7 ms·

What problems do flying cars solve? I know it looks cool but is there some huge thing that would get solved with this?

by rtpg 10y ago

vintermann 10y ago
They can probably go in a straighter line to wherever they're headed.
- eumoria 10y ago
  Also being able to add layers atop one another as traffic increases.
adwf 10y ago
There are a number of potential issues they solve: 1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain. 2) Reduce congestion. How much fuel in a car is burnt in traffic? With flying cars, congestion will largely be a thing of the past, you have effectively unlimited road just by changing altitude. 3) Reduce urban sprawl. You can get rid of a lot of the roads that plaster the countryside. There will still need to be some obviously. But less. 4) Reduce national infrastructure costs. As above, you get rid of the roads, you don't need to maintain them anymore. 5) Convenience. You don't need a driveway or garage on your house when you can land on the roof ;) All in all there are quite a few decent reasons for it. Just depends on whether you can beat that efficiency level. It would be interesting to see if anyone has done calculations factoring in the cost savings from reducing sprawl and the miles of road that are maintained each year.
- dekhn 10y ago
  The efficiency argument doesn't work: moving up against gravity will always be more expensive.
  - jonnycowboy 10y ago
    There are always tradeoffs... airplanes move more or less at a steady speed, and are much more aerodynamic than cars, which spent quite a bit of time stuck in traffic. Thus in many cases planes are more efficient than cars (despite needing to lift).
    - dekhn 10y ago
      Airplanes have to go faster than the stall speed. Stall speed is typically ~60mph or more, and air resistance goes up as the square of the speed (times the aerodynamc cross section). Airplanes aren't really that much more aerodynamic than modern cars.
  - adwf 10y ago
    Not necessarily. If a car is twice as efficient, but has to travel three times as far because of the windy road system, the flying car will have it beat in a straight line.
    - knodi123 10y ago
      > travel three times as far because of the windy road system, Ironic choice of words. The winding road system adds distance to your commute, but a windy airspace adds air-miles to your commute. That is, a flying car doesn't travel through the same amount of air when going 1 ground mile in different directions.
      - adwf 10y ago
        Haha, completely unintentional. Very good point though. Personally I don't think flying cars will take off (ha, done it again...) for quite some time, if only for risk reasons. Think about just how many car accidents there are every day, now imagine every accident ending with a 100m death plunge from the sky. I just can't see it going mainstream for a long time.
    - dekhn 10y ago
      I think you'll need to adjust that from "three times", to "90 times" for the physics and math to work.
- daveguy 10y ago
  > 1) Efficiency. I expect it will always be more efficient to roll an object on wheels than to keep an object lifted under power and moving forward at the same time. Rolling friction is not very high. This and safety are major reasons we don't have flying cars today. Prop planes are in the sub 20 mpg range and jets are in the gallons per mile. >2) Reduce congestion I think that autonomous cars (on the ground) will solve this a lot faster than flying cars. > 3) Reduce urban sprawl. This is just incorrect. The roads are not what causes urban sprawl and the roads are not the only negative impact. Urban sprawl happened for two reasons: "white flight" and easy transportation. This does nothing for one and makes the other easier. > 4) Reduce national infrastructure costs. This would be a very long term benefit after ubiquity of flying cars:cars as cars:trains now. I don't think it will ever get there because of point 1). Personal flight consumes more energy than personal rolling. >5) convenience. True. Although houses would have to have heli landing pads installed making it more of a rich toy item. Not to mention noise. Also, autonomous rolling vehicles will solve this too. Is going to your roof more convenient than going to your driveway?
  - adwf 10y ago
    You have to take into account more than just the pure physical efficiency of rolling cars vs. flying. There is the practical efficiency too. When I drive my car to work, I have to take a big dogleg out to the motorway, sit in traffic for 5 minutes to join, then drive down the motorway which is winding between the towns but mostly going the right direction, then take another big dogleg off + traffic, and finally I'm at my destination. I wouldn't be surprised if I'd driven the equivalent of 2-3 times the straight line distance. Normal efficiency calcs focus on the gallons part, a flying car would reduce the miles.
    - daveguy 10y ago
      That's a good point. Although the VTOL aspect is still very energy consumptive.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Or one could increase the density of where you live, and build a transit network. The metro also usually goes in straight lines.
- outworlder 10y ago
  > 1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain. Theoretically. That fact that standard commercial flights don't do that should be a red flag. Commercial flights follow pre-designated airways. Smaller aircraft in unregulated airspace aren't that constrained. But that's because there's too few of them.
uptown 10y ago
Cars and trucks are relegated to the 2d grid of streets. They consume an inordinate amount of space, and require that all travel occur in series down a road. When an accident occurs, this disrupts the flow of traffic down that path, and also frequently disrupts the flow of surrounding roads as drivers seek alternate routes around the problem. Roads wear down over time, and require maintenance to repair. Salt and chemicals placed on roads to melt ice and snow can have adverse impacts on the local water tables and have other negative ecological impacts. Air-travel doesn't have those same constraints. Travel could be more point-to-point. An accident by one or two aircraft doesn't need to inhibit the travel of all other crafts flying in the general vicinity. Air space, while regulated and crowded in some urban areas, is largely under-utilized and expansive. It's also not a space that is shared with foot traffic, so pedestrians could reclaim some of the space currently allocated to roads since the volume of vehicular traffic would likely drop. That's not to say that personal air travel doesn't introduce an entire set of new problems and challenges - it absolutely does, but there are many problems that cars and roads cause which air-travel avoids by-design. Think of air-travel in the context of this cartoon: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-pedestrian-a-roads-a-tiny-space-with-danger-just-beside/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-pedestri...
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major price premium for parking. Getting to work in 10 minutes instead of 30 is going to be attractive and that'll raise parking demand, but there's only going to be so much parking available. Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500+ a month flying car space. Its also worth mentioning that none of these proposed designs are vtol, so you'll need a real runway to land or take off. Worse, how do you leave the massive underground parking lot? Drive to the street then somewhere you can safely lift off? Now you have to wait to taxi to the proper runway or lift off zone or whatever these things will ultimately be allowed to use. Double worse, now we're less invested in solutions that actually work and don't require massive parking spaces like public trans via light rail, e-bikes, traditional bikes, etc. There's a reason why the personal plane never took off. I'm pretty bearish about the flying car concept, even if all the technical and regulatory issues are easily solved (hint: they wont be) there's still pricing and safety issues on top of the parking problem. Oh and 9/11 is fresh in everyone's minds. Can you imagine anyone approving these things flying near the skyscrapers we work in? I suspect that if that these things catch on, they'll be like the Concorde. A toy for rich people in a hurry but with so many strict regulations and limitations that it'll ultimately be infeasible in the long run. If Page and Google have shown anything, they're poor futurists outside of the information realm. When it comes to hardware, they're batting very poorly. They let Valve and Oculus take the VR crown, they let Musk take space tourism and electric cars, they let Jobs take the first mass market smartphone, let Amazon take the e-book crown, etc.
jessriedel 10y ago
You can go faster and in a straighter line, and -- given good communication between autonomous vehicles -- there is essentially no limit to traffic throughput. Also, you don't have to build as many roads, which are expensive and take up lots of valuable land.
- RankingMember 10y ago
  This is true at least until we become so overpopulated that we're living in Jetson's-style sky-houses.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Would that we have those problems :)
EA 10y ago
I work around dozens of pilots. Most of them used to own, co-own, share, or lease a plane. Only a few of them actually have a plane they could go fly right now. Maintenance, upkeep, costs, and regulations are obvious reasons why some would be deterred from owning and using a private plane. But most everyone of the pilots said, if you want to go to the beach, in general, the best way to get there is a 6 to 8-hour drive in a minivan. The faster you go in the plane, the faster you burn fuel, and the more likely you'll have to land to refuel. Even if you don't refuel, loading, landing, unpacking, and rental cars are all unpleasant time sucks at a small airport in a small plane which saves you maybe 2 or 3 hours on your commute.
- bmj 10y ago
  This squares with my experience. The folks I know that travel by small plane do so because they enjoy flying, not because it offers any real benefits over driving. These folks are also not lacking for disposable income.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    One quick look at the "estimated" price tags for the flying cars in the article - $280,000 & $400,000 as examples - should be enough to reveal how stupid the idea is at the core. For $400,000 I could get a decent shape used Beechcraft Bonanza and a 2 year old Corvette or BMW M-class sedan. Both of which would out-perform the Flying Car in either respect. Easily.
- base698 10y ago
  Mostly true. For me I go a lot of places that are a 2 hour plane ride followed by a 2 hour car ride. In those cases it's faster to just fly directly where I want to go, and avoid the car portion. Most places have smaller airports a lot closer to a rural destination. Of course, if you only go to larger cities, this is never an issue.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  Float plane. Tie up at your dock.
nix0n 10y ago
Larry Page has a lot of money, and a reputation for building the future. People will say, "Hey this smartphone is okay, but where's my flying car?"

What problems do flying cars solve? I know it looks cool but is there some huge thing that would get solved with this?

by rtpg 10y ago

What problems do flying cars solve? I know it looks cool but is there some huge thing that would get solved with this?

vintermann 10y ago

They can probably go in a straighter line to wherever they're headed.

eumoria 10y ago
Also being able to add layers atop one another as traffic increases.

adwf 10y ago

There are a number of potential issues they solve: 1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain. 2) Reduce congestion. How much fuel in a car is burnt in traffic? With flying cars, congestion will largely be a thing of the past, you have effectively unlimited road just by changing altitude. 3) Reduce urban sprawl. You can get rid of a lot of the roads that plaster the countryside. There will still need to be some obviously. But less. 4) Reduce national infrastructure costs. As above, you get rid of the roads, you don't need to maintain them anymore. 5) Convenience. You don't need a driveway or garage on your house when you can land on the roof ;) All in all there are quite a few decent reasons for it. Just depends on whether you can beat that efficiency level. It would be interesting to see if anyone has done calculations factoring in the cost savings from reducing sprawl and the miles of road that are maintained each year.

dekhn 10y ago
The efficiency argument doesn't work: moving up against gravity will always be more expensive.
- jonnycowboy 10y ago
  There are always tradeoffs... airplanes move more or less at a steady speed, and are much more aerodynamic than cars, which spent quite a bit of time stuck in traffic. Thus in many cases planes are more efficient than cars (despite needing to lift).
  - dekhn 10y ago
    Airplanes have to go faster than the stall speed. Stall speed is typically ~60mph or more, and air resistance goes up as the square of the speed (times the aerodynamc cross section). Airplanes aren't really that much more aerodynamic than modern cars.
- adwf 10y ago
  Not necessarily. If a car is twice as efficient, but has to travel three times as far because of the windy road system, the flying car will have it beat in a straight line.
  - knodi123 10y ago
    > travel three times as far because of the windy road system, Ironic choice of words. The winding road system adds distance to your commute, but a windy airspace adds air-miles to your commute. That is, a flying car doesn't travel through the same amount of air when going 1 ground mile in different directions.
    - adwf 10y ago
      Haha, completely unintentional. Very good point though. Personally I don't think flying cars will take off (ha, done it again...) for quite some time, if only for risk reasons. Think about just how many car accidents there are every day, now imagine every accident ending with a 100m death plunge from the sky. I just can't see it going mainstream for a long time.
  - dekhn 10y ago
    I think you'll need to adjust that from "three times", to "90 times" for the physics and math to work.
daveguy 10y ago
> 1) Efficiency. I expect it will always be more efficient to roll an object on wheels than to keep an object lifted under power and moving forward at the same time. Rolling friction is not very high. This and safety are major reasons we don't have flying cars today. Prop planes are in the sub 20 mpg range and jets are in the gallons per mile. >2) Reduce congestion I think that autonomous cars (on the ground) will solve this a lot faster than flying cars. > 3) Reduce urban sprawl. This is just incorrect. The roads are not what causes urban sprawl and the roads are not the only negative impact. Urban sprawl happened for two reasons: "white flight" and easy transportation. This does nothing for one and makes the other easier. > 4) Reduce national infrastructure costs. This would be a very long term benefit after ubiquity of flying cars:cars as cars:trains now. I don't think it will ever get there because of point 1). Personal flight consumes more energy than personal rolling. >5) convenience. True. Although houses would have to have heli landing pads installed making it more of a rich toy item. Not to mention noise. Also, autonomous rolling vehicles will solve this too. Is going to your roof more convenient than going to your driveway?
- adwf 10y ago
  You have to take into account more than just the pure physical efficiency of rolling cars vs. flying. There is the practical efficiency too. When I drive my car to work, I have to take a big dogleg out to the motorway, sit in traffic for 5 minutes to join, then drive down the motorway which is winding between the towns but mostly going the right direction, then take another big dogleg off + traffic, and finally I'm at my destination. I wouldn't be surprised if I'd driven the equivalent of 2-3 times the straight line distance. Normal efficiency calcs focus on the gallons part, a flying car would reduce the miles.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    That's a good point. Although the VTOL aspect is still very energy consumptive.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Or one could increase the density of where you live, and build a transit network. The metro also usually goes in straight lines.
outworlder 10y ago
> 1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain. Theoretically. That fact that standard commercial flights don't do that should be a red flag. Commercial flights follow pre-designated airways. Smaller aircraft in unregulated airspace aren't that constrained. But that's because there's too few of them.

uptown 10y ago

Cars and trucks are relegated to the 2d grid of streets. They consume an inordinate amount of space, and require that all travel occur in series down a road. When an accident occurs, this disrupts the flow of traffic down that path, and also frequently disrupts the flow of surrounding roads as drivers seek alternate routes around the problem. Roads wear down over time, and require maintenance to repair. Salt and chemicals placed on roads to melt ice and snow can have adverse impacts on the local water tables and have other negative ecological impacts. Air-travel doesn't have those same constraints. Travel could be more point-to-point. An accident by one or two aircraft doesn't need to inhibit the travel of all other crafts flying in the general vicinity. Air space, while regulated and crowded in some urban areas, is largely under-utilized and expansive. It's also not a space that is shared with foot traffic, so pedestrians could reclaim some of the space currently allocated to roads since the volume of vehicular traffic would likely drop. That's not to say that personal air travel doesn't introduce an entire set of new problems and challenges - it absolutely does, but there are many problems that cars and roads cause which air-travel avoids by-design. Think of air-travel in the context of this cartoon: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-pedestrian-a-roads-a-tiny-space-with-danger-just-beside/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-pedestri...

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major price premium for parking. Getting to work in 10 minutes instead of 30 is going to be attractive and that'll raise parking demand, but there's only going to be so much parking available. Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500+ a month flying car space. Its also worth mentioning that none of these proposed designs are vtol, so you'll need a real runway to land or take off. Worse, how do you leave the massive underground parking lot? Drive to the street then somewhere you can safely lift off? Now you have to wait to taxi to the proper runway or lift off zone or whatever these things will ultimately be allowed to use. Double worse, now we're less invested in solutions that actually work and don't require massive parking spaces like public trans via light rail, e-bikes, traditional bikes, etc. There's a reason why the personal plane never took off. I'm pretty bearish about the flying car concept, even if all the technical and regulatory issues are easily solved (hint: they wont be) there's still pricing and safety issues on top of the parking problem. Oh and 9/11 is fresh in everyone's minds. Can you imagine anyone approving these things flying near the skyscrapers we work in? I suspect that if that these things catch on, they'll be like the Concorde. A toy for rich people in a hurry but with so many strict regulations and limitations that it'll ultimately be infeasible in the long run. If Page and Google have shown anything, they're poor futurists outside of the information realm. When it comes to hardware, they're batting very poorly. They let Valve and Oculus take the VR crown, they let Musk take space tourism and electric cars, they let Jobs take the first mass market smartphone, let Amazon take the e-book crown, etc.

jessriedel 10y ago

You can go faster and in a straighter line, and -- given good communication between autonomous vehicles -- there is essentially no limit to traffic throughput. Also, you don't have to build as many roads, which are expensive and take up lots of valuable land.

RankingMember 10y ago
This is true at least until we become so overpopulated that we're living in Jetson's-style sky-houses.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Would that we have those problems :)

EA 10y ago

I work around dozens of pilots. Most of them used to own, co-own, share, or lease a plane. Only a few of them actually have a plane they could go fly right now. Maintenance, upkeep, costs, and regulations are obvious reasons why some would be deterred from owning and using a private plane. But most everyone of the pilots said, if you want to go to the beach, in general, the best way to get there is a 6 to 8-hour drive in a minivan. The faster you go in the plane, the faster you burn fuel, and the more likely you'll have to land to refuel. Even if you don't refuel, loading, landing, unpacking, and rental cars are all unpleasant time sucks at a small airport in a small plane which saves you maybe 2 or 3 hours on your commute.

bmj 10y ago
This squares with my experience. The folks I know that travel by small plane do so because they enjoy flying, not because it offers any real benefits over driving. These folks are also not lacking for disposable income.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  One quick look at the "estimated" price tags for the flying cars in the article - $280,000 & $400,000 as examples - should be enough to reveal how stupid the idea is at the core. For $400,000 I could get a decent shape used Beechcraft Bonanza and a 2 year old Corvette or BMW M-class sedan. Both of which would out-perform the Flying Car in either respect. Easily.
base698 10y ago
Mostly true. For me I go a lot of places that are a 2 hour plane ride followed by a 2 hour car ride. In those cases it's faster to just fly directly where I want to go, and avoid the car portion. Most places have smaller airports a lot closer to a rural destination. Of course, if you only go to larger cities, this is never an issue.
robotresearcher 10y ago
Float plane. Tie up at your dock.

nix0n 10y ago

Larry Page has a lot of money, and a reputation for building the future. People will say, "Hey this smartphone is okay, but where's my flying car?"