# Why you're not gonna get your flying car **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 28, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545 "2013-05-28T15:03:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pullin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c57346/32.png) [@pullin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pullin)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/41 "2013-05-29T10:33:04Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a flying car should use less fuel than an old-fashioned car, at least on a long trip. When we drive our cars, most of the fuel we use is necessary because friction between the car and the ground always acts to retard the car’s motion. For the flying car, once it’s in the air, there won’t be any friction. I’ve had two airplanes so far, both single engine. A Piper [Cherokee](http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2011/272/6/2/piper_cherokee_140_by_altitude604-d4baxkt.jpg) (fixed gear, fixed pitch), and a Piper [Arrow](http://www.what2fly.com/secure/planemodels/2821277.jpg) (retractable gear, adjustable pitch). Both got around 14-15 mpg on long trips. The latter just went a little faster. We covered fewer miles than a car on long trips, but the fuel mileage worked out about the same as if I’d driven my pickup truck. > [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > Can you imagine what the insurance premiums would be for a flying car? I insured my teenage son in the Arrow. It was only a fraction of what it cost to insure him in his Corolla. IIRC, his Toyota cost me around 120 per month. The airplane was only 600 per year. According to the insurance agent, the difference was that my airplane never spent any time at the local high school. Apparently HS parking lots aren’t safe places for teen’s cars. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/42 "2013-05-29T11:42:34Z")
Terrifugia (the MA company making the flying car) have released a new design for VTOL version! they oughtta interview the Marine Corps. (owners of the “Osprey” VTOL tran enemy!)sport-it has killed more marines than any ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/43 "2013-05-29T12:08:53Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind, the real safety concern is the notion of having people manually steer such things - putting a possible guided missile into private hands. That one will be solved the same way that cars will be solved - by having truly automatic controls, in which the driver simply tells the machine the destination and a computer system works out how to get there (but only allowing safe destinations), keeps the vehicles properly spaced, has automatic safety features reacting to problems much faster than a human driver, etc. Solving that one for road vehicles makes flying vehicles slightly less attractive - if your car knows where it’s going, and also knows where all the other cars are (and are going), traffic routing can be optimised, vehicle speeds and densities can be increased - and as a consequence, journey times made shorter and more predictable. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/44 "2013-05-29T14:11:53Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Solving that one for road vehicles makes flying vehicles slightly less attractive - if your car knows where it’s going, and also knows where all the other cars are (and are going), traffic routing can be optimised, vehicle speeds and densities can be increased - and as a consequence, journey times made shorter and more predictable. An aspect that I brought up in the OP, I believe: > [@](#): > > Now, the obvious solution is to make the flying car much more reliable than the ground car, _but if this were possible they would make ground cars more reliable in the first place._ ---
**Author:** ![Lukeinva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lukeinva/32/17872_2.png) [@Lukeinva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lukeinva)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/45 "2013-05-29T15:13:13Z")
There are enough bad drivers on the roads that putting them in the air is a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/46 "2013-05-29T15:23:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a flying car should use less fuel than an old-fashioned car, at least on a long trip. When we drive our cars, most of the fuel we use is necessary because friction between the car and the ground always acts to retard the car’s motion. For the flying car, once it’s in the air, there won’t be any friction. There will be air resistance, but the air resistance for a flying car will be no higher than for a ground car, assuming it’s the same size and travels at the same speed. Lift is thus the only thing that the flying car needs energy for but the ground car doesn’t. Lift is a pretty big factor to wave away like that. To put it in perspective, the next time you’re at the supermarket and you’ve got a shopping cart full of groceries, pick up the cart and carry it for a couple of aisles. ---
**Author:** ![Krouget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b38774/32.png) [@Krouget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krouget)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/47 "2013-05-29T16:19:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Your thoughts? It concerns me enough, sharing the road with other motorists. I’m not-at-all looking forward to people being “pilots”. But if we’re entertaining this idea, I assume such a car would likely be automated (as many planes are), so there’s that. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a flying car should use less fuel than an old-fashioned car, at least on a long trip. When we drive our cars, most of the fuel we use is necessary because friction between the car and the ground always acts to retard the car’s motion. We burn most of the fuel we do, because internal combustion engines aren’t the most efficient. Road friction isn’t so bad, especially with most street tires on asphalt, as you can even push a car to get it going; accelerating it takes more effort, but that touches on other factors, one of which is air resistance…which matters that much more for anything actually flying. But beyond that, MPG doesn’t directly translate to planes, so it will be a chore trying to come up with a conversion system, much less selling it to any general public. We already have this challenge with electric cars. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/48 "2013-05-29T16:39:51Z")
> [@Krouget](#): > > But beyond that, MPG doesn’t directly translate to planes, so it will be a chore trying to come up with a conversion system, much less selling it to any general public. We already have this challenge with electric cars. People would have to start thinking in gallons per hour or pounds per hour. Then they’d have to understand the difference between airspeed and groundspeed, and that a headwind makes you slower for a longer period than a tailwind makes you faster for a given trip. FWIW, a Cessna 172 Skyhawk (a common ‘four-passenger’ aircraft – ‘four passengers’ if everyone weighs 170 pounds or less, or if you don’t mind leaving some gas in the fuel pit) flying in still air gets about 14 to 15 mpg at max cruise. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/49 "2013-05-29T16:50:33Z")
Energy costs seem to me to be the largest impediment. We’ve only got a few more years left of driving ourselves (should we choose not to), I assume automated navigational control systems will be even more applicable to personal aircraft and significantly reduce the chaos and the carnage. Indeed, I think improved control systems will make ground traffic so much more efficient that it will inhibit the development of “flying cars.” Caveat – successful development of fusion power changes everything. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/50 "2013-05-29T16:55:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The number of magazine covers that have predicted that we will have flying cars in our future number in the hundreds(if not thousands) I question the premise. I seem to recall a Popular Science cover or two featuring the Moller Flying Car, which was never much more than a scam. Other than that, I don’t think the number of magazine covers ran anywhere near the hundreds. I think the meme probably has more to do with the Jetsons than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/51 "2013-05-29T17:04:18Z")
Better bury all the power lines first. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/52 "2013-05-29T18:26:13Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Air resistance is _far_ higher than the rolling friction. > > Think of how easy it is to push a stalled car. Now get on the freeway and stick your hand out the window. You can push a stalled car to speeds of 65 mph? Wow! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/53 "2013-05-29T18:27:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You can push a stalled car to speeds of 65 mph? Wow! I’m sorry, but I am now envisioning getting out of a stalled plane and pushing. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/54 "2013-05-29T18:55:09Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a flying car should use less fuel than an old-fashioned car, Human powered flight is achieved by top engineers working with exotic materials and highly fit athletes working to the limits of human endurance. My 4 year old can ride a bicycle with ease, as long as he doesn’t lose balance and fall over. I know which technology is my bet for “uses less energy”. ---
**Author:** ![Pixel\_Dent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Pixel\_Dent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pixel_Dent)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/55 "2013-05-29T19:03:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If death was pretty much guaranteed every time your car stalled, ran out of gas or was involved in a minor fender bender I doubt very much anyone would be allowed to drive. I don’t disagree with many of your points, but since SDMB is about correcting misinformation it should be noted that planes don’t just fall out of the sky if their engines quit. The fatality rate for forced off-airport landings is “only” 10%. Not my idea of a good time, but not a “guaranteed” death. If you add in all the planes that lost engines within gliding distance of an airport your chance of walking away from a forced landing are even better. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/56 "2013-05-29T19:13:11Z")
> [@Pixel\_Dent](#): > > I don’t disagree with many of your points, but since SDMB is about correcting misinformation it should be noted that planes don’t just fall out of the sky if their engines quit. The fatality rate for forced off-airport landings is “only” 10%. Not my idea of a good time, but not a “guaranteed” death. If you add in all the planes that lost engines within gliding distance of an airport your chance of walking away from a forced landing are even better. And if the proposed flying car used some sort of non-fixed wing system (like a helicopter or auto-gyro) then it could simply auto-rotate down. I’m fairly sure that any sort of mass production flying car type thingy would have such a system. It would also have to be highly automated, and we’d have to massively expand our air control infrastructure. None of this is a show stopper, however. What IS, IMHO, is the cost. It’s not technology that stops stuff like this, it’s the cost of putting everything in place you’d need to do something like this rationally and safely. Since only the very rich could afford something like this, there isn’t enough of a market to really make it worth while to build out that infrastructure or to produce the vehicles, so most companies only look into it and maybe do some exploratory engineering before dropping it. Some true believer types take it further, but in the end it’s just not worth the cost. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/57 "2013-05-29T19:13:17Z")
> [@Pixel\_Dent](#): > > I don’t disagree with many of your points, but since SDMB is about correcting misinformation it should be noted that planes don’t just fall out of the sky if their engines quit. The fatality rate for forced off-airport landings is “only” 10%. Not my idea of a good time, but not a “guaranteed” death. If you add in all the planes that lost engines within gliding distance of an airport your chance of walking away from a forced landing are even better. Your stats are correct-but I was assuming the same quality of driver with the same quality of training that we have now. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/58 "2013-05-29T19:15:06Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You can push a stalled car to speeds of 65 mph? Wow! If rolling friction was more than air resistance, you wouldn’t get the car moving. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/59 "2013-05-29T19:23:21Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > I question the premise. I seem to recall a Popular Science cover or two featuring the Moller Flying Car, which was never much more than a scam. Other than that, I don’t think the number of magazine covers ran anywhere near the hundreds. > > I think the meme probably has more to do with the Jetsons than anything else. a feature or 2 in Popular Science? They have archived every issue they ever did. [I inserted “flying car” and got 43 hits.](http://www.popsci.com/archive-search?query=%22flying%20car%22) ---
**Author:** ![Pixel\_Dent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Pixel\_Dent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pixel_Dent)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545/60 "2013-05-29T19:25:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Your stats are correct-but I was assuming the same quality of driver with the same quality of training that we have now. 😉 That is a good point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-youre-not-gonna-get-your-flying-car/659545.md?page=4)