Comments on: Flying Cars: how close are we?

By: USMC

USMC — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:44:39 +0000

Yeah we’re still fighting a war on terrorism here. Let’s not forget what happened the last time terrorists got a hold of a flying object. But I guess the rest of the U.S. feels safe and has forgotten about that. Anyway case and point it’s a bad idea.

By: geokser

geokser — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:22:05 +0000

To carry on the concept of an earth-bound vehicle to a flying car may not be feasible given all the limitations mentioned above and the drastically different operating environment.

Imagine if the flying car is a human-size bubble that levitates by say, magnetic means and once airborne, propel forward by many tiny motors…

By: geokser

geokser — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:11:12 +0000

There is another factor to consider in the car vs flying car comparison- capacity limit.
Cars are raod based and confined to 2-dimension road space whreas flying cars are not- one could stack tiers them one on top of each separated only by safetyu distances like the airplanes. If one is not restricted to take and land only at airports and could do so at any neighbourhood take-off pads, there is really almost no capacity limit.
However, when a certain traffic density is reached I guess we would need to develop some form of collision avoidance system but that would probably be the next problem to tackle in the distant future.

By: Richard Karpinski

Richard Karpinski — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:00:14 +0000

As long as it harvests its own sunlight, it need not be all that efficient. Sunlight is free.

I think we are about to see autopilots for airplanes, and later for cars, that just take over when needed. One of the major failure modes of civilian and military aircraft is CFIT, controlled flight into terrain, which will be greatly reduced by that means.

It’s even more of a problem on the ground because of so many things to run into in two seconds of inattention, as when texting or even just grabbing the coffee. Some cars already park themselves. Safety features to prevent accidents when drivers fall asleep or are drunk or distracted will be demanded, when feasible, by MADD and many others, like trial lawyers. Just like labels on ladders.

By: J. Storrs Hall

J. Storrs Hall — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:24:05 +0000

You can estimate road costs by gas taxes, which are about a quarter of what you pay at the pump. Half the pump price is crude price, the other quarter covers all the operations from refining to cleaning the restrooms at the service station. I.e. you spend half as much on road construction as on crude oil.
Since car engines waste 3/4 of the energy in the fuel they burn in the first place, nanotech flying cars with efficient engines could use 6 times the power (counting not needing roads) as current cars and break even on total oil usage.
On the other hand, we really need better energy sources — but that’s another story.

By: John Campbell

John Campbell — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:01:11 +0000

The question of affordability is key and depended upon the only REAL innovation Henry Ford made… pay rates. You may– or may not– have noticed that most major corporations are trying to undo this one enabling innovation in order to chop out as many customers as possible.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:03:28 +0000

Regarding energy efficiency, I’ve often wondered: while an aircraft has to spend more energy to lift whereas a car just has to roll, how much extra energy is required to clear, pave, and maintain roads and highways? To produce the asphalt, scrape and resurface them every few years? If we could eliminate that cost (except for paving short runways) could an aviation-based system rival a road-based one in terms of efficiency?

By: DaveinPhoenix

DaveinPhoenix — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:04:18 +0000

The five or six people a day who I see cutting across 5 lanes of traffic to hit their exit ramp on the I-10 at rush hour at 65 miles an hour should do real well with the new ability to fly.

How will we manage the carnage on the ground below them ?

By: Lancair

Lancair — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:31:10 +0000

Flying cars and airplanes would be cheap if they were manufactured in large volumes. Except for requirements for “self piloting” they would actually be simpler and less expensive than your average SUV. The SUV would probably cost more than light aircraft today if they were made in the same numbers and under the same rules as aircraft.

In the end flying anything will never be practical for people who are only casually motivated, at least until they get the government out of the way.

By: Sammy

Sammy — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:16:27 +0000

but until the flying car is safe for a child or a drunk to use, it will remain an experimental hobby.

Oh poppycock. You may as well say “until the automobile is safe for a child or a drunk to use, it will remain an experimental hobby.