finally : the flying car

[Helix]

they promised us this in the mid 20th century. here it is :

The First Flying Car Is Finally Here, Goes On Sale 2015 - Can Take Off Vertically In Traffic Jam! | Shock Mansion

The TF-X



most of me thinks that they will lose their asses in this venture. another part of me thinks that this is an awesome prank. the rest of me thinks YEAH! FLYING CAR!!!!!111

 

[The Mark]

they promised us this in the mid 20th century. here it is :

The First Flying Car Is Finally Here, Goes On Sale 2015 - Can Take Off Vertically In Traffic Jam! | Shock Mansion

The TF-X

View attachment 67160646

most of me thinks that they will lose their asses in this venture. another part of me thinks that this is an awesome prank. the rest of me thinks YEAH! FLYING CAR!!!!!111

There is no way in hell you could use that in a traffic jam - those wings/props unfolding would smash into the cars next to you. Worse if you were next to a truck. Wait.... Do the wings even fold? If not, how the hell do you expect that to be road legal - it's too damn wide.

 

[NoC_T]

****. Imagine the sheer volume of legislative enactments necessitated by a commuting public rendered airborne. It changes everything. The legal profession suddenly becomes the growth industry. The mind boggles at the state of the world as it takes to the skies.

Yeah, sure it'll happen by next year.

 

[joko104]

Computer graphics do not equal a car.

As for legislation, it wouldn't happen here, but it could a viable product in other countries. I do not believe it will ever be actually made.

 

[ecofarm]

Driving a helicopter is nonsense.

 

[Helix]

There is no way in hell you could use that in a traffic jam - those wings/props unfolding would smash into the cars next to you. Worse if you were next to a truck. Wait.... Do the wings even fold? If not, how the hell do you expect that to be road legal - it's too damn wide.

quit ruining my flying car dreams, skeptic. we were promised flying cars, and now a flying car has been delivered. where we're going, we don't need.... roads.

 

[The Mark]

quit ruining my flying car dreams, skeptic. we were promised flying cars, and now a flying car has been delivered. where we're going, we don't need.... roads.

The hover-modified Delorean, as depicted, was far more reasonable than this thing in terms of being able to work with current traffic systems if driving on the ground.


But that was a damn fantasy and you know it.


*continues stomping on flying car dreams*

:2razz:

 

[Helix]

The hover-modified Delorean, as depicted, was far more reasonable than this thing in terms of being able to work with current traffic systems if driving on the ground.


But that was a damn fantasy and you know it.


*continues stomping on flying car dreams*

:2razz:

killjoy.

 

[Canell]

The flying car doesn't make sense unless it is a levitating (anti-gravity) car. :twocents:

 

[Peter Grimm]

This is a flying car. All it takes is 1.21 gigawatts of electricity to the flux capacitor and it travels in time as well.

 

[joko104]

A Brief History of the Flying Car - Popular Mechanics

History of flying cars. The inventor usually dies trying to fly it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

they promised us this in the mid 20th century. here it is :

The First Flying Car Is Finally Here, Goes On Sale 2015 - Can Take Off Vertically In Traffic Jam! | Shock Mansion

·
·
·​

most of me thinks that they will lose their asses in this venture. another part of me thinks that this is an awesome prank. the rest of me thinks YEAH! FLYING CAR!!!!!111

It's not “Finally Here” until you can actually walk into a dealership, put down your money, and drive/fly out with one.

An obviously empty promise of being able to do so a year from now does not constitute “Finally Here”.

Anyway, there's nothing new here, nothing to see. For longer than I've been alive, there's always been someone claiming to be very close to having a “flying car” ready to sell to the public, yet not one has ever come to market; and I doubt if any will any time in my lifetime.

 

[Mason66]

It's not “Finally Here” until you can actually walk into a dealership, put down your money, and drive/fly out with one.

An obviously empty promise of being able to do so a year from now does not constitute “Finally Here”.

Anyway, there's nothing new here, nothing to see. For longer than I've been alive, there's always been someone claiming to be very close to having a “flying car” ready to sell to the public, yet not one has ever come to market; and I doubt if any will any time in my lifetime.

Isn't "flying car" an oxymoron?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Isn't "flying car" an oxymoron?

I wouldn't think so, but it is a term that doesn't really have a solid definition.

I would define the term, based primarily on what—for longer than I've been alive—there has always been someone promising to bring to market very soon; and yet which has never materialized.

Basically, I would define a “flying car” as an aircraft that is relatively inexpensive, easy to operate, and versatile, to the degree that a common man can afford to buy one, easily become qualified to operate it, and can feasibly use it as a general means of commuting in much the same way that the common man currently uses an automobile. Optionally, it may be able to operate like an automobile, on normal roads, in traffic with normal automobiles; though there have been a few proposed “flying car”-type vehicles that lacked this characteristic (for example, the SoloTrek XVF).

For a number of reasons, I do not expect to see any product appear on the market in my lifetime, that would meet my definition of a “flying car”.

For one, there is the matter of skill and training required to safely operate an aircraft. It unalterably will always be more complex to operate a vehicle that moves in three dimensions, and without solid contact with the ground, than to operate a wheeled vehicle in two dimensions on the ground. I do not believe that an aircraft will ever be as simple to operate safely as a ground-bound vehicle.

There is also the issue that when a ground-bound vehicle suffers a collision, or malfunction, it's already on the ground, while an aircraft is typically thousands of feet above the ground. A damaged or malfunctioning aircraft will unavoidably return to the ground, and if it is damaged or malfunctioning, then this might make this return to the ground unsafe for those aboard the vehicle, and those on the ground below it. For this reason, it will always be necessary for aircraft to be manufactured to a much higher degree of reliability, to be subject to much higher standards of maintenance, and require much higher standards of competence on the part of anyone who is to operate such a vehicle. This will unavoidably translate into significantly higher operating costs.

 

[Mason66]

I wouldn't think so, but it is a term that doesn't really have a solid definition.

I would define the term, based primarily on what—for longer than I've been alive—there has always been someone promising to bring to market very soon; and yet which has never materialized.

Basically, I would define a “flying car” as an aircraft that is relatively inexpensive, easy to operate, and versatile, to the degree that a common man can afford to buy one, easily become qualified to operate it, and can feasibly use it as a general means of commuting in much the same way that the common man currently uses an automobile. Optionally, it may be able to operate like an automobile, on normal roads, in traffic with normal automobiles; though there have been a few proposed “flying car”-type vehicles that lacked this characteristic (for example, the SoloTrek XVF).

For a number of reasons, I do not expect to see any product appear on the market in my lifetime, that would meet my definition of a “flying car”.

For one, there is the matter of skill and training required to safely operate an aircraft. It unalterably will always be more complex to operate a vehicle that moves in three dimensions, and without solid contact with the ground, than to operate a wheeled vehicle in two dimensions on the ground. I do not believe that an aircraft will ever be as simple to operate safely as a ground-bound vehicle.

There is also the issue that when a ground-bound vehicle suffers a collision, or malfunction, it's already on the ground, while an aircraft is typically thousands of feet above the ground. A damaged or malfunctioning aircraft will unavoidably return to the ground, and if it is damaged or malfunctioning, then this might make this return to the ground unsafe for those aboard the vehicle, and those on the ground below it. For this reason, it will always be necessary for aircraft to be manufactured to a much higher degree of reliability, to be subject to much higher standards of maintenance, and require much higher standards of competence on the part of anyone who is to operate such a vehicle. This will unavoidably translate into significantly higher operating costs.

But I think it is an oxymoron simply because if the vehicle can fly, it is an aircraft. Planes can be taxied on the ground but a car cannot take off.

Am I wrong?

 

[scatt]

Sill no jetpacks.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But I think it is an oxymoron simply because if the vehicle can fly, it is an aircraft. Planes can be taxied on the ground but a car cannot take off.

Am I wrong?

I suppose it depends on how strict we want to be about what we consider a “car”.

In the context of this discussion, I am taking a “car” to be something that can be used in much the same way that we use a common automobile; as a basic means of transportation between home and work/school/shopping/whatever.

Perhaps it is notable that there has been a category of “roadable aircraft”; which consisted of a standalone automobile that can be driven on roads, along with some detachable parts that can be installed to convert it into an airplane. None have been terribly successful. For example, the AVE Mizar, the prototype of which was built from a Ford Pinto with the back parts of a Cessna Skymaster. I don't know if the prototype had this attribute, but presumably,if it had gone into production, the Skymaster parts would be detachable from the car, so that the car could be driven on roads like a normal car.

 

[The Mark]

I suppose it depends on how strict we want to be about what we consider a “car”.

In the context of this discussion, I am taking a “car” to be something that can be used in much the same way that we use a common automobile; as a basic means of transportation between home and work/school/shopping/whatever.

Perhaps it is notable that there has been a category of “roadable aircraft”; which consisted of a standalone automobile that can be driven on roads, along with some detachable parts that can be installed to convert it into an airplane. None have been terribly successful. For example, the AVE Mizar, the prototype of which was built from a Ford Pinto with the back parts of a Cessna Skymaster. I don't know if the prototype had this attribute, but presumably,if it had gone into production, the Skymaster parts would be detachable from the car, so that the car could be driven on roads like a normal car.

For me personally, there will not be a "flying car" until nothing needs removed or modified on the vehicle to switch between road travel and flight.

Of course you could go for a "hovercar" or something - it would never really drive anywhere, just fly at extremely low levels... Ah, Sci-Fi, you have so many wild ideas.

 

[Mason66]

For me personally, there will not be a "flying car" until nothing needs removed or modified on the vehicle to switch between road travel and flight.

Of course you could go for a "hovercar" or something - it would never really drive anywhere, just fly at extremely low levels... Ah, Sci-Fi, you have so many wild ideas.

Can you imagine the people on the ground as y9ou hover over them. Talk about bad hair day.

 

[The Mark]

Can you imagine the people on the ground as y9ou hover over them. Talk about bad hair day.

There would be laws preventing you from hovering at around that height - you would have to get down to "car level" or fly higher.

Of course at car level you would be blowing skirts up, and basically creating one hell of a breeze....

 

[Mason66]

I suppose it depends on how strict we want to be about what we consider a “car”.

In the context of this discussion, I am taking a “car” to be something that can be used in much the same way that we use a common automobile; as a basic means of transportation between home and work/school/shopping/whatever.

Perhaps it is notable that there has been a category of “roadable aircraft”; which consisted of a standalone automobile that can be driven on roads, along with some detachable parts that can be installed to convert it into an airplane. None have been terribly successful. For example, the AVE Mizar, the prototype of which was built from a Ford Pinto with the back parts of a Cessna Skymaster. I don't know if the prototype had this attribute, but presumably,if it had gone into production, the Skymaster parts would be detachable from the car, so that the car could be driven on roads like a normal car.

If they did that today, I wonder what car they would use?

I just want the Pinto. Get rid of the wings.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For me personally, there will not be a "flying car" until nothing needs removed or modified on the vehicle to switch between road travel and flight.

Then I don't think we'll see such a thing in our lifetime. I don't think it is feasible, or will be any time soon, for a functional operable aircraft to fit within the footprint of a car, such that it can safely be operated among normal cars on the road.

Wings, tail parts, and propellers will have to be removed or folded up.

The same company that is promising the product in the OP has apparently produced a working prototype of an aircraft that comes as close as I think we will ever see to your idea of a “flying car”—an airplane with wings that fold up in order to bring it into an acceptable car-sized footprint.

They originally claimed they'd have the first units delivered to customers in 2011. As of 2014, none have yet been delivered; they've yet built only two or three prototypes. Pretty much the same story as with all “flying cars”.

Most roadable aircraft that I know of had large parts that had to be completely removed from what could then be used as a car. In some cases, the detachable parts could be configured into a trailer that could then be towed behind the car, so that you could drive to a different airport, reattach them, and take off. Others required the detachable parts to be left behind at the airport; obviously you'd then need to return to that same airport where you'd left those parts to reconfigure as an aircraft, unless you arranged for some other way to transport the airplane parts to a different airport.

 

[The Mark]

Then I don't think we'll see such a thing in our lifetime. I don't think it is feasible, or will be any time soon, for a functional operable aircraft to fit within the footprint of a car, such that it can safely be operated among normal cars on the road.

Wings, tail parts, and propellers will have to be removed or folded up.

The same company that is promising the product in the OP has apparently produced a working prototype of an aircraft that comes as close as I think we will ever see to your idea of a “flying car”—an airplane with wings that fold up in order to bring it into an acceptable car-sized footprint.

They originally claimed they'd have the first units delivered to customers in 2011. As of 2014, none have yet been delivered; they've yet built only two or three prototypes. Pretty much the same story as with all “flying cars”.

Most roadable aircraft that I know of had large parts that had to be completely removed from what could then be used as a car. In some cases, the detachable parts could be configured into a trailer that could then be towed behind the car, so that you could drive to a different airport, reattach them, and take off. Others required the detachable parts to be left behind at the airport; obviously you'd then need to return to that same airport where you'd left those parts to reconfigure as an aircraft, unless you arranged for some other way to transport the airplane parts to a different airport.

I'm not sure we'll ever see something like that - the way airplanes work precludes making one that fits in the space of a car, unless you somehow had wings that were composed of sci-fi force fields or something.

My idea of a flying car is something like the "air cars" in the Star Wars movies (the new trilogy, not the original), or the cars in the Back to the Future series.

In the first case, some arcane anti-grav system was involved (I think), and in the second, some arcane form of vertical propulsion system allowed for flight.

Neither of these cases involved anything remotely like an airplane in function, so far as I know...

 

[Mason66]

Then I don't think we'll see such a thing in our lifetime. I don't think it is feasible, or will be any time soon, for a functional operable aircraft to fit within the footprint of a car, such that it can safely be operated among normal cars on the road.

Wings, tail parts, and propellers will have to be removed or folded up.

The same company that is promising the product in the OP has apparently produced a working prototype of an aircraft that comes as close as I think we will ever see to your idea of a “flying car”—an airplane with wings that fold up in order to bring it into an acceptable car-sized footprint.

They originally claimed they'd have the first units delivered to customers in 2011. As of 2014, none have yet been delivered; they've yet built only two or three prototypes. Pretty much the same story as with all “flying cars”.

Most roadable aircraft that I know of had large parts that had to be completely removed from what could then be used as a car. In some cases, the detachable parts could be configured into a trailer that could then be towed behind the car, so that you could drive to a different airport, reattach them, and take off. Others required the detachable parts to be left behind at the airport; obviously you'd then need to return to that same airport where you'd left those parts to reconfigure as an aircraft, unless you arranged for some other way to transport the airplane parts to a different airport.

Even with the trailer, you would need to return to that airport unless you can fly with the trailer attached.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Even with the trailer, you would need to return to that airport unless you can fly with the trailer attached.

Yes, that is true. All of the “roadable aircraft”*that I know of could only take off and land at an airport. What was gained by being able to configure the detachable aircraft parts into a trailer was the ability to then tow those parts to a different airport, where you could then reconfigure the vehicle back into an airplane and take off there. You could take off from a different airport than the one where you last landed.

Otherwise, you'd just have to leave those parts behind at the airport where you landed, and you'd have to return to that same airport to reconfigure into an aircraft and take off. You could only take off from the same airport where you last landed; unless you had some other means to have the aircraft parts transported from that to a different airport.