GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,621
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on January 26th, 2019 in the Automotive News category.
Boeing Attempts to Answer the Biggest Question in Motoring: Where's My Flying Car?
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 20 comments
- 1,874 views
- 17,849
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
It reminds me of the Aerocar, though a bit more advanced.
- 269
- WyldAnimal_
Ummm, I don't see much of a CAR aspect to that...
An autonomous Personal flying Transport.
But it doesn't look lit it is derivable on the streets.
So it's Not a Car IMHO.
I thought DUBAI had these in 2017
An autonomous Personal flying Transport.
But it doesn't look lit it is derivable on the streets.
So it's Not a Car IMHO.
I thought DUBAI had these in 2017
- 3,177
- St helens, merseyside, England.
- crazybuttocks198
- Crazybuttocks19
(Dude) where's my flying car?
- 1,480
- United States
- equus_ferrum
So...they've successfully made a more complicated, less practical helicopter. Congratulations, I guess?
- 1,062
They already exist.
Their called aeroplanes..been going for a good 100+ years now.
Their called aeroplanes..been going for a good 100+ years now.
Yeah, why do all these inventors over complicate this flying car thing with their winged vehicles?... why not just go down the tried and tested helicopter route and evolve them into quieter easier to fly machines?.... I mean, why are they even still trying stuff with winged crafts??
Halos are obviously the most simple way to get airborne and landed... That Boeing craft looks like it would need to do a fancy manoeuvre when slowing then land, like Musk's rockets or the Harrier plane... which is an inevitable disaster in the waiting.
Also should something go wrong, halos tend to plummet more slowly and dont really explode on impact much, and being able hover or slowdown in mid air quickly, could give time to save it from disaster..., Compared to them dumb winged cars, when it goes wrong and into a nose dive, you're going straight into the deck at high speed..... good luck with that!!!
Halos are obviously the most simple way to get airborne and landed... That Boeing craft looks like it would need to do a fancy manoeuvre when slowing then land, like Musk's rockets or the Harrier plane... which is an inevitable disaster in the waiting.
Also should something go wrong, halos tend to plummet more slowly and dont really explode on impact much, and being able hover or slowdown in mid air quickly, could give time to save it from disaster..., Compared to them dumb winged cars, when it goes wrong and into a nose dive, you're going straight into the deck at high speed..... good luck with that!!!
Last edited:
- 2,685
- Knoxville, Tennessee
Because helicopters have their fair share of problems when compared to winged craft. The main rotor is one big problem, if operating in an urban environment like these air taxis being developed and tested are planned to operate in. Large rotor blades, which even on smaller helicopters can exceed 30 ft, are extremely vulnerable to damage from electrical wires, trees, and so on.
Most air taxi designs utilize powered lift technology similar to an RC quadcopter, which is a magnitude simpler than a conventional helicopter with its swash plates, complex rotor heads, tail rotor and tail rotor drive system, and all the other bits that control the rotor system. Powered lift is also more redundant when using hexacopter, octocopter, and so on, where you have more than 4 motors providing lift and control. The limitation of such tech is that you have to tilt the whole craft to fly forward, and then you have limitations on forward speed, which is where the wings come in. Wings are FAR more efficient at providing lift than rotors or props, and are much simpler and can be smaller in span than rotors to lift an equivalent sized aircraft.
Most air taxi designs utilize powered lift technology similar to an RC quadcopter, which is a magnitude simpler than a conventional helicopter with its swash plates, complex rotor heads, tail rotor and tail rotor drive system, and all the other bits that control the rotor system. Powered lift is also more redundant when using hexacopter, octocopter, and so on, where you have more than 4 motors providing lift and control. The limitation of such tech is that you have to tilt the whole craft to fly forward, and then you have limitations on forward speed, which is where the wings come in. Wings are FAR more efficient at providing lift than rotors or props, and are much simpler and can be smaller in span than rotors to lift an equivalent sized aircraft.
I get what you are saying, you are right there about the downfalls.... I know wings are great for fuel efficiency and sustaining lift compared to a mad amount of rotor power, but that isnt worth dwelling on, especially when talking futuristic concepts...... Also, you have to remember for it to be deemed as a flying car, means it has to be able to drive around decently enough after landing.
I just reckon a 'Helicopter' type craft is way easier to envision as a flying car, since its rotor blade would just need stopped parallel to the craft for it to become compact enough to drive around(at least outside a metropolis).... compared to a flying car with wings, it would need its wings taken off after landing(probably manually too)...... I can NEVER see these winged vehicles materializing as flying cars tbh. I dunno why, it s just too dumb or something. like the steam powered car.
...... If in the future they somehow found a way for helicopters to do without tail rotors and they could do that with air channeling or thrust at rear of the craft for balance and rotation. then that would be a very compact vehicle, bar the rotor blades, and so then just the rotor power to sort out.... Now a plane type vehicle pretty much needs all its air surfaces to climb/turn/fly etc.. so I see them never becoming more compact than they are now.... whereas I can imagine a more compact halo of the future no probs.... And Halos are more laid back and scenic also, especially for short/medium hops or whatever- that has a futuristic vibe too.... Of course the a plane type vehicle would kill it for longer trips... but then its just - a plane lol
I just reckon a 'Helicopter' type craft is way easier to envision as a flying car, since its rotor blade would just need stopped parallel to the craft for it to become compact enough to drive around(at least outside a metropolis).... compared to a flying car with wings, it would need its wings taken off after landing(probably manually too)...... I can NEVER see these winged vehicles materializing as flying cars tbh. I dunno why, it s just too dumb or something. like the steam powered car.
...... If in the future they somehow found a way for helicopters to do without tail rotors and they could do that with air channeling or thrust at rear of the craft for balance and rotation. then that would be a very compact vehicle, bar the rotor blades, and so then just the rotor power to sort out.... Now a plane type vehicle pretty much needs all its air surfaces to climb/turn/fly etc.. so I see them never becoming more compact than they are now.... whereas I can imagine a more compact halo of the future no probs.... And Halos are more laid back and scenic also, especially for short/medium hops or whatever- that has a futuristic vibe too.... Of course the a plane type vehicle would kill it for longer trips... but then its just - a plane lol
Danoff
Premium
- 34,007
- Mile High City
I don't see any wheels on that. I see casters that were used to put it on the runway, and then were removed for actual takeoff. I don't think this is a flying "car", so much as a personal air vehicle intended to operate without a runway.
The quadcopter concept is to get you off the ground without a runway, then it has a giant propeller on the back and wings for the purpose of actually getting to its destination, at which point the quadcoper rotors get you back on the ground without a runway.
So it's a prop plane with vertical takeoff and landing.
- 86,834
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's because it's a "flying car", rather than car that flies, or a plane that drives.
It's worth noting that "car" itself doesn't mean a four-wheeled vehicle with an engine. Before we had what we know as cars today, a car was any unpowered section of a train (and in the US this is still used relatively commonly; in the UK we tend to prefer carriage). Before that it was a thing horses pulled, with "carriage" and "chariot" both deriving from the same root (fun fact: the names of most automotive body styles derive from horse-drawn carriage styles). Ultimately "car" (from "carrum") just means "carriage", as in the act of carrying or transport rather than the object itself. We've just contracted it from "motorcar" or "autocar" and assumed wheels.
Essentially this solution isn't what you'd think of as a vehicle that both drives on roads and flies in the air. It's a vehicle that does the job of a car - door-to-door personal transport - but in the air rather than on the road. Thus it's a "flying car".
I'll also note that I haven't seen any wheels on it yet, but since Boeing was testing the autonomous VTOL systems there was no need for wheels on the vehicle in this test, so it may end up being more like something we'd recognise as a car down the line.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,007
- Mile High City
Well... "just another" is a bit too dismissive for me. This is the first time I've seen an aircraft that at least outwardly appears to be quite capable of high speeds that can do VTO in a consumer, light aircraft, setting. It's a really good alternative to a helicopter, especially if no pilot is required.
@Famine
Admittedly there IS two types of vehicles that people refer to as a "Flying Car".... ( definition of car avoided : ) )
1. The type found in movies like The Fifth Element, where Bruce Willis has a 'Flying Car' that doesn't drive like a normal car, only flies (if memory serves me)..... and of course you could round this off by saying, why drive at all on the ground, when you may as well just fly everywhere.... and so holds a good point- Why land and Drive at all?
2. The type in movies like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Back to the future. A vehicle that flies and drives.
Now that Boeing craft is obviously the first type. But those type of vehicles wont actually be allowed to drop people at the door of hotels or any other building door/rooftops either. But notice how a Helicopter IS allowed to do that? (thats what I meant with "tried and tested" earlier)
See, dropping people off in cities is waaaay off in the future. Remember recently in NYC, they wouldnt let a normal drone patrol New Years partying in Times Square because it may fail and fall onto people below, yet this thing is expected to drop people at the Plaza Hotel, and automatically. With packed streets!!
The reason I see the second type of Flying Car coming first is, if in future something like a proper flying car evolves, they will more than likely have landing spots outside cities at different points (like piers or whatever at NSEW of city) this will avoid any packed streets and other disasters... and so you would land at whatever of these points is nearest to where you want to go, then "drive" to your destination.... and so VTOL is a must and being able to change from flying to driving as a car is a must too. So winged stuff is too cumbersome imo, albeit better at flying.... You could evolve a Helicopter into something like that I think way more easily than a plane.
Admittedly there IS two types of vehicles that people refer to as a "Flying Car".... ( definition of car avoided : ) )
1. The type found in movies like The Fifth Element, where Bruce Willis has a 'Flying Car' that doesn't drive like a normal car, only flies (if memory serves me)..... and of course you could round this off by saying, why drive at all on the ground, when you may as well just fly everywhere.... and so holds a good point- Why land and Drive at all?
2. The type in movies like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Back to the future. A vehicle that flies and drives.
Now that Boeing craft is obviously the first type. But those type of vehicles wont actually be allowed to drop people at the door of hotels or any other building door/rooftops either. But notice how a Helicopter IS allowed to do that? (thats what I meant with "tried and tested" earlier)
See, dropping people off in cities is waaaay off in the future. Remember recently in NYC, they wouldnt let a normal drone patrol New Years partying in Times Square because it may fail and fall onto people below, yet this thing is expected to drop people at the Plaza Hotel, and automatically. With packed streets!!
The reason I see the second type of Flying Car coming first is, if in future something like a proper flying car evolves, they will more than likely have landing spots outside cities at different points (like piers or whatever at NSEW of city) this will avoid any packed streets and other disasters... and so you would land at whatever of these points is nearest to where you want to go, then "drive" to your destination.... and so VTOL is a must and being able to change from flying to driving as a car is a must too. So winged stuff is too cumbersome imo, albeit better at flying.... You could evolve a Helicopter into something like that I think way more easily than a plane.
Similar threads
