5 ms·

A) That's the bastard lovechild of a quadcopter and a plane B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? C) What is that tiny propeller on the back for?

A) That's the bastard lovechild of a quadcopter and a plane B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? C) What is that tiny propeller on the back for? I would assume a quadcopter design would propel forward via tilting, the way any normal quadcopter would...do the 4 propellers just _lift_ it? D) In what world would this thing not require like 3 different complex flight licenses just to be allowed to fly, let alone use in an urban environment?

lostgame 8y ago
>> B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? Huh. I never considered that a basic requirement for a flying car is that it, well, would also be a land car.
- bussierem 8y ago
  I mean, if it's a "flying car" without wheels, and therefore needs either a landing pad or landing strip, then how is it a "car" and not either a "plane", "drone", or "helicopter" instead?
  - pavelrub 8y ago
    It's not a "car" - it's a flying car, and therefore doesn't need neither wheels nor roads. It can indeed also be type of an airplane or a helicopter - those descriptions aren't conflicting. I don't really understand the source of your confusion - are you equally perplexed that pineapples aren't actually apples, and sweet potatoes aren't real potatoes?
- drinfinity 8y ago
  It should not be held to such high standards, young padawan. Rather, embrace the new unfolding technologies and revel in them. It is a flying something, but that does not sound cool. Cars _are_ cool, so we call it flying car. I'm personally working on a concept called the driving airplane. It cannot fly, but it will drive.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    > the driving airplane. It cannot fly, but it will drive. When can I invest?
jessriedel 8y ago
> It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? To play devil's advocate: it's a flying car in the sense of "a small enclosed powered vehicle that takes a few passengers from A to B without a guide track, only it flies instead of drives" not "a normal car that can also fly". Just like "electronic books" replicate the basic functionality of (traditional) books, but don't use the same methods.
- seren 8y ago
  It is a helicopter then. Unless it is significantly cheaper to operate or quieter, I don't understand the benefits of these new vehicles/ form factor. Maybe the hope is that cities will not regulate them, but I am not sure why they would. Please enlighten me if there something else obvious I missed. If both Boeing and Airbus are working on it, there must be something else.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - glenneroo 8y ago
    They use electricity, so cheaper is highly likely. Also 50 mile (80 km) range is pretty short, so very short-haul... probably initially good for VIPs who just want to avoid big city traffic. Also it looks somewhat smaller and lighter than a regular helicopter, so perhaps it could land in places where helicopters aren't normally allowed?
  - simonrobb 8y ago
    AFAIK they are intended to be quieter, cheaper, and safer. The same story as electric vehicles - fewer moving parts means lower maintenance costs, but particularly important when talking about air vehicles is that it also means fewer things which can break during flight. Helicopters are nasty dangerous, largely because they’re maintenance heavy and there’s little redundancy. “Drones” could address both of these. Also much easier to fly I imagine. The Uber Elevate white paper probably has a lot more info: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/ https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/
rbanffy 8y ago
> B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? "Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."
jandrese 8y ago
The grand plan for these human size quadcopters is that they will be fully autonomous so no license will be required to operate one. You wouldn't even own it, you would hail it with an app and it would fly you to the destination you gave it in the app. They wouldn't even have controls on the inside, except for possibly an emergency stop button (which would tell the computer to set it down at the nearest viable landing pad). The propeller at the back is for forward motion, presumably because it's less comfortable for human passengers to travel at a 60 degree forward tilt).
Zanni 8y ago
I don't need wheels on my flying car--it can fly. I would expect it to be car-sized though. At 30'x28', this thing takes up eight standard parking spaces ...
- MrZongle2 8y ago
  A counterpoint: there may be areas where you cannot fly a flying car, but you could drive one. Areas near airports or military installations, mountainous areas that have strong updrafts/downdrafts but decent roads and tunnels, narrow streets or areas with a lot of overhead power lines. To me, "car" implies still being able to enter those areas like other people with traditional automobiles.
ncbrit 8y ago
Boeing calls it an autonomous passenger air vehicle. Bloomberg calls it a flying car.
chinathrow 8y ago
There's even more coming in the same category for urban transportation: Bell is building their Nexus. https://www.bellflight.com/company/innovation/nexus https://www.bellflight.com/company/innovation/nexus
kawfey 8y ago
A.) True. B.) News outlets are sensational. This is an aircraft, but people equate the future to flying "cars." Also, pedantically speaking, car doesn't have to mean automobile. Car comes from carriage, which was drawn by a horse. By your logic a car should require a horse too, right? :o) C.) This is a vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) fixed-wing aircraft. The outboard rotors provide vertical lift during takeoff and landing (so yes they are designed to just _lift_ it), but in flight the rear rotor provides forward thrust while the wings provide vertical lift. I assume the outboard rotors will be seized during cruising speeds, or spinning to provide extra lift assuming the fixed wings are not designed to carry the weight of the aircraft themselves during cruise. D.) If this were to be flown today, it would likely not meet existing civil regulations. Experimental registration and certification aside, there isn't anything like it that isn't military (i.e. the V-22 Osprey) and I don't know of anything that has both VTOL and fixed wing certification. But as you'd expect, part of this effort is to work with the FAA/ICAO to define regulation. It will probably require a single pilot license with perhaps a "VTOL fixed wing" endorsement, exhaustive training will be required, and will probably be allowed to land and anywhere a helicopter can land but be vectored as if it were a fixed wing.

lostgame 8y ago

>> B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? Huh. I never considered that a basic requirement for a flying car is that it, well, would also be a land car.

bussierem 8y ago
I mean, if it's a "flying car" without wheels, and therefore needs either a landing pad or landing strip, then how is it a "car" and not either a "plane", "drone", or "helicopter" instead?
- pavelrub 8y ago
  It's not a "car" - it's a flying car, and therefore doesn't need neither wheels nor roads. It can indeed also be type of an airplane or a helicopter - those descriptions aren't conflicting. I don't really understand the source of your confusion - are you equally perplexed that pineapples aren't actually apples, and sweet potatoes aren't real potatoes?
drinfinity 8y ago
It should not be held to such high standards, young padawan. Rather, embrace the new unfolding technologies and revel in them. It is a flying something, but that does not sound cool. Cars _are_ cool, so we call it flying car. I'm personally working on a concept called the driving airplane. It cannot fly, but it will drive.
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
  > the driving airplane. It cannot fly, but it will drive. When can I invest?

jessriedel 8y ago

> It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? To play devil's advocate: it's a flying car in the sense of "a small enclosed powered vehicle that takes a few passengers from A to B without a guide track, only it flies instead of drives" not "a normal car that can also fly". Just like "electronic books" replicate the basic functionality of (traditional) books, but don't use the same methods.

seren 8y ago
It is a helicopter then. Unless it is significantly cheaper to operate or quieter, I don't understand the benefits of these new vehicles/ form factor. Maybe the hope is that cities will not regulate them, but I am not sure why they would. Please enlighten me if there something else obvious I missed. If both Boeing and Airbus are working on it, there must be something else.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- glenneroo 8y ago
  They use electricity, so cheaper is highly likely. Also 50 mile (80 km) range is pretty short, so very short-haul... probably initially good for VIPs who just want to avoid big city traffic. Also it looks somewhat smaller and lighter than a regular helicopter, so perhaps it could land in places where helicopters aren't normally allowed?
- simonrobb 8y ago
  AFAIK they are intended to be quieter, cheaper, and safer. The same story as electric vehicles - fewer moving parts means lower maintenance costs, but particularly important when talking about air vehicles is that it also means fewer things which can break during flight. Helicopters are nasty dangerous, largely because they’re maintenance heavy and there’s little redundancy. “Drones” could address both of these. Also much easier to fly I imagine. The Uber Elevate white paper probably has a lot more info: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/ https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/

rbanffy 8y ago

> B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car? "Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."

jandrese 8y ago

The grand plan for these human size quadcopters is that they will be fully autonomous so no license will be required to operate one. You wouldn't even own it, you would hail it with an app and it would fly you to the destination you gave it in the app. They wouldn't even have controls on the inside, except for possibly an emergency stop button (which would tell the computer to set it down at the nearest viable landing pad). The propeller at the back is for forward motion, presumably because it's less comfortable for human passengers to travel at a 60 degree forward tilt).

Zanni 8y ago

I don't need wheels on my flying car--it can fly. I would expect it to be car-sized though. At 30'x28', this thing takes up eight standard parking spaces ...

MrZongle2 8y ago
A counterpoint: there may be areas where you cannot fly a flying car, but you could drive one. Areas near airports or military installations, mountainous areas that have strong updrafts/downdrafts but decent roads and tunnels, narrow streets or areas with a lot of overhead power lines. To me, "car" implies still being able to enter those areas like other people with traditional automobiles.

ncbrit 8y ago

Boeing calls it an autonomous passenger air vehicle. Bloomberg calls it a flying car.

chinathrow 8y ago

There's even more coming in the same category for urban transportation: Bell is building their Nexus. https://www.bellflight.com/company/innovation/nexus https://www.bellflight.com/company/innovation/nexus

kawfey 8y ago

A.) True. B.) News outlets are sensational. This is an aircraft, but people equate the future to flying "cars." Also, pedantically speaking, car doesn't have to mean automobile. Car comes from carriage, which was drawn by a horse. By your logic a car should require a horse too, right? :o) C.) This is a vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) fixed-wing aircraft. The outboard rotors provide vertical lift during takeoff and landing (so yes they are designed to just _lift_ it), but in flight the rear rotor provides forward thrust while the wings provide vertical lift. I assume the outboard rotors will be seized during cruising speeds, or spinning to provide extra lift assuming the fixed wings are not designed to carry the weight of the aircraft themselves during cruise. D.) If this were to be flown today, it would likely not meet existing civil regulations. Experimental registration and certification aside, there isn't anything like it that isn't military (i.e. the V-22 Osprey) and I don't know of anything that has both VTOL and fixed wing certification. But as you'd expect, part of this effort is to work with the FAA/ICAO to define regulation. It will probably require a single pilot license with perhaps a "VTOL fixed wing" endorsement, exhaustive training will be required, and will probably be allowed to land and anywhere a helicopter can land but be vectored as if it were a fixed wing.