Slashdot Mirror
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."
Flying cars, robot vacuum cleaners... the future of the mid 60's is getting closer every day!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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
which is totally what she said
Transition® Roadable Aircraft Proof of Concept.
TRAP Concept? Oh, sign me up!
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
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people to fly to work after taking off from their garages, merging onto the skyway, and passing some old geezers flying outdated DeLoreans.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.
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.
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...
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I know at least one reporter that's going to be thrilled...
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
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.
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.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
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.
I honestly think we are pretty much there with regards to computing power. The problem is taking peoples freedom to drive recklessly away.
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.
Think it'd have trouble towing my bass boat.
Best Slashdot Co
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.
The Long Now Foundation
how much crosswind can it take before you are upside down in the ditch?
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.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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!!!
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
'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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
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.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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.
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.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I want to see how fast it can do the test course, on the ground, and in the air! Dave
I don't have to imagine; I'm a flight instructor.
:D
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
actually i think he's saying that it's a driving plane
i read about it in a blog once
Probably not bad. My Diamond DA20 gets 29mpg in cruise.
...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.....
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
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!
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
Sikorsky S-61C. Room for the whole family. 7000 hours till next inspection. Only flown on Sundays. usd 2.4million cheap. No Dealers.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
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.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
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?
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
.. 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!
- 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
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.
"self-driving cars on defined tracks"
We have these. They are called "trains". And they are very efficient, too.
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?
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.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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.