What happens when something goes wrong? Can it autorotate like a rotary wing aircraft (helicopter) that can safely land without engine power? It looks like a decent glide ratio like a fixed wing aircraft is out of the question.
The question is what happen when a single motor fails, it flips over and dumps off it passenger. This why they only testing over water. does not hurt as much hitting the water from 20 ft high.
This idea has been shown and demonstrated before, does not surprise me Google ripped off someone else's concept.
Wow. The negative comments seem so contrary to the attitudes of most readers to a tech site. Think big. And Try looking up the human passenger drone that is being rolled out in the United Arab Emirates right now. Literally a giant quad copter. Its navigation is all GPS driven. Includes collision avoidance radar, and It can fly on fewer than four rotors if needed for emergency landing.
The safety issues are at least as solveable as they are for land vehicles. In time, i see these vehicles being commonplace flying above existing major roadways, as a form of a second level, or upper "deck" assisted by the same electronic sensors that will keep terrestrial autonomous vehicles on course and within their lanes. The drone style vehicle is vertical landing and takeoff adding added practicality for some forms of commuting. Not for everyone, or affordable for everyone, for sure, but an important tool, potentially, in expanding capacity of existing corridors.
Yes, we would all like to be futurist and get excite about the possibilities. However, there are so many things that make things like this impracticable (I am not saying it can not be done, which is obviously it can). The example I will put forward sit the jet pack, yes it has been done and proven it works over 50 yrs ago, so why don't we have a jet pack today as means of transport.
What happens when something goes wrong? Can it autorotate like a rotary wing aircraft (helicopter) that can safely land without engine power? It looks like a decent glide ratio like a fixed wing aircraft is out of the question.
The question is what happen when a single motor fails, it flips over and dumps off it passenger. This why they only testing over water. does not hurt as much hitting the water from 20 ft high.
This idea has been shown and demonstrated before, does not surprise me Google ripped off someone else's concept.
I admire the ambition, but I don't think people, in general, are smart enough for this kind of responsibility.
I dont think people, in general, are smart enough to drive.
I agree. I wonder how long before nobody will drive? I think the day will be here sooner than most people think. Will anybody even know how to operate a vehicle in 50 years? or 25? Will there even be a reason to? When the monthly ride subscription becomes less than half the cost of owning a car, and the roads become tailored for autonomous vehicles the transition will speed up dramatically - is my prediction. As for flying cars - they may happen but they will be self driving, and for the very wealthy only. And by the time they become available you may be a very brave rich person up there in your flying target for the disgruntled masses.
maestro64 said: The example I will put forward sit the jet pack, yes it has been done and proven it works over 50 yrs ago, so why don't we have a jet pack today as means of transport.
What happens when something goes wrong? Can it autorotate like a rotary wing aircraft (helicopter) that can safely land without engine power? It looks like a decent glide ratio like a fixed wing aircraft is out of the question.
The question is what happen when a single motor fails, it flips over and dumps off it passenger. This why they only testing over water. does not hurt as much hitting the water from 20 ft high.
This idea has been shown and demonstrated before, does not surprise me Google ripped off someone else's concept.
It's not a Google project. It's a startup company that Larry page took a special interest in as a private investor. Reading isn't that hard.
and wasn't Larry the guy who took the iphone idea back to google, remember google is larry and larry is google they are one and the same, no original ideas just taking other peoples ideas and try to claim them as theirs.
What happens when something goes wrong? Can it autorotate like a rotary wing aircraft (helicopter) that can safely land without engine power? It looks like a decent glide ratio like a fixed wing aircraft is out of the question.
The question is what happen when a single motor fails, it flips over and dumps off it passenger. This why they only testing over water. does not hurt as much hitting the water from 20 ft high.
This idea has been shown and demonstrated before, does not surprise me Google ripped off someone else's concept.
It's not a Google project. It's a startup company that Larry page took a special interest in as a private investor. Reading isn't that hard.
and wasn't Larry the guy who took the iphone idea back to google, remember google is larry and larry is google they are one and the same, no original ideas just taking other peoples ideas and try to claim them as theirs.
No, you're confused yet again. Larry Page is one of Google's founders. You've mistaken him for Eric Schmidt and the "stolen iPhone" meme. FWIW Apple's Chairman of the Board would disagree with you on that count too, quite obviously trusting them enough to work intimately with Mr. Page and Alphabet.
Notice that while the video shows the guy getting on the copter when the lake is rough that the lake is relatively calm when he takes off. I'm guessing that the water has to be fairly calm for the copter to take off for stability reasons. It would be a fun toy though I doubt it has much range until battery technology significantly improves.
Wow. The negative comments seem so contrary to the attitudes of most readers to a tech site. Think big. And Try looking up the human passenger drone that is being rolled out in the United Arab Emirates right now. Literally a giant quad copter. Its navigation is all GPS driven. Includes collision avoidance radar, and It can fly on fewer than four rotors if needed for emergency landing.
The safety issues are at least as solveable as they are for land vehicles. In time, i see these vehicles being commonplace flying above existing major roadways, as a form of a second level, or upper "deck" assisted by the same electronic sensors that will keep terrestrial autonomous vehicles on course and within their lanes. The drone style vehicle is vertical landing and takeoff adding added practicality for some forms of commuting. Not for everyone, or affordable for everyone, for sure, but an important tool, potentially, in expanding capacity of existing corridors.
Fundamentally, I agree with you. "Where we're going, we don't need roads." Couple GPS with ad hoc networking with automatic flight controls ant no pilot is ever needed. Why are we all so afraid of the spinning blades? I get it, but I believe that's just another engineering challenge. I see these as far more than just a second level above existing roads. Who needs roads? I like the idea.
Apple has taken 10 years to try and release a TV that plays basic cable channels -- Apple isn't going to release the iFly any time soon.
But should anybody release such a personal flying car? I think not! That's all we need -- people flying around at 5,000 feet not paying attention while checking their social media on their phones.
Distracted drivers on the ground are bad enough. Keep the idiots out of the sky, please.
Wow. The negative comments seem so contrary to the attitudes of most readers to a tech site. Think big. And Try looking up the human passenger drone that is being rolled out in the United Arab Emirates right now. Literally a giant quad copter. Its navigation is all GPS driven. Includes collision avoidance radar, and It can fly on fewer than four rotors if needed for emergency landing.
The safety issues are at least as solveable as they are for land vehicles. In time, i see these vehicles being commonplace flying above existing major roadways, as a form of a second level, or upper "deck" assisted by the same electronic sensors that will keep terrestrial autonomous vehicles on course and within their lanes. The drone style vehicle is vertical landing and takeoff adding added practicality for some forms of commuting. Not for everyone, or affordable for everyone, for sure, but an important tool, potentially, in expanding capacity of existing corridors.
Fundamentally, I agree with you. "Where we're going, we don't need roads." Couple GPS with ad hoc networking with automatic flight controls ant no pilot is ever needed. Why are we all so afraid of the spinning blades? I get it, but I believe that's just another engineering challenge. I see these as far more than just a second level above existing roads. Who needs roads? I like the idea.
At some point "flying taxis" will be a reality. Self-driving vehicles are almost here, so trucks, cars, taxis, limo services, small hop planes, and more will become automated systems. These things aren't having billions of dollars poured into them by accident, it's happening because the technology works, there is demand, and certain companies will be winners in this competition.
And then, there's this... the Moller Skycar has been in development for decades, and by all accounts the guy should've had a working vehicle a long time ago. I don't think he'll ever get it to work:
Wow. The negative comments seem so contrary to the attitudes of most readers to a tech site. Think big. And Try looking up the human passenger drone that is being rolled out in the United Arab Emirates right now. Literally a giant quad copter. Its navigation is all GPS driven. Includes collision avoidance radar, and It can fly on fewer than four rotors if needed for emergency landing.
The safety issues are at least as solveable as they are for land vehicles. In time, i see these vehicles being commonplace flying above existing major roadways, as a form of a second level, or upper "deck" assisted by the same electronic sensors that will keep terrestrial autonomous vehicles on course and within their lanes. The drone style vehicle is vertical landing and takeoff adding added practicality for some forms of commuting. Not for everyone, or affordable for everyone, for sure, but an important tool, potentially, in expanding capacity of existing corridors.
I doubt you have a pilot's licence with such an post. This is not a concept that is going anywhere outside of wishful thinking and certain unregulated 'too rich to care' states where public safety is perfunctory at best. I wouldn't trust a flying bedstead more than 15' off the ground and as for flying above busy roads, you've got to be kidding. Most multi lane highways exhibit wind tunnelling effects up to around 100', a height where cross winds, downdraughts, shear and turbulence become real problems to even big aircraft, let alone light-as-a-feathery flying frames with no aero surface control. Winds that can move you tens of yards up/down/sideways in the blink of an eye. There is a reason why air corridors are miles wide and high. Your "easily solvable safety issues' is severely lacking in credibility. Really scary idea.
How about AeroMobil? You can already buy it. Btw, its from Slovakia:)
I saw a demo (or a CGI demo, I forget) of a more compact model from somewhere else with lots of engines and rotors, VTOL, supposedly quiet and that seemed closer to the mark. Anyone else have the info?
How about AeroMobil? You can already buy it. Btw, its from Slovakia:)
I saw a demo (or a CGI demo, I forget) of a more compact model from somewhere else with lots of engines and rotors, VTOL, supposedly quiet and that seemed closer to the mark. Anyone else have the info?
Agreed it's not "a flying car." Flying Sea Cycle would be my take.
And not a transit answer. But yahoos with money would probably want one.
Right. Seems like a very cool niche machine at this point. I expect the other reason why they show it over a lake is because it would appeal to the same people who spend thousands (10s of thousands?) of dollars on recreational boating. If I could buy one of these for, say, twice the cost of a jet ski (and I were in the market for a jet ski), I would probably buy one.
There are significant recreational/tourism markets for this sort of thing. It would be very fun to explore national parks and natural wonders in one of these (with a flock of friends). Sure it would suck for everyone else having to put up with the noise pollution and visual clutter, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a cool experience for the rider.
If I win the lottery, I'll buy one of these, and a ranch or lake where I can play with it.
Agreed it's not "a flying car." Flying Sea Cycle would be my take.
And not a transit answer. But yahoos with money would probably want one.
Right. Seems like a very cool niche machine at this point. I expect the other reason why they show it over a lake is because it would appeal to the same people who spend thousands (10s of thousands?) of dollars on recreational boating. If I could buy one of these for, say, twice the cost of a jet ski (and I were in the market for a jet ski), I would probably buy one.
There are significant recreational/tourism markets for this sort of thing. It would be very fun to explore national parks and natural wonders in one of these (with a flock of friends). Sure it would suck for everyone else having to put up with the noise pollution and visual clutter, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a cool experience for the rider.
If I win the lottery, I'll buy one of these, and a ranch or lake where I can play with it.
Although I've not seen any videos demonstrating the actual level of noise generated by this craft, I assume it would be significant, possibly comparable to a wave rider... or a giant swarm of angry hornets.
Comments
The question is what happen when a single motor fails, it flips over and dumps off it passenger. This why they only testing over water. does not hurt as much hitting the water from 20 ft high.
This idea has been shown and demonstrated before, does not surprise me Google ripped off someone else's concept.
Here is the next generation in Personal air travel, just need to figure out how to take off without being dropped out of a plane.
and wasn't Larry the guy who took the iphone idea back to google, remember google is larry and larry is google they are one and the same, no original ideas just taking other peoples ideas and try to claim them as theirs.
Fundamentally, I agree with you. "Where we're going, we don't need roads." Couple GPS with ad hoc networking with automatic flight controls ant no pilot is ever needed. Why are we all so afraid of the spinning blades? I get it, but I believe that's just another engineering challenge. I see these as far more than just a second level above existing roads. Who needs roads? I like the idea.
But should anybody release such a personal flying car? I think not! That's all we need -- people flying around at 5,000 feet not paying attention while checking their social media on their phones.
Distracted drivers on the ground are bad enough. Keep the idiots out of the sky, please.
And then, there's this... the Moller Skycar has been in development for decades, and by all accounts the guy should've had a working vehicle a long time ago. I don't think he'll ever get it to work:
I wouldn't trust a flying bedstead more than 15' off the ground and as for flying above busy roads, you've got to be kidding. Most multi lane highways exhibit wind tunnelling effects up to around 100', a height where cross winds, downdraughts, shear and turbulence become real problems to even big aircraft, let alone light-as-a-feathery flying frames with no aero surface control. Winds that can move you tens of yards up/down/sideways in the blink of an eye. There is a reason why air corridors are miles wide and high. Your "easily solvable safety issues' is severely lacking in credibility.
Really scary idea.
And not a transit answer. But yahoos with money would probably want one.
Right. Seems like a very cool niche machine at this point. I expect the other reason why they show it over a lake is because it would appeal to the same people who spend thousands (10s of thousands?) of dollars on recreational boating. If I could buy one of these for, say, twice the cost of a jet ski (and I were in the market for a jet ski), I would probably buy one.
There are significant recreational/tourism markets for this sort of thing. It would be very fun to explore national parks and natural wonders in one of these (with a flock of friends). Sure it would suck for everyone else having to put up with the noise pollution and visual clutter, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a cool experience for the rider.
If I win the lottery, I'll buy one of these, and a ranch or lake where I can play with it.