Could Flying Cars Actually Be On Their Way?

another random user writes "With ideas like the Taylor Aerocar, Terrafugia Transition, Terrafugia Transformer, the PAL-V, and myCopter, are we getting close to a point where flying cars could actually become practical? An article at the BBC discusses how adding automation to these craft is an important goal for the people currently working on them, something we see paralleled in the many projects to develop autonomous non-flying cars. 'The team intends to draw on drone technology to automate as much of the flying as possible. Current fly-by-wire technology, as well as some of the features being used in the development of autonomous or robotic vehicles could all help fleets of these vehicles fly along predefined highways – and crucially avoid each other. But perhaps the biggest problem the team aim to tackle are the regulatory and safety issues, as well as those of public opinion.' If that does happen, given a lot of drivers' inability to pay attention to what's going on around them on the roads as it is now, how safe would you feel in the air?"

Comments

In the air?

[Vekseid]

I'd like to continue feeling safe on the ground, thankyouverymuch.

Re:In the air?

[Jakester2K]

I'd like to continue feeling safe on the ground, thankyouverymuch.

You feel safe on the ground??! Huh....

Re:In the air?

[SomeJoel]

Considering most people can't drive in just 2D any attempt to become airborne will fail.

Flying cars are a tried and failed concept.

I tried driving in 2D once, but I got a sense that I wasn't actually going anywhere.

Re:In the air?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even better, high speed chases in the air.

That is at least 170% too awesome to ever become real.

Re:In the air?

[nschubach]

Speaking from a bit of experience... There's a big difference in flying something sitting in a cockpit and sitting in a lawn chair. It's much easier actually being in the vehicle you are controlling and having all your appendages instead of just two thumbs to control with.

Re:In the air?

[PopeRatzo]

I'd like to continue feeling safe on the ground, thankyouverymuch.

I feel plenty safe, air or ground, but I definitely wouldn't feel safe in the air surrounded by the people that are now filling the Dan Ryan Expressway every morning.

Me, I've got no problem with a flying car. It's having other people with flying cars that's the problem.

Re:In the air?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying -- with the notable exception of lighter-than-air such as gasbags -- is too energy intensive to be consumer-level practical at this point in time. Leaving out the technological, mass production, and licensing hurdles.

Until or unless we can come up with inexpensive energy, it's not going to happen other than as a rich person's option.

Most people are intimidated by the amount it costs to *drive* somewhere. The cost of flying is like the cost of boating... much, much higher than driving.

Re:In the air?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet there are several 4 place aircraft which get better milage than an SUV at 4 times the speed, and the 2 place aircraft are better. When you start counting seat-miles, airplanes beat everything except train.

However, the FAA will kill this through regulation. Nothing in their charter requires them to allow aviation.

Re:In the air?

[riverat1]

Statistically speaking commercial air travel is very safe. But in general as the airplane gets smaller the accident rate goes up. The only way I can see a flying car being safe enough for the general population is if the flight is controlled by automation.

Re:In the air?

[fustakrakich]

No, they'll just fly you straight to prison

Re:In the air?

[ohnocitizen]

As the airplane gets smaller, the chance a civilian is flying it goes up. Its kind of like comparing taxi drivers to civilian drivers.

Re:In the air?

[caitsith01]

Flying -- with the notable exception of lighter-than-air such as gasbags -- is too energy intensive to be consumer-level practical at this point in time. Leaving out the technological, mass production, and licensing hurdles.

You forgot the most important issue - we are currently doing a good job of causing climate change with a few billion of us using motorised land vehicles. There is no way known that the environment can sustain any significant fraction of the population moving to air travel as a commuting method.

We should be focusing on getting rid of the idea that individuals need 1+ tonne lumps of metal to get around, not finding new ways to pump out greenhouse gases.

Re:In the air?

[zippthorne]

Also, a car-sized aircraft with one or two passengers would be light enough to deploy one of these, significantly increasing the suitability of the available terrain.

Re:In the air?

[ceoyoyo]

"Its kind of like comparing taxi drivers to civilian drivers."

I don't think that's quite the simile you wanted. Most of the taxi drivers I've seen both get into and cause more accidents than even the unusually incompetent private citizens around here. Maybe cops versus private drivers. Or bus drivers.

Re:In the air?

[perpenso]

Or even better, high speed chases in the air.

That is at least 170% too awesome to ever become real.

Actually its been happening for nearly a century, its called a dog fight. :-)

Re:In the air?

[jbov]

I drive a pickup truck that seats six passengers. I can haul things, tow things, carry passengers, or load the rear of the cab with tools and boxes of cable. Would I like to drive a small, fuel efficient car when I am doing none of the aforementioned things? Sure. However, I can't afford to purchase and insure two vehicles. I think this is why people drive SUVs or trucks. If they can only afford one vehicle, then that vehicle better be able to take their family on vacation, carry their cargo, and pickup supplies at the home improvement store.

That is why you see so many married couples with families that have one car, and one SUV or extended cab pickup truck.

Re:In the air?

[dejanc]

If they can only afford one vehicle, then that vehicle better be able to take their family on vacation, carry their cargo, and pickup supplies at the home improvement store.

I often hear this argument from Americans and I think those of you who make that argument are spoiled and have skewed view of need vs. perceived comfort. I lived in the USA for a long time, so I have a general idea of what needs people there have. Now I'm in Europe and I have exactly the needs you specified, so I decided to buy a station wagon - Ford Mondeo. It's a 2 liter diesel engine and seats 5 people (meant for 4 adults and a child, but I've driven 3 adults in the back and they didn't complain much), and if I needed more, I would go for a mini-van.

It comfortably cruises at around 155km/h, or around 95 mph, which is generally the highway speed limit +25 km/h which is tolerated by highway police interceptors. That gets me to my place of vacation safely and comfortably (i.e. not much wind or tires noise, steady engine and acceptable mileage).

It has high enough clearance so I can drive on unpaved roads, and I do that relatively often when I go visit in-laws who live in a remote village or go up to the mountain house my family has.

Each winter, as required by law, I swap my summer tires for winter ones and I can go skiing: with proper tires you don't need 4WD to drive up a snowy road. I keep a set of chains (also required by law) for when it gets bad (and I only used them once in the last 4 years).

It's a station wagon, so I usually get asked to help move people. It has a plenty of space to move furniture or e.g. kitchen appliances, but so far, 100% of places selling furniture of appliances also delivered. If I ever have to shift something bigger and heavier, I'll just hire a truck with some workers to do it for me. One time fee for them is surely going to be less than what I would pay for gas and registration for a year for a pick up.

It's just the right size so I can park it in any European parking lot and not block downtown streets (like people in SUVs do).

Best of all, I get 40+ miles per (US) gallon of diesel on it.

Don't get me wrong, having a huge SUV would be very comfortable (if I put aside the fact that I couldn't park it in all places I wanted - but that's not an issue in North America), but the fact is that I just don't really need it, and I can bet you don't either. I'd rather take more tourist trips or put money into my gadgets and computer, or save up for a bigger/better apartment.

Re:In the air?

[jbov]

If I ever have to shift something bigger and heavier, I'll just hire a truck with some workers to do it for me.

Not everyone is so privileged.

but the fact is that I just don't really need it, and I can bet you don't either

Not having a truck after I lost it in flood a few years ago, and having to borrow one weekly, means that I'll take your bet.

I guess that is the difference between the part of the US that you lived in, and the part that I live in. Where I'm from, we own our own homes, and do our own work. Most homeowners have pickups or trailers. We cut our own trees and haul them for our wood burners. We put on roofs, decks, and stone our own driveways. Either you own a truck or trailer, or you borrow one. Having a truck has nothing to do with perceived comfort. If you rode in mine you would understand. It is completely about being practical. I would take the comfort of a minivan any day.

That being said, this is referring to pickups, not SUVs. I couldn't do all of the above and use the same the truck for camping, going to the lake house, or going to the beach without having room for 6 passengers. I couldn't do the work on our homes, nor transport the kayaks, surf boards, mountain bikes, or 4-wheelers with a minivan.

We also traded my girlfriends Jetta for a Jeep, because she couldn't make it to work in the winter. That had nothing to do with perceived comfort, and everything to do with the "No winter maintenance" signs on roads she travels to get there.

I don't cringe each time I fill the gas tank because I want to. I do it because I need to. If I could afford to buy a second car, or get by without a truck, I would do it in a heartbeat. If you want to pick on people in the US for their vehicles, then choose people with gas guzzling sports cars or those driving Hummers around the city. Don't pick on the average family that needs at least one practical vehicle.

Re:In the air?

[jbov]

Most of the people in your situation does those things so seldom that it would be cheaper for them to own a smaller vehicle and rent a larger vehicle when they need to do work that requires a truck or if they need to carry more than 3 passengers.

Many of the people do those things so seldom that they don't own a truck or SUV. Those people either rent them, or more likely, ask to borrow a truck or trailer from a friend or family member. Where I live, most of my neighbors and family have a pickup or SUV and trailer. They get used hard, for their intended use. Most of the older, more established families, have an extra car. The younger couples have one pickup and one car.

My guess is that the "man" in that relationship is very insecure and feel that he needs to drive a larger car.

That's a poor guess. There are still people, both men and women, who actually use these vehicles for their intended purpose. You can think of that next time you try to move furniture, or put a ton of stone in the trunk of your compact car, or ask someone else to take your coolers, kayaks, luggage, and mountain bikes on a trip.

It amazes me that the same people who say there is no need for a truck, have no shame in constantly asking to borrow one from someone who does.

Re:In the air?

[silentcoder]

>I suppose if you postulate one person in an SUV then you've got something. Most of the world doesn't drive things the size of SUVs with only one person in them.

In what world do you live ? Take a look into some SUV's on a morning commute sometime, the VAST majority of all cars on the road have only one person in them, a tiny minority have two, the few SUV's that have more than one is a parent taking kids to school.
Since those parents usually go to work after and work is on average further from homes than schools are - the majority of times those SUV's still have only one person in them.

The kind of people who have figured out that smaller cars are much more sensible in the city, have ALSO figured out that even small cars can carry 3 kids with ease, they STILL don't drive S.U.V's.
The people who DO drive SUV's are also statistically the LEAST likely to ever carpool...

So you're just wrong. Even if we assume that the vehicles are loaded, the GP specifically said seat-for-seat mileage the planes win further ! This actually makes sense because planes don't have red-light stops and traffic jams, where a car's fuel efficiency absolutely plummets.

You can't compare a car's BEST fuel efficiency (e.g. open-road) with that of a plane in fairness, at best you could get an average (and then you need to consider that the VAST majority of cars spend the vast majority of their driving in the LEAST ideal conditions). Since planes NEVER face those conditions, they average better. The worst case scenarios for planes involve weather, and that is a MUCH rarer event.

So, average for average, whether you have one person per vehicle or fill them up seat-for-seat, I find it very EASY to believe that planes could be MORE efficient than SUV's.

Re:In the air?

[Rei]

The energy consumption between cars and private planes isn't that distorted. I think a typical cessna gets something like 9,5l/100km (25mpg) when cruising at 200kph (~120mph). Obviously short hops will hurt your efficiency a good bit, of course. On the other hand, the ability to reduce the number of "miles" traveled by taking a more direct route could be a big benefit (with caveats, see below).

Yes, you're wasting energy keeping a plane aloft. Also since aero drag is proportional to velocity squared, the higher rate of travel of aircraft is no laughing matter in terms of energy consumption. But it's important to keep in mind several things. One, the lack of consumer demands for high-drag profiles on aircraft (like their is with cars - all of those efficient cars that everyone decries as ugly, well, that's streamlining) plus the lack of ground effect drag, wheel well drag, side mirrors, etc means that aircraft generally have aero drag coefficients a tiny fraction of those that cars have, and even traveling at double the speed of cars, small planes generally get significantly less aero drag. There's no rolling drag (a larger share of losses at low speeds, but even at high speeds in a car it's about 40% of your losses). There's no regular accel/decel losses (although there's the one-time not-insignificant hit of takeoff/landing). And the engines of the aircraft nearly always operate in their most efficient power band, unlike those of cars whose torque and RPM demands are always changing dramatically. A propeller-based drivetrain has a slightly lower engine power-to-motion efficiency (90+% vs ~75%), but this should more than be overcome by increased engine efficiency in most circumstances.

The progress of technology such as weight reduction significantly benefits both aircraft and vehicles. However, it should benefit aircraft more. If you picture the extreme case of the mass of the vehicle being reduced to zero, from a thought experiment perspective (obviously impossible - at the very least, your occupants weigh something), the energy consumption equation gets simplified down purely to A) the aero drag which, as discussed, is generally lower on a light aircraft going 200kph than a car going 110kph, and B) the propulsion efficiency, which again, is probably better on the aircraft. And of course, the aircraft, at least in theory, flies a more direct route, cutting anywhere from a couple percent to 100% or more of the distance off the trip. The potential frustrating aspect is that, at least for now, takeoff and landing sites will likely be confined to a narrow set of locations, for safety reasons. Even if the process is fully automated and VTOL, a big gust of wind comes along and blows you into a skyscraper... not fun. There's also noise and pollution concerns in terms of site limitation. And so you might not get a distance benefit, or even potentially end up with a distance penalty.

Now, things get interesting when you start throwing things like electric propulsion as options into the mix... I've got no crystal ball for what will happen to battery tech in the future, beyond to note that it's been advancing at about 7-8% in terms of energy density per-year for the past two decades and shows no signs of slowing in the near future. It's currently sufficient to make electric commuter aircraft, but just barely, and they're certainly not competitive. But if battery mass in the future is brought dramatically down through whatever means (even some of the radical concepts like using quantum effects to trap energy), to the density of fuel-after-engine-efficiency-is-taken-into-account (or better), you find some interesting possibilities. Namely, electric motors of the types used in electric vehicles have very high power density already, and I can only imagine what they'll be like in the future. The same applies to power density of battery packs. So our "future commuter electric private jet" could have copious amounts of thrust potential along with its low mass, allowing for precision takeoff and landing even in highly adverse conditions, as well as no direct pollution. Perhaps that could ease the restrictions on automated takeoff and landing sites?

Just musing here.

i hope never

[dmitrygr]

As a pilot, I really really really hope this never happens! Most people are BARELY able to keep in control of their vehicles in 2D, and are entirely unsuited for 3D. Keep them away from the skies, so that those of us who passed the difficult tests and demonstrated our ability to handle an aircraft safely can continue to be safe and remain not in danger of idiots cutting us off, not following rules, etc...

Re:i hope never

[JaredOfEuropa]

Meh... "real" bikers lament the increased popularity of motorcycles, and old school scuba nuts must hate PADI for making the underwater world accessible to all. I suppose it's only natural that pilots want the skies to themselves. Get off my lawn, but in 3D.

Still, one would hope that flying car pilots will have to pass the same rigorous difficulty tests, or keep their wheels firmly on the ground. And I think many will be unable to pass such a test. I agree with the article, and my money says flying cars will happen not before autonomous flight (including standard protocols for flight direction) becomes practical.

Re:i hope never

[Anonymous Coward]

As a pilot, I really really really hope this never happens! Most people are BARELY able to keep in control of their vehicles in 2D, and are entirely unsuited for 3D. Keep them away from the skies, so that those of us who passed the difficult tests and demonstrated our ability to handle an aircraft safely can continue to be safe and remain not in danger of idiots cutting us off, not following rules, etc...

As a person who wants flying cars and to be able to take naps on commutes, I disagree. This could be the break that autonomous land vehicles have been waiting for.

Step 1. Reserve flying car zones say, 500 feet.
Step 2. These zones would be for flying cars only. No ultralights, balloons, helicopters, small aircraft or lawn chairs allowed. Just flying cars.
Step 3. Make flying cars fully automated - no manual controls allowed. You want to go in a flying car? You let the robot drive. You want to drive yourself? You stick to two dimensions.

Sure, some people will die fiery deaths, but the convenience and time savings will push people to overlook it just as they do for conventional automobiles. Once road congestion is down on land, repeat the autonomous zone process with the now underutilized highway infrastructure.

Re:i hope never

[ArcherB]

It is a beautiful fantasy: you are stuck in endless traffic, you push a button on the dash and float into the air, then zoom along effortlessly to your destination while looking down on all the "normal" people stuck in traffic.

Unfortunately without a major technology breakthrough (which none of the designs are), it will remain a fantasy.

I don't understand why we do not have small, one to two-person blimps flying around. The technology is there. They are safe. They might crash into eachother but will more than likely just bounce off. If they do plumet to the earth, they'll do it slow motion.

We obviously have the technology. No major breakthrough required. What am I missing here?

Re:i hope never

[zippthorne]

By the time you have the dough to commute by helicopter... people come to you, instead...

Re:No. No they are not.

[Presto Vivace]

OK, but could we at least have jet packs?

Good luck getting the fuel for it.

[eggstasy]

I thought the whole car thing was dying because we're running out of oil.
Can you build a UAV that carries a whole person AND a stack of lithium batteries?
Mass transit is still the way to go whether you're flying or not.
See, for instance, London's new Cable Car. I live in a hilly place and I can't for the life of me imagine why nobody thought it would be useful to simply go from hill to hill.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/23828.aspx

Re:Good luck getting the fuel for it.

[binarylarry]

"In addition, brushless motors almost never need maintenance, and the solid-state electronics to drive them never need maintenance."

Remind me to never, ever, ever ride with you in your flying car.

Or hell, in any vehicle you ever own.

Difficult technology mix

[joe_frisch]

Aircraft are technically marginal devices - minor increases in weight and drag have a significant effect on their overall performance. The compromises required to allow an aircraft to be used on the road will make it a really poor aircraft. If you read the performance information carefully on the Terrafuga, you will find that it is slow, doesn't carry much weight and has a very limited range.

People have come to expect a very high level of performance from their cars. The compromises required to make a car operate as an aircraft will make it a poor road vehicle.

The use case just isn't that compelling. Most of these vehicles will only be able to fly from airport to airport - which are often located in areas with large amounts of traffic. Once at the airport, the usual The pre-flight checks, and taxi / departure clearances will be required. The airplane / cars that have so far been exhibited are also not designed to deal with significant weather, or to operate over high terrain.

The existing model where you drive your (optimized) car to the airport and then fly your (optimized) airplane to its destination seems better. Rental cars are available at the general aviation terminals at many US airports, generally set up to minimize the time it takes to pick up and drop off.

No

[gweihir]

They are fundamentally problematic in several respects:

1. Piloting. Ordinary people cannot pilot anything flying safely.
2. Energy consumption. They just consume far too much with energy sources available today.
3. Landing and takeoff. You cannot do that just anywhere.
4. Air traffic control. They are already overloaded.
5. Unsuitable for roads. All designs so far have only very limited suitability as actual cars.

Unless all of these issues are solved at some point in the future, there will be no flying cars except demonstration stunts. Incidentally, anybody thinking about the issue rationally can come up with the above list easily. There seems to be a mental blockade a lot of otherwise intelligent people have with regard to flying cars.

Think further.

[trout007]

Imagine if you did have VTOL personal transports. You could eliminate roads. It would be like what is happening with cell phones eliminating land lines. You would save all of the money currently spent on maintaining infrastructure. Also sprawl would explode as people buy land without worrying about infrastructure. Land prices would plummet in most places.

If you think Amazon is fast now wait until you place an order and a VTOL drone drops off a package on your front door 10 minutes later.

It would be a VERY disruptive technology.

Re:Think further.

[jcr]

Driving a car on the road is a much harder problem than navigating an aircraft. Cars travel in very narrow channels with little separation from oncoming traffic, and collision hazards are everywhere. Going point-to-point means that we'd take nearly optimal routes wherever we're going, meaning less time in transit, further reducing the opportunity for collisions.

-jcr

Could Flying Cars Actually Be On Their Way?

[mister2au]

Ummm ... no

Source: 40 years of "Could Flying Cars Actually Be On Their Way?" experience

Re:Could Flying Cars Actually Be On Their Way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, an intelligent analysis! Thank you!

Because something that hasn't happened yet is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. That's just logic.

Betteridge's Law

[Art3x]

No

Possible danger with flying cars

[Taco Cowboy]

Not only flying is too energy intensive, the concept of flying cars poses a HUGE RISK in this world we live in today, where there are people who are crazy enough to blow themselves up just so that people around them die with them

Imagine you have flying cars zipping around buildings - how are you to ensure that no one load up one (or more) flying car(s) with strong explosives and then slam it/them into an office building?
 

Re:Possible danger with flying cars

[BKX]

That's a bullshit argument. Substitute the words car and drive for flying car and fly and you'll see why. A terrorist could just as easily and with as much success load up a pedophile van with explosives and drive at 90mph into a building tomorrow. What difference does flying make?

Re:Possible danger with flying cars

[Jawnn]

It may be bullshit, but it's damned effective. We've allowed various versions of the "...then the terrorists win" argument to be used as reasons to repeatedly deprive us of our rights and liberties. You're quite right, of course. Timothy McVeigh showed us that any dim-witted sociopath can put together a car-bomb that will destroy an entire building, and you don't even have to "martyr" yourself in the process. That 24' Ryder truck holds a LOT more ANFO than your average flying car. Alas, GP has swallowed the bullshit whole and now lives in fear of airplanes.

Re:Possible danger with flying cars

[BeanThere]

Imagine you have flying cars zipping around buildings - how are you to ensure that no one load up one (or more) flying car(s) with strong explosives and then slam it/them into an office building?

Not to try inject "reason" between your shrieks of hysteria, but the risks are exactly the same as the current, existing ability of a terrorist to just drive right up to an office building with the same fucking explosives loaded in a damn ground vehicle. (How the hell did you get +4 insightful for that utter inanity?)

The reason it isn't common is because there just aren't that many people trying to blow you up, not because it's somehow currently just too difficult to blow people up.

No physical barriers for aircraft ...

[perpenso]

That's a bullshit argument. Substitute the words car and drive for flying car and fly and you'll see why. A terrorist could just as easily and with as much success load up a pedophile van with explosives and drive at 90mph into a building tomorrow. What difference does flying make?

If its an "important" building the van may crash into a barrier and not get "close enough" to the building to do significant damage. There are no barriers to keep aircraft away.

Except you can physically block ground vehicles

[Viol8]

So you can protect vulnerable or vital buildings.

Good luck trying that with an aircraft when you have maybe 30 seconds notice. Or perhaps every building should have a huge net surrounding it?

Whether you like it or not terrorists attacks ARE still possible and any government that didn't take account of that would be remiss in its duties since one of the basic duties of government is to protect its citizens. Most governments don't get that balance right but that doesn't mean the issue should be ignored altogether just to keep a bunch of anarchist hippies happy who'd be quite happy with NO government.

Re:Except you can physically block ground vehicles

[TheLink]

I'm not afraid of terrorists with flying cars. I'm afraid of the flying cars being controlled by the average driver or an AI that's only a bit better. Imagine thousands of 2 ton flying cars whizzing around at 100kph controlled by people texting each other etc.

Terrorists can already hit buildings from the air if they want to. They just have to use private planes. You can load those planes with bombs without anyone checking them.

Re:Except you can physically block ground vehicles

[petermgreen]

Except planes have to file flight plans

AIUI flight plans only have to be filed if a plane is going to be flying under IFR or flying in controlled airspace and there are lots of small quiet airstrips out there.