It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finally! A Flying Car Could Go On Sale In 2017

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Here take my money . Want one in black .




posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
These are a cool idea, and the design looks cool, but they tend to suck at both, kinda like amphibious cars.

I think the quadcopter type may be a little more realistic.

Being a good pilot is a whole different ball game. This thing only has auto pilot, when it needs autonomous pilot to go commercial.

I wouldn't invest in it. It's performance stats and range are as bad as it's aerodynamics. Its low performance and boxy build make it quite dangerous as well.

It is not fast enough to power out of a tailwind at take-off, it has a high take offf speed, small wing area, and low top speed.

These guys come along every few years scooping up "investors" with concepts.

In reality, it will never take off commercially because the FAA won't certify it.

Neat concept though.






posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: lostbook

There are also safety considerations.

A broken wing fluttering down the freeway...


IDK, Phage. I am hopeful that features are built into the cars system which don't allow the car to fly when disabled. If an issue happens in mid-air that can't be solved that can be a problem. The most costly part for these cars may very well be the insurance.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I didn't mean flying, flying cars. I meant a flying car on the freeway. There are enough dangerous vehicles on the highway.

It's obvious this thing (if it ever gets off the ground) is not meant to become a mass consumer item. The idea is not commuting with it (unless you're going to get on the subway or bus at the airfield). It's to avoid housing your aircraft at the airfield. That's cool. But if you can afford to own one, you could own a more useful airplane and store it for pretty much the same cost.

Either way, you have to drive to the airfield.
edit on 12/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

OK I will digress. I was trying to keep it short(busy). But all too often for example; Oil/petrol interests like to sell fuel, the more the better, car companies like to sell cars that use fuel. Then some poor sap finds a proven way to get more fuel efficiency out of an existing format...BOOM, Oil interests lobby against it, so do the car makers, they pay lobbyists, then legislators to act on their behalf. Then the lawmakers go about making nonsensical laws to limit or halt the progress of said technology, for it to be stuck in court or red-tape for a couple of decades. Only for the inventor to runs out of funding and looses the patent or just outright sells it for it to be buried forever...Now this is the way it should legally happen...

But in the real world convince me NO ONE involved took a bribe or a bonus, or some donation to make this happen. I will admit a high percentage of nefarious dealings are by law legit, but not all of them.

To me it seems tptb like to limit our ability to efficiently travel or transport without their piece of it, if they don't have a piece of it, they step on it. Look how long it took for electric cars to become affordable, hmmmm since carbon credits became a real factor. Mighty suspicious to me.

Also take into account numerous advancements that were announced to only be an afterthought..lost in the noise. For the Inventors to die, some suspiciously. Or to be mocked into disgrace many deserving this for they're just hacks to begin with. All the little guys get squashed, if you won't sell it, they suppress it...or ? you if they have that itch.

This was not short...and just an opinion.
edit on 12/27/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/27/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: jappee
Maybe this thing would use less fuel than a surface vehicle. Not enough, and there won't be enough of them to bother fossil fuel interests.


Flying cars are a victim only of their own impracticality. They are a cool thing with no real place in the world.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

With this I agree.


ETA .Flying cars are for the elite. No harm done to the existing scheme of plebs buying fuel. Or even owning or flying one ever.
edit on 12/27/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/27/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I might just joyride one...



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: jappee

More money can be made on ground transportation, plus ground travel is more trackable and containable.

A good starting point I think would be to get those big 16 wheelers off the road and create a air transport lanes that drone like vehicles can carry goods too and fro, an air train so to speak. That would free up the roads and improve productivity.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

What is the price tag for this flying car, does anyone know?



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I remember reading about Moeller in a text book in the seventh grade in 1997. They hoped to have them by 2002 or so. In any case, the JetPack actually beat the flying car to realization.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

It sounds really cool, but I'm not sure the reality would be so great. Have you seen the way people drive? Translate that to flying and it sounds pretty freaking scary. As a novelty toy though, it looks like it would be fun to play around in. I bet it lights up all cool at night, too.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: lostbook

What is the price tag for this flying car, does anyone know?

200k ish
which could get you into an older malibu or matrix, with fiki de-ice and pressurized

edit on 12 by Mandroid7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12 by Mandroid7 because: edited



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist

Bwah hahaha a drone capable of carrying 60,000lbs...lol

ETA Not over my backyard!
edit on 12/27/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: jappee
a reply to: Observationalist

Bwah hahaha a drone capable of carrying 60,000lbs...lol

ETA Not over my backyard!



b2 carries 75000 lbs lol guy

added...yeah Amazon Tank delivery would be sketch
edit on 12 by Mandroid7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

Yes and it has a PILOT, who wants to live as much as the next pilot. Not some drone operator whom...oops lost one!

Apples and oranges, we were talking cargo, not munitions.
edit on 12/27/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/27/2016 by jappee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: jappee

Eggs act lee

I don't think heavy delivery will ever go that route, unless tech changes drastically.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7
OT, but all I saw was bacon and eggs.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: jappee

I first saw "Alvin Lee."

Time for bed, I guess.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7


200k ish
which could get you into an older malibu or matrix, with fiki de-ice and pressurized


Cool,
I'll take the matrix instead.







 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join