Slashdot Mirror
Airbus Reveals a Modular, Self-Piloting Flying Car Concept (techcrunch.com)
At this year's Geneva Motor Show, Airbus has revealed a concept design created in partnership with Italdesign. "The demonstration vehicle offers modular functionality, meaning it can operate both on the ground and in the air, and Airbus thinks it's one potential answer to the growing problem of urban traffic congestion," reports TechCrunch. From the report: The concept vehicle is intended to work with others to form a network that can be summoned on demand, with passengers hailing a ride from an app on their mobile device. The capsule-based design can connect to either ground or air conveyance modules, letting customers specify their preferred method of transit. It's also designed to be used in concert with other existing transportation methods for maximum efficiency. Airbus and Italdesign call their creation the "Pop.Up System," which includes the artificial intelligence platform that uses what it knows about any individual user, and available routes and transit options to determine the best travel options. The main vehicle itself is a passenger capsule, which holds the rider and which can be paired with either ground and air modules, as well as, Airbus suggests, with hyperloop systems down the line once that tech becomes more widely available. There's a third part of Pop.Up that ensures this whole project touches all bases when it comes to current tech hype -- an interface that will respond and interact with the user in a "fully virtual environment" while in transit. They've thought of everything.
back in the 80's when I had the idea. Only mine used public maglev instead of hyperloop. You would drive your little electric pod down to the maglev highway, get on and it takes you to within driving distance of your destination.
Even Russian military pilots have got an ejection system for more than half a century.
Because the government of russia has, like any other government (except for the japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII Japan perhaps), invested years of training into that pilot, and the pilot dying would be a severe loss for them. But for a fat lazy civilian? No way, they are dispensable.
If French will have vodka, there will be an ejection seat too
Hah. Where's the energy storage for those 4 hungry fans?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Concept. Nothing, in other words.
Move along, everybody...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I have a concept of a FTL spaceship with no engineering behind it.
Surely that's much better than a concept of a flying car with no engineering behind it ?
Aside from the obvious differences, car and aircraft design pull in completely opposite directions regarding weight. For a car crash protection is a high priority - that adds weight. Not something you want in an aircraft. Ditto airbags with explosive charges. A way this has been skirted is to license the vehicle on the ground as a quadricyle which doesn't need to meet many (any?) of the safety requirements of a car. But frankly I wouldn't want to drive one.
I really don't see the point of these vehicles - they're going to be compromised both on the ground and in the air and if you're rich enough to buy one you can probably afford a rolls or bentley than you can park beside your Bell or Sikorsky at the airport.
"Airbus revels [in a] Self piloting, modular [Concept] Car"
If you have got a paranoya it still doesn't mean that there are no bots. If, seriously though I saw modern parachutes. They are small, like a briefcase, light, and hitec. True, it would be a rough experience for a passenger, but I would still prefer this, an automated jump, than a sure death.
Weight. Pure and simple.
Ejection systems are *heavy* and adding two ejection seats to such a concept as this would dramatically increase the lift needed, and in turn the thrust needed to generate that lift.
A commercial jet with ejection seats or an ejection capsule for the passengers simply wouldn't be economically viable - think along the lines of an economy ticket costing the same price as a first class ticket currently costs.
Some light aircraft do have a parachute system for last-ditch-effort crash landings, but you are heavily restricted on the weight of the aircraft and also the airspeed at which the parachute can be deployed.
We pay a lot of money for tickets lol, you have got to be fucking kidding me . If they fitted parachutes and the ejection seats and capabilities to make that work the weight and extra cost would mean you would not be able to afford a ticket, Add at least 1 Zero to your ticket cost, probably more.
Why is this on Slashdot? Is it because the 3D render looks pretty?
I prefer all the "concept vehicles" in Star Wars, personally.
And there are sketches on DeviantArt that are more detailed.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Actually, I've come around to view them as kind of inevitable.
1) There is a strong push, and will continue to be, from delivery services for permitting delivery drones. Bit by bit, they'll get it.
2) The economic case will keep causing them to push for a permitting process for larger and larger drones. Bit by bit, step by step, they'll get it.
3) Once you start having drone payloads in the hundreds of kilograms range, people are seriously going to start asking "Why can't you haul people with these?" And then will come all of the financially interested parties pushing, bit by bit, for permission to do so.
That said, this concept ticks all of the wrong boxes.
1) Quadcopter style = inefficient in flight. Even small scale delivery drones are moving away from it. It's fine for toys and little video cameras, but not for scale delivery with any sort of significant crossrange requirements.
2) Requires everyone standardize their cars to a particular drone. Not going to happen.
3) Requires everyone standardize their cars to a particular chassis, and more to the point bans monocoque. Not going to happen.
4) Requires everyone to use other peoples' chassis. Regardless of their condition. Without even knowing what condition they're going to be in.
5) Requires at least one spare chassis be at the destination when you get there. Something complicated by the fact that people can change their mind (or be forced to divert), throwing off estimates of what will be at a location at a given point in time. But at its most fundamental level, constraining people to much more limited destinations.
6) Requires such an integral vehicle connection - the body and chassis - be done in some "rapidly and automatically removable" fashion. Same with the critical connection with the props (albeit with lower mass loadings)
7) Doubles up powertrains. I hope you think battery packs are cheap, because this proposed system means (if done electrically) that you have to have two of them per vehicle, assuming an average of one "drone" in operation per "car". I'm assuming that you're leaving the battery pack behind, since that's a heavy element. Of course, that means when you get to the destination, you're using someone else's battery pack as well.
No, I'm not a fan.
Drone helicopters exist. Are you talking about "at scale"? Because scaling up relatively new technology doesn't appear the instant you snap your fingers.
A better question is "why doesn't everyone fly around in helicopters?" in general. And the answers are pilot skill, noise, space requirements, safety, regulations, and cost (including insurance / liability, and the fact that the fuel is very expensive). These are in general, however, interconnected problems and with technological solutions at varying stages of maturity. It's clearly a barrier at present, but I hardly see it as a limitless one. Large, yes, but not unbounded. IMHO, electric is a big potential boon toward scaledown, at least where short flight times are required, as electric motors can be made small, light, and reliable, with very high power densities (making redundancy easier as well), plus they run on dirt-cheap "fuel". Battery mass is a big problem on long flights, but not short.
BTW, helicopters aren't that much less efficient than cars. A 4-passenger helicopter may get ~7 mpg (40 l/100km). But it goes in straight lines and doesn't wait in traffic.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Interesting points, and I admit many of them are correct. But I don't deny that autonomous flight would never happen - just that "self-flying cars" won't happen. We already have airplanes that have extremely sophisticated autopilot and auto-takeoff/auto-landing capabilities. It's a short, but demanding, jump from there to autonomous mass-flying with human supervision on-board and/or on the ground.
There are four rotors. They can windmill, dissipate energy and slow down the fall. In effect the rotors are the parachute.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Airbus invested tons of money in acquiring CGI talent from Hollywood. It is paying off big time. Slick video after slick video. Enough to create a great impression among the public. That will help them get tons of tax supported funds from the government. It was a very wise investment for Airbus industries, indeed.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Commercial jets aren't indeed doing ejection seats.
But some *do* consider adding chute that could try to e.g.: save the cabin in care of dramatic loss of engines etc.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The rotors appear to be pretty tiny and are probably nowhere near large enough to generate significant lift in auto-rotation. That is assuming that the blades even feature adjustable blade pitch (which is needed to induce autorotation on a propeller designed for thrust).
Additionally, ejection systems are dangerous. The ejector seat mechanism compresses your spine to the extent that people who have ejected from a plane are measurably shorter than prior to ejection. If you're a healthy adult in good physical condition (i.e. the sort of person who is allowed to fly fighter jets) then you can do it a few times and survive (whereas you probably can't explode in a fireball a few times and survive, so ejecting is a better option), but if you eject more than a few times you'll be grounded on medical reasons. If you do the same with a typical commercial aircraft passenger, there's a reasonable chance that they'll die, whereas many commercial aircraft crashes are survivable.
As to just having a parachute, you'd probably only be able to jump from the rear exits without being sucked into the engines. You can't jump without oxygen until the plane is a lot lower than its cruising altitude, and if it can get down low enough to jump and stay there long enough to get 300 people out then it's probably able to manage a survivable landing. Landing from a parachute jump isn't that difficult, but generally requires a little bit of practice - at least some passengers wouldn't be able to do it. The bit after landing is also difficult, as you have to disconnect the chute quickly to avoid being dragged along and you must remember to disconnect the chest straps before the leg straps or you'll end up being strangled. And given that someone always panics and inflates their life jacket inside the plane, in spite of being repeatedly told not to, in simulated crashes, what's the bet that someone wouldn't pull the chord on their parachute by accident (actually surprisingly easy to do when putting the chute on) on the plane and kill / injure other passengers (those springs contains a lot of energy).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Except a proper name. Who wants to right a system with an acronym of PUS???
Actually, their video shows vehicles with a capacity of two people. Useful for business people heading downtown to work and back home (or just someone going to work in general). But terrible for many other uses. A family can't use it without going into multiple vehicle. But is a parent going to let a couple of younger children fly alone in one while they fly in another with another child? Or maybe they will have a four person vehicle available.
So many of these concepts that I've seen are only for two people or single people in a row. The concept drawings for the hyperloop showed a single line of seats. That's not even good for a couple of business people who want to work while on the trip. Never mind separating parent from child. These technologies are isolating us even more.
This isn't the first bullshot rendering of a personal transportation device. Doesn't mean its going to be a reality now or ever.
2) Requires everyone standardize their cars to a particular drone. Not going to happen.
3) Requires everyone standardize their cars to a particular chassis, and more to the point bans monocoque. Not going to happen.
4) Requires everyone to use other peoples' chassis. Regardless of their condition. Without even knowing what condition they're going to be in.
Ever heard of containerization? Kind of swept through the shipping industry and completely changed truck, train and ship industries. No reason it couldn't happen to transportation.
Nope, no sig
Standardized cars will go over with the market about as well as standardized housing has. Actually worse because the needs for different types of cars are vastly varied; there's a huge amount of car form that follows intended function. An economy box is not a sports car is not an offroader is not a pickup truck is not a luxury SUV is not a courier van.... (on and on and on). Every usage intent has serious repercussions across the vehicle.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
I have, fairly recently, come to the realization that we are consuming *far* too much energy. Now, I'm guilty of living in a society where cars are the norm, and I still drive probably more than I need to, but I'm making an effort where I can to reduce energy consumption. What does this have to do with flying cars? Everything. A single car consumes an enormous amount of energy, not just in just running it, but in building it, and the infrastructure to support it. The idea of a flying car is only going to burn through our oil even faster.
I insist on working from home now; our family has one car. My trike (with a trailer) allows me to go to the store for groceries and run other errands. And before somebody says something: Yes I know it came from Germany to the US - energy got it here. I think we could cut back on individual consumption and still have a world where things get from point A to point B.
We should all start to think this way. I realize it's not practical for some people. I get it, but it's the direction we need to be headed. My daughter's grand-kids are going to be in a world of hurt. I won't see the benefit of my efforts, but that generation will most certainly be looking back on this generation wondering why we trashed the planet.
No reason it couldn't happen to transportation.
Huh, So everyone is going to drive a jeep wrangler?
Because if the answer is "no", you have your reason why it isn't going to happen.
(and yes I own a jeep wrangler)
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I'm having trouble parsing what you wrote. You seem to be talking about autonomous navigation at the beginning of the sentence but are describing something flatly contradictory with the concept of autonomous navigation by the end.
And for the record, by and large, air traffic does go in straight lines (or more accurately, great circles). There's some diversion (occasionally large, but generally small) for weather, and of course on approach you need specific vectors, but by and large it's "from point A to point B". Separation is preferentially handled by time and altitude rather than lat/lon separation.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
Planes become gliders when the engines fail.
(I might not be a pilote but I have a vague notion of the physics involved)
Just like helicopters become autogyros when their engine fails.
(also: as long as the engine didn't take the commercial airplane's wing with it when exploding)
(also: and some fighter jets have enough body lift [and avionics to compensate] to afford losing a wing)
I wasn't commenting on the merits of whole plane chute, just mentioning that these are being developed.
(But currently, the only reports I've came across are from the manufacturer themselves. So of course these are going to be heavily biased toward "Our products are incredibly useful and save tons of lifes !")
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Training a pilot is expnesive. Losing an economy class passenger is cheap.
Changing building codes and zoning so that residential buildings are built close to workplaces in quantities the yield affordable housing is even cheaper.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
>No, I'm not a fan.
Are you a turbine?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
(( sound of a tumbleweed being blown across the desert by a flying car ))
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
I'm keeping my day job.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Standardized cars will go over with the market about as well as standardized housing has.
I didn't say standardized cars, I said standardized transportation. Do you hold out for a specific model of Uber? Or taxi? Or bus?
If I want a car, I want a particular car. If I want to get from point A to point B I mostly care what it costs and how long it will take.
Transportation is to driving as shipping is to luxury cruise.
Nope, no sig
What's that happening from midnight to 3 am over Turkey and Romania?
Nope, no sig
Parachutes would not work either, despite what the movies may show you can't just jump out of an A380 or a Dreamliner or most modern jets.They would require major redesigns and huge decreases in airspeed and height before you jumped. It can work for smaller, lower and slower flying planes but their are so many problems with this for a large airlines. besides which you are already far more likely to die driving to the airport than in an actual plane crash anyway.
It's a short, but demanding, jump from there to autonomous mass-flying with human supervision on-board and/or on the ground.
No it isn't. Simple math on energy costs means it will never happen.
ie. It takes orders of magnitude more fuel to keep something in the air than it does to roll it along the ground.
No sig today...