Fending off the flying car

[jsstevens]

[snip]
We are already operating unmanned aircraft along our borders and in our assorted war zones.
[snip]
John

Don't confuse Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) with autonomous or semi autonomous air vehicles. they're not synonomous. While we are using many Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) in the air (and on the water ground), we are using very few semi-autonomous and almost no purely autonomous air vehicles.

People fly most of the UAVs, not computers.

Ironically, while the problem is (theoretically, at least) easier in the air, we are closer to having it work on the ground. DARPA Grand Challenge and projects in Europe are getting there.

The psychological factor will probably be the limiting force to adoption.

John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If we don't find workable alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, including alternatives to the electricity generated through burning fossil fuels, we might not see many flying cars even if they're automated and idiot-proof. Flying consumes more energy than rolling; not many airplanes get good mileage compared to ground-bound vehicles of similar capacity. Only big airplanes do better, I think, in terms of seat-miles per gallon, and they don't do nearly as well as railroads or ships. As oil gets more and more expensive it will be impossible to have millions of flying machines flying around.

An even bigger factor, I think, is that it's much more difficult to make a flying machine safe, and it's much more expensive to make a flying machine, period.

I think that what will happen if a Jetsons-style "flying car" is ever invented, it will cost a fortune early on, a la Tesla, and only very rich people will be able to afford them. Then, when there's enough bitching from everyone else about the noise created by these things flying 500 feet over their house at all hours of the day and night, they will quickly be banned.

 

[Joe B]

And 24 years later, have they sold a single one of them? Or was it a stepping stone for current projects?

One could consider all of Scaled Composites' earlier projects as stepping stones for the current ones. The firm has been a highly successful and presumably profitable aircraft design shop since the early '80's. They designed both the Beech Starship and the Adam. Neither of those aircraft enjoyed long production runs but they were certified and in production. Which is a lot more than can be said for the designers of the current round of flying cars.

 

[PittsDriver]

... we are using very few semi-autonomous and almost no purely autonomous air vehicles.

People fly most of the UAVs, not computers.

That may be true but there are definitely autopilot driven UAVs in use by law enforcement and agriculture agencies. I talked to some guys flying one on Maryland's Eastern Shore a few years ago. An RC guy would take off and then activate the autopilot which would go out and fly around using GPS guidance and a flight plan and then return to the airport and circle until the RC guy "captured" it and landed it.

 

[John Baker]

Then there will undoubtedly be technologies that have never been thought of, discovered, or conceived. This is 2010, think of the comparisons to the technologies of 1910. In just 100 years, the advances of mankind have been astronomical, beyond anyones comprehension in 1910.

Technology is much like a snowball rolling down a hill, the larger and faster it grows & goes.

2110, many of our kind will still be alive. It will be mind boggling for them, barring no catastrophic events occur to change that.

John

 

[gprellwitz]

How quickly they forget! Scaled Composites made the front pages in 1986 with the nonstop round-the-world flight of the Voyager.

With the logo of Virgin Atlantic writ large on the nacelles, so Sir Richard was in the picture even then!

 

[Joe B]

With the logo of Virgin Atlantic writ large on the nacelles, so Sir Richard was in the picture even then!

Wrong aircraft. The Voyager (1986) didn't have much beyond an N-number painted on it:

The Global Flyer (2005) is the round-the-world aircraft with Virgin Atlantic all over it. That was almost 20 years later:

 

[Steve Foley]

They are fine and that is all that counts.

Unfortunately, that's not all that counts. Said moron, if he died, left a grieving family behind. If he lived, I doubt he's doing anything but sucking food through a straw.

This summer, I stopped to help a broken down car on the highway. A young couple was coming from a cousin's wake, where some old lady crashed into the side of his motorcycle. I checked a few newspaper accounts. Shne was turning left from the left lane, and he was passing everyone from the median strip.

 

[gprellwitz]

Hmmm....

We're both wrong, apparently. You're correct that it was the GlobalFlyer, not the Voyager that had Virgin Atlantic all over it, so I totally messed up there.

However, Voyager was not a Scaled Composites project. While designed by Burt Rutan (it was the Rutan Model 76), it was built mainly by a group of volunteers working under both the Rutan Aircraft Factory and an organization set up under the name Voyager Aircraft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager)

You'll note that the first Rutan model listed on the Scaled Composite's Project page (http://www.scaled.com/projects/) was the Rutan Model 97 MicroLite.


Edit: There's a pretty good history at http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/GENERAL_AVIATION/rutan/GA15.htm

Wrong aircraft. The Voyager (1986) didn't have much beyond an N-number painted on it:

The Global Flyer (2005) is the round-the-world aircraft with Virgin Atlantic all over it. That was almost 20 years later:

 

[Joe B]

However, Voyager was not a Scaled Composites project. While designed by Burt Rutan (it was the Rutan Model 76), it was built mainly by a group of volunteers working under both the Rutan Aircraft Factory and an organization set up under the name Voyager Aircraft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager)

You'll note that the first Rutan model listed on the Scaled Composite's Project page (http://www.scaled.com/projects/) was the Rutan Model 97 MicroLite.

Well I'll be! Thanks.

Interesting that SC's projects now are up to Model 348, yet they only list 18. I wonder what else Burt has been up to...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

 

[Palmpilot]

This thread resurrection reminded me of one reason why a flying car could be useful: I have found that one of the biggest factors limiting where one can go on a flying vacation, or even a day trip, is the absence of ground transportation at some airports. I suspect that a flying car would be too expensive to be a solution to this problem though.

 

[Radio Flyer]

This thread resurrection reminded me of one reason why a flying car could be useful: I have found that one of the biggest factors limiting where one can go on a flying vacation, or even a day trip, is the absence of ground transportation at some airports. I suspect that a flying car would be too expensive to be a solution to this problem though.

The other useful application that I didn't see was just being able to take off and fly over slower traffic and land in front of them. Sure would make my trip to work every day a little less stressful...

Would you even need a certificate to stay in the air less than a minute?

 

[fgcason]

This thread resurrection reminded me of one reason why a flying car could be useful: I have found that one of the biggest factors limiting where one can go on a flying vacation, or even a day trip, is the absence of ground transportation at some airports. I suspect that a flying car would be too expensive to be a solution to this problem though.

That's probably one of the main reasons aviation has a hard time supporting itself. Imagine owning a car except to go anywhere you have to park in a car park 20 miles outside of town and you're not allowed to drive into town at all. The only services at the car park is a parking space, bill collector, gas pump, a potty, and maybe someone to fix your car. No activities, no food beyond a vending machine, nothing much other than a parking lot. That's not exactly the scenario however it's pretty close.

 

[Palmpilot]

The other useful application that I didn't see was just being able to take off and fly over slower traffic and land in front of them. Sure would make my trip to work every day a little less stressful...

Would you even need a certificate to stay in the air less than a minute?

How would you get the other cars to leave you enough space for the takeoff and landing roll?

 

[Steve Foley]

That's probably one of the main reasons aviation has a hard time supporting itself. Imagine owning a car except to go anywhere you have to park in a car park 20 miles outside of town and you're not allowed to drive into town at all. The only services at the car park is a parking space, bill collector, gas pump, a potty, and maybe someone to fix your car. No activities, no food beyond a vending machine, nothing much other than a parking lot. That's not exactly the scenario however it's pretty close.

Sounds just like NYC

 

[W. Stewart]

Even if the perfect flying car were available, I would not have one. Road incidents aside, I cannot even fathom parking the thing anywhere. Dimwits would mess with it, break things, render it unairworthy. At least there is some protection from the masses at most airports.

Wells

 

[ClimbnSink]

Funny stuff. Bashing everything from venture capitalists to kids on sport bikes. People risking their own money is what makes great things possible. I'm with Steingar I'm not investing in Terrefugia but I wish them the best of luck. Motorcycle accidents have spiked in the last few years and everyone is quick to blame kids on rockets, turns out kids have been doing the rocket thing pre-spike. It is all the middle aged guys and gals buying their first bike and motoring off to their doom. If they built skills stunting as kids on sport bikes they'd be able to handle the midlife crises Harley.
I'd love a Maverick they work and look like a lot of fun. Put the utility BS aside, fun is the only justification for GA.