What do you want in a flying car?

[Lindley]

There was a recent thread in SciTech about the Terrafugia Transition, a vehicle which is (as of recently) both highway-legal and capable of flight. In that thread, several statements were made drawing a distinction between a roadable aircraft and a flying car.

So, I was curious how people would define a flying car. What makes it distinct from an airplane?

2- and 4-seater airplanes are very common, and pilots use them all the time for a quick jaunt over to the next state. Is a Cessna 172 a "flying car"? If not, why not?

Maybe you need a VTOL capability so you aren't constrained to make air strips the endpoints of your trip. While airports of sufficient size to handle personal aircraft are far more common than some people realize (there are twenty public use airports within 30 miles of Washington DC according to my quick glance at a chart, not counting private airports and grass strips), that restriction is still a hindrance. So are 2- and 4-seat helicopters "flying cars"? Some of them can get up almost as much speed as a fixed-wing.

Perhaps the problem is accessibility. Any teenager can learn to drive a car, but fewer choose to learn how to fly an aircraft for whatever reason. The new Sport Pilot rating aims to help with that; a typical student can get it within about $5000 of training ($10k for the Private rating). Seems like a lot but it's not that different than a couple of university classes. It actually costs less than massage school (typically $9k), for instance. So does a flying car have to be operable with minimal additional training to qualify as a flying car?

Perhaps it's about volume. In order to be a true flying car, perhaps the device needs to be a common sight in every driveway (flyway?). If there aren't enough of them, it's just a plaything of the rich! (Actually, a decent used plane can be had for a similar price to a midrange new car. The expense isn't that much more significant.)

Let's here your thoughts on the matter!

 

[Holdfast]

A mix of most of your points:

- Minimal extra training compared to driving a car
- All the abilities of both a car and a plane, with the ability to switch between the two modes at the touch of a button (ie no more effort than popping the roof of a ragtop)
- No requirement for special facilities (ie airstrips/ports) or maintenance/servicing intervals beyond a car's needs
- Comparable cost, size, and general usability/parkability to a car
- Looks vaguely like a car (at least until you press the magic button; I will accept a car that transforms into a plane).

 

[SPCTRE]

- the ability to make out on the back seat

i.e. there needs to be at least a back seat

 

[Lindley]

- Minimal extra training compared to driving a car

That's possible if you assume a highly reliable vehicle, with some degree of intelligence (enough to prevent the pilot from stalling it, for instance). The majority of flight training time is spent teaching how to deal with emergencies or unusual situations. However, the less training you mandate, the more you have to put your faith in the onboard computer; and electrical failures do happen.

- All the abilities of both a car and a plane, with the ability to switch between the two modes at the touch of a button (ie no more effort than popping the roof of a ragtop)

Purely a matter of mechanical engineering.

- No requirement for special facilities (ie airstrips/ports) or maintenance/servicing intervals beyond a car's needs

Probably doable. Presently, a non-commercial aircraft is only required to get annual inspections by a professional mechanic (same as your car, except more intensive). A basic preflight inspection by the pilot is standard before every flight, but it's conceivable a lot of that could be done with automated diagnostics.

- Comparable cost, size, and general usability/parkability to a car

Unless you can make the wings/rotors fold up very compactly, you're always going to take up more space than a car in some direction. But the difference in size between a 152 and a typical sedan is minimal other than the wings.

It also goes without saying that the cost will not be comparable for a long while, considering how much R&D will be required to meet your other demands.

 

[RJDiogenes]

VTOL is definitely required, because it would have to be able to take off and land from the driveway, parking lots and so on. It would have to be mostly automated so that no additional training or licensing is required. And it would have to be circular in shape with a glass bubble on top.

 

[Kirby]

You know what I want in a flying car? One that won't fly!

People drive like assholes as it is, and the last thing we really need is some dumb-ass falling out of the sky on top of people. It's physically impossible for someone to crash into anything except the garage at my house, unless they had a smart-car sized Jeep that could navigate narrow, steep concrete steps.
With a flying car, a drunk driver (flyer) could fall right through my ceiling and squish me in my bed.

No thanks. I don't have that much faith in humanity for this to end well.

 

[arch101]

I don't care if it looks like crap and gets s**tty gas mileage, so long as it allows me to never sit in traffic on Rt 128 in Boston again.

 

[SPCTRE]

And it would have to be circular in shape with a glass bubble on top.

 

[T'Girl]

Realistically, you're going to have to have a private pilots license. About the only thing you're allowed to fly without one is a small, single seat ultra-lite.

it would have to be no larger than a full size car, so you could park it in a normal sized parking slot down at the store.

*Have to come in a convertible top model.
*Kickin' stereo.
*Heated seats.

 

[Darth Duck]

I don't care if it looks like crap and gets s**tty gas mileage, so long as it allows me to never sit in traffic on Rt 128 in Boston again.

Of course not, you'll be hovering in traffic above Rt 128 in Boston.

 

[SPCTRE]

Realistically, you're going to have to have a private pilots license. About the only thing you're allowed to fly without one is a small, single seat ultra-lite.

To be perfectly honest, "realistically speaking" , I don't think civilians would be allowed to pilot flying cars at all. They would have to be automated for safety purposes, especially as soon as air traffic starts to increase.

As someone mentioned upthread, most people are hardly able to drive on the ground, let alone in the air.

 

[MANT!]

Screw the car..I want a rocket pack....

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXHWDhk7Hok[/yt]

 

[Lindley]

Realistically, you're going to have to have a private pilots license. About the only thing you're allowed to fly without one is a small, single seat ultra-lite.

It's not quite that bad. The LSAs allowed by the Sport rating are defined to have at most *two* seats, not just one, and they aren't really ultralights, just small. Aside from the new LSAs like the 162, older planes like the Cub and the Champ qualify.

I feel it's highly unlikely a person will be allowed behind the controls of something airborn without some flight training, no matter how much automation advances; SPCTRE's curious reference to "civilians" aside (it's not like pilots are military), system failures do happen; and ultimately, the responsibility for a safe flight must be on the pilot, not on some distant computer system.

Still, there's no reason why a significant fraction of Americans couldn't become pilots if they wanted to. The biggest obstacle is money, so perhaps we should look into ways to bring down the price.

 

[SPCTRE]

I feel it's highly unlikely a person will be allowed behind the controls of something airborn without some flight training, no matter how much automation advances; SPCTRE's curious reference to "civilians" aside (it's not like pilots are military), system failures do happen; and ultimately, the responsibility for a safe flight must be on the pilot, not on some distant computer system.

I should have been more specific, you're right.

I meant to imply that only airborne cars in a specific, official capacity would likely be allowed to stray from predefined paths and be piloted manually (e.g. police forces, ambulances, fire fighters, etc).

At least that's what I would imagine a world with heavy flying car traffic to look like

 

[Lindley]

Interesting thought. If traffic increases enough, there may eventually be regions where Visual Flight Rules just isn't allowed. This would not be the case everywhere, certainly, but perhaps near major cities.

In the old days, everyone used Victor airways or even NDBs for navigation (unless they knew the route visually). Now with the advent of GPS, direct routings are much more common even on instruments. A further increase in technology allowing much more widespread flight could reverse that, forcing everyone back into airways......although they would be GPS airways, most likely, and there would be more of them available than we have now with VORs.

 

[B.J.]

I would want something that has similar maintenance hours to a car. I'm not sure what the numbers are for general aviation aircraft, but fighter jets require dozens of maintenance hours per flight hour.

 

[Lindley]

I would want something that has similar maintenance hours to a car. I'm not sure what the numbers are for general aviation aircraft, but fighter jets require dozens of maintenance hours per flight hour.

GA certainly isn't that bad. Preventative maintenance (adding oil, inflating tires, etc) can be done by any private pilot; a certified A&P mechanic is required to do anything more significant, but that's mostly limited to required inspections (every 100 flight hours for aircraft used commercially, annually otherwise unless specified by an Airworthiness Directive). The most common types of service that need to be done are just things like adjusting the air in the shocks or replacing burned out running lights.

 

[Holdfast]

They would have to be automated for safety purposes, especially as soon as air traffic starts to increase.

IMO, even ground cars are already trending rapidly in this direction.

Sure, final legal responsibility still lies with the driver, but just consider how much automation you can already get in today's higher-end mass production cars:

- radar-adaptive cruise control with lane detection technology
- fully automated-parking both reverse and parallel
- infrared vision that can override user control at night
- crash prevention systems that can do the same
- skid prevention systems with differential throttle and brake controls
- near-360 radar collision detection

We're about 85%-90% of the way to the driver only theoretically/legally being in charge of the car already. Tie in already-existing GPS navigation with traffic re-routing and you're not far off being able to cede full control. Technologically, we could probably do it very well within 5 years. Moving flying cars around without collisions is probably a much more straightforward task than doing it on the ground, and we're already letting our cars do it on the ground without the law really realising it.

 

[Lindley]

Indeed, a 2-axis autopilot available in many small planes combined with a GPS reduces hand-flying requirements to pretty much just takeoff and landing.

 

[Bob Karo]

Fuel efficiency on par with a midsize sedan.