Where Are the Flying Cars?

Ponca City, We Love You writes "Complaints of the non-existence of flying cars as expressions of disappointment in the failure of the present to measure up to the glory of past predictions have long been a staple of popular culture but all that is about to change when Terrafugia introduces their $148,000 "Transition," a 19-foot, two-seater that the company describes as a roadable light-sport aircraft. The problem is that the U.S. doesn't have the infrastructure in place to make landing in front of your house a viable alternative yet and a sky filled with people who don't have pilot's licenses could also be a problem. The idea is to take advantage of the 6,000 public airports in the U.S. so a pilot can fly into a small airport (video) and instead of getting a rental car, just fold up the wings on the aircraft and drive away. Terrafugia expects the first production model to be ready in 2009 and says they've already received advanced orders for 30 to 50 Transitions."

Huge blind spots when driving

[CheddarHead]

Man those folded up wings make for some gigantic blind spots when you're driving on the road.

Sky Rage...

[__aaclcg7560]

So what is the Highway Patrol going to do when some jerk decides that the speed limit is meant to be broken and flies above the commuter lane? Normal road driving is scary enough as it is.

hmm

[thatskinnyguy]

The tail fins kinda remind me of a '57 Chevy [hemmings.com]. I noticed thespecs [terrafugia.com] on the transition mentioned a 100hp engine. Will that engine drive both the prop and the wheels? If so, my mom's neon would leave this thing in the dust.

In all, I see this as a largely impractical vehicle. I would have a good laugh if I saw a car with wings folded vertically going down the highway.

Consider the freeway

[koan]

Do you want the same people you see tailgating, talking on their cell phones, and doing 45 in the fast lane, or drunk flying in the air?
I didn't think so.

Only way it would work is if it was all fully automated with no or little human intervention.

Not to be a killjoy

[Womens Shoes]

I don't think flying cars will ever make much sense. Barring some absolutely physics-defying discovery, it takes a relatively huge amount of energy to keep a vehicle off the ground, and it's not clear to me what the advantage is (other than being terrifically cool). When you're traveling point-to-point on the surface of a ball it's just not worth it most of the time.

Steering, stopping, and idling in the air are far more expensive and imprecise because you've got nothing fixed to hold on to -- we get a lot of freebies by being in contact with the ground.

I think it's apparent too (or soon will be) that one of the great challenges for mankind going forward is how to do everything we do more efficiently, not less. The technology bottleneck is going to be energy acquisition.

So sure, this may be a nice addition to the lineup of available planes, but I don't think we'll see "flying cars" in our lifetime, if by that we mean "ubiquitous airborne personal transportation".

Re:frGnnnpsot

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Too right. Helen Keller in a flying car is only marginally more dangerous than your average soccer mom in a SUV on her cell phone with two kids squalling in the back seat.

Warning: Idiots Overhead

[RyoShin]

a sky filled with people who don't have pilot's licenses could also be a problem.

That's my largest concern. Some fund baby will purchase one of these things, try to apply makeup while flying, and crash into my house. Hopefully we can update our laws to accommodate this type of situation before they actually come in use. I'm thinking another class of license- you have one for motorcycles, for limos, etc., how about a class of driver's license that works with planes (but you have to have passed a flight school to get)?

Personally, I'd rather they work on a hoverboard.

ummm

[nomadic]

From the article:

"We're not going to have a flying car, as people think of it, for a while," said Anna Dietrich, chief operating officer of the Woburn, Mass.-based company. "I would never say it's not going to happen, but today the infrastructure is not there, nor is the training, nor are the avionics that would make the training unnecessary... What makes sense right now is a roadable aircraft."

Ok, sure. THAT'S why we don't have a flying car--we don't have the infrastructure, training, or avionics. Give me a break.

What about a viable PROPULSION SYSTEM. I mean give me a break, you really think what's holding back flying cars is "training" and "infrastructure"? That's like saying what's holding back faster-than-light travel is our schools just aren't graduating enough hyperspace drive engineers.

The Fifth Element / Blade Runner

[Nonillion]

This won't happen till we have vehicles that use anti-gravity technology. Relying on forced air levitation is just TOO RISKY, the vehicle needs to loose ALL power and still not fall from the sky.

Re:Not VTOLs?

[metlin]

Okay, here are some pictures [metlin.org] from what happened in our apartment's parking garage just last night.

Someone drove through the wall fast enough (in a parking garage) to cause a hole through the wall and their car fell off into the street.

Now, imagine a world full of these drivers, flying their cars over our houses and schools. Oh yeah, joy.

I mean, VTOLs are a great idea, but as long as they don't land on *my* terrace I am happy. There is no dearth of idiot drivers in this world and all that.

Won't Happen

[Centurion5]

The designers must not be familiar with either the United States D.O.T. rules governing cars on the road OR the F.A.A's rules governing manufacturered aircraft. IF such a car/plane could be manufactured to meet both sets of standards it would NOT be under $150,000 or anywhere close. A kit sold in Popular Mechanics for $150,000 maybe, but my guess is that a manufactured version would top $1,000,000 by the time it meets all the regulations, is certified and has product liability insurance on it. For the foreseeable future, flying cars are the stuff of comic books and cartoons....

Hail The Robo-Flyer

[hyades1]

The reason there's never been a "skycar" has always been computing, not engineering. I look at the idiots I see every day on the roads and the idea of letting them get a thousand or so pounds up where it can do some real damage scares the crap out of me. I'll even allow that I haven't been perfect. Though I've never been in an accident that was my fault, I'm sure that's because some other driver was more alert than I was at some time.

Bottom line: until there was a computer that could fly a plane safely, there's no way any sane person would hand the keys to anything flyable to an everyday driver. We've got that now, so just maybe we can give it a try.

Re:Safety...

[m2943]

Even if it is crash-safe for the occupants, any small fender bender will probably render the plane unsafe for flying.

Re:Doesn't work that way

[vtcodger]

Flying cars aren't really impractical, but flying cars for the masses look to be many decades away.

There are three huge problems that need to be solved

• Most types of aircraft are either fuel hogs or can't take off and land without a runway. Unless and until we get some power source "too cheap to meter", flying cars are likely to be like the one in the article. Mediocre aircraft and probably worse cars.
• There is no chance that the average person can fly or control anything other than a balloon without being a menace to themself; other fliers; and people, property, and livestock on the ground. Computers can surely overcome this eventually -- but not this decade. We can't even design voting machines that work. (Not to mention that the US ATC system has been on the verge of breaking for decades handling the comparatively small number aircraft that are currently in the air.)
• Broken cars stop. Broken aircraft drop. Flying cars are going to require safety standards far beyond what we are used to for ground cars.

I imagine that we'll have flying cars in our garages some day. But not any time soon.

So I guess that basically I agree with you.

Re:Doesn't work that way

[pipatron]

Not only is there this issue of requiring a landing strip

A helicopter does not need any.

Something optimized for good flying won't do very well on the land.

1. If it flies it does not need to work on land.
2. Something optimized for good flying and land operation would do very well on both.

you'll be using a lot more of it to stay in the air, maybe two or three times as much.

Emphasis maybe. An average car 40 years ago maybe used two or three times as much as an average car today.

because there's a lot to learn about flying that's not needed in order to drive a car.

Legacy and irrelevant. A modern small plane does not need a pilot, and can be fully automated.

damage in crashing a car is trivial compared to the damage you can do in a small plane

Crashing in high speed into another car: Both drivers die, people in the vicinity get hurt. Crashing in high speed into another small plane: Both drivers die, people in the vicinity get hurt. Safety will increase by magnitudes when you are not restricted to driving in an almost 1-dimensional space, but rather have full access to the air.

Re:Warning: Idiots Overhead

[ezHiker]

I'm not worried at all. The bottom line is that this is nothing more than an airplane with extended taxi capabilities. There's no way that the FAA would allow the Transition in the air without a licensed pilot at the controls. Any fund baby who wants to fly one of these things will have to take all of the same private pilot flight training that anyone would have to today to fly their Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee. If they want to fly in bad weather then they will have to train for an instrument rating, as well.

What I really have a tough time believing is that they would be able to sell this for $148,000. Most new light aircraft are already more expensive than this, and come without foldable wings, powered wheels, etc. By the way, most airplanes are expensive because of product liability litigation, not because its expensive to make an airplane. I don't see why this one would be exempt from this fact.

Re:Blame the Government

[stagg3r]

Sorry but I don't think the Government has anything to do with it. But, as a pilot, I can think of two very good reasons why there are no flying cars... 1) It's hard to do. The air moves with respect to the ground, roads don't. So, anything in the air has to deal with that. Any pilot will tell you that flying a plane, at altitude, straight and level, is pretty straight forward - in fact, not much harder than driving a car. But, landing involves a very complex transition from moving with respect to the air, whilst that parcel of air is itself moving with respect to the ground, to getting all the wheels on the tarmac. Which means, if you want Joe Public to fly cars, you'd have to rely on technology to do it, which brings me to my second point... 2) Litigation. The basic private aircraft itself has not advanced much since the 60's. Apart from the advent of GPS, all of the control systems, engine systems, instrumentation systems and so on are 1960's technology. There is not a light aircraft in the sky that even has fuel guages reliable enough that one doesn't need to physically look into the fuel tank and dip a stick before flight. The reason nothing has changed is because the risk of litigation against any manufacturer that introduces something new that malfunctions is too great. So, it's damn hard to do, and if you try to use technology to do it, you'll be in court as soon as it fails. Finally, it's awfully expensive to keep something in the air, and not particulary friendly to the environment.

Re:Huge blind spots when driving

[spaglia2]

Do you realize how much money spent on infrastructure (highways) would be saved if we could get cars EVEN A FEW INCHES above the surface?

Re:The Fifth Element / Blade Runner

[Faylone]

Uh, I'd assume that such an anti-gravity device would also need power, and that its power failing would still end up with a nice fall, but a very nasty stop at the bottom.

Re:Not to be a killjoy

[kmac06]

it takes a relatively huge amount of energy to keep a vehicle off the ground

That's really only true currently from an engineering perspective, not a physics perspective. A significant force needs to be applied, but since the force is being applied perpendicular to the direction of motion, it does no work. For example, a balloon filled with helium doesn't use any energy to stay in the air.

Re:Doesn't work that way

[hackstraw]

Flying cars aren't really impractical

I believe they are impractical. I've flown a plane, been in planes, and known people that own planes, and for almost all transportation needs, planes simply suck.

Planes are great for long distance travel (today). Going from say New York City, to London, I would take a plane over walking, swimming, boating, cycling, or anything. A plane is a no brainer for that travel with today's technology.

But traveling by plane 1/4 to 1/2 of the distance across the US, is not as clearly a winner as going from NY to London. Timewise, it takes at least 1/2 to one full day to fly. When you fly, you have to leave behind lots of materials that you might want to take with you. Flying costs go up basically linearly with each passenger (loading up a car actually goes down in cost). Flying is not really that fun. You spend lots of time in overpriced airports with silly things to occupy your time until your connecting flight arrives.

Flying cars? (Didn't read article :) But I'm guessing that the thought here is instead of these ground hugging vehicles, that putting them off the ground would add some value. Well, I guess you would not be bound to the existing roads, you could travel a straight line or a more scenic route, or something, but every day I hear about traffic accidents, traffic jams, road construction, and all of this.

To me, a better way of expending ones efforts is in some kind of mass transit or people mover kind of thing. I'm American, so I have little experience with these things. Cabs, busses, trains, moving sidewalks, trollies, all of these things simply do not exist in much of the US. We drive cars. Many of us now drive unarmored tanks to get to work and to buy things at the store.

I believe that the answers for this is in the educated/research community along with government regulations and forethought. Left up to individuals, if the gas prices here would not keep going up, I would guess that people would be picking up their kids from school and driving to work in M1 tanks or something.

I do not have an answer, but I can speak the question. The question is: What is the best way in terms of cost, speed, and environmental factors to move people and goods from place to place that works well at high volume times (rush hour) AND for those occasional times (like moving, new construction, or whatnot)?

As it stands now, people suck at answering this question, probably because nobody has actually asked it.

Re:Doesn't work that way

[joto]

The question is: What is the best way in terms of cost, speed, and environmental factors to move people and goods from place to place that works well at high volume times (rush hour) AND for those occasional times (like moving, new construction, or whatnot)?

Walking. It takes less space, works well in crowded areas, the energy usage is low, and the health benefits immense. It is guaranteed to work regardless of gas prices, or shortage. The downside is that it only works at very low speed, so it's best for short distances, which means that people will have to move to cities (or closer to work) instead of living in the suburbs and commuting long distances to work which is somewhere completely different.

There is also a limit to the amount of cargo it is practical to carry while walking. But by pushing or dragging cargo carts, moving something big such as a fridge or a king-size bed, is actually not such a big problem. The main problem is that we're accustomed to something better, which depends upon fossil fuel to work. But walking is actually a quite nice way of transportation. You should try it!

Re:Huge blind spots when driving

[DaedalusHKX]

I like how the statists immediately jump on the "licensing" necessity.

Lets get real, I've seen plenty of "licensed" drivers, lawyers and doctors who do NOTHING like what one would expect from the magical, mystical papers called "diplomas" and "licenses".

Almost reminds me with all the fresh minted Microsoft Certified Professionals who go to work in IT, thinking they know it all, and proving they don't.

Cute stuff.

Hear hear!! A toast for more government involvement in shit they can't fix or make better!

Fuel

[mqduck]

Well, I think flying cars haven't come about because the idea is terrible, but that's not the point I'm gonna make.

The point I'm gonna make: I would imagine these things take up quite a bit of fuel. Isn't this precisely the wrong time for that?

Re:Huge blind spots when driving

[shmlco]

Most licenses simply attempt to ensure that the holders are able to meeting some MINIMUM standard of training and practice. (Though I agree that some licenses exist simply as revenue enhancers.)

That said, I'm pretty sure that you're more likely to trust, say, your doctor who's licensed after years of training than to me, even though my rates are really cheap. I assure you, however, that I'm very interested in medicine and I've spend literally hours looking at all of the pictures in my "Inside The Human Body" book!

what if this thing gets in a wreck..on the road?

[atarione]

1. I looks like the prop could be a huge hazard for anyone that was unfortunate enough to rear end this thing.

2. It seems likely that this thing would have to be made a light as possible how is it going to stand up (or not) when a Suburban crashes into it

3. assuming you had a only minor traffic accident... what would teh procedure(s) be to certify it was airworthy after a accident?

it is also kinda fugly... but that is subjective i suppose.

Oh look.

[jon287]

The combined an unsafe plane with an unsafe car.

Hilarity will no doubt ensue.