Here are the reasons why it _should be made to_ work-
1. 250mph = 20 miles in 5 minutes on one gallon of fuel. Ask yourself how much fuel you /waste/ turning that damn engine over at idle in gridlock?
Depending on congestion and accidents, we average 45 to 75 minutes in the I-25 corridor to go 17 miles. We refuel a 20 gallon tank once per week with
less than 20 miles spent for 'recreational travel' on the weekends. That's 190 miles divided by 20 or 9.5 mpg.
HALVE YOUR FUEL CONSUMPTION AND THE ARABS CAN GO TO HELL.
This is one way ot assuredly getting there by abandoning the wagon-with-powered-wheels (concept hasn't changed in over a century) contraptional
idiocy. Not as a funciton of distance travelled (mechanically, a surface vehicle exerts much less effort for work done vs. miles travelled than any
aircraft ever will) but by /time/. As the hours you waste (5X2X45 = 7.5hrs per week in transit) 'feeling every bump, sucking down every fume'.
2. If it's so refreshing, exhilirating and an expression of personal freedom (as the car companies would have you believe in every advertisement),
why is our vehicular transport grid so much like a rat's maze? Every time you stop at a stop light. Every time you obey channelization laws painted
on an asphalt road. Every time you PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE of utter frustration via registration and taxes and tolls for being trapped behind everyone
else also stuck on that 2 dimensional strip of _no choice_ directionalized travel. You are becoming more and more a slave to the things you cannot
experience BECAUSE you are stuck in that single road.
3. Given we get the A#1 threat to our society (overpopulation) under strict control, it is quite possible to create 'green belts' (imagine 1 mile
wide parks stretching for 50 miles or more) in which no human dwelling is at risk to inadvertant crashes, even as we cease paving over the planet with
highly pollutive, impossible to clean up roadways.
Because DGPS is so precise (within 1m most of the time) and the aircraft so fast, it should be readily possible to 'dial in a flight time' sitting
in your car, lift off and be at your destination in next to zero flight time, so that with less than one TENTH the total number of vehicles in-motion
(creating noise and emission pollution) you maintain a like degree of transport mobility at GREATER safety levels of say 1 mile and 500 ft altitude
separations (HITS) between all aircraft.
Again with virtually NO 'intersection' conditions (necessary to accomodate opposed traffic lanes or 2D restricted obstacles to the traffic path),
90% of all state-change performance issues should go away.
Lastly, since the aircraft will supposedly fly on any 2 nacelles or four motors it should be readily possible to fly to a point at which an airbag and
rocket extracted ram parachute are capable of providing near zero fps controlled descent rates with less than 10mph forward velocity on the car.
The reason it won't happen is simple. Governments and indeed /societies/ are 'not in the business' of emancipating humanity from any established
drudgery as a state of existence determined by change. Indeed where governance is an attempt to enforce staticism on any given dynamic scenario as a
function of expectation as much as experimentalism in CHOICE, they are terrified of being outmoded across the board by the existence of options whose
complexity they are not designed to deal with.
In this case, the problem is not as much commercial as social psychology. Because if you can 'afford' to lay off 30,000 workers at 20 plants, you
can easily afford to /invest/ in the societal infrastructure by which such a massive paradigmatic change could happen. (257 billion dollars and
counting on the JSF, 'of course it will work' even though /analytically/ it is exactly the wrong system to do the job).
Such is the cybernetic rationale by which we only accept change when risk is minimalized and the emperical evidence or 'reality principle' is so
high as to offset any native misgivings of uncertainty. When you entrust people for whom /choice/ is itself a risk, of course they are going to say:
"Don't go there it's risky..." And you will believe them because you have elevated them to the position of saying what is needful, what the
specifications of that need are an whether the specs have been met. In a closed loop (secure but ultimately incompetent) system.
For myself, the risks inherent to four failure points are no better than that of one if nature of the air vehicle (four post VTOL) is such that there
is no recovery mode point in trading their separate installation mass variables for the power that is needed to have a useful powered lift margin
Because either way, if you lose one nacelle, you've lost controlled recovery. And the true trade then becomes the weight variable and freewheel drag
functions vs. the suspension stress and total mass trade for an emergency recovery system ala so-
I would concentrate on THAT element, along with netcentric comms for airspace control using milspec or developmental improvement (microturbine power
to weight for a single or paired electric motor) before I would write off the concept altogether. Because it is only through _diversity_ of initial
investment that you can determine not merely whether the goal but which of the paths to said objective is worthwhile.
Singular focus on implementation being the surest sign of someone who doesn't want to succeed but only to justify their failure.
Yet one needs only look at the dark and dreer cyberpunk beginnings of 'Bladerunner' vs. it's escapist bucolic fantasy ending _in a car_ to see how
tired we all are, as a society, living in the muck of our fellow's plodding commute.