Flying Cars Ready To Take Off 819
Ant writes "CBS News has an article, images, and a free streaming video clip of Elwood (Woody) Norris' invention of a working flying machine, AirScooter. He asked one of his test pilots to demonstrate it for 60 Minutes on a hilltop outside San Diego, California. It can fly for 2 hours at 55 mph, and go up to 10,000 feet above sea level. This week, he will receive America's top prize for invention. It's called the Lemelson-MIT award -- a half-million dollar cash prize to honor his life's work, which includes a brand new personal flying machine.
Woody Norris' and others' inventions are for NASA's 'The Highway in the Sky.' It is a computer system designed to let millions of people fly whenever they please, and take off and land from wherever they please, in their very own vehicles."
Speeding ticket (Score:3, Interesting)
400 feet but it goes to 10k! (Score:4, Interesting)
But the car will fly to 10k feet right and it will sell for $50k right? That means that a lot of idiots will be flying one of these things and they will have the ability to go over the 400 foot limit.
Looks like a serious issue.
Re:About time (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Fuel Efficiency and Oil Dependence (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just what the world needs (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I have held my pilots license. I let it lapse cince family has taken precedence. but I remember that going from mid-michigan to chicago meigs was a super quick jaunt in that Piper Aero... having a quick lunch in downtown chicago between classes (2 hour break) was very doable when the school had their own grass airstrip.
Hiller XH-44 clone (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mirror?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Energy requirements (Score:3, Interesting)
If the flying car was a glyder, then maybe it would be comparable but it probably wouldn't go 300mph. Actually, if the flying car had a micro-turbine then perhaps, but still, it would use a lot of fuel.
Sound projection device. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Energy requirements (Score:2, Interesting)
Unsafe by an order of magnitude! (Score:3, Interesting)
2*10^3 * 5*10^4 = 10*10^7 = 100,000,000 != a billion
And this guy, Woody Norris, is the chief inventor? "Self-taught"?
I'd rather ride the bus. Or a flying car created by Woody from Cheers.
Re:Energy requirements (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to own one for short distance travels. I sincerely hope they market it with a different name in Finland thou.
Somehow I feel I would not like to drive in a tiny, pink, electric car that is shaped like a potty. Especially with a name like Reva*.
*) Reva is a very rude name for vagina in Finnish. very much more rude than fuck (vittu) I think.
Re:The two reasons these didn't take off *ages* ag (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Headline is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Make a foolproof system and you'll just be faced with a better fool
You can't teach old dogs new tricks. Or can you? [ebay.co.uk]
Re:Just what the world needs (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing that I don't get about them, is the insurance. I can hardly afford (more justify the expense) to drive a land-locked car, which is pretty safe and (at least mine) inexpensive. Just imagine an accident with one of these things. Even a fender-bender could be very dangerous because you now add the extra dimension of gravity into the mix. Just for humor's sake, imagine an SUV equivalent of a flying car, and hearing it fall with the soccer mom and her kids in it. Actually, now I think about it, maybe it will add some gene selection back into humans for a couple generations. Hmm.
Re:60 Minutes (Score:3, Interesting)
American Autogyro [americanautogyro.com]
Better safe than sorry.
Re:Energy requirements (Score:3, Interesting)
Oil production is getting to the point where supply is not meeting demand. Just last week crude oil hit record highs.
Just go to http://news.google.ca and search for oil.
This problem isn't going to go away but it will solve it self, oil and gas is going to be so expensive in a few years people will not be able to afford to drive to work or drive anywhere for that matter. Prices are expected to get up to $190 a barrel in the long run(before 2020). That means prices at the pump are going to be 4 times higher than today.
And no, hydrogen power won't be the solution, you need to get that hydrogen from somewhere, we are already short on electric power most of which is produced from oil and gas. Currently the best way to produce hydrogen is from oil.
Hydro electric is tapped out in the US. Wind power has some potiental but has its problems. Solar just dose not produce enough energy. Nucular has alot of potential but that won't last more than 30 years, the supply of fuel is limited, though lower grade fuels are available at higher cost.
There is no way we can continue to consume energy at the current rate. The Bush goverment could start pushing people to conserve energy but I think they would rather let the high oil prices do that for them. Iraq will help alittle if they can get things stablized and increase production. I was first puzzled why the americans were going into Iraq, I was looking at the oil production and not the oil reserves
The big problem with oil prices going up is that oil is used in some way for everything we consume, from just the basic shipping to market to pesticides used for growing food.
Peak oil (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, what's this "peak oil" I'm talking about? A quote from Wikipedia's "Hubbert peak [wikipedia.org]" entry:
"The Hubbert peak theory, also known as peak oil, is an influential theory concerning the long-term rate of conventional oil and other fossil fuels production and depletion. It predicts that future world oil production will soon reach a peak and then rapidly decline. The actual peak year will only be known after it has passed. Based on available production data, proponents have predicted the peak years to be 1989, 1995, 1995-2000, or, according to one influential group, 2007 for oil and somewhat later for natural gas. This may lead to either minor economic or major catastrophic consequences for the world since modern civilization is dependent on cheap and abundant fossil fuels, especially for transportation. The Hubbert peak theory, while controversial, is increasingly influencing policy makers both within the oil industry and government."
Re:Energy requirements (Score:3, Interesting)
Little early to say. The automobile might be America's downfall - you don't quite know yet. Cars encouraged American society to build expansive cities that essentially prohibit efficient public transportation (and basically discourage some of the most fuel-efficient forms of transportation: walking and bicycles). If you take Europe, for example, cities are smaller and cars are much less used, thanks to the high gas prices, but also due to the city design. Essentially, cars encouraged the design of cities that are just, from a very basic level, very inefficient.
The next few decades will kindof prove whether or not the automobile was really beneficial - whether or not the "design that cars forced" can adapt easily to a non-fossil fuel system. It may be that the cost of shifting an entire nation's automobile fleet is more than our economy can handle.
As a simple example, many pizza places are beginning to charge for delivery, and are losing delivery people because they can't make money anymore. As gas prices continue to rise, you could expect more and more businesses that relied on cheap gas-fueled vehicles to struggle. Whether or not those businesses can handle the shift to a new energy source is an open question. Or, better put, whether or not the US economy can handle the transition as easily as Europe's can is an open question.
It may be in fifty years, people point to Europe's high fuel taxes as the turning point in the world's economy, saying "this ensured that Europe did not become as dependent upon oil as the United States did, and thus was able to adapt much easier when the need to transition away from oil became critical." The main problem with viewing the automobile as a positive influence is that you're assuming the current situation is stable, when it definitely isn't.
But to actually curb energy "consumption" is outrageous. We need to find new, safe, and more plentiful ways to produce as much energy as possible.
I think you're misusing the term "energy". Consistent increase in energy production is also not exactly stable - Second Law of thermodynamics, and all that. You can't expect power plants to be generating the equivalent power of the Sun eventually, nor can you imagine households consuming gigawatts of power to fuel random household appliances. At some point, the goal to increase energy production has to shift towards maximizing efficiency, accepting that only a finite amount of energy is available. That point is long off, definitely, but I'm not sure it's as long off as people think it is.
Re:Just what the world needs (Score:3, Interesting)
Have Congress pass a law that all new vehicles must be equipped with a short-range transponder, making it easier for the navigation system to build a profile of the traffic around it. Also include in the law that ALL vehicles on the road must have a transponder within five years. This would be the first thing that would have to happen. Then, in five years, start testing automated systems.
The technology is there, it's just a matter of the run-up cost to implementing this.
Re:60 Minutes (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Obvious, but should be said. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a one seater.
So, what, suitable for the needs of 99% of commuters?
The driver/pilot position is open to the elements.
Kinda like a motorcycle, yes. Doesn't appear to be a requirement, though, so enclosed versions seem likely.
It has no cargo carrying capacity (as far as I could tell.)
So, what, suitable for the needs of 99% of commuters?
Max speed 55mph, 2 hours of flight per tank.
So, what, suitable for the needs of 99% of commuters? Also, you have to take into account it potentially provides constant travel in a direct line. A one hour, 30 mile car commute could work out to a 20 mile/minute hop.
Skids only (no wheels), so you can't park it in a ramp/underground garage, so can't fly it to the city...
This one is almost fair, but then I could point out that most rooftop space is wasted. Plus, if these were allowed, facilities would follow. Ever seen an automated "elevator" parking garage where the spaces move rather than the cars? Also, like an enclosure, wheels are an obvious option for a future model.
Yeah, I'm not holding off any vehicle purchases for this either, but there is no need to heap undue pessimism on it.
40 years in the future: the Sky Jalopy (Score:3, Interesting)
It might seem cool the first time you see a shiny new sky car zipping over top of your house. Lets fast-forward 40 years into the future.
The second generation of sky-cars are out on the market, and the first generation are nearing the end of their lifespan. Finally, the average citizen can afford to go out to the used sky-car lot and pick up an old beater. Now, you've got some guy who barely has the cash to buy the thing in the first place, let alone pay for gas, maintenence and insurance.
He's flying over your house with the tank on empty, and he doesn't have the insurance to pay for the damage when he breaks down and crashes into your house. Doesn't seem quite as cool anymore. It's bound to happen.