"Flying Car" drives me crazy. The requirements of flight and road travel are enormously exclusive.
I'm super excited about the new possibilities personal, local flight enabled by all the developing tech like batteries, multi-rotors, controllers, peer-to-peer and ADS-B. That type of craft will go a long way to diminishing the needs for roads and parking lots.
Those requirements are not enormously exclusive. It's only bad when you also require low cost and minimal training. (avoiding: turbine, complex aircraft, high stall speed, high performance, pressurized, etc.)
Consider a lifting body like the Martin X-24A. It's a decent car shape that has been tested to 1036 MPH (1667 km/h, Mach 1.6). Add the engine and lift fan system used in the F-35B VTOL aircraft, and you have more than enough power for high-speed flight. You won't even need a runway.
There are two possibilities when it comes to making a flying car viable
1. Use fossil fuels even less efficiently because now not only does your vehicle have to move forward, it now has to keep itself in the sky.
2. Use electric motors which are already hard enough to sell in cars because they don't give as much range, and then put them in an application where, again, they have to keep something in the sky.
It's just not feasible, along with all the other requirements for training, storage/landing area, etc...
There is no form of transportation that cannot be materially improved by the addition of some form of catapult or ballistic delivery -- including catapults themselves.
I think there may be a niche market of adventurous people with way too much money. Whether that market is large enough for one manufacturer, let alone zillions (e.g. https://www.beautifullife.info/automotive-design/10-real-fly...) is questionable, though.
The fundamental problem is always weight, which is why making a vehicle that encloses the rider like a car can only be efficient if it's sufficiently large to amortize the costs. I think the solution is flying motorcycles, which already exist in the form of paramotors and gyrocopters. Then the problem is that you're so light that stability and safety in wind is a problem. Despite their availability, i havent heard of anyone commuting to work via paramotor.
> Despite their availability, i havent heard of anyone commuting to work via paramotor.
I suspect that has more to do with the FAA taking less than kindly to flying ultralights over "congested areas" (I don't know if powered parasails / hang gliders are subject to the same restriction). If I could fly to work I would in a heartbeat.
Article proves your point though. 10 miles in 30 minutes, required licensing, flight clearances, only works in very light wind, and requires total concentration the whole time. And then he carries the equipment once he lands in what must be a very heavy "briefcase."
Seems fun once or twice, but it swaps out the inconvenience of traffic with a ton of other inconveniences.
It's a bit hyperbolic to call it a "grift." Impose enough constraints on the idea of a flying car and sure, you can achieve it without swindling. The responses here are enough to tell me that people have very different ideas of what a "flying car" really is. I can't really comment on this specifically but I don't think there's any malicious intent.
I've always felt like flying cars are a solution looking for a problem. Massive deployment of flying cars has similar problems to cars on the ground (need space to land/park, airspace isn't unlimited, humans can't be trusted to fly safely). Additionally, they don't go fast enough to glide and don't have enough rotor mass to perform an autorotation in the event of total power loss. I doubt they're viable as a method of transportation at any large scale.
EDIT: Not to mention the much worse energy efficiency - staying in the air is _expensive_.
Is it just me or do those wings look comically undersized given how small the engine is?
And I can't picture how you're ever going to land this thing with basically no travel in the landing gear and the wings inches from the surface. I'd like to see a 1:3 model land a few dozen times before any human gets into one.
As much as I dream of someday being able to just buy a flying machine and go away flying it's unlikely to ever happen, not in the way these companies are envisioning it. I have this crazy vision about flying machines: Free direction takeoff. Not just horizontal takeoff; Warp drive propulsion: If lots of flying machines just fly in the same space-time plane it would become a mess, fast. Until science discover some way to warp the space/time around the machine it won't work; I'm talking hundreds of years till we get there; Guess my imagination is pretty fertile;
The dream of the flying car isn't being able to drive and store a plane, its being able to leave your garage and land at work or get groceries. This means that vertical take off and landing, easy safe controls, and accessible pricing. There are huge challenges in each of those areas to overcome. This solution solves none of those.
Its still a really cool iteration of single engine planes. Easier/cheaper to store, uses gas, drive after landing. Just not at all a flying car in soul.
Tricycle layout (2 wheels in back, 1 in front) cars have always cornered poorly compared to the reverse. I honestly don't know why this is, but it would be a concern for me with this vehicle.
Calling it a flying car seems to be triggering a lot of misunderstanding. It's not really a flying car, it's more of a driving airplane, but I guess that doesn't get as much attention.
You're not going to use this for commuting from the suburbs, but for midrange travel and/or those inclined to general aviation, there's a lot of use to an aircraft that isn't confined to the airport.
37 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 87.3 ms ] threadI'm super excited about the new possibilities personal, local flight enabled by all the developing tech like batteries, multi-rotors, controllers, peer-to-peer and ADS-B. That type of craft will go a long way to diminishing the needs for roads and parking lots.
Consider a lifting body like the Martin X-24A. It's a decent car shape that has been tested to 1036 MPH (1667 km/h, Mach 1.6). Add the engine and lift fan system used in the F-35B VTOL aircraft, and you have more than enough power for high-speed flight. You won't even need a runway.
Yawn.
I was more excited about the Faraday electric commuter bike I saw at a bike rack today: https://www.faradaybikes.com/product/cortland/
Practical, fun, reasonably priced, and viable now for a whole heck of a lot more people than flying cars!
Why the hard angles on the tail wing attachment? Seems like it's just begging to get ripped off in turbulence.
There are two possibilities when it comes to making a flying car viable
1. Use fossil fuels even less efficiently because now not only does your vehicle have to move forward, it now has to keep itself in the sky.
2. Use electric motors which are already hard enough to sell in cars because they don't give as much range, and then put them in an application where, again, they have to keep something in the sky.
It's just not feasible, along with all the other requirements for training, storage/landing area, etc...
* Rocket not included. Your millage is guaranteed unlimited after the first 30 minutes. Prone to rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Atlantic presents Inter Continental Ballistic Car (ICBC).
Travel from NYC to London in a less than 20mins strapped on top of rockets that were designed to carry Nukes. What can go wrong?
(sorry couldn't help)
Nets are important.
I suspect that has more to do with the FAA taking less than kindly to flying ultralights over "congested areas" (I don't know if powered parasails / hang gliders are subject to the same restriction). If I could fly to work I would in a heartbeat.
Well, now you have:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/paramotor-daredevil...
Article proves your point though. 10 miles in 30 minutes, required licensing, flight clearances, only works in very light wind, and requires total concentration the whole time. And then he carries the equipment once he lands in what must be a very heavy "briefcase."
Seems fun once or twice, but it swaps out the inconvenience of traffic with a ton of other inconveniences.
EDIT: Not to mention the much worse energy efficiency - staying in the air is _expensive_.
And I can't picture how you're ever going to land this thing with basically no travel in the landing gear and the wings inches from the surface. I'd like to see a 1:3 model land a few dozen times before any human gets into one.
Its still a really cool iteration of single engine planes. Easier/cheaper to store, uses gas, drive after landing. Just not at all a flying car in soul.
Hmm... back in 2017, they were "hoping to make the first flight by the end of [that] year". https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/samson-motorworks-swi...
So how long has that FAQ entry been in place, I wonder?
You're not going to use this for commuting from the suburbs, but for midrange travel and/or those inclined to general aviation, there's a lot of use to an aircraft that isn't confined to the airport.
No.
Do I see a realistic need for a flying taxi?
No.
Are normal small existing planes to maintain quite expensive in Germany?
Yes.
Is it realistic that this financial overhead is feasible for all those people actually living under those airways which would make sense?
No.
Do we as a society and not super rich want that?
No.