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

201–210 of 218 posts

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#201

Post by marvin »

0xFFC wrote: post #61
joakleaf wrote: post #13

Related is this one-man drone by a Chinese company which should being test flights in Nevada: http://www.ehang.com/news/146.html "Drone" because the on board computer handles all the flying (just pick a destination).

I am so curious about how this Ehang 146 thing will pan out. If it does really work, I think it is one of the best idea I have ever seen !

When we do eventually get working personal VTOL vehicles (let's call them something that is not not flying car), they will look something like this. Maybe with different characteristics for body shape and rotor arrangement, but definitely with gimbaled electric motors and with no wings or control surfaces.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#202

Post by tempestn »

stcredzero wrote: post #181
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…

No matter how energy efficient the engines are, hovering and short takeoffs use lots of energy. What about electric vehicles with beamed power? The "heavy lifting" for a small electric aircraft could be done at the airport using beamed power, freeing up weight and increasing the effective range of the aircraft.

Rather than beamed power, how about some sort of ground vehicle that launches the aircraft (or pushes it up to a given speed and then releases)?

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#203

Post by tempestn »

cpncrunch wrote: post #195
TeMPOraL wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably much less damage, because a typical car in the city is going much slower than a typical plane falling from the sky, and kinetic energy goes with square of velocity...

A plane (with BRS parachute) falls at 10-20mph, according to BRS's website. Typically a small plane will weigh about 2000-3000lb. A car in the city will be going at about 30mph, and will weigh about 4000lb. There are news stories here regularly of cars driving into storefronts. Generally when I hear a story about a Cirrus activating their parachute, it lands on empty space and doesn't do any damage.

Any reason you couldn't add steering controls to an emergency parachute, just like skydivers use? Not manually pulled, but with some small emergency actuators? Basically you'd just need the ability to pull down corners of the parachute, right?

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#204

Post by nibnib »

mtgx wrote: post #179
narrator wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the big one: Most small aircraft cannot fly in bad weather. If it's raining, windy, or even cloudy these things are going to be grounded if the pilot doesn't have an instrument rating.

They can be automatically disabled for when there's bad weather.

That rules out selling any in large parts of the world then.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#205

Post by Dylan16807 »

6stringmerc wrote: post #155
tim333 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have machine operated lifts and trains, almost self driving cars, aircraft autopilots and having witnessed my own efforts at flying a plane I think a computer could quite likely do a safer job.

Oh really? Because there's a bunch of Air France wreckage just North of South America regarding a computer fuck-up that wasn't properly ajudicated by the pilots in command, which would have saved the passengers (as it had in other instances where the pilots saved the plane). That's just a high-profile one by pilots who were easily more qualified than you or I to be in charge of a major airliner. http://www.ntsb.gov/i…

It crashed because the pilots didn't know what they needed to know. That is not a computer fuck-up. Pretty bad example to pick when you're arguing against autopilot being superior to humans.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#206

Post by ohazi »

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…

> into your future Cessna-Android and flying off

Dear god, please don't let Android anywhere near my airplane instruments and flight controls. It's like the exact opposite of a real-time system - practically guaranteed to hang and crash.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#207

Post by lettergram »

outworlder wrote: post #105
lettergram wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could hold the hydrogen or helium as liquid prior and post use. There's a bunch of stuff we would have to figure out to make it work, but it doesn't seem entirely impractical.

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#208

Post by cpncrunch »

tempestn wrote: post #203
cpncrunch wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plane (with BRS parachute) falls at 10-20mph, according to BRS's website. Typically a small plane will weigh about 2000-3000lb. A car in the city will be going at about 30mph, and will weigh about 4000lb. There are news stories here regularly of cars driving into storefronts. Generally when I hear a story about a Cirrus activating their parachute, it lands on empty space and doesn't do any damage.

Any reason you couldn't add steering controls to an emergency parachute, just like skydivers use? Not manually pulled, but with some small emergency actuators? Basically you'd just need the ability to pull down corners of the parachute, right?

If the engine is still operating, you might be able to steer:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/b/pull_ear...

(although obviously most of the times you would want to use the chute is because the engine has died!)

Re: Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

#210

Post by stcredzero »

tempestn wrote: post #202
stcredzero wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter how energy efficient the engines are, hovering and short takeoffs use lots of energy. What about electric vehicles with beamed power? The "heavy lifting" for a small electric aircraft could be done at the airport using beamed power, freeing up weight and increasing the effective range of the aircraft.

Rather than beamed power, how about some sort of ground vehicle that launches the aircraft (or pushes it up to a given speed and then releases)?

The ground footprint for VTOL vehicles using beamed power is a lot smaller. Even a vertical accelerator built up the side of a skyscraper would have a larger footprint and higher costs.
Post reply on HN