The end of flying as we know it??

Katamarino said:
You're arguing with the same smug , closed minded old farts who are also convinced that electric cars will never happen. No point trying to debate with that lot, all you get is the old "this is the way we've always done it and by gawd it simply can't be beat" rubbish.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've found that out. I'm relatively new here, but frequent other flying forums where the userbase is younger and let's just say... more open-minded.

And it's not even this thread. This entire site is full of fogeys flying 60's tech, still living in the 60's.

Enjoy yourselves, because you're going to be left behind.
 
Last edited:
Talk is cheap Jimmyjack……. and trust me, most of us "fogeys" have heard a lot of it and can spot it a mile away. Never forget that.
 
jimmyjack said:
I don't understand the hate all these new toys get.

1) I am *insanely* jealous every time I see something like this. It saddens me that I have to bounce around in a 61 y/o 172 when the coolest **** like this is being made by dozens of start-ups.

2) And, like it or not, this is the future of aviation. POA may be an older, jaded, curmudgeon group, but this is the horse and buggy all over again. In ten years, the rich are going to have these toys en masse. In 20, most of us will have something similar to this.

Tech, in all fields, is advancing exponentially. We'll be in flying cars soon enough. Maybe not in my lifetime (though probably) but I'd bet the family fortune my daughter will be.


That's all fine, but all the horse-riding cowboys thought the same thing, too. "I don't want Anna-Belle and Lillian riding in those new fangled steam-burners with wheels."

But it's going to happen. In time, this will be what personal transit looks like.
Click to expand...

I think the skepticism comes from the history of far too many failed claims from the past. Flying cars have been in our imagination for 50 years, but nothing anything remotely close became a reality. Multicopters are extremely inefficient and can fail catastrophically. The only reason they appeared now, instead of before, is because of the availability of MEMS inertial sensors. Combined with the low energy density of batteries, multicopters carrying passengers seems far too speculative. A battery powered airplane will have to come first long before these multicopters. We are not even there yet.
 
jimmyjack said:
Yeah, I've found that out. I'm relatively new here, but frequent other flying forums where the userbase is younger and let's just say... more open-minded.

And it's not even this thread. This entire site is full of fogeys flying 60's tech, still living in the 60's.

Enjoy yourselves, because you're going to be left behind.
Click to expand...

You said you fly a 61 year old C172. :confused:
 
sarangan said:
A battery powered airplane will have to come first long before these multicopters. We are not even there yet.
Click to expand...
Didn't I read about an electric (not solar) airplane that is already certified and trying to recruit flight schools to use it?
 
Katamarino said:
You're arguing with the same smug , closed minded old farts who are also convinced that electric cars will never happen. No point trying to debate with that lot, all you get is the old "this is the way we've always done it and by gawd it simply can't be beat" rubbish.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh. . .I'm old, and I fart. . .do I have to sell my Volt? Dude, some tech works out, and some is a dead end. I don't wish this one ill, but it's an old, old idea, undergoing CPR, IMHO. We can get a locomotive supersonic, given enough $$$, but no one is going to enjoy the ride; point-to-point implies vertical TO/LDG, which on our planet means rotary wings. Or massive engine power. I do think it can be done, and will be, but more likely for fun or soecific, niche uses.
 
I've heard this "stuff" from younger people before. We older folks don't understand the technology of today. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Who do you think invented this new technology? I got my BSEE in 1975 and I don't recall stopping learning. I'm not holding my breath waiting for electric airplanes to replace ones burning dead dinosaurs. Energy density is key here, and batteries have a lot of ground to make up. Some day, perhaps, but not while I'm still flying.
 
Katamarino said:
You're arguing with the same smug , closed minded old farts who are also convinced that electric cars will never happen. No point trying to debate with that lot, all you get is the old "this is the way we've always done it and by gawd it simply can't be beat" rubbish.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen no one say electric cars will never happen here, ever. Drama queen much?

Electric cars make sense for a very limited market space and are filling it. No problems with that at all.

PaulS said:
Talk is cheap Jimmyjack……. and trust me, most of us "fogeys" have heard a lot of it and can spot it a mile away. Never forget that.
Click to expand...

Seriously. The “brainiac” youngsters seem to be forgetting that electric has been around longer than gas and has not been used in traditional helicopters for real reasons. Switching to a quad copter doesn’t really change the physics or the realities of the weight of the batteries.

Like @Ghery I’ve been building profitable systems for more than a couple of decades now. There’s nothing in the current business model of any of these prototypes that makes them magically profitable or extends their range.

I did a 300+ nm round trip today in my “70s tech” airplane, on about $150 in fuel. Let me know when the cute little quadcopters can do that and I’ll be interested. Except for that whole “no way to survive a complete power failure” thing. All I have to do is glide and land my fixed wing. Even a traditional helo can autorotate.

What do y’all suppose the insurance rates are going to be realistically on a multi-copter upside down lawnmower when a few people have died in them? It’s an honest economic question. What kinds of on board systems are going to be required for redundancy when they move out of the experimental regulations and into commercial passenger carrying? How heavy is all that stuff going to be?

I’m mocking the 20 mile range and the 20 MPH speed for a solid engineering reason. That’s “a bridge too far” when you stop building them cheap and experimental and light, and have to beef them up for passenger carrying in commercial or private carriage. The thing is too slow, too range limited, and won’t scale up to enough redundancy on board to meet requirements for commercial carriage.

Not to mention the realities of owning a helicopter. Where you going to land it? A suburban lawn? You think the ninnies in HOAs aren’t going to nix that? The parking lot at work? Yeah the boss will love you peppering his new Mercedes with gravel. If helicopters worked for personal travel, lots of people would be doing that already.

Maybe the roof of the WalMart? LOL.

I’m all for new ideas. Dummies who think old people aren’t make themselves to be morons. I’ve built a number of things the teams got patents on and were new ideas. The kickers are practicality and profitability. This thing has none.

And not much of a chance of having any unless batteries as energy dense as today’s, less likely to catch fire, and half the weight, are developed. Nothing in tech pubs shows any progress on that chemically.
 
3393RP said:
I'm confident those arguing here that Technology will conquer all have very little understanding of electrical or computer engineering.
Click to expand...

Probably never had to build anything new and profitable either.

Very common theme amongst the latest bumper crop of tech addicted younger folks who think this stuff just magically appears because they demanded it to.

It’s all the “old people’s” faults that stuff has to meet specific design and cost numbers or it isn’t feasible to make in any significant quantity.

Haven’t heard THAT tired old argument before... LOL. Nope. Never.

But they’re convinced they know better.

Which is why I suggested they invest, heavily.

Of course they don’t have any money to invest, because they don’t know how to work a budget, let alone build something within a budget.

But if they did, they could lose their shirts on the investment which would give them the wisdom they’re sorely lacking.

Put your money where your mouth is. You can’t buy one of these things outright yet because they’re not out of the prototype stage. But you can dump all sorts of money into the companies claiming to make them for the masses “soon”. They’ll probably even give you a ride on one.

Ask them if they’re EBITDA positive yet. Let alone profitable. Ask them what their cash burn rate is and how many months they are at current burn rate from laying everyone off and shelving the project.
 
Now, a far better design that holds promise and if they meet their goals of 300 Km/h and 300 Km range, actually would have some utility...that’s a big if.


https://lilium.com/
 
It is pretty naiive to think that drones are a revolutionary new technology. The new aspects of it are miniature gyroscopes and wireless technology. The propulsion part is not new. A quadcopter is really two helicopters in one platform. Electric RC helicopters have been around for many decades, but electric passenger aircraft of any kind have not yet materialized. Gyros and wifi technology will not change that fact. In fact, we have yet to build an aircraft with one electric motor, let alone two, or even four.
 
Velocity173 said:
Now, a far better design that holds promise and if they meet their goals of 300 Km/h and 300 Km range, actually would have some utility...that’s a big if.


https://lilium.com/
Click to expand...
They need to add 300 kg to their goals if they want it to be useful.
 
GeorgeC said:
Similar concept:
http://www.aurora.aero/lightningstrike/
Click to expand...

Yep, and the biggest difference between these and the OP aircraft, is the tilted fan (transition). A far better design for range / speed that has promise vs the fixed pitch variable speed multi rotor concept. Still, many bugs to work out in a design like this and even it they meet their performance goals, I predict at least a half million dollar aircraft. Not practical for the masses.
 
3393RP said:
I'm confident those arguing here that Technology will conquer all have very little understanding of electrical, mechanical, or computer engineering.
Click to expand...

That.

Or a understanding of how our modern culture and poor breeding has... well....

 
Just to be clear... Jimmyjack does not speak for all young people. I also think this is a moronic idea... But I'm also a Luddite in many ways.
 
jimmyjack said:
Yeah, I've found that out. I'm relatively new here, but frequent other flying forums where the userbase is younger and let's just say... more open-minded.

And it's not even this thread. This entire site is full of fogeys flying 60's tech, still living in the 60's.

Enjoy yourselves, because you're going to be left behind.
Click to expand...
One thing that has changed over recent years ... or if you prefer the rubric, "evolved" ...

Younger folks seem not to be able to express disagreement, or offer differing opinions, without namecalling and middle-school-level sarcasm. That is so much easier, and more supportive of one's self-esteem, than is going to the effort of supporting one's position with fact, and leaving one's self open to the possibility that others, by virtue of education, experience, judgment and wisdom, may actually be right.
 
As a dude whose age is somewhere in the middle - too old to be a Millennial but too young to be Gen X (let alone a Boomer) - it's kind of fun to see you guys lobbing grenades over the top of my head. ;)

I'm of the opinion that being an asshat on PoA is age-agnostic.
 
F01LA said:
They don't need a license though.
Click to expand...
Uuh, yes they do.

jimmyjack said:
I don't understand the hate all these new toys get.

1) I am *insanely* jealous every time I see something like this. It saddens me that I have to bounce around in a 61 y/o 172 when the coolest **** like this is being made by dozens of start-ups.

2) And, like it or not, this is the future of aviation. POA may be an older, jaded, curmudgeon group, but this is the horse and buggy all over again. In ten years, the rich are going to have these toys en masse. In 20, most of us will have something similar to this.

Tech, in all fields, is advancing exponentially. We'll be in flying cars soon enough. Maybe not in my lifetime (though probably) but I'd bet the family fortune my daughter will be.




That's all fine, but all the horse-riding cowboys thought the same thing, too. "I don't want Anna-Belle and Lillian riding in those new fangled steam-burners with wheels."

But it's going to happen. In time, this will be what personal transit looks like.
Click to expand...

1) Physics

2) 283 MILLION cars in the US, how are all these going to fit?
 
iflyforfun said:
To me, this is absolutely terrifying. Maybe a little overwrought, but still ...

If a CNN reporter can train to fly in 90 minutes, what will the skies of the near future look like. I don't think this single flyer will cause much disruption, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. What does private aviation look like when the skill entry barrier is removed??
Click to expand...
I am curious what skill you are referring to. Presumably, the thing is highly automated to deal with traffic and obstacles and to stay in level flight. It appears to take off and land vertically in what appears to be a highly automated fashion. I assume it has one setting which is "go to x" and another setting which is "let me go on a joyride" where you control it but only to the point where you might be dangerous. I think people underestimate the degree to which automation can replace most GA pilot skills.

The bigger barriers will be the price tag and whether it is just a fun toy for local use vs something more practical for trips, but it sure looks like a fun toy to me
 
Been over 6 YEARS since the video was made. I don't see any of these Flying Cuisinarts in my neighborhood. Anybody know of a Dealership?
 
Old97 said:
Your 172 is a lot cooler to me than this thing that can take one person 6 miles in 20 minutes.

It looks cool in a video. Its not close to practical transportation.
Click to expand...
This thing would be great to get from my house to the airport. 1.1 airmiles, our 40 minutes in the car...
 
More like the beginning of flying as we have not known it: a "manned" UAV.
 
jimmyjack said:
2) And, like it or not, this is the future of aviation. POA may be an older, jaded, curmudgeon group, but this is the horse and buggy all over again. In ten years, the rich are going to have these toys en masse. In 20, most of us will have something similar to this.

Tech, in all fields, is advancing exponentially. We'll be in flying cars soon enough. Maybe not in my lifetime (though probably) but I'd bet the family fortune my daughter will be.




I don't understand the hate all these new toys get.

1) I am *insanely* jealous every time I see something like this. It saddens me that I have to bounce around in a 61 y/o 172 when the coolest **** like this is being made by dozens of start-ups
all fine, but all the horse-riding cowboys thought the same thing, too. "I don't want Anna-Belle and Lillian riding in those new fangled steam-burners with wheels."

But it's going to happen. In time, this will be what personal transit looks like.
Click to expand...
Posted in June 2018. Now that 60% of that ten year development cycle has passed, it's encouraging to see the plethora of personal electric quadcopters flying safely in urban environments.
 
MIFlyer said:
This thing would be great to get from my house to the airport. 1.1 airmiles, our 40 minutes in the car...
Click to expand...
I’m curious now. Boat or motorcycle or bicycle? You could walk a mile in 16 minutes, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top