Airbus Steps Up Push for Flying Taxis, On-Demand Helicopters (bloomberg.com) 132
The future of transportation may not be on the roads but the skies. That might not be a reality quite yet but Airbus is taking it seriously. The company is settng up a division for flying cars and on-demand taxis. From a report: Airbus SE is creating a division to oversee futuristic transport options such as flying taxis and on-demand helicopters in a sign the European planemaker is going on the offensive against tech providers and startups encroaching in the market. The manufacturer named company veteran Eduardo Dominguez Puerta, 40, on Monday to head its newly formed Urban Air Mobility unit. Puerta helped start the firm's innovation center in Silicon Valley, where he served as chief operating officer. Projects that will be overseen by the division include an autonomous flying cab prototype called CityAirbus, an electric flying taxi named Vahana and Voom, billed by Airbus as a premier on-demand helicopter booking platform. Ride-hailing app creator Uber Technologies and startup Kitty Hawk, backed by Google's co-founder Larry Page, are also working to develop airborne taxis.
What flying cars? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What flying cars? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Such things do not exist. We have had helicopters for a few decades now, some ridiculous contraptions with folding wings, and jetpacks. But, not flying cars."
From TFS, "The future of transportation may not be on the roads but the skies. That might not be a reality quite yet but Airbus is taking it seriously."
That's been covered already.
"We do not have the technology for that, and we are not likely to have it any time soon. So please stop pushing this flying cars nonsense."
The Harrier Jump Jet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) has been around for over half a century. The technology for flying cars is well within reach. The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership of such vehicles and figuring out a way to make mass aerial transit not the massive hazard it potentially is.
No we will not have a flying car (Score:5, Insightful)
The Harrier Jump Jet has been around for over half a century. The technology for flying cars is well within reach
Sigh... I don't know if you are trolling or stupid. We do not have any technology (nor any reasonably likely near term technology) for power sources with sufficient power density (power to weight) to enable a usable flying car. If you think any part of that sentence is wrong then you do not adequately understand physics enough to be a part of this conversation.
The Harrier jet in no way shape or form resembles a flying car nor is the technology in a Harrier jet scalable down to enable one. Do you have any idea how big one of these things is? How much fuel it consumes? Do you comprehend how much maintenance there is for such a device? How much infrastructure is required to maintain one? Where do you plan to land it aside from an airport? Why not save money and just buy/rent a plane and a car both of which can do more and cost less? This is not technology that can be scaled down to the size of a family sedan even if we ignore the legion of other problems. Your argument is as absurd as saying we're going to have a moon colony soon because we've managed to have a few men walk there.
The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership of such vehicles and figuring out a way to make mass aerial transit not the massive hazard it potentially is.
Ok you are actually retarded if you think it's that simple. Here are just a few of the showstopper problems preventing flying cars. This list isn't even close to complete but every item on it is a showstopper.
1) No power source with adequate power to weight ratio nor any prospect of one
2) No adequately robust navigation/piloting system for aerial transit by non-pilots
3) Very few people are adequately trained pilots
4) No infrastructure for takeoff/landing anywhere except existing airports
5) It's cheaper to have a plane and a car than one that does both
6) A purpose built plane or car will outperform a vehicle that does both
7) No obvious economic problem solved by a flying car
8) Any vehicle light enough to get off the ground is too fragile to endure traveling on the ground
9) Enormous and unresolved liability issues in the event of accidents
10) Cost of fuel will be prohibitive for anyone but the richest of individuals
11) Cost of maintenance will be prohibitive
Re: (Score:1)
Sigh... I don't know if you are trolling or stupid. We do not have any technology (nor any reasonably likely near term technology) for power sources with sufficient power density (power to weight) to enable a usable flying car.
First, the article doesn't even mention "flying cars". Besides which, every pedant on Slashdot wants to interpret the word "car" in the most inflexible way possible, where "car = automobile". Think instead "smallish simple to operate vehicle for transporting a small number of humans".
you do not adequately understand physics enough to be a part of this conversation
Maybe Airbus understands a little about physics and thinks the general ideas talked about in the Bloomberg article are worth researching.
Read the thread before responding (Score:1)
First, the article doesn't even mention "flying cars".
No but some of the more ridiculous responses did mention flying cars. Flying cars are a stupid idea that needs to be stomped out. Please do try to keep up.
Besides which, every pedant on Slashdot wants to interpret the word "car" in the most inflexible way possible, where "car = automobile". Think instead "smallish simple to operate vehicle for transporting a small number of humans".
Nice attempt to move the goalposts. Define the word "car" to be vague enough to mean whatever idiotic thing you want it to mean. By that logic the a Soyuz capsule is a "flying car". A flying car is a simple thing enough idea. It is vehicle that can both A) fly and B) drive legally on existing roads. Technically vehicles devices do actually exist bu
Re: (Score:2)
"Sigh... I don't know if you are trolling or stupid."
That's nice, after reading your post I know for certain that you're an asshole.
"1) No power source with adequate power to weight ratio nor any prospect of one"
This is your only valid point. I absently didn't think about fuel when I made my post.
See above for what I think of people who resort to childish name calling because some one made a mistake.
"2) No adequately robust navigation/piloting system for aerial transit by non-pilots"
I covered this here "and
Re: (Score:2)
So, you ARE stupid and an asshole. Confirmed. Wrong on every single point. That's amazing.
You should talk to anybody who maintains a private pilot license. Sure it isn't that high compared to a VTOL military aircraft, but 10k$us/year to fly enough hours to maintain proficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what freaking computers are for. That's the only way it would work in Jetsons-crowded skies anyway. Punch in a destination and sit back.
I'm waiting for large drone things.
Just stop (Score:4, Insightful)
That's nice, after reading your post I know for certain that you're an asshole.
Grow up. If you post something that stupid and easily disproved be prepared to take some heat for it. Honestly I still don't know if you are an idiot or a troll so I'm not going to respond after this.
This is your only valid point. I absently didn't think about fuel when I made my post.
If you think that is the only valid point then you don't understand what you are talking about.
I covered that here. "The only obstacles we have are scaling prices down to reasonable levels for civilian ownership of such vehicles"
That claim is preposterously wrong. We don't have the technology nor any plausible means to develop such technology within our lifetime. The physics doesn't work and the economics of it don't work. Unless you have a design for Tony Stark's arc reactor that you are hiding you aren't going to see a flying car any time soon.
I used the Harrier as an example as it can take off and land vertically.
And it was a stupid example. Harrier VTOL technology cannot practically be used elsewhere. It's akin to saying we should start transporting cargo via scaled down Saturn V rockets instead of using cargo ships. If it were economically practical to scale down for civilian use it would have been already.
Roads cost money. Traffic costs money.
The roads already exist and so does the infrastructure to handle them. Whether you understand it or not you are suggesting ripping out a huge portion of that for no apparent economic benefit. If you can actually develop a practical flying car then you can argue with me about the economics of overhauling our entire road system.
I don't think you are aware of how much planes weigh. A fully loaded Cessna weighs 2,550 lb which is the weight of a small car and that's not a heavy plane by any standards.
Seriously, just stop. It's not how much the vehicle weighs. It's how much the vehicle can carry safely and how expensive it is to carry it. A fully loaded Cessna 172 has enough power to get itself aloft along with typically around 600-700lbs of cargo and/or passengers. You can put it over the weight limit with as little as three passengers and a full tank of gas in some circumstances. Even the most basic automobile sold today can safely handle more weight than that and it doesn't have to land at an airport to do it. Nor does a car have to carry around heavy and impractical wings while driving. What magical technology are you imagining that will allow you to make the vehicle robust enough to drive on a road while still remaining airworthy without using up the entire weight budget?
Maintenance isn't that high on small planes.
HAHAHAHA... You haven't ever actually owned a small plane have you? They are stupidly expensive [investopedia.com] to maintain even for a little two seat Cessna. It's not unusal for them to cost hundreds of dollars per operating hour not including the cost of the vehicle itself. Something that would be a practical flying car would cost considerably more unless you invoke science fiction level advances in our technology.
Re: (Score:2)
"Grow up. If you post something that stupid and easily disproved be prepared to take some heat for it. Honestly I still don't know if you are an idiot or a troll so I'm not going to respond after this."
Hahaha. I love being trolled by some one who feels so righteous in regards to what they are doing. "Address some one civilly!? It's my God given right to be a rude asshole!".
"Grow up", man that makes me laugh. When has childish name calling ever been a virtue of adulthood?
The rest of your posts seem to engage
Re: (Score:2)
If you could make a jet pack (with parachute backup) for maybe $10,000 or less, that could be successful. It dodges pretty much all your showstoppers except maybe energy density. If you can only fly for 5 minutes before running out of fuel that would be a problem. Noise could be another issue. But consider someone with the money to own a fairly nice motorcycle. How much more fun would it be to commute via jet pack? Going to work or anywhere would be an absolute joy.
Re: (Score:2)
The largest existing helicopters (hydrocarbon-based, presumably) can lift ten Teslas stacked on top of one another. Anything that can be done with hydrocarbons can be done for a shorter period of time with batteries, and when it comes to a flying car, you don't need to be always in the air for the design to be useful. Being able to lift off and fly for fifteen minutes over the worst section of freeway can save you an hour of dri
Re:What flying cars? (Score:5, Informative)
There are flying cars -- Google Terrafugia.for one example.
Problem is that they are expensive, require a pilots license, aren't energy efficient. They look to be mediocre aircraft and worse cars. But the prototype Terrafugia flies and drives well enough for a lot of folks to believe they will actually ship vehicles within perhaps 18 months. There are other projects, some at least somewhat credible.
It's also true that those with a money can take helicopter taxi services to a few airports -- e.g $99 for Manhattan to JFK (vs less than $10 by rail).
Personally, I suspect that the need for dedicated helipads, dubious fuel economy, questionable safety, need for Air Traffic Control on a scale many orders of magnitude greater than any ever implemented, etc are likely to keep "flying cars" pretty much a thing of the future for many decades or, quite likely, centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Flying cars will always be just for the rich, because if they ever became popular most of the advantages would go away. Air traffic can't be nearly as dense as surface traffic.
Do they not have a Z dimension where you live? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are flying cars
There are roadable planes; a "flying car" will look more like a submarine. [gannett-cdn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would say one key difference in practice is tolerance of poor maintenance.
In a car with poor maintenance and upkeep, you end up on the side of the road.
In an aircraft with poor maintenance, you die.
Of course this is not a common criteria, for flying cars people generally think about it being street legal and able to fly/land wherever. By that criteria, the helicopter can't do a grocery trip, at least not by itself, the last mile would have to be some other vehicle.
Guess the short of it is multi-motor, mu
Re: (Score:2)
That and $10/minute operating costs.
Re: (Score:2)
As a commercial helicopter pilot, I think it's pretty funny that so many people think flying cars don't exist... The helicopter I fly is an AS350-B3 Eurocopter:
There, you said it yourself: it's a helicopter, not a flying car. You are of course free to call it a flying car, but that will not change what it really is.
Re: (Score:1)
You can already do that with small propeller airplanes. Getting a licence is not that hard for a motivated terrorist. And ultralights (which nowadays are pretty similar to "real" propeller aircraft) are even easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, security is going to be a serious concern. The big problem is that a "flying car" can start its mission as a car and very likely take to the air far closer to potential targets than a conventional aircraft would be allowed to fly.
To separate fools from their money (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, Airbus is hoping to part a few "venture capitalists" and "angel investors" from their liquid funds. Not a bad idea, and probably morality-neutral since the same folks would probably otherwise "invest" their money in flying cars from firms that don't actually build flying things.
Needs special conditions to work... (Score:2)
First of all, forget "flying cars" and especially "autonomous" ones - not going to happen for decades if ever.
Helicopter "Uber", yes, they exist, but it requires special conditions....
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-... [phys.org]
"The city, which sits in a state of the same name whose population exceeds 45 million, has the biggest fleet of helicopters in the world...700 choppers, or nearly a third of Brazil's total number, are located there, alongside 528 helipads.
You would NOT get away with this today in New York, Lond
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds suspiciously like what was being said about desktop ram, oh, 40 years back.
Back when no-one would ever need more than 640K....
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, 70 years back we had a lot of assumptions and seemingly viable concepts around 'flying cars', so there's a much longer tradition of optimism exceeding reality in the case of aviation.
Re: (Score:2)
When people mock you for saying 'computer power grew exponentially, so can anything else' remember this post. You deserve the mocking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, forget "flying cars" and especially "autonomous" ones - not going to happen for decades if ever.
Actually, the autonomous operation mode solves one significant problem slowing/stopping flying cars: Can't trust the average moron to operate one without killing a bunch of people. AI removes the incompetent, untrained operator from the loop.
what about the noise??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: dirigible. Nice and quite.
Realistically speaking, an array of more numerous, yet smaller rotors may alleviate the noise and provide redundancy. This is one of the few new things that is easily done now that wasn't feasible years ago in aviation (computer assistance to translate human input into how to individually control the rotors).
Re: (Score:3)
Trebuchet and parachute can at least work in a light wind.
Electric Planes (Score:4, Interesting)
It looks like small short-range electric and hybrid fixed-wing aircraft will be the vanguard of the coming revolution in autonomous electric aircraft. Teslarati has a good rundown [teslarati.com] of the players in that space. (IMHO the all-electric Eviation prototype [flyingmag.com] is beautiful.)
The energy density of lithium cells is terrible compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but the simplicity, reliability and lower operating cost of an electric motor and batteries over a combustion engine is the driver. They might never compete with turbojets for long-distance flights, but they can still capture a large proportion of the market by dominating shorter range commutes.
Re: (Score:2)
These are really just electric airplanes, not flying cars or anything similarly revolutionary. Not that the term "flying car" is well defined, but as most people understand it a flying car needs to be able to drive on ordinary roads, and it needs to be able to take off and land without needing an airport. If you have to get in an ordinary car to drive to the place where your "flying taxi" picks you up, and then when it drops you off you need to get in another car to drive to your destination, you might as
Won't actually happen (Score:2)
Premier on-demand helicopter booking platform ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)