The next step from automated selfdriving cars could be flying cars. I wouldn't trust a million idiots flying but if it's AI it would probably be safer.1
Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
181–190 of 242 posts
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#182Do 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 rou…
[deleted]
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we need to think realistically, and economically. Improving, and incrementing familiar technology now. Not introducing another mess in the air. We haven't even got self-driving land vehicles, and we're just going to make the jump to aircraft that NO ONE is familiar with? We still rely on primitive controlled explosions to get off our planet. Sure it's a neat idea, but this isn't the Fifth Element world yet. U…
This is probably the argument horse carriage operators made when mass produced cars were just coming into being.
It's also the argument used by naysayers of corporate jet cards.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#184Why does it need to be an entire car. I just want a drone I can hook a seat into with a range of 10-20 miles. Is that impossible? Lifting 200 pounds for 20 miles is probably doable with current technology right?
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#185Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#186I'm curious, why hasn't anyone worked with ground effect vehicles (things like wing-in-plane) in an urban setting. It seems like commuting from South SF Mountain View would be greatly smoothed by introducing GEVs without a ridiculous cost.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#187Translation:- Larry Page is spending millions of his personal wealth - which he is entitled to do - into a development quest to develop personal dual-use road/aircraft. This will never become economic, although is has been shown many times to be doable, with numerous products developed. None survived the economic screen, let alone the FAA screen. Let us see why:- Ever see a traffic jam? lines of 1000's of cars stoppe…
I get smatterings of your comments of the similar old idea of
"Can you imagine a mechanical horse carriage where all 4 hooves moved in unison?! Balderdash, I must say. There's no way 4 legs could ever move that fast and that synchronized! It'll never happen. Now, Jeeves, go ready my carriage. We're going to meet a weird entrepreneur by the name of Henry Ford."
You're right. With old "state of the art", and yes I do say old, having 100+ planes in a square mile would be very trying. But we're talking of no encryption, no authentication, no anti-jamming, no anything really. And that's from a 2012 presentation at Defcon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXv1j3GbgLk
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#188Translation:- Larry Page is spending millions of his personal wealth - which he is entitled to do - into a development quest to develop personal dual-use road/aircraft. This will never become economic, although is has been shown many times to be doable, with numerous products developed. None survived the economic screen, let alone the FAA screen. Let us see why:- Ever see a traffic jam? lines of 1000's of cars stoppe…
Just skimmed quickly but I don't think they talking about actual flying cars, i.e., not dual-use. They're talking about small, electric, autonomous aircraft that can take off vertically that could be used on demand.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 rou…
I don't think L/D of more than 10 is realistic for a compact VTOL aircraft even in cruise mode, and then there's the vertical take off and landing component that will cause further inefficiency especially on short trips. But at the same time I don't think it matters that much.
Depends on the type of VTOL. Quad copter? Not so efficient. Tilt-wing? I imagine it's much better. (Amateur opinion disclaimer)
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#190We drive in two dimensions, it's about time we explored the third one.