bflynn
Final Approach
Been over 6 YEARS since the video was made.
I just found out that I have no sense of time. If you had asked me I would have guessed maybe six months.
Been over 6 YEARS since the video was made.
Well, I'm on Mercer Island, across Lake Washington from KRNT. They USED to allow people to jet ski up to the airport, but no beuno now with security in 2024. However, an aircraft could get clearance to land and taxi to parking.I’m curious now. Boat or motorcycle or bicycle? You could walk a mile in 16 minutes, right?
Can you say "Darwin Awards"?These things will work themselves out![]()
Define "a long while".I think itll be a long while before things like this are practical. They have no range and are nit very Practical.
For those willing to ignore reality.It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.
Define "a long while".
In 5 years (This one was flying last year):
Range: 22 miles (no improvement)
Speed: 81 mph (4x improvement) The Jetson 1 has a speed of 63 mph with the same range.
# pax: 2 (2x improvement)
It doesn't beat a helicopter but it is an improvement over the device mentioned at the start of the thread.![]()
Are flying cars finally here?
The world had “flying cars” in the 1930s. We could be getting them again.www.vox.com
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.
Perhaps. Also for those who don't think change is possible.For those willing to ignore reality.
This is as the device exists now (or rather, last year). You have to start somewhere. There are longer-range batteries being tested now for cars that provide 800 to 1000 mile range and 15 minute charge. Note that I'm curious about how much current is needed to meet that claim and what sort of wiring needed to carry that current. Also, there needs to be infrastructure to support that kind of charging rate, assuming it can happen.Define Practical, too. Twenty-two miles isn't enough for a grocery trip for me, and that ignores the quite limited payload. As far as a taxi service, it seems only practical for single people or those on business trips (with no friends). And what if I want to go farther than 22 miles? At 23 or (heaven forbid) 24 miles, it'll need to recharge. And that is not a long distance. Additionally, how does payload affect that range? Is that range assuming zero payload? Maximum? Something in between? Neither the article you cite nor the article it cites provides that information.
Furthermore, there are logistical considerations. Let's say a passenger gets in and flies twenty miles. That leaves two miles of range for it to find a charging station. Also, that flight took roughly twenty minutes, but the time needed to recharge is well over an hour. That's not a good dispatch rate. And all of that assume that the device arrived at the customer's location without consuming any range at all. That could only work if there were designated depots (like for buses) from which customers could depart. But that raises the issue of getting the customer (known to us to need aid commuting) to the depot in the first place.
This seems like a devise whose testing will clog airspaces and provide no benefit for the congestion.
Yes. Good questions. I think it'll be decades. They need battery power to get them there to get any reasonable range at all. There will need to be a generational jump in battery life (and weight loss) to get a decent range. And a way to charge them when I get there, plus they need to be charged quickly. Practical is it should perform at least as well as current aircraft, fly for 4+ hours and refill in 20 minutes and take off again. Either way, it'll be decades before the technology is there.Define Practical, too. Twenty-two miles isn't enough for a grocery trip for me, and that ignores the quite limited payload. As far as a taxi service, it seems only practical for single people or those on business trips (with no friends). And what if I want to go farther than 22 miles? At 23 or (heaven forbid) 24 miles, it'll need to recharge. And that is not a long distance. Additionally, how does payload affect that range? Is that range assuming zero payload? Maximum? Something in between? Neither the article you cite nor the article it cites provides that information.
Furthermore, there are logistical considerations. Let's say a passenger gets in and flies twenty miles. That leaves two miles of range for it to find a charging station. Also, that flight took roughly twenty minutes, but the time needed to recharge is well over an hour. That's not a good dispatch rate. And all of that assume that the device arrived at the customer's location without consuming any range at all. That could only work if there were designated depots (like for buses) from which customers could depart. But that raises the issue of getting the customer (known to us to need aid commuting) to the depot in the first place.
This seems like a devise whose testing will clog airspaces and provide no benefit for the congestion.
This is as the device exists now (or rather, last year).
As usual, no politics unless it’s conservative politics.CNN reporters have already proven what journalism looks like when the skill entry barrier is removed.
12-20 minutes at 20 mph.
All those things required a lot of effort. But none of them required improving the technologies by x1000 times to make it work.I no idea how practical future versions of this device will be.
I do know that we’ve made huge changes, in a short time, when we’ve wanted or needed to.
We sent men to the moon less than a decade after we couldn’t reliably launch a satellite into LEO. Built scads of b52s less than 20years after we were training pilots in biplanes. France went from under 10k MW of nuclear electrical generation, to over 50k, in a *decade*
The early satellites were around 200 miles up. The moon averages around 238,800. That's about a 1000x improvement. B-52s are 1000x better than biplanes when you consider speed, altitude, payload, and range as a package.All those things required a lot of effort. But none of them required improving the technologies by x1000 times to make it work.
The biggest problem with these things is that nobody really wants what they can do. They want what they will never be able to do.
My predictions have been more accurate than yours for the last 5 or more years.The early satellites were around 200 miles up. The moon averages around 238,800. That's about a 1000x improvement. B-52s are 1000x better than biplanes when you consider speed, altitude, payload, and range as a package.
You can't predict the future, and I sure can't. Just look at AI. When humanity thought about AI, one dream was that the machines would do the tedious and repetitive jobs and we could spend our time being creative and working on fun projects. Now, this vision has been turned upside down by the first widely-used AI algorithms like ChatGPT. Instead of helping us with the tasks that nobody wants to do, they are mostly used for creative applications. The only household task the robots have helped me with is vacuuming my house.
Maybe these things will eventually fly, or maybe something else will. As long as we don't destroy ourselves.
Such as? You only seem to say things can't be done.My predictions have been more accurate than yours for the last 5 or more years.
Why does it need to fly for 4+ hours? A Robinson R22 flies at about 100 knots with a range of about 250 nautical miles. That's only 2 1/2 hours flight time. I understand that the intent of these things is to fly across town, not cross-country flights. Essentially a short-haul taxi. A reasonable question is whether there is a market for such a vehicle. It does what a car does, with the disadvantage of weather. Joby does interesting things with fuel cells.Yes. Good questions. I think it'll be decades. They need battery power to get them there to get any reasonable range at all. There will need to be a generational jump in battery life (and weight loss) to get a decent range. And a way to charge them when I get there, plus they need to be charged quickly. Practical is it should perform at least as well as current aircraft, fly for 4+ hours and refill in 20 minutes and take off again. Either way, it'll be decades before the technology is there.
This is one of the more reasoned responses. I'll note electric cars weren't very practical until better batteries became available. Edison built one around 1890. It took a long time for those batteries to be available. As you correctly state, there needs to be improved charging and power density before these powered-lift aircraft are something more than a toy.All technology follows an S Curve. Very little improvement for a period, followed by rapid improvement, followed by another period of little improvement. TV's, airplanes, cell phones, vacuum cleaners, toilets, cars, you name it. See http://www.rako.com/Other_Voices/Putt's_Law/Putts_Law_no_ads.pdf. (Page 10 The S-Curve Law)
These things seems to be in the very little improvement period final stage. First a few would fly some miniscule distance, then quickly additional capability and now they don't seem to be improving much at all. Until the power density and rapid charging vastly improves, what you see is what you get.
FactsElectric cars are still not practical for more than 50% of our society, and they never will be.
FTFYAlternative Facts
Please cite where this came from since a lithium ion battery from 2024 is very different from one from 2015.The current limiting (no pun intended) factor of electric aircraft in energy density. The laws of thermodynamics still apply. Present technology requires a certain amount of energy to move a sufficient amount of air as would levitate a given quantity of "stuff" (plane, passengers, cargo, etc.). In most cases, you have to carry that energy store with you. This is measure in energy per mass (specific energy, Mj/kg), and energy per volume (specific density, Mj/L). by either of these measures, hydrocarbons are the winner.
Compare gasoline to Li-ion batteries on this chart, energy density (vertical y-axis) vs. specific energy (horizontal s-axis). Neither Zinc-air nor Li-ion batteries are particularly energy rich nor energy-dense.
View attachment 131928
Please cite where this came from since a lithium ion battery from 2024 is very different from one from 2015.
Who says we have to stay with lithium ion?
Wikipedia: Energy Density -- In energy storage and fuelsPlease cite where this came from since a lithium ion battery from 2024 is very different from one from 2015.
No one. What else you got?Who says we have to stay with lithium ion?
Surprised this didn't become a thing.. at all! for cars. It would take some legwork and standardization up front (which, I guess from a business sense no individual car maker has a $$ desire to take the charge (haha) on this) but this would solve much of the infrastructure and range anxiety issues, and for people who can't charge at home. Supply existing gas stations with standardized battery packs, pull up, swap it out, and off you go. Stations could still compete on fees, range, etc. Seems obvious.. in fact I think Tesla might has a patent (or something) similar for a device like this..I heard a podcast saying xyz electric plane had a slide in/out battery (2 minute switch out,) so maybe that’s something these people could do. Anyone using it regularly could leave batteries in their most likely destinations
a $10k+ battery swap would be hugely risky. Why not just swap the whole car out?Surprised this didn't become a thing.. at all! for cars. It would take some legwork and standardization up front (which, I guess from a business sense no individual car maker has a $$ desire to take the charge (haha) on this) but this would solve much of the infrastructure and range anxiety issues, and for people who can't charge at home. Supply existing gas stations with standardized battery packs, pull up, swap it out, and off you go. Stations could still compete on fees, range, etc. Seems obvious.. in fact I think Tesla might has a patent (or something) similar for a device like this..
you're not buying the battery, renting it so to speak.. but yes - there are reasons why this didn't become a thing! The idea of car swap outs is some serious THX1138 horror thoughMy crit
a $10k+ battery swap would be hugely risky. Why not just swap the whole car out?
It’s not like a $50 propane tank.
Thanks for the citation.Wikipedia: Energy Density -- In energy storage and fuels
Have at it.
No one. What else you got?
If you get away from storing energy, there's solar -- VVFR (VERY VFR) only. Maybe you have a line on that Nicola Tesla/Randian John Galt static harvester engine?
How long is the timeline?Wikipedia: Energy Density -- In energy storage and fuels
Have at it.
No one. What else you got?
If you get away from storing energy, there's solar -- VVFR (VERY VFR) only. Maybe you have a line on that Nicola Tesla/Randian John Galt static harvester engine?
How long is the timeline?
I’m in post surgery lala land and see a future with airplanes powered by micro nuke reactors powered from chips off spent fuel rods lol. Apparently we have tons of old tech waste that new tech reactors can use. Now just make em micro sized. Easy.
I hope you recover quickly.How long is the timeline?
I’m in post surgery lala land and see a future with airplanes powered by micro nuke reactors powered from chips off spent fuel rods lol. Apparently we have tons of old tech waste that new tech reactors can use. Now just make em micro sized. Easy.