Slashdot Mirror
Where are the Flying Cars? (Video; Part Two of Two)
Yesterday we ran Part One of this two-part video. This is part two. To recap yesterday's text introduction: Detroit recently hosted the North American Science Fiction Convention, drawing thousands of SF fans to see and hear a variety of talks on all sorts of topics. One of the biggest panels featured a discussion on perhaps the greatest technological disappointment of the past fifty years: Where are our d@%& flying cars? Panelists included author and database consultant Jonathan Stars, expert in Aeronautical Management and 20-year veteran of the Air Force Douglas Johnson, author and founder of the Artemis Project Ian Randal Strock, novelist Cindy A. Matthews, Fermilab physicist Bill Higgins, general manager of a nanotechnology company Dr. Charles Dezelah, and astrobiology expert Dr. Nicolle Zellner. As it turns out, the reality of situation is far less enticing than the dream -- but new technologies offer a glimmer of hope. (Alternate Video Link)
We have flying cars. They care called 'helicopters'. Widely used, widely available, you probably don't own and/or can't afford one.
As with so much of a certain genre of science fiction, the 'flying car' is more a fiction about how 'the future' would exist as though post WWII advances in the American middle class were going to continue following their upward trajectory all the way to personal flying cars 4 hour workdays.
Instead, availability of things (like basically anything based on transistors) that have become radically cheaper is broader than most would have imagined (Dear ENIAC design team, how probable do you think it is that people who lack clean water or adequate food will be using vastly more powerful computers to send text messages to one another in less than a century?); but 'science fiction' that requires simply owning a big enough slice of the pie to implement with today's, or yesterday's, technology? Probably more distant now than it was then.
...I can tell you that there are a myriad of problems here. It's not that easy to build an aircraft that is rugged for road use. Flying is particularly unforgiving of mistakes versus driving (think of all the idiot drivers out there). And the regulatory environment is hideously complex and expensive. Finally, think of all the traffic and fatalities with collisions if there were truly any significant number of "cars" commuting in the air. I just don't see it happening in any easy way.
Number of fatal traffic-accidents soars
As flying cars take off.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Most people can't park right and they want to fly? Really?
As the private pilot points out, there are numerous issues here. The two biggest drawbacks in my eyes are firstly, too many morons clogging up the skies who already cannot navigate in two dimensions, and perhaps a bit more subtle... if you have a vehicle that can fly like an eagle - why in your right mind would you ever want to waste part of your life driving it on a road? It's all complete madness.
Flying cars work just fine. They're called quadcopters. They're just not for people. Like space travel. The future belongs to robots.
Rubber tires on cement roads has significantly less friction than wings. Consequently, ground based cars are several times more efficient at using hydrocarbon fuel than airplanes. Cars can also be made out of cheaper materials, and use less dense energy sources, such as lithium ion batteries.
Think of the oil consumption if everyone drove a flying car.
Flying Car != car that flies. Flying car is a vehicle that flies that supplants the automobile as the primary mode of transportation. Think cell phones replacing telephones, cars replacing horses, or personal computers replacing typewriters. The helicopter hasn't replaces the car. It isn't what these people are talking about.
People are bad enough driving in on two axes, do we really want to add a third?
The dreams of golden age science fiction came in two varieties: technologies that require massive amounts of energy and power (jetpacks, flying cars, space colonies) and technologies that require incredible control of matter on the microscopic and atomic scale (electronics, biochemistry, etc.) We've mostly failed to make progress in the first category, but we've surpassed the wildest dreams of every 1950s sci-fi author in the second.
They're still enforcing their laws.
We're seeing legal constraints being put on Uber, what is effectively modern high-tech car sharing. If transport tech is in this kind of political quicksand then 'flying cars' have got no chance, regardless of the technology involved.
How do I move my furniture accross town in a parachute?... Wait nevermind I can see it now. A flock of shutes attached to a bed, dresser, and flatscreen. All attached with rope to a drone pulling things along.
Think about the drawbacks to flying cars: 1.) Amount of energy required to keep a car in the air versus on the ground. 2.) How many broken down cars do you see on the side of the road every day on an average commute? Now imagine they all crashed from an altitude of 100' or more. 3.) FAA would never allow flying cars to travel at low altitude over residential areas, thus forcing all flying cars to fly over existing roads, negating any benefit of a flying car, since it would still be "stuck in traffic" 4.) They'd have to have VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) or we'd have to have runways built at every house, commercial building, etc. Until they come up with an unlimited source of energy, a mechanical device as complicated as a flying car that never breaks down, and sufficient airspace to make it practical, flying cars will remain science fiction.
Just in case we all get our flying cars soon, I am going to buy up all the car washes. Have you ever had to wash a small plane? They get very big very quick ;)
Any. Day. Now. Just a couple more physical problems to work out. Then we will easily solve the issues of who can fly em, and where, and when. The issue of cost will solve itself with volume, once everyone has one, everyone will be able to afford them ;) Breeding enough of the Rainbow farting unicorns to power them may take a little longer so be patient.
Mental masturbation at it's finest. We have been humbled by the pros!
Burma Shave
They flew in their prototype at last year's AirVenture. The video looks good. What you're going to get is a roadster/plane with foldable wings. I'm saying roadster, because it's going to have two seats - not because it's going to drive like a sports car. This will make it qualify as a Light Sports Aircraft, which means that pilots won't need a medical (important for many). Licensing is a little simpler, too, although everyone I know goes for their full PPL.
As an airplane, it's not particularly fast (93kts cruise - slower than your typical Cessna 172 Skyhawk), and it maxes out at 460lbs payload (full fuel, I guess), if the specs I have are correct. It drinks 100LL or premium motor gas (which is cheaper), and goes some 400+nm, though I'm not sure if that is with reserves (you need 30min day VFR, 45 at night, and typically you want more).
The person working on this at Terrafugia advertised it as a plane that's great for a business trip, because it will get you home most of the time: if the weather is bad, you just land and drive around the weather. That's a neat concept.
The price? At Oshkosh, they were saying around $270k. I asked about insurance, and it sounds like there will be separate insurance policies for road/air use, and it seems that the road policy more expensive than a car insurance (they said 3% of hull value), because of the added utility (more miles driven/flown). I'm not sure if I follow that reasoning.
For comparison, you can buy a used Bonanza for much much less, and you'll get a lot more airplane for your money. You will also get a new Cirrus SR20 around that price point (but that's a plane, and as such not as practical). In the long run, as prices come down, I get see how this is going to be practical for a lot of people that need to travel for work (or can afford to go places for fun).
I live 300 road miles from the nearest city of with enough resources to be worth visiting. I could actually use a flying car. Air distance is much less than the road distance, for one thing, and for another, max legal road speed is pitiful - 70 to 75 mph. Yet Amazon and the occasional other net vendor pretty much fulfill all our material needs. The big deal when we take a trip these days (usually medically related now) is access to a spectrum of decent restaurant choices.
However, all things considered, I'd rather have a couple of robots. A household one, basically a full featured maid, and another for walking a dog, mowing the lawn, taking out the trash, etc.
I expect to get them well before I get a flying car, too, unless someone discovers a low-power, very safe, antigravity system in the interim. Otherwise, it's just not energy efficient.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...and If only we had envelopes that would hold such a light gas without leaking it the heck out through every surface, or otherwise leak away the characteristic (heat) that makes it light... and if only such a technology didn't require such a large envelope as to function as a highly effective sail in any high prevailing wind such that it would take a huge amount of energy to counter said impetus... and if only we had a place to store such a large envelope... and if only such a device wouldn't cost seven figures... and if only there was a place available to land such things at your desired destination...
Yes, I believe you're on the right track. I'll start buying H and He futures immediately, and subscribe to your newsletter as well. Thank you!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...and the ground is very unstable in many areas, not to mention under water.
Another benefit of flying is straight line transport. Roads -- particularly around here --- add huge distances to any trip because you can't go directly to one's destination, but instead, must go waaaaaay around to get there.
The best solution is actually monorails. There is no need for them to take up much ground other than a post every so often, they don't disturb the greenery or the wildlife or the settlements, they can mostly ignore terrain, they can go whiz-bang fast, they can never hit cows or cars or people (well, REALLY stupid people they might hit, but I see that as a feature, not a bug), properly built monorails can't be snowed in or under, the scenery is better than either aircraft (too high) or car/train/bus (too low) they're quieter than trains by far, the ride is better, elevation means better radio coverage for cell or whatever, two tracks for bidirectional operations can be hung from single poles, thereby taking no extra right of way.
Also, they're hella cool.
Too bad the government hasn't enough sense to Manhattan project a bunch of 'em. Sure rather pay for that than yet another bombing of brownish people with funny beliefs and (coincidence only, of course) oil and other natural resources.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Considering how poorly most people drive, I'm GLAD there are no flying cars.