
Boeing’s Flying Car Has Taken Off - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/boeing-s-flying-car-takes-off-to-show-a-glimpse-of-the-future
======
fouronnes3
Perhaps it's just me, but I'd rather have the city of the future resemble
Copenhagen or Amsterdam than the Fifth Element urban hell. Congestion in
cities like LA or Dubai are a symptom of poor urban design and national
transport policies. Flying cars feel closer to a dystopian band-aid than a
solution to the root cause. Also, it's ugly.

~~~
nawitus
Flying cars are in theory more "efficient" than public transportation, because
public transportation doesn't take you directly from your home to your
destination unless by accident (e.g. you happen to travel to destination which
is right at a public transportation stop). Even then, that route probably
doesn't take the shortest path, but rather zigzags through major locations. In
addition, it's not realistic to assume every single public transporation line
runs 24/7 every 3 minutes, which means you need to plan ahead instead of
leaving whenever you want to.

In fact, the ideal "public transportation" is a private vehicle, like this
kind of a autonomous flying vehicle, which will transport you whenever and
wherever you want. It's not a band-aid, it's solving the root cause. Public
transportation is the band-aid, which cannot in practise solve the problem
ideally.

~~~
dbingham
Ideal in terms of travel time efficiency, not energy efficiency or space
efficiency.

Travel time is the wrong property to optimize for when we're looking at
transportation and urban design. It's the mistake we've made in America for
the last century.

We should be optimizing for quality of life and health. Optimizing for those
things yields design like Copenhagen -- bike paths, walking paths, trains and
busses for longer trips. It's quiet. It's energy efficiency. It's much better
for our health. It encourages healthy social interaction and the feel of
community.

~~~
nawitus
Flying autonomous vehicles can reasonably be energy efficient, and clearly are
space efficient (due to the three dimensions that provide plenty of space).

Travel time is the correct property to optimize for my values. I don't want to
spend unnecessary time in transit. That's a subjective value, of course.

You can optimize for quality of life, health and short travel times at the
same time. Copenhagen might be a good target with current level of technology,
not necessarily the technology of future.

I don't care for imposed social interaction due to public transportation.
People don't really interact with strangers in public transportation anyway
(in my culture that is).

------
joshe
Why now? (Or why soon)? Or why might flying cars actually happen this time?

The enabling tech is battery density. Battery density (per kg) has been
increasing 5-8% a year (doubling every 10 years). That seems slow compared to
transistors (doubling every 2 years), but compound growth sneaks up on you.
Enough that an electric car seemed dumb 20 years ago and obvious now.

Urban human quadcopters are unlikely, a car like number of these in cities is
hard to imagine. Even with silent electric motors, the noise from take off and
landing from air displacement exceeds safe noise levels, and is far above
nuisance levels. So I'd guess 2-30 times as much traffic as current
helicopters. Also they can and will fall down on expensive stuff and nice
people.

The more plausible market is medium range 4 person air taxis, from small
airport to small airport, 50 to 400 miles. That's NYC to Boston, SF to LA,
Portland to Seattle.

This Boeing story says 50 miles. Pipistrel's Alpha Electro, a 2 seater plane,
has a 93 mile range with another 45 miles as reserve (138 total).

In 2029 with similar battery improvement, that will be 231 miles with 45 miles
in reserve. The regulatory challenges will be difficult, but in about 2025 you
could launch a viable autonomous air taxi company somewhere in the world.

Existing advantages:

\- Drone autonomy is already or easily solved, so you don't pay for a pilot.

\- Electricity cost is low.

\- Maintenance costs are much lower than gas engine planes.

\- Even with maintenance, gas engines are less reliable.

Better battery tech unlocks these last three advantages and makes air taxies
feasible.

[1] [https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-
news/2015/october/pi...](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-
news/2015/october/pilot/f_pipistrel)

~~~
Cacti
You're assuming that the market is retail consumers. But this same tech is
what allows you to purpose these vehicles, and vehicles like them, for things
like emergency courier services, for remote rescue, for military uses like
exfiltration and so on.

The future is not one where there are tens of thousands of flying cars over
every city, but there are plenty of edge cases where having a few would be
wildly beneficial.

~~~
jandrese
The future is flying Uber for the 1% crowd.

~~~
stickfigure
You say this like it's a bad thing.

Automobiles, televisions, VCRs, computers, flush toilets, electric lighting...
all started out as wildly expensive luxuries for the super rich. Then they got
cheaper.

~~~
jandrese
I'll be buying that mass production 30 foot yacht any day now...

~~~
stcredzero
You can go out today and very easily buy a much smaller mass production
sailboat. That would have been a pipe dream many years ago.

~~~
stickfigure
You don't even have to go smaller! If you're willing to buy used, a 30' yacht
in good shape can be had for $10-$20k. Less, if you're willing to put a little
work in.

If you can afford $500/mo in slip fees, you can probably afford the boat. I
know people with boats in Santa Cruz that live on extremely modest incomes.

------
bussierem
A) That's the bastard lovechild of a quadcopter and a plane

B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car?

C) What is that tiny propeller on the back for? I would assume a quadcopter
design would propel forward via tilting, the way any normal quadcopter
would...do the 4 propellers just _lift_ it?

D) In what world would this thing not require like 3 different complex flight
licenses just to be allowed to fly, let alone use in an urban environment?

~~~
lostgame
>> B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car?

Huh. I never considered that a basic requirement for a flying car is that it,
well, would also be a land car.

~~~
bussierem
I mean, if it's a "flying car" without wheels, and therefore needs either a
landing pad or landing strip, then how is it a "car" and not either a "plane",
"drone", or "helicopter" instead?

~~~
pavelrub
It's not a "car" \- it's a _flying_ car, and therefore doesn't need neither
wheels nor roads. It can indeed also be type of an airplane or a helicopter -
those descriptions aren't conflicting. I don't really understand the source of
your confusion - are you equally perplexed that pineapples aren't actually
apples, and sweet potatoes aren't real potatoes?

------
quacked
Why do people immediately understand the negative externalities and
implications of self-navigating cars, but once flight is added into the mix,
they seem to think that it's a viable solution?

The complexity and upkeep added once your hardware has to be in the air (at
our current mass-market technology levels) are far from inconsequential. I
wonder if once "flight" is added to an "automated" idea, it gets so far
outside of people's understanding that it seems easy. People know how hard it
is to drive a car, but they have no idea what's required to drive an airplane.

~~~
jandrese
There are definitely maintenance concerns, but free flight autopilot is a much
easier problem than autonomous ground vehicle piloting.

All of the proposed vehicles I've seen have a failsafe built in--typically a
parachute, but you are correct that if it falls on someone's house, car, or
person there is going to be a problem.

~~~
quacked
Parachutes need a certain amount of height to work correctly, are difficult to
steer, can get twisted, tangled, etc and are at the mercy of overall
atmospheric conditions.

Free flight autopilot I agree isn't a tough problem to solve- it's free flight
launching, landing, and responding to rapid and dangerous changes in
atmospheric conditions on autopilot that I'd be worried about.

When you're landing in free flight, you have one chance to set up your
approach and landing, and conditions at the LZ can change rapidy- without
constant distance and wind measuring equipment as well as enough space to come
in a little too high, you're in a very difficult and dangerous situation.

So if we're now taking about needing essentially an airstrip with sensors,
it's basically an airport.

I don't think that autopiloted free flight is an impossibility, I just think
it's an impossibility for mass-produced untrained consumer use.

------
superqd
The whole "flying car" phrase gets tossed around far too much. Every "flying
car" I've seen marketed, is either 1) a small VTOL airplane, or 2) a small
airplane that folds up so it can be driven on the street. Most things are more
airplane than car, so it's more accurate to say they are driving planes, than
flying cars.

I've yet to see a car than can fly, i.e., something more car-like that can
also fly.

~~~
fhood
I can't imagine anything that is practical, fits in its lane, and can also fly
efficiently. Not saying that it can't be done, but I have a hard time
envisioning what it might look like.

~~~
arethuza
It might look like this? (Warning - not pretty)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafner_Rotabuggy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafner_Rotabuggy)

~~~
ncbrit
Also.
[http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/3/0/530630_v1.j...](http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/3/0/530630_v1.jpg)

~~~
cr0sh
The flying Jeep and the flying Pinto (the latter had disastrous results).

I currently own a Jeep. My dad once owned a Pinto.

Who in their right mind would think "You know, this is the perfect car to
strap some wings to!" for either of these vehicles?

That's just giving the middle finger to the god's of flight begging for a
quick death.

Again, in the the flying Pinto's case - that's what happened.

------
phatbyte
I never understood the appealing of flying cars. Not only it looks much more
dangerous than cars in case of accidents, but also picture yourself living in
a city with millions of these flying around, always covering sun light, noise,
just visually horrible

~~~
MrZongle2
_"...much more dangerous than cars in case of accidents..."_

To not just the occupants of the vehicles, but pedestrians below, too.

When walking along a road, there's always the (admittedly slight) chance of
being either hit by a car or struck by debris from a nearby accident. Now
imagine if that road (perhaps several) is above you! What previously might
have been stopped by friction from the road now flies much farther....

~~~
cr0sh
> Now imagine if that road (perhaps several) is above you! What previously
> might have been stopped by friction from the road now flies much farther....

I work near a small regional airport, which used to be "in the middle of
nowhere" but is now surrounded on all sides by office parks, malls, etc. Much
like many airports, I suppose.

A couple of years back we had an accident where a small plane pilot lost
control (I never found out the cause) and his plane crashed just beyond the
end of the runway as he was taking off.

His plane "landed" in a small tree next to the sidewalk of a busy road. Shut
it down for hours.

Nobody was seriously injured or killed; pilot and passenger "walked away" with
minor cuts and scrapes, and nobody on the road or sidewalk was involved. Had
it been a few hours later when rush hour occurred it might've been a different
situation...

My employer is right below one of the flight lines for takeoffs and landings
(my boss is working on his pilot's license); I can hear planes flying over,
taking off, etc every day. I sometimes wonder about the idea of a plane
crashing into the building, but there's nothing I can do about it, so it isn't
something I dwell on.

That's just from one small regional airport. I can only imagine accidents from
so-called "flying cars". I can believe such vehicles overall could be made
safe, and accidents rare - but they will happen occasionally, that I don't
doubt.

------
vermontdevil
You can see the video here:

[https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/1088032429204369410](https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/1088032429204369410)

~~~
superqd
That's what I wanted to see. How can someone write an article about a test
flight, with video that exists, and not link to the video.

THANKS!

~~~
glenneroo
Also how can they call it a flying car when it doesn't have any wheels? It's a
quadcopter with wings. Unless Boeing has plans to add wheels later for
driving?

------
drugme
So who's in favor of having these "air taxis" add to the noise envelope in
residential and recreational areas -- as they no doubt will, and (for the
scale these companies are obviously intending) quite considerably?

Let alone the carbon and resource footprint, per passenger-mile?

Anyone? Anyone at all?

------
mangecoeur
... that's a plane -_-

~~~
plopz
> Future flights of the 30-feet-long and 28-feet-wide PAV prototype will test
> forward, wing-borne flight and the transition phase between vertical and
> forward-flight modes, according to the Boeing statement. The company will
> also continue testing to advance safety and reliability of the aircraft, it
> said.

Yeah, I don't know why the article uses the term car. Its clearly not.

------
danans
Call me jaded, but these still sound like a wealthy person's toy. They are low
occupancy, like cars, and also like cars, would be hard to have a significant
number of these operating in an area without major safety issues, but worse
because, given a flying vehicle accident, the chance of fatality or severe
injury is far higher.

------
bokchoi
> "Chicago-based plane maker"

As someone who grew up in the Seattle area, this made me sad.

~~~
aplusbi
They are referring to AirBus with that sentence, although I initially parsed
it wrong as well.

~~~
waterside81
Airbus is European. Boeing's corporate HQ is in Chicago.

------
PhilWright
Correct me if I am wrong, but the pictures seem to show a plane and not a
flying car. Given the wing span, there is no way that would work as a car. So
it is a small plane. A specialized plane for autonomous transport of small
packages or one or two people. But still not a car!

------
bradknowles
That's more like a helicopter with wings than a flying car. There's no way you
could land that into a parking space. You'd need something much more like a
heliport.

So, maybe an improved "air taxi", in the same way that helicopters are used
today in certain cities.

But not a flying car.

------
maxander
“Flying cars” like this would be great to have! For instance, emergency
vehicles that don’t get stuck in traffic could save countless lives.

...We just need appropriate noise regulations, which will almost certainly
prevent private citizens from operating them. _Especially_ in cities.

------
santashelper9
[https://www.verticalmag.com/news/airbus-blade-see-growing-
fu...](https://www.verticalmag.com/news/airbus-blade-see-growing-future-urban-
air-transport/)

------
arturadib
Glad to see Boeing catching up :) The headlines in this space have been
dominated by big names who are yet to demonstrate real capabilities, so it's
good to see them taking baby steps.

Case in point: Our startup has been quietly flying a similar technology
demonstrator since early 2018. While we don't get nearly as many headlines,
occasionally something comes out: [https://www.wired.com/story/beta-ava-
flying-car-aviation/](https://www.wired.com/story/beta-ava-flying-car-
aviation/)

PS: We're hiring :) If you are into hard software problems and want to join
what could be the next Tesla but for aerospace, send me your resume:
artur@beta.team

------
mung
Spinning propellers are knee level doesn't seem like a great or safe design.

------
adwf
We've had flying cars for decades... they're called helicopters.

------
ape4
Its called NeXt. Not to be confused with NeXT Computer ;)

------
simonsaidit
With rising sea levels in the future i suggest we rather look into personal
submarines and underwater buildings.

------
lawlessone
flying car?

Looks more like a weird airplane

