4 ms·

We've had a "flying car" for generations. It's called the helicopter. It was even able to land on top of Pan Am's headquarters in NYC. The problem, of course,

We've had a "flying car" for generations. It's called the helicopter. It was even able to land on top of Pan Am's headquarters in NYC. The problem, of course, is the high level of training required to operate such a vehicle, plus the cost of the vehicle itself. "Flying car" was never a technical impossibility. It was an economic challenge. "Flying cars" are 50-year long hype.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
... plus high maintenance costs, a short operational lifetime, limited redundancy, and poor crash worthiness. Otherwise, yeah, helicopters are great.
- asynchronous13 9y ago
  Short operational lifetime? What's your source on that. There's plenty of Bell 206's from the 70's that are still in operation, and that's just one random example. If 50 years is not adequate, what is? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_group=BELL+206+SERIES&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_... What is "limited redundancy"? Either it's redundant or it's single point failure. I don't know what that term means. Poor crash worthiness? Again, please explain. The American helicopter society published a report in 1994 detailing how the "new" crashworthiness requirements had improved survivability in helicopter accidents. Also noting how many fewer class a/b accidents were occurring due to other safety improvements. The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. I don't know where you got your impressions, but they are not accurate.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmiller2 9y ago
    > The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. Are you sure about that? I'm willing to bet that for each crashed vehicle, there are far fewer people on average on each helicopter than in the average airplane.
    - endymi0n 9y ago
      The number might be right but misleading in a way. Fixed wing commercial aircraft tend to have a LOT of passengers, while helicopters usually have just a handful of them. I‘d wager the factor on average load is about 50-100x – which is then also the rate at which fixed-wing aircraft crash less per operational hour. Crashes will just kill many more people, which skews the stats.
      - asynchronous13 9y ago
        No, it's the low passenger count airplanes that really drive the statistics. In 50 years, there's been 30 crashes of 747s that resulted in loss of life. They are crazy safe. As a comparison, there are more than 200 crashes of Cessna 172 aircraft each year. In 2013 there were more than 1200 small plane crashes resulting in 350+ deaths, but zero large commercial aircraft accidents (in 2009, a 50-passenger plane crashed killing all onboard. There were no 50+ person crashes from 2009-2013) So yes, large scale aircraft are crazy safe and crash less. But small scale airplanes are worse than helicopters.
    - asynchronous13 9y ago
      That was the data as of 2009. Helicopters do crash more frequently than airplanes (on the order of 30% more crashes per flight hour). Part of that is due to how and when helicopters are used. Flying next to 500,000 Volt power lines is dangerous. When the coast gaurd is plucking someone out of the ocean, they use a helicopter, not an airplane. And people don't fall off boats when the weather is nice. There are no helicopters comparable to a 747 as far as passenger count goes. So from that perspective you're right. But a 747 is also crazy safe and barely contributes to the average accident rate. The small 2-10 seat airplanes are the ones that crash a lot, like 10x more than the average of all aircraft (including helicopters). you're more likely to survive a helicopter crash than a Cessna crash.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
There is a whole new generation of light aircraft that, given new technology, require minimal training, I would guess this is what this new wave of flying cars are based off.
asynchronous13 9y ago
High level of training is no longer required. Anyone can use a PS2 joystick to fly ours: https://youtu.be/b7SjOOuTct0 https://youtu.be/b7SjOOuTct0 You're right of course, that the economic challenge still exists. This one burns about $100/hr worth of fuel, and there's other maintenance costs on top of that.
- scottie_m 9y ago
  The real issue is that if you did solve those problems you’d be left with the truth that we don’t want thousands of noisy “flying cars” buzzing around, polluting, and occasionally falling on our heads. Flying cars don’t scale. If you took a significant percentage of ground traffic into the sky, it would be an absolute nightmare.
- hammock 9y ago
  That's not much more than an Uber Black to be honest...

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

... plus high maintenance costs, a short operational lifetime, limited redundancy, and poor crash worthiness. Otherwise, yeah, helicopters are great.

asynchronous13 9y ago
Short operational lifetime? What's your source on that. There's plenty of Bell 206's from the 70's that are still in operation, and that's just one random example. If 50 years is not adequate, what is? https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_group=BELL+206+SERIES&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?make=BELL&model_... What is "limited redundancy"? Either it's redundant or it's single point failure. I don't know what that term means. Poor crash worthiness? Again, please explain. The American helicopter society published a report in 1994 detailing how the "new" crashworthiness requirements had improved survivability in helicopter accidents. Also noting how many fewer class a/b accidents were occurring due to other safety improvements. The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. I don't know where you got your impressions, but they are not accurate.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pmiller2 9y ago
  > The fatality rate for helicopters is 1.3 deaths per 100,000 operational hours, compared to 1.4 deaths per 100,000 operational hours for fixed-wing aircraft. A person is more likely to survive a helicopter crash than an airplane crash. Are you sure about that? I'm willing to bet that for each crashed vehicle, there are far fewer people on average on each helicopter than in the average airplane.
  - endymi0n 9y ago
    The number might be right but misleading in a way. Fixed wing commercial aircraft tend to have a LOT of passengers, while helicopters usually have just a handful of them. I‘d wager the factor on average load is about 50-100x – which is then also the rate at which fixed-wing aircraft crash less per operational hour. Crashes will just kill many more people, which skews the stats.
    - asynchronous13 9y ago
      No, it's the low passenger count airplanes that really drive the statistics. In 50 years, there's been 30 crashes of 747s that resulted in loss of life. They are crazy safe. As a comparison, there are more than 200 crashes of Cessna 172 aircraft each year. In 2013 there were more than 1200 small plane crashes resulting in 350+ deaths, but zero large commercial aircraft accidents (in 2009, a 50-passenger plane crashed killing all onboard. There were no 50+ person crashes from 2009-2013) So yes, large scale aircraft are crazy safe and crash less. But small scale airplanes are worse than helicopters.
  - asynchronous13 9y ago
    That was the data as of 2009. Helicopters do crash more frequently than airplanes (on the order of 30% more crashes per flight hour). Part of that is due to how and when helicopters are used. Flying next to 500,000 Volt power lines is dangerous. When the coast gaurd is plucking someone out of the ocean, they use a helicopter, not an airplane. And people don't fall off boats when the weather is nice. There are no helicopters comparable to a 747 as far as passenger count goes. So from that perspective you're right. But a 747 is also crazy safe and barely contributes to the average accident rate. The small 2-10 seat airplanes are the ones that crash a lot, like 10x more than the average of all aircraft (including helicopters). you're more likely to survive a helicopter crash than a Cessna crash.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

There is a whole new generation of light aircraft that, given new technology, require minimal training, I would guess this is what this new wave of flying cars are based off.

asynchronous13 9y ago

High level of training is no longer required. Anyone can use a PS2 joystick to fly ours: https://youtu.be/b7SjOOuTct0 https://youtu.be/b7SjOOuTct0 You're right of course, that the economic challenge still exists. This one burns about $100/hr worth of fuel, and there's other maintenance costs on top of that.

scottie_m 9y ago
The real issue is that if you did solve those problems you’d be left with the truth that we don’t want thousands of noisy “flying cars” buzzing around, polluting, and occasionally falling on our heads. Flying cars don’t scale. If you took a significant percentage of ground traffic into the sky, it would be an absolute nightmare.
hammock 9y ago
That's not much more than an Uber Black to be honest...