Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Could Flying Cars Actually Be On Their Way? 381

another random user writes "With ideas like the Taylor Aerocar, Terrafugia Transition, Terrafugia Transformer, the PAL-V, and myCopter, are we getting close to a point where flying cars could actually become practical? An article at the BBC discusses how adding automation to these craft is an important goal for the people currently working on them, something we see paralleled in the many projects to develop autonomous non-flying cars. 'The team intends to draw on drone technology to automate as much of the flying as possible. Current fly-by-wire technology, as well as some of the features being used in the development of autonomous or robotic vehicles could all help fleets of these vehicles fly along predefined highways – and crucially avoid each other. But perhaps the biggest problem the team aim to tackle are the regulatory and safety issues, as well as those of public opinion.' If that does happen, given a lot of drivers' inability to pay attention to what's going on around them on the roads as it is now, how safe would you feel in the air?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Could Flying Cars Actually Be On Their Way?

Comments Filter:
  • by eggstasy ( 458692 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:30PM (#40991771) Journal

    I thought the whole car thing was dying because we're running out of oil.
    Can you build a UAV that carries a whole person AND a stack of lithium batteries?
    Mass transit is still the way to go whether you're flying or not.
    See, for instance, London's new Cable Car. I live in a hilly place and I can't for the life of me imagine why nobody thought it would be useful to simply go from hill to hill.

    http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/23828.aspx [tfl.gov.uk]

  • Re:i hope never (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Un pobre guey ( 593801 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:38PM (#40991851) Homepage
    Flying cars are just a childish baby-boomer dream from the 1950s that somehow refuses to go away. Between safety and fuel economy concerns, it's hard to understand why people keep insisting on it. OK, OK, I get it. It seems like it would be really cool. At least it does if you shut your eyes really tight and wish really, really hard.
  • by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:39PM (#40991857)

    Aircraft are technically marginal devices - minor increases in weight and drag have a significant effect on their overall performance. The compromises required to allow an aircraft to be used on the road will make it a really poor aircraft. If you read the performance information carefully on the Terrafuga, you will find that it is slow, doesn't carry much weight and has a very limited range.

    People have come to expect a very high level of performance from their cars. The compromises required to make a car operate as an aircraft will make it a poor road vehicle.

    The use case just isn't that compelling. Most of these vehicles will only be able to fly from airport to airport - which are often located in areas with large amounts of traffic. Once at the airport, the usual The pre-flight checks, and taxi / departure clearances will be required. The airplane / cars that have so far been exhibited are also not designed to deal with significant weather, or to operate over high terrain.

    The existing model where you drive your (optimized) car to the airport and then fly your (optimized) airplane to its destination seems better. Rental cars are available at the general aviation terminals at many US airports, generally set up to minimize the time it takes to pick up and drop off.

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:47PM (#40991941)

    They are fundamentally problematic in several respects:

    1. Piloting. Ordinary people cannot pilot anything flying safely.
    2. Energy consumption. They just consume far too much with energy sources available today.
    3. Landing and takeoff. You cannot do that just anywhere.
    4. Air traffic control. They are already overloaded.
    5. Unsuitable for roads. All designs so far have only very limited suitability as actual cars.

    Unless all of these issues are solved at some point in the future, there will be no flying cars except demonstration stunts. Incidentally, anybody thinking about the issue rationally can come up with the above list easily. There seems to be a mental blockade a lot of otherwise intelligent people have with regard to flying cars.

  • Re:In the air? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nschubach ( 922175 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @09:01PM (#40992075) Journal

    Speaking from a bit of experience... There's a big difference in flying something sitting in a cockpit and sitting in a lawn chair. It's much easier actually being in the vehicle you are controlling and having all your appendages instead of just two thumbs to control with.

  • by mister2au ( 1707664 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @09:01PM (#40992079)

    Ummm ... no

    Source: 40 years of "Could Flying Cars Actually Be On Their Way?" experience

  • Re:In the air? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @09:17PM (#40992205) Journal

    I'd like to continue feeling safe on the ground, thankyouverymuch.

    I feel plenty safe, air or ground, but I definitely wouldn't feel safe in the air surrounded by the people that are now filling the Dan Ryan Expressway every morning.

    Me, I've got no problem with a flying car. It's having other people with flying cars that's the problem.

  • Betteridge's Law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Art3x ( 973401 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @09:28PM (#40992299)
    No
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @09:40PM (#40992419)

    Finally, an intelligent analysis! Thank you!

    Because something that hasn't happened yet is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. That's just logic.

  • by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @10:19PM (#40992669) Journal

    Not only flying is too energy intensive, the concept of flying cars poses a HUGE RISK in this world we live in today, where there are people who are crazy enough to blow themselves up just so that people around them die with them

    Imagine you have flying cars zipping around buildings - how are you to ensure that no one load up one (or more) flying car(s) with strong explosives and then slam it/them into an office building?
     

  • by BKX ( 5066 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @10:51PM (#40992917) Journal

    That's a bullshit argument. Substitute the words car and drive for flying car and fly and you'll see why. A terrorist could just as easily and with as much success load up a pedophile van with explosives and drive at 90mph into a building tomorrow. What difference does flying make?

  • by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @11:41PM (#40993233)
    It may be bullshit, but it's damned effective. We've allowed various versions of the "...then the terrorists win" argument to be used as reasons to repeatedly deprive us of our rights and liberties. You're quite right, of course. Timothy McVeigh showed us that any dim-witted sociopath can put together a car-bomb that will destroy an entire building, and you don't even have to "martyr" yourself in the process. That 24' Ryder truck holds a LOT more ANFO than your average flying car. Alas, GP has swallowed the bullshit whole and now lives in fear of airplanes.
  • by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @12:09AM (#40993391)

    That's a bullshit argument. Substitute the words car and drive for flying car and fly and you'll see why. A terrorist could just as easily and with as much success load up a pedophile van with explosives and drive at 90mph into a building tomorrow. What difference does flying make?

    If its an "important" building the van may crash into a barrier and not get "close enough" to the building to do significant damage. There are no barriers to keep aircraft away.

  • Re:In the air? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jbov ( 2202938 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @01:10AM (#40993599)
    I drive a pickup truck that seats six passengers. I can haul things, tow things, carry passengers, or load the rear of the cab with tools and boxes of cable. Would I like to drive a small, fuel efficient car when I am doing none of the aforementioned things? Sure. However, I can't afford to purchase and insure two vehicles. I think this is why people drive SUVs or trucks. If they can only afford one vehicle, then that vehicle better be able to take their family on vacation, carry their cargo, and pickup supplies at the home improvement store.

    That is why you see so many married couples with families that have one car, and one SUV or extended cab pickup truck.
  • Re:In the air? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dejanc ( 1528235 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @03:40AM (#40994275)

    If they can only afford one vehicle, then that vehicle better be able to take their family on vacation, carry their cargo, and pickup supplies at the home improvement store.

    I often hear this argument from Americans and I think those of you who make that argument are spoiled and have skewed view of need vs. perceived comfort. I lived in the USA for a long time, so I have a general idea of what needs people there have. Now I'm in Europe and I have exactly the needs you specified, so I decided to buy a station wagon - Ford Mondeo. It's a 2 liter diesel engine and seats 5 people (meant for 4 adults and a child, but I've driven 3 adults in the back and they didn't complain much), and if I needed more, I would go for a mini-van.

    It comfortably cruises at around 155km/h, or around 95 mph, which is generally the highway speed limit +25 km/h which is tolerated by highway police interceptors. That gets me to my place of vacation safely and comfortably (i.e. not much wind or tires noise, steady engine and acceptable mileage).

    It has high enough clearance so I can drive on unpaved roads, and I do that relatively often when I go visit in-laws who live in a remote village or go up to the mountain house my family has.

    Each winter, as required by law, I swap my summer tires for winter ones and I can go skiing: with proper tires you don't need 4WD to drive up a snowy road. I keep a set of chains (also required by law) for when it gets bad (and I only used them once in the last 4 years).

    It's a station wagon, so I usually get asked to help move people. It has a plenty of space to move furniture or e.g. kitchen appliances, but so far, 100% of places selling furniture of appliances also delivered. If I ever have to shift something bigger and heavier, I'll just hire a truck with some workers to do it for me. One time fee for them is surely going to be less than what I would pay for gas and registration for a year for a pick up.

    It's just the right size so I can park it in any European parking lot and not block downtown streets (like people in SUVs do).

    Best of all, I get 40+ miles per (US) gallon of diesel on it.

    Don't get me wrong, having a huge SUV would be very comfortable (if I put aside the fact that I couldn't park it in all places I wanted - but that's not an issue in North America), but the fact is that I just don't really need it, and I can bet you don't either. I'd rather take more tourist trips or put money into my gadgets and computer, or save up for a bigger/better apartment.

  • by BeanThere ( 28381 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @05:00AM (#40994601)

    Imagine you have flying cars zipping around buildings - how are you to ensure that no one load up one (or more) flying car(s) with strong explosives and then slam it/them into an office building?

    Not to try inject "reason" between your shrieks of hysteria, but the risks are exactly the same as the current, existing ability of a terrorist to just drive right up to an office building with the same fucking explosives loaded in a damn ground vehicle. (How the hell did you get +4 insightful for that utter inanity?)

    The reason it isn't common is because there just aren't that many people trying to blow you up, not because it's somehow currently just too difficult to blow people up.

  • by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @06:39AM (#40994989) Journal
    I'm not afraid of terrorists with flying cars. I'm afraid of the flying cars being controlled by the average driver or an AI that's only a bit better. Imagine thousands of 2 ton flying cars whizzing around at 100kph controlled by people texting each other etc.

    Terrorists can already hit buildings from the air if they want to. They just have to use private planes. You can load those planes with bombs without anyone checking them.

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...