Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Uber Shows Its Flying Car Prototype (cnbc.com) 166

Posted by msmash from the it's-coming dept.
Uber has unveiled its "flying car" concept aircraft at its second annual Uber Elevate Summit, which showcases prototypes for its fleet of airborne taxis. From a report: The flying cars, which the company hopes to introduce to riders in two to five years, will conduct vertical takeoffs and landings from skyports, air stations on rooftops or the ground. Ultimately, company officials say these skyports will be equipped to handle 200 takeoffs and landings an hour, or one every 24 seconds. At first, the flying cars will be piloted, but the company aims for the aircraft to fly autonomously. The prototypes look more like drones than helicopters, with four rotors on wings. Company officials say that will make them safer than choppers, which operate on one rotor. They'll fly 1,000 to 2,000 feet above ground and will be quieter than a helicopter, producing half the noise of a truck driving past a house.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Shows Its Flying Car Prototype More

Uber Shows Its Flying Car Prototype

Comments Filter:

  • Prototype (Score:3)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @10:22AM (#56574008) Homepage Journal
    Apparently in 2018 a prototype is a 1:100 scale model and a badly rendered CGI video.

    • Wrong Focus (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sycodon ( 149926 )

      People keep shooting for complete automation when all that's needed really (in flight) is a system that will reliably get you off the ground, back on the ground and hold a course while staying in communication with ATC if necessary and avoid other aircraft and controlled airspace.

      Make no mistake, a, "Flying car", is an aircraft first and car second. Putting someone with no flying experience in this kind of vehicle is a bad idea all the way around.

      You can make it automated enough that learning it would be so

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        I will agree, with the addition of a safety system automation would be good. Not something that allows the operator to ignore operating and it will generally do the job (as is the case for tesla autopilot), but one that will activate and prevent an out-right crash, but not helping the user go in any particular direction or anything.

        • Aircraft had Autopilot for generations. Flying when all the hardware is working correctly, is very safe. Car automation is much more difficult, because you can only move in 2 dimensions to avoid an obstacle. And most obstacles need to occupy those same 2 dimensions.
          Having 3 dimensions reduces the volume exponentially also not having century old infrastructure in the way is handy too.

          Now these will not be flying in tight formation. So reaction time is now in minutes vs split seconds.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Junta ( 36770 )

            The scenarios where autopilot is safe are relatively specific. For example, you can't autopilot at 500ft through Manhattan.

            Additionally, for a landing area to be able to land and be clear in 24 seconds, that goal implies a bit of crowding of the area.

            Those exceptional scenarios are common enough that the ambition for fully autonomous aircraft for people without aviation training may be a bit much to do.

            • Yes, but we are just having cars that (such as the Tesla autopilot) good enough to deal with staying in its lane on the highway.

              The key point is the AI needed to safely drive a car on our roads is much intense then it is to fly.
              While we as humans find it easier to drive then fly, is because we have millions of years of evolution behind us to think and traverse 2 dimensions.
              While it takes more skill to think in 3d, with pitch and angle and basing your flight on those 9 key indicators on the dashboard) Is a l

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Junta ( 36770 )

                I have presumed the main difficulty in Aviation owes to the fact that it is such a selective market and pilots are simply expected to know more, and adventures in making piloting much more accessible just don't have a good enough business case for upside, and a lot of downside in terms of liability, regulation and safety downsides.

                • I have taken "the wheel" of an aircraft for a few minutes under a pilots strict guidance. And compared to the first time I drove a car, It was tough. All I needed to do was keep the airplane flying straight. I got my direction set, my pitch and angle was good too. But I was missing the altitude, which the pilot was quick to correct me on. When I first learned to drive, going straight was easy. While flying there is more to it. While not impossible to learn, it does require more then driving. (For a human

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by farble1670 ( 803356 )

            Flying when all the hardware is working correctly, is very safe.

            Safe, until there's any sort of failure or accident. Then you are dead.

      • Don't forget bad weather and unpredictable winds (especially if used in urban/ high-rise environments.) An automated system that can only handle things when everything is going well absolutely requires a skilled pilot to be present (and paying attention) at all times, which pretty much defeats the point of being automated other than reducing pilot fatigue (i.e. it boosts safety, but doesn't reduce costs). Flight is in many ways simpler than driving, and much better visibility lets you pay less constant at

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        You can make it automated enough that learning it would be something like getting a different class driver's license

        My engine quit when I was alone at 7,500ft. I just wish there were words that could express how wrong you are.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arth1 ( 260657 )

        People keep shooting for complete automation when all that's needed really (in flight) is a system that will reliably get you off the ground, back on the ground and hold a course while staying in communication with ATC if necessary and avoid other aircraft and controlled airspace.

        They all get you back on the ground. I'd add a requirement that it can get you back on the ground without damage.

      • A flying vehicle that can be stored in a small garage or parking structure.
        The key being a flying vehicle that operates in urban areas and does not need an airport.

    • It's just like that VR vaproware from a couple of years ago. I bet they get at least $10,000,000,000 of additional investments out of this stunt.

    • Re:Prototype (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lab Rat Jason ( 2495638 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @11:46AM (#56574620)

      That video is kind of disconcerting to me... the takeoff and landing point is the same spot. I'm sure it's not hard to fix, but using the same takeoff and landing point is sort of encouraging mid-air collisions. It clearly assumes all vehicles communicating their position with each other, which breaks when multiple competitors enter the space. Also, the vehicles are shown kind of round-robin-ing for the passengers to unload/board, but there are lots of use cases that will break this: 1) old people, people with disabilities and users with cargo could break the timing of the system 2) if this thing takes off (pun intended) then Uber won't be the only provider wanting to use the space, meaning that Lyft will want to compete for rides in the same areas, sort of replicating the type of chaos already seen with taxi queues and Uber/Lyft lines we currently see at large hotels and major airports. If only they had a way to control flight traffic locally to prevent collisions, and use a safe landing area that is far enough away from the passenger loading area to keep waiting passengers safe, and perhaps provide a nice structure to wait in, to keep passengers comfortable and out of the weather, then they could assign specific boarding areas or "gates" to each flight so that users knew where to be and at what time, so they could board the correct flight... oh wait. That's an airport.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        That video is kind of disconcerting to me... the takeoff and landing point is the same spot.

        Well, given that the FAA requires a pilot to flight plan with 30 minutes of extra fuel at the end of a flight, and these things generally have advertised flight times of around 45, this is not suprising.

        I'm sure it's not hard to fix, but using the same takeoff and landing point is sort of encouraging mid-air collisions. It clearly assumes all vehicles communicating their position with each other, which breaks when multiple competitors enter the space.

        Do a search for ADS-B. This problem is actually not hard to solve.

        • Do you think airplanes use ADS-B for collision avoidance? I'm familiar with ADS-B, and I'm an avid user of RTL-SDR type radios. ADS-B is not going to give you the resolution necessary to keep such a small LZ safe. Distances between airplanes are measured in miles and (thousands of) feet. Takeoff and landing every 24 seconds will require safe operation within hundreds and dozens of feet. A whole new system would have to be created to deal with the size and agility of these types of vehicles. Have you e

  • Focus!!

    • I rather think this is a "jumping the shark" moment of a company at the edge of failing. Uber's business model is under assault, and their next best option was automation which they have now failed at. They need something to keep investors and backers from cutting their losses and tanking the company as they leave.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrTJ ( 4014489 )

        Yeah, I was thinking the same. I can't help but thinking that this is a "waging the dog" operation which only fools the most gullible of investors... I would have very little patience with this day dreaming if the took my money.

        I am also amazed over the insane amount of money the Uber (and Tesla, and..) investors have, where does all this cash come from?

  • This is no flying car, it's a glorified helicopter with some bits of an aircraft tacked on. A flying car this is not.

    ---

    *As opposed to a European helicopter (brought to you by hooked on phonics)

    • No, helicopters can auto rotate and land in an engine failure.

      This is a a quad, no redundancy. One engine or blade failure and kiss your ass goodbye. It will _never_ pass FAA review.

      This is all an attempt at a 'chump bounce', so Uber insiders can abandon ship.

  • If it doesn't have wheels and drive on a road, it's not a car, flying or otherwise.

  • NOT a flying car. Just an aircraft. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @10:51AM (#56574208)

    Uber has unveiled its "flying car" concept aircraft at its second annual Uber Elevate Summit, which showcases prototypes for its fleet of airborne taxis.

    A flying car is not the same thing as an air taxi. A flying car is a road going car that can also get airborne. An air taxi is an aircraft which is used to taxi people between airports/heliports. This is the later. It has no ability to traverse roads and therefore is not a car. You could in principle use a flying car as a taxi but since flying cars are not practical because... physics, it's a moot issue.

    Can we please drop the idiotic notion of a flying car? Unless someone invents something equivalent to Tony Stark's arc reactor it will not be possible to have a flying car that is anything more than a fragile toy. No power source we possess or are in any danger of developing has sufficient power to weight ratio to change this fact. Flying cars are a stupid idea for a lot of reasons but this one fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate that fact.

    Frankly if I was an Uber investor (I'm not) I'd be pissed they are wasting money on this sort of stupid stuff when they are losing money at a breathtaking clip with no signs of stopping or obvious path to profiability.

    • I find this very frustrating as well, but the genie is out of the bottle. People will carry on calling these ridiculous contraptions flying cars regardless. And, yes, short of a breakthrough in power generation technology, probably preceded by a bigger one in fundamental physics, the flying cars that we have in mind will indefinitely and stubbornly remain in the realm of science-fiction.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Brannon ( 221550 )
        cars were originally called "horseless carriages"--so be patient, vocabulary will catch up.

        And...I'm not aware of any physics that prevents making a flying car. What's the power-to-weight issue? Planes are pretty heavy and they manage to get off the ground. It's somewhat harder to make a plane that's also street-legal, but I don't think there's any new physics required.

        It'll happen.

        • And...I'm not aware of any physics that prevents making a flying car. What's the power-to-weight issue?

          You need to go study some physics. That sounds ruder than I really mean it to be but if you don't understand that point and the physics involved then you can't really have a meaningful conversation about this topic. Anything that moves but especially anything that flies is all about thrust (power) to weight even to just get off the ground much less to do anything useful.

          Planes are pretty heavy and they manage to get off the ground.

          Actually planes are very light and compared to cars they are (comparatively) incredibly flimsy out of necessity. To get something off th

  • we don't need any faa certification or software testing.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        I realize this is sarcasm (and well done at that), but the FAA has a clear definition of "flying". To be flying, one must rise out of ground effect. Generally, that will be at around one wingspan, or about 20 ft, for a vehicle of this size.

  • Ever seen a quad-rotor drone have one of it's rotors fail? Gravity takes over pretty quickly. I'd feel a lot better taking a ride in one of these things if they were hexa or octa rotor systems, but maybe that's what they will morph into if they ever get to a production stage.
    • PS, I believe a hexa (6) rotor copter and have one rotor fail and still fly, and an octa (8) rotor copter can have up to 3 rotors fail and still fly, so my money would be on 8 rotors. This is all contingent on payload and other factors, of course.

      • an octa (8) rotor copter can have up to 3 rotors fail and still fly

        More rotors is simpler and stable, but less efficient. It's why you see helicopters with 1 or sometimes two rotors, but never more. You could have a toy with 8 props but it'd never scale up to something that could carry a person. Or you'd need some sort of energy source that hasn't been discovered yet.

  • m * g * h (Score:3)

    by snikulin ( 889460 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @11:12AM (#56574352)

    mv^2/2 + mgh > mv^2/2

  • Pie in the Sky.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @11:14AM (#56574382)

    There are sooo many reasons why Uber is out of their minds with this "pie in the sky" idea.

    First off, as others pointed out, this isn't a car. No way it's going to take to the roads.

    Second, if they thought the rules for driving where complex and exacting, the rules for flying are more so.

    Third, automating a passenger carrying flying machine with sufficient fail safes to satisfy the FAA is going to be a seriously expensive project that's going to take YEARS of work just to document and get a whole bunch of laws and regulations changed to allow.

    Fourth, you will need a horde of A&P certified mechanics to maintain these flying machines and do the required safety checks within the required time frames. These guys and gals don't come cheap and the local auto shop won't be good enough.

    Finally, finding pilots who are qualified to fly passengers around for money in a helicopter is going to be very expensive. We have a grave pilot shortage in this country now, and given the costs and time frames required to move new pilots though the training, Uber doesn't have a snowballs chance of hiring enough pilots for even a small fleet of these things.

    I conclude that Uber is dreaming. This is nothing more than pie in the sky pipe dreams by idiots who have no clue how they are going to do this. Dream on boys, let me know when you have a business plan I can laugh at.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      I think Uber knows exactly what they're doing. And it's not building an air taxi, it's preparing a multi-media prospectus for investors who have begun to realize that Uber will never be profitable with their current services, but aren't willing to write it off yet.

      "You've wasted billions on what we're doing now and will never get a penny of it back, but if you just invest a few billion more, we'll come up with a completely different, and far more impossible, idea that will fix it all! We promise!"

      Uber is ba

    • If the world listened to /. then all sorts of modern technology wouldn't exist. We wouldn't have rockets that could land upright or electric cars with 250+ mile range or [frankly] smartphones.

      In many ways it is easier to make a pilot-less plane than it is to make a driver-less car, and there are plenty of smart people working on both. They are both going to happen.

      • I never said it would never happen, I'm saying Uber won't be the company that does it.

        I'm also going to say that nobody who does this will use it for a taxi service because there isn't enough money in it.

        Total automation of a human rated flying system is going to be very expensive to develop and use. This is because of how much risk management will be required by the regulatory authority (the FAA). Proving the technology will take decades of work to make possible, both with the regulatory authority, th

  • This looks very similar to Tesla's renderings of a vertical takeoff and landing vehicle.
    Now if they both control it autonomously AND power it wirelessly as he envisioned.
    If you ever think you have a new invention, Tesla probably already invented it... who knows what stuff he had in his 80 trunks full of notebooks.

  • Taxis pick people up where they are, and drop them where they want to go.

    Buses pick people up from bus stations and drop them off at bus stations.

    So, not a taxi; but I guess "AirBus" is already taken, so...

  • Boring, Uber. I want a drone-style, that's been around since the 70s. Looks kind of like a Jetsons car but with 8 mini turbo props around it.

    This folding-wing BS is stupid and requires runways everywhere. Best to just fly up and land.

  • "Half the noise of a truck driving past a house." In other words, godawful noisy.

  • It's not a flying car. It's not an air taxi.

    It's a bilking machine, designed solely to separate investors from their money

    Unless, perhaps, Hanlon's razor applies, and this is the product of starry-eyed app developers who think you can just scale up a Chinese quadcopter to a flight qualified passenger-carrying aircraft

  • Let's make sure that Uber doesn't identify Santa as a bearded homeless guy with a shopping cart.

  • The video appears to show macro shots of a drone-sized mock-up (I guess to make it look full-sized?), plus a bunch of renders. You can't just show footage from Avatar, then make a bunch of assertions about what your pricing for that is going to be! Maybe they hired the flat-earth steam-rocket guy onto their marketing team?

    But I liked the render of flying 2,000 feet above traffic ... it's not like that traffic surrounding the launch facility will be at all relevant to getting to the launch facility...

  • Based on this [wdfiles.com], looks like they have a working prototype.

  • So, 2'000 feet high is barely sufficient for a parachute. Thanks.

    Multiple rotors are safer than a single rotor? On which planet? Not this one. Multiple anything tends to be far less reliable than a single focus, especially with machines and even more-so with limited resources -- like weight and fuel. But also, I've yet to meet a drone with four rotors that can do anything but crash when one rotor fails. Thanks.

    Trucks certainly drive past my house, but "rarely". Residential street, ~500 homes. How ma

  • Given that it has taken some GA aircraft manufacturers a decade to go from "idea" to type certified aircraft, I don't see how Uber--who has absolutely zero track record in the airplane business--will manage to get something that is legal to fly in such a short period of time. Worse for them, the FAA is a fairly conservative bunch who are very safety focused, which means Uber may find themselves (as the new kid on the block) facing a whole bunch of questions about the new aircraft's safety, including safety

  • Yeah... like I'm going to get into any transportation method that leaves the ground from a company whose business model depends on avoiding legal responsibility for anything that happens on the trip.

  • Ha! Its all about noise.
    I don't want half a truck driving by, overhead, 200 times an hour.
    If you go UP it is because a lot of air goes DOWN, noisily. Even with a perfect zero noise propeller, the sheer volume of air is going to mean a lot of noise, and good luck with that zero noise propeller.
    Till they perfect anti-gravity() VTOL will be too noisy for common commuter use from even neighborhood Vports. Yea, every 24 seconds, sure. NIMBY

  • "Ubuntu Shows Its Flying Car Prototype"

    Which would be finalized and released exactly two years after it had a chance of being profitable or gain any appreciable Market Share.

    You know, like Ubuntu Phone...

    (sorry, a bit bitter about that. I actually wanted one).

  • We're going back to two thousand and fucking fifteen.

  • I'm excited to see R&D on flying cars, but I'm saddened that it's Uber doing it. I don't trust this company. They are far too willing to engage in unethical behavior to get the benefit of doubt.

Slashdot Top Deals

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Close