
A ride in Kitty Hawk’s flying car - tomcam
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/06/technology/flying-car-las-vegas-kitty-hawk/index.html
======
ChuckMcM
I like how they are coy about how fast it can go, the max speed is reached
when the combined rotational speed of the rotor and the forward speed of the
vehicle result in the leading edge of the rotor going supersonic. At that
point of max dynamic pressure the rotor propellers will self destruct :-).
Because the rotors are small, they have to rotate quickly in order to achieve
the necessary lift and that means it will be unlikely for you to go 100MPH in
this thing.

But that should not take away from the fact that they have a decacopter[1]
than can carry a person around for 20 minutes. It would be awesome to park a
car on either side of San Francisco (or Seattle) with a charging station and
one of these, you hop out, zip _across_ the annoying city traffic jam, and
then get into your next leg car on the other side. :-)

And eventually we'll crack the charge storage system with either better
batteries or super capacitors or something which will make it easy to use
electricity as the fuel of choice for transportation.

[1] And unfortunate that spelling correct wants to make that decapitator :-)

~~~
wanderingjew
It's illegal for it to go faster than 55 knots.

They're certifying this as a Part 103 Ultralight, and under the regulation,
it: "Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in
level flight." Since this is a multicopter with ostensibly some sensors, it's
quite possible they're limiting this in software, but it is _extremely
disingenuous_ to say this can do 100 mph. It cannot, because that's illegal.

Additionally, the previous version of the Kitty Hawk Flyer, basically a
decacopter with a seat, weighed 220 pounds, per reports. The new version of
the Flyer has significantly more structure, and the weight limit for Part 103
ultralights is 254 pounds. I would hazard a guess that there's more than 34
pounds of chassis and fiberglass on the latest version. It's questionable if
the 'floats' count toward that weight, in which case I would like to
congratulate the Kitty Hawk team in engineering around the regulations.

But a Part 103 'flying car' is just about the dumbest idea ever. It can't be
used to commute; you can call your local FSDO and confirm that yourself.
You're also not going to fly it in San Francisco between Hunters Point,
Pacifica, and San Mateo; there's an airport in the way. To say this is a
'flying car' is disingenuous and goes along with the SV philosophy of, 'screw
laws and regulations, we're innovating'.

I honestly can't believe this got funding. I'm not surprised CNN is lapping it
up; they're traditionally terrible with aviation-related news. I would guess
that's why they were given the exclusive.

~~~
scotty79
> "Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in
> level flight."

Law is a funny thing. "Level flight" is used because if you go down then
obviously you can go faster and it is assumed that when ascending you'd be
slower.

If you have software limiter that kicks in only when the flight is level then
you can ascend 100mph and descend at 100mph and still be incapable of more
than 55 knots in level flight. So legal.

~~~
Shivatron
I read an awesome comment on HN the other day that I think applies here:
something to the effect of, “some seem to think that the law is a simple robot
that is easily bamboozled by specious arguments.”

In other words, it’s probably unwise to think that going 100kts in a part 103
certified ultralight will meet with regulatory approval because the VSI reads
+1 fpm.

~~~
solarkraft
In Germany a judge can rule by the law's _intention_ , I'm not sure if the US
system is as robust. Many laws have been engineered around before.

------
roryisok
I can't be the only one who thinks flying cars are a bad idea? More traffic in
the air means more chances of collisions, which are much more likely to be
fatal even for a small midair "fender bender". It also means far more energy
usage to get from A to B than pretty much any other mode of transportation, at
a time when we should be trying to reduce energy usage on this planet. The
view will be ruined, with things flying across the sky day and night. At least
with drones they're small enough not to be an eyesore. You won't be able to
fly near an airport which most cities with traffic problems have, and they're
going to be a lot harder to sell second hand, since no one wants a flying car
that might fall out of the sky because the previous owner didn't service it
enough. Furthermore, the quiet, scenic places outside our cities will suddenly
be at the whim of every asshat rich enough to own a flyer, buzzing over lakes
and forests and disturbing the peace. But hey at least Jeff Bezos won't have
to wait in traffic.

------
oldcynic
> Thrun hopes the training will eventually take about five minutes.

I look forward to the many reports of controlled flight into terrain, and
flying when the weather says don't fly.

I'm actually astonished to learn the FAA will let you fly anything powered
without a licence and basic training of flight, weather and nav.

~~~
TeMPOraL
To achieve "5 minutes training" interface, they'd have to simplify it to the
level of point-and-click operations. That is: fasten your seat belts, place
the destination marker on Maps screen (or select from a list), press "Start",
enjoy the view.

------
jasondclinton
It seems they might have had an embargo on the audio of the aircraft fan
noise: all clips of the flight have noise repressed and have talk-over audio.

~~~
fjsolwmv
So it's probably super loud or annoying?

~~~
mannykannot
Yes, and it cannot not be so - a rotating pressure-dipole generator is a very
effective radiator of sound. Helicopters are noisy for what they can lift, and
scaling down the size and multiplying the number of rotors makes it worse. It
is a hard problem to solve because there's not much that can be changed, and a
lot fewer that haven't been exploited yet. I think this will remain the last
problem after all the control and power issues have been solved.

All the flying-car makers are coy about how noisy their machines are.

------
Latteland
With the exposed (horizontal) propellers, how can that ever be made safe? You
would have to have something surrounding that or it would be very unsafe,
automatic cutoffs. Not to mention the way someone could use it to attack
people by flying down into a crowd.

~~~
nsnick
The most common of transportation in the US also kills people when it is
driven into a crowd.

~~~
kumarvvr
Yes, but a running engine in a car, parked on the parking lot is seldom
dangerous.

An open propeller is a safety risk, no matter how you put it.

~~~
rovr138
When touching ground, something could automatically cover it. I don’t think
it’s final yet.

~~~
Latteland
I'm sure its not final. But I'm kind of surprised they show it in this form,
cause it's crazy dangerous. And I'm not even talking about the "escape from an
upside down craft in the water" training (it's like top gun's pool scene!). Of
course in real life it won't be used to fly over the water in ordinary
conditions.

------
simion314
If it would even be legal to fly around with this drones aren't we just moving
the traffic from the ground in the air?

Simple crashes or driving mistakes will cause more deaths. So we would have to
remote control them and synchronize everything and have some fallback software
in case of connectivity issues.

But using this drones could be very useful in other scenarios but piloted by
people with a bit more experience/training then a beginner driver.

~~~
rootlocus
Compared to roads, air has vertical space, as well as much more horizontal
space. Also, you wouldn't need remote controlling if drones can sense and
avoid each other.

~~~
simion314
You have the horizontal and vertical space but you don't travel between random
points, say most of the traffic will head to the same N destination points so
you have many vehicles converging at the same landing zone, or many leaving
that zone.

The problem with drones sensing each other is that the data is not enough, the
AI would need to predict where all the other drones are heading , otherwise we
have the same cases like with Tesla and Uber where the AI will ignore many
objects including stopped trucks and big concrete walls.

So a solution could be to force the drones to broadcast the location and
velocity vector and other information , that is also a complex topic, bad
actors, bugged drones, privacy issues, so many things can go wrong.

Also about the vertical space, you don't want to fly to high either, you would
waste energy so many vehicles would fly as low as possible so you would have a
big number of vehicles at a similar altitude.

~~~
mannykannot
There are additional problems related to landing space. A flying car is
inevitably going to need much more space than a car of the same capacity, and
when, as often happens, a lot of people want to be at the same place at the
same time, there would probably have to be end-to-end traffic control where
you cannot start your journey without a guaranteed place to land.

Being in an electric flying car looking for a parking space would add a new
dimension to range anxiety.

------
timavr
It will work as long as people are not in control of the machine.

~~~
jacobush
Or limited control - something like how you can control Pac Man. You could
switch it between "tracks" in the air and go pretty where you want and
whichever way you want, but invisibly the computer would keep you away from
other craft, away from certain landmark features (lakes, large buildings,
electrical pylons etc). It could even give you freedom to fly within your
"lane" if you wanted the thrill of bio feedback.

In more remote areas it could give you more freedom to fly yourself.

------
petermcneeley
"so it can be flown without a pilot's license due to an FAA regulation that
requires these types of aircraft to weigh under 254 pounds" does this apply to
Airships?

~~~
bullfightonmars
I am sure it is based on mass not weight.

~~~
theoh
If it's this, the language used is "weighs"
[https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-
interest...](https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-
interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-
flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights)

There are separate regulations for lighter-than-air vehicles.

~~~
jawarner
Scientifically, weight would be the force of gravity on the object, not
affected by buoyancy. So "weight" would be fine here. The legal definition
might be different.

~~~
theoh
Yes, but pounds can be used to measure either weight or mass, and as the
previous commenter indicated, it's mass we really care about.

------
kapnobatairza
"Flying car" seems like a misnomer. It doesn't even drive on roads? Am I
missing something or is this just an ultralight multirotor aircraft?

~~~
trhway
"Flying bathtub" is more correct:)

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D_9x_Y19dSbY&ved=0ahUKEwjPrI7E08DbAhVULX0KHa7MCncQtwIIKTAB&usg=AOvVaw1t2jb67rgPS6YdypTl1GRN)

~~~
solarkraft
You linked a pirated video. Original is by the Real life guys.

~~~
trhway
it was result of a search on mobile. Was lucky to be able to copy the link at
all :) Anyway, the guys made their place in the history of our civilization,
and whether a link is pirated or not it will be just a footnote at best -
hundred years later nobody would care who posted that video, while the content
of it and the people in it will be revered.

