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.

 

I want my sky car!

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by RichardPrice
 




I think anyone willing to look at any of the posts made in this thread are likely to find that I didn't manipulate anything, my quoting perfectly reflects what you said.

Then you need to let everyone look more closely.

Here is what antebellum posted:




Spoken by someone who probably does not know how to fly a plane. There are a lot more things to look for in the sky when flying. And if you do hit something you will not be changing a flat tire!

In this post:post

You posted this:





give this post a star
posted on 11-5-2011 @ 12:49 PM this post

Originally posted by butcherguy


Spoken by someone who probably does not know how to fly a plane.

There are a lot more things to look for in the sky when flying.
And if you do hit something you will not be changing a flat tire!

Are you a pilot? If so, what types of aircraft are you qualified to fly?

Just what is it that you are going to hit up there?

Please help my poor intellect to understand by composing a list of "things to look for in the sky" when flying.

That you are so obsessed with "what is there to hit?" as your argument certainly indicates that you should never, ever be put in charge of an aircraft.

The world of flying is so much more than avoiding physical obstacles.


Here:Your original post




Let me know where I wrote what you have attributed to me!


edit on 11-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


So ATS screwed up teh quoting, it still doesn't change my point - you posted the following:


Originally posted by butcherguy

Just what is it that you are going to hit up there?

Please help my poor intellect to understand by composing a list of "things to look for in the sky" when flying.


So again, get off the "hitting things is the biggest problem when flying".




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by RichardPrice
 



While recovering from a stall in close proximity to the ground is a pain in the arse.
Where I come from we think so too.




Most aircraft have low speed, high lift devices such as flaps and slats, which increase lift from the wing at the cost of more power

Most single/ two-seater aircraft civilian don't, they would be the equivalent to the Skycar.



Every single, twin or quad seat light aircraft I have flown has had at least flaps - microlights I have flown haven't, but microlights are in an entirely different class of aircraft here.





You really think people wanting sky cars would be willing to go through hundreds of hours of training and certification?
Do you really think the skycar is a conventional aircraft? Is it possible that the time that it has taken this project to come to fruition may be to make it safer to operate? Is there a reason that they might have called it a 'Skycar'? Instead of , some new airplane?


edit on 11-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact that it FLIES puts it into an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT category than a car.

If you are relying on automation to make a sky car "safe" then you will be waiting for another hundred years or so - the techs not there, and the trust in pilots is not there. This isn't like having a nicely bordered highway for you to travel down at 70MPH, the things that can go wrong are significnatly higher and the fail modes are sigificantly worse.

I doubt they will ever make flying cars safe enough to be operated by the sort of people I see driving a normal car.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 



So again, get off the "hitting things is the biggest problem when flying".

Uh, no thanks. That really isn't what I have said, even though you posted it in quotes. What I have been saying is exactly the opposite. The FACT that there are fewer things to hit makes it much less of a problem.

It is a valid point, speaking of the fact that there is a whole world of room up there, compared to a highway. I have never said that I think the biggest worry when flying is 'hitting things', but that will not keep you from attributing it to me.


edit on 12-5-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


People are bad enough drivers as it is.

And you want to give them the ability to fly?!



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 



Every single, twin or quad seat light aircraft I have flown has had at least flaps - microlights I have flown haven't, but microlights are in an entirely different class of aircraft here.

Not the same as 'flaps and slats', which is what your statement (that I was responding to) said.

Incredible how vicious some people have turned when all that I originally said was that are far fewer things to hit in the air, compared with what you can hit when you stay on the ground.

It is a very simple premise that someone wanted to deny right away, or add other things to the mix. I never said that flying is safe, or that there is nothing to worry about when you are flying. I have never said that weather is not a factor in flying safely.

I did ask someone for a list of things that you need to avoid hitting up there. I asked because they were denying that there are just not too many things to hit when you are flying above FAA required minimum altitude.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
most people has issues driving a linear car imagine drying a 3D flying car, which you have to look all around you, above and underneath.

reply to post by mkkkay
 



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I would love the UFO looking one, I would just F with people all day xD maybe get a bright light on the bottom and have mock abductions xD I'm sure the guy that owns it does that

I wonder what a police chase would look like in a sky car xD They would likely design them so that police can turn them off somehow and putting like an auto pilot in that flys you to the nearest police station xD



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Just curious.... what happens when you dont make it to the nearest gas station in time?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


In fact they do have a parachute,

Text"Skycar ‘pilots’ will simply log on to the tracking system via on-board computers, then stick around for any arising emergency tasks such as deploying the craft’s parachutes in the event of a catastrophic power failure."


No need to pilot it's a tracking systeme.

TextUSA Today—Cover story, "Is Flying Car Model T of the Future?""One immediate advantage would be safety.The (Skycar) engines have so few moving parts that they should require a fraction of the maintenance of a helicopter.One engine could fail and the Skycar could still hover to a landing.Piloting the Skycar should require less skill than driving a car."


TextThe Skycar volantor developed by Moller International is capable of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) much as a helicopter and flies from point of departure to destination much like an airplane. However, the Skycar volantor is uniquely qualified to travel short distances on the ground as an automobile as well. All this and incredibly, its easy to fly! Actually a computer does the flying. The pilot need only move the controls in the direction he wants to go so that little skill is required. (Still for the time being, the operator will need to have a private pilot's license until the ease of operation and safety are thoroughly demonstrated.) The Moller Skycar is a volantor capable of these remarkable achievements through the use of an arrangement (array - collection - grouping) of proprietary technologies.

www.moller.com....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


In today's world it would probably look like skynet, but its technology that is the problem. I'm not yearning for reset buttons. Its depends on the society developing the technology. Skynet has bad associations with it. All the same tech they're using to harm can be used in wonderful ways, barring perhaps nuclear and a few dangerous things. Yet an Ai craft is very intelligent, and highly intuitive and would even be more likely to avoid than we would. I wasn't really suggesting preset paths, at least not for countryside. Not really like roads in the air, but that crafts would touch each other, as they would project the safest path. All computers have to be overrode at times though. Ai is highly intelligent but it cant say, I am, only soul can do that.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


These are junk, a waste of fuel and besides, if you cannot afford the gas prices now you certainly will not afford this. Whatever, they are junk. I want the ufo tech for my skycar, not something that runs on gas. I want a car that runs on just free air and is powered by the earths gravitational forces or by the forces of other planets gravity. GAS, not.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


That's only for commercial aviation. Light planes, GA, are considerably more dangerous. I have a pilot's license but never went beyond VFR and haven't updated the physical in over 20 years. The point is, getting any kind of pilot's license is fairly hard. Most people don't do too well on 2 dimensional marked roadways. You put them in a 3 dimensional environment with no markings in a machine that requires more or less constant attention to stay in the air and catastrophe ensues. As someone else pointed out, Moller's machines are not aerodynamic. When the power goes off the machine plummets like a stone. Most GA aircraft are pretty good gliders, you're going to come down but you have at least a little time and chance to pick a survivable spot.

It also appears that Moller's 40 year run at trying to build a mass produced flying car is finally coming to an end. I'm being generous in assuming it wasn't simply an investment scam from the beginning.

www.theregister.co.uk...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Only thing I'd be scared of is Fly-By Shootings.. ;/



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
We do not have them yet because:

Oil: I don't think I should go into details here.

Accidents: You have people crashing their cars every now and then, imagine what it would be like if everyone would fly such thing, in overcrowded city engine failure of one of these vehicles could cause a huge chaos.

Anything else?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Apparently nobody has heard of Nasas Highway in the Sky project.

By the time flying cars get here all we will have to do is punch in where we are going. The computer will do the rest.

Much rather have my own jetpack anyway



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a skycar would have to be fully and completely automated to where the user has almost no control for me to feel comfortable.
then set up a large virtual road network based on directional elevation...also plenty of redundant systems should there be catastrophic failure through lightning strikes, emp bombs, etc...(maybe even a emergency parachute that auto deploys should tshtf.

the moller sky car has been around forever...yes, it works great...now the only issue is the retarded people that would want to fly em. Automation would solve that issue..

Would be nice though to eventually remove the need for roads and highways...get back to a more natural way of life without the car (not that they would go away overnight...there may always be those whom desire to jump in the primitive buggys and take them for a drive in the same way that people take horses for a ride now and then for fun...would be roadways preserved for just such instances.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jstanthrno1
Apparently nobody has heard of Nasas Highway in the Sky project.

By the time flying cars get here all we will have to do is punch in where we are going. The computer will do the rest.

Much rather have my own jetpack anyway


Skyways sounds great...ya, it needs to happen
might be another 50 years before such sights are common and looks like a scene from star wars or 5th element though.

Jetpack? pfft...so...what happens if you go to high and pass out? Suddenly you become a torpedo

Jetpacks is a silly concept for anything but perhaps military use...skycars will work fine.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Landing pads instead of roads and free energy instead of fossil fuels would be a very clean planet. But I wouldn't fly these, I'd rather go for a saucer if a shuttle jet shape wasn't in the works, but it would be roomy and capable of deep space. The kind of energy needed to open a wormhole. They already have it.
edit on 12-5-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


No different then the avrocar, developed by nazi scientists in the 40's. Modern version far more advanced, and no for public use. Too many car accidents happen on the roads, in the sky is just a diseaster not to mention those who would drink and fly.

It would be cool but also like giving a chimp a handgun, it sounds fun but could very well be the death of you.




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join