Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff 90
unassimilatible writes "DARPA has announced a 'Personal Air Vehicle Technology' project. It will 'ultimately lead to a working prototype of a military-suitable flying car — a two- or four-passenger vehicle that can "drive on roads" one minute and take off like a helicopter the next. The hybrid machine would be perfect for "urban scouting," casualty evacuation and commando-delivery missions, the agency believes.' Wired has the summary of the project."
Maybe they'll take inspiration from Terrafugia's "drivable airplane."
Where's my jetpack? (Score:2, Insightful)
Great! (Score:1)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's amazing what weirdo's with a bunch of money can do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules [wikipedia.org]
This one will probably turn out to be as useful but at least someone is trying!!! Too bad it's with my money this time.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Perhaps this why the White House is so resistant to bailing out the Auto Industry.
I'm not sure I follow you on that...if the design is worked out, tests well, and is approved, eventually they will need someone with the manufacturing infrastructure and know-how to build them. The auto industry would be a likely candidate. After all, they're not exactly making a ton of money cranking out SUVs lately, and their skilled labor will need the work!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
or how about this: keep the factories, keep the workers, keep the engineers, and keep the rest of the manufacturing infrastructure, but get rid of the CEOs, VPs & board members and their multi-million-dollar-per-year pensions & severance packages. you can also do away with most of the upper management along with the marketing, advertising, and sales departments.
just because the manufacturing infrastructure is useful doesn't mean the corporate baggage is. they're the reason why the domestic auto indu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't care what company you are or what business you're in, managers don't need to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars while the rest of the business has to lay off thousands of workers in order to pay them.
Re: (Score:1)
For mil use it's probably better to farm these out to the companies that build the tanks and planes the army uses instead of getting a manufacturer who's only experienced with civilian requirements.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that bailing out the auto-industry is a really stupid idea. Granted, that didn't stop them from being gung-ho about the Wall St. bailout, but at least they're limiting their stupidity a little bit. Just because they fucked up in one case doesn't mean we should throw up our arms and insist they be stupid all around.
But if you have a good reason why the auto industry should be able to take my money without earning it, I'd love to hear it.
Even the "They provide jobs" argume
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the jobs they're providing (though GM does employ a small country worth of people), but all the people who live off pensions from them. Company goes down, the pensions disappear, and guess who is now paying more social security to all those people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think the hope is that after a one-time payment the industry gets back on its feet and pays the rest of the cost itself (while also generating tax revenue that would eventually make up for the bailout) instead of having the tax payer pay for it until the pensioners are dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Pensions have been dished off to the unions already, and are (IIRC) federally-backed anyway.
Social Security payouts have nothing to do with pension income - they are the same regardless.
Fact is, the downfall of GM means depression conditions for a while in the Midwest. Since many (most?) of GM's suppliers would go belly-up as well, and because those same suppliers handle Ford an Chrysler, you'd see Chrysler and maybe Ford bite the dust, too. I think GM should be bailed out, but we taxpayers should get a lar
Re: (Score:2)
You know you can invest in GM using your own money, right? You'll even get a stake in it proportional to what you invest.
I don't want a stake in GM, and I don't think you, or anybody else, should be able to force me into helping you buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
We simply disagree. I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and while I'd prefer to stick with a purely market-based economy I won't be dogmatic in a crisis situation. Ideology has to make way for pragmatism sometimes.
The bailout is going to happen no matter what - there are too many interested parties. My "ownership stake" comment was meant to blunt the impact to taxpayers, not as an argument for nationalizing the industry.
Anyway, the fact is that GM is on the right path, but no b
Re: (Score:1)
And I completely disagree with you. Your opinion isn't inherently more worthy than mine. You don't get to violate people's rights simply because *you* think it would be best.
There's nothing stopping you from investing your money in GM. There's nothing stopping you from convincing other people to invest in GM. But you have no righ
Re: (Score:2)
And I completely disagree with you. Your opinion isn't inherently more worthy than mine. You don't get to violate people's rights simply because *you* think it would be best.
Yes, I do. We live in a democratic republic. You can work on changing that if you'd like, but for now the majority certainly can deprive you of property if they get the itch.
Who even gets to decide that?
I presume this is rhetorical?
Gee, nice of you to compromise on violating other people's rights.
Wasn't me - I don't know who gets credit for inventing taxes, but it was a long time ago.
And what gives you that idea? The taxpayers in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and East Germany seemed to get screwed in the long term. I'm curious why you think we'll be better off.
You know what else the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and East Germany had in common? Authoritarian rule. Are you really saying that their socialist policies were the major problems with those countries?
And, by the way, you le
Re: (Score:1)
For hundreds of years the majority of people thought slavery was okay, too. That doesn't make it right.
Well, no point trying to fix it now! It was somebody else's idea! It must be okay!
Re: (Score:2)
For hundreds of years the majority of people thought slavery was okay, too. That doesn't make it right.
So are you claiming that a democratic republic is like slavery? Or were you just using it as an example of a moral wrong that has nevertheless existed for a long time. If the latter, than I won't dispute it - though I have to point out that it's kind of wasting our time to say something so obvious.
Well, no point trying to fix it now! It was somebody else's idea! It must be okay!
I wasn't trying to make that argument, and I suspect you know that. You seemed to be saying that I was "compromising" by going along with taxation and that somehow compromising is a bad thing. It's not. Taxation i
Re: (Score:2)
I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.
You're example has a flaw - a nation with slavery cannot be called a democracy. There were more blacks than whites in Mississippi at the time of the US Civil War, yet only the whites got to vote. That's not democracy - even majority rule was not applied.
Anyway, I'd never argue that democracy is perfect. Simple majority rule will always leave under-represented groups feeling disenfranchised and won't work long term. But personally I'd rather be at the mercy of the majority than a single fickle ruler or rulin
Re: (Score:2)
That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.
Re: (Score:2)
That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.
The majority of WHITE people were in favor with slavery. Blacks weren't even allowed to vote, so the country was clearly not a "democracy" by any modern definition of the word. If blacks could vote, I can assure you that slavery would not have existed - at least not in states where most of the population was black!
Unless you are arguing that South Africa was a democracy under apartheid?
Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?
And have you read the Constitution? Many of the same men that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution - and those same
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that. But now you're just putting words in my mouth, so I'm not even going to bother. Enjoy your communism!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that.
You did no such thing. I just re-read. Here's the pertinent section that I was responding to:
Okay, I admit that was poorly phrased. I don't think we should have to pay taxes for those things either. But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything." To use your ultra-lame "Thou shalt not kill" example, it's like saying "Well, we've killed a couple people , we might as well go for genocide." It doesn't make sense.
At no point in the rest of your post do you correct yourself on this paragraph.
But now you're just putting words in my mouth,
I apologize if I did that - it was inadvertant. Would you mind pointing out the offending passage?
Enjoy your communism!
We were discussing socialism, actually. Communism is the whole Marx/Lennon thing with the proletariat and the bourgeois. Smart men, but I think they were wrong. Just like anarchists, they ultimately don't seem to understand human nature. You
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"Also funny how it's the Democrats pushing for the auto bailout, but its the Republicans who are always accused of being in cahoots with corporations. "
There are two reasons your snide remark is wrong.
1. The auto makers provide benefits (pensions, health care) to many many current and former employees (which is part of why they're currently screwed). So this is essentially about protecting the people who rely on the companies, not the companies themselves.
2. Auto-maker empoyees are the epitome of "middle am
Re: (Score:2)
With the automakers, as with the financial institutions, the vast majority of retirement expense dollars go to the upper-level management types - I feel no need to see my tax dollars funding golden parachutes when my own silk needs mending.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a better bailout would be to give the public big rebates when they buy cars.
Here in Australia they are just about to throw the public large sums of money, in the order of $1000/child, to 'stimulate the economy'. I guess the idea is that we'll all go and buy plasma TV's with it...
We have 4 kids, and sure could use the money, but I really think that there would be better ways of stimulate the economy... big rebates on locally imported goods or something.
I suspect a good deal of the money will be spent o
How far does it have to fly? (Score:1, Funny)
With enough explosives altitude won't be a problem but distance and landing may be an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
With enough explosives altitude won't be a problem but distance and landing may be an issue.
In the arena currently, there are enough explosive devices in place to do that for the current heavy, flightless vehicles. I thus presume the ability to convert to flight may be to evade these same explosives.
Hopefully the enemy doesn't respond with thin metal clothesline technology.
Re: How far does it have to fly? (Score:3, Funny)
With enough explosives altitude won't be a problem but distance and landing may be an issue.
George: If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?
Edmund: Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area.
Dream on. (Score:1, Insightful)
The world will never have a flying car for the general public.
Most of you fuckers shouldnt even be allowed to drive on the roads.
Will 80 mph do? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I love that thing...
It's interesting that nobody thought of this (a parawing car) before, considering the big bucks honest companies like Terrafugia and shysters like Moller have spent in the last few years.
The downside is that it's LOUD as heck, since it uses the fan for propulsion while on the ground. So it wouldn't do for something where stealthiness is a requirement. But for survivability, I'd bet on a ripstop nylon wing over steel spars and aluminum ribs any day
Re:Will 80 mph do? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently not:
That is by far the coolest flying car I've ever seen. It takes off at only 35 MPH, would be relatively cheap, and looks like it would have great off-road mobility in car mode. Only problem is I couldn't find it on youtube, so I hope it's in the new Bond movie :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The downside is that it's LOUD as heck, since it uses the fan for propulsion while on the ground.
From the times article:
âoeThe fan's static when you're driving around,â says Cardozo. âoeThe engineering challenge was getting a really reliable system that will switch power between wheels or fan.â
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's interesting that nobody thought of this (a parawing car) before
I'm surprised he's not also adapting it to airboats [wikipedia.org] as used in Florida and Louisiana. Though I guess he gets more press coverage for "flying car" than "sea plane".
Re:Will 80 mph do? (Score:4, Informative)
Except that you won't catch me flying a para-car, the disadvantages are many.
PLUS:
~) it's cheap; fairly easy to implement.
MINUS:
~) Parawings have a tendency to fold when you turn too sharply.
~) It does poorly in windy conditions.
~) Slow, inefficient, high drag.
~) Tendency to "rip".
~) Takeoff is difficult.
~) An in-flight rainstorm is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, by definition.
~) Poor handling in engine-out / emergency circumstances.
I'll pass, thanks! Even as a VFR pilot, I've flown in rain many times, and at 150 MPH, it happens surprisingly quickly... I can only imagine what the power-fail glide slope is on something like this. (7:1 for a Piston Cessna, as high as 20:1 for jets, often as poor as 2:1 for an ultralight/paraglider - you sink like a STONE when the power goes out!)
I hear NASA refers to it as (Score:2)
assuming the aerodynamics of a brick.
In any case, you're lucky if its a landing you can walk away from.
Re: (Score:2)
If the traffic's at a crawl, 80mph looks pretty good.
Re:Will 80 mph do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hard to evacuate soldiers in a one-person dune buggy that needs to take off horizontally with a 'shute that tangles on street rubble and powerlines.
Re:Will 80 mph do? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, but I still want one.
Re: (Score:1)
FROM ROAD TO AIR IN THE SKYCAR
The driver unpacks the parafoil wing from the boot and manually deploys it from the rear of the car. He switches the transmission from road mode, which drives the wheels, to flight mode, which powers the rear fan
The fan's thrust pushes the car forward, providing lift for the wing as the car reaches 35mph - takeoff speed. Once airborne, pedals in the footwell steer the Skycar by pulling cables that change the wing's shape
The
Re: (Score:2)
What part of that meets the pentagon's checklist?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. This is far too small a project to interest the White House.
Re: (Score:1)
I hope you are correct. I saw it more a long the lines like General Petraus's recent promotion that will probably end on Jan 20 and so forth.
Terrafugia? I don't think so. (Score:2)
"Maybe they'll take inspiration from Terrafugia's "drivable airplane."
I don't think so. With Terrafugia you have to drag your wings behind you and put the thing together when you want to take off, complete with standard runway. It takes a few minutes to transition from a land vehicle to an airplane. These guys are talking about instant transition. One second you're driving on the ground and the next you are airborne.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Drag your wings behind you??? Have you even looked at their prototype?
Before you start making stupid comments, check your facts. The Terrafugia folds it's wings vertically. They are folded electrically, so you don't have to even get out of the car. In fact, you land at an airport and before you even get off the taxi-way, the wings are folded.
BTW... I just chatted with Carl the other day and they are getting ready to start flight testing. They're just waiting for their final signoff for their airworthy
its almost 2009 (Score:3, Funny)
Where is my flying.. errr. ummm..
Oooo shiny object to the left.
I like other ones.. (Score:2)
Hack a day has a much better looking flying car..
http://hackaday.com/2008/11/13/flying-cars-a-reality/ [hackaday.com]
Autogyro (Score:2)
What about an autogyro?
Relatively few moving parts, has good STOL capabilities and easily compacted if the blades can be folded.
Re: (Score:2)
What about an autogyro? Relatively few moving parts, has good STOL capabilities and easily compacted if the blades can be folded.
Built properly it might be worth while but if you do that you may as well build a helicopter. The advantage of the autogyro is that you can build half a helicopter on the cheap and live with the risk of it falling apart in mid air.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I would say it doesn't look too hard to make a 4 seater out of this one: http://www.sparkdesign.nl/en/news/PALV?page=2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Sounds [youtube.com] like [youtube.com] super [roanoke.com] awesome [apn.co.nz] fun [youtube.com].
Wonder [bbc.co.uk] why [thewest.com.au] no-one [abc.net.au] has [toledoblade.com] thought [news.com.au] of [scotsman.com] that [iol.co.za] before? [estcourt.co.za]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cartercopter [cartercopters.com].
Much faster than a helicopter, twice as efficient as a helicopter. Takes off/lands in a postage stamp.
Take a Carver and give it rotors... (Score:2)
This is what you get: http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/1012/gyrocopter-to-the-rescue.html [thefutureofthings.com]
I was thinking the Team America theme song (Score:1)
Will it have a "valmorphanize" button?
For fuck's sake (Score:1)
Just let us go back to 1950. 2050 is too damned scary.
Re: (Score:1)
No one on Moller yet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember reading about Moller's Skycar in Popular Science when I was a kid...about 30 years ago. It's a pretty well-documented fraud now.
pipe dream (Score:1)
Forgive me, I didn't follow the links.
When I see 'DARPA', 'will ultimately lead to', 'prototype', 'would be perfect for', etc; I just sigh and consider the last few seconds to be a lost part of my life.
I've been reading since the early '50s about the imminent personal flying craft and similar wonders in such august publications as PopSci, Popular Mechanics, etc. I grow weary.
Flat screens, too... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been reading since the early '50s about the imminent personal flying craft and similar wonders in such august publications as PopSci, Popular Mechanics, etc. I grow weary.
Yeah.
But I've also been reading about flat TV screens for as long, too. (They had a cute one back then: Neon switches, crosspoint matrix, electroluminescent elements at the crosspoints for scan, then transparent conductor, opaque light-controlled-resistor, and another layer of electroluminescent matterial for the screen light source. Plastic "circuit board" so you could wrap it around a pencil.)
It took 'em half a century to get (several types of) TV quality flat screens. And they're all STILL more expensive than CRTs. (Maybe now that the LCD price fixing conspiracy is broken that will FINALLY change.)
Ditto "dynabook". Ditto microscopic robots - some circulating in the blood stream - for microsurgery and/or immune system assist against diseases. Ditto cloned replacement teeth. Ditto age-retarding-or-reversing drugs.
A lot of stuff is FINALLY STARTING to happen. But I've been waiting a LONG time for it. And at this rate maybe I'll get to see prototypes of some of it by the time I retire, but still won't get the benefit of playing with the toys. B-(
A good idea who's time has come (Score:2)
Personal automated air transport should not be that tough.
All the components that are required to build a pilotless VTOL aircract are readily available. For example:
If the cost could be b
Nothing new. Bigger challenge is there. (Score:1)
Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor - DARPA patent#29549 (Score:1)
The secret is the Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor! Just throw some banana skins and beer cans into it and you're off!
DARPA Mission (Score:2)
DARPA's mission is to prevent technological surprise for the United States and to create technological surprise for its adversaries.
Short, simple, unambiguous. If there were awards for objective statements, this would get one. Would that all my projects were so well defined!
Not getting my hopes up (Score:2, Insightful)
use vtol/helicopter (Score:1, Interesting)
why not just vtol or a helicopter on wheels? the propellers could fold up or down as needed or the vtol could face forward for thrust but put wheels on the vehicle.
Oh boy, another way to burn fossil fuels. (Score:2)
Why exactly do we need to spend government money on flying cars that will most likely burn a lot more fuel than our current gas guzzlers? Because some dork in the defense department thinks the 1950's are still cool?
Put the money into something more practical for this century - like developing an electric car that's affordable and doesn't suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Why exactly do we need to spend government money on flying cars that will most likely burn a lot more fuel than our current gas guzzlers?
I learned to fly in a Cessna 172, a four-seat airplane built in 1976. (It's typical for airplanes to be quite old - they just fix them forever since new ones are so expensive) Despite its age, it travels about 120 MPH and burns about 9 GPH doing it. When you factor in an average 20% reduction in actual travel distance (because you fly straight from origin to destination,
ABOUT DAMN TIME! (Score:2)
In the future... (Score:2)
...terrorists will apply for driving licenses, not aircraft ones!!!
Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff (Score:2)
Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff
Why not "Flying-Car Project Starts to Gain Real Traction at Pentagon"?