
Flying Cars Probably Won't Happen - pencilpup223
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/04/when-cars-fly/523419/
======
tomc1985
I feel like the only person in the world who doesn't want flying cars. With
cars, a crash isn't necessarily fatal. But with flying cars... any failure
means cars fall out of the sky, woe be to who/whatever's in and/or under

[http://io9.gizmodo.com/5888216/the-first-flying-car-was-
base...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/5888216/the-first-flying-car-was-based-on-the-
ford-pinto-and-killed-its-inventor)

But unfortunately the current culture's rampant and excessive technology
fetishism means that people can't stop dreaming of them :/

~~~
soared
Are you just operating under the assumption that no one will invent the
seatbelt of flying cars? That cars will just fall out of the sky with no
attempt at saving a passengers life?

Eventually someone will invent a big balloon that pops out of the bottom of
cars to catch them as they fall, or a parachute, or something better no one
has thought of yet.

~~~
tomc1985
> Eventually _maybe_ someone

FTFY

Because it's going to have to be truly fool-proof to withstand the drunks,
idiots, and downright malice on roads today. And that parachute system better
know how to land on solid ground and not, say, someone's house.

I do NOT want anyone but professional pilots piloting big heavy flying things
over my head, my stuff, or my house

~~~
sanswork
You're assuming that the occupants will have control of the things. Once you
leave the ground autopilot gets a lot easier as you have more space/visibility
and fewer random obstacles. And a car is going to be just as dangerous to you
flying off the road into the side of your house as one falling from the sky
slowed slightly by a parachute.

~~~
tomc1985
I beg to differ. There is a mile or two of snaky two-lanes roads with
unguarded hairpin curves whose edges lead down small embankments with houses
(some protected by trees, others not) on my commute home. Despite the high
traffic (it's a feeder road connecting an interstate with a boulevard) and the
fact that it consistently backs up during rush hour, plus there will
frequently be (crazy!!) pedestrians walking up its sides... and I have never,
ever seen a single accident or emergency response vehicle because not just
because some guy couldn't complete the turn, but at all. No smashed houses,
nothing. Sure it's one example but I would argue that a busy road next door
and a busy skyway overhead are entirely different things with very different
risk profiles.

 _IF_ the vehicles are self-driving that perhaps it will be safer. I don't
think current autopilot technology can handle crowded, low-speed scenarios
that you'd see in such a world. Maybe the tech catches up, maybe not

~~~
sanswork
[http://abc11.com/news/raleigh-man-fed-up-after-house-hit-
by-...](http://abc11.com/news/raleigh-man-fed-up-after-house-hit-by-car-
for-6th-time/1469768/)

>I don't think current autopilot technology can handle crowded, low-speed
scenarios that you'd see in such a world.

Why don't you think they can?

~~~
tomc1985
Your link is just one example, like mine. Guard rails exist for a reason, of
course, but I still believe that living under a skyway will be far more risky
than living next to a busy road.

As for autopilot tech, we're still in the very early stages for autonomous
navigation. Absent a central controller or cloud (the presence of which is
something I vehemently oppose) we're still learning to pilot vehicles in a
mostly-2D plane. Throw in the third dimension, and all the safety stuff that
that will entail, and you end up with a plurality of political, engineering,
and safety risks.

All it will take is one tragic loss of life writ large to kill the industry
and set back plans 50 years.

~~~
sanswork
Yes, that was my point. There are plenty of windy roads with no accidents and
plenty with lots of accidents.

When the accident happens though the problem is the same. A big chunk of metal
moving through your house at speed.

>but I still believe that living under a skyway will be far more risky than
living next to a busy road.

Part of this I'm guessing is that you're still imagining a bunch of drunk, or
aggressive or just plain bad drivers flying over your head.

~~~
tomc1985
We am _already_ surrounded by drunk, aggressive, and just-plain-bad drivers. I
am not so sure technology will make them simply go away.

~~~
sanswork
>I am not so sure technology will make them simply go away.

Once they aren't in control of the vehicle it won't matter if they are drunk
or aggressive or bad drivers. The people will still be there but it won't
matter because they don't have any control over the vehicle.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I say they will. Autopilot is so much easier in the air than in the street,
especially if the system is created with that in mind.

I would hate to have flying cars with people behind the wheel. We would have
cars falling from the sky by the minute. If car drivers are bad, flying cars
would be so much worst.

But if it becomes a mechanized system then it works. It's coming. I'm guessing
30 years. It won't be cheap.

~~~
no1youknowz
I also say it will happen. 30 years is a lot different than today. By a long
shot.

We'll have ANI (artificial narrow intelligence) completed by then. It'll be
able to drive a car and fly a drone PERFECTLY. So why not a flying car?

We'll have Graphene solved and able to create mass quantities cheaply. Which
means the weight problem will be solved.

We'll have far better batteries than we do now. In addition, metallic hydrogen
anyone? That alone may actually pave the way for country hopping.

Who's to say, in 30 years there will be no cars on the road or planes in the
sky. Travel would have been fully democratized. Just pull out your phone and
uber/lyft/other yourself wherever you want to go.

Oh and the final upside. No more TSA. That alone is priceless.

\-------

Plus up next, build a much stronger model for planet hopping. I think that's a
worthwhile goal to aim for. Fancy a weekend trip to Mars? Hmm, in 2050?

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Hmm, not sure about the security implications of many medium-sized flying
vehicles, just forcing one to drop out of the sky in a crowded downtown would
be pretty nasty. So the TSA may be replaced with some other kind of inspection
regime (or surface to air missiles).

As for weekends on Mars, we'll need your solved graphene to build a space
elevator to get into orbit cheaply, but the travel time will presumably be
months, any faster and you'd be a pancake inside the craft, either
accelerating or decelerating.

------
enobrev
> Flying is a lot more complicated than driving. “With a car, you have many
> fewer axes of control,” Tilleman says. “We already lose 30,000 people a year
> in automotive accidents and you’re only having to worry about two basic
> things: Is the car going forward and does it turn left or right?”

This has been my take. We drive poorly enough as it is in two dimensions.
Adding a third dimension seems like an awful idea. I don't know if it will
ever come to fruition. Personally, I don't think it should.

------
Solinoid
Just think, in the future everyone could feel like they live next to an
airport!

------
thiagoharry
I think they already happened, but we just insist in calling them
"helicopters".

~~~
mirimir
I guess.

But I do wonder why autogyros haven't become more popular.

------
cmurf
The regulatory environment of aviation is so far above what anyone who has no
idea what that world is about can even imagine. Piles of regulations for
aicraft and their regular inspection requirements are just the beginning of
what will be a huge FU to/from any libertarian who already gets pissy at
compulsory bienniel smog tests for their car.

Annual Inspection FAR 91.409

Try programming this into the virtual pilot. It's basically saying in event of
power/engine failure, it still must conduct an emergency landing without undue
(evaluate and decide capability indicated) hazard to people and property on
the ground. It's not good enough to just go into landing mode and come what
may. Land in a park and smash a couple kids? That's not merely a lawsuit.
That's the end of your company. It'll get all of its flight certificates
yanked, all the products will be grounded. And yes any investor worth their
salt will know this in advance and won't volunteer for what amounts to nearly
instant asset destruction if the system betrays this regulation.

And even before all of that? Not only does there need to be code that enables
the autoflyingcar to conform, but there has to be a pile of tests to
demonstrate competency. Just like a pilot has to do that when they take a
practical flight test, just like they have to do in a flight review every
couple of years.

Minimum safe altitudes - FAR 91.119

Expensive! Really really expensive! I think controlling the Mississippi river
is easier and cheaper but whatever...

------
slurple
I always think of this breakdown of 'Flying cars and You' whenever this comes
up: [http://i.imgur.com/qm5t6.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/qm5t6.jpg)

~~~
AstralStorm
Make a version with helicopters.

------
pasbesoin
What's happening with downward-pointing fan-based flight? There were a couple
of interesting prototypes, a few years ago, and then relative silence in the
techie headlines I scan.

Kind of like a giant drone. You can have some redundancy. You can have an
emergency chute for the vehicle -- some small planes are beginning to carry
these.

As with autos, I see the future of personal transportation in the U.S. as
being electric. We're not at the end of onboarding power capacity into
vehicles. Electric motors can provide sufficient drive. As renewable / next-
generation energy grows, grid capacity is going to expand while prices hold or
drop. Past a point, when the power gets cheap enough, you can sacrifice some
power efficiency of the transportation for convenience and other factors. Let
me cite "time efficiency" as something highly valued.

I see this extending to personal flight vehicles. Although I agree with other
posters that, particularly en masse, automated flight controls are probably
going to be necessary/mandatory much of the time.

Also, noise control. I don't want some dude's Harley quad-coptor roaring over
my house.

P.S. If batteries can't meet all needs, there is still fuel-cell technology.
Although, currently, batteries seem to be running away with the market. (Sorry
for the unintended pun, there.)

------
throw2016
I think flying cars are possible, but security and regulatory issues actively
prevent them from taking off.

Look at all the microlights [1] that enthusiasts are having so much fun with.
There are also tons of lightweight lower cost planes available now from as low
as $20K. $80k like a high end car costs would get you something with decent
speed and range.

With the huge investment that the average car model development cycle receives
you could develop a flying car, at least make a start. The fact that that
there is no serious effort suggests its not the technology barrier.

Some commentators seem to be concerned with the risks, but technology will
develop to address it. If cars were introduced today the same arguments about
risk and accidents could be made. After all cars can travel at high speeds
much closer to crowds and other cars. But cars have been matured over nearly
100 years. Flying cars could do the same.

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrEhrecBFIs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrEhrecBFIs)

------
em3rgent0rdr
I think city zip line networks are much more feasible (energy, cost, speed,
and safety-wise) than flying cars, but overlooked.

~~~
monkmartinez
Replace zip line with gondola.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
But gondolas are slow.

------
bluedino
How much more energy does it take to make something FLY vs roll around on the
ground?

------
gumby
There's a density issue with urban flying vehicles (only so many places to
stop and park) but _suburban_ FVs make a lot of sense (assuming the physics
work out). Though it's funny that this article still thinks of people buying
the _vehicle_ and not the ride. Apart from all the financial reasons (capital
utilization rate etc) having a corporation that manages the maintenance for
AFVs will make everyone feel safer.

And what about those starship delivery robots photographed supposedly "making
a delivery"? I've never seen one in the street without at least one person
supervising it.

~~~
mannykannot
>suburban FVs make a lot of sense (assuming the physics work out).

Noise may be the ultimate physics problem.

~~~
gumby
Well, the plan (/leap of faith) is that electric will be quieter than internal
combustion, including cars.

But you raise a good point and, reflecting on it, it is hard to see how these
claims could be true (noise may fall off at 1/r^2 but with the vehicle in the
air there's nothing to block the noise.)

Making the streets safer for kids and pets may be important too.

~~~
mannykannot
Unfortunately, the motor is only part of the problem - rotating blades
(propellers, fans) make a lot of noise. Shrouds or ducts help, but not enough,
and on top of that, noise is generated by the mixing of the output flow with
the surrounding air.

------
ared38
Disappointed this article didn't talk about maintenance.

I get the feeling most people don't take care of their cars (oil changes, tire
rotations, etc) as often as they should -- I certainly don't. And with
driving, it's no big deal. If your car overheats, just pull off to the
shoulder.

With flying, it's another story entirely. Even a successful emergency landing
would be terrifying for occupants. That means having experts go over every
inch of your flying car regularly, and that means a lot of money.

~~~
GregBuchholz
> That means having experts go over every inch of your flying car regularly,
> and that means a lot of money.

Automated car inspections with robotic X-ray scans every 3000 miles of flight?
A JiffyInspect on every street corner?

~~~
AstralStorm
Who is going to pay for all that infrastructure?

~~~
GregBuchholz
Who pays for all the infrastructure like mechanic shops, and oil changing
facilities?

------
wand3r
Funnily enough an electric vtol got posted to HAN. 300km range for the
prototype and as fast as a formula 1 car.

Depends on how you define car I suppose.

------
tdburn
Such pessimism on here. This is why we can't have nice things ha ha.

With so many technological advances happening there will be myriads of
solutions to all of our concerns about these types of craft. But there will
also be stumbles and accidents in developing them, but nothing compared to the
introduction of day the automobile.

------
api
Personal flying cars are extremely unlikely except _maybe_ for high net worth
people in rural areas.

Managed services shuttling people around with autonomous flying vehicles
between designated "micro-airports" are definitely a possibility.

------
guscost
Flying personal consumer crafts could definitely happen in our lifetime. Light
wings + light engine/fuel + safety system.

------
LyalinDotCom
I hope i'm not the only one on HN that really cant take such a post seriously.
"This will never happen", yeah okay, glad someone can see infinitely into the
future.

------
MegaloManiac98
we already have self flying drones and cars. This OLD SCHOOL thinking of
technology as stagnant directly causes us to lose sight of the potential the
future holds.

humans are so dumb thinking they are so smart.

