Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

No Longer a Dream: Silicon Valley Takes On the Flying Car (theverge.com) 148

Posted by msmash from the flying-cars dept.
Last year, Bloomberg reported that Google co-founder Larry Page had put money in two "flying car" companies. One of those companies, Kitty Hawk, has published the first video of its prototype aircraft. From a report on The Verge: The company describes the Kitty Hawk Flyer as an "all-electric aircraft" that is designed to operate over water and doesn't require a pilot's license to fly. Kitty Hawk promises people will be able to learn to fly the Flyer "in minutes." A consumer version will be available by the end of this year, the company says. The video is part commercial and part test footage, starting with a lakeside conversation between friends about using the Flyer to meet up before switching to what The New York Times says are shots of an aerospace engineer operating the craft in Northern California.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Longer a Dream: Silicon Valley Takes On the Flying Car More

No Longer a Dream: Silicon Valley Takes On the Flying Car

Comments Filter:

  • Flying car? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @12:06PM (#54292189) Homepage

    In what way is that a "car"?

    eg. Where do the kids/shopping go? If it rains you'll get wet.

    • Re:Flying car? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pr0fessor ( 1940368 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @12:17PM (#54292271)

      it looks more like a flying jet ski... cool yes, car no.

      • Nothing like flying around with dozens of exposed blades sitting under you, ready to whack limbs off of anyone who you get too close to. I'm sure this will be a big hit at someone's 4th of July party.

        Just make sure that the ambulance services and surgical staff is on call.

        • Never heard of collision avoidance algorithms and radar, right? And used nefariously, murder is still murder. We do it with cars all the time, called driving drunk.

          So, lots of choppy choppy blades or an F-150 careening over the center line into a bus full of kids? What's the diff?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by s.petry ( 762400 )

            You never heard of gusting winds, mechanical failure, or plain old human idiocy?

            Are all of the current accidents with drones intentional? There are thousands of medical emergencies with current little shit drones. Everything from a nose being cut off at TGI Fridays to fingers, heads, and hands.

            In your tiny little mind, it's okay to make flying lawn mowers because we have accidents with cars. That is called a false equivalency to the normal mind.

            • You need to null out idiots. They're everywhere as part of the noise, and cannot be eliminated.

              Wind gusts-- yep, need stabilizers. But we deal with black ice, snow, and have to dodge stuff with cars, like the dog that ran out into the road in front of me, this morning.

              Your Edward Scissors-Hand thinking is a bit goofy. In urban environments, we're running out of space close to ground, because we can't convince people to take public transportation, although much of public transportation lacks convenience.

              Will

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Hylandr ( 813770 )

                Old news. There's other options out there that are already certified:

                http://www.popularmechanics.co... [popularmechanics.com]

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by s.petry ( 762400 )

                You need to null out idiots. They're everywhere as part of the noise, and cannot be eliminated.

                You can't null the idiots, which is why we have to have so many regulations on roads and vehicles. Once you add safety features the flying lawn mower, they lose the ability to fly. I'm sure you understand the basics of physics and weight limitations for lift.

                Wind gusts-- yep, need stabilizers. But we deal with black ice, snow, and have to dodge stuff with cars, like the dog that ran out into the road in front of me, this morning.

                These flying lawn mowers are skimming 10-15 ft above surface, reaction time in wind requires a hell of a lot more than simple stabilizers. 0 for 2 on Science, lets see how bad you really are.

                Your Edward Scissors-Hand thinking is a bit goofy. In urban environments, we're running out of space close to ground, because we can't convince people to take public transportation, although much of public transportation lacks convenience.

                And you won't convince many people that an open deck flying

                • You're an altruist, and good on you for being one, seriously.

                  Unfortunately, idiots exist, and you cannot null them, only mitigate them and threaten them with ugly consequences for being idiots. The "hold my beer..." culture cannot be eradicated and more arrive every moment. So yes, we have regulations, punishments, licensing, insurance, and sadly, many personal injury lawyers.

                  Money and insurance are not obstacles to the fabulously wealthy and banks love to loan funds on such seeming trivialities. This, too,

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by s.petry ( 762400 )
                    I see myself more as a realist than altruist, but the latter has to be somewhat true for the former to be true. *shrug* I'm simply being realistic about this product. It's not a car, and I don't find any appeal at all other than "I can afford it". Which will as they show will sell to someone who can afford to sit in a boat on an empty mountain lake. It won't address any of the problems with SF, or LA (I live in SF and know the suckass commute first hand). With all the pedestrians in SF they would not (

                    • I'm with you. You and I are not their target market. But keeping up the banter makes people open up their investment wallets and drool. Look at the stupid juicer (and so many, many more) if you had questions about stupid money looking for an amplification spot marked X.

                      There'll be a trunk. Spots in parking lots. After all, these folks have money to spend, viz their expensive transportation. People buy many expensive transportation devices that you see every day on your way to work. Fizzle? Nope. Gonna happe

            • 'Thousands of medical emergencies' related to small drones sounds a bit of an exaggeration...

              Sure, the blades can cause some nasty cuts, a fair number of careless/unfortunate hobbyists have hurt themselves, and very occasionally a bystander gets hurt. But they're no more of a menace to society than, say, things like skateboards or even golf balls - which are involved in the occasional fatal accident.

              But scaling these drones up to human-carrying size does sound like a recipe for disaster...

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by s.petry ( 762400 )
                Not an exaggeration at all, you just need to do some hunting for information. Drones generally don't lead to fatalities, but lost limbs and mangled body parts. I gave one you can look for, but plenty of articles on damage from accidental drone collisions with bystanders. It's not usually the hobbyist pilots getting hurt.

          • Once you scale this up to the size of an actual car and are not using it just on the water, landing near some thing would be enough to cause damage... A flying F-150 would be even worse than the F-150 on the road now.

            Flying cars just aren't in the near future... though this could end up being the next Sport ATV and I'm sure people would buy it if it was less than $10k.

            • My guess is that they'll skip hybrid vehicles, and small drone-like vehicles will be the answer. Simpler.

        • Nothing like flying around with dozens of exposed blades sitting under you, ready to whack limbs off of anyone who you get too close to. I'm sure this will be a big hit at someone's 4th of July party.

          Just make sure that the ambulance services and surgical staff is on call.

          That was my first reaction. Those exposed blades are a serious danger. Not only for hitting a person or animal (I can see your dog running to master), but hitting any object on landing will send blade pieces flying. They definitely need a protective screen underneath them.

    • It's more of a flying motorcycle, except without any of the advantages of a motorcycle. Presumably the advantages of being able to fly outweigh them, but if you're only allowed to operate over water, you'd probably be better served by a boat. It's a toy. The only time it seems like it would have any actual utility is if you live in some place where you're not allowed to move quickly on the water, but they'd still allow you to operate one of these. Which I suppose could exist... somewhere?

      • While I agree this one definitely looks like a useless toy, it looks like it should fly the same over land or water. If I was that pilot, I wouldn't want to try that over land, though. It doesn't look like a very stable design when it comes to balance. Of all the "flying car" footage I've seen, I like this one the best so far:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec... [telegraph.co.uk]

        The only video I'd really like to see of this "Kitty Hawk" is one that shows how the boaters react when it flies directly over them.

        • Like throwing a beer bottle up into the blades to bring it down?

          I note the complete lack of wind. If they can make it work that well in windy conditions, and you can take off with at least modest lake waves they're getting somewhere. The video only shows a scaled up hex copter flying. The problem is lots deeper than that - I want to see some evidence that they've made real headway.

    • Yeah, that thing is a useless toy.. It can't take you wherever you want to go, which would be the point of a flying car..

      It's a neat toy, but it's not really even any kind of technical marvel.. It's just a bigger version of a common drone with a seat and pontoons.. It's really something a motivated hobbiest could have made in a weekend by just retrofitting something with bigger motors, props, batteries and speed controllers..

      Mind you, it does look like a crap load of fun, but I wouldn't call it newsworthy a

      • Yeah, that looks deadly enough to be fun. The grid landing pad isn't optional either. You must land it there and only there. It'll squirt out from under you otherwise. (that pad is a neat, simple idea for solving the problem)

    • In what way is that a "car"?

      eg. Where do the kids/shopping go? If it rains you'll get wet.

      It's clearly a recreational vehicle. It's possible they're looking at that sector as a viable path to a more practical vehicle, or maybe they've always had small stakes in mind. That looks fun, but not as fun as an ultralight and not really much different than what some more adventurous makers have built.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        I would respect them if they said 'it's meant as a recreational vehicle'. If they claimed that it's a viable path to a practicle vehicle, I wouldn't respect that as it's patently obvious that 99.9% of the challenges of this being a practical vehicle would in no way be alleviated by this as a proof of concept. Longevity of a charge, operating at any significant altitude or over non-water surface, etc.

        As it stands, it's a jet ski that can stay 'jumped' a long time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kiviQr ( 3443687 )
      see that is your problem - you need to think out side of the box!!!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      And in what way is it "flying"? It's hovering in ground effect.

      Still, think how popular this will make you with your neighbors. I'm sure you buzzing the lake on an aerial jet ski will add a certain je ne sais quois to their lakeside getaways.

      • It's hovering in ground effect.

        Not exactly. Ground effect becomes significant when the altitude is less than the horizontal dimension of the lift-producing element (wingspan in an airplane, size of the fan cluster here). This machine is flying right around that limit, so the ground effect is minimal; I think it could easily get higher. But it's experimental, and there's a lot to be said for not getting any higher than you're willing to fall.

    • In the same way that "flying" is "hovering a few feet from the ground" ;)

  • CEOs are obsessed with flying. Larry Page, being a man of the people, wants to bring flight to the masses so we too can die in small personal aircraft.
    • Next week on "Silicon Valley" Baghead designs a flying car for Bachmanity. Hilarity ensues!
    • While she was working with Carlos Santana, Michelle Branch asked the veteran musician for advice. He said two things. First, pay your agent a salary, not a percentage. Second, stay out of helicopters.

    • The flying car has been the stuff of science fiction for generations. If the CEO can find a way to make a flying car that the average person can buy and use for their normal work. They think they will earn a place in history like Henry Ford. As a flying car would be recognized and used for hundreds of years. Unlike say a Relational Database system, so if they did a good job, they will get as much history fan fair as Nikolaus Otto (One of the inventors of the internal combustion engine)

  • Floating aircraft, roadable airplanes (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is as close as we've gotten so far. Not that there's anything wrong with buoyant / water based aircraft or roadable airplanes - but they're not flying cars

  • Still a dream (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @12:17PM (#54292267)

    The problem with flying cars is neither technical nor financial. They will remain a dream. People can't even be trusted to move vehicles around on the ground without killing themselves or others. Flying cars will forever remain a dream even after they demonstrate a prototype, and even after they start offering them for sale.

    • It is a technical/scientific problem. Flying cars, as we all understand them (the Jetsons, Back to the Future, The Fifth Element, etc.) depend on technologies that do not yet exist, and that might not be feasible under the laws of physics as currently understood.

    • Failsafe computer software to control Personal Air Vehicles probably isn't impossible. But we couldn't write it today.

      My guess. Maybe 30 years for the requisite software and sensors. The airframe hardware, legal, liability, and security issues might take longer than that. ... If we started on them today. ... Which we won't.

      • You're missing the social problem here. The only way this will take off (pun intended) is if it is autonomous. Humans are the problem not technology. Even once it's fully autonomous we'll have NIMBYs complaining about noise, the FAA regulating it to the point of non-existence (and rightfully so) and no doubt idiots lining up to make it customisable and ripping big brother's autonomous controls out so they cowboy it into the sunset at 200ft.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      Also, it is a tremendous technical problem. Flight requires a ton of energy compared to rolling around on the ground. Some benefit from not having to stop and start so much and less weight to move around (a pure aircraft bothering with heavy safety features is pointless, they'll fail on the crash no matter what), but even with that benefit today, a small 2 seater piston driven aircraft will make the most obscene SUV look like a Prius efficiency wise.

      • ... even with that benefit today, a small 2 seater piston driven aircraft will make the most obscene SUV look like a Prius efficiency wise.

        Most small aircraft presently operate at 15-20 MPG, mostly because the engines are based on simple, old (and thus well-tested), fully analog designs, but it doesn't have to be that way. For example, here's a 2-seater piston-driven aircraft retrofitted with electronic ignition and fuel injection which gets better mileage than most high-efficiency cars: Hypermiling Plane Gets 45 MPG at 207 MPH [treehugger.com]. The challenge is adapting the tech improvements which have made ground vehicles so much more efficient to small airc

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Regular cars have to follow roads, watch for people in unexpected places, adapt to road works, etc.

        So a social problem then. Really the first car didn't have this problem either. Just imagine what a shitstorm a 5th element style traffic would be. All autonomous control is easy when you have a blank space in your control boundary, but if it takes off then the blank space won't be a blank space.

      • I've heard the analogy before that the hardest parts of flying are takeoff and landing. And cars are basically taking off/landing all the time.

      • "It's almost certainly a hell of a lot easier to build a self-driving flying car than it is to build a self driving regular car."

        Sadly, probably not so. A "flying car" of the type most people imagine has to be able to deal with congestion and probably traffic control -- in three dimensions. Imagine thousands of these things trying to exit parking lots around a stadium more or less simultaneously after a sporting event or rock concert -- without running into each other, pre-existing air traffic, power line

  • Honestly - do you REALLY want to be up in the air with dozens of people who "learned to fly in minutes"?

  • How does it play such loud music while it's flying?

  • LOOOOOOOOOL (Score:3)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @12:41PM (#54292427)

    I'm usually against clicking any of the links and reading the article, but do yourself a favor and click on the link for the video.
    This is a joke so big that it'll carry me through Monday.

  • Energy is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by captaindomon ( 870655 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @12:42PM (#54292441)
    Energy is the problem, and it's pure physics so we won't be able to get around it. Burning energy to hover someone in the air against gravity, especially if they are mostly "hovering" and not flying 500 MPH forward, is going to be orders of magnitude more energy required than rolling them forward on wheels. The majority of the energy will be spent on the horizontal vector, not the forward vector. So unless we suddenly develop anti-gravity technology from aliens, or we want to increase the energy required for transportation by a few orders of magnitude, it's not going to happen.
    • Edit: Vertical, not horizontal lol.
    • Yes, but remember 'traffic'.

      If you have the money for this, and don't like traffic, and don't give a damn about the energy, then you could buy one of these and possibly get around more quickly than in a car, spilling your morning coffee on the poor undeserving masses that are stuck in traffic below you. (Yes, I know they claim it is for 'over water', but the imagery is funny.)

      At least, you could do that until enough people own these 'flying cars' to create new kinds of 'air traffic jams' and weird par

    • The rich are already taking helicopters, energy cost is not the problem. If someone comes up with a way to do it so they don't have to "park" on those limited rooftops, the rich will buy it. Do you really not see Musk, Ellison, Trump, Bezos, Gates, Ma, or any other name on the Forbes 500 not buying one of these? Pocket change and as the one Homer Simpson episode with Gates implied, we ANTS will just watch.

      • Agreed. But "toys for rich people" and "replacing our transportation infrastructure with flying cars as in Back to the Future II" are not the same thing, I was talking about the latter.

      • Do you really not see Musk, Ellison, Trump, Bezos, Gates, Ma, or any other name on the Forbes 500 not buying one of these?

        I do not see any of those people buying a "flying car". They may buy "a big quadcopter that can carry a person" just for fun on their estate, but "flying car", no. First of all, they aren't going to want to have to waste their time parking this thing so it will have to be big enough to hold the driver. It will need to get them from A to B in/over congested areas. And it would need to have the range of a helicopter to be useful.

        And in the long run, if they buy one and try to use it where it would be usefu

  • We have flying cars... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...They are called airplanes. And there is a reason who don't just let people willy-nilly drive them around like we do cars

    • A flying car that is actually practical as a transportation mechanism will either need a pilot's license to operate (in which case it should just be called an airplane/helicopter), or it needs to be fully 100% autonomous.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Yes still a dream (Score:3)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @12:47PM (#54292483) Homepage

    1 99.999765% of car drivers can barely handle 2 dimensions, going flying in 3 dimensions? Not a chance in hell.
    2 the FAA will require a pilots license
    3 the FAA will require aircraft maintenance. This means 99.999768% of all typical car owners will never be able to own one as they will whine like hungry babies when told they need to spend $8900 to have the engine rebuilt that is working just fine. Yes the FAA requires scheduled engine rebuilding.
    4 Parking and FAA flight restrictions means you cant just fly from home to work.

    • Re:Yes still a dream (Score:5, Informative)

      by captaindomon ( 870655 ) on Monday April 24, 2017 @12:53PM (#54292535)
      Case in point: Utah just dropped mandatory safety inspections for cars because people didn't like them. Eleven other states don't require any kind of safety inspection. That's somewhat OK in cars, where if something goes horribly wrong your car mostly coasts to the side of the road. With flight, if something goes horribly wrong you mostly die. So yeah, going from that to aircraft-level maintenance ain't going to happen normal drivers. http://fox13now.com/2017/03/26... [fox13now.com] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by b0bby ( 201198 )

      2 the FAA will require a pilots license

      This flying jet ski is supposedly an ultralight; a true single seat ultralight requires no license to fly (assuming it meets the requirements of Part 103 for an ultralight aircraft).

      3 the FAA will require aircraft maintenance. This means 99.999768% of all typical car owners will never be able to own one as they will whine like hungry babies when told they need to spend $8900 to have the engine rebuilt that is working just fine. Yes the FAA requires scheduled engine rebuilding.

      FAA does not require ultralights to have any proof of airworthiness. It is the responsibility of the owner to make sure the ultralight is safe to fly.

      • If the flying jet ski is an ultralight, why not just call it an ultralight? What about it sets it apart from existing ultralights and puts it instead in the flying car category?

        Along those lines, what is preventing the use of existing ultralights for general commuting purposes? If I get an ultralight currently available on the market, and use it to fly to work or to the store, have I not just 'invented' the flying car?

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • And that's the whole issue. The flying car technology itself is a solved problem. What is lacking is the surrounding infrastructure and regulatory framework. Yet every time a flying car story comes up, they are still only trying to re-solve the technology problem.

      • Then all they need is a proper name for the device.
        How about calling it the "Darwin"?
        --
        By the way, in that video I think you can see him jumping the shark.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        2 the FAA will require a pilots license

        This flying jet ski is supposedly an ultralight; a true single seat ultralight requires no license to fly (assuming it meets the requirements of Part 103 for an ultralight aircraft).

        The jet ski/ultralight part isn't enough to save you. You might want to refamiliarize yourself with all of Part 103 [usua.org], not merely the literal text:

        The position of the FAA has consistently been that these vehicles may be operated for sport and recreation purposes only. The justification for a

    • Little nit, the FAA doesn't (usually) require scheduled overhauls at "TBO" (time before overhaul) for part 91 (basically, private aviation) operations. And an engine overhaul is more like $15,000-$20,000 (for an IO-360). (There's a reason pilots/aircraft owners joke about the AMU - aviation maintenance unit - or $1,000. Basically nothing costs under that.)

      The real killer will be the multi-thousand-dollar annual inspections required of every certified aircraft - not to mention airworthiness directives.

  • But, at least, it is not one of those ridiculous airplanes with folding wings. Not there yet, by a definite improvement on those pathetic designs that some have been pushing for decades now.

  • Considering all the trouble over people flying small drones, imagine the trouble with people flying objects that could easily take out your house if it crashes! It's not that I wouldn't love having a flying vehicle to go places. The scenery alone would be pretty cool but the fact that if your engine stalls or something breaks due to poor maintenance is going to result in a very nasty crash is not encouraging. Commercial aircraft is relatively safe because of good maintenance and pretty extensive pilot tr

  • Do want a real pilot or some crap AI that code is no where near what can pass an FAA code audit.

    real autopilot fail back to manual control when things go bad. Will this thing be able to make an emergency landing on LSD (the road) and yes an real airplane did that or will just error out and hit an building?

  • Don't get me wrong, when I read that issue of Popular Science with the Moller flying car on it, I wanted in, but these days I have a hard time seeing where the flying car concept fits into the modern world.

    --If you're interested in flying for the fun of it, you see the limitations of an all in one and would get more bang for your buck with a dedicated light sport airplane.

    --If you're interested in flying as a practical means of travel, you see the limitations of an all in one, and probably have the financ

  • That video was *painful* to watch. This is obviously not a viable car (typically used for commuting), but just a fun toy for rich people. Nothing to see here, folks.

  • Jetsons Rule: When R&D-intensive firms switch focus from one Jetsons-like technology to another, I means they ran into a dead-end(s) in the first. And, we'll probably get neither any time soon.

    Must mean AI and cheap-space-travel hit a wall in this case.

  • They are called PPC's (powered parachutes).

    They consist of a small 3 or four wheeled vehicle (car), with a big pusher fan behind it. Attached to the frame is an airfoil = i.e a square parachute.

    The fan pushes the car on land, typically at speeds of up to 35 mph (high end). Once up to speed, the parachute is released, fills with air, and begins to act like a wing, providing lift.

    It has wheels, an engine, can move on land, fits in a garage, and can fly. It is a flying car.

    People do not think of it becaus

  • Every couple of years another company comes out with their flying car concept. Aeromobil, Terrafugia, Moller have all grabbed headlines with their concept vehicles. Moller sank 100,000,000 dollars in research for flying cars. None have gotten past the concept or prototype stages.

    The risks to the passengers and by standers due to a vehicle failure are very high.

    Let me state that clearly: As long as the vehicle is operating correctly, everyone is okay; the moment the vehicle has a "mechanical issue" s

    • We now have quadrocopter tech and can support a cargo pod on four independent rotors. That's new.

      We have automated systems that can pilot those devices with incredible precision (even against gusts). That's new.

      We have ballistic parachutes for low-altitude deployments. Those aren't new.

      What we don't have, and what we never will have (yay, laws of physics!) is a flying vehicle that is anywhere near as efficient as a car on a road, that can operate safely in as wide a variety of weather conditions, and can

  • of a similar thing. Less rich people who can afford lake houses and sit around sipping microbrews, more garage hacking, moments of sheer terror, exhilaration and proximity to death and/or loss of a limb. Better soundtrack than yoga studio lite.

    http://www.colinfurze.com/hove... [colinfurze.com]

    For the impatient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • They'll have a ready for consumers version in no time at all if they put as much effort into R&D as they did in producing that promo video.

  • It is the dream of every ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers.

    They completely killed the personal aviation industry with liability lawsuits. The precedents set are like, "the manufacturer is liable even if there was no way they could have known such an issue could exist when the flying machine was manufactured."

    So the relatives first guy to die in this will become millionaires. The sugar daddy vulture capitalists will flee.

  • lol (Score:2)

    by sootman ( 158191 )

    "No Longer a Dream" -- oh really? Can I buy one? Can anyone? No? THEN IT'S STILL A FUCKING DREAM.

    Oh, you have a prototype? Well then, excuse the fuck out of me.

    There are so many obstacles before we will have lots of people in flying cars. Creating "a vehicle that flies" is the easy part, and it's getting easier every year. It's little things like "it takes an order of magnitude mre energy to fight gravity than to roll on the ground" and "prevent it from falling on people when ONE critical component fails" a

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close