back to article Grab your L-plates, flying cars of sci-fi dreams have landed

Far from being a mere staple of science fiction, plenty of flying cars really do exist, we're told. But there's one problem: hardly anyone knows how to fly them. That's according to Professor Michael Decker of MyCopter, the personal helicopter project at German university KIT. Speaking at the Hitachi EU Science & Technology …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wow, a perfesser. He so smart.

    Flying cars fall down. And they're noisy.

    Can I be a professor at KIT too? It doesn't seem to take much.

    1. Wize

      Re: Wow, a perfesser. He so smart.

      A bit like helecopters. And look how popular they are up in Aberdeen at the moment after another one splashed down in the sea.

      And thats choppers being serviced on a regular basis (every day) by trained mechanics.

      Who knows someone who has a rusty old clunker with bits falling off it? The kind that only get to see a garage when its MOT time and half of it needs replacing. Going to be messy.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Parking on a skyscraper

    Clearly you wouldn't park on top, you'd just dock outside your office. But this whole "personal flying machine to avoid congestion" is going about things the wrong way - congestion is caused by cars being much bigger than the load they carry, so just carry the load in something more efficient than a car, e.g. effective mass transit systems.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Parking on a skyscraper

      Or a smaller vehicle.

      You could even suggest one with no tailpipe emissions, or one with no emissions at all...

      (Excluding the driver of course)

      "Over the hedge" (great kids film) has a lovely scene where the animals are gathered round an SUV - saying "wow, how many humans fit in *this*" to which the "knowledgable" animal replies:

      "normally only one"

      1. Nuke
        Meh

        Re: Parking on a skyscraper

        Why the dig at the SUV? Goes for most cars.

        1. Tom 11
          Facepalm

          Re: Parking on a skyscraper

          You miss the point, get back in your x5 and continue making a fool and / or nuscance out of yourself...

    2. loopy lou

      Re: Parking on a skyscraper

      Or just get the computer to drive the car so it doesn't need multiple car-lengths of empty space in front of it just to cope with the distance it travels before the driver even realizes something has happened.

      1. Circadian
        Facepalm

        @loopy lou - pile-up waiting to happen

        Getting tired of all those people wanting to computerise cars so that they travel as a train, with only a few feet between them. Yes, fine, when all the systems are synchronised so that all the systems brake and accelerate in the normal course of driving. However, when an accident happens e.g. tree falls on car, if there is no braking distance for the speed the vehicles are travelling at then you are going to have the mother of all pile-ups.

        Computers may help resolve some of the problems caused by the meatbags travelling in them, but physics still rules (bitch).

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Circadian

            Re: @loopy lou

            Fair point - you didn't say anything about high speed. It's just that so often futurologists give the image of a "train" of vehicles travelling on motorways at high speed with practically no stopping-distance between the vehicles that I guess I jumped straight to that meme. Town-speed, less of an issue except that repair bills for any prang are huge on cars that are designed to crumple so as to protect occupants - so proper stopping-distance between vehicles would still be a good idea.

            1. Alan Dougherty
              Stop

              Re: @loopy lou

              'so proper stopping-distance between vehicles would still be a good idea.'

              And there endith the dream, of using drafting, to reduce fuel consumption.

              1. TeeCee Gold badge

                Re: @loopy lou

                "And there endith the dream, of using drafting, to reduce fuel consumption."

                That one ended for me when Mythbusters proved you had to be within a metre of the vehicle in front to show a measurable advantage........and that was with a car following a truck(!)

                1. Chris Glen-smith
                  FAIL

                  Mythbusters endith the dream.

                  And of course their science is unimpeachable! Ever noticed that any "myth" that would increase dangerous or illegal activity on the road is ALWAYS busted?

                  Anyway, doubtless they were using an American car with a massive engine that uses most of it's fuel just to keep the engine warm rather than actually moving the car so any saving was lost in the noise.

                  In my first car (knackered 1.1L Ford Escort Mk1) I used to tailgate lorries, it was the only way I could do 60 without having my teeth shaken out from the racket! From the reduction of throttle and engine noise it was significatly less work for the engine and I was a lot more than a meter from the lorries. Happliy my current car can do over a 100mph comfortably and other car has a V8 engine. :-)

        2. ravenviz Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: @loopy lou - pile-up waiting to happen

          Pile ups happen on the ground as well, whatever system is in place to manage lofty traffic would manage it far better plus there's the third spatial dimension to take advantage of!

        3. Jon 64
          Facepalm

          Re: @loopy lou - pile-up waiting to happen

          Well, how many accidents happen due to a tree falls on cars while they are driving?

          I am sure it happens but it will be a very small amount compared to all other accidents that computerization will solve.

          You sound like someone who always looks why things will fail rather why they will work.

          So we will solve 99% of accidents and you complain that about the 1% left?!

        4. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: @loopy lou - pile-up waiting to happen

          Calm down dear.

          People are not asking for cars to travel like a train, but just closer to each other than humans can cope with. At most speeds a significant portion of the braking distance is our reaction time.

          NO ONE is advocating a system without large margins of safety. If a tree spontaneously materialised on the M25, such systems would be safer than human drivers, in part because cars a mile behind the incident will start slowing the moment it happens. You wouldn't have a huge pile up.

          The nastiest crash in recent years (sudden loss of visibility due to a fireworks display) wouldn't have happened under this sort of system.

          Physics do rule, but engineers have a better grasp of it than you do (twit)

        5. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: @loopy lou - pile-up waiting to happen

          > However, when an accident happens e.g. tree falls on car, if there is no braking distance for the

          > speed the vehicles are travelling at then you are going to have the mother of all pile-ups.

          Indeed. Much as you do when a train car derails. We treat that as an acceptable risk because it happens much less frequently than similar sudden-deceleration accidents happen with cars.

          Cars suffer tire blowouts. They lose parts - I've seen cars in front of me on the highway lose hubcaps, mufflers, in one case a rear bumper. Have fun driving over that at 75 mph. I did some towing for a while, and once had to retrieve a Jeep that had lost an entire rear wheel - the axle was defective and had sheared. It was just luck that the driver was pulling slowly out of a parking spot and stopped as the body of the Jeep ran over its own wheel; a few inches further and he'd have been on only three wheels, which is not a tenable position for a Jeep. That would have made for a very nasty highway accident indeed.

          Bumper-to-bumper travel at highway speeds has unpleasant failure modes. Anyone who's done the Route 128 commute around Boston knows that. Automating it doesn't help - not enough to be worth it.

      2. Stevie

        Re: Parking on a skyscraper

        Don't try this in NYC, where many of the building have or had helipads designed into them.

        See, there was this incident when a rotor blade came off a helicopter sitting on the Pan-Am (now the Met Life) building rooftop helipad, showing a bunch of people on Park Avenue why we call 'em "choppers".

        After that, helicopters were not allowed to land on skyscrapers any more.

    3. Paul_Murphy

      Re: Parking on a skyscraper

      I was thinking of having docking ports on the side of the building, and then thought that the cars could be stacked in 'carpark' quite efficiently.

      I still like that advert with the waterslide - excellent way to get to and from work :-)

      ttfn

    4. Peter Simpson 1
      Happy

      Re: Parking on a skyscraper

      You just push a button and it folds up into an attache case.

    5. Denarius
      WTF?

      Re: Parking on a skyscraper

      even better, WTF is the point of CBDs in this age where most communications are electronic, not physical ? Abolish those expensive tax breaks for the rich and move office spaces to edge of cities and maintain medium site densities. No need for lots of cars, flying or not.

      Given the stresses on critical parts of flying vehicles of any kind are far higher than ground vehicles one wonders if hordes of flying cars will ever be safer than trains or cars. Lose a wheel and you usually just stop. Losing a wing or rotor has less benign consequences.

      Adding a ballistic recovery chute opens a whole new can of disaster worms. A large chute blasting in front of traffic is not a fun way to fly. This is why meat bomber drops are called well before the jumpers leave their perfectly good aircraft so saner aviators can be out of the area.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Parking on a skyscraper

      re: Mass transit systems...

      Like the railways I guess.... Lets start from somewhere you didn't want to start from and go to somewhere you didn't want to go to... Couldn't we just drop this ancient tech and appreciate the dawn of hybrid and ultimately electric cars and put a bit more effort into developing the infrastructure. Otherwise it's a huge step backwards... and no different from the Prof commenting on eliminating the drive to and from the airport if you can't take off from home and land at work or wherever...

  3. John Robson Silver badge

    Fly home....

    If they are computer controlled (and frankly I'm not sure anything else is sane) then they can just fly off home until you need them in the evening - or to a local charging facility if they are electric

    1. jubtastic1
      Thumb Up

      Re: Fly home....

      Totally agree, sending them back to base for recharge/checkup would not only mitigate the danger of unmaintained personal vehicles crashing through your roof but also mean all the vomit had been cleaned from your sky car when you were ready to return home.

    2. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Fly home....

      Indeed, it seems that automatic operation is the route the US DOD are looking at for their 'flying jeep' concepts. Also, fully automatic operation means that cost of ownership can be shared amongst individuals - or the vehicle just hired by the minute. After it drops you off, it makes itself useful elsewhere.

      However, if reducing congestion is the aim, car sharing would be a better first step- especially now most of us carry communication devices in our pockets that know where we are and can be used to bill us / share costs. I'm happy to share a vehicle with a couple of adults... its the hordes of sodcasting teenagers on busses that do my nut.

      Also, saner legislation: A car protects you from the elements buts takes up twice the width of road required for just one person. BMW introduced a scooter with a roof and rollcage, negating the need for leathers, boots, gloves and a helmet. UK legislation insists that a helmet is still required for this machine, despite it being LESS safe than not wearing one, due to extra forces on the neck in the event of a crash.

    3. Nuke
      Thumb Down

      @ John Robinson : Re: Fly home....

      Wrote : "they can just fly off home until you need them in the evening"

      Great, you just doubled the fuel consumption.

  4. JetSetJim
    Stop

    Power requirements

    Aren't the power requirements to fly somewhat more than they are to drive? Obviously driving has a certain amount of wastage as you can't go in a straight line to your destination (I expect this may be a slight problem in mass deployed air traffic scenarios too, particularly around cities), and you may have to queue at some point. A small single engined Cessna/Piper plane would get around 15-20 mpg while cruising (*) - no idea what it takes to get it off the ground, though - so I can possibly believe it's comparable to a "not so good" engine in a large SUV..VTOL stuff obviously use a shed load of fuel to go up/down, though.

    I'm sure it'd be fun trying to fly to work at the various office/industrial estates around Heathrow, too, and you have to wonder how you manage lots of folks trying to land at around the same time at around the same place (e.g. stadium event, 9am in central London, shopping centres, etc...).

    Who knows, perhaps the next phase of the Google driverless car will fix all these issues. I won't hold my breath, though.

    (*) lots of variability due to wind influence and a whole host of other factors

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_MPG_of_a_small_airplane

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Power requirements

      You're spot on here; the power requirements for flying are a lot more than for moving an equivalent sized vehicle on the ground, so the "emissions" argument falls down straight away (not even considering that the majority of vehicles today don't use stop/start technology which would reduce the emissions of a ground vehicle to nil when it's stopped).

      The cost of buying and operating one of these things mean that they're only going to benefit the rich; so only a very small proportion of the population and no solution to urban congestion.

      If the professor wants to improve life in the 21st century, he needs to look away from crap ideas from early 20th century sci-fi.

      1. Dr. Mouse

        Re: Power requirements

        "The cost of buying and operating one of these things mean that they're only going to benefit the rich; so only a very small proportion of the population and no solution to urban congestion."

        I'm sure a similar argument was made against cars in the early days. "They are too expensive, so they will only benefit the rich."

        Except, as more rich people buy them, more are produced, production techniques improve and economies of scale start to have an effect. Soon (although it could be decades) people on "middle" incomes get to benefit, and eventually even the "poor" can afford a second hand one.

        As for the rest of your argument, andvancement of technology would eventually improve the performance and power requirements. This is also likely to be decades away, but none of your arguments are good enough to say "Why not do something usefull" to those developing these vehicles.

        1. JetSetJim

          Re: Dr Mouse: Power requirements

          "andvancement of technology would eventually improve the performance and power requirements."

          Hmm - there's not much that can be done about the energy required to shift an object of a given weight up 100m or more. Aerodynamics is well understood, so unlikely airframes will get much more efficient. The infernal combustion engine has been around for a hundred years or so and is probably nearing the plateau of efficiency. Electrickery would be a good way to go as you can budget for economies of scale in generation. But generation is getting more expensive as the Greenies convince more governments that a big windmill is a good way to go (although it looks like that fad is winding down). Nuke is a nice idea, but I've not seen a convincing cost argument either way - too many biased authors. Cold fusion would be a delightful solution, but then we wouldn't care how many cars were knocking around as it would all of a sudden be cost effective to give everyone lots of choice of personal transportation - including diddy little mono-person carriers (with add-on pods?) for their commute. In 2010 it was estimated that there were 31million cars on UK roads - so pretty much one for every person with a license (DVLA reckons there are around 36M licensed drivers in the UK).

          Yes, there are probably improvements to be made in current technology, but I fear it would take a technological leap to realise the dream of global accessibility to flying cars.

          1. Steven Roper
            Stop

            Re: Power requirements

            Any form of flight will have vastly greater power requirements than ground travel. This is because in order to fly, you have to overcome gravity (duh!).

            Now gravity is a constant downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. This translates, in carspeak, to 0 - 100 km/h (62 mph) in 2.8 seconds. That's right, the acceleration imparted by gravity is greater than that of any production sports car, and greater than that of most sports motorbikes. You show me any commercially available ground vehicle capable of 0-100 km/h in 2.8 seconds! Even if there is one that I don't know about, I'd wager its fuel consumption would be a strong discouragement to commuter use!

            In order to fly, any vehicle must overcome this downward acceleration with an equivalent upward acceleration. That means consuming the equivalent power required to accelerate from 0-100 in 2.8 s constantly, every second it's in the air, just to hover or maintain altitude. If it needs to climb, it has to surpass this power consumption; that is, be able to achieve the equivalent of 0-100 in less than 2.8 s!

            This is why even little Cessnas have the equivalent of a Dodge Viper motor under the bonnet. It's the reason why aircraft get such shitty per-litre mileage. It's why flying is such a major cause of emissions. And it's why flying vehicles en masse is completely impractical - because it will, no matter how efficient we make such vehicles, always consume much more power than ground travel, just to stay in the air.

            1. Michael Shaw
              Holmes

              Re: Power requirements

              Sorry, you are wrong. Gliders do not fall out of the sky in the same way as a lead weight.

              The maths behind it is vector based, taking into account weight, lift, drag and thrust. Paramotors (large parachute, pilot and a propeller) fly through the sky using a 50cc motor.

              1. Steven Roper
                Boffin

                @ Michael Shaw

                Sorry, I am right. You said it yourself: the lift <-> weight part of that formula is exactly what I'm talking about. The weight is the downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s imparted by gravity; the lift is the 9.8 m/s/s upward acceleration imparted by whatever means the aircraft is using to generate it, be that means air pressure along a wing surface, the displacement of a column of air by a rotor, the counterpressure of a jet engine, or the Newtonian thrust of a rocket.

                A glider with zero forward velocity will fall out of the sky like a lead weight until it gains enough momentum to allow its wing surface to generate the equivalent lift required to counter the weight acceleration of gravity. However the craft does it, that 9.8 m/s/s downward acceleration has to be countered. That's basic high-school physics.

                1. HeyMickey
                  Facepalm

                  @ Steven Roper

                  In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!

            2. Arfbarkwoof
              Paris Hilton

              Re: Power requirements

              "This is why even little Cessnas have the equivalent of a Dodge Viper motor under the bonnet."

              I think you'll find some small hatchbacks have more power than a lot of little Cessnas and the like.

              The plane I learned to fly in had an almighty 145bhp and that was a lot more nippy than some of the others at the club. Stick that in a Viper, and it works out at bang on 100bhp/tonne, which is not exactly supercar territory. It's not even hot hatch territory.

              Paris, because I'm sure she has a hot hatch with a few spurious fluid leaks.

              1. Danny 14

                Re: Power requirements

                I assumed the math was for VTOL hence lead weight. Gliders and normal A/C do not fit the bill of "flying car" in this concept - I assumed we were looking at helicopter equivalents (witha car component bolted on). Otherwise we are simply talking about helicopters.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Power requirements

              "Now gravity is a constant downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. This translates, in carspeak, to 0 - 100 km/h (62 mph) in 2.8 seconds. That's right, the acceleration imparted by gravity is greater than that of any production sports car, and greater than that of most sports motorbikes"

              You've got the physics wrong here; when forces are in equilibrium there is no energy used, so the ground doesn't require any power to overcome the force of gravity when you stand on the ground.

              An aircraft doesn't use engine power to defy gravity, it uses aerodynamic lift created by the small(ish) pressure difference between two sides of a large(ish) aerofoil (wing). The energy is used to push the aerofoil forwards against air friction, but that can be pretty efficient (gliders can use the movement of warm air to climb). conventional aeroplanes are pretty efficient, but "flying cars" have a lot of conflicting requirements (VTOL, compact footprint) that mean that fuel efficiency is not top priority.

            4. Matthew 3

              Re: Power requirements

              Gravity is why a plummeting VW Beetle can beat a twin-turbo Porsche 911 over a mile.

              TG Test

            5. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Power requirements

        > stop/start technology which would reduce the emissions of a ground vehicle to nil

        even better, use intelligent traffic control so that ground vehicles don't have to stop at junctions in the first place. If you're going to implement traffic control in the skies, try it on the ground first where its cheaper and safer.

    2. HeyMickey
      Headmaster

      Re: Power requirements

      Just because most A/C achieve crap MPG figures doesn't mean that flight inherently requires more power than land transport. You need to consider:

      1) The car's mileage is measured at a speed of ~50mph or so, the plane's is measured at ~100kts which is ~120mph. I challenge you to get much more than 15-20MPG from a car travelling at 120mph.

      2) The example aircraft in your link (Cessna 172) was designed in the 1950s. Aerodynamics have come a long way since then.

      3) The engine in that aircraft (Lycoming O-360) was also designed in the 1950s. Using 1930s car engine technology. Engine technology has come a long way since then. The brake specific fuel consumption of an O-360 is .43lb/hp.hr whereas a modern diesel car engine achieves 0.32lb/hp.hr i.e a 34% improvement in fuel consumption. More modern, efficient aircraft engines are available - but they generally only get put in new design aircraft.

      Take a modern aircraft with a modern engine e.g Pipistrel Virus with a Rotax 912S as a better example. That combination achieves ~40MPG at a 135kt cruise i.e ~150mph! Doubt you'll beat that with a car...

      1. The Grump
        Holmes

        Re: Power requirements

        But can they land vertically ? Yeah, I didn't think so. I wonder what the mileage is on a Harrier ? (Hardly a commuter vehicle, LOL).

      2. Zack Mollusc

        Re: Power requirements

        I will wager that the modern diesel car engine weighs over 34% more than the O-360.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Power requirements

        "Take a modern aircraft with a modern engine e.g Pipistrel Virus with a Rotax 912S as a better example. That combination achieves ~40MPG at a 135kt cruise i.e ~150mph! Doubt you'll beat that with a car..."

        I take your point about the fuel efficiency of an aircraft optimised for cruise efficiency; your example is a small 2 seater with a relatively long wingspan and good gliding performance. But a flying car will have to be optimised for STOL or VTOL and compact(ish) dimensions for parking, so a lot of the fuel-efficiency will be thrown out of the window.

    3. Nuke
      Holmes

      Re: Power requirements

      JetSetJim wrote :- "VTOL stuff obviously use a shed load of fuel to go up/down, though."

      Dead right there. VTOL, as advocated by the professor, is massively inefficient.

  5. Silverburn
    Coat

    Imagine if the autopilot was designed by MS. The BSOD would take on a more literal meaning.

    God these BSOD jokes never get old...oh wait. They do.

  6. ScottAS2
    Black Helicopters

    This title fell down and died, too

    "This will actually fall down and you will fall and probably die"

    Such a shame that this ringing endorsement of the flying car's safety credentials arrives just too late for Quote of the Week...

  7. Blofeld's Cat
    Pint

    Coming shortly...

    "Yes dear I'll drop your mother off on my way over."

    "Honestly Persephone; you're six years old and you still can't pack a parachute properly."

    "Probably just a piton tube, mate. I'll see if I've got an old one out the back."

    "No officer the gates were locked. I've no idea how they got into the yard."

    "Well have you tried scraping a Canada Goose off the windscreen?"

    "Well the satnav said it was a field, not a reservoir."

    "No sir, that bridge is 13 foot six, when you're on the ground."

    "I don't care if there is a 747 coming. It's my right of way."

    <-- "Good evening oshifer. Why are you standing upside down?"

    1. SysKoll
      Happy

      Re: Coming shortly...

      That's "Pitot tube". And yes, the final t is mute.

      And the oshifer one is pretty good. :-)

  8. Chemist

    his engineers have found batteries that could power a flight for 100km (62 miles).

    Does anyone believe that ?

    For a helicopter !

    1. Circadian
      Trollface

      Re: his engineers have found batteries that could power a flight for 100km (62 miles).

      yeh - there's a f'ing long cable to a swimming pool of chemicals to power it (please note icon!)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: his engineers have found batteries that could power a flight for 100km (62 miles).

      To be fair he just said they'd found batteries that could power it for that far - he didn't say they'd actually fit in the thing!

    3. Irongut

      Re: his engineers have found batteries that could power a flight for 100km (62 miles).

      Even if true it's too short to be of any real use.

    4. Imsimil Berati-Lahn
      Black Helicopters

      Re: his engineers have found batteries that could power a flight for 100km (62 miles).

      Sure, they've found the batteries that'll do it...

      They said nothing about the helicopter actually CARRYING said batteries though.

      Amendment in really small print: "Oh yeah, you'll need a huge truck to haul these batteries underneath your hover-mobile for the duration though."

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: his engineers have found batteries that could power a flight for 100km (62 miles).

        More to the point, they never said how big the flying thing was.

        Perhaps a 60 mile range TacoCopter?

    5. Peter Simpson 1
      Mushroom

      Re: his engineers have found batteries that could power a flight for 100km (62 miles).

      Attached to a Mr. Fusion...

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. NomNomNom

    great, flying carbombs.

  11. Jon Morby
    FAIL

    Where will you land?

    Sadly this all comes at a time when the UK Govt are closing down as many local / small airfields as they can find.

    They're either giving planning permission to built flats or supermarkets on them, or just letting them go bankrupt and failing to support them despite the revenues they bring to the local community :(

    It wasn't all that long ago that I discounted Sheffield as a place to open a call center. Why? Well the nearest airport was suddenly Doncaster ... despite there having been one in Sheffield City for years. This is now a Tescos! :(

    Look at the USA, they support their local airfields with grants and ensure they're maintained for 99+ years whenever the FAA/Gov provides funding. This covenant guarantees the future of the regional economies.

    We may have been slow to bring personal flight to the masses over the last 50 years or so, but now isn't the time to abandon local airfields (which account for hundreds, if not potentially thousands of jobs in their local communities) just as the dream is becoming a reality!

    And yes, I fly ... when I can ... I can do Scotland and/or Cornwall and back in a day. Use the train or car and I lose 2 days. For my business the only way we can operate is by use of private aircraft. Not big expensive BizJets, but small and cost effective single engine aircraft. 4 Can fly to the Isle of Man for a meeting for £600 return. Try doing that on a scheduled airline in the same day!

    1. druck Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Where will you land?

      I flew in to Sheffield just before it closed, we had to battle though (or rather around) snow showers, staying under low cloud in icing conditions for hours, before the weather finally cleared a corridor up the M1 and made a left turn in to Sheffield. Where we meet with vicious wind sheer across the runway from the buildings when just about to touch down. Worse than that, after having to do a go around and a second approach the cafe had just closed! As it was a bank holiday Monday, nothing was open for miles,so we had to get a taxi to Sheffield Arena for something eat, before attempting a flight back through the snow showers again. I'm sad it's closed now, but it was a lot of hassle just for somewhere to get lunch.

      1. Amazing Stace

        Re: Where will you land?

        Wait, you FLEW to Sheffield for LUNCH!?

        Sheffield has some nice restaurants but I wouldn't get a plane into the city to have a meal in the airport cafe...

  12. Hnk0

    In London, 50% of car trips are under 2 miles. There is only little/extortionate car parking (let alone helicopter) in zone 1, where most work. The energy usage of anything flying, but especially VTOL, is an order of magnitude larger than for ground transport. Helicopters are LOUD and inefficient.

    For all these reasons flying cars are, unfortunately, a dream. In the meantime there are tried and tested solutions that do work and help with all those problems: congestion, parking, energy (fossil/electric), and pollution. Those solutions are unsexy but work, they are efficient public transport, cycling, car sharing and remote working. Shame the powers that be are so uninterested in them.

    1. Danny 14
      Alert

      hmm

      I'd still say the problem will be the drivers/pilots. I'd quit flying when the first flying transit van is unveiled. Or flying BMW/Audi.

  13. Minophis
    WTF?

    Finally the future is here.

    While buzzing around in flying cars seems like an episode of the jetsons brought to life I can't see it solving congestion problems. To have an impact on congestion a significant proportion of the commuting poulation has to buy these and it does seem unlikely they will be able to afford it and be willing to try. Surley an easier way to reduce congestion would be to encourage buisinesses to use home working where possible and invest in a decent public transport infrastructure. I don't think either of these things will happen, I'm just saying it seems easier.

    1. (AMPC) Anonymous and mostly paranoid coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: Finally the future is here.@Minophis

      Couldn't agree more.

      One of the first paybacks from encouraging people to work from home and/or take public transport is the immediate reduction in their personal consumption of fossil fuels. A staggering percentage of the planet's petroleum consumption is used to move people and goods around (50 to 70 %, depending on who you believe).

      I would profess that this is still one of the biggest problems confronting the human race/planet. Excess oil consumption is causing wars, pollution, GW, economic upheaval and traffic congestion to boot. If everyone could significantly reduce their transport needs (by staying home,car-pooling or taking a train) it would probably have a greater impact on the energy problem than any number of windmills, government grants or hybrid motor designs. I am only saying this because the percentage of overall oil consumption used for personal transport has hardly budged since the 1970s. Whatever we are doing, it isn't working very well.

      Reducing consumption is one of the simplest and most effective approaches to the complex problems generated by the over-consumption of a dwindling natural resource. Unfortunately, to do it, we would all have to change our lifestyles and workstyles. If conservation really caught on, it would also dramatically reduce the whacking great tax revenues that governments collect at the pump. So this simple and effective solution is the one most unlikely to be adopted, I guess, until oil has cracked the 400$ a barrel ceiling. Then we will all adjust, for sure.

      Although flying cars sound fab, RDP will get me to work much faster and for a lot less money, today. Call me old-fashioned, but I honestly believe that if everyone could bite the bullet and take the same conservative approach, we might even save enough money to produce something really nifty like Star Trek transporter technology.

      1. Danny 14

        Re: Finally the future is here.@Minophis

        I'd love to work from home. Worst thing about schools are the children.

  14. Dave 126 Silver badge

    How bloody noisy?

    How noisy would these things be? It would make a city and suburbs unbearable to work and live in, not to mention confusing the hell out the birds who use sound for communication.

    That said, and in answer to the problem of using fuel to attain cruising altitude: I like the idea of jumping off the top of a skyscraper with a hang-glider at the end of each day, and gliding home. Going into work I wouldn't be in such a rush : D

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sounds like bullshit to me

    "A MyCopter costs about as much as a flash top-end car, but this price could come down to the level of a mid-range motor by the time the project gets, er, off the ground."

    Based on what data does a MyCopter "cost the same as a flash top-end car"? And is this a BMW M3 (55,000 GBP) or a Bugatti Veyron (1,000,000 GBP)?

    Given the amount of certification required by aircraft and all the associated parts, I can't see the price getting much lower than a current low-end light aircraft (e.g. 110,000 USD for a Cessna 162).

    Something like the M3 sells in relatively big numbers compared to aircraft; I can't see "flying cars" being as popular as the Prof thinks, mainly because they aren't very versatile - you couldn't tow a caravan/trailer (although this does seem like a benefit actually) or stick a bike rack on it or use it to pop down to the shops (the footprint will make parking a nightmare). So you'd need to have a ground car as well as a flying car. Who has that sort of money besides footballers (do you seriously want Wayne Rooney operating a flying machine) and bankers?

    The flying car is a solution to a single problem: "I live out of the city, but i have to go there to work; and so do loads of other people". It doesn't solve the "going a long distance" problem particularly well because the speed/range of a flying car is not adequate for distances over a couple of hundred miles (may as well use a real aircraft and put up with the drive to/from the airport).

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Kickstarter!

    OK, if they are that sure of themselves, let the start a Kickstarter project!

    (a battery driven helo making 100km - pull the other one, my ass is crooked.

    And assuming this is true - why not use smaller batteries and something like a Capstone turbine generator - batteries for take-off power, turbine to make electricity for cruise. This is an aircraft: every kilo's sacred, every kilo's great, if a kilo's wasted, God get quite irate!)

  17. Mike Flugennock
    FAIL

    Deja Vu all over again

    D'ah, big damn' deal. This shit's been hyped up forever, like in this old issue of Mechanix Illustrated from the early 1950s? I don't know about you, but I think the mom and little boy in that illustration look positively terrified, as if they're about to be blown off the roof by Dad's rotor wash.

    Oh, and btw, let's not forget this little humdinger... JANE! HELP! STOP THIS CRAZY THING!!!

  18. Christoph

    Security problems

    How much will it cost to upgrade security for every single military and business and private site that relies on a fence for security?

    In fact how can they be upgraded? Anywhere with extensive grounds will have people dropping in for a look. Anywhere with a back garden will have burglars dropping in.

  19. ukgnome
    Mushroom

    Ok so like most posters so far, i see a few flaws.

    1. cost - on the elite will be able to commute, so just how much congestion will this solve?

    2. risk - if all the well to do chaps and chapesses are suffering from sudden loss of altitude then more cost to fill their shoes (actually might not be so bad)

    3. MOT - how long before a garage/hanger on the cheap offers an air worthy certificate on a crate of a flymobile?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ ukgnome

      I have no idea what any of your statements are supposed to mean.

  20. HeyMickey

    Not for the city anyway

    Flying cars will never see use in the city. As others have pointed out, public transport/cycling is the answer for that particular problem. City centres are no place for aircraft, and only multi-engine types are allowed to fly over London anyway (safety reasons, SE helicopters allowed as an exception along the approved helicopter routes where you are always in auto-rotate range of somewhere landable). I presume other cities have similar rules, if they don't they should!

    Here's a suggestion - maybe flying cars will nicely fill the role of long point to point journeys >200miles once we are all driving battery electric cars for our daily commutes and don't want to stop to recharge along the way? In other words, 2 cars: one electric for short journeys and city use, and one flying IC engined car for long journeys...

  21. Stevie

    Bah!

    Helicopters and fixed wing flying cars? Madness! An accident waiting to happen.

    No, the safe flying car will be blimp-lifted, using post space-age kevlaresque envelope materials.

    At least until the Spinner is available at a reasonable price.

  22. b166er

    PAL-V for the win, recently certified for RPL/PPL and roadable. Auto-rotation, so engine fail not a (n insurmountable) problem, light, efficient, small and practical.

    (V)STOL runway required.

    Just as Google's car is now certified road legal in Nevada, I expect collision avoidance to be sorted the moment flying cars become anything more than rich people's playthings.

    It's not that difficult if you think about it, to create a virtual bubble around an aircraft with proximity sensors and to not allow the bubble to enter the airspace of any other bubble. Like Honda's lane guidance utility, only stricter.

    How many people were fatally injured in the early days of motoring? There will be a few casualties getting flying cars off the ground, if you'll pardon the pun, however it won't be enough to stop us reaching for the skies.

    The price will always be high when launching a new technology, but provided it's viable, the price always comes down as the demand increases. Same goes for the training. Whereas it might currently cost 5000 credits to gain RPL, were it to become popular, the price would fall substantially. There would also be more demand for small airfields (close to motorways I imagine) and business complexes would have runways and taxi strips to your buildings storage area.

    Vehicle parachutes should be mandatory though.

    1. Danny 14
      Stop

      "casualties getting flying cars off the ground"

      I think it is the coming back to the ground that will cause more casualties. Especially if the fly car becomes many flying car bits.

  23. tillm
    Megaphone

    Now Some COLD STEEL RATIONALITY

    1.) China and India will compete for the same oil production, with much more money than in the past. Where will all the oil for VTOL come from ??

    2.) Teleworking is clearly a huge untapped reservoir for both saving energy, time and nerves. It can be creatively mixed with one to four days at a central office to meet your coworkers in person.

    3.) Small buses (such as the Mercedes "Sprinter") which would be scheduled by a Central Service (yeah, like Central Planning) and running on Reserved Lanes, transporting four to eight passengers could easily reduce oil consumption by 80% and time consumption by 50%. Also, ensure Green Lights for these small buses whenever possible. Get a lift by smartphone.

    So, using brains is often better than using aerodynamics.

  24. aurizon

    I remember old pulp Science Fiction mags of the 40's and 50's with a blizzard of personal flying machines. It never happened, and it never will - unless we master gravity and planes can start and stop in the air like cars on a road. Forget helicopters, a dense mass of those would interfere with each others paths via the downwards prop wash. With no ability to deal with high density traffic, the same way we can with cars and roads. I recall seeing one of the star wars movies with a very high density of aerial traffic in "highways" in the air that criss-crossed in various directions and heights, and craft broke free and landed under automatic control.

    So we may be able to make cars that fly - hybrids, can we make boat-planes? we have boat-cars, but very few are sold. How about a car-boat-rocket-plane - made in Taiwan.

    1. Robert E A Harvey
      Thumb Up

      How about a car-boat-rocket-plane

      Superthunderstingcar! is go!

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: How about a car-boat-rocket-plane

        Liking the Not Only But Also reference. Deserves the nod over Monty Python's sheep-based French airliner!

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Megaphone

    We were promised Jet Packs!

    Short of a major revolution in powered flight, I can't see personal aircraft replacing wheels anytime soon.

    Something akin to anti-gravity would need to be invented, as the sheer danger, cost and noise levels of current methods of propulsion aren't very conducive to a mass transport system.

    Forget flight as mass transport to work and back - rail transport is where the future lies.

    Unfortunately, in blighty, we've inherited a victorian rail network and a series of governments since then have failed to keep it in pace with demand.

    Still, it seems inevitable that we can't carry on plonking more and more cars into a finite road network - so plan A. for our glorious leaders is to price us all off the roads.

    There is no plan B. - at least, not from the gibbonment.

    Plan B. is being concocted by the private rail network who seem to want to price everyone off trains to alleviate passenger congestion.

    We may all have to ride horses to work soon - 20 million britons commuting to work by horse.

    Can you imagine the stink? - the road networks would become clogged with horse shit in no time flat.

    Wonder how much it would cost for a horse MOT?

    Ok, more cider needed...

    We were promised Jet Packs DAMMIT!

  26. Dropper
    Stop

    Makes People Unhappy?

    "Congestion on the roads wastes time, increases emissions from engines, and makes people unhappy."

    I wonder how unhappy people will be when they find their teenagers played World of Warcraft all night instead of plugging in their cars..

    And while I would hate to disagree with a wise professor with the reasons why we won't take to the skies tomorrow, I have to say the chief obstacle has been overlooked. People in this country are too fucking stupid. Okay we're not Americans, but we are pretty close to that level of moronic optimism in mechanical tech.

    If you think Essex boys and girls pose a threat to your commuting life now, wait until their fluffy dice laden Ford Escorts hit the skies..

  27. pullenuk

    Im sure if these things are about things would move on in a way that all homes will be making it own electricity so if your car flies home when you get to work the power use doesn't cost anyway due to the fact it will get charged using free power at home. So doesn't matter how much power it uses, as long it can do the trips and recharge quick enough what's the problem?

    Don't forget one day they might find a way to be about to power a house on just moonlight

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Moonshine

      "Don't forget one day they might find a way to be about to power a house on just moonlight"

      Are you being serious, or ironic, or do you just have a poor grasp of physics?

      To quote Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott: "Ye cannae change the laws of physics". You can't get more energy out of a system than you put in; so a light powered by moonlight will only be as bright (probably not quite as bright) as moonlight. Yes, you could concentrate the energy by having a large collector for your moonlight powered light: moonlight is estimated to be about 1mw/sq m, so you'd need about 11,000 square metres (1.5 football fields) for a single low energy light bulb. That's extremely dim.

  28. gurugeorge
    Stop

    dont take advice from...

    A Professor who claims flying cars reduce emissions...

  29. XaviarOnassis
    Go

    I like congestion...

    ...as long as the poor car drivers play nicely, my bike zips cleanly down the bike lane.

    "What bike lane's that, Xav?" you're asking.

    The one with the dotted line down the middle.

    Every bike that filters past you while you're sitting in a queue of traffic is one fewer car on the road in front of you.

    Think about that, especially just before nipping into the other lane. Perhaps it'll cause you to ACTUALLY LOOK IN YOUR MIRROR BEFORE MOVING.

    Sorry, getting off-topic, all I really wanted to say was that there exist already several congestion-busting, fuel-efficient methods of transport and that perhaps if more people considered them.

    Also: http://hover-bike.com/

  30. Tyson Key
    Meh

    Hmm, weren't Moller and a bunch of other companies attempting to implement this for years, with minimal return on investments, and no products (other than vapourware)?

    That aside, I assume that it's extremely expensive (like all flying machines, in comparison to cars), but I'll admit that the HondaJet looks like a fairly promising option, in the interim - and it's already in production, along with being approved for flight in at least the USA.

  31. Tyson Key
    FAIL

    Annoyingly, the forum system won't let me edit my prior post, but <a href="http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/スカイカー">Wikipedia</a> also mentions the TerraFugia Transition, a "Flying Maruti", and the ParaJet as prior attempts...

This topic is closed for new posts.