Thank you. This post says exactly - and much more clearly and knowledgeably - my vague intuitions as to why flying cars are impractical. I rather think they’re more a product of idle fantasy - “Man, a flying car would be cool!”, mixed with a bit of traffic frustration - “Jeez, I wish I could just activate my quadjets and fly right over this effin’ traffic jam”. But when you really stop and consider them practically - especially from a safety and ATC point of view - flying cars are a hugely complicated form of transit.
While just about everything else you say is correct, it seems like autonomous flying vehicles would be much easier to implement that autonomous land vehicles, because - assuming that the vast majority of flying vehicles will be computer-controlled - they won’t have to be able to interact with anything else other than other networked flying vehicles. No roads, no buildings, no pedestrians, no drivers.
It’s a small advantage, but it’s something.
The sides of the body then become airfoils that provide lift as the Alef moves at an anticipated speed of about 35 mph.
A top land speed of 25 mph and a top air speed of 35 mph doesn’t interest me.
And the Wright Flyer flew for 12 seconds. What’s your point?
You forgot about birds.
You know how deer crossing roads are a hazard to drivers on the ground? Birds are like that to airplanes. Of course, humans don’t always spot them in time, either, and birds don’t always get out of the way (in fact, I once had a red-tail hawk try to attack the small Cessna I was flying). Bats, too - knew someone whose airplane suffered thousands of dollars in damage from colliding with a bat.
But, that aside - yes, for many reasons automating flying machines is easier than automating vehicles on the roads. We’ll see fully automated airplanes before we see fully automated cars in my opinion.
As I noted, the concept itself isn’t bad, but I’m not convinced the technology is actually up to the job at this point.
The Wright Flyer was actually a terrible airplane - the only advantage it had was that there were no other heavier-than-air controllable aircraft at the time. How terrible? When someone built a replica for the centennial of powered flight the FAA refused to issue an airworthiness certificate for it. Which is one reason it only flew for 12 seconds. But hey, it did fly and nobody got hurt. Yay.
But by and large people don’t want to go that slow - a top speed of 35 mph isn’t a selling point.
I agree, but these types of projects are how the the technology will get better.
That’s good, because it’s not for sale yet.
Flying cars have been around since 1921. (Not 1917 as some claim.) A bunch of them were around before WWII but they really kicked in hard afterward. Practically every issue of Popular Mechanics featured one.
They weren’t speculative. The FAA issued an airworthiness certificate to one in the 1950s. Ducted fans designs were hot in the 50s and 60s.
Since then, the news leaps on every announcement with a headline of “first flying car!” or “flying cars - at last!” They’re never touted as prototypes or concepts or stuff to build better cars in the future on. And they never succeed, just disappear from everyone’s memory like the last 500.
Lots of people are working on electric-powered aircraft. That inevitably meant that someone would seize headlines by turning it into a flying car. Regular airplanes don’t go viral.
The flying car is now in its second century. A bit late to compare it to the Wright Brothers. I don’t believe in flying cars, not until they are totally pilotless and can land in a driveway with people standing on the grass a few feet away.
For fun with flying cars, here’s a history site with stuff you’ve never heard about. (Loading extremely slowly today for some reason. The pages appear, eventually.)
I know of at least one flying motorcycle. It’s essentially this with a motorcycle rather than a dune buggy.
With a few hours of training, anyone can learn to fly Maverick
Said every flying car inventor ever.
There were two accidents – in which there were no deaths – involving the parachute wing. Due to insufficient resources to re-engineer the wing, development of the Maverick has been concluded.
The next flying car should be called the Déjà Vu.
The Maverick was at least workable enough to get an honest N-number and be approved in the Sport Plane category. That’s much more impressive than a couple of CAD drawings and verbal promises worth the paper they’re printed on.
The flying car was invented over a century ago, by Orville and Wilbur Wright. And if that doesn’t qualify as a flying car, why not? What additional capabilities does a vehicle need before it can be considered a “flying car”? It needs to be able to drive on roads? Why would you even want to, if you can fly? It needs to be able to take off and land in an area comparable to what a car uses? Then it was already invented by Sigorsky. It needs to be as easy to pilot as it is to drive a car? Then it’s advancements in computing that we need, not advances in aviation.
So you’re saying that this whole Alef thing is a waste of time? Nothing will be learned from it? No progress will be made?
Yeah. Right. Correct. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Not with my words, of course. But you should see my sign language.
Pretty much.
I expect there will be advances made in electric vehicles in aviation, but I don’t expect it out of this company.
Is a 0-1 glide ratio bad?
Not for an elevator, no.
I don’t get it. We have flying cars. They’re called helicopters. And the reasons they aren’t in more use is that they are inherently dangerous, require a great deal of skill, and only do a few things that a ground vehicle can’t do.
I get that “I was promised flying cars!” is just a colorful expression of frustration that the gleaming future of 50’s sci-fi magazines never happened. But it’s not something that is a good idea in the real world.
Increasingly common last words: “No, your other up!”
Well, no.
A “flying car” is a device an ordinary citizen can afford and can operate that flies or drives with equal ease. So can avoid city traffic, speed limits, and circuitous roads by flying or avoid bad weather by driving. And can be stored at home and at the workplace, and needs no dedicated launching / landing facilities. And can carry a family and all their paraphernalia.
A helo is none of those things, except maybe the “avoid city traffic” one.
The new Urban Air Mobility machines we hope to see in the next 5-15 years won’t be flying cars either, since they can’t drive and won’t be consumer-owned or operated. They’re aimed at “urban / suburban aerial limousine service”. Which is a a lot closer to “flying cars” than helos are. But still a long ways short of the real meal deal.