• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Where The Hell Are The Flying Cars? It's The 21st Century!

I expect that somebody said something similar when horses began to be displaced by cars in the early 20th century.
Horse usage had become so widespread and commonplace that just dealing with the crap left on the streets had become a problem of its own. The massive industry that existed to service horse ownership almost changed overnight as the popularity of cars increased quickly.
By the 1930s the use of horses as a main form of transport was in steep decline.

“Few realize that we adopted the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle in part as an environmental response to the disastrous use of horses in major urban areas – and that gasoline was originally a useless waste byproduct of making kerosene for lamps.
But transitions are hard… even ones as obviously beneficial as getting rid of horsesh*t and dead horses from the streets of major cities."

https://www.blog.greenprojectmanage...tion-why-we-replaced-horses-with-automobiles/
 
The Opener BlackFly looks like a useful bit of kit.
Still in the early stages but they will sell you one now.
And I still expect it would not be licensable in the UK due to requirements for pilots licence etc.
(And also, as I have mentioned elsewhere, not strictly speaking a flying car.)
I reckon a MkII version, souped up, and a bit bigger, would be absolutely cracking.
I was looking at that yesterday. Looks like it only handles good weather and not much wind.
 
I expect that somebody said something similar when horses began to be displaced by cars in the early 20th century.
Horse usage had become so widespread and commonplace that just dealing with the crap left on the streets had become a problem of its own. The massive industry that existed to service horse ownership almost changed overnight as the popularity of cars increased quickly.
By the 1930s the use of horses as a main form of transport was in steep decline.

“Few realize that we adopted the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle in part as an environmental response to the disastrous use of horses in major urban areas – and that gasoline was originally a useless waste byproduct of making kerosene for lamps.
But transitions are hard… even ones as obviously beneficial as getting rid of horsesh*t and dead horses from the streets of major cities."

https://www.blog.greenprojectmanage...tion-why-we-replaced-horses-with-automobiles/
Can remember reading this soon after publication -

Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure (Davies, 2004).

This is what historically restricted the size of cities; the logistics of removing waste, especially horse waste.
 
We blame the internal combustion engine for most of the worlds ills but without
it not only would we have disappeared under hundred's of feet of horse crap
but horses were eating more food than could be produced using horse power
so we would likely have starved to death a long time ago.
 
We blame the internal combustion engine for most of the worlds ills but without
it not only would we have disappeared under hundred's of feet of horse crap
but horses were eating more food than could be produced using horse power
so we would likely have starved to death a long time ago.

More likely things would have remained more or less the same in terms of numbers of humans and horses, it would have fluctuated over time but not hugely in either direction. Our numbers were kept in check by the technology we had.

Technological progress including the ICE has allowed the number of humans eightfold in 200 or so years, which sounds like a long time but is approximately three human lifetimes. With that the damage we do to the environment and the rest of the biosphere has increased exponentially.
 
World population around 7/8 billion estimates of sustainable population 1.5 to 3 billion
and yet you hear people worrying about falling fertility rates, but maybe it's just nature
rewiring us to help with survival.
Cant see a queue forming to be the next Logan or Jessica 5.

Anyway I am getting to far off topic.
 
Last edited:
Back to the flying car, it was interesting how they got vertical take-off with the
wings at a very high angle of attack and motors giving both lift and airflow
over the wing no complicated swing wings or moving motors, I would have
liked to have seen a fly by at cruising speed, see how it looked in level flight,
landing looked interesting how it sat so tail low, I wonder how much you can
see of the landing point, then again you cant see a lot of exactly were you will
land in many aircraft once in the landing attitude and they need a lot more space.
 
The street photo from the above article, showing the filthy state of a NY street in 1898, contrasts hugely with any Victorian painting of the era.
You might see a suggestion of slush piled up along the side of a road, but no horse muck.

By contrast, photos from the time all show the mess to some extent. Not as bad as the New York image but it's there.

We know it was a big problem. There are mentions in literature (eg Dickens' Bleak House) of poor children making a living as crossing-sweepers, who'd brush the horse shit aside in a probably vain attempt to keep their customers' shoes clean.

We were taking well-earned refreshments recently in a country pub where a pony and trap often stops.
A shovel is carried for the co-driver to clean up after Dobbin. That seems like good manners outside a pub! but it wouldn't work for thousands of vehicles in a city. There are no hedges to tip the mess into for a start, and you'd run the risk of injury from passing carts or whatever.
 
Oh could you imagine the horror if cars had never been invented and at some point there had been a transition to flying horses?
Doesn't bear thinking about.
It would, however, explain the mystery thumping noises on the roof.
 
Oh could you imagine the horror if cars had never been invented and at some point there had been a transition to flying horses?
Doesn't bear thinking about.
It would, however, explain the mystery thumping noises on the roof.
Better flying horses than flying cows, it's bad enough when a bird craps on your window :hahazebs:
 
I remain convinced that we're not going to see casual flying-anythings until there's a new breakthrough method of propulsion. Mayhap then we'll get our flying cars and hover-bikes, and hover-boards.

But with all of our current methods of propulsion, there's going to be debris flying everywhere, skilled pilotry necessary (in case the AI craps out or takes on a life of its own), and all that, so I feel like it's unlikely anything will take off (hah!) until we develop something new.
 
"Cracking?" Yes, that could be a big possibility!:meh:
I was thing the same thing. It flies well and looks cool but there doesn't appear to be any landing gear. Are owners going to need an old mattress to land it on every time? .. it's quickly going to get damaged otherwise unless I'm missing something?.
 
I was thing the same thing. It flies well and looks cool but there doesn't appear to be any landing gear. Are owners going to need an old mattress to land it on every time? .. it's quickly going to get damaged otherwise unless I'm missing something?.
Agreed ... I couldn't figure out why they thought it would be OK to rely on landing the craft on its fuselage-belly. One excessively hard landing could wreck it permanently.
 
One excessively hard landing could wreck it permanently.
To be fair....the same could be said of any aircraft!
I believe there is a pilots saying that goes along the lines of "Any landing you can walk away from is a good one"
 
To be fair....the same could be said of any aircraft!
I believe there is a pilots saying that goes along the lines of "Any landing you can walk away from is a good one"
Yes, that's the saying - but it applies to the pilot, not the aircraft.

The point here is that the aircraft itself seems designed to rest directly on its belly. A sufficiently hard landing on its belly could crack or break its primary longitudinal structure (i.e., "break its spine"), and this would prevent it from being certified airworthy again.

There's a related issue that I notice this craft's creators seem to be avoiding ... I can find no assurance that the BlackFly's stubby wings are sufficient to allow the craft to glide (with lift) if power / propulsion fails. In other words, there's no more possibility for a dead stick landing in this contraption than for a helicopter - it would drop like a stone. Even if it were aerodynamic enough to glide, landing on its bulbous belly would be guaranteed to cause it to flip over.

Resting and rocking on its bulbous belly seems to represent a design decision to facilitate VTOL capabilities. It can lift off and come down as intended only with full power and at a fairly specific angle.

It seems to me this design is over-compromised (probably for the sake of weight savings) and isn't amenable to practical / safe usage.
 
I think the thing is fitted with a parachute, helicopters can land with total engine failure,
you have to be pretty slick and smaller copters are worse due to there being less stored
energy in the rotors but it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
 
I can find no assurance .. etc
Maybe because there are no assurances given.
I expect the creators are either betting on their confidence in the product being 100% reliable, or that (in the case they are wrong) that they ask purchasers to sign a disclaimer/waiver to exonerate them, absolving themselves of any responsibility for the use of the vehicle. Or both.
"We did tell you that it would plummet from the sky like a stone if it failed...."

The model shown does look incredibly brittle and weedy, granted.
The MkII will probably be much improved. And have 'go faster' stripes.
 
It's the flying motorbike.

Forget Flying Cars. The World’s First Flying Motorcycle Is Coming.​

The Speeder's design team said the sci-fi sky-bike recently passed flight tests. They expect it to be commercially available by 2023.​

By J. GEORGE GORANT

The Speeder is a new jet-powered motorcycle that flies above the air at 250 mph
Courtesy Jetpack Aviation
Flying cars and flying people with jet packs are on the way, so why not flying motorcycles?

Jetpack Aviation, which already makes vertical people propellers, just announced a successful test flight of its jet-driven flying motorcycle prototype. The projected performance is Easy Rider-worthy bad-ass, and best of all, the California company plans to produce two consumer versions for everyday users.


The Speeder is an engineering feat that required Jetpack Aviation to write its own flight-control software program to monitor and adjust the thrust. The benefit of that work, which took a year and a half, is an intuitive system that functions like a typical motorcycle and automatically stabilizes the machine in flight. It can take off and land vertically from most surfaces in roughly the space taken up by a car, and it can be programmed to fly autonomously.
https://robbreport.com/motors/aviat...bT9F_KcrqshBaXr1OUMZUrIgJ_dgvYkSoQWJ48XqIyNiI

Had a look at their website for more info
Being fully stabilized means that minimal pilot training will be required.

It will take off from practically anywhere and will fly at over 150 mph*

It will also fly at up to 15,000ft but we don't expect many of our customers to need this!
It can fly up to 15,000ft at 150mph but minimal pilot training is required... I can see that ending well.
https://jetpackaviation.com/
 
<Hyperventilates>

Anyhow, back to the flying Horses

The Romans certainly experimented (unsuccessfully) with pegasi cavalry.

(Its in Airfix Magazine so I know it to be true)
 
You could see how that could end up as a workable flying car,
:omr:
 
You could see how that could end up as a workable flying car,
:omr:
It would need some kind of covers over those blades though, or it would mince anything that comes within range!
 
It would need some kind of covers over those blades though, or it would mince anything that comes within range!
Yeah but same could be said for any aircraft.

I don't quite understand what principle makes it fly though cos surely a rotating drum with the blades fixed inside it like that would give out a thrust in all directions at the same time?
I mean, I can see that the blades themselves can move independently of the drums but if they are an aerofoil shape then each blade would have to do a 1 to 1 rotation in the opposite direction to the spinning drum to provide any lift.
 
Back
Top