8 ms·
Kitty Hawk is accepting waiting-list signups for its electric personal aircraft
- phreeza 10y agoI would call this a 'novel flying contraption', or maybe a 'flying jetski' as the article calls it. Not a flying car.
- elmar 10y agothey call it "flying car" because technically could replace the "car functionality" on this case more a "motorcycle functionality" with an aerial vehicle. Probably should be called flying motorcycle but on a marketing level doesn't have the same impact.
- JKCalhoun 10y agoIf by car functionality, you mean those 5 minutes trips you take in the car ... to the corner grocery store? (At least this is what I understand the range to be.)
- elmar 10y agothe range is expected to double every 10 years so in a couple of decades you will have similar range to cars :)
- JKCalhoun 10y agoAre we talking about battery technology leading to that range doubling? Because I was under the impression that energy densities of our current battery technology were already pushing the limits. To double the range I suspect you need to quadruple the energy density. Sounds like the making of a bomb. :/
- elmar 10y agoyes, battery power to weight ratio is the factor that increases range, you are correct current technology is on is limit, the increase on range is based on speculation that new chemistries will evolve in the future.
- scld 10y agoUnless absolutely necessary, putting drive motor mechanisms and flying mechanisms on the same package is a waste of efficiency. Why have your engine pull the extra weight of your propellers...and why have your propellers lift a drivetrain? I get your point that "flying car" may be a tad misleading, but my guess is that they made this first iteration a "water vehicle" to get around the majority of regulations while still getting a product into the field to test and (perhaps) make some money while they're at it.
- CamelCaseName 10y agoRegulations could be one reason. Perhaps you can for your car over bodies of water, but not over land. Since it is impractical, and even less efficient, to have three vehicles (car on each side + a plane) then a flying car is better. You may be right technically, but there are practical reasons why flying cars may not travel over land for a very long time. I suspect noise is one of those reasons, it's why planes are limited to certain speeds despite being able to travel faster at higher efficiencies. It would be a great disturbance to the residents living below.
- Luuseens 10y agoIt's not really a car if you can't drive it.
- agumonkey 10y agoWith foldable "wings" it would have such a strong Star Wars vibe. ps: lakehawk
- elmar 10y agoI am working on a Startup with a similar aproach but using a fixed wing vehicle. I speculate the kitty hawk vehicle will have 10-15 minutes airtime and will cost around $100k
- falcolas 10y agoThere is an interesting correlation between multirotors and 15 minute flying times. It always seems to take an abnormally large battery pack (and correspondingly less payload) to get to 20 or 30 minutes.
- elmar 10y agoyou are correct, bleeding edge tech small drones do 25 minutes if you do a large drone capable of people transport you can do 25 minutes empty when you put a passenger inside you get 15 minutes.
- RandyRanderson 10y ago* 15min flight time * I'd estimate 5 miles range * if you roll it into the water and any part of the battery is exposed you'll be electrocuted and likely drown. Fixed wing is the only way to go for efficiency and I can't imagine anything other that a hybrid having more than 45minutes flight time @ <40knots. It's deffo possible to make a high lift, low speed fixed wing that has a short takeoff/landing requirement. There are elec ultralights that do this today. This whole obsession with elec/'coter design baffles me - even with the most optimistic math assumptions it is a terrible product.
- mlpinit 10y agoIf you like this you might also like Lilium. https://lilium.com/ https://lilium.com/
- elmar 10y agoplease disregard Lilium it's simply an hoverhyped marketing company. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14167870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14167870
- kumarvvr 10y agoWhat is the range on this thing? Also, at this point of time, maybe we can engineer good specs and good price into the product, but we cannot overcome human factors. - Riding in strong winds. - Loss of control over populous areas. - Higher risk of crime in a vehicle that has no boundaries like roads and dividers. The most likely solution is to make a cloud connected one which refuses to fly in or into bad weather, automatically lands during emergencies etc. But then that will necessitate some sort of remote control over the vehicle, leading to a host of other issues related to lack of privacy.
- elmar 10y agocurrent range of prototype should be 5 minutes empty.
- FabHK 10y agoOr the Volocopter, an 18-rotor "drone" that did its first manned flight March 2016. http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/ http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/ (Disclaimer: I have crowd-funded invested a modicum in it)
- elmar 10y agothe volocopter is a very cool project the problem is that will need a new legal framework kitty works on current part 103 regulation. Also I don't belive the volocopter will work for 2 passengers at least in the next 10 years.
- ithinkinstereo 10y agoSo in the next 8 months? Seems like Google has an interesting pipeline of novel new products, but I wonder if any this will ever see the light of day, let alone by the end of the year. I wonder why Google is doing all this pre-launch marketing hype. Usually this is the playbook that startups use to hype up VCs for funding rounds. Maybe just for PR and branding? Reminds me of UBeam's "we plan on launching publicly this year!" (said in 2015, 2016, and now 2017)
- maxerickson 10y agoNo price, no information about how long the battery lasts. https://kittyhawk.aero/faq/ https://kittyhawk.aero/faq/ I expect it will barely be a product when it launches, certainly not one with wide appeal.
- elmar 10y agoam working on a Startup with a similar aproach but using a fixed wing vehicle. I speculate the kitty hawk vehicle will have 10-15 minutes airtime and will cost around $100k. It will appeal to a very niche market of deep pocket hobbyists.
- turc1656 10y agoYup. The site's FAQ page says that while you don't require a pilot's license, it is designed to be flown over freshwater in non-congested areas. That's pretty limiting. There goes my dream of commuting to work like a boss in half the time.
- elmar 10y agothis is only to avoid problems with the FAA, "non-congested areas" it's a fluid concept that basicly can mean whatever the FAA needs it to be. You can try your luck and fly around with this thing as you would with any other ultralight. a good post on the subject http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5261-Part-103-quot-congested-quot-amp-Part-91/page2 http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5261-Part-103-quot-conge...
- lazyjones 10y agoLooks like a silly contraption to me, far too slow to replace a car (and earn the misleading article title). I'd find a hybrid quadcopter / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle project more worthwhile. Take off and land like a quadcopter, then fly fast and efficiently using the ground effect. Compensate for uneven ground with the down facing rotors... What does the Kitty Hawk compete with? - small helicopters cost $XX.XXX and have been available for many years. Proven technology, though unsafe. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_Aviation_XE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_Aviation_XE - small airplanes for the crazy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLgR3Ipo-Ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLgR3Ipo-Ng - flying cars that can actually drive on the road? https://www.aeromobil.com/flying-car/ https://www.aeromobil.com/flying-car/ It looks like a toy in comparison, to be operated by quadcopter enthusiasts for 5 minutes ... Perhaps they should call it "flying golf cart"?
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoNot looking forward to a bunch of people trying to fly these around. Also, not looking forward to the headlines about disputes[0] about airspace over people's property. Edit: clarification [0] Dude with a shotgun vs dude on a flying "car".
- giarc 10y agoPeople couldn't handle hoverboards without crashing, now we are going to add another axis to the mix... watch out.
- 11thEarlOfMar 10y agoRE: electric flying things... Is battery energy more efficient with air speed lift from a wing, like traditional aircraft, or from air suspension, like a helicopter? Does the mass/energy of a gasoline power train (including fuel & motor) exceed an electric power train? I guess I'm wondering about the viability of electric power for flight at all. Drones are useful for some applications with light payloads and conducive environments, but when you need to lift a substantial payload, like me, isn't battery just too little power density?
- mcculley 10y agoMy understanding is that electric motors are necessary because they can change speed faster than an internal combustion driven motor in order to maintain balance. What I don't understand is why we don't see more drones or similar flying machines using a small gasoline generator driving electric propellers to get high energy density combined with maneuverability.
- MadManE 10y agoThe issue, as I understand it, is all about weight. Putting two different power systems on board takes away all of the benefits of using one or the other exclusively.
- RealityVoid 10y agoI would expect to be a scaling point past which choosing gasoline over batteries becomes more efficient. Maybe common electric flying vehicles have not reached that size point yet.
- usrusr 10y agoI think that it is not a size point but an endurance point. A camera drone can be useful even with just five minutes on a single battery pack (your audience might actually be grateful if those overhead takes are less endless ;)). But a big commercial liner that has to be in final approach after only five minutes in the air would be very, very pointless.
- hdhzy 10y agoPaying now $100 will get you a discount of $2000... But since the total price is unknown this seems...dubious.
- avryhof 10y agoOf course it won't get me to work faster. I live on the opposite side of the airport from work, so I'll always have to go around.
- hajile 10y agoIf I'm going to be going to be flown around by a quadrocopter, I think I'd prefer this more laid back approach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPC8qElrG-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPC8qElrG-I
- coldcode 10y agoLooking forward to seeing flying car crashes. Lookout below! Seriously how do you avoid killing people innocently underneath one of these when it fails? Build "roads" in the sky like in Back To The Future?
- BerislavLopac 10y agoWhat about Lilium? https://lilium.com/ https://lilium.com/
- elmar 10y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14183749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14183749
- BerislavLopac 10y agoThanks!
- lutusp 10y agoMany readers of the linked article won't understand the meaning of "ground effect" and what role it plays in the video. It's possible to create a demonstration flying craft that can't ascend above the ground effect regime, but still create an impressive video. In short, if the video had shown ascent to an altitude of, say, 100 feet, I would be much more impressed.
- nradov 10y agoRegardless of ground effect lift, 100ft altitude is well into the "dead zone" for vehicles like this. Too high to survive a crash and too low to use a parachute.
- dang 10y agoWe changed the URL from http://uk.businessinsider.com/larry-pages-flying-car-startup-kittyhawk-has-launched-2017-4 http://uk.businessinsider.com/larry-pages-flying-car-startup....
- dTal 10y ago>electric Hard problem. >personal aircraft Much harder problem, if by that they mean "flyable without a pilot's license". You need to tackle reliability, then AI on the order of self-driving cars, then regulators, then infrastructure. Even Tesla is having a hard time making a slightly different kind of car. Why tackle all the hard problems at once? Why not make a self-landing helicopter, or a "normal" electric aircraft (like Tesla but for planes), or a reliable and cheap (!) experimental VTOL craft? I can't help but think that the only reason to do it this way is because you're selling sizzle, not steak.