Is this the future of technology?

[Lindley]

Stalls, in the aerodynamic sense, are no big deal for most designs of plane. Spins are more dangerous, but stall/spin awareness is part of basic training.

As far as engine failures go, as I said the vehicle will glide. It's up to the pilot to get it safely onto the ground at that point, but it's not an insurmountable task. In the worst case, some small planes are starting to be equipped with airframe parachutes these days. If all else fails, pull it.

Okay, you are describing a small, winged airplane requiring long run ways to take off and land.

Not so long. 2000 feet or so will do, often less. Takeoff and landing speed are around 75 MPH. If not for the obvious safety issues with other vehicles and power lines, any reasonably straight stretch of highway could be used.

Imagine ramps similar to highway rest-stops, except with an automated signal system indicating when the next vehicle is clear for takeoff or landing. Such automation would require a few advances from how things work today, but nothing too extreme.

You are not describing an air car as people usually understand it to be. Think how flying cars are depicted in every science fiction. These flying cars can take off and land vertically, has no wings, can fit into your average garage, and rely on exotic methods (no propellers) to achieve motion.

Well, the Terrafugia transition will probably fit into an average garage. Other than that, I'm specifically ignoring those qualities which would push flying cars further out of reach than they already are.

 

[infinix]

^^
Sorry, but I want flying cars as depicted by most sci-fi. Not something powered by propellers and spinning blades.

 

[Pavonis]

... I'm specifically ignoring those qualities which would push flying cars further out of reach than they already are.

Why? I understand your point - that 2- and 4-seater planes are basically cars that can fly - but since the rest of us think of flying cars as the vehicles from The Jetsons and Back to the Future, why have a different definition? Just so you can say that flying cars exist now, they're just not widely used?

 

[Lindley]

... I'm specifically ignoring those qualities which would push flying cars further out of reach than they already are.

Why? I understand your point - that 2- and 4-seater planes are basically cars that can fly - but since the rest of us think of flying cars as the vehicles from The Jetsons and Back to the Future, why have a different definition? Just so you can say that flying cars exist now, they're just not widely used?

Because the SF concept of a flying car is not going to emerge out of whole cloth overnight. The only way to make progress towards that is to get more people in the sky with what we have now, so that economies of scale come into play. Right now, toys like the Transition are simply too expensive (around $200k), but an older 172 or 152 can be had for $30-50k. Car prices. Not junker prices, but still, affordable to the middle class. The more people realize that private planes are not the exclusive purview of the rich, the more interest there will be in developing true personal airborne transportation.

 

[Pavonis]

They might be affordable for the middle class price wise, but the investment of time to learn to operate a "flying car" would be a bigger obstacle. What are the rules regarding licensing for private pilots nowadays? How many hours must be sunk in before you're allowed to operate by yourself?

What are the rules for taking off and landing outside of an airfield? How would air traffic control work when people can take off or land anywhere?

 

[Lindley]

They might be affordable for the middle class price wise, but the investment of time to learn to operate a "flying car" would be a bigger obstacle. What are the rules regarding licensing for private pilots nowadays?

For Private, 40 hours under Part 61. (I'm not sure of the requirements in a Part 141 flight school, usually it's less time but the curriculum is much more structured.) Typical cost is about $10k, though it varies by student. That sounds like a lot but remember you can spread it over a year or two.

You can get a Sport Pilot rating in about half that, but it's more limited in what it lets you do.

How many hours must be sunk in before you're allowed to operate by yourself?

There's a subtlety here. You are allowed to fly solo well before you actually get the license. The restriction on solo pilots is that your instructor must approve each flight and destination, you can't take any non-instructor passengers, and you can't fly at night.

What are the rules for taking off and landing outside of an airfield? How would air traffic control work when people can take off or land anywhere?

I don't think any regulations prohibit off-field landings, although of course one has to use their best judgment and if you do something stupid you could land in hot water. It's generally best to avoid landing anywhere except a designated airport or grass strip.

Air Traffic Control is unnecessary in visual flight conditions, and it is typical for VFR traffic to only begin talking to ATC after they are in the air unless they're departing from a towered airport. Of course, this may change if the skies became significantly more congested.

 

[JarodRussell]

Allow me to be clear: In my view, 2- and 4-seater airplanes are essentially flying cars. They already exist and are in common use, just not by many people. Adding a highway capability is just sealing the definition.

Some people won't accept "flying cars" until they have VTOL and any old high school student can operate them after 10 minutes practice in a parking lot, but that's not the definition I'm using.

I'm talking Blade Runner, 5th Element, Back to the Future. You talk airplanes.

 

[Pavonis]

So, Lindley, how many of those rules would have to be eliminated or relaxed to make private pilots licenses as common as driver's licenses? How many of those rules could we afford to relax without significantly compromising safety? I mean, isn't there a reason that pilot's licenses are harder to get than driver's licenses?

 

[Lindley]

So, Lindley, how many of those rules would have to be eliminated or relaxed to make private pilots licenses as common as driver's licenses?

None, we just need to get the cost down and make the average person more aware of the option.

How many of those rules could we afford to relax without significantly compromising safety?

Probably some of them. Most of the regulations exist for a good reason though.

I mean, isn't there a reason that pilot's licenses are harder to get than driver's licenses?

Flying itself is not very difficult. The most complicated part is landing, and that is just a matter of practice.

What makes it take so long is instilling the proper mindset to evaluate risks properly before each flight, interpret all available weather data, know how to recognize and respond to emergency situations, etc. Plus practice practice practice until you can do the maneuvers within spec.

There are various types of advanced ratings you can get (instrument, commercial, airline transport pilot, etc) that will take longer and require more skill. But the basics are pretty easy.

I'm talking Blade Runner, 5th Element, Back to the Future. You talk airplanes.

Baby steps. Imagining what might be is great, but it's also fun to celebrate what we already have. Right now, there's really only one true flying car, and it's better described as a roadable airplane. Ergo.
http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm talking Blade Runner, 5th Element, Back to the Future. You talk airplanes.

Baby steps. Imagining what might be is great, but it's also fun to celebrate what we already have. Right now, there's really only one true flying car, and it's better described as a roadable airplane. Ergo.
http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html

The original argument was that thirty years or so ago they predicted 5th Element type of hover cars/flying cars for today's world, which hasn't happened, which means that the outlook on future technology in that article is just as exaggerated.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

^^
Sorry, but I want flying cars as depicted by most sci-fi. Not something powered by propellers and spinning blades.

So, essentially, you want to see a few unobtainium-powered unicorns flying outside your window.

If you expect the technological what ifs described in much of SF to come to exist EXACTLY as they are described in said SF...well, be prepared to be disappointed again and again.

 

[infinix]

damn double post again. Sorry...

 

[infinix]

^^
Sorry, but I want flying cars as depicted by most sci-fi. Not something powered by propellers and spinning blades.

So, essentially, you want to see a few unobtainium-powered unicorns flying outside your window.

If you expect the technological what ifs described in much of SF to come to exist EXACTLY as they are described in said SF...well, be prepared to be disappointed again and again.

We are having this discussion in the context of op's link to the website's vision of the future. Basically everything that website is listing after year 2020 is science fiction.

I don't think expecting some version of vertical take-off/landing vehicle that runs on clean, renewable energy is unreasonable when it comes to air cars.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

^^
Sorry, but I want flying cars as depicted by most sci-fi. Not something powered by propellers and spinning blades.

So, essentially, you want to see a few unobtainium-powered unicorns flying outside your window.

If you expect the technological what ifs described in much of SF to come to exist EXACTLY as they are described in said SF...well, be prepared to be disappointed again and again.

We are having this discussion in the context of op's link to the website's vision of the future. Basically everything that website is listing after year 2020 is science fiction.

I don't think expecting some version of vertical take-off/landing vehicle that runs on clean, renewable energy is unreasonable when it comes to air cars.

With the propulsion technology at our disposal, the plane is the most efficient form for flight.

Even today we have some types of planes that can take off and some types of planes that use electricity to power their engines. But they're still planes.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, VTOL isn't popular because it sucks. It's unwieldy, energy intensive, and difficult to control. We'd need to get a lot better at that to do BTTF-type cars.

 

[Lindley]

I'm talking Blade Runner, 5th Element, Back to the Future. You talk airplanes.

Baby steps. Imagining what might be is great, but it's also fun to celebrate what we already have. Right now, there's really only one true flying car, and it's better described as a roadable airplane. Ergo.
http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html

The original argument was that thirty years or so ago they predicted 5th Element type of hover cars/flying cars for today's world, which hasn't happened, which means that the outlook on future technology in that article is just as exaggerated.

That's not actually future technology. That exists. It's just not going to hit the market for a year or two.

 

[RAMA]

This will also an interesting read: http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217

Whatever the future, I will guarantee that right now, we are underestimating it. Even if the singularity doesn't happen in the predicated time frame, the rate of change will expand to the point where events that used to occur in decades or years will be compressed into months. I can already see such things happening now, but the info technologies are only the most obvious things at the moment. We'll be looking at a time when there will be many solutions to events that alarmists predict for environment, health, and so on(you know the tune, that solemnly intoned warning in sci fi movie cautionary tales where the Earth is doomed).

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Baby steps. Imagining what might be is great, but it's also fun to celebrate what we already have. Right now, there's really only one true flying car, and it's better described as a roadable airplane. Ergo.
http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft.html

The original argument was that thirty years or so ago they predicted 5th Element type of hover cars/flying cars for today's world, which hasn't happened, which means that the outlook on future technology in that article is just as exaggerated.

That's not actually future technology. That exists. It's just not going to hit the market for a year or two.

Flying cars will not a be a symbol of the future, there will be so many more things of actual value as to make them seem quaint.

RAMA

 

[Deks]

It's not about the 'symbol of the future'... it's more to the point of what are we were/are capable of from a technological/resource point of view.
Answer: a lot more than what we see in the market today.

Providing abundance is easy -we already have the industrial capacity to do so already, however, a better method would be to use mountains of trash that piled up all over the globe which could have been used decades ago for conversion into usable (and quality) items via recycling (we had for some time now the ability to break matter down into base elements and reconstitute them into something else).
The lack of quality in certain recycled items is 'planned obsolescence' if anything else.

'Money' is the biggest obstacle in technological progression because numerous things often aren't adopted into the market because they are apparently 'expensive to make' (which is baloney).
Majority of companies spend a fraction on making an item than we do for buying it.
And, the said technology is then being 'revised' (minor improvements in it's efficiency, capabilities, power) are seen over longer periods of time (such as every 2 years), instead of just jumping over those small increments and put out one big major update in 2 years update.
Furthermore, companies are in this to make money/profit... they aren't in this for 'benefit of mankind'.

People keep saying the technology on the market is becoming 'obsolete in a year or two'.
That's again stupidity beyond measure.
What you are seeing every year or every 2 years is a revision of the same technology that came before with more power, efficiency, capabilities - but they gains are within 30% most of the time... and it's not until you wait about 4 years before you will notice higher gains (at least as far as computers are concerned).
They don't become 'obsolete' (unless you think that 20 to 30% gain is making things 'obsolete'). They are still more than adequate to perform majority of functions that most people do - having said that, upgrading every year or every 2 years is a bit idiotic -unless BIG changes were made which people will find actually useful/practical.

They still dabble with silicone when other materials could have used to regulate heat a lot better.
Items sold in the market have a tendency to fall apart soon after purchase (hence 'consumerism').
Instead of making items that LAST a long while, they jack up the price so you end up spending more on low quality products which are cheaper more frequently, and they end up being advertised as something 'amazing' (when in fact, it's anything but) - although, there are numerous cheap and even free products that are high in quality and durable - one has to dig though through a lot of trash in order to find them though.

I don't get the excitement about small things such as smartphones, 3d, etc.
They are a fad more or less... some aspects of it being more useful than others, but nothing that we couldn't have done sooner, or better.
Point remains it's nothing to be amazed about.

'Amazing' would be recycling of mountains of trash on the globe to create material abundance (even though it actually exists without it)... which would effectively create a 'greener' system at the same time and a completely self-sufficient society.
'Amazing' would be fully using other sources of power such as wind, solar, geothermal and tide (which could have been done some time ago) - regardless of their efficiency (which btw would be MORE than enough for our needs).
'Amazing' would be having orbital complexes, quantum computers and bases on the moon by now -which is also doable.

I mean seriously, the perception of 'how far we've come' is PITIFUL.
Sure, it's 'better' and yes, it can be seen as 'progress', but it's a proverbial 'hiccup' if anything else compared to what we could have done by now (and feasibly).

 

[RAMA]

It's not about the 'symbol of the future'... it's more to the point of what are we were/are capable of from a technological/resource point of view.
Answer: a lot more than what we see in the market today.

Providing abundance is easy -we already have the industrial capacity to do so already, however, a better method would be to use mountains of trash that piled up all over the globe which could have been used decades ago for conversion into usable (and quality) items via recycling (we had for some time now the ability to break matter down into base elements and reconstitute them into something else).
The lack of quality in certain recycled items is 'planned obsolescence' if anything else.

'Money' is the biggest obstacle in technological progression because numerous things often aren't adopted into the market because they are apparently 'expensive to make' (which is baloney).
Majority of companies spend a fraction on making an item than we do for buying it.
And, the said technology is then being 'revised' (minor improvements in it's efficiency, capabilities, power) are seen over longer periods of time (such as every 2 years), instead of just jumping over those small increments and put out one big major update in 2 years update.
Furthermore, companies are in this to make money/profit... they aren't in this for 'benefit of mankind'.

People keep saying the technology on the market is becoming 'obsolete in a year or two'.
That's again stupidity beyond measure.
What you are seeing every year or every 2 years is a revision of the same technology that came before with more power, efficiency, capabilities - but they gains are within 30% most of the time... and it's not until you wait about 4 years before you will notice higher gains (at least as far as computers are concerned).
They don't become 'obsolete' (unless you think that 20 to 30% gain is making things 'obsolete'). They are still more than adequate to perform majority of functions that most people do - having said that, upgrading every year or every 2 years is a bit idiotic -unless BIG changes were made which people will find actually useful/practical.

They still dabble with silicone when other materials could have used to regulate heat a lot better.
Items sold in the market have a tendency to fall apart soon after purchase (hence 'consumerism').
Instead of making items that LAST a long while, they jack up the price so you end up spending more on low quality products which are cheaper more frequently, and they end up being advertised as something 'amazing' (when in fact, it's anything but) - although, there are numerous cheap and even free products that are high in quality and durable - one has to dig though through a lot of trash in order to find them though.

I don't get the excitement about small things such as smartphones, 3d, etc.
They are a fad more or less... some aspects of it being more useful than others, but nothing that we couldn't have done sooner, or better.
Point remains it's nothing to be amazed about.

'Amazing' would be recycling of mountains of trash on the globe to create material abundance (even though it actually exists without it)... which would effectively create a 'greener' system at the same time and a completely self-sufficient society.
'Amazing' would be fully using other sources of power such as wind, solar, geothermal and tide (which could have been done some time ago) - regardless of their efficiency (which btw would be MORE than enough for our needs).
'Amazing' would be having orbital complexes, quantum computers and bases on the moon by now -which is also doable.

I mean seriously, the perception of 'how far we've come' is PITIFUL.
Sure, it's 'better' and yes, it can be seen as 'progress', but it's a proverbial 'hiccup' if anything else compared to what we could have done by now (and feasibly).

In hindsight humanity could always have done things better or sooner, but that's not the issue...the fact that we've increased the progression and will do so even more so is. It's hard to compare our position in geological or even technological time...in humanity's existence we've compressed this advancement to a mere fraction of time. I think that's pretty worthy of congratulating ourselves about.

RAMA