Slashdot Mirror
Uber's 'Elevate' Project Aims To Bring Flying Electric Cars To Cities By 2026 (businessinsider.com)
Uber has revealed a new project through which it aims to bring flying cars to commuters by 2026. The company published a white paper today outlining its plans for Uber Elevate, a network of on-demand electric aircraft. Business Insider adds: Known as VTOL aircraft -- short for Vertical Take-Off and Landing -- the aircraft would be used to shorten commute times in busy cities, turning a two-hour drive into a 15-minute trip. According to a piece out from Wired on the new plans, Uber doesn't plan to build the aircraft themselves. The ride-hailing company will bring together private companies and the government to deal with the larger issues of making this project a reality, Wired reports. The vehicles would be able to travel at about 150 mph for up to 100 miles and carry multiple people, including a pilot, according to Wired.
The ride-hailing company will bring together private companies and the government to deal with the larger issues of making this project a reality
"We don't actually want to do any of the work. You guys handle that. We just want the profits."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It will leave from a terminal, not from where you are. It will arrive at a terminal, not your destination. It will go on a schedule, not when you're ready. It will be a lot more expensive than a bus ticket. It won't work in bad weather. There will be TSA (unless we come to our senses before 2026).
It's not an inherently bad idea, but who is it for? Who'll be willing to pay the fare? Who has a 2 hour commute?
Are they going to swap out the battery with a charged one for the return trip? And why are they saying it will be quiet? Are helicopters loud because of combustion, or because the blades disturb the air?
They should announce that too since it has about the same percent of it happening in 10 years.
"Vertical Take-off and Landing" (VTOL) vehicle is marketing bullshit for helicopter. Why don't they try working with existing technology? Or at least show us a mass-producible electric-powered helicopter before telling us about your ride-sharing services with one. Seems like putting the cart before the horse. One step at a time there Uber, but thanks for the PR update.
Can't wait for one to break down and smash through my roof.
Everyone seems to forget that the predominant failure mode of a car in motion is that it gently rolls to a stop on the side of the road. The predominant failure mode of a flying car in flight is far worse.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It might be simpler to get them flying autonomously than it is to get them driving autonomously.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Depends on the technology. The failure mode for a lot of aircraft is that they simply glide to the ground. Even helicopters / autogyros do something similar - there's still a lot of momentum in the rotors and you sycamore down to the ground. It's not like the antigravity suddenly fails and you're back to having weight again.
When I was learning to fly, engine failure was one of the things that I had to practice a lot. Engine failure immediately after takeoff is potentially dangerous, because you don't have an engine and you don't have enough speed or altitude to go very far. You typically have to land in a field (or, if you don't want to damage your aircraft in a training exercise, you throttle the engine back and feather the prop, then line up your emergency landing and turn the engine back to maximum late in the approach so that you stay in the air).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Flying cars, only ten years away since 1930.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
the aircraft would be used to shorten commute times in busy cities
Obviously the person who thought up this idea has no idea how traffic in cities work, let alone the other issue of how to navigate between tall, narrowly-spaced buildings.
And no, the chase scene in Phantom Menace or the sky paths of Bladerunner are not how it's done.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
https://xkcd.com/678/
CEO's nowadays always make it sound like their visions are brand new, that no one's ever tried to invent this stuff before. But c'mon, if the VTOL car was even a remote possibility, it already would have been invented. But there's already a rich history of people who have tried, and either failed in inventing it, or succeeded but failed with commercializing it, both fixed-wing car varieties and VTOL varieties.
There's too many challenges:
1) Safety -- If a car breaks down / runs out of fuel while in use, it rolls to a stop. If a flying object breaks down / runs out of fuel in use, it crashes.
2) Price -- To reduce risk associated with problem #1, you can't cut corners or make things cheaply.
3) Lack of Infrastructure -- Cars, airplanes, and helicopters all have governed mediums by which and through which they can travel. A flying car does not. Nor will it fit perfectly within any of the existing mediums reserved for the existing vehicles.
4) Fuel consumption -- VTOL consumes a considerable amount of fuel for takeoff and landing.
5) Inefficiency with Tilt-Rotors -- Most current engineered VTOL aircraft use tilt-rotor systems (like the V22 Osprey. They work for VTOL, but inefficiently, as explained here, and their nature limits where they can take off and land.
Some engineers, like the makers of the Elytron, have come up with some neat hybrid fixed-wing/rotor solutions, but these aren't solutions that can be commercialized easily into flying cars like suggested in this article.
Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of "Backseat Visionaries" who tell everyone what the future is supposed to look like but don't do their part in driving us there.
How many engine failures did you practice over a city center?
faa says they can't be a private pilot and cost of all of the safety stuff add's up fast.
I've got enough helicopters flying over my house at all hours of the day and night. I don't need another bunch of entitled rich bastards doing it because it's gotten easier.
I really wish that the FAA didn't have the duties to both regulate air traffic, and promote air traffic. The second duty tends to have a lot of impact on the first to the detriment of anyone on the ground (to whom they have no duty).
And the worms ate into his brain.
> The vehicles would be able to travel at about 150 mph for up to 100 miles
Cruising at 150 mph is pretty energy expensive, even the tiny Moony M20 series needed the better part of its 200 hp to maintain a 150 mph cruise and most other aircraft using the same engine, say the Piper Arrow or (Rockwell) Commander 112 are generally closer to 120 mph cruise and maybe 140 full-throttle.
So if you convert that to electrical terms, 200 hp is 150 kW. To run that for 45 minutes (takeoff, cruise, land) you need 112.5 kW of battery, and with reserves and stores, at least 150 kW. The Tesla 85 kWh pack is 544 kg, so we're looking at something on the order of 960 kg, or a bit over a ton just for the battery. For comparison, a fully loaded Piper Arrow with four passengers, baggage and a load of fuel is 2,500 lbs.
Now that's assuming you're flying straight and level using wings, the efficient way to fly. This claims to be VTOL, which adds A HUGE AMOUNT.
So, yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.
Uber's whole business plan is based on people using ther own capital (ie. car) to drive customers from point A to point B for a low fee of which Ubse gets a cut without having to spend anything on maintenance and repair, - without Uber having to spend capital on buying, or committing to fixed cost leasing of vehicles.
Unless everyone starts buying flying cars, they will have to majorly restructure their business. Same goes for them having fleets of self driving cars. They lose their greatest business advantage - the lack of need to tie capital up in depreciating assets.