• 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!

'Disgruntled worker packs his flying car with dynamite and flies it into corporation tower block.His self drive car, also packed with explosive and programmed to take him to work, was intercepted just as it drove into the same buildings underground car park'.

INT21
 
In the mean time, you can register for the first engineering course specifically dedicated to flying cars ...

Degree in 'flying car' engineering offered online
For those looking for an unusual degree course, one in flying car engineering may just fit the bill.

The online course is being offered by Silicon Valley e-learning school Udacity and will begin in February.

It is the brainchild of former Stanford University professor Sebastian Thrun, who previously headed up Google's self-driving car project, Waymo.

Prof Thrun is hoping to attract at least 10,000 applicants to what he is describing as a "nanodegree".

A nanodegree, according to Udacity's website, is an online certification that can be earned in six to 12 months, and aims to teach basic programming skills in various disciplines. ...

SOURCE: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42803461
 
Only any use as an 'emergency bailout from tall building' vehicle.

That's a genuinely great idea. Unfortunately tall buildings tend to contain more than two people. Especially in Dubai ;)

A lot of newer light aircraft have such ballistic parachutes for use in the event of an unrecoverable spin, wings falling off, or just a need to arrive at the ground in more vertical manner. However my understanding is that allthough they could save lives, a gentle injury-free 'landing' is far from guaranteed.
 
Flying cars will never be in the grasp of peons. I've looked at a number of the designs and while innovative and potentially useful, the vast majority would be prohibited from population centers, noise being a huge issue already but one plummenting through the roof would be the next problem. There's just no way unless they were robotically controlled and anyone climbing about a robot controlled machine, of any kind, is asking for it.

Let's hope you're not holding valuable patent rights or could in other way be a potentially useful fool.

Aside from all that, I've spent a couple years now deciphering the McCandlish illustration. There's no doubt in my mind that any propeller driven machine is akin to a donkey cart. The ability to create machines which can overcome gravity is well within the powers of present manufacturing. They know it, I know it, and so do many others.

Rest assured, regardless of what the rulers want, this so-called anti-gravity system will become available. The system has been deciphered sufficiently to understand the driving principles. Knowledge is spreading and once it's out there, like it is now, then the inevitable will manifest itself for personal use.

Don't be an idiot, these things they are calling flying cars are last century transport and they know it.
 
Last edited:
That's actually really cool.
 
Autonomous flying taxi beginning regulatory approval process in New Zealand

Ex Google founder Larry Page's company Kitty Hawk - The firm’s two-person craft, called Cora, is a 12-rotor plane-drone hybrid that can take off vertically like a drone, but then uses a propeller at the back to fly at up to 110 miles an hour for around 62 miles at a time. The all-electric Cora flies autonomously up to 914 metres (3,000ft) above ground, has a wingspan of 11 metres, and has been eight years in the making.

Short video at link. Would you get in one of these?

“Cora will combine self-flying software with expert human supervision, so you can enjoy the ride,” says the company, which has fitted three independent flight systems, made the rotors operate independently and given Cora a parachute in case things go wrong.

Even if Kitty Hawk hits all its projected milestones and launches commercially, there’s then the matter of persuading people to actually use it.

1875.jpg
 
No, I'd get in a Cessna 150. They generally have ashtrays.
 
Flying cars won't happen. Too risky.

INT21
 
Another attempt
BlackFly is latest attempt at flying car
davelee.png

Dave LeeNorth America technology reporter
  • 2 hours ago
A flying car that will not require a pilot's licence to operate has been unveiled in California.

BlackFly can travel for up to 25 miles (40km) at a speed of 62mph.

Its makers say it will eventually cost the same as a typical sports-utility car, but early models will be more expensive.

Kitty Hawk - another US start-up, which is backed by Google co-founder Larry Page - is also testing a personal aircraft in Las Vegas.

Several other rival flying cars are in development across the globe.

BlackFly's creator is the Palo Alto-based firm Opener. The car has been tested in Canada, where the country’s aviation authority has authorised its use.

etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44805697
 
Looks pretty futuristic...but also a bit slow and a bit unstable.
And...what happens if the motors fail?

It's great to see these prototypes actually flying. Moller's car is never seen flying untethered.
 
... And...what happens if the motors fail? ...

Same as your radio controlled drone toys - they fall out of the sky, and there's no particular reason to believe they'll hit the ground right-side-up ...

Neither the BlackFly nor the KittyHawk Flyer have wing structures suggesting any ability to glide toward a dead-stick landing.

A deployable parachute would seem a reasonable and feasible precaution, but I've yet to see any start-up 'flying car' descriptions that mention any attention being given to emergency preparedness.

Similarly, I've yet to see any developer mention whether the vehicles' props would / could disengage and free-wheel to afford a slower, potentially non-fatal, descent like a gyrocopter. My impression is that none of these prototypes has enough prop span to provide such braking in unpowered descent.

The KittyHawk Cora air taxi concept, however, has fixed wing structures which might afford enough lift to glide to a dead-stick non-fatal landing.

The drone-style multi-rotor prototypes are all designed for VTOL, and this absolutely relies upon props-under-power.

I'd also suspect that the VTOL motif is one reason why operators needn't be certified like 'regular' private pilots. I therefore suspect a lack of training on conventional landings will be cited in innumerable accident reports in the not too distant future.
 
EnolaGaia,

...I'd also suspect that the VTOL motif is one reason why operators needn't be certified like 'regular' private pilots...

Are you sure about this ?

I was under the impression that even gyro pilots need to have passed a basic fixed-wing training course before being let loose in the air.

It's not just the actual ability to fly the thing but also the need to know about avoiding airports etc. Even for VFR flying.

Any way,flying cars will never happen. Far to many ways to kill the pilot, passengers and others on the ground.

And what a neat bomb delivery system !

INT21

Edit to correct typo. 'Fat' should read 'far'.
 
Last edited:
... Are you sure about this ?

I was under the impression that even gyro pilots need to have passed a basic fixed-wing training course before being let loose in the air.

It's not just the actual ability to fly the thing but also the need to know about avoiding airports etc. Even for VFR flying. ...

At least in the US, there's been no movement toward mandating training or certification for operating a personal 'flying car' (as contrasted with a formally defined aircraft).

One reason for this is the popular notion such personal vehicles would be VTOL craft operated to / from home (and / or wherever ... ) without the need to use airfield / airport facilities.

I hope the prospective operational environment will be made more controlled and regulated before these vehicles are unleashed on the general public.

You'd think that after 2/3 of a century I'd know better than to pin hopes on my fellow monkey-folks' rationality, but ...
 
That's interesting.

I was in an argument with some cyclist about the legality of riding a cycle on a public footpath. After all, footpaths (sidewalks) are there to allow people to walk without run down by cars etc.So I looked it up.

Cycles are classed as vehicles for the purpose of the road traffic act in the UK.

It brings a fixed penalty fine of £30. I can't recall anyone ever being brought before a court for this though.

So I am surprised that the USA considers it safe to let people loose in the air in flying cars without training.

INT21
 
Aside from all that, I've spent a couple years now deciphering the McCandlish illustration. There's no doubt in my mind that any propeller driven machine is akin to a donkey cart. The ability to create machines which can overcome gravity is well within the powers of present manufacturing. They know it, I know it, and so do many others.

Rest assured, regardless of what the rulers want, this so-called anti-gravity system will become available. The system has been deciphered sufficiently to understand the driving principles. Knowledge is spreading and once it's out there, like it is now, then the inevitable will manifest itself for personal use.

I think your outrageous claims demand some sort of evidence. Humanity has barely discovered the Higgs Boson. The notion that we have overcome gravity in any way other than the conventional lighter-than-air/propeller driven/rocketry/jet engine/projectile methods is not very plausible Gambier. I am not saying you are wrong, but if you are going to say something like this, don't you think you should offer some proof?
 
...but if you are going to say something like this, don't you think you should offer some proof?...

Hear, hear.

If not particularly illuminating it should be at least entertaining.

INT21
 
EnolaGaia,

...I'd also suspect that the VTOL motif is one reason why operators needn't be certified like 'regular' private pilots...

Are you sure about this ?

I was under the impression that even gyro pilots need to have passed a basic fixed-wing training course before being let loose in the air.

It's not just the actual ability to fly the thing but also the need to know about avoiding airports etc. Even for VFR flying.

Any way,flying cars will never happen. Far to many ways to kill the pilot, passengers and others on the ground.

And what a neat bomb delivery system !

INT21

Edit to correct typo. 'Fat' should read 'far'.

No, you can be a 'Gyro Only' pilot. But even gyros are far more dangerous than a car. A good friend of mine who had graduated to being not only a pilot but a trainer was nearly killed when a trainee panicked and violently grabbed the stick. And that was only in a towed training gyro, not a powered one.
 
Cochise,

Yes, you are correct. Here are the important bits from the CAA.

How much training will you need?
Everyone differs in their learning ability. Legally you require a minimum of 40 hours of training. Of these 40 hours at least 15 hours must be under dual instruction and at least 10 must be flown solo under the supervision of an instructor. The other 15 hours can be dual or solo as required. These are minimum requirements but a student with good aptitude, enthusiam and dedication should expect to train for between 40 and 50 hours.

Looks pretty expensive to me.

INT21
 
Flying cars are a fun idea, but an idea that is just silly.

We already have small helicopters. They can take off vertically, fly at speed and land vertically. We already have cars that can do the other parts of the role.

For obvious safety and traffic control reasons, the number of places a flying car could land would be limited. Would you then want to drive the rest of your journey in a "car" cluttered with the weight and ungainly bulk of aero engines, propellors and rotors? If you could afford a flying car, you could afford a taxi or limousine to meet you at your landing place, in which case, why not just use a helicopter for the flying part?

Flying in clear visibility and low wind speeds in uncluttered air space with easy topography is "easy enough" although you'd still need the training in all the safety and air traffic control protocols. As soon as the wind gets up, or it becomes foggy or icy, or the topography gets more complex, or there are tall buildings or other aircraft in the vicinity, the flying becomes considerably more complex. (Fans of Buddy Holly or Patsy Cline will know about what happens when small craft are flown in adverse weather that exceeds the pilot's experience and training.)

A flying car or amphibious car is trying to do two things with conflicting engineering requirements. It's a gimmick, like a portable radio with integral flashlight and bottle opener, or one of those multi tools that is too bulky to use for undoing a screw in a tight corner.

At best, flying cars and amphibious cars will never be more than rich people's playthings. I suspect that most of the ones "in development" exist for one of the following purposes:

1) To generate exciting publicity for a technology firm that never really intends to produce the actual flying/amphibious car, but does want to promote its image and its mainstream products.

2) To generate a tax loss for creative accounting purposes.

3) To attract investment from the gullible, with a view to siphoning some of it off — or maybe just having a lot of fun with the project.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44840953

Engine maker Rolls-Royce has designed a propulsion system for a flying taxi which it says could take to the skies as soon as early next decade.

The British firm said it had drawn up plans for an "electric vertical take-off and landing" (EVTOL) vehicle, which could carry four to five people.

The vehicle could travel at speeds of up to 250 mph (402 km/h) for approximately 500 miles, it said.

Rolls joins a variety of other firms in seeking to develop flying vehicles.

Speaking ahead of this week's Farnborough Airshow, Rob Watson, head of the company's electrical team, said: "We are well placed to play a leading role in the emerging world of personal air mobility and will also look to work in collaboration with a range of partners."
 
Mikefule has it right.

They will never be common.

Far too dangerous to everyone.

A rich man's toy.

But a good platform for developing related technology.

Pretty much the same can be said for autonomous cars.

INT21
 
Mikefule has it right. They will never be common. Far too dangerous to everyone. A rich man's toy. But a good platform for developing related technology. Pretty much the same can be said for autonomous cars. INT21

Your comment is what was frequently said about automobiles in the 1890s almost word for word INT21. While I agree that within the current technological reality, we have yet to see autonomous cars actually deployed safely, and flying vehicles cannot be reliably maintained on the household budget of anyone short of a billionaire, we may yet see a good deal of change on both of those fronts. I agree at a certain level that flying vehicles are unlikely to become overly popular, as really, we already have them in the form of helicopters, and even 40 year old helicopters sell for over a cool half million today. Is that always going to be the case though?

In many ways the question becomes, will peak oil mean the death of the automobile, or will cities become so congested that the gridlock can only be solved by adding a 3rd dimension. In the latter case, we may yet see some value in a flying car.
 
Your comment is what was frequently said about automobiles in the 1890s almost word for word INT21. While I agree that within the current technological reality, we have yet to see autonomous cars actually deployed safely, and flying vehicles cannot be reliably maintained on the household budget of anyone short of a billionaire, we may yet see a good deal of change on both of those fronts. I agree at a certain level that flying vehicles are unlikely to become overly popular, as really, we already have them in the form of helicopters, and even 40 year old helicopters sell for over a cool half million today. Is that always going to be the case though?

In many ways the question becomes, will peak oil mean the death of the automobile, or will cities become so congested that the gridlock can only be solved by adding a 3rd dimension. In the latter case, we may yet see some value in a flying car.
I think it'll mostly be rich people and the emergency services that will get to use flying cars.
We poorer people won't get a chance.
 
Back
Top