Flying cars

[layman77]

I read this 5 years ago now.

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/flying-car.htm

 

They say within the next decade, and this is something I've always been looking forward to. Realistically though, what about it's fuel requirements? Not only do you have to power it's systems so it can move in the normal two dimensions a land car would have to, but you also have to contend with gravity and keep it above the ground.

 

We don't even have self driving cars now (at least they aren't readily available at local dealer as far as I know) They have the parachute as a failsafe, surprised they don't have anything else, like a system which will automatically land the car before you run out of fuel, or just plain tell you that you don't have enough gas to get to your destination.

[bloody_thorn]

well I am also looking forward to flying cars, mainly because of a monster garage episode that had one so if anyone actualy builds one that is realistic I would be one of the first to buy one

[DrP]

I read this 5 years ago now.

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/flying-car.htm

 

.

 

 

 

Yea - I've been watching that for a while now too. It's the Muller 400. James May done a program on flying cars in his "technology of the 20th centry" series (or whatever it was called) - The Muller 400 is my fav.

 

 

There was some discussion about it here in this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34628&highlight=man+fly ........ although it turned a bit silly if I remember rightly.....

[Sisyphus]

Methinks the obstacles to having flying cars are practical, not technological. Flying cars will not replace the earthbound variety, because it would be ridiculously dangerous to have millions of poorly trained pilots on unplanned flights all in the air at once. I don't want the idiots I see on the road every day moving at high speeds in the air over my house.

[alextwo]

I read this 5 years ago now.

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/flying-car.htm

 

They say within the next decade, and this is something I've always been looking forward to. Realistically though, what about it's fuel requirements? Not only do you have to power it's systems so it can move in the normal two dimensions a land car would have to, but you also have to contend with gravity and keep it above the ground.

 

We don't even have self driving cars now (at least they aren't readily available at local dealer as far as I know) They have the parachute as a failsafe, surprised they don't have anything else, like a system which will automatically land the car before you run out of fuel, or just plain tell you that you don't have enough gas to get to your destination.

The Muller 400 has been around for awhile. It can't fly because it has no wings. Small detail. I've seen versions with tilt rotors, but they always fly on tether and behave badly. I think it's a money pit. I don't see virtual roadways as an impossibility. GPS will play a major role. The big problem is if you need to stay in the air, then you're going to need fuel. You can't fly around with no means of support. These cars look great to the layman, but look closely. The laws of physics aren't forgiving. Even reasonable designs have problems. How do you fly a car with no wings and no rotor?

[ski_power]

I too believe that it is the practical barriers rather than technological barriers that would impede flying cars from becoming common.

Firstly would be the fuel usage that has been said by you guys. They would have to come up with some kind of highly efficient method for converting fuel source energy into power. Also, there would be an issue of compactness. A flying car would quickly lose it's charm if you are going to run out of fuel before returning back from the grocery store.

 

The other obstacle would be the driving license. Now apart from normal training, you'd have to teach everyone concepts of roll, pitch, & yaw. These being only the basics. I mean, you would have to practically teach a pilot training course to all individuals (flying cars are normal remember?). That would be very difficult.

 

Accidents could be far less forgiving, and there would be very little left to luck. A slight graze puts you off balance. You lose control of the vehicle and now you don't just have to worry about slamming into a building or another vehicle, but also need to remember the Z-Axis. You will definitely fall down too. Remember, gravity at its very best.

 

I'm not trying to dissuade or discourage anyone, but unless they start teaching aerospac engineering level science at school level, it would be a long long time that we would see flying cars become common.

[spirytus]

We already have the infrastructure to support private air-travel, see general aviation.

 

As a general aviator, you are required to obtain and maintain a license on the aircraft type youre certified on.

 

The one and only obstacle here is the costs of bying and owning your own heli, air-plane or hybrid (i.e. the Muller - which would first have to be certifed air-worthy by the licensing authority of your country, i.e. the FAA).

 

Methinks the obstacles to having flying cars are practical, not technological.

 

Contrary, "Flying cars" are currently technologically impractical.

 

As descibed in most sci-fi novels/movies a flying car must match the following criteria:

 

1.) Must be capable of VTAL (Vertical Take-off And Landing).

2.) Cheap to produce/purchase.

3.) Easy to operate/maintain.

4.) A breakdown midflight must have high survivability rate.

5.) Flying characteristics must remain operational/safe during unexpected weather conditions.

[padren]

(I really wish FF let you save textareas in the event of back button mishap)

 

A few things about the Moller 400:

 

1) It's supposed to be fully "fly by autoNav" of some sort, though I'd expect you'd need manual control too.

2) It should be fully fly by wire, so the computer actually interprets your input request, then executes what needs to be done to do it, and no input (remain stationary) actually results in the computer keeping you stationary.

3) The mileage is supposed to be about 20 miles to the gallon on regular gasoline. I don't know if this is "their target" and pure fantasy or the actual results of their engineering.

4) It is supposed to be able to make a full controlled landing on three of four engines, for safety.

 

It's also worth noting, that we have far too many people die every year due to poor road conditions, and the proximity of head on traffic. Flying cars could be safer than road cars.

 

The biggest problem I see that is not technological/economical is social - if you can just "pop up and over" at 400 miles an hour in a border city, how can you track that? Smuggling would become far easier.

Also, you'd pretty much need a "starwars defense system" for the White house, and other structures, as "roadblocks" would be nearly useless. Drive-by shootings could start looking like something out of a peanuts cartoon.

[Pangloss]

Not THAT much safer. You have to be careful here because general aviation's record is not to be confused with the safety record of commercial aviation -- they aren't even in the same ballpark. If memory serves GA is still much safer than driving, but given the amount of training and education that goes into acquiring a pilot's license this should not be a surprise.

 

This comes up a lot and I always raise the same education-based objections. It's just not realistic to expect that most people would be able to handle aviation, even with vast simplification of controls and improvements in capabilities. Ever try to spot power lines from 5,000 feet up? Know what your neighborhood looks like from that altitude? (Actually the latter has probably improved dramatically in recent years just due to the availability of Google Maps, but terrain at an angle is still a major hurdle to understanding location at altitude.)

 

Besides, the public fright factor is enormous. The flying car fantasy ends the moment the first drunk "flier" drops out of the sky killing a single mom with three kids and a $9/hr hairdresser job who can barely afford her balloon mortgage but still gives every other Friday to help out at the local orphanage.

 

But hey, it's good to have dreams.

[npts2020]

It would be much simpler (and imo safer) to just automate the current ground system.

[Mokele]

One good question is "why is it even *necessary*"? Is there some niche not being filled, or is this just some pipe dream fueled by too many Jetsons cartoons.

 

IMHO, there's no point, no real benefit beyond a marginal increase in speed, even setting aside all the major downsides. And given how major those downsides are....

 

Mokele

[padren]

One good question is "why is it even *necessary*"? Is there some niche not being filled, or is this just some pipe dream fueled by too many Jetsons cartoons.

 

IMHO, there's no point, no real benefit beyond a marginal increase in speed, even setting aside all the major downsides. And given how major those downsides are....

 

Mokele

 

Well it makes sense to me that it'll hit a luxury market if it becomes viable. Public safety of course is the most critical factor to address, but in an age of corporate jets and helicopters, it seems natural that it will come to pass.

 

If it ever hits high consumer levels is another story. As far as solving a direct need - if it becomes viable for the upper middle class then I could see it having a very positive impact on city roadway congestion.

[Mokele]

Well it makes sense to me that it'll hit a luxury market if it becomes viable. Public safety of course is the most critical factor to address, but in an age of corporate jets and helicopters, it seems natural that it will come to pass.

 

But would such a market be able to sustain or make it possible? Selling to such a small market (even if they can pay enough), and lacking the power to push through legislation for from-driveway-launch?

 

As far as solving a direct need - if it becomes viable for the upper middle class then I could see it having a very positive impact on city roadway congestion.

 

So do buses and bikes. And all it will do is trade highway congestion for airway congestion.

 

Mokele

[npts2020]

An automated road system would also solve most (if not all) of the congestion problems. In addition, if you enclose it, there is no reason the vehicles couldn't go as fast as a bullet train.

[padren]

But would such a market be able to sustain or make it possible? Selling to such a small market (even if they can pay enough), and lacking the power to push through legislation for from-driveway-launch?

 

Even a from-helipad-launch would allow entrance into the current private copter market. From driveway would be harder of course, but it is something I am sure many wealthy people would like to have. It may find a market somewhere like Dubai before it does here though.

 

So do buses and bikes. And all it will do is trade highway congestion for airway congestion.

 

Mokele

 

With massive investment in infrastructure perhaps. It would take me a couple hours by bus to get down town from where I live, or it's a 20 minute drive. As sprawl keeps getting bigger, trying to connect any one place to any one other place gets harder.

 

Mass transit is great for where it works, but the reason people get stuck in rush hour traffic is it's not a perfect fit for all situations.

 

I would like to see improvements in mass transit, it just won't do away with highway congestion by itself.

[Pangloss]

I think what may be realistic is the idea of "commuter" air services -- small planes running passengers out of small airports. It's a very old idea that has made a comeback recently due to the growing nightmare of major air carrier travel. A number of these already operate in more populous areas of the country such as the northeast, southeast and California. A new startup here in Florida actually operates tiny jets, running a profit with as few as 2-3 passengers popping back and forth across the state on business or vacation-related travel. Some even have flexible scheduling.

 

I think Mokele's point is a good one -- solutions tend to be driven by problems.