Science How i belive a flying car could be built

It may be possible to construct such a thing with today technology, altough it wouldn't have a good range. I think 20min of flighttime is a good suggestion.

But the real problem is, when you try to leave the 2 dimensional space of the road and enter the 3 dimensional space of the air, it needs a complete different qualification for the person who sits at the controls. With or without autopilots, flying cars are never a subject for the general-public, not in the next 100 years!



They work at an easy program for the board computer that simulates a street somewhere in the airand you just have to stear 2dimensional and say at wich street you want to fly.

---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------

what do you think about this:
http://www.pal-v.com/
http://www.aaymca.com/search/flying+car/
http://www.aaymca.com/flying-car-aaymca-dot-com-20100827/flying-car-i2-pal-v-flying-car-nearing/
 
On a plane you can glide, on a heli you can autogiro, but on a flying car you go ballistic.

There are ballistic parachutes, but like everything, they have their problems...
 
I would not trust those wings for normal flight, let alone in an emergency situation.

They will also do nothing if your velocity is too low (which it will be, most of the time).
 
But the real problem is, when you try to leave the 2 dimensional space of the road and enter the 3 dimensional space of the air, it needs a complete different qualification for the person who sits at the controls. With or without autopilots, flying cars are never a subject for the general-public, not in the next 100 years!

Remember when cars where first built? Maximum legal speed = 5 km/h?

P.S.:That flying car makes a terrible noise, it's still stuck in my head. Thank you RiisingFury for making me hear VOOOOO all the time.
 
Remember when cars where first built? Maximum legal speed = 5 km/h?

That is different. That is a car. This is an aircraft- something that is far more dangerous.

P.S.:That flying car makes a terrible noise, it's still stuck in my head. Thank you RiisingFury for making me hear VOOOOO all the time.

Yeah... fortunately that noise is limited to Moller International test sites, and not cities and suburbs around the world... :uhh:
 
Moller claims his scycar will have fuel consumption only 11.76 l/100 km
http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=58

Is it even physically possible? That thing have total max engine power of 861 kW similar to a very high end sports car or high performance propeller aircraft and those things are not the exapmles of fuel efficiency. Especially given the fact it is powered by 4 ducted fans and ducted fans are less fuel efficient than propeller with similar thrust.
 
I've always thought the skycar looked really cool and promising, but I have also always been suspicious that there have ONLY been the same 3 videos of it hovering for as long as I've heard about it... :shifty:
 
Moller claims his scycar will have fuel consumption only 11.76 l/100 km
http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=58

Is it even physically possible? That thing have total max engine power of 861 kW similar to a very high end sports car or high performance propeller aircraft and those things are not the exapmles of fuel efficiency. Especially given the fact it is powered by 4 ducted fans and ducted fans are less fuel efficient than propeller with similar thrust.

I don't see a problem there, the fuel consumption is not lower than for other planes in that class. 12 liters for 100 km is actually a pretty high value compared to what a real plane in that size class would have. 861 kW maximum power does not tell you much about the "average optimal fuel consumption under ideal circumstances", since the motors will be operating at lower power levels during cruise.
 
Flying cars won't happen anytime soon because of 2 reasons. They're basically aircraft, which equals at least a private pilot's license, and they're meant to be flown INSIDE big cities. Even if we don't consider all the FAA regulations for flying OVER any big agglomeration, there is still the fact that once the engine quits, you're going down, unless you have another engine just for that particular situation. If you have wings, you can glide a bit, but you still have to land. However, as far as I know, cities don't have conveniently placed runways and fields every 2 or 3 blocks. This means that the aircraft will crash, probably killing the occupants, some bystanders and cause damage to the nearby area. Now most of you are thinking that this would not happen since we would have a redundant engine or whatever. Well, there are lots of scenarios that you make a redundant engine completely useless, most of them would have to do with the fuel system. For example: No more fuel in the tanks or there are contaminants (such as water) in the fuel. All this would mean that to be able to fly a flying car you would need to be highly skilled, highly trained and pay a lot of insurance money. Also the machine itself would need a lot of redundancy and maintenance to be considered airworthy. So the flying car would probably cost more money by the hour than your average helicopter (which is a lot). And by the way, autopilots don't FLY the airplane, they just point it's nose in the good direction, pilots still do most of the job and all of the decision making.
 
a flying car would be able to land on the street and I think at acar that can flys wide ways and drive inside the city, even if it would be cool to fly over a jam.
 
Right now there are too many idiots (in my country some of them never passed the test and just _bought_ the license) with trouble navigating in 1.5 dimensions. I cannot dare imagine what happens if those same idiots go 3-D.
 
My 2 cents. It's a lot tougher to make something that's airworthy than to make something roadworth. To make something that does both I would start with a collapsable aircraft of which many designs are flying. I own one (actually 2) that are the trike style of ultralight. They can be assembled in about 12 minutes. On disassembly it would be easy to take the wing off the top of the trike, fold it to a <4 meter length and mount it on the trike as luggage. The trick would be to figure out a way to use the current powerplant (an air screw powered by internal combustion engine) and change the transmission to powering a rear wheel so that the propeller isn't acting as a 30 hp leaf blower while driving through town. Add turn signals and whatever the DMV requires for being street legal (probably registered as a motorcycle). And then you have something that would fly at 40 mph getting 25 mpg, and convert in probably 15 to 18 minutes into a road vehicle that would get probably 60 mpg and go 60 mph. The skills needed to safely operate it as an aircraft, eliminate most humans as potential customers. I have no need for it to operate on the road since I currently just toss it into the inside of my suburban and drive to the airport to then fly to other airports for the proverbial $50 hamburger.
 
a flying car would be able to land on the street and I think at acar that can flys wide ways and drive inside the city, even if it would be cool to fly over a jam.

Do you know what would be really cool, though much more boring: No traffic jams at all.

Flying cars are just a way to have traffic jams somewhere else. Just imagine a thriving parking lot in the middle of the town: every entrance, even if it is for flying cars, will be a bottle neck.

I consider flying cars a sports car for geeks, but no solution for any problem of humanity. It will actually just make many of them worse.
 
Do you know what would be really cool, though much more boring: No traffic jams at all.

Flying cars are just a way to have traffic jams somewhere else. Just imagine a thriving parking lot in the middle of the town: every entrance, even if it is for flying cars, will be a bottle neck.

I consider flying cars a sports car for geeks, but no solution for any problem of humanity. It will actually just make many of them worse.


Yea... unfortunatelly a good public transportation system is communism...
 
They work at an easy program for the board computer that simulates a street somewhere in the airand you just have to stear 2dimensional and say at wich street you want to fly.
No.

High-end airplanes have autopilots, that doesn't mean that you don't still need a pilot's license to fly one.
 
I don't see a problem there, the fuel consumption is not lower than for other planes in that class. 12 liters for 100 km is actually a pretty high value compared to what a real plane in that size class would have. 861 kW maximum power does not tell you much about the "average optimal fuel consumption under ideal circumstances", since the motors will be operating at lower power levels during cruise.

Well yeah you look at it other way Moller scycar has stated cruise speed of 490 km/h which give it fuel consumption ~60 l per hour and that is comparable to light aircraft with similar mass and performance. Howewer I'd expect it to become serious fuel guzzler if you fly mostly short hops with relatively lot of time spent doing VTOL with engines at near max power.
 
Not if you have private companies operating it, and every five years or so you hold a competition to see who will operate it next, in order to keep prices affordable. Unlike SBB for instance...

Yeah, or the DB... you see the advantages on every route served by competitors, but guess which company decides itself which routes will go to the competitor in first place, with state governments showing big reluctance to try free markets...
 
Back
Top