Russian Defense Company Demos A One-Person Flying Car (futurism.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Futurism: Russian defense company Kalashnikov has revealed their single-person flying car... As reported by Popular Mechanics, its body consists of a simple metal frame with a set of eight rotors used to lift it off the ground. A pair of joysticks are used to control the craft, while a set batteries found beneath the rider's seat provide the necessary power... Using electricity makes it lighter than a craft that relies on gasoline or a diesel engine, but as noted by DefenseNews, the batteries probably only enable it to fly for about 30 minutes before it needs to land.
There's video footage on YouTube of the flying craft lifting off.

Comments

Flying cars! Woooo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a cool slide anout this.

"Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

So does "car" now mean absolutely whatever the author of some tedious think piece wants it to?

Re:"Car"

[ShanghaiBill]

So does "car" now mean absolutely whatever the author of some tedious think piece wants it to?

If an average person can use it to travel from a random point A to another random point B, then it is reasonable to call it a "car", since it provides personal transportation that currently requires a car.

Disclaimer: I want one.

Re:"Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case I have a two-wheel human-powered car.

re: "Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a bad definition. Your defintion includes all modes of transportation, such as aiships, planes, boats, moterbikes, bicycles, and skateboards.
Car comes from Carriage, more specifically automobiles. The Automobile defintion can be a little hazy, due many different car shapes, sizes, and types have been made over time, but the core element that I would fall back to is that it is a "Carriage" - basically a box on wheels designed primarily to transport people and their possessions.
This vehicle does not have wheels. The design is not enclosed, much like a motorbike. It is not a car, not even an "air-car".
I think aircraft is a better defintion (vehicle moved by gaining support from the air), whilst "Air-Bike" would have been a better description.

Re:"Car"

[sittingnut]

word "car" comes from word "carriage", as in wheeled horse drawn people transporting carriage.
it went from "carriage" (meaning a horse drawn carriage), to "motor carriage", to "motor car", to "car".

since we already accept concept of cars without wheels(which is a more solid objection based on word origin), there is nothing "wrong" with referring to this as a "car".

Re: "Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "car" (14th century) predates the word "carriage" in this sense (16th century). So, no.

Re:"Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

since we already accept concept of cars without wheels

Who are these "we" you speak of?

We don't even consider motorcycles cars, because they only have two wheels, not four (Reliants are up for discussion).

Previous flying cars have had wheels and been able to drive normally when not flying.

Multi-rotor aircraft are generally not considered cars, though telling a quad-copter owner to take his toy-car somewhere else might get the response you would like.

Re:"Car"

[GrumpySteen]

The definition of "car" that you just made up would include skateboards, horses, elephants and people who give piggyback rides. You might need to refine that a bit.

Re:"Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an optocopter. The control system source code is open source.

And if your only definition is random point A to random point B, well, helicopters, I mean cars, have been doing this for 70 years.

Re:"Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

My other car is a cdr.

Re:"Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, my definition includes (useable) wheels.

Hell, most helicopters are closer to 'car' than this.
Guess we should go with quadracopter or something to indicate multiple rotors for control. Looks like a helicopter with lots of little blades instead of 1-2 big ones.

As if we would ever be allowed to run a contraption like this anywhere useful :(

Re:"Car"

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't even consider motorcycles cars, because they only have two wheels, not four (Reliants are up for discussion).

But gyrocars are cars, and they only have two wheels.

Yes please!

[rylyeh]

I'll take one for free evaluation!
 

Boy, that thing looks safe...

[CaptnCrud]

nothing about it looks remotely car like, it looks like a flying blender / head decapitator.

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing about it looks remotely car like, it looks like a flying blender / head decapitator.

There's a plethora of flying vehicle videos on Youtube better than this; check out the Australian guy (but ignore the flying rebel alliance guy video - what a cheat!). :)

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[ShanghaiBill]

nothing about it looks remotely car like, it looks like a flying blender / head decapitator.

I watched the Jetsons when I was a kid, and since then I have been waiting 50 years for my flying car. Now it is finally here, and the millennials are whining about its appearance? Look, I don't care if it is ugly, just put the damn thing into production. I will buy the first one off the assembly line.

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is just a matter of putting a hood over it.

Still, didn't I see gifs of this one posted on reddit lite two months ago?

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[sittingnut]

nothing about it looks remotely car like, it looks like a flying blender / head decapitator.

seems some people still think a m16 is better than a ak47.

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

flying blender / head decapitator.

Perfect for avoiding the murder of Moscow traffic!

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[Shompol]

flying blender / head decapitator.

This is only a proof of concept. The final version will also have a machine gun.

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[judoguy]

Different tools for different purposes. I have both.

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

and that would make me not want it how?

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[Tablizer]

looks like a flying blender / head decapitator.

So they finally invented the Flux Decapitator, eh?

Re:Boy, that thing looks safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely Kalashnikov have made new designs since the model 47? Variations in other countries that started as AK47 clones have had many generations since.

Well...

[hcs_$reboot]

it's a drone! Big enough to carry a human being.

Re:Well...

[Nkwe]

it's a drone! Big enough to carry a human being.

If the human being carried is also controlling it, it ain't a drone.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

True. However this is also not a "flying car" by any stretch of the imagination...

Re:Well...

[slashrio]

Technically, if it carries a human pilot, it isn't a drone anymore.

Looks like a Samsung advert

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, this is the sort of thing advertising agencies knock together when making a Samsung advert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At3xcj-pTjg

It's not exactly difficult to slap this together from stock drone parts.

Re:Looks like a Samsung advert

[Tablizer]

Galaxy Note 7 Flying Car? You mean rocket.

Helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

If this thing qualifies as a flying car, then so does a helicopter.

Re:Helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is just a prototype. Kalashnikov plans on scaling it up quite a bit, and then calling it the AK-747.

Re:Helicopters

[ShanghaiBill]

If this thing qualifies as a flying car, then so does a helicopter.

A conventional helicopter requires a highly trained pilot, and cannot fly from my neighborhood to the grocery store. It is not a replacement for a car.

Re:Helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

This thing does not appear to be self-balancing, but it does have counter-rotating rotors (as do Kamov helicopters), so it will probably require a trained pilot, but not be quite as hard to fly as a regular (tail-rotor) helicopter.

Re:Helicopters

[vtcodger]

Trained Pilot?

Hogwash!!!

What can be so hard about flying this eggbeater?

HEY EVERYONE, WATCH THIS!!!

Re:Helicopters

[ShanghaiBill]

This contraption works the same as quadcopter drone. My ten year old kid was flying one of those 5 minutes after he took it out of the box. You don't need to stabilize or balance it, you just tell it where to go.

Re:Helicopters

[thinkwaitfast]

There are 6-9 sensors (minimum) on those things feeding a computer which in turn controls the FETs which spin the props (so basically controls the instantaneous speed (read force) for each support. I have the source code that I think ran on a PIC somewhere, I found it on a German DIY quadcopter page with corresponding hardware. It's easy to generalize into any number of supporting props and motors.

Portguese cup final

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, like the Portuguese cup final football was delivered by a manned drone.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/video/2017/may/29/portuguese-cup-final-ball-delivered-by-man-on-spider-like-drone-video

I'm kinda reminded of the Putin robot that showed just how far behind they are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LjKfs7MjYE

Russia is hardly a technological military threat, but still a threat though, given Putin gave nukes to North Korea, just not a very advanced threat.

Re:Flying cars! Woooooo!

[Tablizer]

Back in my day, we had goatse trollin'. Not this weak shit

Not a car.

[Gravis Zero]

Seriously, which part of that thing reminds you of a car? Feel free to list which parts.

Re:Not a car.

[Anonymous Coward]

One comes to slashdot for the filtering effect it has on fake news. Copy pasting a clickbait headline that is plain not true is not what one expects on /.

Re:Not a car.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can name the most important part that reminds me of a "Car", AKA - A Horseless Carriage.

That would be, the absence of a horse.

Re:Not a car.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even have 8 rotors, as claimed in the summary, but 16 (8 counter rotors).

Re:Not a car.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, in the case of a flying car presumably the absence of a flying horse?

I for one welcome out buzzing, vibrating overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Achoo

Very cool, not viable until battery breakthrough

[Anonymous Coward]

None of these electric flying-contraptions for personal transport will be viable until there's a breakthrough in battery technology.

30 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

So real airplanes and helicopters are required to have a 30 minute fuel reserve in good weather, 45 plus a divert in other than good weather.

This is merely a dangerous stunt.

That's not a flying car

[maroberts]

...its a flying go-kart.

As it doesn't gain any altitude one also questions as to whether it truly flies or just simply can get to a ground effect height of about 10 feet or so.

Re:That's not a flying car

[vtcodger]

I think pilots (if they can find any) will discover that 10ft is LOTS of altitude if the rotors lock up for some reason.

Chopper Machine

[Bing Tsher E]

The video only shows the scary-as-shit bare frame prototype flying. Then they show something that looks like a thermoformed shell over a stationary model.

Does the model that won't chop bystanders into a puree actually fly?

I also noticed how they panned the volume of the sound track music WAY UP as the motors activated. It looked like it was probably loud as hell.

Neat thing, nonetheless. Needs further refinement.

I can see the marketing now

[Dartz-IRL]

Tired of driving?

Stressed out from all the traffic?

Take a Kalashnikov to the office today!

Re:I can see the marketing now

[Anonymous Coward]

When you absolutely need to go over the heads of every motherfucker in the room... accept no substitutes.

Re:I can see the marketing now

[Anonymous Coward]

New version with double the capacity!

Re:I can see the marketing now

[neoRUR]

Is that like a Russian cocktail?

Russians just build the d*** machine

[thesjaakspoiler]

and worry about the details and looks later. Americans like Musk first come up with a slick animation video about how cool it's all going the look, ask for your money and hopefully will come up with something remotely related within 5 years.

Re:Russians just build the d*** machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk won't do anything without government subsidies.

Colin Furze

[Anonymous Coward]

Colin Furze was able to build this in a shed with a box of scraps!

The above to be read in the voice of Obidiah Stane

Cool

[Gamasta]

Next we'll have russian road rage videos with Kalashnikovs in the AIR!

Re:Very cool, not viable until battery breakthroug

[vtcodger]

Seriously -- No "breakthrough" required -- just steady progress for a decade or three. Two things though:

General to this class of devices: You probably have to land them near a power socket capable of delivering a fair amount of electricity at specific voltages, currents, and phases through a plug that matches the socket on the vehicle.

Specific to this particular vehicle: It looks to about as safe as Lawnchair Larry's Weather-balloon hoisted Sears lawnchair. darwinawards.com/stupid/stupid1998-11.html I don't think many insurance companies are going to underwrite a policy for either the driver or for bystanders.

Slow news day

[SpaghettiPattern]

Las Vegas and the Catalan issue are infinitely more news worthy and we're served this manure!

Looks like KittyHawk (TM)

[wisebabo]

This flying "car" looks a lot like the KittyHawk Flyer (TM). Judging from the videos it seems that the KittyHawk is quite a bit further along, taking people aloft for demo flights at several major public venues.

https://kittyhawk.aero/

They look awfully similar which begs the question, is this another case of Russians SLAVIshly (ha ha, slavic get it?) copying a western design? (The Concordski and Space Shuttle come to mind). However this may simply be just because of the constraints put on by current technology, like the electric motors and batteries. Anyway, it's not clear yet which design is better; there are also woefully few details on the KittyHawk site.

I'd be tempted to go with the KH just because of the fact that 1) their demos seem to indicate its a lot closer to production 2) they have backing from one of the Google Founders 3) they seem to have been paying attention to FAA regulatory issues (it'll be a FAR 103 Ultralight) but since the KH is meant only to be used over freshwater in un-congested areas, if the Russian design has something that'll allow it to be used in more locations, it's worth a look.

Re:Looks like KittyHawk (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

This flying "car" looks a lot like the KittyHawk Flyer (TM).

...or the original e-Volo project from 2011:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75ESD9PBOw

Re:Looks like KittyHawk (TM)

[Megol]

The Buran had enough differences that it couldn't be a shuttle copy according to some NASA people (don't remember who - it was a while ago after all). The differences meant (according to the NASA people) that Buran had to be redesigned essentially from scratch to not break up during reentry. Inspired by? Absolutely, strongly inspired by but with several critical differences.
People involved in the design have hinted that a lot of the development was done simply because 1) they didn't want to be behind the US and 2) to try to understand why someone would design something that essentially useless. There were a lot of theory of it being part of a space weapon of some sort.

IIRC, from what I read etc. etc. take with a mountain of salt.

Re:Looks like KittyHawk (TM)

[denzacar]

Absolutely, strongly inspired by but with several critical differences.

If "inspired" is an euphemism for "stolen" - yes, it was a case of a LOT of inspiration, all over.

The key in terms of the shuttle program was "overt collection" and specifically the use of commercial databases. In effect, the massive effort directed at the U.S. space shuttle program was among the first cases of Internet espionage, if not the first case. With all the critical documents online, it was left to the VPK, under the auspices of the KGB, to gather it all up and then circulate it to those in the space program who needed it.

The 1985 CIA analysis on "Soviet Acquisition of Militarily Significant Western Technology" described the shuttle project as the best example of the KGB's exploitation of U.S. government databases:

"From the mid-1970s through the early 1980s, NASA documents and NASA-funded contractor studies provided the Soviets with their most important source of unclassified material in the aerospace area. Soviet interests in NASA activities focused on virtually all aspects of the space shuttle. Documents acquired dealt with airframe designs (including the computer programs on design analysis), materials, flight computer systems, and propulsion systems. This information allowed Soviet military industries to save years of scientific research and testing time as well as millions of rubles as they developed their own very similar space shuttle vehicle."

The CIA noted that "individual abstracts or references in government and commercial data bases are unclassified, but some of the information, taken in the aggregate, may reveal sensitive information."

Moreover, said the CIA, the VPK had laid out "general guidance to collectors to acquire selected information on ... the U.S. space shuttle." In terms of priority, in fact, the report noted that "documents on systems and heat shielding of the U.S. space shuttle" was the VPK's top need in the "Space and Anti-satellite Weapons" arena. The CIA also detailed how much the KGB had budgeted for several of the shuttle-related projects and what academic institutions were targeted by the Soviets' shuttle effort.

A half-million rubles - then worth roughly $140,000 - had been budgeted for "documents on the U.S. shuttle orbiter control system," the CIA noted. And shuttle-related research projects at Caltech, MIT, Brooklyn Poly, Princeton, Stanford, Kansas, Penn State and Ohio State were also listed as targets of the KGB.

So thorough was the online acquisition, the National Security Agency learned, that the Soviets were using two East-West research centers in Vienna and Helsinki as covers to funnel the information to Moscow, where it kept printers going "almost constantly." The Reagan administration had cut the Soviets off from making direct purchases of reports through the Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service and the Pentagon's Defense Technical Information Service.

"Prior to that, they simply went from the Soviet embassy on 16th Street to the Government Printing Office on North Capitol and H Streets, provided the GPO with the name and number of the document they had gotten off the database, paid their money and took the documents back to the embassy," said one intelligence official.

The computer center through which much of the intelligence then flowed, according to another CIA report, was located at the Soviet Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Moscow, which it identified as having strong "links" to the KGB. The report noted it was "reasonable to assume" that the chamber's computer center tapped into western online information services.

no...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a car AT ALL.

Nice try

[Errol backfiring]

Apart from the vertical take-off feature, a simple gyroplane would:

• be cheaper
• be easier to handle
• be safer
• be easier to transport (take the rotor blades off)
• be able to lift more
• have a greater range
• be more efficient

But the only drawback is that, as it is an existing type of aircraft, nobody would call it a flying car.

Re:Nice try

[spiritgreywolf]

Gyroplanes are wickedly cool - the sad thing is, every single time someone comes up with a "roadable aircraft" like the PAL-V https://www.pal-v.com/ it turns into something so expensive that it will always remain a rich-person's toy.

And with respect to the "flying car" of the original article? 30 minutes flight time my ass. The number of lipo batteries you'd need to carry in order to lift a human out of ground effect for 30 minutes would be ridiculously heavy and take a day and a half to charge. Unless there is an order of magnitude improvement in battery power density with a drastic reduction in weight - us flying around in a bunch of quadcopters is little more than a bullshit pipe dream like Moller's "Sky Car".

Solved in 1960

[CptLoRes]

This was a solved problem back in the 60's. Problem then and now, is that there are hardly any practical applications for these type of vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

enough time

[Anonymous Coward]

30 minutes is plenty of time for a short range reconnaissance mission and could work for a sniper as well.

Re:enough time

[Anonymous Coward]

30 minutes is plenty of time for a short range reconnaissance mission and could work for a sniper as well. [emphasis added]

Only if the target is deaf.

It's just a...

[XB-70]

Shhhhhhh!! It's just a big drone with a seat.

Re:It's just a...

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks you need to look up the definition of "drone"...

Bike

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why it became a car in translation. The original russian designation for it is a "bike"

No way I will buy this thing.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I don't have a boat, but I nurture dreams of buying one, keeping it in my garage in Cleveland and hauling it once a year all the way to lake Tahoe for boating.

Unless the vehicle can do the entire round trip without refueling it is totally useless and no one would buy it.

Re:Very cool, not viable until battery breakthroug

[ColdWetDog]

Don't really care. I want one.

Time to clear the brush on the back 40 again.

Hardly a "car"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, a flying deck.

30 minutes? LOL!

[Doc Right]

More like 5 minutes of battery power. Did the author even look at the pack? While this IS where we're headed and how we will get there, the batteries are not yet there to make it a feasible form of transportation. More batteries means more weight, which quickly means no flight. Less batteries means you can maybe fly to the corner store and back, and pray you don't lose power over a neighbor's house.

Awesome

[mysidia]

the batteries probably only enable it to fly for about 30 minutes before it needs to land.

Not too bad; that's about the total average amount of time per day I spend driving --- most of that time spent waiting at red lights or stop signs, so assuming a decent speed, I would expect travel by flying car to decrease my trip times by more than 50%, so if we get a well-executed product (It will need to be completely automatic in terms of takeoff, landing, and navigation) this could still replace the car for most purposes....

1960's Flying Pulpit aka Wasp

[BrookHarty]

They had a cool jet engine 1 man flying machine, standing up. Made in the 60's for the military, but the shorter fly time and 1 person cargo, wasn't as useful as a chopper. Imagine the technology in 50 years could update this flying machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked downtown Minneapolis for a few years I'd see people who ran out of gas or car trouble. In a car, worse case, you slow to a stop and have brakes. In a flying car what happens when you run out of gas or have trouble. Not only do you drop like a rock and crash but now without roads you might crash into someone's house. You'll never get a flying car for the masses when running out of gas or mechanical problems put anyone, anywhere, in jeopardy. Until you get some anti-gravity where you just float when you have issues, It's a fools errand.

Not so efficient

[Tjp($)pjT]

The highest power storage density in common use for vehicles is still petrochemicals. Flying machines are very weight dependent. So while this is a nice concept it is useless in terms of practical transport. The batteries under a person in a defense related vehicle seems destined for being shot and starting occupant roasting fires. (ORF) The use of 8 rotors is also inefficient. one rotor is optimal efficiency, three or four provide redundancy.

Engine failure

[Anonymous Coward]

At least when a car engine dies, you just roll to a stop.

Don't fancy my chances if one of those blades fail.

Re:Engine failure

[thinkwaitfast]

You'll still roll to a stop.

If you have 5 or more (controllable blades) with sufficient power, then it is a redundant system. Technically you only need one blade to fly, but I don't think you'd enjoy the ride.

Re:Engine failure

[thinkwaitfast]

Here's a octocopter with 1 blade failure demonstrating 80% agility in 100% controlled flight.

Hovering != Flying

[Edis Krad]

I'll say it before, and I'll say it again: Hovering a few feet from the ground ain't flying.

Call me when this thing can go over traffic / small buildings.