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: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   
The flying car is coming...but you wont need a pilots license for it any more than you will need a drivers license to be in a self driving car. We already know we are just to stupid to drive an automobile safely on a day to day basis. We cut lanes, never use our blinkers anymore, text while driving...... you name it and someone right now is doing it.

Flying cars are the only way we are going to take a dent out of gridlock. The only way we will be able to make what would normally be a 20 min drive to work or home...... not take 3 hours stuck in traffic.... and 20 minutes of driving.

Plus I am getting tired of having to share the road with rich people....let them fly around so I dont have to be inconvenienced by their presence




posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Nice car but I can see all sorts of problems with it, not to mention 'bad people have bad intentions' meaning those people who harbour terrorist actions would love these vehicles... they would be able to fly them into anything they choose. We'd be facing suicide bombers en masse.

Of course, if w got rid of those people with bad intentions, then we could have a great way of movig about without all the costs associated with the transport we have today. Most of what we pay for now would still be paid for, such as parking and parking fines (if you stayed at a spot too long etc..). There would still be 'taxes' & 'M.O.T'. Without traffic lights though, how would people avoid eachother?



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: lostbook
What says ATS?

www.forbes.com...


There are enough certified pilots in the sky who shouldn't be.


Come to that, there are enough licensed drivers on the roads who definitely shouldn't be.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Not to mention the amount of unlicensed pilots and drivers out there doing their thing.
We're a long way from commuting via flying machine as a normal "thing"

Problems are
-Cost

-Reliability (lose an engine on the road, pull over... lose an engine in the air, better think quick..)

-Insurance (how much would one end up paying to insure a flying machine without a pilot's license? Nope! And even with a license, these things are going to be a pain to insure)

-New airspace rules will have to be developed, more low altitude airways to support congestion of flying cars

-The FAA will have no choice but to get involved with a whole new rule subset (much like their Light Sport rules). The EASA will also need to do the same thing, and all the other aviation authorities in the world.

-Training. License or not, ONE NEEDS TRAINING TO OPERATE A FLYING MACHINE.

-If they're self-flying-self-driving, still, you need TRAINING in case the computer fails.

I could keep going. We're not going to see a bunch of flying cars any time soon, sadly.


edit on 27-12-2016 by servovenford because: oops, didn't space a bullet point



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: servovenford

Agreed.

Whatever route this takes (see what i did there...) it will have to be automated for it to be a truly all encompassing mode of travel. Either that, or those that are trained will become the taxi-drivers of the future, ferrying most of us around as a kind of stand by, emergency pilot (in charge of a controlled crash landing one would assume), or else safety devices will be compulsory, like automatically deployed parachutes / helium filled balloon(s) to arrest falling due to engine failure.

A normal car can do quite a lot of damage if it ploughs into a crowd or shop window, but a flying car could do more as it takes out floor after floor of a skyscraper / block of flats / school playground / hospital on it's way to the ground.

Triple redundancy in onboard computers will be the norm, with at least one being hardened against EMP and lightning strikes.

Air travel won't be go as you please, but rather the FC will have to follow 'sky lanes' or predetermined routes through the cities and towns, delineated by low power lasers marking out a route that the FC will automatically follow.

(an exception might be in unpopulated areas or those with sparse populations)

Lots of things to iron out, i agree.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Change of vision on the topic: this type of vehicle would be perfect for remote locations with poor road infrastructure.

Not that locals could really afford them, but they might fit well in the tourist industry. Any location where flying is a must to be able to view something, or more practically, anywhere that is difficult to navigate by road. Amazon River villages with an airstrip - or have a pontoon version for aquatic landings. Mountain passes with their zig-zag roads. Swampy areas like the Darien Gap - most other places in South America outside large cites. In places like these, the necessity to restrict air operations to airports is largely eliminated.

Just a thought. Planning a move to South America soon and considering the state of travel conditions, one of these would be perfect.

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

just my opinions - but why this is not going to work :


wheelbase and overal length = too long for a road vehicle

exposed fixed propellor [ yes i know it is locked during road operations ] but its vullnerable to road debris damage etc

px and cargo capacity - 2 px and minumal cargo means its usseless for families or holidays or biz trips abroard // across country

" on the ground " running costs - aero engines are exoensive - the only example i can think of is porsche - who make both road car and light aircaft engines - thier 6 cylinder flats used in cars like the porche 911 family are virtually identical to thier aero engines - aimed at budget single engine prop planes - but the price difference is phenomemal - using it on the road - you are going to rack up expensive maintanence shcedules very quickly

` trying to do two things ` - ie flight and road use - it does neither well

suspension durability // landing capabilities [ uneven runawy etc ] - with ground clearence and " front " landing gear tolernces so tight - its not going to like hard landings or any surface other than snooker table smooth concrete // tarmack for landing

thats it for now - it looks awesome - but in reality sucks



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 10:09 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!


Think outside our current infrastructure!

The efficiency of the delivery method would negate the need for the large shipping containers your thinking of.

Plus I'm sure a company would be able to figure a way to make lighter container.

Patent Pending

edit on 27-12-2016 by Observationalist because: Broke up text



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I think it's time for this to happen. An infrastructure should be built where the vehicles are contained to follow certain paths "skyways" above existing roads. Or roadways could have to exist outside of metropolitan areas to avoid civilian casualties on the ground..



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
It's not practical. Besides, that's not a "flying car". This one is a car that converts into a plane. It already exists. This one just streamlines the process of going from car to plane.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Considering it is legal to park a helicopter in parking lots, can we all just admit we've had flying cars our whole lives??? Granted, you can't drive it once landed... I was just thinking in general terms of flying personal private transportation.
edit on 27/12/2016 by Gyo01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Justso

John Lear, hands down



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: lostbook

Makes sense.

'Cuz 3D travel is just like 2D travel.


3D travel is nothing more than navigating multiple 2D planes.

If we can have a flying car by the end of the year, we can obviously have self driving flying cars by the end of next year.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

The first commercially available model is expected to be a two-seater with a 435-mile range, take-off speed of 81 miles per hour, top air speed at around 124 miles per hour and an autopilot function.

So whats the point of this kind of conveyance? Stuck in traffic? You can't split from traffic jams because take off speed is 81 mph.

You can't land on roads either, like planes don't do that now. This 'hybrid' is a car till gets to a runway and a plane till it gets to another airport.

Whatever it costs will be too expensive to drive on roads anyway, expensive fender benders. Licenses, repairs maintenance. Leave the plane in the hangar and drive to the airport.

Come up with a hybrid car / helo.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join