An idea whose time is fast approaching
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/technology/flying-car-technology.html
Flying Car
Mon, 2017-04-24 07:21
#1
Flying Car
Mon, 2017-04-24 07:58
#2
Why? The last thing we need is more bloody cars. About the only positive use I can think of for it would be a medical taxi or flying clinic for remote areas, and those already exist.
Mon, 2017-04-24 18:18
#3
bagkitty
Few things scare me as much as the idea of the average motorist being allowed to take to the air. Most are incapable of recognizing their limitations on a level surface... much less in three dimensions. Personally I would much prefer to have people riding donkeys... asses being more courteous and observant than the average motorist.
Mon, 2017-04-24 18:23
#4
On the flip side, it would seem that a flying car is most likely to strike flying pedestrians. So at least there's that.
Mon, 2017-04-24 20:07
#5
Well if drones are going to allowed what's the difference, eh?
Tue, 2017-04-25 01:06
#6
bagkitty
Flying cars and drones... is there a proposed minimum altitude either would have to fly at. Is it legal to "take them down" if they fly too low? Asking for a friend.
Tue, 2017-04-25 12:01
#7
Flying cars and drones... is there a proposed minimum altitude either would have to fly at. Is it legal to "take them down" if they fly too low? Asking for a friend.
Here is a link to the latest laws. It tells you how to operate them legally but doesn't mention shooting them down. I suspect that it would be considered a saftey hazard for drone pieces to fall from the sky because of gunfire.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/flying-drone-safely-legall...
Like most technologies its got both good and bad sides. A local video company produces some of the most stunning short videos using their drone.
Tue, 2017-04-25 14:30
#8
bagkitty
[...]I suspect that it would be considered a saftey hazard for drone pieces to fall from the sky because of gunfire. [...]
Well since I am already on record as not being a fan of firearms... I was thinking more along the the lines of barrage balloons, slingshots and, potentially, corsair drones of my own. Strictly defensive measures.
Tue, 2017-04-25 14:32
#9
Apparently there are special anti-drone rounds available.
A local video company produces some of the most stunning short videos using their drone.
I figured they were here to stay when Henry's Camera started selling them.
Tue, 2017-04-25 15:41
#10
Of course we have had flying cars for years. They are called aeroplanes and helicopters. Or maybe someone imagines that we will have one which magically does not require places to land, or air traffic control.
Tue, 2017-04-25 16:19
#11
All new buildings will be mandated to have landing pads on the roofs. I remember awhile back seeing a flic with Bruce Willis driving a flying taxi. I think they are going to need mobile traffic cops up there as well.
Tue, 2017-04-25 16:21
#12
Here it is:
Tue, 2017-04-25 16:25
#13
Of course we have had flying cars for years. They are called aeroplanes and helicopters.
But you can't drive those on the road!
Personally, I think the only reason we even want flying cars, or are fascinated by them, is because we were promised them by the Jetsons and Popular Mechanics and sci-fi. Same as how we all thought we wanted video telephones until we realized that we don't really.
I have to wonder whether flying cars will turn out to be like amphibious cars (which are my favourite example of something that's less than the sum of its parts -- they're not really a good car and they're not really a good boat).
Tue, 2017-04-25 16:40
#14
Then there's that guy who uses a zamboni as a farm truck.
Tue, 2017-04-25 16:50
#15
Then there's that guy who uses a zamboni as a farm truck.
You can use it as a snow plow in a pinch.
So after a storm swept across the Victoria area on Monday, Kardum decided to use his second-hand Zamboni to clear the road for his aunt, who lives near his farm.
Kardum said Tuesday he bought the machine to move horse manure, but found it’s quite good for removing snow, too.
“It worked really well, actually. I was surprised,” he said.
The Good Samaritan said he was clearing the last patch when a police officer approached, saying they had received a call about someone trying to create a skating rink on the road.
“But really, I was trying to clear the road,” Kardum explained. “I was just doing it to clear the road for my aunt. That was it.”
The officer, he said, was entertained by the sight of the machine normally used on hockey rinks and asked him to go home because the vehicle doesn’t have the insurance required to be operated on public roads.
Tue, 2017-04-25 22:13
#16
Go figure!
Uber looks to soar with flying taxis by 2020
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/uber-looks-to-soar-w...
Tue, 2017-04-25 22:22
#17
Oh great. So along with threats of assault and extortion now people will have to be worried about getting tossed out of the plane.
Wed, 2017-04-26 02:45
#18
At least the Zamboni thing was funny. But really, we really don't need more polluting crap and individual motor vehicles. Yes, different types of vehicles could be useful for medical emergencies in remote areas, but we really need quality public transport. Guess that isn't sexy enough.
Wed, 2017-04-26 15:13
#19
Timebandit
Flying taxis are completely impractical in that they are not just a hazard in hitting something on their level of altitude, but anyone or anything below them. Too unsafe for cities.
We really just need better, sustainable modes of transportation, with mass public transportation the most important to develop.
Wed, 2017-04-26 15:43
#20
One thing that might be nice is the use of autonomous (self-driving) vehicles to provide public transport in smaller municipalities, and on-call in rural areas.
Canada has a long history of small planes being used for medical and other emergencies, but bush pilots really aren't just anyone.
Wed, 2017-04-26 16:22
#21
I don't recall Lagatta complaining when they invented the flying bicycle. :)
Wed, 2017-04-26 16:36
#22
lagatta isn't a spring chicken, but she isn't THAT old!
Thu, 2017-04-27 12:17
#23
Flying Taxis Will Be More Like Taking the Bus
It’s no longer a dream, but physics, safety, cost, and utility still stand between you and the reality.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-27/why-you-won-t-be-flyi...
Mon, 2017-05-01 15:59
#24
Seeing these side-by-side on Canoe make me chuckle.
Tue, 2018-02-27 21:19
#25
hahahahahFew things scare me as much as the idea of the average motorist being allowed to take to the air. Most are incapable of recognizing their limitations on a level surface... much less in three dimensions. Personally I would much prefer to have people riding donkeys... asses being more courteous and observant than the average motorist.
Wed, 2018-02-28 11:21
#26
We still can't get off the ground with the extension of the blue line and starting work on the pink line. Further extensions of the yellow line into central Longueuil would be nice, as would extending the orange line in Laval, but the latter absolutely requires the pink line or other rapid transport alternatives into the centre of Montréal, as the orange line is terribly overburdened southbound from Jarry to downtown.
I still think self-driving smaller buses and taxis could be a boon for transport in smaller towns and rural areas. Of course safety must come first.
Wed, 2018-02-28 19:24
#27
FWIW, I would think that flying cars would harm far fewer cyclists and pedestrians, at least until we invent the flying bike or the (real) hoverboard.
Fri, 2018-03-02 06:16
#28
There are a lot of reasons why flying cars are nonsense.
The manufacturing and maintenance regime for aircraft is much more rigourous and expensive for aircraft than for cars, for good reasons.
Flying cars would have to either have wings or rotors detached for driving, limiting their usefulness, or carry them around and keep them undamaged during road use.
Where would flying cars take off and land safe from overhead wires, lamposts, telphone poles - and able to maintain 60+ mph over the road, and having regard to wind direction. Note that helicopters are basically unstable and much more difficult to fly than fixed wing aircraft.
Most people live within airport control zones with air traffic control responsible for commercial aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers. How would they be kept safe?
Either flying cars would be limited to visual flight rules ( weather with 3 miles visibility and 1000 feet to cloud base) or operators would have to be qualified for instrument flight which takes elaborate training and for which many people don't have the ability - or flying cars would have to be operated by extremely sophisticated and reliable computers.
Flying cars would use much more energy than normal cars. Normal cars use too much energy to permit their mass use in future.
Fri, 2018-03-02 18:32
#29
Note that helicopters are basically unstable and much more difficult to fly than fixed wing aircraft.
A traditional helicopter, with a single main rotor and a tail rotor.
I'm not predicting this and I'm not endorsing it, but I would think a scaled-up "quadcopter" could be as easy to fly as the little drones you can buy.
When I was a kid, there were RC helicopters, but they were as notoriously difficult to fly as the real thing. But a quadcopter you can pretty much fly right out of the box. All the intertial issues of a traditional helicopter are dealt with by design, and I'm assuming that the technology needed to keep them stable can't be that complicated if you can buy a model quadcopter for forty bucks.
Just as an aside, all the "artist's interpretations" of flying cars that I saw in childhood were either a car with wings, or some magical hovercar powered by dilithium crystals or something, like in The Jetsons. Nobody predicted quadcopters.
For fun, here's a YT video of some model quadcopters acting like the Snowbirds, and it's from 2012, six years ago.