Comments on: Will flying cars start showing up on the road?

By: T.H. @ LI

T.H. @ LI — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:37:39 +0000

I hope that flying cars do not show up on the road. Showing up -over- the road would be great, but -on- the road would be rather disasterous.

By: R.A. @ LI

R.A. @ LI — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:28:29 +0000

RVDW said: ” Industries are dying because housing prices have gone so high. Flying cars would fix that, because you could live in the country, and commute to the city to work.”

Or we could build a high speed rail line, and house millions of people along the rail line. More ecologically sound, and no problems trying to figure out where to land the flying cars in the city.

By: RVDW @ LI

RVDW @ LI — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 20:39:52 +0000

Ford tried this in the 1950s. At that time, the issue was air traffic control. I think ATC is still probably the limiting issue. It’s sad, too, because we need this. Industries are dying because housing prices have gone so high. Flying cars would fix that, because you could live in the country, and commute to the city to work.

By: J.D. @ LI

J.D. @ LI — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:11:21 +0000

This is a very interesting question.

The concept in place now is that rules that apply to a car in flight would be no different than those that apply to an aircraft. We already have an air traffic control system that would apply right now to any “flying car”, as the pilot chooses to use it.

The flying car would use local airports, and standard VFR/IFR communication / navigation equipment, as required/permitted to the pilot. The “George Jetson” scenario is not envisioned by proponents at this point, getting the technology built is the first key.

Concerning fuel economy, electric and electric-hybrid aircraft design is in process now; Cessna is currently developing both, the electric-only version (a modified Cessna 172) started taxi tests this week.

Scaled Composites (a company founded by Burt Rutan, for those that don’t know of him please wikipedia) unveiled a “roadable airplane” @ Airventure / Oshkosh this week. This aircraft is based on the same powerplant as the Chevy Volt, and is designed to be as efficient on the ground as the road-bound version (44-mpg).

Concerning the original question, the Terrafugia is a neat vehicle. The company is based in a town close to me; I was able to see it on display @ a local airport a couple of years ago. I have not heard positive comments about its flight characteristics, but presumably that will improve. The price will come down, as interest rises.

Granted, all these efforts are very preliminary, but the arguments by the posters above will be overcome, I feel in certainly much less than 20 years.

I am an IFR-certified pilot, who flies just for fun about 30-40 hours a year. If there is one issue I see, it is not in technology; it is in general interest to fly. The GA flying community is shrinking, local/small airports ideal for roadable aircraft are closing, and the number of new licensed pilots per year is not growing to sustain interest/additional infrastructure.

I feel unfortunately that the chances are more likely that the aircraft will be built, but nobody will come.

By: A.L. @ LI

A.L. @ LI — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 13:23:44 +0000

As far as fuel economy goes there are some basic laws of physics to keep in
mind. You are having to lift something that weighs of the order of a Tonne
(and is all the heavier because it has to have wings, rotor blades or
whatever) through several hundred or even thousand feet and keep it there
against the force of gravity. This takes significant amounts of energy and
that significantly affects fuel economy. Set against that is the
elimination of rolling resistance from tyres and (perhaps) savings from not
wasting fuel while stuck in traffic jams, but basically a flying car is
highly unlikely to be as fuel efficient as one that stays on the ground.

===

A. L.

By: R.Y. @ LI

R.Y. @ LI — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 13:22:28 +0000

Let me summarize:
1. Has to be extremely fuel economic.
2. Air Traffic management, which is already a challenge for aircrafts.
3. Need special expertise/certification to ride (this will hit popularity)
4. Last but not the least, cost of manufacturing as it is like making a small chartered plane with more complexity (more complexity since it has to be a car too).

So next 20 years we may not see it happening.

By: B.K. @ LI

B.K. @ LI — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:30:59 +0000

Surely they are off-road vehicles. But we’d need the equivalent if shipping lanes in the air to do it. Would probably require autonomic controls to keep you in the right lane. And how do you make it fail safe?

By: A.L. @ LI

A.L. @ LI — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:59:08 +0000

At a time when energy prices are going through the roof and the environmental impact of human activity is completely out of control, quite frankly this is the wrong question.

By: A.T. @ LI

A.T. @ LI — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:36:58 +0000

The outcome of this generation watching too many Jetsons episodes as kids. People stuck in the left lane, which is a significant percentage of US drivers, operate a vehicle in 1D – how do you expect them to transition to 3D, let alone 4D (time)? At 265MPH (my plane’s speed), complex tasks come at you awfully fast, even in good weather. Drain your brain at work? Don’t fly afterwards.

By: C.S. @ LI

C.S. @ LI — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:25:21 +0000

Highly doubtful:

Before the “flying car” will become a reality, they will have to set up an air traffic control system for the “flying car”. That will be a nightmare. I suspect hgh-speed transit (i.e. trains), etc., will become the more popular first.