise thing. Imagine:

normal:
- driving instructor: look left and right before entering the intersection
- ditsy learner: ooh look at the flowers
- driving instructor: watch out for the car!!!!

flying:
- driving instructor: look all around you before crossing the vertical air junction
- ditsy learner: ohh those cars look like ants
- driving instructor: keep your altitude!!!

Re:You want idiots in the air too?

[Weaps]

The FAA regulates everything that has wings, rotors, or rockets so nobody will be flying/driving one of these without at least a sport pilot license.

Me? I have a Private Pilots license and live in one place that happens to have a small airport nearby and work at a place that happens to have a small airport nearby. I could easily see a commute where I drive the flying car to the airport near my house, preflight, spread the wings, take off land at the work airport about six minutes later, fold up the wings and drive the rest of the way to work. If the weather's bad I take the [non-flying] Jeep to work on regular roads.

Currently my job doesn't pay me enough to afford one of these things, but I could foresee getting a job that has a fantastic rate but killer commute on the road that something like this would make possible.

Re:You want idiots in the air too?

[camperdave]

flying:
- driving instructor: look all around you before crossing the vertical air junction
- ditsy learner: ohh those cars look like ants
- driving instructor: keep your altitude!!!

I hope it will be a lot more like:
flying:
- flight computer: Please enter your destination.
- ditsy traveller: ohh those cars look like ants
- flight computer: We have now arrived at your destination. Have a pleasant day.

Re:You want idiots in the air too?

[dodobh]

I'll spend a week or two at home, or somewhere away from groups of humans with flying cars. Darwin will win. Always.

Until Murphy steps in and I die in a landslide caused by a freak storm which all the flying cars stay safe in a garage.

Back to the Future

[ari_j]

You guys have 6 years to come up with the technology to install a hover conversion on my Delorean. I've been waiting for a long time already, so don't fail me.

Re:Back to the Future

[furby076]

Vote for me to be your president and I shall change your life by making your hopes and dreams come true by giving you flying cars in ten years!

Re:Back to the Future

[JoeMerchant]

Put them together with these guys and you might have a chance.

Re:Back to the Future

[geekoid]

YOu have a Delorean, why is time a problem~

Poll: Which flying car would you like to own?

[yogibaer]

Unlimited Opportunities :-): http://www.freakingnews.com/Flying-Cars-Pictures--941.asp. Please lets have a poll about everybody's favorite flying car! Myself, I always have been a fan of Fantomas' flying Citroen DS. Evil Genius travelling in style... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDWIRI5j7o

Pffft

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no Thunder-Cougar-Falcon-Bird....

Folding Plane, not Flying Car

[AK Marc]

If you want a real flying car, try http://www.moller.com/ Sure, they aren't making them and are "four years away from FAA certification (and have been 2 years away from certification for the past 20 years or so, so it's getting worse)." But they are cool, and more like what people think of when talking about flying cars.

Re:Folding Plane, not Flying Car

[Locke2005]

No thanks, I'd prefer a flying car that actually flies with a human on board! Preferably one designed by somebody that hasn't been charged with fraud by the SEC. After 40 years of development and countless millions in gullible investor money burned through, the Moller Sky Car still has never flown without being attached to a crane, and has never been piloted except by a tether. At what point should one conclude that this is serious snake-oil?

Re:Folding Plane, not Flying Car

[AK Marc]

But it's cool looking snake oil.

Unreasonably high standards??

[Rastl]

Everyone here will happily accept beta and pre-beta software but as soon as someone comes up with a vehicle that can both drive and fly there's immediate "Unless I can park it in my driveway and ..." flak.

Give it up! This is the first working vehicle of its type! Give them loads of credit for making it work.

Sure, right now it's an expensive toy but then again so were the first personal computers. See any parallels here?

Re:Unreasonably high standards??

[Deadstick]

This is the first working vehicle of its type!

Look up the Taylor Aerocar of 1949.

rj

roadable aircraft, not flying car

[Geoffrey.landis]

'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me)

Not quite.

The problem with conventional small aircraft is that once you've flown your Cesna 172 (or whatever) to your destination, you find that you're at an airfield way out of town somewhere, and you don't have a car.

Terrafugia is a solution that, once you land, you have a car. Which would be very handy sometimes!

But it's not really a "flying car" in the science-fiction sense.

Re:roadable aircraft, not flying car

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Enterprise. They pick you up.

And for much less than the extra cost of a flying car.

Two words

[Rhubarbe]

Women drivers o_O

Still barking up the wrong tree

[gurps_npc]

Flying cars already exist. This attempt, like so many others, makes the stupid "we need a fixed wing" assumption.

This makes it a much better aircraft, but as always causes HUGE problems on the ground. It causes huge air-drag, even when foled up. They need to do it the other way. Make a good car that can also fly. Why? Because if flight is your major interest, then you always will need.

Specifically, go the powered parachute route. (Basic, non-street legal version here: http://www.easyflight.com/)

Your wing needs to be packable, not merely foldable - once. Once you do that, make it street legal, like this: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/the-worlds-firs.html

Yes, it is a pusher prop instead of the more tradional forward based properller. This means the prop is not blocking the driver's view.

But the most important thing is that wing is CHEAP, and when not being used to fly, can get packed away into the trunk of your car.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[Jay Maynard]

Can you get a powered parachute with a Vh of 120 knots? I don't recall seeing any with cruise speeds faster than a car on a freeway.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no point to using something like that. Sure, you would be flying but it would be slower than just driving in the first place. Plus, the bigger the chute the slower you will go. Do you have any concept of how big a parachute would have to be to lift 1300 lbs?

Fixed wing = Speed

You = Dufus

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[element-o.p.]

Hmmm...I think you are onto something. I don't know that I would recommend a powered parachute, but how about an autogyro with rotors that rotate around the hub to stow away after landing? A lot of the kitplanes have folding wings -- you pull a pin, and the wing rotates back alongside the fuselage for trailering. If you did something similar with the rotors on a gyroplane, you could get decent cruise speed (faster than a powered parachute, anyway) and still have something that is more roadable than a folding airplane.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[gurps_npc]

The Vh of Parajet's street legal car is about 60 knots. There are many non-street legal powered parachutes that hit 87 knots (100 mph). (see http://www.softwingflight.com/news-releases-powered-parachutes) This is because the FAA has a maximum VH of 87 knot limit (100 mph) for the current sports license.

If you don't care about the sports license limits, I don't think it would be a problem to upgrade the engine, but then you would need the better pilot license to fly them.

Honestly, raising your top legal speed from 65 mph (most areas in the US), along the curving, traffic ridden roads to 100 mph as the bird flies, should alone be worth it for typical 'road trips' of less than 200 miles. It would more than cut your time in half, assuming typical driving conditions.

The real problem with going the Powered Parachute route is weather. A powered Parachute car works great as a daylight only, sunny weather vehicle. But I would not want to fly one in anything mroe than a light drizzle. The Fixed wing/foldable wing would almost certainly do a lot better in the rain.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[Jay Maynard]

This is because the FAA has a maximum VH of 87 knot limit (100 mph) for the current sports license.
This is not correct. The sport pilot license is good for any light sport aircraft, with at most an additional signoff required for those with a Vh of over 87 knots but less than 120 knots. My AMD Zodiac XLi is a light sport aircraft, with a Vh of 120 knots. See the definition of "light sport aircraft" in section 1.1 of the FAA's rules.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[Anonymous Coward]

This is meant to be an airplane that you can drive on the roads, not a car you can fly in the sky. It's a subtle distinction but a very important one and I think you're stuck in the "car that flies" mentality.

Its primary purpose is to fly around. It is an airplane. Any trade offs in design will first come from the car side. You said yourself that a fixed wing makes it a better aircraft while not a great idea for a car. Exactly.

Don't think of this as a hybrid between a plane and a car, think of it as a plane with a unique feature.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[JoeMerchant]

Flying parachutes are cool and all, but if I'm getting airborne, I'm satisfying my need for speed. Frankly, I'm not really interested in light aircraft until I can get to the 250MPH+ mark (which, of course, means I may never be able to afford one) - with drive time to/from the airports, the plane needs to be able to move pretty quickly to make it worth the hassle and expense.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[gurps_npc]

The PPC (Powered Parachute Cars) don't need to take off or land at an airport. They are quite adapt at landing in 100 to 150 ft fields. (Runways are over 1,000 ft.) On the other hand, they do not come close to the 250 mph speed. Typically they are designed to travel at 25 mph to 30mp - they are sports equiptment and in an open cockpit, that feels VERY fast. But like I said, you can easily move that up to 100 mph. If you care about the feeling of speed, open the cockpit. If you care about getting from point A to point B in 1/2 the time, I think a network of parks licensed to land and take off would do it. But honestly, to really make this a consumer item, vertical take off would be best. Neither the folding wing nor the powered parachute is the best bet for that.

Re:Still barking up the wrong tree

[JoeMerchant]

I have kept an eye on powered parachute craft over the years, I wasn't familiar with the 100+ mph variety, I imagine they would need a bit more runway for takeoff at least. They are a very cool concept, but when I think of something like this driveable plane (I agree with the other posters that it's more that than a flying car), I am thinking more of mid range transportation, in the 300-800 mile range.

I lived near a big park, and worked in a building with a parking garage that was always empty on top, I thought hard about the powered parachutes, but since the commute was only 20 minutes by bicycle, I figured that commuting to work was a poor excuse to play with a fan-on-the-back device.

Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[GPS Pilot]

Everyone worries that the skies will become a deathtrap when flying cars, driven by people without pilots' licenses, hit the market. But the collision-avoidance solution is simple if they're all flying autonomously. In 2009, it's trivial for inexpensive consumer devices to communicate with each other wirelessly. Similarly, flying cars need to broadcast their positions and velocities to all other aircraft within a few km radius (via WiMAX or similar technology).

Then, all it takes are some simple "right of way" rules and a small amount of computing power to compute the slight course adjustments needed to avoid collisions, or even to avoid intersecting another aircraft's wake vortices. This will also eliminate "air lanes," and the fear of them becoming saturated with traffic. All aircraft will simply fly the shortest point-to-point great circle route, except when the computer tells it to deviate to avoid another aircraft, another aircraft's wake vortices, a region of bad weather, or an ADIZ.

Because three-dimensional airspace is so vast, it will be able to accommodate exponentially more traffic than the current "air lanes" concept.

Autonomous flight is a much easier problem to solve than autonomous ground vehicles. A large but simple database will allow the aircraft to avoid obstacles like mountains and tall structures. An autonomous ground vehicle, on the other hand, would need to tackle machine vision problems like discriminating between an actual pedestrian and a picture of human on a bus-stop advertisement.

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[Ucklak]

At this stage in the game, it appears that in order to operate this vehicle, a pilots certificate is required. Once some dimwit congressman introduces a bill to remove such requirement, said congressman should be immediately removed from office before the end of the day.

It takes an average of 72 hours for a pilot to gain his/her certificate whilst 40 hours are required. Of that, certain conditions are required like nighttime operation, solo operation, cross country operation, and recovery from certain scenarios. None of those conditions are required for land based motor vehicle operation licensing (i.e., oil level, tire pressure, nighttime, rain, changing a flat tire) except for parallel parking skills.

There ARE air lanes for east bound, west bound, VFR and IFR traffic. Likely, if this vehicle were to be operated in a populous area, it is most likely to be under some Class B or C airspace which means that communication with Air Traffic Control will be required. I'm sure that if these take off ;-), the FAA will hire staff to accommodate.

So, for those pilots, is this thing steered with the feet or is it taxied with the hands?
Is the throttle/gas controlled by the hand or foot? Does that change for land/air operation?

I'd hate to step on the gas and turn right at the same time while trying to steer and not turn anywhere on land.

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[JoeMerchant]

Everyone worries that the skies will become a deathtrap when flying cars, driven by people without pilots' licenses, hit the market. But the collision-avoidance solution is simple if they're all flying autonomously. In 2009, it's trivial for inexpensive consumer devices to communicate with each other wirelessly. Similarly, flying cars need to broadcast their positions and velocities to all other aircraft within a few km radius (via WiMAX or similar technology).

Taking a consumer technology like GPS and making it air-worthy (redundant fail-safe certified testable and periodically tested) can jack up the price by 10x and more. High volume production will bring costs back down some, but there's still a tremendous continuing airworthiness certification cost cost even if the hardware were free.

When a '69 pickup truck stalls, worst case you get another truck to push you out of the way and nobody else is even inconvenienced. When a '69 Cessna stalls, the passengers and crew are looking at double-digit percent probability of death, and even innocent bystanders on the ground are put at (unacceptably high, by today's standards) risk. That's why the '69 Cessna goes through costly annual inspections and re-certifications.

So, if you think today's cars are too expensive with their air-bags, OBD computers, etc. just imagine the cost of owning and operating an annually certified flying machine where self guidance electronics are part of the life-safety certified system. It won't be enough to use GPS and WiMax, both of these periodically fail due to RFI, lightning, etc. You'll need alternate systems which are reliable in case of primary system failure, or you won't be operating over my house.

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[Garth Vader]

Machine vision wouldn't have to distinguish between an actual pedestrian and a bus stop ad. I don't want to run over either of them.

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[vortex2.71]

"Then, all it takes are some simple "right of way" rules and a small amount of computing power ... needed to avoid collisions"

These simple right of way rules result in lots of collisions on the road. Air collisions are usually fatal. It would be good to see this working in 2D (cars) first before we go to 3D (planes).

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[Anonymous Coward]

Of that, certain conditions are required like nighttime operation

Since when do you need to have a Night rating to fly?

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[Strake]

An autonomous ground vehicle, on the other hand, would need to tackle machine vision problems like discriminating between an actual pedestrian and a picture of human on a bus-stop advertisement.

Right, because it's OK to hit bus-stop advertisements.

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[Ucklak]

There is no night rating but you have to have 3 hours of nighttime flying experience for a basic private certificate.

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[Myrcutio]

actually it could be even simpler than that. If you have all traffic at a certain height go the same direction, say all traffic below 500 feet must fly south, and limit all traffic from 500-600 westbound, 600-700 northbound, etc, and keep the speeds of these vehicles within 100-120 mph, it would be easy to keep them from hitting each other.

Of course changing winds would present issues, and probably wouldn't offer the most direct route, but a 2 mile detour at 100mph is still faster than stop and go traffic at 20.

Re:Autonomous flight is an easier problem to solve

[GPS Pilot]

You want to limit 747s and Gulfstreams to 120 mph? I don't think so... even if you allow higher speeds in the higher "altitude layers," the faster craft still have to ascend and descend through the lower layers; and if the lower layers are thick with traffic, odds of a collision are pretty high.

You also haven't addressed the huge problem that the 747's wake vortices pose to the smaller aircraft.

I Want One

[johnshirley]

Don't care what naysayers are spouting. I want one. And I'm nowhere near super rich (lower middle class, actually). Sure, I'd need a pilot's license -- they don't just give those things away like they do with driver's licenses.

Sure, the price tag is a bit steep -- about twice the cost of a Cessna 162 (a two-seat light sport plane) yet only 2/3 the cost of a Cessna 172 (4-seat personal aircraft).

It comes down to desire and value.

If you desire something and that thing has value to you, then it's worth having and you work towards it.

Apparently, enough people have the desire and perceive value in it to justify its production.

When does Top Gear get one?

[BubbaDave]

I want to see how fast it can do the test course, on the ground, and in the air! Dave

the whole 'pre-flight checklist'

[way2trivial]

should mean your commute time would be about the same

being generous
100 mile commute

10 miles to airport, 10 miles from airport to office means
80 remaining miles to cover at 115 miles per hour + preflight.

think about that..
drive 100 miles? 2 hours tops we hope?
vs. Fly 80 miles with another 20 of driving?

Re:the whole 'pre-flight checklist'

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Or do what everybody else does and drive the whole way at 115 mph. :)

Mod Parent Up

[smellsofbikes]

I wish I could mod you up.
I can't remember how many times I have flown into little asphalt runways out in rural Nebraska/Wyoming/Kansas/Colorado and have seen a big tanker truck standing on the end of the runway, which gets me to looking for the cropduster who is using the pesticide because cropdusters never seem to have radios. They also don't pay any attention whatsoever to the pattern: they just fly straight in at 100 AGL where you can barely see them down against the ground, and put it right down, and if you're on final at 250 AGL, they have priority. One good reason to fly high-wing aircraft is the downward visibility helps for avoiding this kind of accident.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Jay Maynard]

Actually, cropdusters don't have to follow the normal traffic pattern, per FAR 137.45. If they don't, however, they're required to give way to aircraft that do.

There's a cropdusting operation at my home airport, and they're quite good about staying out of everyone else's way.

Future Spam

[troll8901]

You're assuming that "your typical civilian" would be flying one. This is not the case: it requires at least a sport pilot license.

Pre-approved flying licenses! No practical courses required, guaranteed PASS. Order yours online today!

BTTF Ref

[troll8901]

passing some old geezers flying outdated DeLoreans.

... and driving them in the wrong (head-on) direction.

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally we have an article on Slashdot where a car analogy would actually make sense!

Re:... freedom to drive recklessly

[bornwaysouth]

But that is the great asset. Excessive carbon users killing themselves. The trick is to stop them killing sedate boring old farts like me.

A flying car (sorry about getting back on topic) could be mandated to only be able to fly over farmland and wilderness. They could also be a required part of any bankers bonus package. That way they just kill each other with a low chance of killing the innocent. (Innocent is anyone looking on and wishing they had bonuses like that.)

The Darwin effect could be a bit slow, so it seems reasonable to allow them to carry guns as well. As the prop is at the back, a forward shooting machine gun should be easy to set up. If they are allowed to carry their lawyers with them as well (vive le constitution) then we could get a double bonus with every shoot-down.

Parachutes are allowed, provided they are made of gold. (It's a culture preservation thing.)

"seeking-new-metaphor-for-future-technology dept."

[icannotthinkofaname]

Um...how are the endeavors for "dinner in pill form" coming? A full meal in the form of a single pill is something else to look forward to, right? :)

This post is a triumph

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm making a note here: GREAT SUCCESS

Re:This post is a triumph

[dm89]

I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS

There, fixed that for you. Or were you trying to mix the Portal reference with a Borat one? In that case, which I seriously doubt, I'd deserve a whoosh.

Ha ha, you is a funny man

[A nonymous Coward]

i can say with confidence that thiS car will take off.

Terrafugia???

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have named this Terrafuglya... cause that thing is hideous looking.

Where is MY flying car?

[nurb432]

Not some prototype i cant afford or safely use.

Damn you, Moller

[Overzeetop]

See, this would be far cooler if Moller hadn't set the bar so high with his vaporware. 4 seater, 350mph cruise, and 16MPG, and near VTOL - even when it turns out to be technically impossible - is still the standard flying car of my dreams.

Re:Damn you, Moller

[scharkalvin]

yeah, the only person to ever fly one of those was Dirk Pitt.

Yes, but. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

How many football fields can it drive on a full tank?

-FL

Gives new meaning to. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

"Taxi down the runway."

(Sorry. That's the best I've got this early in my day. Filter and Drip, damn you, Filter and Drip!)

-FL

flying cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying cars...

Re:... freedom to drive recklessly

[lennier]

"The Darwin effect could be a bit slow, so it seems reasonable to allow them to carry guns as well. As the prop is at the back, a forward shooting machine gun should be easy to set up. If they are allowed to carry their lawyers with them as well (vive le constitution) then we could get a double bonus with every shoot-down."

Hunter S Thompson, is that you?

Aerocar on James May's Big Ideas series

[Anonymous Coward]

In the first episode of James May's Big Ideas they flew the aerocar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3561317/James-Mays-Big-Ideas.html

No, that's is not a flying car

[geekoid]

it's a funny little airplane.
Here are what people want when they say flying car:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/140/txhn9.jpg

I don't know if this is actually such a great idea

[Handlarn]

This sounds like a great invention.

I mean, who wouldn't like to drive around with their mini-airplane, potentially bumping into cars, trees, mailboxes or senior citizens, or have it suffer some other unnecessary wear and tear, or have their cars messed with while parked only to find out that something vital has been broken while in mid flight?

Once again Microsoft has already innovated

[microbee]

by introducing the flying chair

FlyingCar?

[Anonymous Coward]

while ( 1 )
{
        printf( "%s\n", "FlyingCar != DrivablePlane" );
}

They work every time they're tried

[GPS Pilot]

These simple right of way rules result in lots of collisions on the road.

Only when a driver decides not to follow them. In an autonomously-flown aircraft, following the rules would not be optional.

Challenges faced by autonomous ground vehicles

[GPS Pilot]

Machine vision wouldn't have to distinguish between an actual pedestrian and a bus stop ad. I don't want to run over either of them.

When you encounter a pedestrian, there's a finite risk of the pedestrian darting out in front of your car.

An unsophisticated autonomous ground vehicle would have to slow down every time it encounters something that might be a pedestrian. It will take a lot of sophistication for the control software to determine that the advertisement on the bus stop is not an actual pedestrian, and blow by it at full speed.

Repeat after me...

[M0b1u5]

All the disadvantages of a car and an aeroplane, with the advantages of neither.

It's nothing but an investor scam.

Frankly, they'll never sell a single one of these. You'd have to be fucking retarded to buy a crappy car AND a crappy plane in one package. Especially when a nice Porsche Carerra and a reliable old Cessna will be cheaper, and better.

Don't be a luddite

[GPS Pilot]

It won't be enough to use GPS and WiMax, both of these periodically fail due to RFI, lightning, etc.

Yes, my proposed autonomous aircraft would have to frequently check its own health. Any performance problems with the GPS or WiMAX; any corruption of the terrain database; any corruption of the one of the redundant databases of safe landing spots; and it would use the other database to automatically touch down at the closest safe landing spot. In the case of Terrafugia, the vehicle is "roadable," so it would continue to function as a vehicle until the avionics are repaired.

My wife's iPod contains more computing power than all of NASA's mainframes at the time of the Apollo missions. Based on trends like that, surely avionics will soon be reliable enough and affordable enough to make autonomous aircraft feasible.

double-digit percent probability of death... You'll need alternate systems which are reliable in case of primary system failure, or you won't be operating over my house.

Terrafugia's ballistic parachute means a very low probablility of death. If one parachutes down onto your house, your roof will probably be damaged, but you probably won't get smooshed.

Re:Don't be a luddite

[JoeMerchant]

It's not so much about being a luddite, it's more about having realistic expectations of moving "cutting edge" technology into life safety arenas.

A NASA engineer condensed the entire shuttle ground-control systems into a single app that ran on a single PC, and he carried that app around in his pocket on a 3.5" floppy for a long time (mostly to tick off his managers, or so the story goes...) The shuttle ground control systems at the time resembled the Apollo hardware more than any modern PC - but NASA kept using the "outdated" hardware because it was more reliable. I believe they have finally modernized, but that takes a lot of time and money to do the qualification.

When you're doing 115mph at 5000 feet, you don't want to have Vista in control and decide to take a break on critical systems like guidance, collision avoidance, or even navigation, and you really don't want to reboot and pray that it starts functioning normally again before there is a serious problem. Yes, we have amazing technology today, and yes there are better choices than Vista for real-time control systems, but if you've watched the DARPA urban challenge, you'll get a sense of how good we are at automating things like collision avoidance in an uncontrolled arena, even with the best available hardware and software put together by top-notch teams vying for prize money and prestige.

Yes, but...

[GPS Pilot]

Your concerns are valid for Terrafugia, which is not an autonomously-flown aircraft. But they aren't relevant to the post you were replying to, which envisions a world in which all aircraft are autonomously flown.

Re:Yes, but...

[Ucklak]

The parent assumes that pilots are idiots and in order to become a pilot, the same requirements for driving must be met.

My point, while not stated, is that if you want to operate a Terrafugia, spend the time to become a pilot, not wait for some 'system' to do it for you.

Anti collision and autonomous technology need to be as ubiquitous as laser reading technology for Compact Discs are today for such a system to be viable.

Beat-up

[Cinnaman]

I was hoping that Paul Moller had gotten of his ass and done the flight test he's always got planned for the future, but it's just a newer version of something that's been around since the 50's.

You haven't convinced me

[GPS Pilot]

you don't want to have Vista in control

Agreed!

and decide to take a break on critical systems like guidance, collision avoidance, or even navigation, and you really don't want to reboot and pray that it starts functioning normally again before there is a serious problem

In the unlikely event that your primary autonomous flight control computer crashes, and your backup computer (running a different real-time operating system, for good measure) also fails, and you don't have a licensed pilot in the cabin, that would be the time to pull the handle on your ballistic parachute.

if you've watched the DARPA urban challenge, you'll get a sense of how good we are at automating things like collision avoidance in an uncontrolled arena

That's a ground vehicle, which needs to use machine vision to avoid other (uncooperative) vehicles, pedestrians, etc. and plot a safe driving path. Elsewhere in this thread I've discussed how that's a much more difficult problem than autonomous flight control. In a world where all aircraft fly autonomously, they all cooperate by transmitting their positions and velocities to each other.

Hmm...

[garphik]

What a drag ...

The FAA should start planning for this *now*

[GPS Pilot]

Anti collision and autonomous technology need to be as ubiquitous as laser reading technology for Compact Discs are today for such a system to be viable.

Yes, that was part of my premise: all aircraft will have avionics that transmit their positions and velocities to each other. During the transition period, when some aircraft have not yet been retrofitted with the requisite avionics, you can't eliminate the possibility of a collision.

There are parallels to the digital TV transition. The FAA could subsidize the retrofitting of aircraft, just as the NTIA subsidized DTV converter boxes.

Challenges faced by autonomous ground vehicles

[GPS Pilot]

Think about it: when you encounter a pedestrian, there's a finite risk of the pedestrian darting out in front of your car.

An unsophisticated autonomous ground vehicle would have to slow down every time it encounters something that might be a pedestrian. It will take a lot of sophistication for the control software to determine that the advertisement on the bus stop is not an actual pedestrian, and blow by it at full speed.

the are you high club

[Anonymous Coward]

with the way people drive ordinary cars, i don't think i ever want to drive in flying car traffic.

Not a flying car

[JimFive]

This not a flying car. It is a road-legal(?) drivable airplane. It even says so in the summary. This is an important distinction because it hits on both who will use it (if anyone) and how it will be used. As someone else mentioned, the problem this is able to solve is that of the private pilot who wants to take a trip somewhere but then doesn't have any way to get around when E(*) gets there.
--
JimFive

(*) Proposed third person gender-neutral personal pronoun: E, Em, Es to replace He/She, Him/Her, His/Hers and avoid the problem with their.

Top Gear

[Theoboley]

Wonder who's gonna get to test this out on Top Gear if it comes to pass