[abe]

There seem to be several flying car concepts trying to get off the ground!

http://www.volanteaircraft.com/

http://news.com.com/2300-11389_3-6040379-1.html?tag=nl

And here's the story to the above link: http://news.com.com/Flying+car+ready...3-6040007.html

http://www.21stcentury.co.uk/technol...400_skycar.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car

Not sure about THIS one, though.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/2...r_launch_site/

Do you think the idea will fly?

[wallinbl]

It's like crying wolf anymore. They've been talking about this coming soon for the last 20 years.

I wonder if the government won't regulate it into oblivion if it ever happens. They'll panic about having people flying and going in whatever direction they want at whatever (low) altitude they want and they'll say it's unsafe. The first time some fool gets too close to an airport, we'll get a good old Congressional Knee Jerk that looks more like a benefit to Ford & GM than a public safety improvement.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

It's like crying wolf anymore. They've been talking about this coming soon for the last 20 years.

I wonder if the government won't regulate it into oblivion if it ever happens. They'll panic about having people flying and going in whatever direction they want at whatever (low) altitude they want and they'll say it's unsafe. The first time some fool gets too close to an airport, we'll get a good old Congressional Knee Jerk that looks more like a benefit to Ford & GM than a public safety improvement.

do you really want idiots flying over your house all day and night? dont say it wouldnt happen, it would. it would be the single most dangerous development in transportation ever. no thanks, keep it.

[macroy]

Been following Moller's developments since the mid 1990's. I like his creation the best so far, but as those before me has already pointed out - in addition to the technical challenges, it will take some major effort to create the infrastructure that is needed to support this new form of transportation.

As cool as it sounds, I definitely don't want some 90 year old or some 17 year old buzzing my neighborhood without the proper training.

And add to that: our governments can't even manage traffic on a two dimentional level (is this the right terminology?), I can't imagine them doing it on a 3 dimentional one.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by meelk

do you really want idiots flying over your house all day and night? dont say it wouldnt happen, it would. it would be the single most dangerous development in transportation ever. no thanks, keep it.

Do you really enjoy sitting in traffic every morning and evening? Maybe your area is better, but where I live, traffic sucks. The idea that we're going to bound ourselves to ground transportation forever is ridiculous. The safety issues will get worked out, and we'll be fine. Don't you think that people flipped out about the danger of cars when they first came out?

I say make it safe, and then let's get to it. At the very least, I'd like an amphibious vehicle - my route to work is a large L because I'm driving around a bay. It'd be great to just cut straight across it.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by macroy

Been following Moller's developments since the mid 1990's. I like his creation the best so far, but as those before me has already pointed out - in addition to the technical challenges, it will take some major effort to create the infrastructure that is needed to support this new form of transportation.

About the Moller car--looks good, doesn't fly. I wouldn't worry about that infrastructure just now.

Chris

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

I say make it safe, and then let's get to it. At the very least, I'd like an amphibious vehicle - my route to work is a large L because I'm driving around a bay. It'd be great to just cut straight across it.

There ya go: http://www.gibbstech.co.uk/

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by abe

There seem to be several flying car concepts trying to get off the ground!

Yeah, with emphasis on TRYING.

Getting off the ground would really be a step forward.

-t

[Super Mario]

For security reasons flying cars will only ever be driven by the very rich, the very powerful and emergency services.

[abe]

Well, the infrastructure is already close to being ready. The Highway in the Sky (HITS) technology has already reached general aviation instruments!

Flying Cars Ready To Take Off
April 17, 2005

(CBS) Have you ever dreamt about the day you can buzz around in your very own flying machine? Well, that day may be sooner than you think.

The folks at NASA have built something called “The Highway in the Sky.” It's a computer system designed to let millions of people fly whenever they please, and take off and land from wherever they please, in their very own vehicles.

And here’s the good news -- a lot of people are building machines you’ll be
able to buy.

One of those people is an inventor named Woody Norris. This week, he will receive America’s top prize for invention. It’s called the Lemelson-MIT award -- a half-million dollar cash prize to honor his life’s work, which includes a brand new personal flying machine. Correspondent Bob Simon reports.

It's called the AirScooter, and self-taught inventor Woody Norris says it goes on sale later this year.

Norris, 66, asked one of his test pilots to demonstrate the AirScooter for 60 Minutes on a hilltop outside San Diego, Calif. It can fly for 2 hours at 55 mph, and go up to 10,000 feet above sea level.

"Look how quickly it stops, hovers, sideways, sideways, straight down," Norris tells Simon.

Everything is controlled from the motorcycle-like handle bar. Push it forward and the two counter-rotating blades pivot forward. Push it back and it goes back. Norris says you won’t need a pilot’s license if you fly it under 400 feet in non-restricted air space. And he’s going to sell it for $50,000.

A lot of inventors have tried to cash in on personal flying machines. One, built in 1956, was known as Molt Taylor’s Aerocar. You could detach the wings and haul them behind you. But they failed to catch on because they were too expensive and hard to fly in bad weather.

More important, there was no way to really manage all the potential traffic from millions of them buzzing around -- that is, until now. And that’s because NASA has come up with a plan to make personal flying machines a reality.

Bruce Holmes is one of NASA’s chief strategists and has served in the White House, where he worked on the future of aviation. He showed Simon a flight simulator, a new computer system that can be put into any new airborne vehicle. He says it will make flying easy, and will manage all the new traffic up there. It’s called “The Highway in the Sky,” and here’s how it works: In a NASA animation, pilots focus on one main screen. It’s very much like a videogame. Keep the plane inside the box, away from other vehicles, and the plane’s computers automatically guide them towards their destination. They can even follow the highway down to the ground.

"What is different between what you're looking at here and what there is in a cockpit of a commercial aircraft?" asks Simon.

"Well, here's what's in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft," says Holmes. "So I can either use that to figure out where I am and how fast I should be going, and how high I should be, and all of those things, or I can look at a fairly intuitive picture of a highway in the sky."

It's a $130-million program that can also help pilots fly in bad weather. Even if it’s dark and stormy, pilots can use the screen to see what’s outside. It’s a technological breakthrough that will ultimately allow more people to fly than ever before. And NASA says it will draw on modern day satellites and global positioning systems to track the flying vehicles -- to prevent them from bumping into each other. Holmes believes all this new technology has reinvigorated the race to build the personal flying machine of tomorrow.

What kind of inventions are people working on today? "If you can imagine it, someone's trying it," says Holmes. "Everything from machines that can fly vertically that are easy to use. Easier to use. Some that can go way fast."

The Skycar is the latest attempt to build a real flying car. It's been described as a cross between a Ferrari and a Batmobile. Its inventor is Paul Moller, of Davis, Calif.

When its four sets of rotary engines tilt up, the car can blast off up into the sky. But Moller's only working prototype is tethered to a crane -- just in case it falls. Moller says the gasoline-fueled Skycar is designed to cruise at 300 mph, at an altitude of 20,000 feet.

"It's an experience like none other. I mean, it is truly the magic carpet experience," says Moller. "You get in this vehicle, there's no vibration, takes you up and what's most exciting is your kind of being lifted up from below almost like anti-gravity, and you have this perfectly smooth experience of lifting up. A real magic carpet experience."

Moller says the ride could be described as mystical. But when is this vision going to be real? "Somewhere between 10 and 15 years, you're going to see numbers of these vehicles out there being used," says Moller. "First, you're going to see them well before that in a military, paramilitary, police, drug addiction, border patrol type of capacity."For instance, Moller thinks it will be able to save people from burning buildings -- as demonstrated in his promotional video, which shows the Skycar bypassing traffic jams, extending a built-in catwalk, and ultimately saving the day.

But Moller isn't the only inventor to dream about the utility of flying vehicles. In Olney, Texas, a brand new contraption is even making cows turn their heads.

It's called the CarterCopter, and it has a large top rotor and small wings which double as fuel tanks. Propulsion is generated from the tiny secondary propeller at the rear of the plane. It can take off and land vertically like a helicopter, but can fly as fast as an airplane.

"We're doing something that a lot of people thought was impossible to do," says inventor Jay Carter, a former Bell helicopter engineer who went into business for himself. "It's the Holy Grail. You know, that has been the desire since we first started flying, to be able to take off and land vertically and then fly fast. It's going to change transportation."

And the possibilities are staggering. Instead of flying on a regular plane from JFK to LAX, the speedy CarterCopter will let you fly from a helipad in downtown New York to a helipad in downtown Los Angeles, skipping that time-consuming drive from the airport to your home.

"Even though this is a propeller driver aircraft, and we can only probably fly maybe 400 miles an hour, we can beat a jet if you talk about from point to point," says Carter. "Even if you go all the way across the United States, we can beat a jet. And when you're starting to talk about from point to point, small town to small town, and you don't have to worry about the hub, now it gets to be major!"

Carter says he will initially sell the vehicle for about $300,000. He’s even got plans to give his next prototype, which appears in his promotional video, the ability to fold up its wings and drive off like a car.

If you’re interested in something smaller than the CarterCopter, visit Acampo, Calif. A bizarre looking contraption called the Springtail is the jetpack for the 21st century. It’s a million-dollar prototype that flies using two large ducted fans. Harry Falk and his team at Trek Aerospace are still testing its vertical abilities. And to protect their investment, they’ve also tethered it to a crane. When it takes off, it’s loud and generates a lot of wind, but the team says it’s designed to fly for two hours, at 90 mph, at an altitude of 400 feet.

"Clearly, we've caught a wave of the future," says Falk. "NASA's building the 'Highway in the Sky' program is really what develops the infrastructure for us to be able to put these things in the air and fly them safely."

The Springtail is still experimental, which means Simon is not allowed to fly it. But he thought he'd ask anyways.

Falk showed Simon where the starter button was.

"So I could start it now?" asks Simon.

"It would start," says Falk.

"It would start," says Simon. "You look a little nervous when you say that."

"Yeah, you have your finger on the button," says Falk, laughing. "Of course, I'm nervous."

Although Falk was nervous, AirScooter inventor Woody Norris was eager for Simon to fly. Norris arranged for Simon to take his $50,000 invention out for a spin. First, his team tied the machine down to the ground. They didn’t want Simon flying away forever, until he felt comfortable taking off evenly.

Norris says it takes just a few hours to master. "We wish you luck," he says.

On Simon's first try, he lifted off, but couldn't hold it even. So he tried again, and again. On his tenth attempt, he finally did it.

"That was wonderful," says Norris. "That was amazing. I was pretty impressed for how fast you acquired your skill."

"I'm pretty impressed you built this gizmo," says Simon.

"Well, a lot of people are involved here," says Norris.

Norris, like many of the inventors that 60 Minutes met, believes today’s planes and jets will ultimately become relics – and that “The Highway in the Sky” will be filled with flying machines that we can’t even begin to imagine.

"This stuff that we're surrounded by, that we think is so cool is caveman," says Norris. "The good stuff is coming. The really good stuff is coming."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in688454.shtml

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by chabig

About the Moller car--looks good, doesn't fly. I wouldn't worry about that infrastructure just now.
Chris

The moller does fly, There are vids on there site, the thinghas to be tethered to a crane due to the lack of FAA certification.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Do you really enjoy sitting in traffic every morning and evening? Maybe your area is better, but where I live, traffic sucks. The idea that we're going to bound ourselves to ground transportation forever is ridiculous. The safety issues will get worked out, and we'll be fine. Don't you think that people flipped out about the danger of cars when they first came out?

I say make it safe, and then let's get to it. At the very least, I'd like an amphibious vehicle - my route to work is a large L because I'm driving around a bay. It'd be great to just cut straight across it.

answer: move. I dont sit in traffic anywhere. its your own fault if you live in or near a city and have to wait in traffic.

[meelk]

I think most of you are ignoring not only general safety concerns, but the fact that anyone with an average flying car could fly a bomb into the white house. Itll never happen, so get over it.

[production_coordinator]

Considering the fuel needed, the potential for catastrophic disasters, etc. I don't think they will ever fly beyond a rich person's dream.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by abe

http://www.21stcentury.co.uk/technol...400_skycar.asp

I couldn't get beyond the grammar error in the third sentence to read any further: "thanks to one mans' vision."

Ugh.

[abe]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I couldn't get beyond the grammar error in the third sentence to read any further: "thanks to one mans' vision."

Ugh.

Well, I bet John John could have read it alright. And we know about HIS piloting skills. I hope your interest in flight is only that of a passenger's enthusiasm. No offense intended.

[abe]

Here's a very brief video of an unsuccessful test flight of one flying car prototype.

http://alexisparkinn.com/photogaller...4_car_drop.MOV

[meelk]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Considering the fuel needed, the potential for catastrophic disasters, etc. I don't think they will ever fly beyond a rich person's dream.

the only real use I see out of it is for Police, Fire Fighters, and Emergency Services. All those things would actually be beneficial to society.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Considering the fuel needed, the potential for catastrophic disasters, etc. I don't think they will ever fly beyond a rich person's dream.

I bet that people were saying similar things about the automobile in the 1800's.

Here are some famous quotes:

There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable.

With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big slice of the US market.

This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication.

Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.

The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?

Who wants to hear actors talk?

The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.

[meelk]

you can call up any pathetic saying you want. its not a matter of IF its possible, its a matter of having every moron who runs the road dangerously right now given the capacity to cause even more harm. There are any huge number of problems with this concept.

It amazes me that so many of you live in a fantasy land where this is probable. As if idiots talking on their cell phones while driving arent bad enough, you now want them to fly. Everything is "me me me" in this thread without regard for reality. What right does the guy who drives around a bay have to fly over it instead and fly over people houses in the process? Who rescues this guy when his car cuts out half way and he plunges into the water? What makes any of you think that the wide variety of people who cant even play Nintendo, and get sea sick will be able to fly a car?
In short, how do you people function in reality when all you see is what you want instead of what is logical?

[Todd Madson]

I've actually got the Moller Skycar for X-Plane and it flies very well believe it or not.

If the real thing flies as well it will be good but there are daunting technical
challenges and this is no means going to replace a subcompact car, it will
be expensive.

Also, the regulation of such a vehicle will be considerable - like another
poster said - it can fly but they have to have it tethered to a crane so it
can stay inside a particular area.

Interestingly, the government wants to buy larger versions of it as a
troop transport.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I bet that people were saying similar things about the automobile in the 1800's.

Here are some famous quotes:

Famous quotes bull. Computers, radios, wireless music players, actor yadda yadda goo ga can't be flown into buildings or fall on a crowded street to kill hundreds.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Super Mario

Famous quotes bull. Computers, radios, wireless music players, actor yadda yadda goo ga can't be flown into buildings or fall on a crowded street to kill hundreds.

Kinda like how a car doing 55 is far more deadly than a horse and buggy? Like, 40+ thousand people a year deadly.

…and last time I checked airplanes fly over our country constantly…and kill hundreds at a time when they fail…

Your short-sightedness is astounding.

[iREZ]

would it be possible to have roads that were positively charged and make the entire car bottom positively charged as well...then it would float and all you'd need is some sort of propulsion, no? just a thought.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Kinda like how a car doing 55 is far more deadly than a horse and buggy? Like, 40+ thousand people a year deadly.

…and last time I checked airplanes fly over our country constantly…and kill hundreds at a time when they fail…

Car related deaths are already higher than plane related deaths. But hey I am short sighted visionary so let's put cars up in the air too and increase the number of flying related deaths along with street level deaths and increase chances of terrorism too. The only way flying cars will work without drunken drivers and terrorists killing people is with an autopilot but that can be hacked so back to square one = only for emergency services and the very rich who have an interest to stay alive

[Rumor]

Most people cannot drive the vehicles that we have currently. Flying vehicles, while a great concept, would cause more accidents and deaths than what it's worth.

[abe]

Surface to Air
Many motorists stuck in traffic jams might wish they were James Bond. The fictional secret agent hero would surely just pull a mini-helicopter out of his car trunk to beat the jam.

Mathias Klug, an aircraft instructor from a small town in western Germany, doesn't quite have Bond's resources, but he is a step nearer than most - he has developed the only vehicle in Europe to gain a road as well as an aircraft license.

In technical terms it's called hybrid plane, but its inventor simply calls it his flying car. For the Skyline Event Ground Tracking System flies like a conventional ultra-light aircraft and drives almost like a normal car.

The machine was conceived mainly for ultra-light aircraft pilots in Germany who want to remain mobile even when they have reached their flight destination.

With just a few adjustments, they can remove the light, 11.5-metre wings from the two-seater plane and start their reconnaissance trip by land.

Later, they simply return to the airstrip, stick the wings back in their sockets and within a few minutes they are ready for take-off again.

Klug and his mechanic Peter Weyer used an ultra-light plane powered by its weight as the technical basis for the Skyline Event. This aircraft already has the basic requirements for road use because an ultra-light can move from the aircraft hangar to the take-off strip under its own steam.

But a great many changes had to be made before the flying machine could take to the open road.

The plastic material body work was reshaped and widened, the controls were expanded and the undercarriage adjusted for the new tasks.

The German road vehicle testing authority and the licensing authority also demanded front headlamps, indicators and rear lamps, as well as a stable framework and a stronger braking system. They were also unhappy about the large propeller on the tail.

Klug therefore put a protective cover over the rotor blades and considered some alternatives. He chose a scooter engine with a back wheel drive. It has only 8 HP, but is still big enough for the plane which weighs less than 200 kilos.

With this engine, the Skyline Event can reach a speed of 50 km per hour on the ground. If you turn the tail switch to the air traffic mode, the two-cylinder, two-stroke engine achieves 64 HP, making it possible to reach an air speed of 129 kmph.

After the road vehicle testing authority and the German transport ministry had given the green light, the ultra-light also passed its individual inspection. In August this year, it finally received its official stamp from the licensing authority.

All a driver needs to take it on the open road is an ordinary private car driving license and a helmet, although no safety belt is necessary.

To take it in the air, you need an ultra-light pilot's license, which can be obtained after a six-month training period.

Klug said the Skyline Event will only go into serial production if he receives at least 10 orders.

It would cost around DM 90,000 (around $50,850), which is not a vast sum considering a normal ultra-light plane costs between DM 50,000 and 100,000 ($28,250 and $56,500). After all, it offers customers a car and a plane rolled into one.

http://airsports.fai.org/mar98/mar98air.html

[iLikebeer]

Our ATC facilities are still using technology from the 60's and 70's. Imagine a city like Los Angeles during rush hour. Computers aren't fast enough for HITS to update fast enough to keep collisions from happening with hundreds of thousands of neighbors taking off at the same time. Thousands would die daily if this happened in the next 20 years.

Now think about all those people that don't get an oil change until their car is barely running, skycars would be falling out of the sky left and right, not even counting the occasional idiots you see run out of gas on the side of the road. Our school does maintenance every 50 hours on our planes and we still occasionally have mechanical problems and even electronic problems. No problem, a plane can glide and pilots are trained for that. Regular Joe will crash and take others out with him, besides the chance of a collision when the avionics stop telling everyone else their position.

Our school is testing both ADSB and HITS, they're cool and will make things better, but they aren't ready for millions of aircraft in the sky at once. ADSB gets crowded on a screen with a dozen planes in the air, let alone this dream.

If you want a metaphor that fits this situation, remember in the 50's, 60's, and 70's when Cessnas were selling like hotcakes and everyone would soon have a plane in the garage. Never happened. Only the rich own planes now, and everyone else rents. Besides, how many people could afford the gas to fly to work or the grocery store or who knows where. This is worse than people that drive to their neighbor's house that live down the block.

Who would need 4th of July when you could just go outside and see random fireballs in the sky nonstop?

[abe]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Our ATC facilities are still using technology from the 60's and 70's. Imagine a city like Los Angeles during rush hour. Computers aren't fast enough for HITS to update fast enough to keep collisions from happening with hundreds of thousands of neighbors taking off at the same time. Thousands would die daily if this happened in the next 20 years.

Now think about all those people that don't get an oil change until their car is barely running, skycars would be falling out of the sky left and right, not even counting the occasional idiots you see run out of gas on the side of the road. Our school does maintenance every 50 hours on our planes and we still occasionally have mechanical problems and even electronic problems. No problem, a plane can glide and pilots are trained for that. Regular Joe will crash and take others out with him, besides the chance of a collision when the avionics stop telling everyone else their position.

Our school is testing both ADSB and HITS, they're cool and will make things better, but they aren't ready for millions of aircraft in the sky at once. ADSB gets crowded on a screen with a dozen planes in the air, let alone this dream.

If you want a metaphor that fits this situation, remember in the 50's, 60's, and 70's when Cessnas were selling like hotcakes and everyone would soon have a plane in the garage. Never happened. Only the rich own planes now, and everyone else rents. Besides, how many people could afford the gas to fly to work or the grocery store or who knows where. This is worse than people that drive to their neighbor's house that live down the block.

Who would need 4th of July when you could just go outside and see random fireballs in the sky nonstop?

You are transposing an accelerated view of the proliferation of skycars against a primitive HITS/ADSB technology that will advance and be refined as more users develop. And as for the typical failures of auto operators transferring to the new skycar pilots, wouldn't that be like saying the automobile drivers will have the same problems as the horse and buggy drivers.

There certainly will be an element of human error but I think people will quickly come to recognize that the mindset which would only result in inconvenience for an auto driver will be a fatal faux pas in a sky car.

In fact, once the number began to increase the sky car mfrs might develop a fail safe system which physically prevents operating a craft that might fall from the sky.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by abe

You are transposing an accelerated view of the proliferation of skycars against a primitive HITS/ADSB technology that will advance and be refined as more users develop. And as for the typical failures of auto operators transferring to the new skycar pilots, wouldn't that be like saying the automobile drivers will have the same problems as the horse and buggy drivers.

There certainly will be an element of human error but I think people will quickly come to recognize that the mindset which would only result in inconvenience for an auto driver will be a fatal faux pas in a sky car.

In fact, once the number began to increase the sky car mfrs might develop a fail safe system which physically prevents operating a craft that might fall from the sky.

Not in our lifetimes. When a car fails, you pull over to the curb and get out. When a plane with no wings that lands vertically fails, you fall out of the sky and die. Both cars and horse and buggies don't battle with gravity.

They also don't need a computer to keep them from running into hundreds of thousands or even millions of other aircraft. They make the road, they paint the white lines, it's precomputed. You stay between the white lines and they take you thousands of miles to the other side of the continent if you like. No problem at all. HITS would have to calculate the climb, acceleration, takeoff points, landing points, flight plans, etc from an insanely high amount of aircraft all at once and keep them from colliding.

Airports nowadays have it easy compared to this. All aircraft take off and land from a few runways in a specific spot. The system in place can barely take care of doing this w/out worrying about 10 people on the same street within a quarter mile of each other both taking off AND landing at the same time. Just to program something capable of this would take decades, let alone making sure every bug in the software is taken care of. HITS cannot do this on the scale you are thinking of. The FAA is worried as it is with light jets getting ready to hit the scene.

Then there's the economic factor. General Aviation insurance rates are very high, gas is expensive (especially for this kind of aircraft), maintenance would be more than most people spend on rent or mortgage per year, not enough AMT people around, the Aviation Trust Fund that pays for all the HITS, ADSB, ATC, airports, and all the other aviation funds is being raided by Congress to pay for "other things". This just isn't financially viable.

Add to that drunk drivers, people that won't stick to weight and balance, and dumb people. All the above equals expensive death.

I know GPS isn't up to this right now, even with ground based GPS transmitters. Does anyone know how many targets the best available radar can currently track? Isn't Aegis limited to 300 targets? Just go outside and look at all the houses in your neighborhood. Then imagine just 1 in 10 of them having an aircraft taking off and accelerating to 300 knots (depending on kind of airspeed, roughly anywhere from 350-450mph) and tell me you think that would really work. Maybe in Oklahoma or Nevada, but not near any major cities.

[smacintush]

In the early, early days of the airplane did the public ever even dream of airplanes being as safe as they are today or being used the way we use them?

The whole point of my posting the quotes is that people are often horrible at predicting where technology will lead. You act as if it is nearly impossible to make these things practical and safe. Yeah, RIGHT NOW. Just as the scientist of the 50's could never even dream of portable home computer being possible, let alone practical and usable, you can't even imagine how these things could work safely.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by smacintush

In the early, early days of the airplane did the public ever even dream of airplanes being as safe as they are today or being used the way we use them?

The whole point of my posting the quotes is that people are often horrible at predicting where technology will lead. You act as if it is nearly impossible to make these things practical and safe. Yeah, RIGHT NOW. Just as the scientist of the 50's could never even dream of portable home computer being possible, let alone practical and usable, you can't even imagine how these things could work safely.

Yes, it is nearly impossible to make these things practical and safe. Right now and for at least the next 50 years.

ADSB is awesome, it's like your god's eye view of everything situational awareness. It gives you weather, terrain, charts, aircraft around you, and everything else you could need in your area for the next 50-100 miles. It costs $50,000 an install.
HITS is pretty cool too. It shows you exactly where you need to be going in the short term. You fly through the boxes and you'll be safe according to what the instruments tell it.

These 2 technologies are great and are a step in the right direction for what you're thinking of. Here's an analogy for you. Right now, we read the instruments individually and fly based off of those, like using a terminal window. ADSB and HITS are sort of a graphical user interface that is overlaid from that basic information, maybe a Mac 1.0 or beta software before the Lisa came out. You're expecting Artificial Intelligence kind of performance out of technology that simply isn't there and might never be in our lifetimes or even our children's lifetimes.

Flying cars might happen, but they'll be limited to a few thousand here and there and will be expensive. I don't know where you get the idea these will be for the masses. Cars haven't even come down in price and the level of reliability has to be a lot lower with them, not to mention the expense of parts to make a 300knot vertical takeoff aircraft.

Besides all the other millions of reasons this won't work, the biggest ones are noise abatement and the airlines. Everyone wants an airport close, but no one wants one near their neighborhood because they make a lot of noise. It's almost impossible to get new airports built because people don't want that near them. Imagine everyone's driveways being a miniature airport. Screw that, I don't want to hear the whine of the engines as all the people in my apartment complex go to work at 5am. These won't even be allowed in any cities.

And if by some miracle, this happens in the next 100 years, you can bet on the airlines fighting it. 1, nobody would fly using airlines if we all had our own personal flying machines that could get us there fast enough, so you know their politicians won't be liking that. 2, there's only so much room at the flight levels, airlines are already battling to keep the light jets from sharing the flight levels.

ATC hasn't even been updated in 30-40 years, where is the money going to come from for this fantastic system that can handle hundreds of thousands of these aircraft in dense urban populations?

And lastly, physics. Where is this magic increase in practicality going to come from? You go faster, you use more power. More power means more fuel. Parasite drag increases with the square of velocity. You double speed, you quadruple the drag. You're also using the engines for lift. These things are going to be at least 10 times the fuel hogs that modern cars are. Just because you wish or hope something really hard doesn't make it feasible. Flying cars are a pipe dream.

I'd rather see us start an O'Neill Ring around the earth than waste government money on this before it's ready. We'll have fusion, space elevators, and a moon base before this kind of tech becomes widespread.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

The moller does fly, There are vids on there site, the thinghas to be tethered to a crane due to the lack of FAA certification.

The car hovers in ground effect just off the ground. It doesn't really "fly". The inventor claims it can cruise 350 knots at 30,000 feet. He just has to get about 29980 feet higher and gain about 345 knots.

Chris