AeroMobil already has working prototype
Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
111–120 of 242 posts
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#112Do 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…
I have been working on a flying car project for years and can guarantee you that one/two seat Electrical VTOL is at least 30 years away, battery density must triple and then you have regulations.
Current solutions can be airborne at maximum 15 minutes considering that FAA and other agencies require 20 minutes reserve you do the math.
The Zee.aero patent design as been abandoned because they couldn't scale it to fit a passenger inside.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two related things that first jump out to me as interesting: - Opens up a lot of potential living space which is geographically close, but not practically connected via transit arteries - Opens up living space in areas which are not passable by cars either because of terrain or in-tact wilderness (e.g. an off the grid home on a nearby mountain) Both would no doubt mostly benefit the rich, but well, nobody's shocked t…
Wouldn't you still have to build infrastructure to those places to build the homes in the first place? I guess if you are filthy rich you can just airlift things in and out again.
You can source many if not most building materials from the environment wood can be chopped and made into lumber and plaster can be made out of local deposits.
If you have some sort of a mobile house factory that will utilize local materials and 3D print the rest you really only need to worry about a few materials that can't be locally sourced.
Yes this is far away but about as far as flying cars.
Heck In 2 decades you might order a house on amazon a blip will come and set it down some roomba style bots will come out and finish it and you'll jump into your flying car and move in.
When you can 3D print almost anything including your food and produce electricity locally via wind and solar you can now live in the middle of nowhere Alaska without much infrastructure.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#114I 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.
> if we took existing traffic and moved it 10,000 feet up in the air Wouldn't you move it 1,000 feet up, 2,000 feet up, 3,000 feet up... There's a lot more space in the air than on land. Plus, in 3D you can make two non-intersecting non-parallel straight paths. Can't do that in 2D.
> There's a lot more space in the air than on land.
But that's mitigated by the fact that the failure modes and much, much worse.
I can drive safely at highway speeds with a couple hundred feet of separation between cars.
FAA rules on safe separation between planes laterally is about 3 miles, or about 50 times the distance, or 2500 times the surface area.
Plus planes compete with one another for access to airports, so you haven't actually solved any congestion issues -- the bottleneck is still near the ground.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two related things that first jump out to me as interesting: - Opens up a lot of potential living space which is geographically close, but not practically connected via transit arteries - Opens up living space in areas which are not passable by cars either because of terrain or in-tact wilderness (e.g. an off the grid home on a nearby mountain) Both would no doubt mostly benefit the rich, but well, nobody's shocked t…
Wouldn't you still have to build infrastructure to those places to build the homes in the first place? I guess if you are filthy rich you can just airlift things in and out again.
If we're talking about the class of people who will use a flying car to get to work, airlifting containers via helicopter to construct their home is probably within reach.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#116Do 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…
I have been working on a flying car project for years and can guarantee you that one/two seat Electrical VTOL is at least 30 years away, battery density must triple and then you have regulations. Current solutions can be airborne at maximum 15 minutes considering that FAA and other agencies require 20 minutes reserve you do the math. The Zee.aero patent design as been abandoned because they couldn't scale it to fit a…
what about the joby s2? Is that also impossible? It looks feasible and there are a bunch of people working on it... Thoughts?
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#117Earlier 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…
> If a single engine on a quadcopter loses power, it crashes If one motor fails, the quadcopter could turn off the opposite motor and reverse the direction of one of the remaining motors, so that it is left with two opposing motors spinning in opposite direction. The torque of two motors might be enough to keep it flying. Some steering would be possible with the assistance of the third working motor which could spin…
> reverse the direction of one of the remaining motors
Pretty sure you won't survive that transition since your craft will be completely out of control in the seconds it takes to kill all rotational velocity and spin a rotor up again, at least for large sized rotors.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#118Do 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…
Let's build a bot to participate in HN discussions. Then we can all save some time and get back to work. My first two suggestions:
Q: Someone is building flying cars.
A: Do we really need them?
Q: Someone is investing money into extending human life.
A: Let's talk about the social implications of immortality.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we took existing traffic and moved it 10,000 feet up in the air Wouldn't you move it 1,000 feet up, 2,000 feet up, 3,000 feet up... There's a lot more space in the air than on land. Plus, in 3D you can make two non-intersecting non-parallel straight paths. Can't do that in 2D.
> There's a lot more space in the air than on land. But that's mitigated by the fact that the failure modes and much, much worse. I can drive safely at highway speeds with a couple hundred feet of separation between cars. FAA rules on safe separation between planes laterally is about 3 miles , or about 50 times the distance, or 2500 times the surface area. Plus planes compete with one another for access to airports,…
A 3 mile horizontal radius has little to do with flying and a lot to do with speed.
At ordinary commercial airline speeds, it's the equivalent of a "20-second rule" (i.e. it's the distance covered in 20 seconds by a 500-600mph vehicle).
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been working on a flying car project for years and can guarantee you that one/two seat Electrical VTOL is at least 30 years away, battery density must triple and then you have regulations. Current solutions can be airborne at maximum 15 minutes considering that FAA and other agencies require 20 minutes reserve you do the math. The Zee.aero patent design as been abandoned because they couldn't scale it to fit a…
what about the joby s2? Is that also impossible? It looks feasible and there are a bunch of people working on it... Thoughts?
similiar glider designs to Joby S2 get 1h to 1h30 flight time with current battery density, it all depends how much energy is spent doing the vertical takeoff and landing.