Good Egg Productions wrote:
All of the things that can go wrong in a car, plus all the things that can go wrong with a plane.

I'm perfectly ok with the reality that we will never have personal aircraft.  There is simply no reason to have a car that transforms into a plane and back again.  You basically have a really small plane that the wings fold back so that you have a really terrible car.

The more likely reality is that automobiles will get more and more efficient, and they will become driverless.  So, instead of this fantasy of combining the car and the plane, let's start the fantasy of combining the car and the high speed rail.  We're almost there already.

The argument is that we don't want to give up control to a computer when our lives are at risk.  Heh.. You do that now if you ride a subway or a commercial airliner.  Sure, there's someone there for emergencies.  Then again, YOU are in the car and can override control.  But then you don't get to drive in the fast lanes if you're controlling the car.

Once all cars are on the grid and under computer cloud control, no more traffic, no more accidents, and 99% efficiency. 

This reality is coming in the next 30 years.   We've been promised flying cars for about 60 years, and we barely have a prototype.  Plus, all the new FAA rules and piloting requirements and air traffic logistics.  No thank you.  It's a fun little concept dream, but it's just not gonna happen.

Why do people keep pushing this idea then?

John Photography wrote:

Why do people keep pushing this idea then?

Because not everyone subscribes to these beliefs
"no more accidents"
Reminds of claims that a certain ship was "unsinkable"

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Is it the AeroMobil 3 ?
http://autoweek.com/article/car-life/ae … g-car-sxsw

That's the one in the link in my OP

John Photography wrote:
Why do people keep pushing this idea then?

Because they want to live in a future that is not probable.  One they've been dreaming about for 40 years.

Remember 10 years ago when Dean Kamen said that the Segway was the transportation of the future and that cities would be redesigned around these fool things?  Yeah... that didn't happen.  Know why?  Because the salesman was better than the sale.  The Segway is a silly toy that doesn't really have a market. 

Our cities, and our transportation system, is already in place and works pretty well.  No city is going to pour 100 million dollars into redesigning walkways, bike lanes, or whatever else for a product that 12 people will use.

The reason I believe that driverless cars will work is because there really isn't anything that needs to change about the infrastructure.  And the tech is seriously just bolt-on to existing vehicles. 

So what do we want?
Do we want 30,000 auto fatalities per year because we drive or do we accept that a handful of incidents will happen when the 3rd failsafe of a driverless vehicle fails and results in 30 deaths per year?

In just the last 10 years, the advances made in driver assistance has been astonishing.  And in the last 3 years, the advances in truly autonomous cars shows that it IS a reality.  Technology doesn't go backwards.  This is happening.  The only thing we need to do is have a paradigm shift with drivers to give up control.  But if you've ever ridden in a taxi, or taken a bus, or flown on a plane, you give someone you don't even know control.  Without asking how their day is going, or if their teenage daughter just got pregnant by the asshole she was specifically told not to see anymore.

Why is a computer so much less trustworthy?

Good Egg Productions wrote:
So what do we want?
Do we want 30,000 auto fatalities per year because we drive or do we accept that a handful of incidents will happen when the 3rd failsafe of a driverless vehicle fails and results in 30 deaths per year?

[...]

Why is a computer so much less trustworthy?

The computer itself? It's not, or it won't be by the time this is accepted more widely.

The hackers? Yeah, I'd consider them less trustworthy. Believing for a moment that there won't be people trying to hack the various systems before auto-auto-mobiles are widespread is ignoring the history of computing.

John Photography wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDk35VGhhCg#t=148

Oh but how cool this one actually can fly...... I hope they get funding and that it actually does work reliably.
Imagine the idiots on the road with one of these?

It is a gorgeous, aesthetically pleasing design... to me at least!

PhillipM wrote:
Who will have the right of way.  Commercial airliners, idiots flying quads, or flying suv's.

+1 (good point).

Will drivers also have to get a pilot's license in addition to a driver's license?

How will the police issue tickets? Will they too have flying cars?

Will there even be any speed limits?

While it captures the imagination, I think it an idea best left in the movies. 

udor wrote:

It is a gorgeous, aesthetically pleasing design... to me at least!

I actually like the look of this in the folded position..... 

I'd consider this a recreational vehicle and limit the airspace. That way everyone is kept safe to a degree, and yes pilots license would be a good idea.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I also suspect that flying cars would never pass DOT regulations.

A Cessna 172 has an empty weight of 1691 pounds.
A Smart FourTwo weighs in at 1804 pounds.

There's a huge battle between weight and thrust and wingspan for aviation.

The AeroMobile 3.0 weighs 1323 pounds.
I fail to believe that this thing is street legal in any state in America.

Imagine driving this thing at 60mph on a highway and a big rig blows by you at 75.  You'll be flying, all right.  Right into a ditch.

Well if things like the Ellio are made legal why not?

John Photography wrote:

Well if things like the Ellio are made legal why not?

The Elio is classified as a motorcycle, not a car.  There are vastly different requirements as such.

Good Egg Productions wrote:

Actually I driven 400lb Motorcycles daily past rigs doing more than 60 with no problem
With 2 extra wheels I dont see any issue

Good Egg Productions wrote:
All of the things that can go wrong in a car, plus all the things that can go wrong with a plane.

I'm perfectly ok with the reality that we will never have personal aircraft.  There is simply no reason to have a car that transforms into a plane and back again.  You basically have a really small plane that the wings fold back so that you have a really terrible car.

The more likely reality is that automobiles will get more and more efficient, and they will become driverless.  So, instead of this fantasy of combining the car and the plane, let's start the fantasy of combining the car and the high speed rail.  We're almost there already.

The argument is that we don't want to give up control to a computer when our lives are at risk.  Heh.. You do that now if you ride a subway or a commercial airliner.  Sure, there's someone there for emergencies.  Then again, YOU are in the car and can override control.  But then you don't get to drive in the fast lanes if you're controlling the car.

Once all cars are on the grid and under computer cloud control, no more traffic, no more accidents, and 99% efficiency. 

This reality is coming in the next 30 years.   We've been promised flying cars for about 60 years, and we barely have a prototype.  Plus, all the new FAA rules and piloting requirements and air traffic logistics.  No thank you.  It's a fun little concept dream, but it's just not gonna happen.

But if you want to fly, most cars can't do that very well.

John Photography wrote:
That's the one in the link in my OP

Your link to youtube starts at about 2:28 and misses lots of the good stuff.

Watch the full video here:
http://www.aeromobil.com/

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I also suspect that flying cars would never pass DOT regulations.

A Cessna 172 has an empty weight of 1691 pounds.
A Smart FourTwo weighs in at 1804 pounds.

There's a huge battle between weight and thrust and wingspan for aviation.

The AeroMobile 3.0 weighs 1323 pounds.
I fail to believe that this thing is street legal in any state in America.

Imagine driving this thing at 60mph on a highway and a big rig blows by you at 75.  You'll be flying, all right.  Right into a ditch.

How much do motorcycles weigh?

Or bicycles? They are on the road too. Around here, the city cut out second auto lanes to make a dedicated lane for bicycles. Relatively speaking, they are mostly empty of bicycles, and now the traffic is more congested in many areas that are choked down to one lane.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:

Actually I driven 400lb Motorcycles daily past rigs doing more than 60 with no problem
With 2 extra wheels I dont see any issue

I won't explain the fluid dynamics involved and the difference between a motorcycle that is designed to drive on the road and a four wheeled vehicle that is actually DESIGNED to fly.

My point is that you will not see a commercially available flying car in your lifetime.  Or your children's.

Click Hamilton wrote:

But if you want to fly, most cars can't do that very well.

If you want to fly, we already have a solution for that.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
If you want to fly, we already have a solution for that.

Earning a pilot's license is not as hard as it seems. Hence why any "flying car" will require those.

If you can plop down 100k for a flying contraption... you can plop down 20k and a year worth of learning for a private pilot license.

Aviation simply has common sense rules... otherwise you DIE.

But as we sadly know common sense is not so common.

Aviation common sense shall be applied to driver's licenses: Special endorsements needed to drive a car with 200 hp+, road test if one hasn't driven for a few months etc...

And yearly inspections same as smog tests for all cars to issue roadworthiness standards when the registration is renewed.

This is for all the idiots that drive then stall during rush hour and 5000 people are late to work because of their stupidity.

Isn't it all common sense?

Good Egg Productions wrote:
.... 

This reality is coming in the next 30 years.   We've been promised flying cars for about 60 years, and we barely have a prototype.  Plus, all the new FAA rules and piloting requirements and air traffic logistics.  No thank you.  It's a fun little concept dream, but it's just not gonna happen.

Good... Flying isn't for *everyone*. Just the class 3 medical would exclude most overweight Americans so count 60% of the population out as a start.

Being a pilot is a lifestyle... getting a private pilot license is a license to LEARN for the rest of one's life.

Because so challenging is flying for our brains hardwired for 2D and why manned flying is mankind's (actually the Western civilization's) finest achievement.

pilotthink wrote:

Good... Flying isn't for *everyone*. Just the class 3 medical would exclude most overweight Americans so count 60% of the population out as a start.

Being a pilot is a lifestyle... getting a private pilot license is a license to LEARN for the rest of one's life.

Because so challenging is flying for our brains hardwired for 2D and why manned flying is mankind's (actually the Western civilization's) finest achievement.

Operating a motor vehicle isn't for everyone either, but they still do it. 

Flying cars will become commercially available right after flying monkeys spring forth from my butthole.

I'd sooner think that quad copter drones the size and strength to carry two people will be a reality first.  But they will likely have 6-10 props.  And if people are flying them while in/on them, they aren't drones any more.  But you know what I mean.