A Flying Leap for Cars? 795
pillageplunder writes "Businessweek has a story about flying cars and how they could be an actual viable thing in less than 10 years. First flying taxis, then, like the Jetsons, personal flying cars. Several are already on the board, with Honda and Toyota already having prototypes of small flying devices. Even General Electric is getting in on the deal, developing a small jet engine for Honda. So...would you buy one?"
Maintenance checks (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Great idea, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't even imagine how to control personal flying machines. Have carports where people leave their cars, and must go through some sort of bomb / weapon detection before allowed in the air? Limit licenses to upstanding wholesome citizens?
Don't think this idea will ever 'fly' (pun intended) until the world is a nicer, happier, less terrorized place.
Drunk Drivers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: So, would you buy one? (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
And ofcourse it uses kerosine for that (ever seen an electrical plane, man-sized ?).
This gives us a whole new excuse to soup up more oil and pollute even more..
What's next ? Real personal rockets ? [xprize.org]
Image the death toll (Score:2, Insightful)
Drunk Flyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SUVs (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Department of Homeland Security will never allow flying cars. Imagine trying to stop terrorists with cars full of diesel/fertilizer mix able to attack from all angles. Tinfoil hattish, sure, but that's how those brownshirts think.
Oil dependency... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have been fantisizing about flying cars... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be the skeptic, because I would love to be able to fly to work, but I don't see it being practical in our lifetimes.
more problems (Score:1, Insightful)
Really the type of travel depicted in I,Robot, is much more appealing to me. Better Highways and the option to drive in manual or automatic mode.
the option to have flying cars seems to introduce so many new problems that will make our current traffic jams look like burned toast.
Great, flying cars, we were promised this decades ago. before someone goes out there and spends a ton of money on this, I want to see the new traffic systems that will be developed to ensure safety.
Think about how easy it would be for a terrorist to get into these. We would have all sorts of new problems.
Re:dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
The automated parachute deploys (they have them for planes now) and the X foot fall is eliminated. ;-)
Re:Great idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what is the essential difference between that and, oh, I don't know, say, a plane?
Anyone who wants to take a small light aircraft up (and has one/rents one and has a licence) can pretty much go for it.
Flying cars aren't going to raise your danger from terrorists (which is incredibly small anyway). Crap drivers crashing into your house - now that's a different matter.
In the wake of 9/11... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this is a Democrat or Republican issue, I think it's a safety issue. Can you imagine a truck-sized flying car loaded with fuel flying into or even exploding next to a skyscraper? Legislators on both sides of the aisle are going to take a dim view of flying cars.
They definitely won't be allowed in DC until there is a way to bring them down with minimal damage to government structures.
The technology may be less than ten years away, but the legalization of them is probably 25 or 50 years away.
Errrr.. (Score:4, Insightful)
How it Works. (Score:2, Insightful)
printf("This product will be availiable in 5-10 years.")
Sleep(10 years);
goto lie;
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
Good news and bad news... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I will stay on the ground, after all.
Technology isn't here yet. (Score:2, Insightful)
Flight takes more energy than ground travel, so given the current and future high energy costs the economics aren't here yet.
Air traffic control is another big issue. There will have to be an intelligent air traffic control network capable of directing such a large number of aircraft safely.
Maintenance. Current aircraft require a huge amount of time being maintained compared to cars. People do a poor job of keeping up with car maintenance as it is.. which is not such a large problem. If the engine quits you pull off the side of the road.
No, until we figure out how to make cars fly on a maintenance free cusion of blue light that uses something other than fossil fuels for power we'll all still be stuck driving around in our Porsches and GMC's.
Re:Great idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the cars run on autopilot and manage to pass FCC muster, I doubt it will work in an affordable manner such that anyone but those already flying with a pilot's licence and own their own aircraft will be able to afford to use them.
Re:SUVs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No way in hell would I use one (Score:4, Insightful)
I learned that no matter how good a driver YOU are, and how few mistakes you make, that still makes it so you cant avoid getting hit by someone else.
I feel safer when I fly now, because I know there are hundreds of people keeping track of where planes are, and hundreds responsible for the re-fueling, tracking, air avoidance etc...
When you bring that responsibility down to a single individual, who has no stricutres on maintanence, gas, impaired level of thinking, i get shivers.
People that currently fly alone, they have to go through a pretty rigorous flight training program, and the quality can be high because their are so few.
Imagine trying to process 300 people a day to get licensure for a flying car?
I know when I went to get my drivers licence for the first time, they just had me drive around the block once and gave me a licence.
Imagine doing that for a flying car?
I think we should probably focus on HIGH SPEED mass transit. the time would be comparable, and less risk of individual user error causing a disaster.
We cannot even handle automated cars, i think it is a long way off to automated car planes.
Re:We have been fantisizing about flying cars... (Score:3, Insightful)
a flying car isn't a dream about a flying device that's cheap, rather a dream about some way to control those things and quiet them down so that they could be used in city-limits without giving it much thought.
Re:Great idea, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still a lot harder to get a license for and rental of a small aircraft than a car.
To get a driver's license in the United States, the chief requirement seems to be a pulse. To rent a car, you need a credit card in addition to the pulse.
Pilot's licenses--for good reason--are more difficult to get.
The replacement trap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OT: I bet spherical wheels will be here first (Score:3, Insightful)
So would four wheel steering with a much greater steering angle such that the wheels can be positioned at a 90 degree angle to the side of the vehicle, and it would be a lot easier to carry off from an engineering standpoint.
People have enough trouble driving cars that can't strafe. I definitely don't want to see this technology on our roads ever, at least not for the general populace, unless the vehicles are entirely self-driving.
Re:Moller (Score:2, Insightful)
Better yet, you just program the destination and sit back.
Re:Great idea, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gas mileage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Airplanes do alright, but they don't have the ability to hover which would be a necesity for any urban personal air transit. Until an energy efficient way of maintiaing a position in 3 dimensions is developed I really don't think personal flying vehicle will be adopted on an appriciable scale...
So much FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
It's attitudes like this that stifle progress.
Yes, there's a danger but that's the nature of progress. The danger will be curbed by technology and beaurocracy(sadly)...
I say, bring it on.
Give me a break (Score:2, Insightful)
NOT a Car Replacement But Bridging the Gap (Score:5, Insightful)
The "flying car " (moller, honda et al) should not be seen as a replacement for a car. The driving/ piloting restrictions will (and should) be very stringent. Not as hard to get as a commercial flying license, but harder than a driving test.
This creates a new niche market for corporates to have a fleet of cars & pilots where it will be cheaper than flying its execs all over the country, where we can get flying taxis, or the well to do will have a chauffer who can both drive their limo, or fly their moller.
Car companies will not be the ones effected, but instead the short haul flights business will see a dramatic drop in sales; if anything these companies should invest in flying taxis, the planes will become flying coaches instead
My take... (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone above stated that flying vehicles wouldn't be any more of a problem then ground traffic. I'd have to disagree. Light aircraft have a small radar signiture, and can slip by relatively easily. You might recall the German kid who flew a small plane right into Red Square in Moscow, or how the private pilot crashed his plane into the front of the White House. Yes, transponders are supposed to help, but if the pilot turns it off, he's unlikely to be seen. And, even when it's on, I've been told by ATC that they couldn't see me because I was at 1800 ft. ASL...too low for them. Now pack that thing with 500lbs of C4, and tell me that it's not a risk!
Now, try multiplying the number of planes in the sky by an order of magnitude, and tell me how we're not going to have a bunch of mid-air collisions too?
It won't happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
We have enough car accidents where only forward motion is involved. Let me put it this way. Would you want one of these things flying over your neighborhood, piloted (yes, piloted, not driven) by someone who could be a total moron, yakking on his cell phone, or maybe just drank a six pack?
Yeah, I'd sure like one of those things falling through the roof of my house, I can tell you right now. Not.
Roads aren't just to make wheels work. They also provide boundaries of where you can't go.
Re:but (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one key flaw. If you notice, it usually requires a lot of noise keeping an powered aircraft aloft. Noise eminating from on high, because it meets fewer obstacles, carries much farther than noise eminating from vehicles on the ground. So if aircraft, such as these, become popular, I think our cities and suburbs are going to become too noisy for comfortable habitation.
BTM
Re:OT: I bet spherical wheels will be here first (Score:3, Insightful)
x y and zee (Score:2, Insightful)
With over 30 years of experience as a pilot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of "an airplane in every garage" has been around at least since the 1940s judging by my recollections of Popular Mechanics articles alone. But it never got closer than the 1950s. I can remember airports with hundreds of private aircraft (Stinsons, Luscombes, Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcrafts, etc) tied down in lines. Those lines of airplanes are conspicuously absent at the few airports left which cater to private flyers. A testimony to the expense of building, maintaining and operating even the simplest flying machines.
The ubiquitous "air-car" could only work if there were strict control over both the air-car and the pathways it travels combined with fail-safe recovery techniques in the event of mechanical failure. In other words, give the "pilot" control only over what time he leaves and his destination. Everything else - altitude, speed, course - is controlled by a common system that can keep theat vehicle - and every other vehicle - on the path it's been assigned to.
The air-car would also have to be able to stop and maintain altitude and position in mid-air in order to reduce the chances of collisions.
This combination of control and mechanical reliability would be *very* expensive not even including the cost of fuel. It would take a society that was dedicated to the premise that some very rich people could free themselves of ground transportation while the rest of us paid for the infrastructure.
Which is basically what we do with helicopters and personal jets now.
Re:Never Happen (Score:4, Insightful)
(OT: Is your parachute after-market, or do you fly a Cirrus?)
All that and no mention of Moller? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:like this will become a reality (Score:2, Insightful)
mechanical failure is a greater concern when they start making vehicles for the masses, and mass produce them. and seeing most people's attentiveness in maintaining their cars, i give it about 4 months before the first flying car crashes due to improper maintenance. and what happens when it runs out of fuel? that is what concerns me with regard to flyiing cars. people will always try to push their cars further...
No mass consumer flying cars (Score:3, Insightful)
We worry about how much fossil fuel cars use. Flying cars would be far worse.
We complain about the noise of cars. Flying cars will be far worse.
But most of all, cars kill people at an appalling rate, through mechanical failure and driver error. Flying cars would be far worse. Do you really want carloads of drunken students in mechanically unsound vehicles to be hundreds of feet above our cities and houses?
Mass adoption is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently, the only methods for making things fly involve high velocities (rotors, props, turbines) and the associated noise from those moving things.
People already move next to the airport, then sue the airport management for excessive noise. Nobody is going to tolerate a jet-powered car next door.
Finally, it's just not practical to use that much energy to commute downtown. And if you find a destination for which this makes sense, it would probably be better served by an airplane anyhow.
I can see certain applications for the technology (search and rescue, surveillance, etc); but even those are served well by current technology.
As the parent implied, until we find an anti-gravity technology, flying cars will always be a lark.
Re:Never Happen (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right, the technology may be great, but the people operating it will ruin it. I'm sure most
You want an example? Go sit on the far end of a parking lot and just WATCH. There's like 50 "designated lanes" of traffic. And, for pretty much NO reason whatsoever, people have a tendency to go the wrong way in 1-way lanes and/or cut across multiple lanes (often without really looking).
I'm trying not to flame this whole discussion too much, but I feel very strongly about NOT wanting flying cars. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing any drunken idiot can come crashing through my ceiling.
Re:Would I buy one? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. As I see it not only are we going to need rules but some serious means of enforcement. A fender bender at 2000 feet would be a hell of a thing. I'd even guess it would have to come to the point where the machine would have to be built to the point that it can't break the rules even if it wanted to. A simple case of road rage could potentially leave scores dead.
Won't take over if they're powered by petroleum (Score:3, Insightful)
Over the next 50 years, unless renewable, portable fuel (e.g. fuel cells together with solar or nuclear electrolysis plants) become insanely cheap, the name of the transportation game will be "efficiency". $40/barrel oil may seem expensive now, but in another few decades it'll seem insanely cheap.
Before flying cars ever become practical (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether you use jet engines, piston engines, rotary engines, wings, enclosed fans or helicopter blades. You are still lifting mass by moving large quantities of air around. There is just too much that has to be just right to fly in this way, just one thing goes wrong and BOOM you just made a nice crater in the ground.
There has been some research in this area but many people and companies distance themselves from it the moment you use the term Anti-Gravity so call it whatever you want, Mass Reduction, Electro-kinetic lift or even Magnetic field lift. (In Star Wars they called it Repulser- Lift). The Point is there has to be another way to get in the air, its just waiting for someone to discover it.
Re:SUVs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My take... (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the world has lived with terrorism for years, you dont suddenly stop because some wankers give you a bloody nose.
Mid air collisions and drunk drivers are problems, but saying someone can change their plane into a missile is ludicrous. They can do that now perfectly well anyway.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Levy a fee
Revoke the license
Impound the vehicle
Put it on an APB
Flag it and give it a ticket
Charge the owner with civil/criminal offenses
Re:SUVs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In the wake of 9/11... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably not as bad as you think. Why is a truck-sized explosion 400 feet up any worse than a truck-sized explosion (from, say, a truck) at ground level? We already deal with the threat of ground-level trucks. Two US skyscrapers have been hit with truck bombs in the last fifteen years. They make a mess, and people die. Making trucks airborne won't change that much.
In fact, people have crashed small planes into buildings, both before and after September 11th, and it doesn't do that much damage.
September 11th (clearly implied, if not mentioned, in your post) was different in that the projectiles were jumbo jets carrying thousands of gallons of fuel. Flying cars won't have thousands of gallons of fuel, won't weigh 100 tons, and won't do any more damage than cessnas or land-bound Ryder trucks do now.
"Driving" The Flying Car? Come On... (Score:4, Insightful)
We already have the technology to fully automate this mode of transport - you use the car as normal on the ground, but to fly you change to computer-controlled mode before the car leaves the ground. Navigation, maneuvring and landing are all accomplished by the computer. The manual overide will call home and involve a HUGE fine if you use without good reason (storm coming up, unknown obstruction in path etc.).
European auto manufacturers have auto car control systems running dozens of vehicles around tracks and across intersections without human drivers - if this technology was mandated in, say, 2008 we would suddenly have shorter journey times, fewer crashes, better fuel economy etc. But you would never steer your own car again except in emergency.
The technology to do this is HERE, it's just not commoditised yet - as soon as there is enough financial impetus behind it, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will do it.
I prefer a bicycle or subway (Score:2, Insightful)
The last thing we need is a 400 mph vehicle to enable people to live even farther from where they work, waste more resources, and further alienate the rich from the poor.
Re:It won't happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. I also wouldn't want to have a CAR driving through my neighbourhood, driven by someone who could be a total moron, yakking on his cell phone, or maybe just drank a six pack. But it's better than having no cars driving at all.
New technology happens whether it scares you or not. If these "take off" (pun intended), we'll just bring in some safety measures and laws to help mediate the risks.
Just like we did with cars in the first place. "They frighten the horses and can cause injury as a result!" was one of the oft-repeated arguments against mass adoption of cars. Didn't stop progress.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
(like people switching plates now)
How would you get them? you'd have to pull them over. And how do you pull them over at 900 feet? (assume the transponder/autopilot is off)
Do you shoot them down? (assume school or other meaty area below)
Can you fly 12 miles to international waters and thus escape jurisdiction?
I see a lot of obstacles...
Re:Flying cars = rural revival (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SUVs (Score:3, Insightful)
The place you have any form of 'air congestion' currently is limited to high concentration takeoff and landing zones... IE major airport hubs. Even so, when is the last time you could see more than 10 planes at once from any vantage point be in flying into Hartsfield, Laguardia, LAX or on the ground around these areas? How about the last time you saw 10 cars being driven withen 100 feet of you?
You would however have to figure out something for high population zones. VTOL car capacity would make Jetson like options work but traditional takeoff and landing runs could proove a problem in the more congested population centers just from the amount of space needed for enough landing zones to avoid landing congestion.
In particular things like major sporting events, lots and lots and lots of people trying reach the same location. Major business centers etc...
Re:Oil dependency... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SUVs (Score:2, Insightful)
there are enough bad drivers already, i don't need somone on their cell phone landing on my house
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too many pessimists (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
And one by one these regulations were lessened. Most people around 1900 had barely ever seen a car, while people around 1920 surely had. In 1940 most people have had at least one ride in a car and by 1960 most who were old enough had driven one themselves at least once.
A large part of todays kids ride in their parents vehicle for many hours a month, learning from them and experiencing traffic, car handling, the feeling for speed, acceleration and braking and much more. That doesn't make them "responsible drivers" later on, even contrary giving them a sense of false security, but it surely has a huge positive impact on overall car handling abilities.
Long rant, short story: kids learn from experience with their parents. Was true for the horseless carriages evolving from 10mph snails to the 130mph cruise reached by almost everything now. And will be true for personal aircraft in the future. If you were driving as a small kid with mom and pop from your birth to your 18th birthday, you sure can handle 3-dimensional traffic much easier than todays commercial pilots. They may be highly educated, responsible, calm and professional - but they can never beat a generation of kids "educated" in airborne travel on every trip to the supermarket with their parents.
At first we will get severely restrictive rules, but as the experience and the technology matures, they will be lessened more and more. After all, airborne travel is IMHO much safer than land based as there is less to do, less pedestrians to run over, more visibility and clearly predictable vectors for other drivers.
Most accidents are caused by less-than-ideal ground friction, ice, water or leaves, speed differences between lanes, sharp turns, trees on the roadside, numerous maneuvers along winding roads and unpredictable traffic behavior. All eliminated with airbone vehicles. A clear course from A to B, autopilot assistance when needed, less control input without turns, intersections, lane changes etc and much more space to avoid road/air raging drivers and oncoming traffic. Never be stuck behind lame old grannies anymore. Never be bullied off the road by lunatics. Worst case: flying with zero visibility is safer than driving with zero vis, so I'm all for this.