Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 242 posts

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#31

Post by danbruc »

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ...

Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the surface and maybe being able to get rid of our current infrastructure, i.e. no longer having to build and maintain roads and railroad tracks and the accompanying infrastructure.

In metropolitan areas it certainly looks a bit like we are running out of space on the surface but I am actually not sure that we are not just pretty bad at making use of the available space. No longer having to maintain a large piece of infrastructure seems actually the more convincing argument to me.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#36

Post by woofyman »

avar wrote: post #22
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First comment makes a good observation. When a plane loses power, it glides. When a helicopter loses power, it autorotates [1]. If a single engine on a quadcopter loses power, it crashes [2]. There is work being done on mitigating this, but I don't see why you'd go for a quad versus tri- or helicopter. (Quadcopters are better than other aerial platforms at one thing: maneuverability. To get this agility they sacrific…

The Ehang 184 has 8 propellers, two for each of the four quad points. I'd assume the reason is safety, that it can limp to the ground with just 7. You're wrong about a quadcopter not being able to fly with 3 rotors, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHryqnvyYA That looks like it would be quite a ride with a human on-board, but would probably suck less than crashing.

That's fine as long as all 8 have independent batteries and flight controllers.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#37

Post by NegativeLatency »

phkahler wrote: post #30

Forget electric. That's just a gimmick that allows these companies to say "in five to ten years because batteries." Prove it. Make a gas powered one to prove your concept. The simplest flying machine is probably an autogyro. Automate that for point to point transport, show the automation, redundancy, and safety for urban use. Solve those real issues and then we can talk about fancy designs.

How is an autogyro simpler than a fixed wing aircraft? The both have a motor, and on one of them the wings have to move.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#38

Post by detritus »

imgabe wrote: post #26

I hope they fly themselves as well. Humans can barely manage to safely pilot a car in 2 dimensions. I don't want to think of the carnage that would result if we took existing traffic and moved it 10,000 feet up in the air. Every fender bender would become a multiple fatality.

Surely it would be simpler than dealing with the complexity current '2d' autonomous car systems face?

As long as you have designated drop zones, everything else becomes mathematically simpler.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#39

Post by CptJamesCook »

danbruc wrote: post #31

Do we actually want flying cars? They are probably less efficient because you have to overcome gravity, they are probably going to be pretty noisy, falling out of the sky and smashing into the ground is a new failure mode, ... Flying cars are certainly a nice gadget, but do we really need or want them? I can only think of two good arguments for flying cars, entering the third dimension if we run out of space on the s…

Rich people want them. What society wants (needs) is a superior airport experience and more fuel efficient air travel.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#40

Post by antiquark »

detritus wrote: post #38
imgabe wrote: post #26

I hope they fly themselves as well. Humans can barely manage to safely pilot a car in 2 dimensions. I don't want to think of the carnage that would result if we took existing traffic and moved it 10,000 feet up in the air. Every fender bender would become a multiple fatality.

Surely it would be simpler than dealing with the complexity current '2d' autonomous car systems face? As long as you have designated drop zones, everything else becomes mathematically simpler.

But their entire path would require a drop zone. So in effect, there would be these long strips on the ground mirroring the flight paths of these flying cars. You might even run out of space on the ground for drop zones.
Post reply on HN