Why can't we use small helicopters as flying cars? Is it because economics make the idea infeasible? If that's so then why the current ideas will be better?
Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
191–200 of 242 posts
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#192Do 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…
>Do we actually want flying cars? There's probably a market for a vertical-takeoff vehicle serving a premium/luxury transportation niche - the same segment that is currently served by helicopters. I imagine you would still need a pilot's license and have to adhere to the rigorous FAA-maintenance schedule - so it would never be a mass-market product.
Many products (cell phones, cars, medical) started off for "the rich" and gradually became mass market. I am very surprised at how many people are not able to see a future where general purpose ground based transportation is obsolete.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
People put common car engines on aircraft all the time. The problem is that "certified" aircraft engines are expensive due to that designation (think regulatory capture). There are several cheap auto-engine options for homebuilts. Maintenance can be done by the builder for homebuilts too. The costs are almost completely due to the small market size. I agree with you that electric motors are awesome (they're what I do…
>You lose VTOL Joby and Zee are using wings plus VTOL. They shut down the VTOL rotors for level flight.
That could actually be awesome. Use electric motors in a drone type configuration for VTOL and then just use a gas engine for cruising.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
But batteries are a significant source of weight.
Look, you can't simply build a mini-plane with 10 combustion engines. It's a design you can't bootstrap powered with gas and migrate to electrical later. You also can't put combustion engines in the end of small actuators, like it's on the article.
10 is overkill. You might try two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knb3qNq-Uho
The benefit of electric is the ability to very quickly alter thrust for that quad-rotor type of control.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#195Forget 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.
>> How is an autogyro simpler than a fixed wing aircraft?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhZJgOA-hyI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohGAQfseJzM
Sure looks simpler. You also get short field takeoff and vertical landing.
How about a roadable one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CajAq6ndJYE
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#196Do 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…
Bridge choke points, mountain ranges and other small body of water crossings is where electric flying cars / taxis will shine. It would be very useful in cities such as Seattle, SF or NYC. It would also be useful for places like Victoria-Vancouver or Victoria-Seattle. You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m.
> You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m.
The SF-Alameda-Oakland ferry is already 30 minutes :).
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#197I 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.
Once you're past the threshold of "the fall will kill you" it's better to be higher.
Gravitational potential energy is a little more reliable than aircraft engines. if you lose propulsion, you can convert altitude to airspeed at your leisure, subject to the glide ratio. But only if you have it :).
Whatever else goes wrong, being further away from the ground gives you more time to deal with it.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bridge choke points, mountain ranges and other small body of water crossings is where electric flying cars / taxis will shine. It would be very useful in cities such as Seattle, SF or NYC. It would also be useful for places like Victoria-Vancouver or Victoria-Seattle. You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m.
> You either take an inconvenient ferry for ~3 hours or you could take an on demand air taxi for 30m. The SF-Alameda-Oakland ferry is already 30 minutes :).
Sorry I was unclear. I was talking about the Victoria-Vancouver ferry, which is about 3hrs. Same with the Seattle-Victoria Ferry.
The SF ferry is also slower than driving with no traffic or bart :)
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#199I believe that something like a self-guided human-size quadcopter is safer than a helicopter and that will start to take up some of the luxury helicopter transport market.
People seem to be arguing that helicopters are safer. I'm not an aerodynamics expert, but my intuition tells me that will be proven wrong eventually. They just are misjudging a newish way of doing things. Anyway, I don't see any point in arguing about it. Eventually the drones will get bigger and bigger and someone will have the balls to allow it to be tested properly. And eventually people will catch on.
Re: Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
#200Why can't we use small helicopters as flying cars? Is it because economics make the idea infeasible? If that's so then why the current ideas will be better?
I've been wondering something similar - why is it that we have all these GPS-controlled self-flying stabilized quadcopters using cheap chinese microcontrollers, but a lack of mini-helicopters using the same technology. Is it that much more difficult to computer-control? Or are the more complicated mechanics just "not worth it" when you can just build a quadcopter instead?