Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 218 posts

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#101

Post by 6stringmerc »

bencollier49 wrote: post #98
6stringmerc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the .001% of people in the world market, and even then, of those people, approximately a much smaller amount would be capable of flying such a vehicle properly. They might be financially able to purchase, but will they be competent enough not to crash it within the first month? I seem to recall Dodge Vipers being notorious for being crashed within the first week of ownership due to lack of proper training (whic…

The article implies that these vehicles would be autonomous.

It might imply that some would be autonomous, but that's not a genuine "flying car" now is it? It's an "autonomous passenger transport pod" that could describe anything from a hyperloop to an automated self-propelled wheelchair. All this dancing around to try and make it seem like the idea isn't a fool's errand is interesting, I will grant that.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#102

Post by outworlder »

Nokinside wrote: post #21

Helicopters and small planes already exist. We might have autonomous helicopters and small planes in the future, but flying car concept is flawed and not because it's hard to build one. - Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. This is actually good subgoal to work with even without flying cars in mind. Reliable infra…

> Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight.

Omg, this. The amount of checks required for any sort of aircraft is ridiculous. A lot of it involves button pushing and checking status. This could be automated.

For instance, for a cessna 150:

STARTING ENGINE Mixture – RICH Carb heat – COLD Prime – AS REQUIRED Master switch -- ON Beacon Light – ON Throttle – OPEN 1/8” Prop Area – CLEAR Ignition – START Oil Pressure – CHK Radio – ON/SET Transponder – ON / STBY Wing Flaps – UP Mixture – LEAN 1 INCH READY TO TAXI

Most of these things could be set automatically.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#104

Post by Nav_Panel »

marssaxman wrote: post #80
Nav_Panel wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major price premium for parking. What I envision instead is an extension of the office park concept, but suddenly there's no traffic congestion. You could have massive suburban/exurban growth and still have incredibly short commutes -- employees fly to their offices…

Wait, now - you want to exacerbate sprawl and worsen suburban inefficiency, and this is supposed to be a benefit? I think you have just convinced me that personal flying vehicles are a terrible idea to be opposed at all costs.

I'm not saying this view is a positive thing, it's merely what I imagine will happen if personal flying vehicles become affordable, based on past trends and our political environment. I would personally prefer more investment in public transit and dense urbanity, which isn't even really possible due to overly restrictive zoning laws.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#105

Post by outworlder »

lettergram wrote: post #90
Nokinside wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy density of jet fuel and gasoline is something like 45-46 MJ/kg. All rechargeable lithium-whatever batteries have less than MJ/kg. Turboprops are efficient and reliable. They have good power-to-weight ratio. Currently electric motors are good only for things like gliders that need relatively little power.

Blimps would also be viable. You can significantly reduce the required energy to get them to move

I love blimps. Even more so the semi-rigid ones. We can even get some of them solar powered now.

However, have we solved all the mooring requirements? I can't envision blimps used by individuals until they can self-moor or something.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#106

Post by adventured »

eblanshey wrote: post #94

It's great seeing a strong push toward aviation as a superior method of transportation. One of the side effects will be people gradual spreading out, away from huge city congestion, which is largely set up due to our transportation. It will enable us to live more in tune with nature, while not giving up the conveniences of having everything we need within short distance. I touched upon this in a blog post: https://me…

I disagree. Most people do not want to live more in tune with nature when it comes to living in it. They have very little interest in immersing themselves in nature outside of an occasional hike or camping trip. That's made exceptionally clear by how people actively choose to live and the things they choose not to do. There is no great pent-up demand for telecommuting, a very small percentage of the working population wants to do it.

Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way. Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a multiplier for each person you add to a city. Cities are far more vibrant in every regard except for nature, that includes art, science, fashion, social, lifestyle, networking, work, access to resources and public institutions.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#107

Post by outworlder »

adwf wrote: post #22
rtpg wrote: post #15

What problems do flying cars solve? I know it looks cool but is there some huge thing that would get solved with this?

There are a number of potential issues they solve: 1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain. 2) Reduce congestion. How much fuel in a car is burnt in traffic? With flying cars, congestion will largely be a thing of the p…

> 1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain.

Theoretically. That fact that standard commercial flights don't do that should be a red flag. Commercial flights follow pre-designated airways.

Smaller aircraft in unregulated airspace aren't that constrained. But that's because there's too few of them.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#108

Post by CamperBob2 »

nacs wrote: post #95
knodi123 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a car in the middle of the desert will just roll until it stops And an airplane will glide pretty far until it stops. Every single pilot has practical first-hand experience with unpowered landings- they're on the curriculum when you're getting your license. It's a remarkably survivable thing to do, especially in a desert with a road like your example.

> Every single pilot has practical first-hand experience with unpowered landing Considering many people can barely handle driving normal cars correctly, the number of average flying-car consumers that will have airplane pilot-level training, knowledge, skill, and maintain sanity in emergency situations like unpowered landings is minuscule.

Surely nobody thinks this can happen without autonomous (or at least remotely centralized) control?

Do they?

Because if they do, they've obviously never driven a normal car in traffic, much less a flying one.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#109

Post by louthy »

andys627 wrote: post #92

We'll all be happier and healthier and have more money for other stuff if we build our cities around walking, biking, and shared transit. Suburbs = unhealthy, inefficient, unhappy (it has been studied - look it up don't just comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere").

> look it up don't just comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere

Instead of this passive aggressive remark, perhaps post links to the research that you believe validates your point? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I bet it's probably possible to find "studies" that back up both sides of the argument.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#110

Post by alphapapa »

adventured wrote: post #106
eblanshey wrote: post #94

It's great seeing a strong push toward aviation as a superior method of transportation. One of the side effects will be people gradual spreading out, away from huge city congestion, which is largely set up due to our transportation. It will enable us to live more in tune with nature, while not giving up the conveniences of having everything we need within short distance. I touched upon this in a blog post: https://me…

I disagree. Most people do not want to live more in tune with nature when it comes to living in it. They have very little interest in immersing themselves in nature outside of an occasional hike or camping trip. That's made exceptionally clear by how people actively choose to live and the things they choose not to do. There is no great pent-up demand for telecommuting, a very small percentage of the working populatio…

On the other hand, cities have higher crime rates, more pollution, more noise, less space, and higher cost of living.

Have you ever lived in an apartment building? Have you ever had noisy neighbors and wished you lived in a detached house with a spacious yard? Have you ever been awakened by a truck's backup beeper at 5 AM? Have you ever thought about what it would be like to live in a city where a riot takes place, or a terrorist attack, or a public health epidemic?

There is a big gap between "living in tune with nature" (whatever that means to whoever reads it) and living in a city. Some people prefer living in less densely populated areas. Some people prefer living in the wilderness. Some people prefer living in skyscrapers, stacked on top of each other like sardines.

Personally, I think that the more people are packed together in small areas, the less happy people are. People are happier when they have space of their own, giving them privacy--not just in terms of being hidden from sight, but in terms of having their space not being intruded upon by noise, pollution, etc.

Post reply on HN