Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#121

Post by base698 » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

EA wrote: post #30

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?

I work around dozens of pilots. Most of them used to own, co-own, share, or lease a plane. Only a few of them actually have a plane they could go fly right now. Maintenance, upkeep, costs, and regulations are obvious reasons why some would be deterred from owning and using a private plane. But most everyone of the pilots said, if you want to go to the beach, in general, the best way to get there is a 6 to 8-hour driv…

Mostly true. For me I go a lot of places that are a 2 hour plane ride followed by a 2 hour car ride. In those cases it's faster to just fly directly where I want to go, and avoid the car portion. Most places have smaller airports a lot closer to a rural destination. Of course, if you only go to larger cities, this is never an issue.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#122

Post by kuschku » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

alphapapa wrote: post #113

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").

I contend that people are happier and healthier where the population density is lower, resulting in less crime, less pollution, less noise, lower cost of living, more space, more privacy, etc. If you want to live in big buildings, packed together like sardines, unable to escape from the noise of your neighbors and everything that goes on in the city outside the window, more power to you. But don't presume to say that…

If you want to live in the wilderness, isolated with no human soul around, unable to get any social contacts, and no ability to get anywhere without wasting so much energy that it melts greenland thrice, sure.

But most people wouldn’t. Most people are social, and want the ability to have direct social contact with others, and the ability to walk to places.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#123

Post by antoniuschan99 » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #87

jacquesm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And of course the #1 reason: developing an economical, practical flying car is very hard within the constraints set by physics.

Well even if it works the #2 reason is you have to have a qualified person to fly it. One quick glance between US Driving Regulations and Tests versus FAA Pilot Certification programs reveals the two are very divergent. I've yet to see an IFR-conditions capable car. Not saying it isn't possible, but just spitballing the technical and competency thresholds here.

I don't know the extent of their tests but it's interesting to see this in the news yesterday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/08/flying-robo...

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#124

Post by Animats » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

This is encouraging. There's no fundamental problem with building a "flying car"; all sorts of strange VTOL craft were built in the 1950s. Many of them ended up in the Hiller Aviation Museum on 101 in San Carlos, CA.

The main problems with VTOL are stability, engine cost, and fuel consumption/range. Pure-thrust lift requires enormous power. Most of the successful pure-thrust VTOLs are jet fighters, which are mostly engine. The Harrier and the F-35 are examples.

Jet engines are expensive, and they don't get much cheaper below 6-passenger bizjet size. This is why general aviation still uses props. A lot of effort has gone into cheaper jet engines, but without much success. (Yes, there are large model aircraft jet engines, which is what the Flyboard Air uses. They're good for a few hundred hours, not the 10,000 hours between overhauls of aviation jet engines.)

Electric VTOL is going to be interesting. There are lots of electric drones, after all. Engine power to weight is good. Siemens has a water-cooled electric aircraft engine in test.

Battery energy density sucks. NASA is talking about aircraft where there's a gas turbine or two driving a generator, with lots of electric props. This could work out. Meanwhile, until the battery situation improves, you can build short-ranged flying cars. There's a cute little one out of China, apparently intended to get China's rich and powerful around Beijing's traffic jams.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#125

Post by 6stringmerc » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

NegativeK wrote: post #119

6stringmerc wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're associating "car" with "something a homeowner can regularly control." I associate "car" more with "a personal vehicle." I'd rather high speed chunks of metal not be under individual control, personally. Road or air.

That's fine, you can use whatever inaccurate terms you'd like but I won't share that approach.

Personally, having grown up in an aviation family and being a studied gear-head, I simply don't share your confidence that individual control is inferior to automation at the root. In fact, I think until AI is comparable to the human brain, arguing that automation and programming is better is wrong; moreover it's unsuitable for a conversation regarding powered flight is irresponsible. There are simply no technological systems which have proven themselves trustworthy - thus far, I concede - to being a replacement for the human brain and synapses.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#126

Post by Gravityloss » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

flavor8 wrote: post #19

yk wrote: post #8

I think that autonomous vehicles make flying cars possible. On one hand, learning to fly is difficult (the problem has a dimension more than driving on the surface) and people really do not like wreckage falling from the sky. So one needs a highly trained expert to pilot any flying vehicle, or a fully autonomous autopilot. The second thing is energy, a plane needs to handle a lot more energy than a car, simply becaus…

> The second thing is energy, a plane needs to handle a lot more energy than a car, simply because it flies A cessna gets between 15mpg and 22mpg. http://www.cessna150152.com/faqs/performance.htm

Cessna 150 is a mid fifties vintage design, and even unaerodynamic by those standards.

Look at something more modern, going over 300 km/h with 75 kW engine power (200 Mph with 100 HP):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyn%27A%C3%A9ro_MCR01

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#127

Post by shmerl » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

What about hoverboards?

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#128

Post by gambiting » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #99

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…

So lets get silly here; granted I wanted a flying car ever since seeing a Spinner in Blade Runner. Deploy a balloon above the vehicle when not under power which reuses the helium when not moving beyond a set speed. Pretty sure it can be an airfoil in itself and compact enough to sit above the craft. When transitioning to full on flight it can be partially deflated to reduce its air resistance but still retain the sha…

To "reuse" the helium it would need to compress it again - and that uses a lot of energy. Not to mention that you would need a lot of helium, and helium, almost like hydrogen, has a tendency to escape from its containers so you need really heavy lead bottles to store even a few litres. It's not impossible, but it does not seem practical in any way.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#129

Post by jeiting » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

cpncrunch wrote: post #111

outworlder wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

With modern FADEC engines, all of this is automated (from what I read...I've never actually flown anything with FADEC).

The recent diesel installs with FADEC that Redbird has been doing in 172s have a one button run up: You just hold the breaks and hit a button and the FADEC does the run up and checks all parameters and gives you a go/no-go.

FADEC - Full Authority Digital Engine Control

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#130

Post by handedness » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #102

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…

The examples you gave take no more than 30 seconds. Sure, FADEC can eliminate most of them, but they're quick.

Other examples–checking the oil, the tank sumps, the intake, the tires, the flap tracks, the rudder bolt(s), the wing tips, the tailwheel springs, etc.–are the stuff that software largely can't replace, and are the more time-consuming part of taking off.

Put another way, the latest fighter jets and commercial heavies still have significant visual preflights.