4 ms·
Flying cars are a horrible idea. Flying requires a 20x higher energy output than driving. It's extremely weather sensitive. It requires space for landing, unles
by jedrek 11y ago
Flying cars are a horrible idea. Flying requires a 20x higher energy output than driving. It's extremely weather sensitive. It requires space for landing, unless you go VLTO, then your energy usage skyrockets even more. There are huge privacy concerns, last mile and noise issues. Not to mention it would be a further move from mass transit to (much less efficient) private transportation.
- MichaelGG 11y agoI just see it as a personal plane that doesn't require a taxi or rental car. If they were more common, then the limited amount of space needed for a light-car runway would be easier to pop in. Also note that Jetsons, to use a fictional example, had no qualms about building up, in comparison to apparently everyone in the West.
- tremon 11y agoI'm not sure that's always the case. Take a look at the PAL-V, which is in production right now (there was a short item on it on Dutch TV, they're currently looking for investors to boost international sales). According to their specifications [1], it can do 6 km/l when flying, and 12 km/l on land. The specs they give aren't directly comparable sadly, so I had to do a short calculation to get the flying mileage (180 km/28 l), but it suggests that your 20x figure is one order of magnitude too high. The vehicle's range also suggests a 3x difference, not 20x. [1] http://pal-v.com/the-pal-v-one/specifications/ http://pal-v.com/the-pal-v-one/specifications/
- tim333 11y ago>Flying requires a 20x higher energy Light aircraft do something like 20mpg for a Cessna 150. No worse than many SUVs. 100 mpg is possible http://www.treehugger.com/aviation/hypermiling-plane-gets-45-mpg-at-207-mph-capable-of-100-mpg-thats-better-than-most-cars.html http://www.treehugger.com/aviation/hypermiling-plane-gets-45...