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.
Completely agree. Also, in a way the future is already here, just take a look at Tokyo, the most populated metro area in the world with 38M people and the most advanced transportation systems in the world.
The US should be trying to copy Japan and make an effort to benefit everyone, instead of creating expensive transportation alternatives that only very few will be able to take advantage of and won't solve any real problems except for those people. (I know, US <> Boeing)
Copenhagen and Amsterdam have a population of 602K and 822K respectively. Los Angeles is over 4 million people, and that's just the city not the greater metropolitan area, which is 14+ million.
Thinking that the model of medium-sized, developed European cities is going to work worldwide, when populations are only getting more concentrated and urban, is pretty naive.
I've sometimes thought that the best direction to go here would be flying buses, or trains, and not flying personal vehicles.
Flying mid-range vehicles linking park-and-rides with city centers, or neighborhood-to-neighborhood, makes more sense to me than expanding the existing congestion upward.
The thing is that such a "nice" city only works with a small population. For large cities you either build denser and ever denser areas or you spread out like crazy with all the negative side effects.
Otoh here in Berlin we would benefit massively if we could live maybe up to 100km out of the city and travel fast and cleanly to, say, Tempelhof. Wenn have huge areas of land here where you can live a very nice life but work is in the city. Biking such distances is out of the question and roads and trains simply cannot connect all the places equally well.
I don't see anything wrong with Flying cars, conceptually. I would love to be able to cut my commute time by 1/3, imagine all the new job possibilities, and how many more candidates companies will have.
The problem is, maybe it can never be done cost effectively enough to make viable for everyone. I mean, we can't even make simple trains cheap: here in CA, it costs almost 250$ a month to BART back and forth
I'm surprised at the traffic levels in Dubai given the city's focus on building metro and a fairly decent public transportation system(road and water). What is missing out in this city? These guys have all the money and a free hand in implementing policy without any opposition.
Yes! Like many other baby-boomer dreams, the dream of "flying cars" in reality is an ugly noisy nightmare for the city.
It's the same story of building bridges and super-highways, through the downtown because they "look good" and "let you put your name on it", without caring for the residents.
For transportation we need tunnels, not bridges.
And if you want something flying other the city - build a silent glider that uses only the energy of raising currents of air and gravity to accelerate for take off and decelerate to land. Or another silent vehicle. Not a stupid noisy flying car.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would have fast airships with high speed winches hovering over the pads, with the ends of the cables managed by smaller drones. This would enable the passenger drones to take off assisted, with their motors only providing control forces, until they reach an altitude where their noise at full power isn't such a nuisance.
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?
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.
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.
It's kinda funny-looking, but at least it seems like equal attention was paid to the plane and car functions, rather than just making a plane that is theoretically road-worthy.
(Not sure how it's supposed to get better mileage in the air than on the ground, though.)
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.
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
Unfortunately that video is very uninformative....it goes up, then down. How does it maneuver? What's its speed like? There are some serious details lacking from all of this press.
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?
> 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.
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.
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!
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.
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/
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: [email protected]
[+] [-] fouronnes3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ta1234567890|7 years ago|reply
The US should be trying to copy Japan and make an effort to benefit everyone, instead of creating expensive transportation alternatives that only very few will be able to take advantage of and won't solve any real problems except for those people. (I know, US <> Boeing)
[+] [-] teachrdan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|7 years ago|reply
Thinking that the model of medium-sized, developed European cities is going to work worldwide, when populations are only getting more concentrated and urban, is pretty naive.
[+] [-] reaperducer|7 years ago|reply
Flying mid-range vehicles linking park-and-rides with city centers, or neighborhood-to-neighborhood, makes more sense to me than expanding the existing congestion upward.
[+] [-] Tiktaalik|7 years ago|reply
Any "solution" that involves a passenger vehicle is an improvement of a critically flawed and failed paradigm and not a true sustainable solution.
[+] [-] knightofmars|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] choeger|7 years ago|reply
Otoh here in Berlin we would benefit massively if we could live maybe up to 100km out of the city and travel fast and cleanly to, say, Tempelhof. Wenn have huge areas of land here where you can live a very nice life but work is in the city. Biking such distances is out of the question and roads and trains simply cannot connect all the places equally well.
[+] [-] megaman8|7 years ago|reply
The problem is, maybe it can never be done cost effectively enough to make viable for everyone. I mean, we can't even make simple trains cheap: here in CA, it costs almost 250$ a month to BART back and forth
[+] [-] whiddershins|7 years ago|reply
It’s not poor urban design, it’s geometry.
[+] [-] imagiko|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dchichkov|7 years ago|reply
It's the same story of building bridges and super-highways, through the downtown because they "look good" and "let you put your name on it", without caring for the residents.
For transportation we need tunnels, not bridges.
And if you want something flying other the city - build a silent glider that uses only the energy of raising currents of air and gravity to accelerate for take off and decelerate to land. Or another silent vehicle. Not a stupid noisy flying car.
[+] [-] jandrese|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nawitus|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] isoskeles|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonshariat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pica_soO|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joshe|7 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] Cacti|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] syn0byte|7 years ago|reply
Try running an Osborne 1 on a modern laptop battery for example.
[+] [-] stcredzero|7 years ago|reply
I would have fast airships with high speed winches hovering over the pads, with the ends of the cables managed by smaller drones. This would enable the passenger drones to take off assisted, with their motors only providing control forces, until they reach an altitude where their noise at full power isn't such a nuisance.
[+] [-] dotancohen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitxbitxbitcoin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bussierem|7 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] quacked|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] superqd|7 years ago|reply
I've yet to see a car than can fly, i.e., something more car-like that can also fly.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|7 years ago|reply
It's kinda funny-looking, but at least it seems like equal attention was paid to the plane and car functions, rather than just making a plane that is theoretically road-worthy.
(Not sure how it's supposed to get better mileage in the air than on the ground, though.)
[+] [-] fhood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phatbyte|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vermontdevil|7 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/1088032429204369410
[+] [-] donpdonp|7 years ago|reply
https://www.liftaircraft.com/ has what I think of when I think of a possible future mode of transporation through the air.
[+] [-] superqd|7 years ago|reply
THANKS!
[+] [-] bussierem|7 years ago|reply
Unfortunately that video is very uninformative....it goes up, then down. How does it maneuver? What's its speed like? There are some serious details lacking from all of this press.
[+] [-] drugme|7 years ago|reply
Let alone the carbon and resource footprint, per passenger-mile?
Anyone? Anyone at all?
[+] [-] mangecoeur|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plopz|7 years ago|reply
Yeah, I don't know why the article uses the term car. Its clearly not.
[+] [-] danans|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bokchoi|7 years ago|reply
As someone who grew up in the Seattle area, this made me sad.
[+] [-] aplusbi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breitling|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PhilWright|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradknowles|7 years ago|reply
So, maybe an improved "air taxi", in the same way that helicopters are used today in certain cities.
But not a flying car.
[+] [-] maxander|7 years ago|reply
...We just need appropriate noise regulations, which will almost certainly prevent private citizens from operating them. Especially in cities.
[+] [-] santashelper9|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arturadib|7 years ago|reply
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/
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: [email protected]
[+] [-] mung|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adwf|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ape4|7 years ago|reply