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

151–160 of 242 posts

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#151

Post by cooper12 »

melling wrote: post #118
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…

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.

Yeah instead we should just masturbate over the hottest tech and consume mindlessly. Why even bother discussing things?

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#152

Post by elmar »

elmar wrote: post #141
toomuchtodo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biofuels. Otherwise, you're waiting another 20 years.

to do a small combustion engine VTOL vehicle its even harder I have only seen it work with several two stroke engines. Another optin is turbine like the AirMule, but will be hard to use it for civilian operations the hourly cost is brutal and noise and heat is really annoying for nearby people and even passengers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Aeronautics_AirMule

the two stroke VTOL is homebuilt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123200/The-ultimate...

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#153

Post by zombees »

So why the desire to have a VTOL car right now? The capability to do affordable commuter air is almost in reach and we already have aircraft in the certification pipeline that can fly 2 people on electricity alone for about an hour (see Pipistrel Alpha Electro and Airbus E-Fan). VTOL is something we've been working on for decades and still have issues with reliability (MV-22/F-35 anyone?) but airplanes are inherently stable and incredibly simple once you have a power plant that doesn't suck. If you want to know why GA has been lagging so hard, just about every plane you see has a $30k, 10gph, 258lb, lead guzzling O-360 in it that dates back from the 1930s. And yes, we still use leaded gas (100LL).

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#154

Post by BoringCode »

chaostheory wrote: post #24
drum wrote: post #16

Interesting title considering the article's as much about Uber and battery efficiency a la Tesla as it is Larry Page. I'm still curious about how highways for these types of aircraft will be implemented. I imagine the goal is ubiquity and at some point, with thousands of these things flying around, flight paths will be the bottleneck.

could be VTOL http://moller.com/ - this project seems dead =( hopefully either I'm wrong or something more interesting takes its place

It's not just dead, they've yet to perform untethered flight on any of their prototypes. The Terrafugia Transition is an example of a far more practical form of "flying car"

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#155

Post by elmar »

avn2109 wrote: post #123
elmar wrote: post #112

Earlier 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…

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."

the cost it's also another big barrier I don't see it hitting the market at less than $250k.

As a proxy you have Icon A5 it was target at a price point of $130k in 2008 currently it's priced around $240k and only a handful have been delivered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICON_A5

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#156

Post by elmar »

natosaichek wrote: post #116
elmar wrote: post #112

Earlier 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?

For electrical VTOL the Joby is probably the best bet, one big question mark is, the 16 motors how much will weight even at a very low weight of 15kg each you get 240kg/52lb in motors a similar complete two person glider weights around 300kg/661lb.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#157

Post by nickparker »

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…

Surprisingly, they don't actually need to be all that inefficient.

The rolling resistance of a typical car is 0.01 to 0.015 [1], so the effective lift/drag ratio of a car's suspension is about 70 to 100, for just the wheels themselves. Missing from this number are the parasitic losses of all other unsprung mass, aerodynamic drag, and the costs incurred by traveling along roads which are neither level nor straight routes between your start and your end.

Small aircraft have L/D of 10-20 [2], and electric craft will probably fare slightly better if anything because of packaging advantages vs big ICEs.

I might do a more in depth analysis later and write up a Medium post, but my point is: Even just looking at the rolling resistance of the car and the whole L/D of aircraft, the difference is only an order of magnitude. Rolling resistance is one of the smallest contributions to drag in a car, so all up electric cars are probably only 3-6x more efficient than electric aircraft, and combustion cars are probably have a far smaller advantage.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance#Rolling_res...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio#Examples

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#158

Post by londons_explore »

elmar wrote: post #156
natosaichek wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about the joby s2? Is that also impossible? It looks feasible and there are a bunch of people working on it... Thoughts?

For electrical VTOL the Joby is probably the best bet, one big question mark is, the 16 motors how much will weight even at a very low weight of 15kg each you get 240kg/52lb in motors a similar complete two person glider weights around 300kg/661lb.

Motors will be more like 1kg each. One can get a 10 kilowatt 1 kg air cooled motor.

Batteries are the heavy bit, and in my opinion, the future there is to have batteries capable of 2 minutes of flying, and a gasoline engine as a hybrid generator.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#159

Post by knz »

bobsil1 wrote: post #106
amelius wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The views! Obviously, these will be blocked by swarms of flying cars.

Long after they're blocked by swarms of delivery drones.

I'm skeptical about delivery drones for this reason. Between the noise, security concerns, and visual pollution it will be hard to implement mass adoption of UAV's for delivery.

Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars

#160

Post by Spooky23 »

overcast wrote: post #149
Spooky23 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self flying aircraft are much easier than cars. Fewer variables and years of experience in military contexts. My parents live in a rural area 16 mikes from our city center. Due to terrain and roads, it's a 30 mile/60 minute trip. With a flying car/shuttle, its no more than 20 minutes.

I'm going to infer you're talking about drones. There is a quantum leap difference between self flying military robots, and ones that carry humans around safely during rush hour crowds.

What would someone say in 1996 about a form of cruise control that functions like an airplane shipping today in a Tesla?

What would the average person say about a self-driving cab that is currently being piloted by Uber at that time?

I'm honestly surprised about the downvoting and snark here. There are Air Force officers sitting in trailers in Nevada right now controlling swarms of semi-autonomous drones, performance surveillance and blowing stuff up. Why is a simple air taxi beyond the imagination?

Post reply on HN