Flying cars

That only applies to fast planes that obviously can't stop. With slow VTOL craft it's no different to ground traffic control. You can tell some to stop in mid air to even out the traffic and turning ability is much sharper.

Anyway all I am saying is sure there are a lot of problems but right now we have a chance of making a go of it because of the rise in drone technology and we should because you never know it might work and be popular. I actually wrote on my university application essay yesterday that I'm interested in developing flying cars. They can think I'm enthusiastic or a kook. I don't care I have my dreams.

>TCASes aren't designed for heavy congestion or obstacle heavy environments
So you use a modern computer and design modern programs

You have radars tracking the movement of everything, all networked together, it's really not that difficult

Pilots dont have control at takeoff and landing there are afcs functions for both of these situations which are more accurate than human pilots. You also dont trust your TCAS enough.

The real point to make, is that there would be no chance to collide in a fully autonomous, centrally-controlled network of flying cars since all cars would know where all others are at all times

>With slow VTOL craft it's no different to ground traffic control.

"slow" as in 80 mph. And if an aircraft touches another craft, both will have a catastrophic failure leading to a crash.

>Anyway all I am saying is sure there are a lot of problems but right now we have a chance of making a go of it because of the rise in drone technology and we should because you never know it might work and be popular. I actually wrote on my university application essay yesterday that I'm interested in developing flying cars. They can think I'm enthusiastic or a kook. I don't care I have my dreams.

Because you are. Ever heard of the Moller Skycar or the VZ-8?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar

piasecki.com/geeps_pa59k.php

youtube.com/watch?v=4SERvwWALOM

(not a flying car but related)

youtube.com/watch?v=VY0g0W7DEYQ

People have been trying to make flying cars for the past 50 years, with nothing capable of actually being implementable due to technical constraints. It took the US government 40 years just to get the V-22 right, and it only works (in part) due to the large size of the craft (compared to a consumer automobile or light aircraft).

Civilian VTOLs are certainly possible, but they're going to be aircraft that utilize airports and helipads, not be a "flying car". I strongly suggest you read through the pilot training materials on the FAA's website, as it will clear up the physics involved.

Which is a big problem, because then one can know wher I go by tracking my flying car.

The thrust to weight and capabilities of aircraft from 50 years ago is way inferior to modern day

People have not really been "trying", they have been just fucking around with popsci influenced designs which had no practical ability to succeed.

Regulation & law is the #1 thing preventing "flying cars".

It's not difficult when everything works and it's a clear day. It is difficult when you throw in variables (ie more craft, craft which may have faulty communications equipment, inclement weather, signal disruption etc)

AFCS only refers to the aircraft's flight control system (ie the linkage, mechanical or electronic, between the pilots and the control surfaces). It itself is not an autopilot. And, for the most part, most landings and takeoffs are done by pilots since they're the ones who have to ask permission from ATC to do so in the first place. Also, per FAA policy, they have to call out every phase of the landing and takeoff.

Autopilot functions are a separate (though related) entity.

faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/phak - chapter 05.pdf

More broadly, even if aircraft could be totally automated the problem isn't so much accuracy as it is reliability. It needs to work 100% of the time. This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own, which is why pilots are used to marginalize the possibility of a crash.

>hybrid systems can get around this
No, they can't. We're by no means at a point where we can afford to have skyrocketing energy consumption because a bunch of yuppies want to get to Starbucks faster. Instead of energy-efficient wheel conveyance, you'd have to lift hundreds of kilograms into the air and keep it there. Hauling a big battery around just means that the fuel has to be burnt elsewhere, and a greater amount of it to boot.

>This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own
It is more guarrenteed that a computer can do it, than a human pilot

>This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own, which is why pilots are used
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>The thrust to weight and capabilities of aircraft from 50 years ago is way inferior to modern day

Yes, thanks to advances in materials most of which are more expensive than stamped aluminium. This is a problem when the craft can't cost more than $200k to be competitive against existing aircraft.

>People have not really been "trying", they have been just fucking around with popsci influenced designs which had no practical ability to succeed.

In the 1950s the US Army specifically wanted an airgeep and asked for a working prototype. They got untethered flying prototypes which is much more than just a "popsci influenced design". Everyone was cashing in on the rapidly expanding civilian aerospace business and the winner was Cessna.

>Regulation & law is the #1 thing preventing "flying cars".

No, it's not. Following the failure of Operation Eagle Claw in 1980 it took DARPA, Boeing, and Bell 30 years to make a workable tiltrotor design. If they could have built a VTOL aircar before that, they (or someone else) would have provided it.

Have either of you ever actually flown an aircraft before? Real life is not an ideal computer simulation. And, if autopilot could work 100% reliably 100% of the time, then the FAA would allow fully automated aircraft since the airlines would love being able to fire all their unionized pilots. This is not so.

>And, if autopilot could work 100% reliably 100% of the time, then the FAA would allow fully automated aircraft since the airlines would love being able to fire all their unionized pilots.
>If it's theoretically possible, it would be done RIGHT NOW.
Computers are more reliable at following procedure 100% of the time than humans. That does not mean that current software is adequate to replace humans.

I meant in terms of onboard power not eco friendliness.

It's not just eco-friendliness, but simple economics. Energy consumption would be through the roof for a society that adopts this stuff on a wider scale.

Then why make this or this comment.

Depends on your journey distance. I calculated that a flying car needs 3x the power of a 1.6 L car. Obviously if you travel 1/3 the distance it evens out. I see flying cars as useful for short hops across urban areas or jungle, this won't tax the energy infrastructure too heavily. In any case I still expect road cars to be the vast majority of cars. Flying cars are a supplement not a replacement.

>We can never use more power per capita without "taxing the energy infrastructure too heavily"

uh huh

why would you travel 1/3 the distance if you have a flying car?

>This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own,
lol what. Maybe 20 years ago it would be impossible.

Computers can fly a rocket INTO SPACE AND FUCKING LAND BACK ON EART UPRIGHT.

AI has come a long fucking way. Completely automated cars can drive around perfectly fine. Completely automated planes are already a thing. If they wanted they could make all that shit work today. There's just no market for it to justify the cost. Putting in some insane avionic tech is going to jack up the price to the billions per plane.

>Computers can fly a rocket INTO SPACE AND FUCKING LAND BACK ON EART UPRIGHT.

Yes, because there's no air traffic in space. And the landing platform is out in the middle of the ocean away from sea traffic.

Do you understand the issue here? We're talking about flights under 2000 feet. This is where there's going to be lots of obstacles (building, power lines, trees, and other traffic) that don't exist in space (which, literally, is just that: open space).

>Putting in some insane avionic tech is going to jack up the price to the billions per plane.

The problem isn't the cost of the tech itself, it's getting it to work safely under all circumstances. Otherwise full auto planes would have existed 20 years ago when glass cockpits became available in all airliners.

Don't tease me. Start with flying people because anime.

this is precisely why multi-rotors are the revolution that the flying car idea needs. It's by far the easiest system to automate.
as the crow flies. what if you just had to get across a five mile wide river where the nearest bridge was 20 miles away?

>this is precisely why multi-rotors are the revolution that the flying car idea needs. It's by far the easiest system to automate.

you mean quadcopters? Because multirotors have been around since the 1950s see And the "ease to automate" doesn't matter since (a) it's still not 100% safe and (b) the FAA won't allow it. It also does no favors since (and this is what I've been implying in the entire thread) the first adopters would conceivably be existing pilots.

Never happen.

It would be a regulatory and liability nightmare.

Anyone else watch the CSPAN interview on flying cars today?

Reinventing the wheel.

If the small helicopters would have friendly regulations (like starting and landing from you small backyard) then we would have "flying cars" long time ago.

The only thing is if choppers lose an engine, they crash
You don't even need vtol for a consumer flying vehicle.
Everyone has roads to their houses

Something that can take off with 80 kmph of air under its wings is good enough

Autonomous landing could be done on top of buildings or in parking lots

Regulation and a lack of vision is really the only thing holding it back.

Autorotation, if choppers lose an engine they autorotate to the ground.

Not so with multicopters. Sure you do have more independent engines in a multicopter, but if you say have a battery failure, you're gonna hit the ground pretty hard

only way i could see it remotely happen was if:

> outside of cities
> automatic AI flying, manual control is illegal

inside of cities maybe something like a simplified version of the magnetic tracks in minority report?

seems like the only way to travel to be honest

there should be no reason for traffic in this day and age, if only we decided to get a nationalized 'air bus' system going, if you will

i mean there's so much more air than there is earth. people could fly at different altitudes. there's no way we would have traffic problems. so many people's lives would be longer and happier.

Autorotation involves hitting the ground pretty hard
But if you had a backup electric motor good for a minute or two it would be ample to land.

I'm not reading this thread but I bet it is filled to the brim with kids who want magic flying vehicles that don't care about something called "lift efficiency" and spam links to terrible gimmick craft that work like shit in every regard.

You need power?
You need speed?
You need lift efficiency?
You need fuel economy?
You need cheap?
You need short range 2 hours or less?

Get a small personal helicopter like the Mosquito XE

automatic control isn't need at all, flying cars would be a hit with the existing civilian aircraft market if it was cheap enough and had enough range

that's the problem though

>there should be no reason for traffic in this day and age

in this day and age everyone has a car and nobody rides trains or transit

this is exactly what your grandparents thought and wanted the future to look like

If we can get fusion energy off the ground, then concerns about power consumption going up become utterly irrelevant.

As to safety, i'm going to just say it-fuck safety.

Cars kill like 30,000 people in the USA alone. Worldwide, the number is probably close to one million. But do we all cry and whine and insist that every single car is made into a giant sphere of crumple zone that can go a max speed of 30 miles per hour? Fuck no! We ACCEPT the danger for the FREEDOM we get from the technology.

Anyone who opposes this on the grounds of safety is a dirty commie faggot who i will shit on while airborne in my flying car.

Thats what they said about fission, then the NRC came along to ban new fission plants & fission developments

you wouldn't be allowed to operate it off roads and in built up areas though
Which kinda means its useless

doesnt bad driving kill more people than cars ?

>doesn't bad people kill more people than guns ?

Well, I suppose you have highlighted an important distinction. Cars do not personally commit murder. Thank you for your stunning contribution to this discussion.

youtube.com/watch?v=kQyrPVIIQdE

Total bullshit, I've seen a helicopter auto-rotate down have enough inertia in the blades to lift off turn 180 degrees and land again. If you do it right auto rotation is just as soft as any regular landing.

why not? If it's an aircraft, it can be used almost anywhere in the US. Let pilots and charter airlines handle the problem of building helipads inside cities.

>You have radars tracking the movement of everything, all networked together, it's really not that difficult
The fact that you just described an intricate network of positioning systems, data pipelines, radio beacons, operators and the respective aviation safety regulations these all have to adhere in a sentence that ends with "it's really not that difficult" tells me you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about
Cut it the fuck down m8, this is nothing but handwavy, ignorant garbage you're spouting here

Flying cars are particularly useful for extraction operations in warzones during active combat.

Chitty-chitty-bang-bang is not pure fantasy, but truth is stranger than fiction.

>Flying car
More like a head chopper

Ok for starters the AirGeep or whatever it was called worked, the military just preferred the helicopter second of all just because Moller failed doesn't mean I will. I've done my own technical study and I have some ideas of my own. I am confident that I can make a flying car for under £5,000 with today's technology. I can't say much but one of my innovations is to make it single-seater. I say it's an innovation because practically all flying cars have literally been trying to stick propellers or wings onto a saloon car. Due to how propellers work carrying double the payload needs around 3x the power. because of this my study came to the conclusion that flying cars weighing more than 200 kg are infeasible which is why everyone has been failing. Anyway you can't talk the talk unless you walk the walk so October you will all see.
This. People are blinded by the popular view of a flying car which is literally a 4 door car that flies. I have a different design philosophy: a drone that looks like a car. The Ehang 184 in the OP picture has the right idea, man-sized drones are the way to do it.
This is another place where only lifting one guy comes in handy; you can get away with cheaper materials. I'm using wood. Laugh all you want but my stress tests say it will hold up.
This is aircraft, a lot different to VTOL. Aircraft is hard to autopilot because they move fast, have a wide turning circle and can't stop. Despite this computers can still manage it if the conditions are good. So imagine what can be done with drone cars
Screw the FAA, I'll market to Japan, let it take off there and when burgers see the light they will change their laws. You only have to find one country that is willing to adopt it and once other countries see that it's a success they will be more accepting.
Pretty sure multirotors can autorotate
The entire point of this thread is automation.
Thanks for your support

And before you call me delusional note that the Ehang 184 flew stable on the first attempt whereas the Moller has yet to do so even after millions of dollars and 30 years of development. This shows that modern pure electric direct drive blows petrol variable drive out of the water. the latter is too heavy and too complex.

The only big problem with electric is that the flight time is absymal. My prototype is estimated to fly for around seven minutes. Power upgrades will get it to maybe 12 minutes. However I still think this is viable due to the extreme low cost and the fact that it's top speed is projected to be 60 mph meaning you could get about 7-12 miles. Good for Urban hopping. A 5 mile journey in my city takes half an hour on a bad day, this is a joke. A flying car could do it in 5 minutes.

By the way when i say £5,000 that's the production cost. will probably sell for around £15,000. Musk is dropping rocket price an order of magnitude, I will drop flying car price an order of magnitude

Oh fuck off kingchem, fuck off.

>ad hominem
don't shit up the thread it's been decent with many pros and cons for multi-rotors vs single-rotors

>insults are ad hominem
Ad hominem is not someone telling you to fuck off or calling you a name you stupid fucking cunt.

>The entire point of this thread is automation.

And helicopters can be automated.

flying cars are easier to automate.

>flying car

Do you even know what that is? I'll give you a hint, planes and helicopters are flying cars. Why? Because a "car" is the passenger compartment of any vehicle or passenger transportation from an elevator to a Honda Civic to a 747 Jet or S-92 Helicopter.

Here is your medal for pointing out the obvious and probable autism. You know what someone is talking about when they say "flying car". Furthermore if you had bothered to read this thread you would have known that it's about the pros and cons of automated multi-rotor aircraft

why

source?

Then why on earth did you even post There's nothing but cons for multi-rotor aircraft over helicopters for passenger transportation. Automation doesn't even matter since that is already a thing for everything.

Multi-rotors use direct drive which means the propeller is directly connected to the motor. The thrust is varied by varying the speed of the motor. This is extremely simple. Single-rotors use something called variable pitch. In this system the speed of the propeller is kept constant while the pitch or the angle at which the airfoil attacks the air is varied by a special mechanism. The latter method is more efficient because not only do you have the motor working at it's singular most efficient speed but it doesn't have to use energy to change torque all the time. However it is very complex and part of the reason why helicopters are so expensive and high-maintenance. Adding to this is that you either need an extra tail rotor or co-axial for torque canceling which either reduces your efficiency gain or puts complexity up another level.

Direct drive, while not as efficient is perfect for computer control because all you need to do to is vary voltage to the motors. Why not make direct drive helicopters? Won't work because the single blade of a helicopter needs too much torque for precise speed variation due to the huge radius and hence larger moment of inertia. Direct drive can only work effectively on a collection of smaller propellers.

This leads to one major disadvantage of multi-rotors which is that they don't scale up well. If you make it bigger eventually the size of each propeller will approach that of a normal helicopter therefore it will have the same problem as when direct drive is applied to a helicopter in that too much torque is needed and the motors can't respond fast enough so the thing loses stability. All these reasons weighed up along with battery capacity is why I think a single seater flying car is perfectly viable but anything larger and it's better to use a normal helicopter.

With Moller now he was using petrol engines. This is why he failed. Petrol is useless for direct drive because the throttle response is not fast and precise enough. The only other option is variable pitch but then what's the point? You are using four VP mechanisms when if you just used a helicopter you could have just used one. I think he may have tried to force his petrol engines into direct drive by computer code but it still wasn't very successful. There's a third option, use something called a continuously-variable-transmission, basically a gearbox with infinite gears between two values but that again is just as complex as a helicopter.

Yeehaw

That's not VTOL though. Needs something like V-22. Why has no-one made a mini V-22? That would be awesome.

>Anyway you can't talk the talk unless you walk the walk so October you will all see.
Sure

I wouldn't feel comfortable with it unless it was automated

>Modern computing can obviously alleviate that, but it doesn't change the fact that you're putting aircraft into environments where an accident is significantly more probable. Which is why having a pilot there is important so an accident has a lower chance of becoming catastrophic.

Check out swarms:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour

youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4

I don't get contra rotation. They say it improves efficiency but even if it does you've doubled your motor mass and a motor that big is probably 4kg.

the whole point of the flying car is point to point transportation that avoids traffic.

vertical take and landing. driveway to work parking spot.

Yes, and? Airparks already exist. Pic related are going to be the first early adopters. Let them pay for new heliports and aircraft parking garages.

Notice how there's a massive difference between small, lightweight insects and large, heavy aircraft.

birds are bigger than insects. Swarms don't just magically stop working because they go over a certain size. There would be faults of course but the idea that you can use a few small rules to coordinate complex movement in large groups is solid.

I agree that it would be challenging, but I think that it's an attempt worth pursing.

Most people don't live anywhere near an airfield.

So? Start small and work up. All that's needed is a hangar/garage and a helipad.

>Renting a hangar in NYC

A comparable direct drive airshit will be terrible in all respects to a helicopter which already exist and are mainstream. You will never get your shit to cost less than a helicopter and have it perform as good as a helicopter does in all respects.

There's a reason why all these quadcopter/multi-copters are popular but essentially do fucking nothing truly productive. Magic doesn't exist.

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1465255633333.webm

Why is it only ever a few kooks who work on flying cars? The whole concept is borderline /x/-tier when as you say it's actually a good idea. Why does no-one serious ever take it seriously? It's like early rocketry, it was just a few amateurs for decades getting a few thousand feet into the air and critics used that as a reason for why it would never go anywhere but when governments got interested the whole thing literally went cosmic. Therefore I think that flying cars have never got anywhere not because it can't be done but because nobody has put in a serious effort.

There was a Canadian guy who flew across a lake on a giant drone, he can't have used more than $10,000 worth of parts. That's nothing compared to the cost of a helicopter. You're both right, the efficiency will never be good but it will probably be cheap enough to be worth it.

The people shilling existing aircraft are retards. If it was so easy to own and fly a helicopter or access an airstrip then why the fuck do millions choose to sit in traffic every morning?

The problem was short flight time though. If it lasted even half an hour I could see it selling like hot cakes, it's just so cheap and easy.

>"automation" magically negates every airspace and aviation safety regulation devised over the last decades
yeah, no

more like at JFK or Liberty, both of which have MTA/PATH connections

because an "entry" level aircraft costs $250k new. I suggest using pilots as a starting point because they're the ones most likely to buy these things (flying machines) in the first place.

>an "entry" level aircraft costs $250k new
>what are ultra lights

planes which offer the rider no protection from the outside environment, and which do not have the same range as light aircraft

...

It's not moving the goalposts when the defining characteristic of travel is to have a sealed, insulated passenger cabin. Ultralights do not have this feature.

>defining characteristic of travel is to have a sealed, insulated passenger cabin.
Are you fucking serious? I don't know what to say to this. We called it travel long before what you describe existed.

>the defining characteristic of travel is to have a sealed, insulated passenger cabin
air travel
noun
the action or process of making a journey by aircraft

ultra lights are the epitome of >entry level< aircraft
not having a closed, comfy cabin is irrelevant outside of the arbitary definition you just pulled out of your ass

Within the context of what people expect out of either a "car", "air car", or "aircraft", one feature is common to all three: a sealed, insulated passenger compartment.

You're arguing semantics.

My point is that what people want out of an expensive travel device includes an enclosed passenger compartment. This is what the average person wants, and this is what the vast majority of pilots and potential aircraft buyers want. Also, most aircraft and most automobiles sold include an enclosed (or enclose-able) passenger compartment.

VTOL automation would. You could in theory run them like bumper cars it would be so easy but of course that is stupid.
Ultralights are literally just a propeller strapped to your back. This isn't popular with the plebs.
This. nobody wants to ride ultralights it looks like fucking extreme sport. Pic related. It's not extreme sport but such a exposed dangerous looking setup will not be popular with the masses.

I don't get why people are saying ultralights and helicopters are good enough. The fact that neither are anywhere near as popular as the automobile shows that they have serious flaws. The helicopter's flaw is it's price,large dangerous rotors and wicked noise. The ultralight's flaw is no VTOL and no passenger protection. Both have the flaw of being difficult to automate which is key for mass personal flight. Even if half a city did own ultralights it would be carnage in the air.