Flying cars

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8121924]

What is /sci/s opinions on flying cars? I think it's a good idea because driving across a major city takes like an hour when it's just 20 miles which you could have flown in 10 minutes. If I had a flying car I could have applied to more universities than one. Also in places like the Amazon where there are no roads your choice is a week of battling through mud and crocodiles or a £300,000 helicopter and the £30 an hour pilot to fly it. Imagine if you could just hop into a £10,000 flying car and have it fly itself to your destination?

[Anonymous No.8121932]

>normies navigating 3d space
Unlike most of /sci/ I enjoy being alive.

[Anonymous No.8121952]

>>8121932

I mean, there's a lot less to crash into in the sky.

That is, of course, until it's filled with idiots flying in cars.

As I see it the hardest thing would be not being able to restrict people's movement in the way roads do, leading to a potential shitfest and danger for all.

[Anonymous No.8122006]

>>8121924
What is /sci/s opinions on helicopters? I think it's a good idea because driving across a major city takes like an hour when it's just 20 miles which you could have flown in 10 minutes. If I had a helicopter I could have applied to more universities than one. Also in places like the Amazon where there are no roads your choice is a week of battling through mud and crocodiles or a £100,000 helicopter and the skill to fly it. Imagine if you could just hop into a helicopter and fly it to your destination?

http://en.konnerhelicopters.com/konnerk1/

[Anonymous No.8122147]

>>8122006
Helicopters are top tier. OP is just a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.8122172]

>>8121952
just make it all autonomous

>>8122006
Eh the bad driving is really a deliberate consequence of liberal politicians, and the budgets being consumed by socialist waste. Not really something essential.
Need to just produce multiple levels of roads

[Anonymous No.8122174]

>>8121924
I saw a talk on flying cars a couple months ago, it was really about how we can make helicopters autonomous so that they can carry marines who don't have a clue how to fly around.

[Anonymous No.8122180]

>>8121924

Flying cars are basically not implementable because:

1.fuel consumption (ie, shit range for VTOL)
2. the onerous FAA licensing program
3. lack of space inside congested cities for vehicle ports/storage
4. city ordinances that may prohibit civilian flying during evening hours
5. the Cessna Skyhawk already exists, and only costs about $200k new, $100k with assembly
6. the Skyhawk already has a large parts base
7. most importantly: the FAA still requires manned pilots for air vehicles in revenue service. Especially for passenger transport
8. even if the above wasn't an issue, accident insurance would be cost prohibitive

Basically everything that can prevent a technology from going mainstream exists here. The physics are a bit wonky, regulations from the federal to local level are against it, and cheaper alternatives already exist.

At the very least you'd need both (a) the range of the craft to increase (perhaps in a V-22 like setup) and (b) craft costs to come down to 100-200k.

[Anonymous No.8122191]

>>8122172

>just make it all autonomous

Can't wish away problems like that. One of the reasons why modern autopilots work (and can work on 1970s era computers), is that aircraft are typically miles apart from each other, and only get close during landing and take off (which is also when pilots have control). TCASes aren't designed for heavy congestion or obstacle heavy environments (as is the case for flights under 1000 feet).

Modern computing can obviously alleviate that, but it doesn't change the fact that you're putting aircraft into environments where an accident is significantly more probable. Which is why having a pilot there is important so an accident has a lower chance of becoming catastrophic.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8122205]

>>8121932
The entire point of the flying car is that it is fully autonomous. It would actually end up being safer than a road car
>>8121952
Program flight paths
>>8122174
Well yeah people saying "hurr just use a helicopter" are dumb because a flying car is essentially a helicopter. This is really an argument between single rotors and multi rotors. Both have their advantages and disadvantages but the multi rotor comes closest to idea of the "jetsons flying car" because the rotors are not in the way, you can land in more places, it's easier to fly, it's quieter and above all it actually looks like a car.
>>8122180
>fuel consumption (ie, shit range for VTOL)
hybrid systems can get around this
>the onerous FAA licensing program
America is not the world
>lack of space inside congested cities for vehicle ports/storage
This is an argument in favour of the flying car. It can fit into a parking space.
>city ordinances that may prohibit civilian flying during evening hours
I agree legislation is a big barrier but if it was automated and proven to be safe they would be more flexible
>the Cessna Skyhawk already exists, and only costs about $200k new, $100k with assembly
This is an airplane, where is your nearest runway?
>most importantly: the FAA still requires manned pilots for air vehicles in revenue service. Especially for passenger transport
Remember that there is land beyond the US border
>even if the above wasn't an issue, accident insurance would be cost prohibitive
Insurance works on statistics. it will be high at first but if nobody crashes it will go down
>The physics are a bit wonky
All physics start off wonky.
>regulations from the federal to local level are against it
One country. In any case they were also against normal cars a hundred years ago. Can't beat legislation if you don't try to fight it.
>cheaper alternatives already exist.
Nope. I believe that a flying car could be down to £10,000 because of the sheer simplicity of multirotors

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8122215]

>>8122191
That only applies to fast planes that obviously can't stop. With slow VTOL craft it's no different to ground traffic control. You can tell some to stop in mid air to even out the traffic and turning ability is much sharper.

Anyway all I am saying is sure there are a lot of problems but right now we have a chance of making a go of it because of the rise in drone technology and we should because you never know it might work and be popular. I actually wrote on my university application essay yesterday that I'm interested in developing flying cars. They can think I'm enthusiastic or a kook. I don't care I have my dreams.

[Anonymous No.8122246]

>>8122191
>TCASes aren't designed for heavy congestion or obstacle heavy environments
So you use a modern computer and design modern programs

You have radars tracking the movement of everything, all networked together, it's really not that difficult

[Anonymous No.8122260]

>>8122191
Pilots dont have control at takeoff and landing there are afcs functions for both of these situations which are more accurate than human pilots. You also dont trust your TCAS enough.

The real point to make, is that there would be no chance to collide in a fully autonomous, centrally-controlled network of flying cars since all cars would know where all others are at all times

[Anonymous No.8122268]

>>8122215

>With slow VTOL craft it's no different to ground traffic control.

"slow" as in 80 mph. And if an aircraft touches another craft, both will have a catastrophic failure leading to a crash.

>Anyway all I am saying is sure there are a lot of problems but right now we have a chance of making a go of it because of the rise in drone technology and we should because you never know it might work and be popular. I actually wrote on my university application essay yesterday that I'm interested in developing flying cars. They can think I'm enthusiastic or a kook. I don't care I have my dreams.

Because you are. Ever heard of the Moller Skycar or the VZ-8?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar

http://www.piasecki.com/geeps_pa59k.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SERvwWALOM

(not a flying car but related)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY0g0W7DEYQ

People have been trying to make flying cars for the past 50 years, with nothing capable of actually being implementable due to technical constraints. It took the US government 40 years just to get the V-22 right, and it only works (in part) due to the large size of the craft (compared to a consumer automobile or light aircraft).

Civilian VTOLs are certainly possible, but they're going to be aircraft that utilize airports and helipads, not be a "flying car". I strongly suggest you read through the pilot training materials on the FAA's website, as it will clear up the physics involved.

[Anonymous No.8122272]

>>8122260
Which is a big problem, because then one can know wher I go by tracking my flying car.

[Anonymous No.8122285]

>>8122268
The thrust to weight and capabilities of aircraft from 50 years ago is way inferior to modern day

People have not really been "trying", they have been just fucking around with popsci influenced designs which had no practical ability to succeed.

Regulation & law is the #1 thing preventing "flying cars".

[Anonymous No.8122289]

>>8122246

It's not difficult when everything works and it's a clear day. It is difficult when you throw in variables (ie more craft, craft which may have faulty communications equipment, inclement weather, signal disruption etc)

>>8122260

AFCS only refers to the aircraft's flight control system (ie the linkage, mechanical or electronic, between the pilots and the control surfaces). It itself is not an autopilot. And, for the most part, most landings and takeoffs are done by pilots since they're the ones who have to ask permission from ATC to do so in the first place. Also, per FAA policy, they have to call out every phase of the landing and takeoff.

Autopilot functions are a separate (though related) entity.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/phak%20-%20chapter%2005.pdf

More broadly, even if aircraft could be totally automated the problem isn't so much accuracy as it is reliability. It needs to work 100% of the time. This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own, which is why pilots are used to marginalize the possibility of a crash.

[Anonymous No.8122291]

>>8122205
>hybrid systems can get around this
No, they can't. We're by no means at a point where we can afford to have skyrocketing energy consumption because a bunch of yuppies want to get to Starbucks faster. Instead of energy-efficient wheel conveyance, you'd have to lift hundreds of kilograms into the air and keep it there. Hauling a big battery around just means that the fuel has to be burnt elsewhere, and a greater amount of it to boot.

[Anonymous No.8122295]

>>8122289
>This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own
It is more guarrenteed that a computer can do it, than a human pilot

[Anonymous No.8122297]

>>8122289
>This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own, which is why pilots are used
HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.8122304]

>>8122285

>The thrust to weight and capabilities of aircraft from 50 years ago is way inferior to modern day

Yes, thanks to advances in materials most of which are more expensive than stamped aluminium. This is a problem when the craft can't cost more than $200k to be competitive against existing aircraft.

>People have not really been "trying", they have been just fucking around with popsci influenced designs which had no practical ability to succeed.

In the 1950s the US Army specifically wanted an airgeep and asked for a working prototype. They got untethered flying prototypes which is much more than just a "popsci influenced design". Everyone was cashing in on the rapidly expanding civilian aerospace business and the winner was Cessna.

>Regulation & law is the #1 thing preventing "flying cars".

No, it's not. Following the failure of Operation Eagle Claw in 1980 it took DARPA, Boeing, and Bell 30 years to make a workable tiltrotor design. If they could have built a VTOL aircar before that, they (or someone else) would have provided it.

[Anonymous No.8122310]

>>8122295
>>8122297

Have either of you ever actually flown an aircraft before? Real life is not an ideal computer simulation. And, if autopilot could work 100% reliably 100% of the time, then the FAA would allow fully automated aircraft since the airlines would love being able to fire all their unionized pilots. This is not so.

[Anonymous No.8122313]

>>8122310
>And, if autopilot could work 100% reliably 100% of the time, then the FAA would allow fully automated aircraft since the airlines would love being able to fire all their unionized pilots.
>If it's theoretically possible, it would be done RIGHT NOW.
Computers are more reliable at following procedure 100% of the time than humans. That does not mean that current software is adequate to replace humans.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8122321]

>>8122291
I meant in terms of onboard power not eco friendliness.

[Anonymous No.8122323]

>>8122321
It's not just eco-friendliness, but simple economics. Energy consumption would be through the roof for a society that adopts this stuff on a wider scale.

[Anonymous No.8122329]

>>8122313

Then why make this >>8122295 or this >>8122297 comment.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8122333]

>>8122323
Depends on your journey distance. I calculated that a flying car needs 3x the power of a 1.6 L car. Obviously if you travel 1/3 the distance it evens out. I see flying cars as useful for short hops across urban areas or jungle, this won't tax the energy infrastructure too heavily. In any case I still expect road cars to be the vast majority of cars. Flying cars are a supplement not a replacement.

[Anonymous No.8122354]

>>8122333
>We can never use more power per capita without "taxing the energy infrastructure too heavily"

uh huh

[Anonymous No.8122355]

>>8122333
why would you travel 1/3 the distance if you have a flying car?

[Anonymous No.8122367]

>>8122289
>This is statistically impossible for any computer to do on it's own,
lol what. Maybe 20 years ago it would be impossible.

Computers can fly a rocket INTO SPACE AND FUCKING LAND BACK ON EART UPRIGHT.

AI has come a long fucking way. Completely automated cars can drive around perfectly fine. Completely automated planes are already a thing. If they wanted they could make all that shit work today. There's just no market for it to justify the cost. Putting in some insane avionic tech is going to jack up the price to the billions per plane.

[Anonymous No.8122396]

>>8122367

>Computers can fly a rocket INTO SPACE AND FUCKING LAND BACK ON EART UPRIGHT.

Yes, because there's no air traffic in space. And the landing platform is out in the middle of the ocean away from sea traffic.

Do you understand the issue here? We're talking about flights under 2000 feet. This is where there's going to be lots of obstacles (building, power lines, trees, and other traffic) that don't exist in space (which, literally, is just that: open space).

>Putting in some insane avionic tech is going to jack up the price to the billions per plane.

The problem isn't the cost of the tech itself, it's getting it to work safely under all circumstances. Otherwise full auto planes would have existed 20 years ago when glass cockpits became available in all airliners.

[Anonymous No.8122400]

Don't tease me. Start with flying people because anime.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8122407]

>>8122396
this is precisely why multi-rotors are the revolution that the flying car idea needs. It's by far the easiest system to automate.
>>8122355
as the crow flies. what if you just had to get across a five mile wide river where the nearest bridge was 20 miles away?

[Anonymous No.8122413]

>>8122407

>this is precisely why multi-rotors are the revolution that the flying car idea needs. It's by far the easiest system to automate.

you mean quadcopters? Because multirotors have been around since the 1950s see >>8122268

And the "ease to automate" doesn't matter since (a) it's still not 100% safe and (b) the FAA won't allow it. It also does no favors since (and this is what I've been implying in the entire thread) the first adopters would conceivably be existing pilots.

[Anonymous No.8122495]

Never happen.

It would be a regulatory and liability nightmare.

[Anonymous No.8122529]

>>8121924
Anyone else watch the CSPAN interview on flying cars today?

[Anonymous No.8122537]

>>8121924
Reinventing the wheel.

If the small helicopters would have friendly regulations (like starting and landing from you small backyard) then we would have "flying cars" long time ago.

[Anonymous No.8122664]

>>8122537
The only thing is if choppers lose an engine, they crash
You don't even need vtol for a consumer flying vehicle.
Everyone has roads to their houses

Something that can take off with 80 kmph of air under its wings is good enough

Autonomous landing could be done on top of buildings or in parking lots

Regulation and a lack of vision is really the only thing holding it back.

[Anonymous No.8122718]

>>8122664
Autorotation, if choppers lose an engine they autorotate to the ground.

Not so with multicopters. Sure you do have more independent engines in a multicopter, but if you say have a battery failure, you're gonna hit the ground pretty hard

[Anonymous No.8122725]

>>8122495
only way i could see it remotely happen was if:

> outside of cities
> automatic AI flying, manual control is illegal

inside of cities maybe something like a simplified version of the magnetic tracks in minority report?

[Anonymous No.8122735]

seems like the only way to travel to be honest

there should be no reason for traffic in this day and age, if only we decided to get a nationalized 'air bus' system going, if you will

i mean there's so much more air than there is earth. people could fly at different altitudes. there's no way we would have traffic problems. so many people's lives would be longer and happier.

[Anonymous No.8122762]

>>8122718
Autorotation involves hitting the ground pretty hard
But if you had a backup electric motor good for a minute or two it would be ample to land.

[Anonymous No.8122774]

>>8121924
I'm not reading this thread but I bet it is filled to the brim with kids who want magic flying vehicles that don't care about something called "lift efficiency" and spam links to terrible gimmick craft that work like shit in every regard.

You need power?
You need speed?
You need lift efficiency?
You need fuel economy?
You need cheap?
You need short range 2 hours or less?

Get a small personal helicopter like the Mosquito XE

[Anonymous No.8122858]

>>8122725

automatic control isn't need at all, flying cars would be a hit with the existing civilian aircraft market if it was cheap enough and had enough range

that's the problem though

[Anonymous No.8122859]

>>8122735

>there should be no reason for traffic in this day and age

in this day and age everyone has a car and nobody rides trains or transit

this is exactly what your grandparents thought and wanted the future to look like

[Anonymous No.8122879]

If we can get fusion energy off the ground, then concerns about power consumption going up become utterly irrelevant.

As to safety, i'm going to just say it-fuck safety.

Cars kill like 30,000 people in the USA alone. Worldwide, the number is probably close to one million. But do we all cry and whine and insist that every single car is made into a giant sphere of crumple zone that can go a max speed of 30 miles per hour? Fuck no! We ACCEPT the danger for the FREEDOM we get from the technology.

Anyone who opposes this on the grounds of safety is a dirty commie faggot who i will shit on while airborne in my flying car.

[Anonymous No.8122895]

>>8122879
Thats what they said about fission, then the NRC came along to ban new fission plants & fission developments

[Anonymous No.8122899]

>>8122858
you wouldn't be allowed to operate it off roads and in built up areas though
Which kinda means its useless

[Anonymous No.8122912]

>>8122879
doesnt bad driving kill more people than cars ?

[Anonymous No.8122936]

>>8122912
>doesn't bad people kill more people than guns ?

[Anonymous No.8122954]

>>8122912
Well, I suppose you have highlighted an important distinction. Cars do not personally commit murder. Thank you for your stunning contribution to this discussion.

[Anonymous No.8122994]

>>8122718
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQyrPVIIQdE

>>8122762
Total bullshit, I've seen a helicopter auto-rotate down have enough inertia in the blades to lift off turn 180 degrees and land again. If you do it right auto rotation is just as soft as any regular landing.

[Anonymous No.8123038]

>>8122899

why not? If it's an aircraft, it can be used almost anywhere in the US. Let pilots and charter airlines handle the problem of building helipads inside cities.

[Anonymous No.8123229]

>>8122246
>You have radars tracking the movement of everything, all networked together, it's really not that difficult
The fact that you just described an intricate network of positioning systems, data pipelines, radio beacons, operators and the respective aviation safety regulations these all have to adhere in a sentence that ends with "it's really not that difficult" tells me you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about
Cut it the fuck down m8, this is nothing but handwavy, ignorant garbage you're spouting here

[Anonymous No.8123283]

>>8121924
Flying cars are particularly useful for extraction operations in warzones during active combat.

Chitty-chitty-bang-bang is not pure fantasy, but truth is stranger than fiction.

[Anonymous No.8123493]

>>8121924
>Flying car
More like a head chopper

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8123543]

>>8122268
Ok for starters the AirGeep or whatever it was called worked, the military just preferred the helicopter second of all just because Moller failed doesn't mean I will. I've done my own technical study and I have some ideas of my own. I am confident that I can make a flying car for under £5,000 with today's technology. I can't say much but one of my innovations is to make it single-seater. I say it's an innovation because practically all flying cars have literally been trying to stick propellers or wings onto a saloon car. Due to how propellers work carrying double the payload needs around 3x the power. because of this my study came to the conclusion that flying cars weighing more than 200 kg are infeasible which is why everyone has been failing. Anyway you can't talk the talk unless you walk the walk so October you will all see.
>>8122285
This. People are blinded by the popular view of a flying car which is literally a 4 door car that flies. I have a different design philosophy: a drone that looks like a car. The Ehang 184 in the OP picture has the right idea, man-sized drones are the way to do it.
>>8122304
This is another place where only lifting one guy comes in handy; you can get away with cheaper materials. I'm using wood. Laugh all you want but my stress tests say it will hold up.
>>8122310
This is aircraft, a lot different to VTOL. Aircraft is hard to autopilot because they move fast, have a wide turning circle and can't stop. Despite this computers can still manage it if the conditions are good. So imagine what can be done with drone cars
>>8122413
Screw the FAA, I'll market to Japan, let it take off there and when burgers see the light they will change their laws. You only have to find one country that is willing to adopt it and once other countries see that it's a success they will be more accepting.
>>8122718
Pretty sure multirotors can autorotate
>>8122774
The entire point of this thread is automation.
>>8122879
Thanks for your support

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8123548]

And before you call me delusional note that the Ehang 184 flew stable on the first attempt whereas the Moller has yet to do so even after millions of dollars and 30 years of development. This shows that modern pure electric direct drive blows petrol variable drive out of the water. the latter is too heavy and too complex.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8123551]

The only big problem with electric is that the flight time is absymal. My prototype is estimated to fly for around seven minutes. Power upgrades will get it to maybe 12 minutes. However I still think this is viable due to the extreme low cost and the fact that it's top speed is projected to be 60 mph meaning you could get about 7-12 miles. Good for Urban hopping. A 5 mile journey in my city takes half an hour on a bad day, this is a joke. A flying car could do it in 5 minutes.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8123557]

By the way when i say £5,000 that's the production cost. will probably sell for around £15,000. Musk is dropping rocket price an order of magnitude, I will drop flying car price an order of magnitude

[Anonymous No.8123607]

>>8122215
Oh fuck off kingchem, fuck off.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8123615]

>>8123607
>ad hominem
don't shit up the thread it's been decent with many pros and cons for multi-rotors vs single-rotors

[Anonymous No.8123699]

>>8123615
>insults are ad hominem
Ad hominem is not someone telling you to fuck off or calling you a name you stupid fucking cunt.

[Anonymous No.8123705]

>>8123543
>The entire point of this thread is automation.

And helicopters can be automated.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8123718]

>>8123705
flying cars are easier to automate.

[Anonymous No.8124145]

>>8123718
>flying car

Do you even know what that is? I'll give you a hint, planes and helicopters are flying cars. Why? Because a "car" is the passenger compartment of any vehicle or passenger transportation from an elevator to a Honda Civic to a 747 Jet or S-92 Helicopter.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8124430]

>>8124145
Here is your medal for pointing out the obvious and probable autism. You know what someone is talking about when they say "flying car". Furthermore if you had bothered to read this thread you would have known that it's about the pros and cons of automated multi-rotor aircraft

[Anonymous No.8124626]

>>8123718
why

[Anonymous No.8124631]

>>8123718
source?

[Anonymous No.8124642]

>>8124430
Then why on earth did you even post >>8123718

There's nothing but cons for multi-rotor aircraft over helicopters for passenger transportation. Automation doesn't even matter since that is already a thing for everything.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8126177]

>>8124626
>>8124631
>>8124642
Multi-rotors use direct drive which means the propeller is directly connected to the motor. The thrust is varied by varying the speed of the motor. This is extremely simple. Single-rotors use something called variable pitch. In this system the speed of the propeller is kept constant while the pitch or the angle at which the airfoil attacks the air is varied by a special mechanism. The latter method is more efficient because not only do you have the motor working at it's singular most efficient speed but it doesn't have to use energy to change torque all the time. However it is very complex and part of the reason why helicopters are so expensive and high-maintenance. Adding to this is that you either need an extra tail rotor or co-axial for torque canceling which either reduces your efficiency gain or puts complexity up another level.

Direct drive, while not as efficient is perfect for computer control because all you need to do to is vary voltage to the motors. Why not make direct drive helicopters? Won't work because the single blade of a helicopter needs too much torque for precise speed variation due to the huge radius and hence larger moment of inertia. Direct drive can only work effectively on a collection of smaller propellers.

This leads to one major disadvantage of multi-rotors which is that they don't scale up well. If you make it bigger eventually the size of each propeller will approach that of a normal helicopter therefore it will have the same problem as when direct drive is applied to a helicopter in that too much torque is needed and the motors can't respond fast enough so the thing loses stability. All these reasons weighed up along with battery capacity is why I think a single seater flying car is perfectly viable but anything larger and it's better to use a normal helicopter.

[KingChem !!zPoJzZdyEr+ No.8126188]

>>8124626
>>8124631
>>8124642
With Moller now he was using petrol engines. This is why he failed. Petrol is useless for direct drive because the throttle response is not fast and precise enough. The only other option is variable pitch but then what's the point? You are using four VP mechanisms when if you just used a helicopter you could have just used one. I think he may have tried to force his petrol engines into direct drive by computer code but it still wasn't very successful. There's a third option, use something called a continuously-variable-transmission, basically a gearbox with infinite gears between two values but that again is just as complex as a helicopter.

[Anonymous No.8126604]

>>8121924
Yeehaw

[Anonymous No.8126633]

>>8126604
That's not VTOL though. Needs something like V-22. Why has no-one made a mini V-22? That would be awesome.

[Anonymous No.8127003]

>>8123543
>Anyway you can't talk the talk unless you walk the walk so October you will all see.
Sure

[Anonymous No.8127087]

>>8121924
I wouldn't feel comfortable with it unless it was automated

>>8122191
>Modern computing can obviously alleviate that, but it doesn't change the fact that you're putting aircraft into environments where an accident is significantly more probable. Which is why having a pilot there is important so an accident has a lower chance of becoming catastrophic.

Check out swarms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_behaviour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4

[Anonymous No.8127117]

>>8121924
I don't get contra rotation. They say it improves efficiency but even if it does you've doubled your motor mass and a motor that big is probably 4kg.

[Anonymous No.8127147]

>>8123038
the whole point of the flying car is point to point transportation that avoids traffic.

vertical take and landing. driveway to work parking spot.

[Anonymous No.8127162]

>>8127147

Yes, and? Airparks already exist. Pic related are going to be the first early adopters. Let them pay for new heliports and aircraft parking garages.

[Anonymous No.8127168]

>>8127087

Notice how there's a massive difference between small, lightweight insects and large, heavy aircraft.

[Anonymous No.8127204]

>>8127168
birds are bigger than insects. Swarms don't just magically stop working because they go over a certain size. There would be faults of course but the idea that you can use a few small rules to coordinate complex movement in large groups is solid.

I agree that it would be challenging, but I think that it's an attempt worth pursing.

[Anonymous No.8127259]

>>8127162
Most people don't live anywhere near an airfield.

[Anonymous No.8127264]

>>8127259

So? Start small and work up. All that's needed is a hangar/garage and a helipad.

[Anonymous No.8127268]

>>8127264
>Renting a hangar in NYC

[Anonymous No.8127271]

>>8126177
A comparable direct drive airshit will be terrible in all respects to a helicopter which already exist and are mainstream. You will never get your shit to cost less than a helicopter and have it perform as good as a helicopter does in all respects.

There's a reason why all these quadcopter/multi-copters are popular but essentially do fucking nothing truly productive. Magic doesn't exist.

http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1465255633333.webm

[Anonymous No.8127274]

>>8122735
Why is it only ever a few kooks who work on flying cars? The whole concept is borderline /x/-tier when as you say it's actually a good idea. Why does no-one serious ever take it seriously? It's like early rocketry, it was just a few amateurs for decades getting a few thousand feet into the air and critics used that as a reason for why it would never go anywhere but when governments got interested the whole thing literally went cosmic. Therefore I think that flying cars have never got anywhere not because it can't be done but because nobody has put in a serious effort.

[Anonymous No.8127278]

>>8127271
There was a Canadian guy who flew across a lake on a giant drone, he can't have used more than $10,000 worth of parts. That's nothing compared to the cost of a helicopter. You're both right, the efficiency will never be good but it will probably be cheap enough to be worth it.

[Anonymous No.8127294]

>>8127264
The people shilling existing aircraft are retards. If it was so easy to own and fly a helicopter or access an airstrip then why the fuck do millions choose to sit in traffic every morning?

[Anonymous No.8127297]

>>8127278
The problem was short flight time though. If it lasted even half an hour I could see it selling like hot cakes, it's just so cheap and easy.

[Anonymous No.8127304]

>"automation" magically negates every airspace and aviation safety regulation devised over the last decades
yeah, no

[Anonymous No.8127385]

>>8127268

more like at JFK or Liberty, both of which have MTA/PATH connections

>>8127294

because an "entry" level aircraft costs $250k new. I suggest using pilots as a starting point because they're the ones most likely to buy these things (flying machines) in the first place.

[Anonymous No.8127401]

>>8127385
>an "entry" level aircraft costs $250k new
>what are ultra lights

[Anonymous No.8127408]

>>8127401

planes which offer the rider no protection from the outside environment, and which do not have the same range as light aircraft

[Anonymous No.8127416]

>>8127408

[Anonymous No.8127481]

>>8127416

It's not moving the goalposts when the defining characteristic of travel is to have a sealed, insulated passenger cabin. Ultralights do not have this feature.

[Anonymous No.8127497]

>>8127481
>defining characteristic of travel is to have a sealed, insulated passenger cabin.
Are you fucking serious? I don't know what to say to this. We called it travel long before what you describe existed.

[Anonymous No.8127501]

>>8127481
>the defining characteristic of travel is to have a sealed, insulated passenger cabin
air travel
noun
the action or process of making a journey by aircraft

ultra lights are the epitome of >entry level< aircraft
not having a closed, comfy cabin is irrelevant outside of the arbitary definition you just pulled out of your ass

[Anonymous No.8127503]

>>8127497

Within the context of what people expect out of either a "car", "air car", or "aircraft", one feature is common to all three: a sealed, insulated passenger compartment.

[Anonymous No.8127512]

>>8127501

You're arguing semantics.

My point is that what people want out of an expensive travel device includes an enclosed passenger compartment. This is what the average person wants, and this is what the vast majority of pilots and potential aircraft buyers want. Also, most aircraft and most automobiles sold include an enclosed (or enclose-able) passenger compartment.

[Anonymous No.8127555]

>>8127304
VTOL automation would. You could in theory run them like bumper cars it would be so easy but of course that is stupid.
>>8127501
Ultralights are literally just a propeller strapped to your back. This isn't popular with the plebs.
>>8127512
This. nobody wants to ride ultralights it looks like fucking extreme sport. Pic related. It's not extreme sport but such a exposed dangerous looking setup will not be popular with the masses.

I don't get why people are saying ultralights and helicopters are good enough. The fact that neither are anywhere near as popular as the automobile shows that they have serious flaws. The helicopter's flaw is it's price,large dangerous rotors and wicked noise. The ultralight's flaw is no VTOL and no passenger protection. Both have the flaw of being difficult to automate which is key for mass personal flight. Even if half a city did own ultralights it would be carnage in the air.

[Anonymous No.8127560]

>>8127512
>>8127501
Forgot pic. the vast majority of joe public will not even contemplate riding in such a thing. A successful product isn't just about efficiency, that's why autists never get rich. A successful product is also about useability and convenience. If the car in OP's pic actually worked 99% of people would choose it over the ultralight because it just looks much easier and safer.

[Anonymous No.8127581]

>>8127555
>VTOL automation would
no
it wouldn't
not a single aviation safety agency in the world will give you a free pass on their regulations just because you slapped a drone control system on a single seat multi rotor
question: have you actually read a single air ops annex in your life?

[Anonymous No.8127619]

>>8127581
Obviously not. The idea is since controlling drones is easier than controlling helicopters your control system will be so safe an precise that the authorities will allow you to expand on a trial basis.

[Anonymous No.8127635]

>>8127619
>your control system will be so safe an precise that the authorities will allow you to expand on a trial basis
you haven't studied even a glimpse of the most fundamental rulebook of aircraft design
yet here you are, claiming there exists a control system so reliable and precise that the FAA/EASA will just give you trial-based freebies when it comes to safety regulations
you're beyond delusional, seek help asap

[Anonymous No.8127665]

>>8127635
If you trial it in some country with lax airspace laws and it performs flawlessly meeting every FAA regulation then of course you would have a case that they would likely consider. And finally America is not the world.

[Anonymous No.8127671]

>>8127635
Control systems improve over time anon.

[Anonymous No.8127930]

>>8121924

The do have flying cars, they're called planes and helicopters. I guess you don't like all the stringient regulation around them, which has been formulated to control the utter carnage that flying craft cause.

[Anonymous No.8127974]

>>8121924
Flying is degenerate.

[Anonymous No.8128223]

>>8122172
>Eh teh bad driving is really a deliberate
>consequence of liberal politicians, and teh
>budgets being consumed by socialist waste
authoritarian fgt pls

[Anonymous No.8128229]

>>8128223
Stop spamming the same shit in every thread sjwtard. Go be an obnoxious cancer in your containment cesspool.
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.8128256]

Maybe not a flying car, but there is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=774sA0Corw8

[Anonymous No.8128388]

>>8127665
>>8127671
>hypothetical assumptions out the ass
>still not a word about how this magic unicorn control system is supposed to exceed the performance of every other control/positioning system out there
epin pipedream

[Anonymous No.8128443]

What the duck is up with these multirotor fags and hoverboard/hoverbike fags? Why are they so fucking ignorant and unscientific? They are as bad as those free energy, overunity, pyramid power shitheads.

[Anonymous No.8128690]

>>8128443
Me and a few other anons already explained that while multirotors have disadvantages they have a few advantages that make them more conductive to urban mass transit.
>>8128388
It's not really about the control system improving its more about the fact that multirotor controllers are a) dirt cheap and b) it's VTOL. You are comparing winged aircraft control to multirotor control, they are worlds apart. You can stop a VTOL craft in mid-air if something goes wrong up ahead. Not to mention the thing is slow as shit meaning response times don't need to be as fast.
>>8127930
This view really annoys me it's so unbelievably narrow-minded. In engineering no system is perfect. The very fact that it's kind of hard to come across a helicopter owner shows that they have shortcomings. As said before they're expensive, complex, loud, need a trained pilot and have these massive exposed swinging rotors. I hope you're not an engineer because if you don't want to design new systems just because something similar already exists then you may as well just be a repairman.

Look at the hovercraft. Boats already exist and they are way more efficient but the hovercraft has the advantage of being able to travel on land. Likewise yes thanks for pointing out the obvious that helicopters exist but can you land them in a parking space? Can you fly it into your garage? No.

[Anonymous No.8128698]

>>8128256
Lel he finally got it to work. See nobody took him seriously for 30 years and he finally did it. Anons are saying "hurr helicopters exist". Look at the turnout, look at all the investors he's gotten. There's clearly a market for VTOL craft beyond the traditional helicopter.

[Anonymous No.8128749]

>>8128690
>It's not really about the control system improving its more about the fact that multirotor controllers are a) dirt cheap and b) it's VTOL
>You can stop a VTOL craft in mid-air if something goes wrong up ahead
which, ONCE AGAIN, does not exempt your system from having to adhere to aviation safety regulations, which are internationally standardized in every major aspect

vtol multirotors being able to stop on a dime and the control system only requiring voltage modulation of the engines for steering doesn't mean shit when it comes to getting the design past type certification
good luck getting an actual type certificate of airworthiness with your flawed, handwavy train of thought
but then again you very obviously don't possess actual experience in aircraft design, lest you would know what I'm talking about
instead you keep on repeating the "BUT THEY'RE SO MUCH SIMPLER THAN HELICOPTERS AND PLANES!!!"-rhetoric, one that is completely irrelevant

>I hope you're not an engineer because if you don't want to design new systems just because something similar already exists then you may as well just be a repairman.
I hope you're not an engineer, because otherwise I'm at a loss for how you got past grad school with this abundant lack of knowledge on the matter you're so fiercely rambling about

[Anonymous No.8128788]

>>8128749
>does not exempt your system from having to adhere to aviation safety regulations
Who says it does? It makes it easier to adhere to it
>vtol multirotors being able to stop on a dime and the control system only requiring voltage modulation of the engines for steering doesn't mean shit when it comes to getting the design past type certification
Yes it does because you can do it for cheaper
>"BUT THEY'RE SO MUCH SIMPLER THAN HELICOPTERS AND PLANES!!!"-rhetoric, one that is completely irrelevant
Simplicity is "irrelevant". Ok.
>I hope you're not an engineer, because otherwise I'm at a loss for how you got past grad school with this abundant lack of knowledge on the matter you're so fiercely rambling about
Your entire argument is "I don't know that it will meet regulations" Well no shit I'm saying that the simplicity and low cost will raise the chances of it being able to meet regulations.

[Anonymous No.8128799]

>>8128749
>aviation safety regulations, which are internationally standardized in every major aspect
...and are based on the actual performance characteristics of available aircraft and their control systems.

Arguing that a new kind of aircraft with new performance characteristics and computerized piloting won't matter because today's aviation safety regulations are chiseled in stone is really spectacularly fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.8128818]

>>8128799
>Arguing that a new kind of aircraft with new performance characteristics and computerized piloting won't matter because today's aviation safety regulations are chiseled in stone is really spectacularly fucking stupid.
and assuming that your new kind of aircraft will exceed current performance by arbitary margins and persuade agencies to allow a personal transport multirotor to start/hover/fly/land in dense urban enviroments isn't, kek

>and computerized piloting
because that's so totally new and gamechanging that it's worth mentioning
you're acting as if modern day passenger airplanes are still steered with wires and pulleys
protip: even with double or triple redundant autopilots you're still required to have a fully licensed pilot in the cockpit at all times - this will not change by the sheer virtue of the system in question being a vtol multirotor instead of an airplane

[Anonymous No.8128870]

>>8128818
>assuming
So, you're just not interested in engaging with the evidence and arguments, then, eh?

Multirotors have radically different handling characteristics from fixed-wing aircraft and conventional helicopters, and they can be built to have dramatically more precise handling under unpredictable conditions, if that's a priority. Those aren't assumptions, they're established facts.

>protip: even with double or triple redundant autopilots you're still required to have a fully licensed pilot in the cockpit at all times - this will not change
Yeah man, that's why drones are totally forbidden for all purposes and there's no talk at all in regulatory circles of changing the rules for them.

If course, they're not going to let you have a flying car next week. Nobody's saying that. What's going to happen is that they'll make rules for drones and gradually expand what's permitted based on experience and and advancing technology, until they can carry passengers without a skilled pilot.

[Anonymous No.8128886]

>>8128818
>1908
>You were required by law to have a man holding a flag walking in front of your horseless carriage at all times
>This will never change

[Anonymous No.8128896]

>>8128886
>hoverbikefag-esque "computers once were thought useless too u just gotta believe :DD" bullshit rhetoric
if you're asking yourself how I know you're no engineer, here's why

[Anonymous No.8128898]

>>8128870
>What's going to happen is that they'll make rules for drones and gradually expand what's permitted based on experience and and advancing technology, until they can carry passengers without a skilled pilot

[Anonymous No.8128905]

>>8128870
Now that we've finally put the legislation arguments to bed let's talk about power. How the fuck are we gonna power these things? Based on the Canadian guy's drone board batteries get you about a minute of flight. The Ehang drone car claims 20 minutes but word on the street is that it's a fake to raise publicity for their normal drone. I can believe that because no way can a 400 kg quadcopter stay in the air for 20 minutes. 4kg quadcopters don't even last that long.

I was thinking hybrid generators but maybe fuel cells also. How are fuel cells coming along? I remember 10 years ago they were the "next big thing" and then I never heard anything more about them.

[Anonymous No.8128931]

>>8128896
Who the hell is talking about hoverbikes? Hoverbikes are dumb, there are only two small rotors and no passenger protection. Also they are designed to have kinesthetic control which is not at all autonomous.
And it's true, legislation changes depending on circumstances. Cars proved they weren't a hazard so the flag man requirement got ditched. Flying cars will prove they're not a hazard until one day the pilot requirement is ditched.

[Anonymous No.8128944]

>>8128931
>Who the hell is talking about hoverbikes?
nobody, but spouting "people once thought X was impossible" as if it's a perfect substitute for an argument puts you down on the same stupidity level as the hoverbike fags

[Anonymous No.8128948]

>>8128944
You're using similar arguments. "X is currently not possible" as your argument for the future.

[Anonymous No.8128959]

>>8128944
That's not given as the main argument though, moron. It's given as a response to someone who is refusing to engage beyond talking about current regulations as if they're never going to change no matter what the technology can do.

In other words, it's given as a mocking dismissal of an idiot who shows no potential to understand the argument.

[Anonymous No.8128997]

>>8128948
>as your argument ffor the future
>tripfag OPs post, which was the main starting point for the argument about his great scheme of automation ignoring regulations, claims "we will see in October" (>>8123543)
you jump into this with the mental notion that we're actually arguing about systems 10+ years into the future, but that's not the case
you can write down broad assumptions about future technology and its impact on regulations all you want

>>8128959
>That's not given as the main argument though
and I didn't answer it as if it was his main argument

who's suppused to the moron here again? the guy responding to a single post with another single post, or the guy acting like the responding post somehow frames this single post as the main argument?

>an idiot who shows no potential to understand the argument
oh the irony
it's so dense you could cut it with a butter knife

[Anonymous No.8129000]

>>8121924
/diy/ here. I'm gonna make a giant drone and try to ride it. This seems to be the future direction of transport and I want to make my name. I'm thinking I could run it autonomously using ArduPilot mission control.

[Anonymous No.8129004]

>>8129000
>I'm gonna make a giant drone and try to ride it
> I could run it autonomously using ArduPilot mission control.
>trusting your life to an open source arduino code
godspeed, don't forget to wear a parachute

[Anonymous No.8129009]

>>8128997
>and I didn't answer it as if it was his main argument

>>8128944
>spouting "people once thought X was impossible" as if it's a perfect substitute for an argument puts you down on the same stupidity level as the hoverbike fags

Go be garbage somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.8129012]

>>8128997
Looking back on his post he merely said that he plans to build one not market it. Like this guy who has just posted coincidentally >>8129000
I don't see I don't see why the attempts of a couple people to build one means legislation becomes a now or never thing. If OP or the other guy wanted to market it then that is 10 years into the future.

I don't know why you're getting so mad, you're the one making factual assumptions about the future whereas we are merely speculating. We say legislation may change over time. You say it definitely won't. See how your argument is retarded unless you're a time traveller.

[Anonymous No.8129015]

>>8129009
>be garbage somewhere
that schizo again
why don't you put on a tripcode already so I can just filter your inane shitposts

[Anonymous No.8129016]

>>8129004
>He doesn't trust open source code
I'd rather crash and die in flames than give my money to the Jews

[Anonymous No.8129023]

>>8129015
Do you have any actual arguments beyond "I own a time-machine so now I know the exact future of airspace legislation between now and 2100"?

[Anonymous No.8129042]

>>8129015
>guy catches you contradicting yourself
>call him schizo
>anonymous poster calls you garbage, tells you to go away
>believe the same poster is following your anonymous self around personally, because only one person would look at the quality of your posting and call you garbage

Symptoms of schizophrenia:
- paranoia
- inflated self-image
- inability to maintain logical consistency
- projection

[Anonymous No.8129068]

>>8129042
>believe the same poster is following your anonymous self around
kek, no
the last 5 hoverbike memethreads have been filled with responses from the same poster calling those who disagreed with him garbage/human garbage
it's a very obvious writing style and sticks out

[Anonymous No.8129097]

>>8129068
This has been a good thread which is weird considering it was made by a tripfag. It was mostly a good discussion of multirotor pros and cons until you waded in to declare the whole thing ridiculous.

I don't know why you keep equating this discussion to meme threads, the thing posted by OP is clearly a serious product with aims for safe autonomous travel. A world away from a guy in his shed fucking around with a lawnmower engine. Stop the strawman.

[Anonymous No.8129196]

>>8129097
>It was mostly a good discussion of multirotor pros and cons
these were established 30 posts into the thread, afterwards it was just a constant repitition of the same thing worded differently
>I don't know why you keep equating this discussion to meme threads
>the thing posted by OP is clearly a serious product with aims for safe autonomous travel
the only thing OP actually did was provide a correct explanation as to why electric engine multirotors are so simple to control

everything else is handwavy oneliners stacked on top of each other

fuel consumption? "just go hybrid" (???)
safety? "it will end up being safer than a road car"
licensing/certification? "just go somewhere with lax laws, also AUTOMATION" (as if such a thing as lax laws exist in aviation, also see >>8127304)
manned >pilot< required? see above, but also "the US is not the world"
insurance cost? "when nobody crashes it will go down" (maximum kek)
materials? "my stress test says wood will hold up" (not a word about safety margins or what stress test he actually refers to, could be static for all we know)

and then we get to gems like multirotors with small props being capable of autorotating, which is completely wrong due to the inherent lack of prop inertia, the same lack of inertia that makes steering via engine voltage modulation possible in the first place

or a supposed production cost of 5000 bucks
because apparently a product only costs the sum of its parts if you buy them straight from amazon, plus assembly
no testing costs
no commercial licensing costs for components purchased from 3rd parties
no certification costs for getting it approved by [aviation agency of the country you're selling it in]
no maintenance costs

his posts are handwavy as fuck and his production cost estimate reeks of napkin math
but apparently we'll all see his great innovation in october...
if only we could put bets on this, I'd put down a couple of grand no questions asked

>inb4contrarian
>inb4urjustjealous

[Anonymous No.8129242]

>>8128256
dude...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhnXxJs0GpE

[Anonymous No.8129553]

>>8121924
I met Paul Moller, he's a super nice guy. That's all I have to contribute.

[Anonymous No.8129558]

Theyre called helicopters...

[Anonymous No.8129747]

>>8128690
>Me and a few other anons already explained that while multirotors have disadvantages they have a few advantages that make them more conductive to urban mass transit.

Only they don't at all. Everysingle thing posted as a pro is better done by a standard helicopter. Even the bullshit about response times is so minuscule that it actually doesn't matter at all. I'm talking 0.008 of a second difference here.

[Anonymous No.8129753]

>>8129196
These posts are sad. No matter the facts presented or logical points being made the person who will reply to this will just cherry pick, show obvious ignorance, and from his perspective tear down event argument made against his stance regardless of how glaringly wrong he is.

There comes a point in a thread and a discussion IRL where you look the person in the eye, tell them that are full of shit, and walk away. This is one of those times, anon.

[Anonymous No.8130712]

am surprised no one has mentioned this about multicopter craft yet, but multicopters are quieter. However, my only source on this is the Volocopter website and they don't have any numbers.

One cause of noise in a helicopter is the blade passing into the vortex wake from a previous blade. When a blade hits the wake the loading suddenly changes making noise.

Also, the whole easier to automate argument is garbage. Gas powered cars are hard to automate, but we can do it. Ackermann suspension is heck to plan for, but we don't redesign cars to be omnidirectional so we can make them self driving. We have shit loads of computing power these days, we can handle controlling helicopters

The only things we have trouble with are things like ground effect, but multirotors have that problem too.

I might have started the efficiciency meme and I have some stuff to clear up. A multirotor can be just as efficient as a single rotor so long as the disk loading remains the same. If we put a bunch of rotors that equal the area of a single rotor, we're good. If we don't as is the case in a hoverboard or hoverbike we aren't.

The issue is that in order to get the same disk loading with a multirotor, we have to take up more space. This is because rotors must be spaced apart a certain distance to avoid vortex interaction.

Thing is, we don't necessarily want to be hovering in place, we need forward motion. We might be able to be less efficient in hovering if we aren't hovering much. Forward flight means we can have big large efficient wings.

VTOL aircraft are worse than helicopters and planes in performance, but DARPAs VTOL xplane program could change that
http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-03-03

[Anonymous No.8130726]

>>8122289
AFCS stands for automatic flight control systems you fuckwit.. Its even written in the fucking obnoxious link you posted. Modern AFCS are so accurate they'll land on the same spot on the runway every time, in many airports they've reduced ILS/DME approach quotas to compensate for damage to runway surfaces.

I'd suggest you research more on AFCS and its capability in real time use and simulation and discover how capable it really is. Theres no situation any FCM that I've worked on has ever failed even in some extreme situations.

To handwave it all, with enough redundancy, anything is possible. Just ask Airbus

[Anonymous No.8130787]

>>8122664
>Everyone has roads to their houses
not really, and even when there is a road, it's not always long enough

[Anonymous No.8130793]

>>8122147
DELETE THIS!!!

[Anonymous No.8130807]

>>8127385
>because an "entry" level aircraft costs $250k new.
pic related, the most expensive model from mosquito, less than 70k USD (before taxes)

[Anonymous No.8130815]

>>8127555
>Ultralights are literally just a propeller strapped to your back.
that's one type of ultralight

[Anonymous No.8130819]

>>8127665
>If you trial it in some country with lax airspace laws
the us is already quite lax

[Anonymous No.8130874]

>>8129753
who are you actually agreeing with?

[Anonymous No.8130905]

>>8130807
My neighbor has one of these (no the turbine one in your pic). He literally uses it to visit his brother.....who is my other neighbor on the other side of my house. Like he flies it from his yard to his brother's yard, over my house 2-4 times a week. The first time I saw it I thought it was one of his radio controlled helicopters until it got close enough for me to realize someone was in it and its scale.

Sometimes he'll go up and fly it around for a few hours. We live in an extremely hilly area and he lands in all his family's yards in the area.

There's a 2-seater version called "SWIFT" that's being developed.

[Anonymous No.8130907]

>>8130874
The person he's replying to of course.

[Anonymous No.8130924]

>>8127555
>Ultralights are literally just a propeller strapped to your back.

The Mosquito XEL has a cabin. The "ultralight" designation is for weight and fuel amount. It means you don't need a pilot's license to pilot one in the USA.

===========
Regulation of ultralight aircraft in the United States is covered by the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 (Federal Aviation Regulations) Part 103 or 14 CFR Part 103, which defines an "ultralight" as a vehicle that:

has only one seat[1][2]
Is used only for recreational or sport flying[1][2]
Does not have a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate[1]
If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds[1]
If powered:
Weighs less than 254 pounds (115 kg) empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices[1]
Has a maximum fuel capacity of 5 U.S. gallons (19 L);[2]
Has a top speed of 55 knots (102 km/h; 63 mph) calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight[1]
Has a power-off stall speed of 24 knots (45 km/h; 28 mph) calibrated airspeed or less[1]

May only be flown over unpopulated areas.
===========
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aircraft_%28United_States%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation

The flotation devices on the Mosquito XEL for instance do not count towards its total weight.

>>8127560
The "car" in the OP pic will exceed the ultralight weight limit and people will be required to have pilot's licenses.

[Anonymous No.8130947]

>>8127385
>because an "entry" level aircraft costs $250k new. I suggest using pilots as a starting point because they're the ones most likely to buy these things (flying machines) in the first place.

Or, you know $35k pre-built or $30k as a kit.

[Anonymous No.8131676]

the fundamental problem with flying cars is that the slower they move, the bigger they to be to lift enough air to fly. just to take >>8130807
and>>8127560, the length and width of even these tiny one/two person vehicles dwarfs the size of even the largest van, and the more people you want to carry the bigger they are.

This is especially the problem with all these multirotor/prop fan/jet/rocket designs, which in their attempt to look like a car except that it flies means that instead of having a rolling drag efficiency of 99,5 % like most cars, and literally zero fuel consumption when standing still, they can get if they're lucky a 3 to 1 lift drag ratio, meaning 75% eficiency. And then they are amazed they can't actually go anywhere with them.

[Anonymous No.8131679]

>>8131676
like pic related

[Anonymous No.8131796]

>>8131676
>they can get if they're lucky a 3 to 1 lift drag ratio
Way to show you have no concept of what you're talking about.

>>8131679
Lift efficiency of a rotorcraft is a very different concept from the lift drag ratio of a fixed-wing aircraft.

Lift efficiency speaks to the energy cost of HOVERING, not TRAVELLING. Note that in each case (except the idiotic addition of the flying aircraft carrier, which was not even edited in in a way that shows understanding of what the chart is about), the class of vehicle with lower lift efficiency also generally has a higher top speed.

In some cases, a direct-lift jet-propelled vehicle may have lower fuel consumption for a trip than a helicopter, as well as making the trip faster, because the direct-lift vehicle never really hovers: it can lift off and immediately accelerate toward its destination, transitioning to winged level flight or following a ballistic or boost-glide trajectory, while the helicopter plods along at a low speed through thick low-altitude air, spending more energy than if it were hovering the whole time.

[Anonymous No.8131817]

>>8122333
>I calculated that a flying car needs 3x the power of a 1.6 L car
Where are you getting this number?

[Anonymous No.8131848]

>>8130924
if these are so great why does barely anyone own one? could it be that 70k is still too expensive? could it be that you have to learn how to fly it? could it be that this is some barebones POS that cant autolevel or autopilot?

The fact that barely anyone owns an aircraft of any sort is proof enough that the current lineup is inadequate. Are you that sort of faggot who would have said home PCs are pointless because "mainframes already exist"?

[Anonymous No.8131868]

>>8121924
Lawsuits waiting to happen, you would have to construct sky lanes which are at the utter mercy of gravity to make a more organized form of sky transport but you are better of just being on the ground. Now sky lanes that are built to travel to other regions of the USA but then again a plane would be faster.

[Anonymous No.8131982]

>>8131848
>could it be that 70k is still too expensive?

They are $30k to $70k.

>if these are so great why does barely anyone own one?

Not very many people really give a shit about flying.

> could it be that you have to learn how to fly it?

No, the XEL is an ultralight and you don't actually need to learn to fly it or register it. You can jump right in it and try to take off which like driving a car isn't advised until you do learn.

>could it be that this is some barebones POS that cant autolevel or autopilot?

They can auto-hover and you can install autopilot.

>Are you that sort of faggot who would have said home PCs are pointless because "mainframes already exist"?

You just shot your entire argument point in the foot.

[Anonymous No.8132013]

>>8121924
>literally gizmag vaporware product