A Production-Ready Flying Car Is Coming This Month 203
cartechboy writes It's 2014. Where the heck are our flying cars? We were promised flying cars. We should be living like The Jetsons, right? Well, we aren't, but we are about to take one step closer: a production-ready flying car is debuting this month. Slovakia's Aeromobil is planning to unveil its "Flying Roadster" at the Pioneers Festival in Vienna, Austria on October 29. The latest iteration is called the Aeromobil 3.0, and work on it dates back to 1990. The Aeromobil 2.5 prototype made its first flight about a year ago. The Aeromobil transforms from plane to car by folding its wings behind the cockpit. Supposedly, the Aerobmoil will fit in a standard parking spot and run on pump gas. In less than a month, our dreams could become a reality.
Crash Test? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bet you'll not see this in the US any time soon. I wonder what its crash test ratings would look like.
Pipe Dreams (Score:5, Insightful)
Bet you'll not see this in the US any time soon. I wonder what its crash test ratings would look like.
It could be licensed like an experimental aircraft.
But... "I'll believe it when I see it."
Folks, we have heard this before, and "flying cars" have been around since the 50's. It's not practical in any sense of the word. Blade Runner is a fantasy that will not be realized for many, many years. It this point in time, "flying cars" solve no problems and create man oth
Re: (Score:2)
Experimental aircraft don't get to ride on the roadways.
I think that is one of the biggest problems. In order to be street legal, it would be almost too heavy to take off.
Re: (Score:3)
Folks, we have heard this before, and "flying cars" have been around since the 50's. It's not practical in any sense of the word.
Actually, out in the wide-open rural spaces of the western US and Canada, "flying cars" are rather common and quite practical. Of course, they're usually called small planes, typically 2- or 4-seaters with some cargo space. And you'd usually want a ground car, too, since aircraft can be somewhat impractical on days of high winds, thunderstorms, etc. It's common for small-town shopping strips in that area to have a runway that's parallel to the main street, with stores in between, for the benefit of peop
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What a load of BS. Moller's "flying car" is a joke -- a bit like Stan Meyer's water-powered car was. It's always easy to create a conspiracy to cover up a complete lack of substance when you're busy trying to milk gullible investors!
As for the flying car referenced in this article/video -- it's just like all the others and will never "fly" from a commercial perspective because:
- it's a crappy car (too many compromises in order to make it fly)
- it's a crappy plane (too many compromises in
Re: (Score:2)
Simple truth is that it would be a bad airplane and a bad car.
Re: (Score:2)
of course you won't see it any time soon. if it's presented in the nonexistent city of "Vianna", it's clearly a scam.
(or more like an indicator of the extreme intelligence of some)
What about the Terrafugia Transition? (Score:2)
Like this vehicle, it folds the wings away for driving on the road. But unlike this vehicle (at least from what I can see), they have both a weight exemption from the FAA so it can be classified as a "light sport" aircraft and flown on a "sport pilot license" (which is much easier to get than a full regular pilot license) AND an exemption from the NHTSA to use lightweight motorcycle tires and a lightweight polycarbonate windscreen to keep weight down instead of the heavier automobile tires and safety glass
Flying Cars (Score:2)
...as disused by Dante and Randall.
http://youtu.be/YsSCBxzlDbU [youtu.be]
Re:Flying Cars (Score:5, Informative)
Flying cars. From Wiki [wikipedia.org]:
Although the estimated number of General Lees used varies from different sources, according to Ben Jones ("Cooter" in the show), as well as builders involved with the show, 256 General Lees were used to film the series. Others claim about 321 were used in the series. Approximately 17 still exist in various states of repair. On average, more than one General Lee was used up per show. When filming a jump, anywhere from 500 to 1,000 pounds (230 to 450 kg) of sand bags or concrete ballast was placed in the trunk to prevent the car from nosing over. Later in the series the mechanics would raise the front end of the car to keep it from scraping against the ramp causing it to lose speed, thereby providing a cushion for the driver upon landing. Stunt drivers report enjoying the flights but hating the landings. Despite the ballast, the landing attitude of the car was somewhat unpredictable, resulting in moderate to extremely violent forces, depending on how it landed. On many of the jumps the cars bent upon impact. All cars used in large jumps were immediately retired due to structural damage.
You mean our nightmare could become a reality (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you don't drive much, its already too scary with cars on the ground. Can you imagine some of these idiots flying around? The horrendous crashes? Care to think about what it would be like when someone careens into the top floor of an office building and explodes into a fireball? Thankfully flying tech has not progressed to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ok, you have a point I guess, but adding a third dimension gives one a lot more room to maneuver, and it would seem that it would reduce the chances of collision. Visualize, you're not flying at 70 MPH less than 20 feet behind another hurtling piece of metal on exactly the same vector, just a few feet from similar hurtling pieces of metal at exactly the opposite vector. Where air traffic gets dangerous is around the choke points, usually airports.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean you were doing 80mph in a 45mph limit as well?
I'm not sure taking video of that and putting it on youtube is that good an idea.
Re:You mean our nightmare could become a reality (Score:4, Interesting)
Good that you mention Karl Benz. The restrictions imposed on him, led to the first long distance driver being a woman. As the story goes, Karl Benz was only allowed to drive the car with prior police permission and only on closed off roads. He never drove the car himself, because of fear it would explode on him. So on 5 August 1888, when Karl was out, his wife Berta decided to visit her sister in Pfortsheim. As there where no other means of transportation she and her two sons took the car on the 106 km trip. This was without the permission of her husband and the police. They had to refuel on the way and bought the ethanol in a pharmacy. This story was a PR wonder that got many restrictions lifted.
Re:You mean our nightmare could become a reality (Score:4, Interesting)
In case you don't drive much, its already too scary with cars on the ground. Can you imagine some of these idiots flying around? The horrendous crashes? Care to think about what it would be like when someone careens into the top floor of an office building and explodes into a fireball? Thankfully flying tech has not progressed to reality.
Obviously manual controls would only work outside of restricted airspace; within restricted airspace, you'd be under the guidance of the airspace control computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough I think flying cars could be a better target for automation than those disastrous ground-based driverless cars.
The problem space is much more defined in the air than on the ground and, given that it's difficult for a human to look in all directions at once or judge distances of rapidly approaching objects, should probably be mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough I think flying cars could be a better target for automation than those disastrous ground-based driverless cars.
The problem space is much more defined in the air than on the ground and, given that it's difficult for a human to look in all directions at once or judge distances of rapidly approaching objects, should probably be mandatory.
With a reserved airspace that has no manually controlled vehicles whatsoever, it's definitely a better target for automation (assuming quadrotor style manueverability). The thing that makes the ground hard is the manually controlled vehicles, the people, trash cans, road surface damage, and other mobile obstacles. Take that away, and you no longer need vision systems or any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Funnily enough I think flying cars could be a better target for automation than those disastrous ground-based driverless cars."
Well for one thing there are very few pedestrians and stray dogs wandering across the aerial 'streets'
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously manual controls would only work outside of restricted airspace; within restricted airspace, you'd be under the guidance of the airspace control computer.
I love the aviation consultants on this forum...
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously manual controls would only work outside of restricted airspace; within restricted airspace, you'd be under the guidance of the airspace control computer.
I love the aviation consultants on this forum...
You do realize that we are no longer talking about Cessna's with Hemi's and whitewalls, we are talking about VTOL craft at this point, right? And some of us do have pilot's licenses, so we realize how ridiculous this particular vehicle is, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like job openings. Just watch unemployment sink!
Re: (Score:2)
"In case you don't ride horses much..."
there was surely somebody with the same views when cars just started :)
Agreed. As long as humans control them.. (Score:3)
As long as humans control the flying cars, they will never become a reality; and thankfully so. Most people who have licences to drive shouldn't have them, but at least when they prove their incompetence in piloting their car the damage is somewhat limited (compared to a Cesna falling out of the sky). I'm all for flying hovercraft cars, but only as long as ONLY ME gets one. The rest of the idiots I meet on my bike ride home shouldn't be allowed to drive in two dimensions, much less three.
More seriously,
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the problems that flying cars actually DO have (relatively poor batteries, and terrible sound/noise pollution both to the occupants and surrounding neighbourhood), and you go on about safety.
Ignoring that AI may drive instead of humans, or that we could create a lane system in the sky to keep traffic from colliding, another simple solution is to have a 'magnetic'-style repel, where if you get too close to another vehicle or object, your craft would repel and vice versa. This woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You mean our nightmare could become a reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the licence to operate an aircraft might be just a teensy bit harder to get than the licence to operate a car...
Rules for aircraft are much stricter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's under current law. Given that the populace have voted that it's okay to fail the driving test 59 times as long as you pass the 60th, and you can be half-blind and senile and still drive, current law may very well be revised.
Of course we're dealing with FEDERAL bureaucrats, who are less accountable to the public than STATE ones, but democracy still works in the long run. Right now only rich weirdos fly their own planes, so we're okay f*ing them in the ass with safety regulations. If everyone, or a
Re: (Score:3)
Being half-blind, a.k.a. blind in one eye, shouldn't be a problem. I know that it's illegal to drive half-blind in some European countries, but that is IMHO just one of the many overreaching, stupid regulations. One thing I like about the U.S. is that being half-blind is not a problem here and you can certainly legally drive a car that way. Binocular vision isn't really necessary for driving a street car.
Right. Yet another, "There ought to be a law..." (Score:3)
Lots of things are against the law and yet people still murder, rape, kidnap, steal, etc., etc. What makes you think some idiot will follow a law that says they can't fly their flying car if it has a bit of a bend? I followed some jerk whose brake lights didn't work last week. I'm sure that's illegal, too.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
I followed some jerk whose brake lights didn't work last week.
You would become that jerk if your lights failed mid-way through a drive, or you didn't check them every single journey.
Re: (Score:2)
So a small bingle in a flying car means it instantly becomes just a car until repaired and approved for flight.
Oh, no, because it will be unambiguously proven that flying your car around is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity (I'm not a pilot), what do the rules look like for personal aircraft? What level of damage is permissible/when do you need to break out the x-rays?
Re:Rules for aircraft are much stricter (Score:5, Informative)
It's all defined by the manufacturer and the FAA, who basically work together on airworthiness - the key word. You can only fly an airworthy airplane, so anything that affects the airworthiness of the airplane must be signed off on by a certified mechanic before further flight. The manufacturer has extensive and highly detailed rules (which they're required to enumerate for certification) relating to exactly what kinds of damage, wear, and modifications affect the airworthiness of the airplane. A bent fairing might not require anything at all. A popped tire probably requires inspection of the wheel and brake as part of the tire replacement procedure. There's all sorts of "must check X while fixing Y" rules, and everything has a lifetime - including the prop and engine. Furthermore, the FAA occasionally publishes "airworthiness directives" (ADs) which, usually in response to some sort of accident or failure pattern, must be addressed in a timely fashion (at next inspection, within 100 hours, before further flight, etc - whatever is specified). Non-compliance with an AD means that the airplane is unairworthy.
Most small planes will never need an X-raying - I think the reason that the big boys use it is because they have more exotic and high-stress components (e.g. compressor turbine blades in a jet engine) or they're trying to take a more evidence-based view of failure than "replace after 2000 hours".
(IAAPilot)
Seen this before. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it does both both things.
Just not as good as individual tools it replaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, however, like the average multi purpose tools, you need to carry around only one instead of two. That's a great advantage in itself. So even though it doesn't drive as easily as a car and it doesn't fly as well as an aeroplane, it still beats having to lug an aircraft around on a trailer behind your car.
Perhaps misnamed (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't so much of a flying car as it is a drivable plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! The promised flying car is for when you are sitting in traffic and you hit the big red button that jumps you ahead of the blockage, not this delicate thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Driving out of town to get to the nearest airfield usually mean you're out of traffic and thus the whole thing is mute.
Re:Perhaps misnamed (Score:5, Funny)
Precisely. Driving out of town to get to the nearest airfield usually mean you're out of traffic and thus the whole thing is mute.
Of course it's mute. Who wants a back-talking flying car?
In other words... (Score:2)
"A Production-Ready Flying Car Is Coming This Month"
No, no it will not.
Re: (Score:3)
That it is "production-ready" doesn't necessarily mean it's being produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If it's not produced, then technically it isn't "coming".
OK. It's not "coming" ...but it's breathing really fast.
Re: (Score:2)
That it is "production-ready" doesn't necessarily mean it's being produced.
Based on your definition, even a "concept car" is "production ready", if that's what you want to produce.
But in a realistic sense "production ready" means you have all the design features set and are ready to build production dies and molds, have the production wireing peg-board and jigs designed, and have suppliers lined up, and a factory space ready to accept the machines required to build this thing.
Not the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much my definition - it's more my interpretation of marketing-speak.
Re:Perhaps misnamed (Score:4, Insightful)
The linked video shows that while it looks more plane than car, it has much more car-properties than plane-properties.
It flies, but it doesn't look very stable when in the air, and it is only shown flying low above a runway. As this is a promo video, this means to me that this is the best they can do, and that they're not able to fly it above more interesting landscapes - be it due to licensing, or capabilities, or other reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Still decades away from Hollywood "flying cars." (Score:2, Insightful)
This concept is just "roadable aircraft" - basically light planes you drive to and from an airport. And even if the FAA allowed you to takeoff and land on roads, that would be totally impractical since the roads aren't designed for it. Nor would it be safe for human pilots to land in and takeoff from other traffic. So we'll need (1)robocars, (2)redesign of the roads to allow takeoff and landing in some parts, (3)a radical overhaul of the regulatory and air traffic control system to accommodate a drastic
It's 2014!! (Score:2)
Where's my FLYING CA.... oh, ok then.
Still waiting for that jetpack, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... And I'm still waiting on my handheld laser gun that I can point and fire at preteen girls that will make them want to have sex with me.
I don't think that's a thing.
No. Just no. (Score:4, Insightful)
A Production-Ready Flying Car Is Coming This Month
No.
Slovakia's Aeromobil has planning to unveil its "Flying Roadster" at the Pioneers Festival in Vianna, Austria on October 29.
They will unvailed a prototype .
Re: (Score:2)
A solution in need of a problem. We have airplanes, we have cars, and we have the information superhighway [youtu.be].
We don't need flying cars, we just need a different kind of software.
Very Cool (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then watching it be intercepted by a fighter jet and escorted to safety will be all the more neat.
"Roadable aircraft" (Score:2)
This isn't a "flying car", it's a "roadable airplane", just like the Terrefugia Transition: http://www.terrafugia.com/airc... [terrafugia.com]
It is licensed as an airplane, with many, MANY exceptions when licensed as a ground vehicle. The idea is that you drive it a short distance to an airport, then take off and fly as an airplane. Then drive a short distance to somewhere at the other end. It's not meant to be driven even as much as a high-end sports car on the ground. It's mean as "get to airport, fly, get to destinat
Re: (Score:2)
Friend did about the same with a Cessna put a couple ultra portable mopeds in the cargo, drove there few and drove the last bit. Not like you need much more when you can get within 10-15 miles of where you going in the northeast and have a small airport.
Deja vu... (Score:5, Informative)
Googling on 'site:slashdot.org "flying car"' turns up numerous references to flying cars, ALL in very advanced stages of development and ready for production, flying your way soon.
Terrafugia... "Flying Car Passes First Flight Test..."
PAL-V One, "Finally, a flying car for the masses" made its first maiden flight...
M400 flying car "more economical than SUV"...
"the SkyCar, an invention by Moller International" was to be "Ready by end of year." And that year was 1999.
Flying Car for Sale (Score:2)
You cheater, you. (Score:2)
Call it a "Driving Plane" not a "Flying Car" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There's already a word for them, "Roadable Aircraft"
So what? (Score:2)
Someone proposes a flying car every now and then. As they are all only interpretation of past concepts, which did not work or were impractical. There was recently an article on why there will never be an practical realization. I hoped that will be the end of it. But obviously /. still did not get the message and now another lame story on the topic appeared.
Vaporware (Score:2)
Much like Duke Nukem Forever, I'll believe it when I can buy it.
I noticed they don't have a pricetag anywhere. I suspect this toy will be one of those toys that most normal people can't afford.
Roadable aircraft aren't "flying cars" (Score:3)
I wish they'd stop calling roadable aircraft "flying cars".
Flying car: Something that allows you to take off from your home and fly directly to your destination.
Roadable aircraft: An aircraft that you can drive to and from local airports.
It's good for people who already fly light aircraft (no more worrying about transport once you fly to your destination), useless for the rest of us.
Everyone must read this (Score:2)
Never forget why we don't have flying cars already. After all, strapping wings to a car is not particularly difficult. Doing so and not dying in the process is another matter.
http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/blake.htm
Re:Right (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't a wealthy traveler just go to their local private airport and take a towncar at their destination?
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the fact this car has the performance characteristics not of a private jet, but of a $40,000 used Cessna with half the seats removed and rocks in one of the fuel tanks. Anybody who can afford this can afford a comparable fixed-wing aircraft easily.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine someone who can afford to buy a small aircraft but can't afford to rent a car at the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
if they were that wealthy,
I don't think it is all that expensive to keep a plane at a private airport. And a towncar fom Uber is not much different from a taxi, cost-wise. Looking at my local airport (Wings) in the Philly burbs, tie-down fees for visitors are $20/day and heated hanger fees are $55/night.
If you can't afford $20-55/night, then we have to downgrade you from "wealthy".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a job for Moller!
I think it's a power and propulsion issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Helicopter-like flight is the right idea, but I think it's a power and propulsion problem. Helicopters are hideously mechanical and have maintenance schedules that would scare even a Ferrari owner.
I think you do need helicopter-like flight -- vertical takeoff and landing, forward and backward flight, side-side flight, etc. No flying car concept would seem to work without these. If you could get this in some kind of package that would work on a car the size of a full-size sedan, you'd only need the advanced aviononics that let you program in a desintation it will fly you to, avoiding all hazards.
Maybe they could have some kind of guided manual mode where you could fly it wherever you wanted but a set of safety and guidance systems kept it from crashing into objects or other cars (probably with active coordination with other cars) as well as obeying specific flight rules (height, speed, etc). Something like the go carts at an amusement park where you can "drive" within a set of constraints but without the restriction of a fixed course.
But the guidance and safety seem trivial next to the propulsion system that gives you six degrees of freedom in the size of a sedan.
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopters are hideously mechanical and have maintenance schedules that would scare even a Ferrari owner.
That's why quadcopters win. Sure, you're dependent on four engines, but each engine can be hilariously simple. What with the accelerated maintenance schedules it might be a good place to actually use those 1.3 liter rotary engines.
However, cars have the advantage that you don't need to spend any energy to keep them from crashing into the ground, only effort in keeping them from crashing into other stuff. And planes have the advantage of more efficiency. VTOL takes a lot of energy, and you need to haul aroun
Re: (Score:2)
Do they fly (well) with only three engines?
Re: (Score:3)
Do they fly (well) with only three engines?
You should be able to at least slow your descent substantially on any two opposing engines. (*research*) yes, a quadcopter with the proper software can fly on three engines, surprisingly well. Also, google is my friend. It can be yours.
Re: (Score:2)
An autogyro (that's a helicopter where the rotor is not powered, instead using a prop or jet or so for forward propulsion) would get really close. Especially if you add an engine to spin up the rotors for extra lift at take-off, and even (near) vertical landing is feasible. Forward speeds of such vehicles are low for an aircraft, so a more regular car body shape could be aerodynamic enough.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty awesome, but the website is incredibly sparse on pictures. Like a souped-up quadcopter for humans. With an exercise ball for a seat [e-volo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with helicopters is that maintaining your altitude in one consumes a lot of energy. Ideally you want something more like some of the gyrocopter designs that can take off like a helicopter but fly like an autogyro or a fixed-wing aircraft.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because we can make small drones we can make human-sized carriers equally easily. If physics worked that way, then we'd have flying suits based on flies or sparrows that could be powered purely by human muscles.
Re: (Score:2)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eEkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA19-IA11&lpg=PA19-IA11&dq=ohio+two+cars&source=bl&ots=vH5b1GK1e7&sig=wcEUh8ohjrgR81exFfFreMdRgr8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F94WUd3HF6aPiAe_kIAY&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ohio%20two%20cars&f=false/ [google.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, the only flying cars will hit mainstream is if they are exclusively computer-driven. Average people can't be trusted to fly.