61–70 of 218 posts
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).
If it does really work, I think it is one of the best idea I have ever seen !
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars and trucks are relegated to the 2d grid of streets. They consume an inordinate amount of space, and require that all travel occur in series down a road. When an accident occurs, this disrupts the flow of traffic down that path, and also frequently disrupts the flow of surrounding roads as drivers seek alternate routes around the problem. Roads wear down over time, and require maintenance to repair. Salt and chem…
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. Getting to work in 10 minutes instead of 30 is going to be attractive and that'll raise parking demand, but there's only going to be so much parking available. Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots wil…
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 and park on the grounds.
Folks who work downtown should probably live in the city/commuter suburbs and would be better served by other types of transit such as rail. I doubt this type of vehicle would even be allowed in a dense urban area. Flying cars in Manhattan sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
What problems do flying cars solve? I know it looks cool but is there some huge thing that would get solved with this?
Cars and trucks are relegated to the 2d grid of streets. They consume an inordinate amount of space, and require that all travel occur in series down a road. When an accident occurs, this disrupts the flow of traffic down that path, and also frequently disrupts the flow of surrounding roads as drivers seek alternate routes around the problem. Roads wear down over time, and require maintenance to repair. Salt and chem…
lol, an accident by one or two aircraft might not immediately inhibit the travel of nearby crafts, but it will certainly cause a legal storm that will eventually inhibit it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The efficiency argument doesn't work: moving up against gravity will always be more expensive.
Not necessarily. If a car is twice as efficient, but has to travel three times as far because of the windy road system, the flying car will have it beat in a straight line.
Ironic choice of words. The winding road system adds distance to your commute, but a windy airspace adds air-miles to your commute.
That is, a flying car doesn't travel through the same amount of air when going 1 ground mile in different directions.
They are shitty cars if they're any good at being airplanes, and they're underperforming and over-priced airplanes just because they can somewhat function as a car. Now, if Larry Page's flying car company is also lobbying to gut the FAA's ability to regulate his creation, that's a whole other can of worms.
I don't think personal flight devices are a bad idea, which is why I'm working on my own. Flying cars are so contradictory in construction and purpose that I can't help but get really peeved at any praise directed toward the endeavor. There are more factors than simply "can this 4 wheeler get airborne" to keep at top of mind.
Good luck getting a reasonably priced AME to keep the thing airborne.
>But better materials, autonomous navigation systems, and other technical advances have convinced a growing body of smart, wealthy, and apparently serious people that within the next few years we’ll have a self-flying car that takes off and lands vertically—at least a small, electric, mostly autonomous commuter plane.
The latter half of that sentence is plausible. Flying cars are not. Sorry.
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. Getting to work in 10 minutes instead of 30 is going to be attractive and that'll raise parking demand, but there's only going to be so much parking available. Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots wil…
"Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500 a month flying car space." Rooftops have been used for ages as landing pads for helicopters. I don't see why you couldn't do the same for these. And the article mentions adoption of the uber-model of non-ownership, so it's not like you'd need a parking lot of these si…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Admittedly it is the kind of argument that needs some justification. Roughly what I mean is, a car in the middle of the desert will just roll until it stops because there is a lot of friction between the tires and the ground. By contrast a plane flying above the desert left to its own will crash and burn, because the dissipation of energy occurs at the end of its trajectory.
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.
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…
It's only when we transition to alternate means of lift that flying will be "safe" for public consumption and operation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This squares with my experience. The folks I know that travel by small plane do so because they enjoy flying, not because it offers any real benefits over driving. These folks are also not lacking for disposable income.
For $400,000 I could get a decent shape used Beechcraft Bonanza and a 2 year old Corvette or BMW M-class sedan. Both of which would out-perform the Flying Car in either respect. Easily.