
Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars - piyushmakhija
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-09/welcome-to-larry-page-s-secret-flying-car-factories
======
Nokinside
Helicopters and small planes already exist. We might have autonomous
helicopters and small planes in the future, but flying car concept is flawed
and not because it's hard to build one.

\- Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small
aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. This is
actually good subgoal to work with even without flying cars in mind. Reliable
infrastructure that checks and calibrates instruments so reliably that you
don't need manual checks would be revolution in aerospace. Just walking from
your car into your future Cessna-Android and flying off would be sci-fi for
aviators.

\- Energy consumption. No matter how energy efficient the engines are,
hovering and short takeoffs use lots of energy. Flying with small wings with
little lift is equivalent to driving monster trucks in full power. You don't
want flying becoming everyday phenomenon until we have abundance of carbon
free energy.

\- Noise and safety regulations, aviation regulations over urban areas. Flying
cars are not happening in the suburbs or anyone where lots of people live. In
the meantime try to get new helicopter landing sites approved in your
neighborhood. If you have to take car to your flying car hangar, just have a
small plane instead. Or walk to a buss station.

~~~
outworlder
> Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small
> aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight.

Omg, this. The amount of checks required for any sort of aircraft is
ridiculous. A lot of it involves button pushing and checking status. This
could be automated.

For instance, for a cessna 150:

STARTING ENGINE Mixture – RICH Carb heat – COLD Prime – AS REQUIRED Master
switch -- ON Beacon Light – ON Throttle – OPEN 1/8” Prop Area – CLEAR Ignition
– START Oil Pressure – CHK Radio – ON/SET Transponder – ON / STBY Wing Flaps –
UP Mixture – LEAN 1 INCH READY TO TAXI

Most of these things could be set automatically.

~~~
handedness
The examples you gave take no more than 30 seconds. Sure, FADEC can eliminate
most of them, but they're quick.

Other examples–checking the oil, the tank sumps, the intake, the tires, the
flap tracks, the rudder bolt(s), the wing tips, the tailwheel springs,
etc.–are the stuff that software largely can't replace, and are the more time-
consuming part of taking off.

Put another way, the latest fighter jets and commercial heavies still have
significant visual preflights.

~~~
outworlder
> The examples you gave take no more than 30 seconds. Sure, FADEC can
> eliminate most of them, but they're quick.

Sure. Maybe I shouldn't have picked the engine section as the example.

In the context of this thread, way more than that is needed.

> Put another way, the latest fighter jets and commercial heavies still have
> significant visual preflights.

And that is fine. The stakes are high, the plane itself is much more complex
and placed in high demand, plus they can hire staff.

~~~
6stringmerc
The "staff" you mention that does the walk-around of the major commercial
airliner is/are also the person(s) who will be piloting the plane, IIRC.

~~~
parfe
I just flew on an a320 and watched the plane taxi to the gate. Someone on the
ground crew in an orange vest walked around the plane and did a visual
inspection using a flashlight. At no point did someone from the flight crew
leave the plane.

~~~
6stringmerc
Curious as to what airline and at what airport? Usually pre-flight is before
the plane taxis "from" the gate not when it arrives "at" the gate.

~~~
parfe
Are you referring to only the first flight of the day?

A plane lands, taxis to the gate. Passengers disembark, the plane gets cleaned
and refueled, people on the ground checked it out, new passengers board (me),
and it taxis from the gate. At no point did the pilots leave the airplane to
"walk-around".

------
JDDunn9
I just emailed the people at Moller this week asking them what the biggest
challenge in making a flying car was. Their reply was:

Thanks for reaching out to Moller International. Your question is a good one,
with a multitude of answers. For now, I’ll explain 3 of the biggest factors.
First, there is a lot of FAA and government regulations regarding aircraft.
Airworthiness certification is a lengthy process, and depending on the level
at which a company wishes to test, operate, and potential sell their aircraft,
the process can take anywhere from a few months to a few years. Second, as
stated previously, time is a major factor not only for development, but also
testing, marketing, etc. In aviation, there are no “unimportant” parts at
10,000 ft. Safety is always a top priority throughout the entire process.
Third, and finally, funding. Companies like Moller International depend
greatly on their investors and supporters to keep the lights on. Until there
is a product being sold, and cash being brought in regularly, a company must
depend on some other source of funding. Aircraft programs are not known to be
easy and cheap; these programs are some of the more expensive ones out there,
especially in the private sector. With all of this said, all of us here at
Moller International are working hard to ensure the latter two have as minimal
an impact as possible. We have been working in cooperation with the FAA to get
things going as quickly and safely as possible. Let me know if you have any
other questions.

~~~
jacquesm
And of course the #1 reason: developing an economical, practical flying car is
very hard within the constraints set by physics.

~~~
6stringmerc
Well even if it works the #2 reason is you have to have a qualified person to
fly it.

One quick glance between US Driving Regulations and Tests versus FAA Pilot
Certification programs reveals the two are very divergent. I've yet to see an
IFR-conditions capable car. Not saying it isn't possible, but just spitballing
the technical and competency thresholds here.

~~~
antoniuschan99
I don't know the extent of their tests but it's interesting to see this in the
news yesterday

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/08/flying-
robo...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/08/flying-robot-taxi-
to-start-trials-in-las-vegas/)

------
6stringmerc
As long as there's the FAA involved, flying cars are a stupid idea.

They are shitty cars if they're any good at being airplanes, and they're
underperforming and over-priced airplanes just because they can somewhat
function as a car. Now, if Larry Page's flying car company is also lobbying to
gut the FAA's ability to regulate his creation, that's a whole other can of
worms.

I don't think personal flight devices are a bad idea, which is why I'm working
on my own. Flying cars are so contradictory in construction and purpose that I
can't help but get really peeved at any praise directed toward the endeavor.
There are more factors than simply "can this 4 wheeler get airborne" to keep
at top of mind.

Good luck getting a reasonably priced AME to keep the thing airborne.

> _But better materials, autonomous navigation systems, and other technical
> advances have convinced a growing body of smart, wealthy, and apparently
> serious people that within the next few years we’ll have a self-flying car
> that takes off and lands vertically—at least a small, electric, mostly
> autonomous commuter plane._

The latter half of that sentence is plausible. Flying cars are not. Sorry.

~~~
BurningFrog
Flying cars would be a product for the world market. The FAA only controls a
small part of that airspace.

~~~
6stringmerc
Maybe the .001% of people in the world market, and even then, of those people,
approximately a much smaller amount would be capable of flying such a vehicle
properly. They might be financially able to purchase, but will they be
competent enough not to crash it within the first month? I seem to recall
Dodge Vipers being notorious for being crashed within the first _week_ of
ownership due to lack of proper training (which was subsequently provided in
advance of delivery IIRC). We're talking _airplanes_ here.

Obviously the FAA doesn't control global airspace, as evidenced by a Malaysia
Air passenger jet flying over an active combat zone and being shot out of the
sky by a SAM. Sometimes the FAA does good work. Sometimes not, but it's
definitely the foremost "authority" in aviation.

~~~
bencollier49
The article implies that these vehicles would be autonomous.

~~~
6stringmerc
It might imply that some would be autonomous, but that's not a genuine "flying
car" now is it? It's an "autonomous passenger transport pod" that could
describe anything from a hyperloop to an automated self-propelled wheelchair.
All this dancing around to try and make it seem like the idea isn't a fool's
errand is interesting, I will grant that.

~~~
NegativeK
You're associating "car" with "something a homeowner can regularly control." I
associate "car" more with "a personal vehicle."

I'd rather high speed chunks of metal not be under individual control,
personally. Road or air.

~~~
6stringmerc
That's fine, you can use whatever inaccurate terms you'd like but I won't
share that approach.

Personally, having grown up in an aviation family and being a studied gear-
head, I simply don't share your confidence that individual control is inferior
to automation at the root. In fact, I think until AI is comparable to the
human brain, arguing that automation and programming is better is wrong;
moreover it's unsuitable for a conversation regarding powered flight is
irresponsible. There are simply no technological systems which have proven
themselves trustworthy - thus far, I concede - to being a replacement for the
human brain and synapses.

~~~
tim333
We have machine operated lifts and trains, almost self driving cars, aircraft
autopilots and having witnessed my own efforts at flying a plane I think a
computer could quite likely do a safer job.

~~~
6stringmerc
Oh really? Because there's a bunch of Air France wreckage just North of South
America regarding a computer fuck-up that wasn't properly ajudicated by the
pilots in command, which would have saved the passengers (as it had in other
instances where the pilots saved the plane). That's just a high-profile one by
pilots who were easily more qualified than you or I to be in charge of a major
airliner.

[http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/avi...](http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/aviation.aspx)

~~~
Dylan16807
It crashed because the pilots didn't know what they needed to know. That is
not a computer fuck-up. Pretty bad example to pick when you're arguing
_against_ autopilot being superior to humans.

------
mawburn
>We noticed that you're using an ad blocker, which may _adversely affect the
performance_ and content on Bloomberg.com. For the best experience, please
whitelist the site.

Yeah, ok Bloomberg.

~~~
mashlol
I'm on mobile, not using an ad blocker, and I still got this message... really
Bloomberg...?

Also by performance being affected perhaps they are referring to the 5 extra
secondtheys make you wait.

~~~
tgb
Same here. And of course the ads themselves bog down the page so that it's
hard to read even after their popup.

------
rl3
Every time I see an article on flying cars, I can't help but be reminded of an
old IBM commercial[0] from 2000.

Deliciously ironic considering it represented the fact that mainstream culture
had all but written off the idea entirely.

[0]
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo](https://youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo)

~~~
boulos
More disappointingly, we still can't just walk out of a store with goods and
have it charge us. That said, the idea of all the products having RF things on
them would be ultra creepy, so I'm guessing that's the limiting factor.

~~~
kuschku
Well, in some stores, RFID on all products already exists.

Especially as they were originally added to prevent theft, and are now kinda
for free, it’s quite cheap to add that feature.

------
rtpg
What problems do flying cars solve? I know it looks cool but is there some
huge thing that would get solved with this?

~~~
uptown
Cars and trucks are relegated to the 2d grid of streets. They consume an
inordinate amount of space, and require that all travel occur in series down a
road. When an accident occurs, this disrupts the flow of traffic down that
path, and also frequently disrupts the flow of surrounding roads as drivers
seek alternate routes around the problem. Roads wear down over time, and
require maintenance to repair. Salt and chemicals placed on roads to melt ice
and snow can have adverse impacts on the local water tables and have other
negative ecological impacts.

Air-travel doesn't have those same constraints. Travel could be more point-to-
point. An accident by one or two aircraft doesn't need to inhibit the travel
of all other crafts flying in the general vicinity. Air space, while regulated
and crowded in some urban areas, is largely under-utilized and expansive. It's
also not a space that is shared with foot traffic, so pedestrians could
reclaim some of the space currently allocated to roads since the volume of
vehicular traffic would likely drop.

That's not to say that personal air travel doesn't introduce an entire set of
new problems and challenges - it absolutely does, but there are many problems
that cars and roads cause which air-travel avoids by-design.

Think of air-travel in the context of this cartoon:

[http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-
pedestri...](http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-pedestrian-a-
roads-a-tiny-space-with-danger-just-beside/)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but
now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major
price premium for parking. Getting to work in 10 minutes instead of 30 is
going to be attractive and that'll raise parking demand, but there's only
going to be so much parking available. Tearing down profitable office
buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt
Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500+ a month flying car space.

Its also worth mentioning that none of these proposed designs are vtol, so
you'll need a real runway to land or take off.

Worse, how do you leave the massive underground parking lot? Drive to the
street then somewhere you can safely lift off? Now you have to wait to taxi to
the proper runway or lift off zone or whatever these things will ultimately be
allowed to use. Double worse, now we're less invested in solutions that
actually work and don't require massive parking spaces like public trans via
light rail, e-bikes, traditional bikes, etc.

There's a reason why the personal plane never took off. I'm pretty bearish
about the flying car concept, even if all the technical and regulatory issues
are easily solved (hint: they wont be) there's still pricing and safety issues
on top of the parking problem. Oh and 9/11 is fresh in everyone's minds. Can
you imagine anyone approving these things flying near the skyscrapers we work
in? I suspect that if that these things catch on, they'll be like the
Concorde. A toy for rich people in a hurry but with so many strict regulations
and limitations that it'll ultimately be infeasible in the long run.

If Page and Google have shown anything, they're poor futurists outside of the
information realm. When it comes to hardware, they're batting very poorly.
They let Valve and Oculus take the VR crown, they let Musk take space tourism
and electric cars, they let Jobs take the first mass market smartphone, let
Amazon take the e-book crown, etc.

~~~
uptown
"Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will
be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500 a
month flying car space."

Rooftops have been used for ages as landing pads for helicopters. I don't see
why you couldn't do the same for these. And the article mentions adoption of
the uber-model of non-ownership, so it's not like you'd need a parking lot of
these sitting idly at the workplace for end-of-day. They'd come and go on-
demand.

~~~
_audakel
You could have the tesla self park / pick up feature. It drops you off and
then Flys off some here where there is much space. Then you just call it back
when you ready to leave.

~~~
rileyteige
Sounds like a lot of wasted energy if that thing has to fly any reasonable
distance.

------
Animats
This is encouraging. There's no fundamental problem with building a "flying
car"; all sorts of strange VTOL craft were built in the 1950s. Many of them
ended up in the Hiller Aviation Museum on 101 in San Carlos, CA.

The main problems with VTOL are stability, engine cost, and fuel
consumption/range. Pure-thrust lift requires enormous power. Most of the
successful pure-thrust VTOLs are jet fighters, which are mostly engine. The
Harrier and the F-35 are examples.

Jet engines are expensive, and they don't get much cheaper below 6-passenger
bizjet size. This is why general aviation still uses props. A lot of effort
has gone into cheaper jet engines, but without much success. (Yes, there are
large model aircraft jet engines, which is what the Flyboard Air uses. They're
good for a few hundred hours, not the 10,000 hours between overhauls of
aviation jet engines.)

Electric VTOL is going to be interesting. There are lots of electric drones,
after all. Engine power to weight is good. Siemens has a water-cooled electric
aircraft engine in test.

Battery energy density sucks. NASA is talking about aircraft where there's a
gas turbine or two driving a generator, with lots of electric props. This
could work out. Meanwhile, until the battery situation improves, you can build
short-ranged flying cars. There's a cute little one out of China, apparently
intended to get China's rich and powerful around Beijing's traffic jams.

------
eblanshey
It's great seeing a strong push toward aviation as a superior method of
transportation. One of the side effects will be people gradual spreading out,
away from huge city congestion, which is largely set up due to our
transportation. It will enable us to live more in tune with nature, while not
giving up the conveniences of having everything we need within short distance.
I touched upon this in a blog post: [https://medium.com/@eblanshey/the-world-
is-undergoing-massiv...](https://medium.com/@eblanshey/the-world-is-
undergoing-massive-change-and-ive-never-been-so-excited-in-my-life-
cca5666827f0#.bst1jq2ox)

~~~
adventured
I disagree. Most people do not want to live more in tune with nature when it
comes to living in it. They have very little interest in immersing themselves
in nature outside of an occasional hike or camping trip. That's made
exceptionally clear by how people actively choose to live and the things they
choose not to do. There is no great pent-up demand for telecommuting, a very
small percentage of the working population wants to do it.

Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way.
Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to
concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a
multiplier for each person you add to a city. Cities are far more vibrant in
every regard except for nature, that includes art, science, fashion, social,
lifestyle, networking, work, access to resources and public institutions.

~~~
alphapapa
On the other hand, cities have higher crime rates, more pollution, more noise,
less space, and higher cost of living.

Have you ever lived in an apartment building? Have you ever had noisy
neighbors and wished you lived in a detached house with a spacious yard? Have
you ever been awakened by a truck's backup beeper at 5 AM? Have you ever
thought about what it would be like to live in a city where a riot takes
place, or a terrorist attack, or a public health epidemic?

There is a big gap between "living in tune with nature" (whatever that means
to whoever reads it) and living in a city. Some people prefer living in less
densely populated areas. Some people prefer living in the wilderness. Some
people prefer living in skyscrapers, stacked on top of each other like
sardines.

Personally, I think that the more people are packed together in small areas,
the less happy people are. People are happier when they have space of their
own, giving them privacy--not just in terms of being hidden from sight, but in
terms of having their space not being intruded upon by noise, pollution, etc.

------
joakleaf
Related is this one-man drone by a Chinese company which should being test
flights in Nevada:

    
    
      http://www.ehang.com/news/146.html
    

"Drone" because the on board computer handles all the flying (just pick a
destination).

~~~
0xFFC
I am so curious about how this Ehang 146 thing will pan out.

If it does really work, I think it is one of the best idea I have ever seen !

~~~
marvin
When we do eventually get working personal VTOL vehicles (let's call them
something that is not not flying car), they will look something like this.
Maybe with different characteristics for body shape and rotor arrangement, but
definitely with gimbaled electric motors and with no wings or control
surfaces.

------
andys627
We'll all be happier and healthier and have more money for other stuff if we
build our cities around walking, biking, and shared transit. Suburbs =
unhealthy, inefficient, unhappy (it has been studied - look it up don't just
comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere").

~~~
alphapapa
I contend that people are happier and healthier where the population density
is lower, resulting in less crime, less pollution, less noise, lower cost of
living, more space, more privacy, etc.

If you want to live in big buildings, packed together like sardines, unable to
escape from the noise of your neighbors and everything that goes on in the
city outside the window, more power to you. But don't presume to say that
everyone else will be happier if they would just do what you prefer.

~~~
oftenwrong
The problem is that usually you still have to commute to work. Living far away
from jobs means a long, unhappy commute. The unhappiness caused by long
commutes is well researched - look it up if you like. People compromise and
live somewhere in between, which often means the worst of both worlds.

Contrary to what you say, dense cities can be quiet and have isolated private
space. Look at the vast single-family-home suburbs of Tokyo. The population
density is high even without large buildings, and you can live without a car
easily (if desired), but you have your own house with a garden on a quiet,
secluded street in a safe neighborhood all within walking distance of the
train that can take you downtown. Not particularly cheap or spacious, though.
The noisy, crime-riddled, no-privacy-at-all hellish city you describe is
common, but it's not the only possibility.

What the sibling comment says is true about social interaction in cities as
well. Living in the city people have more friends, more sexual partners,
attend more events, and interact more with strangers. For some that is a plus.

~~~
alphapapa
> The problem is that usually you still have to commute to work. Living far
> away from jobs means a long, unhappy commute. The unhappiness caused by long
> commutes is well researched - look it up if you like. People compromise and
> live somewhere in between, which often means the worst of both worlds.

Plenty of people do not have to make long commutes, or they choose to do so
for certain reasons. This is such a generalization that it's not very useful.

More interesting would be solving the problem of people needing to commute in
the first place. How many of those jobs that people commute to actually must
be done in the place they commute to? And I don't mean telecommuting, I mean,
does that business really need to be located in that city? In the case of many
office jobs, they could be located in smaller cities to begin with, so people
wouldn't have to live as far away. Of course, this is also a nearly useless
generalization.

However, I would suggest that the real problem here is, sadly, politics. How
many business decisions are dictated by local laws, regulations, taxes, etc?
How many businesses would relocate if it weren't for certain of these that
make only a few locations feasible? And how many of those political decisions
are caused by other businesses lobbying for them, whether to enhance their own
advantages or disadvantage their competitors?

> Contrary to what you say, dense cities can be quiet and have isolated
> private space. Look at the vast single-family-home suburbs of Tokyo. The
> population density is high even without large buildings, and you can live
> without a car easily (if desired), but you have your own house with a garden
> on a quiet, secluded street in a safe neighborhood all within walking
> distance of the train that can take you downtown. Not particularly cheap or
> spacious, though. The noisy, crime-riddled, no-privacy-at-all hellish city
> you describe is common, but it's not the only possibility.

This is the exception, not the rule. And I don't think Tokyo is a great
example. My neighbors have a garden--it occupies as much space as their house.
What kind of a garden would they have if they lived in a single-family home in
a Tokyo suburb? A window box? And they would probably pay 5 times as much in
living expenses, at least.

I would suggest that most cities in the world _are_ noisy, crime-riddled, no-
privacy hellholes--at least, unless you are very wealthy. The average person
in the average city can't afford to live in a quiet, safe, private dwelling.
But the same person making the same money living in a suburb or small town can
afford a much nicer, safer, quieter home, and nearly everything they need to
buy is cheaper there as well.

> What the sibling comment says is true about social interaction in cities as
> well. Living in the city people have more friends, more sexual partners,
> attend more events, and interact more with strangers. For some that is a
> plus.

For some, it is. Of course, it depends on how you define "city." But many
people live happily and healthily in smaller places all around the world, with
families and friends and local events (ones they probably have a larger role
in, as well). It's not necessary to live in a big city to have a social life
or a vibrant community. People have been celebrating harvest festivals for
thousands of years.

------
thesimpsons1022
am I the only one that doesn't want flying cars? I want to be able to look up
and see the sky, not traffic. I don't want drunk drivers ramming into
buildings. I don't want to have to build a horizontal wall over my backyard
for privacy. what benefit do they even have? I'd rather just have fast ground
transportation

~~~
mattm
I think they would have to be self-flying cars to make it feasible.

~~~
thesimpsons1022
maybe this is cynical but I can imagine a steady stream of litter raining from
the sky's as people toss trash out their windows

------
ape4
If the (ground) car enabled urban sprawl... just think what the flying car
would do for it.

------
amelius
> “Self-flying aircraft is so much easier than what the auto companies are
> trying to do with self-driving cars”

I guess until everybody starts using them :)

~~~
BurningFrog
Because there is no terrain to worry about.

~~~
6stringmerc
There are broadcast towers with wires that are certainly worth worrying about
if not accounted for in advance.

------
yk
I think that autonomous vehicles make flying cars possible. On one hand,
learning to fly is difficult (the problem has a dimension more than driving on
the surface) and people really do not like wreckage falling from the sky. So
one needs a highly trained expert to pilot any flying vehicle, or a fully
autonomous autopilot.

The second thing is energy, a plane needs to handle a lot more energy than a
car, simply because it flies, so it is more expensive. If someone own a flying
car, then they are investing a lot into a capability they use very rarely.
With a Uber like model of shared transportation one orders a car only when one
needs it. And it makes sense to have a flying car in the pool, even at a
hundred times the cost of a regular vehicle. So each individual customer will
use that flying car almost never, but there are many, and the ones who pay a
$100 to shave five minutes of their time are probably in that moment very
happy, that they have that option.

~~~
flavor8
> The second thing is energy, a plane needs to handle a lot more energy than a
> car, simply because it flies

A cessna gets between 15mpg and 22mpg.

[http://www.cessna150152.com/faqs/performance.htm](http://www.cessna150152.com/faqs/performance.htm)

~~~
yk
Admittedly it is the kind of argument that needs some justification. Roughly
what I mean is, a car in the middle of the desert will just roll until it
stops because there is a lot of friction between the tires and the ground. By
contrast a plane flying above the desert left to its own will crash and burn,
because the dissipation of energy occurs at the end of its trajectory.

~~~
knodi123
> a car in the middle of the desert will just roll until it stops

And an airplane will glide pretty far until it stops.

Every single pilot has practical first-hand experience with unpowered
landings- they're on the curriculum when you're getting your license. It's a
remarkably survivable thing to do, especially in a desert with a road like
your example.

~~~
nacs
> Every single pilot has practical first-hand experience with unpowered
> landing

Considering many people can barely handle driving normal cars correctly, the
number of average flying-car consumers that will have airplane pilot-level
training, knowledge, skill, and maintain sanity in emergency situations like
unpowered landings is minuscule.

~~~
CamperBob2
Surely nobody thinks this can happen without autonomous (or at least remotely
centralized) control?

Do they?

Because if they do, they've obviously never driven a _normal_ car in traffic,
much less a flying one.

------
johngalt
I've always thought a flying motorcycle makes more sense than a flying car.
The power to weight ratios are closer, as are the engine requirements.
Something like a long two seater cabin motorcycle with wings that attach like
glider wings. Something like this with wings:

[https://peraves.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/roger_susan_mono...](https://peraves.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/roger_susan_monotracer_dsc_7255.jpg)

Flys like a motorglider. I.e. slow for a plane but faster than a car/bike.
Very efficient per mile (for a plane). Tolerates engine failure with a good
glide ratio.

Ground to air transitions happen at designated places (mini airports). Wings
are left at the airport while you operate the bike in ground mode. Or towed in
a narrow trailer just like a glider trailer.

------
mtgx
I'm sure this is something Elon Musk would be trying to make, too, because
there's a lot of expertise that his companies already have to build something
like this: autonomous tech, rocket engineers, batteries, electric powertrains,
solar panels, and he has already said he would probably build an electric
airplane next.

If only he had the money to experiment with something like this. That's why
I'm hoping that Apple buys Tesla eventually and makes Musk its CEO and lets
him do whatever he wants with those $150+ billion (maybe $300 billion by then)
cash reserves.

And apparently he's already toying with flying stuff:

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740723195431538689](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740723195431538689)

~~~
outworlder
> I'm sure this is something Elon Musk would be trying to make

I am not so sure. An electric airplane at least has the effect of lowering
greenhouse emissions, thus increasing, even by a minuscule amount, the amount
of time we have on this rock.

But flying cars? This is something that would increase the world's energy
consumption, for little benefit.

He has already tackled transportation with the Hyperloop. Those are flying
cars(or trains, depending on your point of view). Only they are safer, more
energy efficient and more economical.

Besides, adding wings to a car doesn't seem like something one would do, if
trying to think from first principles.

Also, I think the flying suit was a joke (my inner child is hoping not).

------
nxzero
Much like autonomous cars, feel the focus is on the tech instead of how the
tech would impact culture.

Core issue is that flying spreads people out, and given how hyper connected
people are, this makes no sense.

Real focus should on condensed living areas, not flying people around, which
is a massive waste of energy.

------
JoeAltmaier
“We were promised flying cars, and instead what we got was 140 characters”

Silicon valley tries to create the future

------
aurizon
I remember the pulp Science Fiction magazines of the 30's, 40's and 50's.
Quite often they had drawn pictures of cities with hundreds of planes going
every which way. For a while it was autogyros, helicopters etc. It never
happened. Cars won. A car is supported by the road with zero energy cost
except for motion. Any aircraft must waste energy at all times, and the
highest energy use is when standing still(hovering). Ok so they have 100,000
planes flying around LA at 200 miles per hour. Managing that number of planes
under automatic computer control is a huge technical challenge. Human pilots =
impossible.

Until we have anti g and can hover for zero energy it will never happen.

------
dave2000
What would the authorities do to prevent these things, if they existed, from
being loaded with explosives and driven into buildings? Even if the idea got
off the ground and anyone (who could afford one) could start flying around,
how many terrorist attacks would it take before they were outlawed? Do you
think, having taken out the white house, the government would stand behind
civilians rights to own and fly them? They'd not only ban them, they're
probably restrict private use of drones and planes too.

------
jdhawk
I wish these guys would focus on new small turbofans, like the Williams EJ22.
Pairing one of those to something like a Cirrus/Piper/Mooney airframe would
give fast, low fuel, reliable powerplant for existing airframes. Add in a
sprinkling of new technology to simplify the flight controls and you'd be a
lot closer than trying to boil the ocean with "flying cars"

------
pascalxus
Taking to the air is a Great idea! It won't be limited by transportation
infrastructure. And you don't have to place the stations along a 2 dimensional
arc as with train stations. You can have any point to any point directional
travel. I forsee a future where people call uber like air travel at their
nearest heliport.

I'm really glad someone is working on this!

------
dmritard96
Surprised most articles haven't mentioned the flying car at CES:

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chinese-flying-car-maker-
gran...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chinese-flying-car-maker-granted-
clearance-takeoff-simon-montford?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish)

------
amelius
By the way, their job openings are all for B.S. and M.S. level (no Ph.D.),
which seems a bit odd.

~~~
ForgotMyUName
Maybe they need people who do work every day, not just think, talk, or write
about doing work.

~~~
daveguy
Ouch.

------
googletazer
It almost has to be a vertical lift/land shuttle type of thing to work. I
don't see it being able to land in cities any other way. Very cool though,
freedom in a whole other dimension.

------
bobsil1
Distributed electric propulsion is promising, check out the NASA papers.

------
programminggeek
I noticed this a while ago, that flying cars will only become real when self
driving tech is progressed far enough that you have self-flying cars.
Interesting to see that as a real project.

------
marvin
This thread has the potential to become hilariously cringeworthy in a decade
or so. I'll be checking back in five years to see if lightweight VTOL aircraft
are still an idea that is "obviously stupid because we've tried it before and
it didn't work".

My guess is that the progress in batteries and electric motors will have made
this concept a lot more feasible by then. At some point it will be a
completely obvious idea which will make us shake our heads at the skepticism
it had before.

~~~
6stringmerc
No, they do work just fine with Jet-A. Are they practical? No. Will electric
battery technology overcome the constraints within 5 years? That's a viable
hypothesis, sure.

~~~
uncoder0
I don't think battery technology could overcome the specific energy
constraints in 5 years... Seems highly unlikely.

Jet-A is 46 MJ/kg - Lithium Air ~40MJ/kg - Lithium Ion is 0.85MJ/kg

Lithium Air is the only thing remotely feasible that 'functions' in a
laboratory and it has not left the lab since 1970.

"Another recent review on Li-O2 batteries, authored by materials scientists
from Technion- Israel Institute of Technology (Balaish, Kraytsberg et al.
2014), concludes with : 'The possibility of buying off the shelf Li–air
batteries within 10–20 years does not seem realistic at the moment.'"

~~~
marvin
It wouldn't be an entirely apples-to-apples comparison to jet fuel. A fully-
electric VTOL aircraft would ditch most of the wings, for instance, and
instead make the fuselage lifting-body.

Wings are large to provide enough lift at takeoff and landing speeds, tail and
rudders to provide aerodynamic stability which would be provided by electric
motors instead. Also, the engines would be lighter and a significant fraction
of the empty weight would be batteries. We wouldn't see an electric drop-in
replacement for a long-distance airliner in the near future, no one is
claiming that.

------
skykooler
Kind of odd how, with all the little schematics of flying cars on that page,
Terrafugia is nowhere to be found.

~~~
6stringmerc
Their new design, the TF-X, is the first schematic...

~~~
skykooler
whoops, missed that.

------
Bromskloss
> Self-flying

Meh. That would be taking the fun out of it, taking away the very point.

~~~
hugs
You can keep flying with manual controls because it's fun. I'll fly in a self-
flying car because I need to get somewhere fast and I'm not a pilot.

------
shmerl
What about hoverboards?

