Boeing foresees flying passenger drones within 10 years

Airplane manufacturer Boeing is adamant that electric passenger drones will hit the market within the next 10 years. We previously reported on Boeing’s acquisition of Aurora Flight Sciences, a firm focused on advanced unmanned systems, which the company certainly seems to be benefitting from significantly these days. In recent months, the preponderance of passenger drones has reached peak levels, with a wide variety of companies entering the nascent field and developing passenger UAVs intended for public use. While the standardization of flying taxis may seem far off, to some, Boeing is quite confident that they’ll become reality within a decade.

...

“I think it will happen faster than any of us understand,” he said. “Real prototype vehicles are being built right now. So the technology is very doable.”

www.thedrive.com...

We've been watching this with interest here on ATS. The Chinese, Europeans (in Oregon?!), Russians and Americans have all been pursuing this tech.

i really think the biggest problem is the air traffic control, at least in the US and whatever FAA regs will require will be the second problem. This isn't a helicopter and it isn't a normally human flown vehicle. This ought to be interesting.

a reply to: anzha

Flying taxi?

Cool.

i guess no one saw the X-files and the WHIPZ car.
my god, i will never sit in computer controlled anything.
i hate robots.

originally posted by: anzha
i really think the biggest problem is the air traffic control, at least in the US and whatever FAA regs will require will be the second problem.

I still think the third biggest problem will be insurance. Fourth? Noise.

a reply to: anzha

I always wondered if the jet powered RC drones could be used to fly a single human.

I saw a replica 747 RC jet that was bigger than an adult. It looked like it could haul some weight.

LOL

I would prefer something along the lines of individual drone transportation over large automated airplanes.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: anzha
i really think the biggest problem is the air traffic control, at least in the US and whatever FAA regs will require will be the second problem.

I still think the third biggest problem will be insurance. Fourth? Noise.

Noise.

That's the real barrier.

It's bad enough living near to an airport.

Bringing the airport down to the city blocks everywhere will make the environment really unpleasant.

They need to solve the noise problem first.

This is possible, by using noise cancellation tech, that already exists. But, it's rather expensive to employ it on the scale required for an aircraft drone.

Dyson, for example, makes some really quiet fans, that have no visible blades.

They need to adapt that type of tech, to outfit the drones.

originally posted by: dantanna
i guess no one saw the X-files and the WHIPZ car.
my god, i will never sit in computer controlled anything.
i hate robots.

You let movies color your reality?

Bird strikes Id be more worried about.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Except I can easily see the old oakland army logistics base and pier 30 in SF becoming two ends of a link for air taxis. I am sure there are other locales like that as well in the SF Bay area.

will give up travel by air for good if those things go into widespread use . no way in hell am I going to ride any vehicle that isnt controlled by a human .

you kids can have your high-tech toys I dont trust the damn things one bit .

a reply to: VengefulGhost

You should probably give up on airliners now...

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
will give up travel by air for good if those things go into widespread use . no way in hell am I going to ride any vehicle that isnt controlled by a human .

Uh, huh. You do realize that the pilots in all those big jets that fly hundreds of people around mostly fly on autopilot, right?

I mean, the human pilots just sit there for emergencies and stuff, that aren't yet handled by machines. The pilot job is to give you "assurances" by putting his "voice" over the comms, so passengers can "imagine" that it's humans at the controls, then they switch to autopilot and take a nap.

originally posted by: anzha
Except I can easily see the old oakland army logistics base and pier 30 in SF becoming two ends of a link for air taxis. I am sure there are other locales like that as well in the SF Bay area.

So I have to travel to those locations first, and then get on my Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang, land at the other location, and then get transportation from there to where I'm actually going?

I see a flaw.

a reply to: AMPTAH

That's like saying that we can get rid of anaesthesiologists because the patient is on a mechanical ventilator for the majority of the surgery instead of being manually bagged through the whole thing.

a reply to: Blue Shift

They're barely going to allow them as it is. They aren't going to allow them to land at your front door and pick you up. For one thing, there's way too much risk of them finding out the hard way there's something in front of your door. So, yes, you're going to have to do like you would now, and go to a heliport to get on one.

a reply to: Blue Shift

More than likely, you will be picked up by a car (self driving, more than likely), then dropped off at the flyport. Then picked up at the other end by the same. If you own the self driving car, it will go home. If not, then you used something like Uber or Lyft or Didi.

www.reuters.com...


Porsche may build flying taxis, too.

a reply to: anzha

Then there is the Audi twist on the AirBus sky taxi:

www.engadget.com...

a reply to: anzha

newatlas.com...

And this is supposed to be the world's first production ready flying car. hm.

If Musk can land on a dime now i'm pretty sure in a decades time Boeing will pretty much on the money.

Obviously it's about trials trials and more trials, The public will need to feel well at ease with the new tech. I've said for years Pilots will be obsolete by the year 2030.