Flying cars to solve congestion

Originally posted by OldMedic
It will NEVER happen.

Not with that attitude it won't. Look what people said about flying in the first place, or computers, etc.

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.

Computers can do it, and besides, we aren't talking about massive Mach 0.9 airliners here.

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

Who's saying it would be flying up that high?

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

The plane-car will use an electric engine to make it clean and green.

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."

Reliability issues are a large dictator of methods when carrying 500 people in one craft, you know.

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.

You don't need a flying car to go so high up to be efficient, eliminating ground friction alone would help.

reply to post by apex


This won't really happen. The infrastructure to handle takeoff and landing for personal use would be too much to implement with little profit derived.

Also...9/11 has taught us that people can do crazy things when they have access to their own 'missile'....

Sorry if this was posted before....

Originally posted by apex

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.

Computers can do it, and besides, we aren't talking about massive Mach 0.9 airliners here.

Computers aren't reliable enough to fly the aircraft entirely on their own. Even if they were it would require a HUGE network of stacked and redundant systems to handle the mass of air traffic. And even private pilots flying single-prop Piper Cubs have to meet the same FAA requirements as professionals flying those "Mach 0.9 airliners".

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

Who's saying it would be flying up that high?

Even flying low would create hazards for air traffic control. Approach vectors for major airports would have to be kept clear, and everything would need to be confined to a very distinct airspace.

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

The plane-car will use an electric engine to make it clean and green.

I'd like to see the battery that can handle that job. Hydrogen, maybe, but we can't even get the PTB to mass-market hydrogen-powered cars, and hydrogen-powered aircraft haven't even been designed, let alone tested and approved yet.

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."

Reliability issues are a large dictator of methods when carrying 500 people in one craft, you know.

But that mentality carries over into private aviation as well. Again, FAA requirements are just as stringent for private pilots and their small aircraft as they are for commercial airliners, sometimes even more so. This leads to a conservative "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality.

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.

You don't need a flying car to go so high up to be efficient, eliminating ground friction alone would help.

I don't think you really understand aircraft design and manufacture, or the regulation of such and the people who fly them.

Right now the technology simply does not exist to make a car that can drive on the ground and also fly, and do both with equal levels of safety, reliability and efficiency--and make no mistake, cars will never be totally free of the ground; you wouldn't want flying vehicles traveling in congested urban areas at near-street-level.

We're talking totally new propulsion systems, cutting-edge materials, high-powered fly-by-wire computers, advanced servomotor systems, whole new integrated navigation systems, new safety systems, new fuels, totally new infrastructure to handle the traffic, and an entirely new set of laws and regulations to govern the whole thing.

The vast expenditure to do all of this, and the time it would require, far outweigh the cost in money and man-hours, and the sheer utility, of expanding mass-transit systems, improving traffic control for cars on the ground, and moving cars away from gasoline and diesel using technology that is tried and proven and sitting on the shelf right now just waiting for the funding to put it to use.

Shifting to flying cars is reinventing not only the wheel, but the whole of society. Such a change in the current political and economic climate, and the climate for the forseeable future, is highly unlikely.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


I'm not saying it wouldn't be a difficult task to create such a flying car, or the infrastructure to do so. I'm just saying that with enough work, computer control can work. You'd need a lot of radio beacons or similar o do it, but that and GPS could do quite a lot of the work.

And yes, it would be difficult to coordinate everyone flying around, but I think I wasn't really thinking of it being very high up or fast.

And I think they were meaning hydrogen fuel cells, I was just pointing out that a plane doesn't necessarily need to throw out many kilograms of burnt fossil fuel a second.

To be fair, I don't really have that much experience in terms of the aviation industry (yet) but I know airliners have stringent safety factors, as would private aircraft but mechanical failures, generally aren't the number one reason planes come down (excepting older planes in third world countries, it is a problem), or that cars crash.

As for efficiency, I was only meaning in terms of fuel and the amount of energy it takes. I mean, once you get the height gain and get moving, you use a lot less than if you need to stop, speed up, turn, speed up, stop etc. I dare say a large conversion to flying cars would be large infrastructure pain, but it might be possible.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by apex]

I have always dreamed of the day when flying cars would finally happen. People wouild take to the skies and really get out there and enjoy the scenery from up high. Then, I could have the roads to myself while everyone else flies around. Makes finding a parking space hard tho, cause everyone else got there first.

reply to post by orby1976


Ask older friends and relatives about the aerocar that was introduced into mainstaream USA in around 1963. Was a small 2 seater car (like the old Isetta) with detachable wings. My Aunt had gotten me one from the store when I was really young. About 8-10 yrs ago Popular Science magazine had pictures ans writ-up on how people could be flying with a jet powered, verticle lift car to get away from highway congestion.

Conncept is not new but some people want a new debut(that rymes)

Al

Originally posted by aaa2500

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]

The fact that i've been driving since I was 12 in the fields with many dangers in a work environment itself made me the driver I am, the fact is.. computers fail in ways humans dont. Human instinct can take much better action then a computer, call me old fashioned but im not about ready to let a machine do my driving for me.

Nor me i would much rather be in control.
Nothing is fool proof. And these cars will have their flaws.
How many will die before it's rectified?

Why not just telecommute? Costs nothing, already have infrastructure. Would solve congestion...

I'll be the first one to admit that I hate slow people driving in front of me, so a flying car would be handy almost everyday.....but I also understand the complications or fascination of young kids and try to speed up and get into accidents.

Originally posted by wytworm
Why not just telecommute? Costs nothing, already have infrastructure. Would solve congestion...

Unfortunately Big Biz hasn't fully caught on to the concept yet. Too many "old guys" at the top still want to see warm bodies in neatly-pressed suits and dresses walking in the door and filling chairs and cubicles. A lot of bosses still have it in their heads that if they can't see you and look over your shoulder all day you're just not working.

Originally posted by The Bear Man
The fact that i've been driving since I was 12 in the fields with many dangers in a work environment itself made me the driver I am, the fact is.. computers fail in ways humans dont. Human instinct can take much better action then a computer, call me old fashioned but im not about ready to let a machine do my driving for me.

A very good point. The problem with computer control is that with what's available right now, unless ALL the cars on the road are computer-controlled, it's not viable to have ANY cars computer-controlled. Unless there's a serious breakthrough in AI-based control systems a la Knight Rider any kind of human driver "replacement" would need to be system-wide, because right now human judgment, reflexes and experience > autonomous computer control, every time. If you doubt look up the "races" held every year to test various forms of computer self-control systems in real-world vehicles. The vehicles in these contests barely reach and maintain city street speeds and most don't even finish due to massive failures.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


I work at probably one of the biggest cos in the world and am 100% remote via telecommute.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by The Bear Man
The fact that i've been driving since I was 12 in the fields with many dangers in a work environment itself made me the driver I am, the fact is.. computers fail in ways humans dont. Human instinct can take much better action then a computer, call me old fashioned but im not about ready to let a machine do my driving for me.

A very good point. The problem with computer control is that with what's available right now, unless ALL the cars on the road are computer-controlled, it's not viable to have ANY cars computer-controlled. Unless there's a serious breakthrough in AI-based control systems a la Knight Rider any kind of human driver "replacement" would need to be system-wide, because right now human judgment, reflexes and experience > autonomous computer control, every time. If you doubt look up the "races" held every year to test various forms of computer self-control systems in real-world vehicles. The vehicles in these contests barely reach and maintain city street speeds and most don't even finish due to massive failures.

Thank you for showing a valid point ^_^ I do think that the whole AI thing a bit too far but its not TOO diffecult to put a sensory program in the car to judge area and such for the computer driven vehicles.

Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by The Nighthawk

 

I work at probably one of the biggest cos in the world and am 100% remote via telecommute.

You're very lucky. My company wouldn't even consider it.

It sure would solve a whole lot of problems with congestion, etc., at least in the business admin world; unfortunately there are some professions that just don't carry over so well.

To be honest, i dont think this idea will ever take off.

Good God flying cars... heaven help us.

the way people drive around here, most of them shouldn't be given license to operate a pair of sneakers, much less an automobile.... I shudder at the thought of them behind the wheel of a flying car.

I walk or bus myself.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by grover]