4 ms·

>We still don’t have flying cars Why does no one consider a helicopter to be a "flying car"? What can a flying car do that a helicopter can't? The only differe

>We still don’t have flying cars Why does no one consider a helicopter to be a "flying car"? What can a flying car do that a helicopter can't? The only difference I see is that a flying car would be cheaper and owned by more people, which a helicopter could easily be if people actually wanted a flying car. Helicopters are expensive because they're very niche devices. The fact that almost no one owns a helicopter proves that people don't actually want flying cars.

mannykannot 8y ago
Helicopters do not, in fact, do what people want flying cars to do. The fact that the masses are not using helicopters to go to the mall shows this, and by reflecting on what would happen if this were tried, you can figure out why helicopters are not flying cars.
- freehunter 8y ago
  But that doesn't answer the question of "what do people want to do with flying cars that can't be done with a helicopter"... it only answers the question "are people using helicopters as flying cars". You're making an extremely false assumption that "because people aren't using helicopters, that means helicopters aren't flying cars, and we all know people want flying cars". Extremely faulty. Let's beg the question and assume people want to go to the mall with their flying car, that's their primary use case. They can't do this right now because there are no parking spaces at the mall for their helicopter. There are no parking spaces for their helicopter because no one is flying to the mall with their helicopter. If people did, the mall would build parking for them. This is shown by the fact that places where people regularly fly helicopters, there is dedicated helicopter parking. It's just as valid for me to say "the fact that helicopters exist but are uncommon proves people don't want flying cars" as it is for you to say "helicopters are not flying cars". I'll ask the question again: why do people not consider helicopters to be flying cars? They do exactly what people want a flying car to do: they take off and land vertically, they can fit in a reasonably sized parking space, they can easily maneuver in three dimensions, and they hold passengers and cargo. I argue that helicopters are flying cars, and they're proof that most people don't actually want flying cars.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    Saying 'extremely' twice, and in italics, does not make a point more correct. Nor does repeating a faulty argument, even if not in italics. I will leave it for someone who knows a thing or two about the realities of owning and operating helicopters to decide for herself whether helicopters match up to peoples' imagination of what a flying car would be. I was apparently mistaken in thinking that, on reflection, you would figure it out for yourself.
    - freehunter 8y ago
      Conversely, when someone writes out an argument with ideas and thoughts behind it and you come in and say "nah you're wrong", that doesn't actually make the argument wrong. And then when you're presented with more supporting arguments and you just say "I know you're wrong, but I have no arguments to actually prove you wrong", that still doesn't actually prove my argument wrong. All you've done is said "nah bro", and when challenged, you then insulted my intelligence while admitting you have no actual argument against me. All you seem to be able to argue against is my argument style and then later my intelligence, which is not an argument against my opinion at all. I'm really disappointed here, I wanted an actual conversation about why helicopters are not considered flying cars and all I get is someone saying "they're not because I said they're not". Please, please actually argue against my points or don't argue at all. Insulting me is not an argument.
hodgesrm 8y ago
Helicopters are complex machines that require lots of maintenance and significant training to fly safely. It's hard to see how you would reduce even the maintenance costs enough to make them practical for universal use. To your second point, people with enough money and training do commonly buy them for personal use. (I know this anecdotally from a relative involved in sales of Airbus helicopters.) If you addressed the cost and safety issues no doubt more people would buy them.
- freehunter 8y ago
  >Helicopters are complex machines that require lots of maintenance and significant training to fly safely. So did cars when they were first introduced. Since they solved a need, there was a great incentive to make them easier to use and easier to repair. That incentive doesn't exist for helicopters because most people don't own helicopters. >To your second point, people with enough money and training do commonly buy them for personal use. I'm glad you pointed this out, I didn't make that argument because it would ruin the surprise, but yeah. People do use flying cars, and they're called helicopters. They're just used by very rich people or people with enough training to operate them. But think in cities like NYC, helicopters are used just like cars would be, because using a car can be unpractical. Functionally there is no difference between Michael Bloomberg traveling to Newark via a limo versus via a helicopter: both park at his building and can transport him from his home to his destination. It's a flying car. >If you addressed the cost and safety issues no doubt more people would buy them. The incentive to improve cost and safety only exists if demand exists. Cars only got cheaper and safer when the public began buying them. Flying cars (helicopters) will only become safer and cheaper if people start demanding them as well. The fact that they're not, IMO, proves people don't actually want flying cars.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    There is plenty of incentive to make helicopters cheaper to own and operate, have simpler and less frequent maintenance requirements, to be easier to fly, require less space to take off and land, be quieter and safer. It hasn't happened so far because these are genuinely difficult problems, not because of lack of incentive. No one in NYC, not even Bloomberg, is landing, let alone parking, his helicopter at his office. It is completely impractical in terms of safety, space and noise, even if it were just one person doing it, and absurdly infeasible to think it could be scaled up to, say, just the number of people using the Lincoln tunnel in any given half-hour. There are a few helipads around the edges of the city (a number that is likely to decrease on account of noise), that cater to some of the transportation needs of a number of people that can be counted in the hundreds per day, not hundreds of thousands. The idea that if there is a wish, a solution would have been found by now, does not stand up to the most cursory examination - for one thing, if it were so, not many people would be dying.

mannykannot 8y ago

Helicopters do not, in fact, do what people want flying cars to do. The fact that the masses are not using helicopters to go to the mall shows this, and by reflecting on what would happen if this were tried, you can figure out why helicopters are not flying cars.

freehunter 8y ago
But that doesn't answer the question of "what do people want to do with flying cars that can't be done with a helicopter"... it only answers the question "are people using helicopters as flying cars". You're making an extremely false assumption that "because people aren't using helicopters, that means helicopters aren't flying cars, and we all know people want flying cars". Extremely faulty. Let's beg the question and assume people want to go to the mall with their flying car, that's their primary use case. They can't do this right now because there are no parking spaces at the mall for their helicopter. There are no parking spaces for their helicopter because no one is flying to the mall with their helicopter. If people did, the mall would build parking for them. This is shown by the fact that places where people regularly fly helicopters, there is dedicated helicopter parking. It's just as valid for me to say "the fact that helicopters exist but are uncommon proves people don't want flying cars" as it is for you to say "helicopters are not flying cars". I'll ask the question again: why do people not consider helicopters to be flying cars? They do exactly what people want a flying car to do: they take off and land vertically, they can fit in a reasonably sized parking space, they can easily maneuver in three dimensions, and they hold passengers and cargo. I argue that helicopters are flying cars, and they're proof that most people don't actually want flying cars.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  Saying 'extremely' twice, and in italics, does not make a point more correct. Nor does repeating a faulty argument, even if not in italics. I will leave it for someone who knows a thing or two about the realities of owning and operating helicopters to decide for herself whether helicopters match up to peoples' imagination of what a flying car would be. I was apparently mistaken in thinking that, on reflection, you would figure it out for yourself.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    Conversely, when someone writes out an argument with ideas and thoughts behind it and you come in and say "nah you're wrong", that doesn't actually make the argument wrong. And then when you're presented with more supporting arguments and you just say "I know you're wrong, but I have no arguments to actually prove you wrong", that still doesn't actually prove my argument wrong. All you've done is said "nah bro", and when challenged, you then insulted my intelligence while admitting you have no actual argument against me. All you seem to be able to argue against is my argument style and then later my intelligence, which is not an argument against my opinion at all. I'm really disappointed here, I wanted an actual conversation about why helicopters are not considered flying cars and all I get is someone saying "they're not because I said they're not". Please, please actually argue against my points or don't argue at all. Insulting me is not an argument.

hodgesrm 8y ago

Helicopters are complex machines that require lots of maintenance and significant training to fly safely. It's hard to see how you would reduce even the maintenance costs enough to make them practical for universal use. To your second point, people with enough money and training do commonly buy them for personal use. (I know this anecdotally from a relative involved in sales of Airbus helicopters.) If you addressed the cost and safety issues no doubt more people would buy them.

freehunter 8y ago
>Helicopters are complex machines that require lots of maintenance and significant training to fly safely. So did cars when they were first introduced. Since they solved a need, there was a great incentive to make them easier to use and easier to repair. That incentive doesn't exist for helicopters because most people don't own helicopters. >To your second point, people with enough money and training do commonly buy them for personal use. I'm glad you pointed this out, I didn't make that argument because it would ruin the surprise, but yeah. People do use flying cars, and they're called helicopters. They're just used by very rich people or people with enough training to operate them. But think in cities like NYC, helicopters are used just like cars would be, because using a car can be unpractical. Functionally there is no difference between Michael Bloomberg traveling to Newark via a limo versus via a helicopter: both park at his building and can transport him from his home to his destination. It's a flying car. >If you addressed the cost and safety issues no doubt more people would buy them. The incentive to improve cost and safety only exists if demand exists. Cars only got cheaper and safer when the public began buying them. Flying cars (helicopters) will only become safer and cheaper if people start demanding them as well. The fact that they're not, IMO, proves people don't actually want flying cars.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  There is plenty of incentive to make helicopters cheaper to own and operate, have simpler and less frequent maintenance requirements, to be easier to fly, require less space to take off and land, be quieter and safer. It hasn't happened so far because these are genuinely difficult problems, not because of lack of incentive. No one in NYC, not even Bloomberg, is landing, let alone parking, his helicopter at his office. It is completely impractical in terms of safety, space and noise, even if it were just one person doing it, and absurdly infeasible to think it could be scaled up to, say, just the number of people using the Lincoln tunnel in any given half-hour. There are a few helipads around the edges of the city (a number that is likely to decrease on account of noise), that cater to some of the transportation needs of a number of people that can be counted in the hundreds per day, not hundreds of thousands. The idea that if there is a wish, a solution would have been found by now, does not stand up to the most cursory examination - for one thing, if it were so, not many people would be dying.