Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

Post by ridgeguy » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 11:51 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #28

ChuckMcM wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilot training time. At the Hiller Museum in San Mateo one of the docents was talking about how helicopters seem so great but they are so hard to fly with the pilot managing rotor pitch, rotor speed, and countering torque with the tail rotor. A typical quad/hexa/octo copter type vehicle is much easier to fly. (as is a gyrocopter but it cannot really take off vertically)

>A typical quad/hexa/octo copter type vehicle is much easier to fly They're easier to fly because they have software providing artificial stability. If you had to control each rotor individually it would be virtually impossible. There's no reason in principle why a helicopter couldn't have similarly straightforward controls.

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 11:53 PM UTC

elmar wrote: post #126

avn2109 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "flying car" Larry really means "Toyota Camry that can fly with middle class people inside" then that's obviously preposterous to anyone with the slightest shred of general aviation experience. If he means "VTOL Cessna with really good avionics" it's still a tall order but perhaps within the realm of "eventually possible given great determination and unlimited money" instead of "laugh him out of town."

off course it will be possible when batteries tripple the density without increasing weight. You will get a 25 minute around 30 miles ride with 20 minute reserve

Post by civilian » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 11:59 PM UTC

NickNameNick wrote: post #125

civilian wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that, even in 3d space, there will be a concept of lanes. You still want volumes of space designated for one direction or another, at the very least to reduce the number of collision-calculations the guiding system has to make. Parking shouldn't be an issue? We'll have vertical parking structures that can be entered/exited on every level.

I wouldn't want to fly any kind of helicopter or multicopter into a door in the side of a traditional multi story parking building. the sudden and asymmetric entrance into ground-effect will roll the aircraft, and I'm not sure what having a roof above your rotors would do - possible choke them of airflow and force them into high-speed-stall. airflow near walls is turbulent, and the funneling effect may suck the aircr…

Post by elmar » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 12:04 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #131

elmar wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

off course it will be possible when batteries tripple the density without increasing weight. You will get a 25 minute around 30 miles ride with 20 minute reserve

And without being a fire hazard.

Post by dimino » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 12:11 AM UTC

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…