The Coming Air Age 319
Lovejoy writes "Sixty years ago in The Atlantic Monthly, Igor Sikorsky wrote The Coming Air Age. "Any of us who are alive ten years after this Second World War is won will see and use hundreds of short-run helicopter bus services." He goes on to write about personal helicopters which fit in large garages and that helicopters that are easier to drive than cars, etc.. So, will personal flight ever be viable? Do wildly wrong predictions like this give futurists pause? I think they should."
Futurists (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, what we're talking about is a system of making educated guesses. Emphasis on the "guess" part of the equation. Anyone who's actually putting money on any prediction beyond 5 years being accurate is bound to get a quick kick up the jacksie, in any field.
I defy you to find a consistantly successful futurist - for the most part, they just make a *lot* of guesses and then focus on the ones that are right.
For the most part, I suspect a science fiction novel would provide you with as accurate a view of the future as most futurists.
So, should this incorrect prediction cause us to look more closely at the predictions of futurists? No - we should have been looking closely and skeptically already.
Bad Predictions (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a lot to be learned from Bad Predictions [elsewherepress.com] of the past. You can often tell a lot more about people from what they get wrong than what they get right.
Futurists vs. Obstructionists (Score:5, Interesting)
> wrong predictions have been, because of the speed
> of a computer revolution and the (relative) slow
> pace of the rest of physics and chemistry.
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. Many of these predictions COULD have come true, if it weren't for the incredible growth of regulations and other legal obstructions. Autogyros are very simple devices which require only a bit of practice to run, and would be pretty darn cheap if mass-produced. So why aren't they common? Because you need quite a bit in the way of licensing to be allowed to operate one.
Re:Ground is better (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but there have been many times where I've gone someplace by car spending over two hours on the road, knowing that a two-man ultralight or autogyro could have gotten me there in about 30 minutes. An ultralight aircraft (basically a glider with a lawnmower engine on it) with a 350 pound capacity will hold me, my equipment, and a small foldable bicycle to take me the rest of the way from wherever I land. (All you need is a hundred feet or so of open grass or roadway, too. Public parks and parking lots make a suitable landing strip).
After landing, the craft folds up and can be "driven" over land using the propeller, making it easy to stash it in a regular parking spot or garage.
Granted, it's not something I'd use on my regular commute, but something like that could come in handy, and I'm not the only person who could find a use for it.
So the issue of use is not a problem, it's safety. Most people can't even drive as it is. But ultralights are actually safer than cars because of mass and speed issues. Low altitude power-deployed parachutes allow for safe landings even in a major collision. If you lose power, you glide back down (quickly, but controllably). All you need is proper training and licensing programs to (hopefully) keep the really incapable people out of the skys.
As for mass-transit air, that's actually pretty popular, if a little expensive and awkward due to scheduling. But if you're going from New York City to D.C. in a hurry, you either take a shuttle turboprop out of LaGuardia.
Besides, once private aircraft become even remotely popular, the roads will probably clear up a bit. Things balance out. Don't write it off so quickly.
=Smidge=
Re:Futurists (Score:3, Interesting)
Helicopter Bus Services.... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is however a very special case because it takes 3 hours to get from Victoria to Vancouver by land/water even though they're only 35 kilometres apart.
Most cities that are faily close together such as say Washington and Baltimore it just makes more sense to take a bus or a train, since it's far cheeper and there is no significant time advantage. (30 min by train as opposed to 10 min by helicopter). It just isn't worth it. Until the price of gas goes down (which it probably won't) or we find alternative fuel sources, there will never by any significant helicopter commuter services. Sig? Quel est sig?
The right tool for the right job (Score:3, Interesting)
Btw,futurists often seem to forget about people. Even if there were machines that would cook for me, why would I want it? After a stressful day of looking at source code and trying to fix bugs I like to go to the kitchen, grab a beer and start cooking. I'm not going to pay to let some machine take away my hobby!
Re:fuel issues (Score:2, Interesting)
No reason we couldn't have personal planes, accept energy.
If we create room temperature super conductors and cold fusion in a bottle then it all might happen when we've got energy to just piss away but until then I wouldn't hold my breath.
"Futurists", hah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, indeedy, where would we be if it weren't for forward-thinkers like Dave Brin? Just about the same place, I guess. Science fiction writers' track record for predicting the future isn't really any better than that of your average "Weekly World News" fortune-teller, except that the fortune-tellers tend to risk their predictive powers on such quotidian affairs as whether Brad Pitt will stay married to whoever that ditz is from "Friends", while SF writers confine themselves to lofty predictions about the fate of human society and technology. Now and again, one of the sci-fi boys will accidentally get something right, or sort of close (thus has Asimov been credited with "predicting" pocket calculators), as opposed to all those other writers who "predicted" that we'd still be using slide rules),.
As I see science fiction writers and futurists, we could have done without the whole clan of them and it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference. But one can say the same thing about any entertainment--I don't propose that entertainment _per se_ is useless, only that SF is just that, entertainment.
hyacinthus.
Re:Easy prediction: It'll Never Happen. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would choose the Cessna 100% of the time. Sure, you can autorotate a heli down, but if you don't have _plenty_ of airspeed/altitude when you do it, good luck and things happen fast. At least with a regular plane, you actually have a few minutes to ponder where to land.
Not to mention if the rotor "departs the aircraft." A prop you can live without, but not a rotor.
A pilot told me once, "Practicing a autorotation is alot like practicing dying."
An experiment... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Drag her from her car like you wanted to anyway.
3. Put her in a helicopter with a failed engine and see how well she does autorotating.
As I pilot, I think that personal flight will occur someday, but only after these two prerequisites are achieved:
1. Antigravity, or some propulsion system that is so simple and efficient that falling out of the sky is not going to happen no matter how inattentive the pilot, and
2. An automatic navigation system that will keep all the vehicles in well-defined "lanes" just as they are now.
Needless to say, I think we have a ways to go yet.
No Fifth Element for me thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Ginger scares the shit out of me as well. I'd love to pilot one, sure, but I don't need idiots whipping all over the place on these things. In all the various vehicles I've driven, I've never had an accident, for I always drive with the assumption that everyone else on the road is a complete idiot. Ie: Don't trust turn signals, speed changes, etc, without other cues to determine what the hell is really going on in that tiny brain behind the wheel. It seems to have worked so far.
Re:An experiment... (Score:2, Interesting)
That is a real bummer about anti-gravity. All the other "fundimental forces" have a negative version of them (plus, minus), EXCEPT gravity. If it had a negative like magnetism, then we could simply strap on a backpack with anti-gravity particles and a small propeller and float up onto work.
The fact that gravity is the only force without a (known) negative version puzzles many physics researches. Gravity stumps them in general.
Then again, we don't have to commute to work in most cases if most people, especially managers would just get used to the concept of telecommuting and rented satellite offices.
Spoken like someone who's... (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone pointed out below, in a helo you have a lot of energy stored in your wings (the rotors) when you loose engine power and helos don't stall in flight. As you "drop like a rock" you can increase the "power" in your wings and use that power as you approach the ground you can trade that power for lift and reduce your rate of descent...landing at a very survivable rate. I've practiced 100's of these and experienced one real one. We landed hard but the bird and the crew were unhurt.
Re:Too hard (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at Moller's air-car for example. He has computers doing all the difficult stuff, so the pilot practically just points the joystick and it goes.
(Granted, the traditional helicopter might take a lot of training to fly.... but this would be "dumbed down" into something easier to handle for a personal flying craft.)
It looks like government regulation is the primary obstacle. The FAA places so many rules and restrictions on air flight, it's nearly impossible to build something that people can "just get in and go" like they do with their car. It would break hundreds of laws.
The other issue with a helicopter, in particular, is the high level of maintenance. A friend of mine has a govt. job that requires him to keep up on all the details and workings of just one of their helicopters. The manual is HUGE, and it's surprising they fly at all - given all the technical issues.
EG. The rotors have to be completely smooth. There's a special paint they paint them with that has to be flexible enough not to flake off or crack when the rotors flex and vibrate. He says they require regular inspection to make sure the paint is still intact, because if it chips or peels off - the helicopter can actually crash from an imblance in forces when one blade has more drag than the opposing blade. (I assume they have to paint them in the first place to fill in any imperfections or porous parts of the blades?)
Re:Affordable personal flight is still just a drea (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The FAA also mandates inspections by FAA certified aircraft mechanics each year at the maximum or after so many hours of flight. If you miss an inspection the aircraft is forbidden to fly as it is not airworthy. The inspections can take some time and any defects found must be corrected before the craft can fly. A Piper Navajo inspection costs upwards of $2,500 and the aircraft may be out of service for some time. A side effect of this requirement, if there is to be a people's aircraft is that LOTS of certified aircraft mechanics would be required.
2. Detailed logs must be kept of each flight, each repair, and each add-on. If the logs are not correct, spanning the whole life of the aircraft, it is not airworthy.
3. The manufacturer and FAA provide notices of problems that sometimes require inspections, repairs, and replacement. The repairs must be complied with. You are not allowed to fly around with defects.
4. Avionics are expensive to purchase, install, and maintain. The last time I checked three or four years ago a collision avoidance system cost $25,000. This would tend to put the price of the aircraft out of reach of most folks.
5. It's hard to imagine a failsafe aircraft so I suppose some training including simulator training and certification will be required - probably with some sort of yearly medical inspection. If there is a problem and the aircraft needs to be auto-rotated it still has to be guided to a safe landing.
All in all, I think that the typical person is not well suited to this degree of complexity, care, and expense and it won't happen any time soon.
A frigging mess (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of all the times people break out of the confines of traffic when the opportunity presents itself. How many times have you seen people drive up an embankment to get from a slow freeway to the feeder road? How could you possibly police all of the guaranteed violations of this type? This assumes that there is some form of infrastructure to create 'sky lanes' for people to stay in. What kind of mess would there be without some form of organized lanes?
What about parking lots? How would you like to navigate the chaos of a parking lot in 3D? Would you find people in some sort of holding pattern over Woolworths so that they could make a mad dash for the "good spot" when someone takes off? Imagine an early morning commute where people do not trickle into a parking area because traffic lights limit their access, and lanes do not keep them in single file. If everyone decides to leave home at 'the perfect time' because they know exactly how long it takes them to fly to the office, then everyone who needs to be at work at 8:am will get to the parking lot at essentially the same time.
What about the noise? When was the last time you heard a quiet aircraft? I can hear a single traffic helicopter approaching from a mile away when I am in my car. Think of the decibels generated by a freeway of such noisemakers.
What about the fuel efficiency? these things have to maintain flight even at standstill. Ground vehicles do not have to expend energy to counteract gravity unless they are moving uphill. By the time automated personal flying vehicles become practical (by not allowing the occupants to break traffic laws), how efficient will ground vehicles be?
I am rarely a naysayer of future ideas, but this idea has so many impracticalities that I find it to be a no-brainer. It will be nothing more then the folley of idiots for a very long time to come.
The general public is too stupid to manuver safely in 3D.
Re:Easy prediction: It'll Never Happen. (Score:3, Interesting)
For a good VTOL craft, there is an interesting concept that I have heard of. You could have a flying car (a la Blade Runner) based on Active Glow Discharge Plasma panels.
This would work by having glow discharges between many paralell wires. This would of course cause an ordinary ion drift, producing minimal propulsion. But if you put a magnetic field between each wire, you cause the ions to take a curved path around the field. This greatly speeds things up.
Through this method, (being developed by NASA) you can accelerate air a couple hundred meters per second. The up side of this is that the glow discharge panels are very simple and would be cheaper than helicopters. So, basically, you could have a small gas turbine power supply to power the panels. The craft could actually lift off vertically. Then, during horizontal flight, wings could be extended for greater efficiency.
In short (Score:2, Interesting)
When an aircaft breaks, you drop to one.
Noise problems (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Easy prediction: It'll Never Happen. (Score:3, Interesting)