It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


SCI/TECH: Flying Cars going into production

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:23 PM
Regardless of the issue of Peak Oil, we have to look at what matters most. The Moller Skycar is amazing. Here is a glimpse of it in action:

Video of the vehicle can be found here:

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:25 PM

We drive bad enough on the ground.....Now we want to put people in the air and tell them they don't need a special license to, fly it??

This is about as half-baked as a frozen pizza....

I agree. There needs to be an infrastructure, and a ton of regulation in place before we have flying highways...

As for the one mentioning piloting by GPS...if you think I'm setting foot in a vehicle piloted solely by computer, you're smoking something... Manual control ALWAYS has to be an option, but sadly with that option, will come crazy drunk teenagers (and adults) who can't drive also.

At least when a drunk goes off the road, he's somewhat limited as to what he can hit and how much damage he could do. Think about an airborne vehicle careening into a school playground. The fence might stop most cars, but nothing to guard against the flying car...and that's just ONE example.

There are a LOT of things to consider here, before we see the flying highways of Back to the Future, Coruscant in Star Wars, or Fifth Element, Blade Runner, etc.......

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
As for the one mentioning piloting by GPS...if you think I'm setting foot in a vehicle piloted solely by computer, you're smoking something... Manual control ALWAYS has to be an option

Completely agree here. Besides, what's the fun in having a flying car that you don't get to fly yourself

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:32 PM
Here is a Pictue of the airscooter. Hardly what I would consider a viable means of transportation since it is all open meaning it flys only in good weather.

Also looks like somethng that was built with a tinkertoy set

[edit on 4/18/2005 by shots]

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Flinx
Flying cars MUST become a reality. I don't have any good reason, why besides the fact that I've always dreamed of having them and they're just plain cool.

Must is taking it a bit too far. The average vehicle operator cannot successfully pull his/her car out of a spin, does not take care to maintian assured clear distance, does not obey speed limits, and gets into at least one major vehicle accident in their driving lifetimes.

So you're advocating that we add a whole new impact surface to the equation...the ground...because it's cool? I suggest you visit Angola for a tattoo and piercing session amidst a Marburg virus outbreak. Tattoos and piercings are cool too right?

We will not even see hover cars w/in the next 20 years because of the introduction of a new impact surface, let alone ultralight pseudo air-cars.

Do I think it would be neat? Sure. Do I think that the average car driver is sufficiently responsible to operate one? Hell no. Teach drivers to drive before you make them fly.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM
I almost bought one of the toy RC models awhile ago.

This is a bad idea for soo many reasons. Pollution (aircraft have much less emissions restrictions by necessity than car engines), noise (imagine a straight piped Harley running at twice the RPM full throttle out of a dozen driveways every morning) , safety (people can't even avoid driving drunk/stoned) and the whole problem of maintenance (kids with $5K in rims and tires broken down because they don't get their oil changed, and you can't pull over to a cloud when a "minor" malfunction occurs) and air traffic control issues (the FAA barely keeps pace with current load).

Not to mention fuel issues-mileage for rotorcraft is much worse than ground cars. Litigation (even a fender bender is now fatal to all involved and those under you).

So many problems. Not enough benefits.

It reminds me of all the hype here in CA about "hybrids". All the tax bennies if you buy a "hybrid" SUV that still gets worse mileage than a smaller car. While ignoring or almost actively suppressing motorcycles, which even an old 82 650 like mine gets 38-40MPG. No tax and buyers bennies for bikers. Or insurance subsidies. Or special parking bennies anymore, in San Francisco. But show up in that Suburban Hybrid (hypothetical) getting an amazing (sarcasm) 23 MPG and you'll get valet parking downtown for free.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Simulacra
Regardless of the issue of Peak Oil, we have to look at what matters most. The Moller Skycar is amazing. Here is a glimpse of it in action:

Video of the vehicle can be found here:

Notice that while this is one of their most successful flights, it is a *tethered* flight. Runtimes of less than 10 minutes, requiring manual intervention because the stability systems are not up to par.

Systems like "flying highways" are simply for the rich, toys for those with more money than brains, subsidized by the underclasses.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:03 PM
Damn, the skycar is cool though...

If I had the dough to just spend away, I'd pay 50,000 for that one, hehe....though not for the tinkertoy. You could get a much cooler ultralight kit plane for far less....and fully assembled.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:20 PM
As a side note, even if the sicker price of $50k is right, that's only part of the story.

Can you imagine what the insurance costs would be? I guess it can be looked up in the documents for the small airplane insurance industry... But this craft is relatively novel and the premiums would be very high!

The concept of a "car" involves relatively frequent stop-and-go, in this case landing and takeoffs. All done in populated areas! The risks are much higher. How would neighbors like a cruise missile doing routine fly-overs of the street?

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:28 PM
Can you imagine how high the insurance rates for one of those things would be if a lot of people had one?

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:33 PM
I would imagine trhis would be a whole lot more expensive tha the air scooter, but this is closer to what I would want in a flying car.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:39 PM
Has anyone mentioned Back To The Future, Part II yet?
They'd better hurry if they expect to make the film's 2015 deadline... hehe

We may one day have flying cars... but it will be much farther out than 2015. Even after they're perfected, the questions remain -- are they practical? Would they be incredibly dangerous? (Imagine a drunk driver, or a terrorist, behind the skycar's wheel... Also, high speed chases would become much more dangerous...)

As long as we use internal combustion engines, flying cars will be impractical from both an engineering and an economic standpoint. Now, if the use of electromagnetism and gravitational forces were ever discovered or perfected... that would be a totally different situation!

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:47 PM
I'm just thinking.. Helicopter maintenance is notoriously expensive. Since this vehicle is roughly in the same class, the maintenence cost would be very high.

Now... I believe the transport system needs to be redesigned... Completely revamped high speed mass-transit combined with electro-powered car rentals to complete the trip. Just swipe a card, use the fingerprint lock and jump in, then return to a designated lot. Certainly feasible!

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Aelita]

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Aelita
I'm just thinking.. Helicopter maintenance is notoriously expensive. Since this vehicle is roughly in the same class, the maintenence cost would be very high.

This vehicle is not in the same class. It has no tail rotor (uses counter rotating blades instead) and it's maintenance would be greatly reduced. Besides, anyone could learn to operate it in less than an hour.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:37 PM
-Drive-by-shootings will now become Fly-by-shootings . . .
-Suicide bombers will now have MUCH more amunition. Imagine the damage a dozen or more of those can do to a sky-scraper?
-Traffic problems? Probably not. NASA says that all of the cars on the ground, if put in to the airways would be separated by no less than 1 mile apart if done correctly. That is pretty decent.
-These things will redefine the term pile-up. Do you live in a major metropolitan area? Consider re-inforcing your roof, or moving to the 'burbs. You may have an unexpected visitor drop-in. BTW, one way to limit this, that I thought of -- and actually Moller has incorporated into their design -- is parachutes. This will help in the case where one breaks down, and the engines fail. When that happens, the parachute deploys, and the machine falls to the ground slowly, and any damage is limited. Accidents are still a problem. Fallind dibris can cause a lot of damage. Another thing I thought of was limiting travel to skyways that follow existing infrastructure. That way they tumble to the road, and not into someone's roof.
-If the system is automated, can it redirect traffic around problems? Suppose your car dies, and you are falling slowly to the ground by way of parachute. Would the system be able to move traffic out of the way?


posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:40 PM
It looks fun and cool and all that good stuff. But do you really think any time soon everyone are going to be able to use these? NO, for all the safety, fuel cost, insurance and liability issues mentioned.

A fun idea, but it will not become a "normal" thing in any of our lifetimes. Maybe when non-fossil fuel engines/motors are replaced we may see more innovation on this kind of travel.

But this is a positive thing, maybe our grandkids will have some fun toys.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:11 PM
Freaking wonderful, another potential charge to worry about: Piloting While Intoxicated...

Whats worse, by the time measures are taken to ensure that this new mode of transportation can be used on a mass scale "safely", I'll be aged and drunk trying to fly my old clunker home with one eye closed to combat cross-eyedness.

BTW, you know people are gonna be trying to run old air-cars till the rotors fall off (I will), and there will be old crapped out beaters plummeting from the sky on a regular basis. This paired with the increasing life spans and sheer number of elderly folk who at the time all this takes place will be inching their way through sky traffic with 230 year old reflexes, AND not to mention the wonderous new ways to f people up, IE tweaking something mechanically to induce a mid flight shutdown, screwing said person. This will be the end of us all. It will, mark my words.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:13 PM
whether or not they become mainstream they give people a much more independent form of transport.

Face it, we all tend to be control freaks. I like it when something comes a long that is difficult to control/restrict/regulate. A little chaos is good for you, just as breathing is.

It really is the stuff of SciFi.

Go people GO!

I just hope they develop cheap reliable energy efficient ones that i might be able to buy.

Wouldn't that be fun? To fly one of these things? Very cool.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:29 PM
This is a fantastic stuff. Another great example of American ingenuity at work!

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:53 PM
I just re-read the article and there is little if anything about the "production", i.e. when and where it will start.

So I remain very sceptical about it and still think they are trying to get more venture capital... Before they fold.

<< 1    3 >>

log in