Airbus CEO sees 'flying car' prototype ready by end of year

SoonerAviator said:
Regarding the ATIS: that's a simple solution. Have the ATIS broadcast digitally on a continuous basis (say once per minute) and use some averaging over several minutes to smooth out the data. It isn't hard to implement, it simply just hasn't been necessary for most pilots. If autonomous systems are being used, it would force a bit of clean up of data and an increase in the refresh rate.

Regarding takeoff/landing at airports, that's entirely dependent on the aerocar's design, right? If it uses a quad/octo-copter arrangement, then a simple landing pad would be sufficient. It could be solved by creating a designated area in a parking lot. Now, I'm not really including the "car" portion of it, because it would be pointless, imo, to have something like a manned-octocopter with capability like a helicopter, and use it on the roadways instead of just flying 100ft above the road (or direct-to). Eliminates a lot of potential damage that way.

I'm not saying it'll be simple, I'm just saying that there are solutions that are entirely achievable if it was given enough focus.
Click to expand...

You can find a solution for each independent problem.

What you can't do is find a solution for ALL problems, or enumerate what they are. That's what makes this such a difficult engineering problem, as it's not hard at all to come up with "corner cases" that will kill.

And your ATIS solution doesn't work unless all landing stations have ATIS. AND it has to be accurate. Automated weather isn't that good. If I had a nickel for ever time KHAF ASOS reported 4 miles vis when it was actually 50.... And peak gust reports don't tell you what the wind is RIGHT NOW and exactly where the airplane is. That's where the feel comes in.

ATIS is actually recorded by a human most of the time. How are you going to do that continuously?
 
SoonerAviator said:
Regarding the ATIS: that's a simple solution. Have the ATIS broadcast digitally on a continuous basis (say once per minute) and use some averaging over several minutes to smooth out the data. It isn't hard to implement, it simply just hasn't been necessary for most pilots. If autonomous systems are being used, it would force a bit of clean up of data and an increase in the refresh rate.

Regarding takeoff/landing at airports, that's entirely dependent on the aerocar's design, right? If it uses a quad/octo-copter arrangement, then a simple landing pad would be sufficient. It could be solved by creating a designated area in a parking lot. Now, I'm not really including the "car" portion of it, because it would be pointless, imo, to have something like a manned-octocopter with capability like a helicopter, and use it on the roadways instead of just flying 100ft above the road (or direct-to). Eliminates a lot of potential damage that way.

I'm not saying it'll be simple, I'm just saying that there are solutions that are entirely achievable if it was given enough focus.
Click to expand...
Multi-copter? Ok, call me a Luddite (but at least spell it right) on this one, but I don't think you can make them reliable enough to get me into one. And I would absolutely not get into one after it sat in the Walmart parking lot.
 
MAKG1 said:
...Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like Explorin is the one assuming G1000 is magic. It has a lot of ways to fail, and he can't have been flying one for very long if it hasn't tried to kill him. I've had the GFC700 wind off trim for me twice (once in each direction), and climb hard to intercept a GS over its head several times (KLVK ILS). One of the planes magically loses the terrain DB once in a while (that's gotta be fun for an "automatic" routing).
Click to expand...
Wow, I had no idea! The G300 I've been using, while getting me used to tape displays and some of the basic buttonology, is far more rudimentary in comparison.
 
Palmpilot said:
Wow, I had no idea! The G300 I've been using, while getting me used to tape displays and some of the basic buttonology, is far more rudimentary in comparison.
Click to expand...
I'll have to take you on the LVK ILS in 448 one of these times. It always grabs the GS from hundreds of feet below; it seems pretty likely it's a reflection off terrain, as it always occurs at the same place, in the pass. I haven't tried it yet in 445 since the swap. I think I have 445's terrain DB problem fixed.

The scary fault was the second trim fault. I was at 1000 AGL over mountains (near La Honda) executing an expanding square, when it ran away nose up. As I'd had a fault before, I hit the disconnect button really fast and just hand flew it. And in the middle of all that, my scanner trainee spotted the permanent arrow some guy put in his yard. You can bet I signed him off after that. :D

A third time, I just got an annunciation and it refused to do anything but attitude hold.
 
Last edited:
Explorin said:
Some times maybe.

I'm really sorry a computer can replace you.

And a computer can make better decisions.
Click to expand...

A computer cannot replace me, and here's why: I spend a lot of time, money and effort pursuing my hobby of recreational aviation. I do it because it's a passion of mine to fly and I love every second I'm up in the sky. No doubt a robot could be designed and built to play a round of golf, go out sailing on a Sunday afternoon or maybe even fly an aircraft completely autonomously, but until said robot is able to somehow capture the same emotions I experience while flying, then transfer those emotions to me so I can get my aerofix, that robot won't be doing its job.
 
Last edited:
Bobanna said:
Fluent use of "Luddite," and it is spelled correctly. The old Dick Tracey comic strips often featured a "two-way wrist radio;" an unthinkable, but convenient, device. So while I still prefer the Bonanza/rented Yugo, I maintain some humility about the possible and impossible when it comes to concepts like the aerocar. Door dings are pretty nasty at Walmart.
Click to expand...
Actually, no it isn't. The Luddites were a group of reactionary textile laborers in the early 19th century, upset that the steam engine and automated weaving had put them out of work. They were quite violent, frequently destroying equipment and participating in armed rebellion in England. They were not "afraid" of technology, nor did they argue about safety or reliability (though automated looms were exceptionally unsafe and frequently maimed people at the time).
 
Some of us are engineers, and while part of the job description is to come up with new ways of doing things, another part is to identify the difficulties to be overcome and to assess the feasibility of doing so. We especially learn to be skeptical of the promises made by marketing folks.
 
Bobanna said:
Fluent use of "Luddite," and it is spelled correctly. The old Dick Tracey comic strips often featured a "two-way wrist radio;" an unthinkable, but convenient, device. So while I still prefer the Bonanza/rented Yugo, I maintain some humility about the possible and impossible when it comes to concepts like the aerocar. Door dings are pretty nasty at Walmart.
Click to expand...

I was referring to this post in my dig about the spelling.

Explorin said:
Technology is very scary for alot of ludite pilots.

Have you ever let a old timer see a g1000 glass cockpit? It is practically witchcraft to them
Click to expand...
 
Salty said:
Multi-copter? Ok, call me a Luddite (but at least spell it right) on this one, but I don't think you can make them reliable enough to get me into one. And I would absolutely not get into one after it sat in the Walmart parking lot.
Click to expand...

Fine, you're a Luddite!

It's a bit silly to say they can't make them reliable enough, as it's just electric motors and controllers. I'm sure they can figure it out with enough time and money invested. Otherwise, we wouldn't have most of the luxuries we enjoy today, including manned flight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MAKG1 said:
You can find a solution for each independent problem.

What you can't do is find a solution for ALL problems, or enumerate what they are. That's what makes this such a difficult engineering problem, as it's not hard at all to come up with "corner cases" that will kill.

And your ATIS solution doesn't work unless all landing stations have ATIS. AND it has to be accurate. Automated weather isn't that good. If I had a nickel for ever time KHAF ASOS reported 4 miles vis when it was actually 50.... And peak gust reports don't tell you what the wind is RIGHT NOW and exactly where the airplane is. That's where the feel comes in.

ATIS is actually recorded by a human most of the time. How are you going to do that continuously?
Click to expand...

So how are CAT III aircraft able to put the aircraft right down to the runway with no input from crew, without continuous ATIS/AWOS? The aircraft can use GPS data to determine drift and input corrections to adjust. Again, if enough time/money is invested, they can make it work for most situations. Ice/Rain/high winds, maybe it takes those into account and denies the operator from attempting the trip, using weather data sourced along the route - just like doing flight planning.

It's not an insurmountable problem, it just isn't a big focus right now. If we can put men on the moon, and put bombs down a smoke stack, I'm sure we can make a manned-drone set down at a preselected destination without killing it's occupants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
Fine, you're a Luddite!

It's a bit silly to say they can't make them reliable enough, as it's just electric motors and controllers. I'm sure they can figure it out with enough time and money invested. Otherwise, we wouldn't have most of the luxuries we enjoy today, including manned flight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You really don't see the difference in a craft that can glide to a safe landing without any power source and one that will certainly kill you if you lose power?

Well, I can see the difference. Any power source light enough to power a multicopter is not going to be reliable enough for me to bet my life on it on a regular basis. And a chute won't save you at the altitudes this thing is likely to fly.

I'm not sure you're considering the difference between a calculated short term risk such as a moon landing and putting yourself at risk on a daily basis like a flying car. I'd fly in the thing under controlled circumstances once or twice for fun and the experience, but as a daily event? No way. After it's been sitting in a public parking lot? Absolutely no way.
 
Salty said:
You really don't see the difference in a craft that can glide to a safe landing without any power source and one that will certainly kill you if you lose power?

Well, I can see the difference. Any power source light enough to power a multicopter is not going to be reliable enough for me to bet my life on it on a regular basis. And a chute won't save you at the altitudes this thing is likely to fly.

I'm not sure you're considering the difference between a calculated short term risk such as a moon landing and putting yourself at risk on a daily basis like a flying car. I'd fly in the thing under controlled circumstances once or twice for fun and the experience, but as a daily event? No way. After it's been sitting in a public parking lot? Absolutely no way.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me there's no way to add variable prop-pitch or an auto-rotation equivalent to electric motors? I'd think something similar to regenerative braking would be able to be used in order to force the energy provided by the decent to slow the aircraft. You also would have significantly decreased risk due to much simpler mechanical systems with limited modes of failure. Im certain that people said the exact same thing about aircraft with Orville & Wilbur, but look where we are today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
So you're telling me there's no way to add variable prop-pitch or an auto-rotation equivalent to electric motors? I'd think something similar to regenerative braking would be able to be used in order to force the energy provided by the decent to slow the aircraft. You also would have significantly decreased risk due to much simpler mechanical systems with limited modes of failure. Im certain that people said the exact same thing about aircraft with Orville & Wilbur, but look where we are today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If you lose power, you lose the ability to control a multi copter system. If one rotor motor fails, you're screwed. If you lose power in a regular rotorcraft, it can be autorotate with no power. If you lose power in a multi rotor you fall, at best, straight down, at worst, spinning wildly as you drop.

Again, there is a huge difference in safety of a vehicle that without power is simply a rock, compared to a vehicle that can still glide without power.
 
If you hit a bird, or even a plastic bag with the tail rotor of a r-22 you are in deep trouble. A multirotor multiplies the odds of that happening by at least four times. If you hit something with one rotor of a multi rotor above 50 feet, your odds of surviving are almost zero.
 
Kinda funny. When I posted this, I figured the most interesting thing about this news story was the "Airbus" part. We all know that flying cars are basically an impractical solution to a dream. Not with current propulsion systems, regulations, costs, and infrastructure. Lots of small companies and/or individuals have created them. Some better than others. But they all face insurmountable business problems and are nothing but curiosity at best.

So for the head of one of the largest aviation companies to come out and even talk about it is rather interesting, in my opinion
 
Salty said:
If you hit a bird, or even a plastic bag with the tail rotor of a r-22 you are in deep trouble. A multirotor multiplies the odds of that happening by at least four times. If you hit something with one rotor of a multi rotor above 50 feet, your odds of surviving are almost zero.
Click to expand...

I'm interested to know what data you have to support that, say with a 6 or 8-rotor setup. Why can't a control system reconfigure power to the other motors in order to compensate with reduced maneuverability in order to get down safely. Again, what are the chancel of a total power failure? 1 in 500,000? 1,000,000?

I still don't know that I accept that there's no way to design an autorotation system for one, I don't know that anyone's ever had reason to try. I'll need something more factual than a blank statement to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
I'm interested to know what data you have to support that, say with a 6 or 8-rotor setup. Why can't a control system reconfigure power to the other motors in order to compensate with reduced maneuverability in order to get down safely. Again, what are the chancel of a total power failure? 1 in 500,000? 1,000,000?

I still don't know that I accept that there's no way to design an autorotation system for one, I don't know that anyone's ever had reason to try. I'll need something more factual than a blank statement to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There isn't enough rotor inertia for autorotation with small rotors.
 
genna said:
Kinda funny. When I posted this, I figured the most interesting thing about this news story was the "Airbus" part. We all know that flying cars are basically an impractical solution to a dream. Not with current propulsion systems, regulations, costs, and infrastructure. Lots of small companies and/or individuals have created them. Some better than others. But they all face insurmountable business problems and are nothing but curiosity at best.

So for the head of one of the largest aviation companies to come out and even talk about it is rather interesting, in my opinion
Click to expand...
I think it's interesting as well, but I chalk it up as nothing but a publicity stunt.
 
SoonerAviator said:
...Again, if enough time/money is invested, they can make it work for most situations....
Click to expand...
Let's not gloss over this part. Even if solutions to the technical problems are found, there's no guarantee that the economics will work. See the SST for details.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So how are CAT III aircraft able to put the aircraft right down to the runway with no input from crew, without continuous ATIS/AWOS? The aircraft can use GPS data to determine drift and input corrections to adjust. Again, if enough time/money is invested, they can make it work for most situations. Ice/Rain/high winds, maybe it takes those into account and denies the operator from attempting the trip, using weather data sourced along the route - just like doing flight planning.

It's not an insurmountable problem, it just isn't a big focus right now. If we can put men on the moon, and put bombs down a smoke stack, I'm sure we can make a manned-drone set down at a preselected destination without killing it's occupants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight. You are proposing radar altimeters in every aircraft? GPS data is ****NOT***** sufficient for a Cat III autoland. The best you're going to do is 200 AGL. They also require help from signals on the ground. Those are done with ILS's. So, now every airport has to have an ILS? The vast majority do not.

You'll have a useful load of 15 lb by the time you're done with all the gadgets. Better start your diet. And save up your money for those $10 million 172s.
 
MAKG1 said:
So, let me get this straight. You are proposing radar altimeters in every aircraft? GPS data is ****NOT***** sufficient for a Cat III autoland. The best you're going to do is 200 AGL. They also require help from signals on the ground. Those are done with ILS's. So, now every airport has to have an ILS? The vast majority do not.

You'll have a useful load of 15 lb by the time you're done with all the gadgets. Better start your diet. And save up your money for those $10 million 172s.
Click to expand...

I was citing an example of how the technology to do so already exists, not that it would be the chosen choice of an autonomous vehicle.

So, take this as an example: autonomous vehicle is a single-man helicopter, ducted fan, whatever: vertical takeoff capable. GPS gets it to hover 200ft above landing zone (although that altitude is an FAA minimum, not a GPS limitation), radar altimeter or some type of altitude-sensing optical is able to drop you straight down onto your landing spot. No ILS, no runway, no airport even needed. What makes this impossible? Outside of cost and legislative issues, why isn't it possible with current tech?

Pretty difficult to claim useful load limitations of a vehicle that doesn't exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
I was citing an example of how the technology to do so already exists, not that it would be the chosen choice of an autonomous vehicle.

So, take this as an example: autonomous vehicle is a single-man helicopter, ducted fan, whatever: vertical takeoff capable. GPS gets it to hover 200ft above landing zone (although that altitude is an FAA minimum, not a GPS limitation), radar altimeter or some type of altitude-sensing optical is able to drop you straight down onto your landing spot. No ILS, no runway, no airport even needed. What makes this impossible? Outside of cost and legislative issues, why isn't it possible with current tech?

Pretty difficult to claim useful load limitations of a vehicle that doesn't exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yup. It's easy. SGOTI said so.

Never mind that it's mind-numbingly easy to shoot 8 billion holes in it.

Yes, you can solve each problem as it comes by. What you cannot do is solve all of them, or even every class of them, because you cannot enumerate the problems. THAT is why it's impossible. Or at least really stupid. And if you try to do it one at a time, you will never finish. It's not done that way, because it can't be.

The next one is that your "ducted fan" VTOL that somehow doesn't weigh anything somehow has to dodge uncharted obstructions like fences, other aircraft, birds, buildings, bushes, weather, overloading (it's gonna happen), and a whole host of other things that don't speak ADSB or GPS.

And cost is the absolute reason it's not going to work. Along with there not actually being a need for it.

Technology = magic has been argued since at least the 50s. We have been promised flying cars, personal robots, artificial intelligence, and all kinds of other science FICTION for 60+ years. AND it was all going to be here by 1980. What has changed?
 
I think there is a "backup" in science advancement - we're doing a lot with applied science, good stuff, truly, but mostly based on discoveries, materials, and processes that have been around for the last 1/2 century or longer. We're doing good incrementally, applying older knowledge in new ways, but the breakthroughs aren't significant enough to be major game changers. When we get batteries with four time the power and charge life, at 1/4 the weight,then yeah, lot's of good applications will pop-up, for example.

We could've built an autonomous air car, one that picked you up and dropped you at work, 30 - 40 years ago. Could do it today, too, but still not practical - until we breakthrough big time in some fundamental physics and material science. And automation. Programming today is still crude - we do poorly at building code with real adapability, and the art has gone down quite a few rabbit holes.
 
Until we have the specifications for this Rube Goldberg marvel of technology and subject it to rigorous Failure modes and effects analysis (particularly the multitude of processor-controlled systems), it is difficult to envision a device compatible with manned flight. While there may be engineering solutions to individual obstacles, isn't the challenge to efficiently prove integration of all the systems into a reliable, safe vehicle that places no more demand on the operator than driving an automobile? I'm not from Missouri, but show me.
 
Salty said:
If you hit a bird, or even a plastic bag with the tail rotor of a r-22 you are in deep trouble. A multirotor multiplies the odds of that happening by at least four times. If you hit something with one rotor of a multi rotor above 50 feet, your odds of surviving are almost zero.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true - take a look at:
https://www.ted.com/talks/raffaello_d_andrea_the_astounding_athletic_power_of_quadcopters

The entire video is fascinating and worth a watch, but if you want to just skip to the part about maintaining control over the quad with 2 failed props, skip to 6:30 minutes in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top