Flying cars to solve congestion

Flying cars are the worst idea ever.People cant even handle driving a car on the ground much less in the sky.Thnk about how the streets would have to be remade.Anyone remember The Fifth Element when Bruce Willis was flying through traffic almost wrecking every second? Heres another good example:
"Red light........hmmmm I think I'll just fly over it instead of waiting"

Moller's "Flying Car" 2007



Avro's "Flying Car" 1952



Yup we have come a LONG way...

Gota love Progress

This was a bad idea from the get go. People can't even drive land bound vehicles without getting into collisions . . .

The idea was always ridiculous to me . . .

A "maglev" system like the one in "Minority Report" is a much more viable solution to making things safer; by taking out people from the equation; and getting places faster; because a system that doesn't really on human reflexes and competency can operate as fast as the machines can.

Flying cars would be way too dangerous. People scarcely take care of their cars as is. What's going to happen when a car breaks down in mid flight and coming crashing down to the ground below??

20 years ? thats what they said 20 years ago...

The article did say they'd make a computer do most of it you know, rather than let the person do everything.

If you get a computer to do it you'd eliminate most accidents anyway. Cars rarely crash nowadays due to severe technical failure, it's mainly human error.

I agree, but computers can malfunction, what if this happens above a school full of young kids.
I just wouldn't trust a computer to do it all for me. I'd have to have control.
I even feel nervous sometimes as a passenger in a normal car with the way some people drive.

Like I said, computers are great and all, but I trust myself more so then a computer, it should be an option, not a neccesity.

Originally posted by apex
The article did say they'd make a computer do most of it you know, rather than let the person do everything.

If you get a computer to do it you'd eliminate most accidents anyway. Cars rarely crash nowadays due to severe technical failure, it's mainly human error.

Hmmm.. I wouldn't trust it hundreds of feet up in the air. For this reason..
Last year I was doing 50mph on a dual carriageway approaching a traffic island, my engine just cut out and all of the lights came on on the dashboard. The power steering went as did the brakes.. I stopped in a flower bed in the middle of the island having crossed 3 lanes of traffic narrowly missing a John Smiths Bitter Lorry. Turns out it was a 'cam sensor failure' whatever a cam sensor is. Luckily Nobody else was involved and I escaped uninjured but somewhat embarrased at the fact that i was stranded on a busy island alone!... now imagine this same kind of failure 500 feet in the air? There would be no walking out of that one.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by fiftyfifty]

Originally posted by fiftyfifty

Originally posted by apex
The article did say they'd make a computer do most of it you know, rather than let the person do everything.

If you get a computer to do it you'd eliminate most accidents anyway. Cars rarely crash nowadays due to severe technical failure, it's mainly human error.

Hmmm.. I wouldn't trust it hundreds of feet up in the air. For this reason..
Last year I was doing 50mph on a dual carriageway approaching a traffic island, my engine just cut out and all of the lights came on on the dashboard. The power steering went as did the brakes.. I stopped in a flower bed in the middle of the island having crossed 3 lanes of traffic narrowly missing a John Smiths Bitter Lorry. Turns out it was a 'cam sensor failure' whatever a cam sensor is. Luckily Nobody else was involved and I escaped uninjured but somewhat embarrased at the fact that i was stranded on a busy island alone!... now imagine this same kind of failure 500 feet in the air? There would be no walking out of that one.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by fiftyfifty]

One of many reasons I dont trust computers to do my driving for me

Right now, flying cars are simply not viable for several reasons:

1) The mechanics have not been perfected to meet FAA production and free-flight standards on any of the prototypes thus built. Moller's craft pretty much all have to fly on tethers and be marked as "Experimental". Now he's been at this for over 30 years, and has yet to get one single prototype cleared. Lack of funding? Maybe. Since he is a small-potatoes operation with no military contracting connections he doesn't get the cash companies like Raytheon and Scaled Composites do. He also doesn't carry the same clout with the FAA. But, more than that, maybe the damn things just don't work, and his constant fundraising efforts go elsewhere besides R&D.

2) FAA Certification is a long ways off. Moller has also been (supposedly) trying to get the FAA to certify his craft, but the unique characteristics require the creation of what amounts to a whole new classification of private aircraft: Vectored Thrust. This class simply does not exist at this moment. Thus, not only are there no set criteria to judge a Skycar on, there is literally no person qualified to fly one because there's no licensing class around which to set up training, testing, and personal certification.

Note that flight licensing is separated into various tiers, each requiring set standards of training. The sport and basic licenses revolve mainly around single-engine props. Multi-engine is a different classification (Moller's Skycars have eight or more separate engines--that's a required mutli-engine rating if ever I saw one), jets, helicopters, aerobatic, etc. etc.

3) Computer control may be the intent, and computer autopilot systems may be quite advanced for commercial aircraft right now, but human control is still a necessity for safe air travel.

This is especially important considering the environment in which these craft would be operating. I honestly cannot see Skycars whipping around downtown Chicago skyscrapers at high speeds, making hairpin turns, weaving around each other as they jockey for position (just as normal cars on any road do now), stopping, hovering, and generally acting like cars do today. I can't see it because the technology just isn't advanced enough (at least not what's been released for public use), because a lot of people wouldn't want it that way (Chicago Mayor Daley already wants all of the city proper to be a no-fly zone; he illegally destroyed Meigs Field and is known to many as an opponent of civil aviation--imagine the conniption he'd throw over Skycars zipping around his city!!), and because the average civilian would not have the skill to handle such a beast.

The kinds of maneuvers these craft would be capable of, and the environment in which they would have to operate, would pretty much require training on the level of a military fighter pilot.

Think of the last airshow you went to and consider how much training goes into formation demonstration flying. Now consider how cars drive on the highway, how close they get to each other, how they have to park, how constricted a space they travel in, and imagine the average driver of one of those cars in the cockpit of an F-16 trying to pull a 3g turn in a diamond formation. Not a very pretty thought, is it? The speeds may be different and we're not expecting super-maneuverability but the analogy stands. Most people are simply not equipped, physically and mentally, to deal with flight on such a level.

Even professional pilots, depending on the type of plane they're used to flying, might not be comfortable in such a craft (I've known several who've told me that after years of flying large commercial liners they feel totally out of place in anything smaller than a Gulfstream and are not confident they could handle a small plane for anything more than basic certification upkeep).

4) Maintenance would be a GIGANTIC problem. Most people just don't maintain their cars properly. Airplanes require far more careful maintenance with more oversight of what is maintained and how. That maintenance is expensive and even if you possess the basic abilities to do most of the work yourself (like with a homebuilt) a skilled professional with knowledge of FAA regs still needs to inspect the work and certify its completion. Everything must be logged precisely. Parts and fluids aren't cheap. Things car owners take for granted can be a big hassle for an airplane owner.

On the plus side, it would create a huge demand for trained and certified aircraft mechanics.

5) Price. Skycars would be prohibitively expensive to purchase (six-figure price tag), at least for the first five to ten years. They'd be a toy for the rich, a novelty few would even likely use. The price of such a vehicle would have to be comparable to a compact- or mid-size car (14-25K) to make it a viable, competitive form of transportation for the masses. As long as a Skycar costs as much, if not more, than a house (and look where the housing market is) mass production and replacement of the family car is a virtual impossibility.

Frankly I think we're a very long way off. The best use of these vehicles right now, if the certification and training requirements could be met today and production of finished showroom-floor models started, would be for those with the cash to cut long-range driving trips by flying straight from the driveway to the destination.

If these craft are to be truly viable as replacements for cars they need to ba able to act like cars, driving on the ground as well as flying (think the Spinner, the flying cop car, from Blade Runner--or the cars from Back to the Future 2). That hasn't worked so well when it's been tried so far.

Originally posted by Zanzibar
I don't get the fascination with flying cars.

Think of your average car crash. Usually not that bad with only some minor injuries like broken bones or something, now add 200ft to that. What was once a wee bump is now a flaming chunk of wreckage plummeting to the ground.

Of course, these car/plane hybrids should only be available to those with the proficiency to fly, pilots. Letting Joe public out in them would be both horrifying and hilarious.

The next decade should be an eventful one ey?

I remember as a kid saying to my dad how cool it would be when flying cars are in use.

He replied that he hoped he'd never see the day as at least with cars they don't usually end up destroying houses etc

I think it's an accident waiting to happen

www.cracked.com...

This article speaks for itself.

Like I said, computers are great and all, but I trust myself more so then a computer, it should be an option, not a neccesity.

Which is exactly the reason for all of those car accidents that could be avoided by using computers. Every idiot and his mother thinks they're better drivers than the computer, even when they're influenced by alcohol or drugs or the odd phonecall or a bit of texting.

Computers react thousands of times faster than humans, they can act more precisely and even foresee the future because they can simulate the car and it's surroundings minutes into the future in case of emergency.

This should certainly not be an option, it should be required.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by aaa2500]

Here's some of the great flying car's we've enjoyed flying around in over the last few decades.










And this wonderful gem:
www.aerocarforsale.com...

Okay. So, there's no more traffic on the ground, every sixteen year old needs to learn how to fly a plane to take part in the traffic in the air above. And, what will power these things? Will they run on nacho chips and gas station snacks?(Those can be "gnarley", and should not be ingested, the lot of that menu, but i don't even think a flying car could run on them. this was meant to be funny.)

Originally posted by WatchKeeper
He replied that he hoped he'd never see the day as at least with cars they don't usually end up destroying houses etc

Why worry about solving congestion though, when as a whole, we have far more things to worry about.

This was predicted in the 1930's, in the 1950's and so on. It will NEVER happen.

1. The F.A.A. requires much more stringent vision testing than any motror vehicles department. A LOT of people driving cars would not be able to qualify for a pilotsd license.

2. The airways are congested now. Just imagine what it would be if John Q. Public takes off from his backyard every day.

3. Aircraft are fuel hogs. No way most people could afford the fuel.

4. There is no more conservative area of manufacture than in the aircraft field. They still use magnetos, because they are so afraid of a lawsuit, if someone claims "Magnetos were a proven technology. Moving to an alternator caused my clients death, when his engine failed. The XYZ Aircraft Corporation must pay $200,000,000 million for killing my clients husband."

5. The real fact is that aircraft and automobiles have very different requirements in shape and function. Yes, you can make something that will work as both (and this has been done several times in the past), but it will not function well in either capacity.