Where is My Flying Car!!???

[Tarantism]

perhaps the cars could be kept on track by some kind of magnetic device? one part could be in the ground and the other pole in the ground. perhaps controlled by some type of more advanced GPS system? i rraelly dont rule it out as a possibility for the next 15-20 years. as Boerseun said, a major factor could be the upcoming congestion of roads, we can only pave so much of the earth you know.

[Jay-qu]

I voted 24, but if there was longer I would have chosen that.. its not that flying cars would be hard to make, or inexpensive enough for the public, but the fact that there is no way it could work if we had thousands of these things zipping around. Traffic control would be an absolute mess, and crashes would always be devastating.

[learnin to learn]

And the rising cost of fuel? Flying cars will require more fuel than conventional cars. Fuel costs are rising. My guess is that until we find cheap fuel, something like this won't take off (pun unintentional).

 

but we could find an alternative fuel source, such as solar, or electric.

[Tarantism]

i think that the cars being developsed right now are infact not powered by protrollium (sp?). even better, i dont think that they are run my ethanol either. there are two big fans on it...that could have something to do with the movement of the car. has anyone watched the video? those are the first designs.

[CraigD]

has anyone watched the video? those are the first designs.

I think you’re referring to the these vidios of the Moller M400, or it’s single seat experimental predecessor, the M200X, which is claimed to have flown without safety tethers, a claim some dispute, though I can’t see any evidence of trickery in Moller’s video of the M200X.

 

We discussed these videos last year in [thread=53826]this thread[/url]. As I wrote in this post, I think Moller’s basic design is seriously, perhaps irrevocably flawed – the lightweight duct fan/dual Wankel seems incurably “lashy”. Moller has actually been working on something like these most recent designs since the 1950s – it wasn’t until the 1980s that he found a powerful enough lightweight engine that they were actually capable of flight outside of ground effects height. As the wikipedia link quotes: "As of late 2002, MI's approximately 40 years' of development has resulted in a prototype Skycar capable of hovering about fifteen feet above the ground."

 

If VTOL isn’t an essential requirement, there’ve been sound, working designs around for nearly 70 years - the Waterman “Arrowbile”, for example. Many of these early designs emphasized not only safe, stable flight, but low cost – the Arrowbile, which used mostly auto parts, was targeted for a 1937 price of US$3,000 – about $42,000 in 2006 dollars.

 

The Arrowbile, while ungainly, was much more roadworthy that the M400 – I’ve seen an old film of one traveling at about 60 MPH on a long straight stretch of paved 2-lane road.

 

Like so many technologies, I think the flying car suffers from an order-of-magnitude power and energy density problem. To gain a market, a flying car has to get you around faster and more conviently than a commercial airliner and a rental car. Estimates as the M400’s performance are hard to pin down. Estimate cruising speed is somewhere from 220 to 420 MPH, range around 600 mi. There’s ground to suspect these specs may be badly overstated - Moller’s recent legal problem come from his providing “imaginative” performance estimates. Including fuel stops, and safety margins, this means you could travel from Baltimore, MD, to St Louis, Mo in something from 3 to 6 hours. I can drive to an airport, get a flight, pick up a rental car, and make the same trip in about 6.5 hours.

 

To offer clear advantage over existing technology, a flying car needs to be able to go really fast – close to or better than the speed of sound – and be capable on nonstop flight to most destinations. A range of better than 4000 mi / 6000 km would allow it to be used for trans-continental travel. I see no current technology that can put that sort of performance in a vehicle the size of a car.

[EWright]

Aren't we already concerned about keeping terrorists out of cockpits? so now we want to create private flying suicide carbombs for them to crash into buildings? How do we plan to patrol and gaurd against that!?

[Boerseun]

To offer clear advantage over existing technology, a flying car needs to be able to go really fast – close to or better than the speed of sound – and be capable on nonstop flight to most destinations. A range of better than 4000 mi / 6000 km would allow it to be used for trans-continental travel. I see no current technology that can put that sort of performance in a vehicle the size of a car.

Not necessarily.

 

Current technology as you described can get you there in two hours, but that's just the point. You're limited to wherever commercial airplanes can take off and land. You don't have the freedom to go where you want to go - you're at the mercy of flight schedules and the profitability of commercial routes.

 

Having VTOL capability plus the freedom to go where you like would be more than good enough for sales, I guess. Just look at the booming microlight business (both 2 & 3 axis). The only drawback with a microlight is that you can't land where you want to, although a football field or a corn field will do fine in a pinch. If a true VTOL airplane/car is available at a good price, the market will be there.

[Tarantism]

Aren't we already concerned about keeping terrorists out of cockpits? so now we want to create private flying suicide carbombs for them to crash into buildings? How do we plan to patrol and gaurd against that!?

oh sheesh. i hope you arent serious?

[learnin to learn]

We cant change what happened to the World Trade Centers. But we cant live in fear the rest of our lives. The world has been creating new technology ever since the creation of the wheel. Are we suppose to stop now because some terrorist might try to destroy another building?

If terrorists want to attack us, then they will. They don't need flying cars to get their message across.

[CraigD]

Aren't we already concerned about keeping terrorists out of cockpits? so now we want to create private flying suicide carbombs for them to crash into buildings?

I think it unlikely that suicide bombers will invest millions and wait years (or perhaps forever) for a still-developing technology, when a destructively equivalent light aircraft can be rented for US$60/hr, and owned, if you find a good deal, for about the cost of a new automobile.

 

There are thousands of private, roughly car-sized aircraft in the US. They’ve been around in about the same numbers for 40+ years. Occasionally, people have intentionally crashed them into property. As physics suggests, they do about as much damage as a car traveling at a very high speed.

 

A typical private aircraft masses about 1,500 kg. A large airliner masses about 400,000,000 kg. Although a suicide bomber could make a light aircraft more destructive by, for example, packing it with explosives, the thread to life and property is still modest.

How do we plan to patrol and gaurd against that!?

The most current (and post-911 beefed-up) plan to guard agains “private flying suicide carbombs” has been in place around that great concentration of federal properties, Washington DC, for some years now. The restricted airspace over DC is now treated very seriously – if you intentionally or accidentally fly your light aircraft there, you’re intercepted and warned off by F16s. If you don’t leave, they’ll shoot you down.

 

DC capitol security appears to assess the threat of truck-bomb attacks more highly than of aircraft attacks. The barriers and street closing that have been carried out since the 1980s to prevent cars and trucks from getting close to “high value” federal building, though inconvenient, are accepted by most locals as prudent.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Yes, moller does exagerate sometimes. I've been following the skycar for years now. Here's what I 'know' about it (based upon claims by moller).

 

1. it will fly itself. normal folks like me won't be able to control anything except the destination. I'll have to go to a 'vertiport' (a much smaller airport) and specify my destination. The skycar will pick me up (pilotless) and take me to where I want to go.

2. the theory for 'highways in the sky' is being worked on now. Unfortunately, I don't know how that's progressing or who is doing it. I've been told it is. That's all I know.

3. One recent blurb said that the vehicles will be traveling in flocks, like birds, to keep down unnecessary vehicle to tower transmissions.

4. Moller owns the company that has the design for the engines that will power the skycar. Their hp/lb is quite impressive (based upon moller's claims).

5. The most recent bulletin is that the engines run on ethanol best, with no apparent affect on the engines.

 

One thing that has not been addressed is what the effect would be on wind patterns with all that mass in the air. I've asked the questions but haven't received an answer yet. Probably because we just don't have anyway to know.

 

But, the effect on the environment of all of the roads currently in place has been enormous. I can't believe increased wind would pose a larger threat.

 

And besides, maybe we can recover some of the energy with windmills.

[learnin to learn]

thanks for the heads up Idsoftwaresteve!!!! Do you really think that wind currents will differ that much? Could we have all the vehicles fly at a specific altitude to decrease the wind change?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

thanks for the heads up Idsoftwaresteve!!!! Do you really think that wind currents will differ that much? Could we have all the vehicles fly at a specific altitude to decrease the wind change?

I don't know. All I know is what I hear and that's just hearsay.

It would be nice to see how the traffic lanes are going to be worked out. But I don't for a moment think that companies like Boeing will sit still without trying to cripple this movement.

Too much government interference here and too many people in the pockets of those big companies. they'll kill it until there is an uprising or another country like China uses it first.

Then we'll scramble to catch up. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

It should happen. But will it? And when?

If we had less restrictive legislation, we'd already be off the ground and perhaps not sitting in miles long traffic jams burning gas to keep our fannies cool.

But, the more we sit the more gas is burned and the more profits the oil companies make and the more money flows to overseas accounts for the elected officials.

And don't for a second think that companies tied to roads will take this sitting down either. Huge obstacles to overcome before we see any change whatsoever. I don't realistically see it happening without outside intervention (another country doing it first).

[pgrmdave]

Plus, as people move to flying cars, the congestion on the roads will ease, making the roads look better and better. Imagine what your commute would be like if half the people were in the air instead.

[Boerseun]

Companies should start investing more in the application of current technologies in order to let employees telecommute. The technology is there, and it will take hundreds of thousands of daily commuters off the roads. If we can get rid of the reasons for 90% of the commuters to be on the roads during rush hour, there shouldn't be too much of an incentive for flying cars. Besides - they can never be as fuel efficient as regular cars, because apart from forward propulsion they're fighting gravity as well.

[InfiniteNow]

Companies should start investing more in the application of current technologies in order to let employees telecommute.

Most already are. A huge percentage of folks with whom I work telecommute all the time. They still come in as putting a face to an issue tends to be a bigger motivator than an email or phone call. Something to do with accountability I presume.

 

Anyway, the younger generations are much more frequently demanding the option of telecommunication in their career, acting as the primary driver for change in the industry. Most HR deparments in the larger companies are already aware of this and are acting on it, and I imagine it will slowly penetrate the smaller companies as well.

 

It will take a huge sociopolitical and telecommunicative paradigm shift before it's as broad as I'd like, but it's creeping slowly in that direction which is nice to see.