Hope they keep the price high enough so texting teens can't have one.

Hold on a minute Approach, I'm on the phone.

BttF trifecta in play...

Bttf trifecta in play?

the problem is cost. Few would spend so much for a car that is so expensive to maintain.

Well, there goes my flying farmer's market idea.

As much as I love what they stand for, has anyone noticed that many TED talks have become glorified commercials. (Much like this CNN "editorial" piece, I guess?) I mean, sure... Science, for a better world. But every soulless technological behemoth out there started out as Science, for a better world.

Eh, well. The chick with bionic legs was hot at least.

Meh. If they can get around to actually making cars that utilize anti-grav like in BTTF 2, then I'll raise an eyebrow. Until then, "planes" that turn into "cars" and vice versa are clunky, boring and make it look like you have too much money.

Great Scott!

natazha: Hope they keep the price high enough so texting sexting teens can't have one.

The kids these days don't do the texting they do the sexting. They're always sexting on the phone internets on their way to rainbow parties with the rap music going "jungle boogie woogie baby!"

I read it in USAToday.

I'm tired of everyone biatching about not having their flying cars yet.

Flying cars would be a disaster. Thinking about how bad your average driver is, how many crashes there are on the interstate every day, and you want to put these people aloft over our heads?

Of all the things that science fiction has promised us over the decades, I'm not disappointed in the absence of flying cars. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for my artificially-intelligent robot butler and the ability to buy an airline ticket to the moon.

Doc Daneeka: I'm tired of everyone biatching about not having their flying cars yet.

Flying cars would be a disaster. Thinking about how bad your average driver is, how many crashes there are on the interstate every day, and you want to put these people aloft over our heads?

Of all the things that science fiction has promised us over the decades, I'm not disappointed in the absence of flying cars. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for my artificially-intelligent robot butler and the ability to buy an airline ticket to the moon.

I wouldn't mind flying cars if they were automated-- I mean, we almost have it with GPS and the various warning systems in cars. Just a couple more steps... (of course, if that system were to go out....)

"The Lesbians...err..The Libyans!!!"

Link (new window)

This kind of technology could make flying cars much more practical (though still not quite at the level of BTTF2). The rotors could be built into the chassis and direct airflow to the bottom of the vehicle, with no exposed blades needed, and vertical take-off and landing could be done effortlessly. Though apparently you would need to have a ducted fan or something for forward thrust. Looks like a much better option than a helicopter with large exposed rotors or an airplane that requires runways.

Eh.... it's neat, but it's not 'the next major step in improving how we navigate our world.'

You still need a pilot's license. You still need to use airports. You still need to actually be competent and learn a whole new set of (considerably more demanding) skills. And the vehicle itself is still an expensive ugly half-this-half-that chimera. 'Flying cars' aren't going to catch on with the general public while any of those are still true.

Do you seriously think the average driver has the aptitude (and more importantly, motivation, opportunity, and discipline) to be a safe pilot? Sure, the thing's got a recovery parachute. That's going to do fark-all when the idiot behind the controls flies it straight into the ground, some obstacle, or another plane because he was too drunk/tired/distracted - things that result in fender benders on the ground will kill someone in an airplane. And what about maintenance? On the ground, if you let your car degrade into a piece of shiat the worst that's likely to happen is that it'll break down and strand you somewhere. It's possible that some failure could cause an accident, but even then it's less likely to be severe (see above). In the air, if your plane is a POS and falling apart, a failure will easily kill someone. And even barring that, flying a plane in a manner that's safe for you *and others* requires discipline - air traffic rules are pretty complicated for a reason. Do we want Joe Public who blows stop signs, ignores yields, speeds through stale yellows, and drives too fast for conditions in control of an *airplane*? Since small mistakes can have much more severe consequences in the air than on the ground, skirting the air traffic rules has proportionally larger of an impact on both you *and other pilots around you*.

Sure, some segment of the population will be able to make use of this sort of vehicle. However, between not only needing a pilot's license but also actually needing to be a competent *pilot*, the expense, still needing to use airports, etc, it's going to be a small segment. 'Flying cars' aren't going to become a mainstream thing until Joe Blow can get in at his house, be off the ground in less than 5 minutes, and land within 5 minutes of his destination, all under (effective) computer control that makes it as difficult to crash as a car (I'm thinking 'pseudo-manual' type control where you 'steer' the plane and the computer figures out how to fly it to where you want it to go) and which obviates the requirement for extensive training/discipline/oversight.

It's a good thing that the average driver doesn't have the aptitude to handle one of these things. The average driver doesn't have the aptitude to "go" when a light turns green.

I'll buy one, and I'll enjoy my own little world of not having to deal with average drivers. It will be awesome.

Doc Daneeka: I'm tired of everyone biatching about not having their flying cars yet.

Flying cars would be a disaster. Thinking about how bad your average driver is, how many crashes there are on the interstate every day, and you want to put these people aloft over our heads?

Of all the things that science fiction has promised us over the decades, I'm not disappointed in the absence of flying cars. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for my artificially-intelligent robot butler and the ability to buy an airline ticket to the moon.

I agree with this completely. I spend my rush hour behind morons in the left lane who don't understand it is for faster traffic. Or I end up behind two idiots who just came off the line and they decide they will go the same exact speed for the next few lights. I can't imagine if these fools became airborne. Granted all of their fiery deaths would help weed out the population for once it would still be a bad idea.

Am I the only one who watched the video and wanted to see James May driving one around with Jeremy Clarkson in the passenger seat, then to see the Stig do an airborne lap around the test track with it?

Making this a LSA (Light Sport Aircraft) is a big mistake. The limitations on LSA mean that the target market (people with close to $300K to spare) won't be interested. Anybody who can afford that much aircraft can afford probably afford twice as much aircraft. They're going to go for something with a LOT more cruising speed and real 4-place pax+bags usable weight capacity. And they'll rent a car for the "last mile" because $300K worth of aircraft on a road simply isn't worth the risk. All it would take is one piece of loose gravel shooting out from under a semi's wheels to put the fuselage on the "inop" list.

And targeting it at pilots who only get a Sport Pilot Certificate is just plain silly. What good is it to them? SP holders can't fly at night. What are they going to do? Set the thing down as soon as civil twilight happens and then toodle along the road until daybreak? Most pilots who would buy one of these would probably have at least PPSEL.

This is not a valid aircraft for working transportation. The only people who buy these will be rich folks looking for a toy to show off at the golf course.

That stated, if you buy me one I will gladly go take my BFR and use it to get a few $300 hamburgers. As impractical as this thing is, I definitely agree that sometimes should exist for no other reason than "wouldn't it be cool if..."

There is more demand for products like this than most of you would think. There are over 3,000 GA 'airports' in the nation. They are everywhere. I live about 1.5 miles away from one and if my travel needs ever go up I would seriously consider something like this. Stall speed of ~50mph makes for an easy takeoff and landing. And I would also note that these are pretty cheap to operate. The plane gets over 20mpg in flight, which is about the same as a car would get when traveling at 100mph. Being able to buy a cheap home in a rural community and commute by plane can make the quarter million dollar price tag more reasonable.

A good friend of mine put a deposit down for an Icon, one the Sport Planes shown below. Similar price. He has a lakehouse, so it doesn't even require a local airport for him.

/hot

You DON'T want one of these...

madgonad: There is more demand for products like this than most of you would think. There are over 3,000 GA 'airports' in the nation. They are everywhere. I live about 1.5 miles away from one and if my travel needs ever go up I would seriously consider something like this. Stall speed of ~50mph makes for an easy takeoff and landing. And I would also note that these are pretty cheap to operate. The plane gets over 20mpg in flight, which is about the same as a car would get when traveling at 100mph. Being able to buy a cheap home in a rural community and commute by plane can make the quarter million dollar price tag more reasonable.

A good friend of mine put a deposit down for an Icon, one the Sport Planes shown below. Similar price. He has a lakehouse, so it doesn't even require a local airport for him.
[static.iconaircraft.com image 608x342]
/hot

He needs a lake or a large enough river, though.

I'd love to have one, if only to go fishing/camping way up at any of the lakes in northern Ontario/Quebec, but I'd need a place to park it when I'm home, as I do not live on a waterfront.

I agree with all the other posts about this "flying car" thing being a complete disaster/nightmare of an idea until it is mandated and engineered so that it is a fully automated system. (I.E. - no possibility of the avg idiot driver gaining control).

Also, I will not fly something that has "folding wings" until it has been tested by many many other pilots. Yes, the military has them, but they've been doing it for decades. As far as I know, This is the first time this company has built one.

Tentacle: He needs a lake or a large enough river, though.

I'd love to have one, if only to go fishing/camping way up at any of the lakes in northern Ontario/Quebec, but I'd need a place to park it when I'm home, as I do not live on a waterfront.

He has one. That is why I said "lakehouse". He even has a shelter and winch to a 'boathouse'. He said he would let me borrow it, so I'll probably spring the $3-5K in training costs. It is a huge hassle getting down to the Lake of the Ozarks - could make it in a bit over an hour in this thing.

Sentry1407:
Also, I will not fly something that has "folding wings" until it has been tested by many many other pilots. Yes, the military has them, but they've been doing it for decades. As far as I know, This is the first time this company has built one.

Not to mention that the military pilots have these wonderful things called "ejection seats" if a wing rips off.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be happier if we could just automate driving ala I Robot. I think it's a a more practical alternative than a "flying car".

Take a good sized (think Chevy Suburban) vehicle that could be modified to sleep 4 comfortably (think British Airways 1st class sleeper seats) and provide automated interstate driving through the use of technology allowing cars to follow each other closely at relatively high speeds (80-90 MPH). Drive to the interstate, get on, activate the auto-pilot, tell the system where you want to go and take a nap.

I live in St Louis. With that type of system, I could leave my house at 3PM and be in New York, Philly or Boston the following morning fully rested.

21-37-42: Take a good sized (think Chevy Suburban) vehicle that could be modified to sleep 4 comfortably (think British Airways 1st class sleeper seats) and provide automated interstate driving through the use of technology allowing cars to follow each other closely at relatively high speeds (80-90 MPH). Drive to the interstate, get on, activate the auto-pilot, tell the system where you want to go and take a nap.

I live in St Louis. With that type of system, I could leave my house at 3PM and be in New York, Philly or Boston the following morning fully rested.

What you want exists in most of the rest of the developed world, and it's called high-speed rail.

21-37-42: Maybe it's just me, but I'd be happier if we could just automate driving ala I Robot. I think it's a a more practical alternative than a "flying car".

Take a good sized (think Chevy Suburban) vehicle that could be modified to sleep 4 comfortably (think British Airways 1st class sleeper seats) and provide automated interstate driving through the use of technology allowing cars to follow each other closely at relatively high speeds (80-90 MPH). Drive to the interstate, get on, activate the auto-pilot, tell the system where you want to go and take a nap.

I live in St Louis. With that type of system, I could leave my house at 3PM and be in New York, Philly or Boston the following morning fully rested.

I love this idea! I've been dreaming about this for a long time. I think they should start phasing in automated highways and build cars to follow computerized driving paths that are optimized based on the current traffic. Sort of like data networks and treat cars similar to data packets based on source and destination, except for the whole dropped packet thing. They'd have to work around that. :) Think of all the saved lives and saved sanity. I left Atlanta for one reason. Traffic. I'll never go back, unless they ever came up with a system like this.

vharshyde: Am I the only one who watched the video and wanted to see James May driving one around with Jeremy Clarkson in the passenger seat, then to see the Stig do an airborne lap around the test track with it?

.....

That would be AWESOME!!!

kidgenius: Not to mention that the military pilots have these wonderful things called "ejection seats" if a wing rips off.

Sport planes have parachutes (rocket deployed!).

And planes have had folding wings since the age of the aircraft carrier. I think engineering and metallurgy have improved a tad since the 1930s.

Doc Daneeka: I'm tired of everyone biatching about not having their flying cars yet.


jump, Doc, jump!

madgonad: kidgenius: Not to mention that the military pilots have these wonderful things called "ejection seats" if a wing rips off.

Sport planes have parachutes (rocket deployed!).

And planes have had folding wings since the age of the aircraft carrier. I think engineering and metallurgy have improved a tad since the 1930s.

Just because its been done before doesn't mean that someone can't find a way of screwing it up.

Have any of the guys at this company developed a plane with folding wings?

I'd trust stationary wings long before folding wings. It's not that you can't screw up either, it's that one is much more difficult to screw up than another

\\never wants a car with a steering wheel not connected to the rack until the auto manufacturers are held to the same standards as airframers.

Anyone who's spent 15 minutes waiting for some suburban hausfrau to maneuver her SUV into a parking spot knows that the idea of personal aircraft will certainly help with the overpopulation problem.

madgonad: There is more demand for products like this than most of you would think. There are over 3,000 GA 'airports' in the nation. They are everywhere. I live about 1.5 miles away from one and if my travel needs ever go up I would seriously consider something like this. Stall speed of ~50mph makes for an easy takeoff and landing. And I would also note that these are pretty cheap to operate. The plane gets over 20mpg in flight, which is about the same as a car would get when traveling at 100mph. Being able to buy a cheap home in a rural community and commute by plane can make the quarter million dollar price tag more reasonable.

A good friend of mine put a deposit down for an Icon, one the Sport Planes shown below. Similar price. He has a lakehouse, so it doesn't even require a local airport for him.
[static.iconaircraft.com image 608x342]
/hot

Man am I jealous of your friend, those are such nice looking planes. It's a shame you can build yourself a Murphy Moose at the price of that.

If flying cars become the norm I'm moving into a cave. Or some other crash proof bunker.

Hm. Wonder how hard/expensive it would be to get a DEMIL version of one of these. Or hell, just a military-issue cargo-bed HMMVW and install a mockup of the launcher...

CNN: We're too lazy to write our own articles, so we just publish corporate PR pieces!

Doc Daneeka: 21-37-42: Take a good sized (think Chevy Suburban) vehicle that could be modified to sleep 4 comfortably (think British Airways 1st class sleeper seats) and provide automated interstate driving through the use of technology allowing cars to follow each other closely at relatively high speeds (80-90 MPH). Drive to the interstate, get on, activate the auto-pilot, tell the system where you want to go and take a nap.

I live in St Louis. With that type of system, I could leave my house at 3PM and be in New York, Philly or Boston the following morning fully rested.

What you want exists in most of the rest of the developed world, and it's called high-speed rail.

Of course, then you have the "last mile" problem. Drive car to rail station, park car in St. Louis, take train to Boston (though why you wouldn't fly beats me since flying would take about 8 hours max including all the garbage you have at the airports on either end), and now you're in Boston on foot.

You can rent a car or use mass transit depending on the city, but there's no real advantage to HSR over flying in that use case. Doc's idea would trade time for not needing (to pay for) a rental car .

Flying wins in:
*Time: 400+ MPH plane vs. ~100 MPH train (even 200MPH still takes a day to get across the country)
*Space: Flying just needs airports at either end, train needs stations and track for every single route (which in today's NIMBY world matters).

Flying ties with HSR in:
*Cost: At least from what I've heard on the Fark HSR threads, a profitable HSR train system in the US would about tie in cost depending on route. (As in it seems to be comparable with occasional exceptions either way depending on route).

HSR beats flying in:
*Duplication of routes: A Boston to Washington train isn't just a Boston to Washington train, it's a Boston -> New York -> Philly -> Baltimore -> Washington train.

They both utterly fail at:
*Last mile problem. (And if you're about to say that HSR can have a bunch of stops along the way, well then it's not HS anymore, is it)

meyerkev: meyerkev:

Would also like to add that they both fail in spontaneity. I can just get in my car and start driving, stopping whenever and wherever I want, doing whatever I want, whereas with both, I'm stuck with their schedule (and I usually have to reserve seating in advance), not mine.

And I fail at HTML and not previewing.

change1211: madgonad: There is more demand for products like this than most of you would think. There are over 3,000 GA 'airports' in the nation. They are everywhere. I live about 1.5 miles away from one and if my travel needs ever go up I would seriously consider something like this. Stall speed of ~50mph makes for an easy takeoff and landing. And I would also note that these are pretty cheap to operate. The plane gets over 20mpg in flight, which is about the same as a car would get when traveling at 100mph. Being able to buy a cheap home in a rural community and commute by plane can make the quarter million dollar price tag more reasonable.

A good friend of mine put a deposit down for an Icon, one the Sport Planes shown below. Similar price. He has a lakehouse, so it doesn't even require a local airport for him.
[static.iconaircraft.com image 608x342]
/hot

Man am I jealous of your friend, those are such nice looking planes. It's a shame you can build yourself a Murphy Moose at the price of that.

He sold his business and his wife is a fairly well paid attorney. The amphibious plane he is getting costs about $140k. For me, it would be a serious extravagence, but he has the money and really doesn't collect a lot of toys. He bought an S2000 a few years ago, but otherwise he hasn't wasted his money.

I'll wait and put my money into one of these.