I want my sky car!, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 12-5-2011 @ 05:38 PM by polarboarder

reply to post by mkkkay

I was watching videos of these cars yesterday, and I was imagining what it would be like to never have to drive on a
paved road again, only to see the earth as you travel from above. It would be quite amazing. This is a
video of a simulated flight from Wall Street to the Hamptons on a summer Friday. It was fun to watch even though its computer animation its still done quite well. It is posted by majormajor42 on his youtube channel.

youtu.be...

edit on 12-5-2011 by polarboarder because: I tried to embed a video but it did not work. Replaced the embed code with the youtube url.

reply posted on 12-5-2011 @ 09:08 PM by TheDevilOfLies

dont even waste your time on the idea of a flying car while people like hilary clinton are alive

according to her now that osamas dead we have to DOUBLE our efforts and give up even more freedoms in order to provide us with the security she has decided we NEED

i mean come on

we have our babies molested to fly, the same will happen on trains, tons of other things are being implemented to rape us more

you think theyre going to let al queda get their hands on a FLYING CAR?!

no way, then they could hit any building they want and bypass the molesters of the tsa

reply posted on 13-5-2011 @ 03:49 AM by waynos

Originally posted by mkkkay
reply to post by RichardPrice

It's all good, i will not lend you my sky car
you can keep your horse carriage

time will tell

Time already has, this skycar was a dead end 40 years ago when Moller started it. With the huge leaps that technology has made since, it still is.

reply posted on 13-5-2011 @ 03:53 AM by Lonestar24

Originally posted by TheDevilOfLies
....
you think theyre going to let al queda get their hands on a FLYING CAR?!

no way, then they could hit any building they want and bypass the molesters of the tsa

Hysterics check:

There are thousands of private, charterable, leasable, rentable, buyable small to large aircraft in the sky today, and have been for decades. All of these are easier and cheaper to get their hands on NOW than flying cars would be for the foreseeable future.

Please, think before you post.

edit on 13/5/2011 by Lonestar24 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-5-2011 @ 03:55 AM by Flying Sorcerer

Yes there are far too many bad drivers on the roads already without them being mentalists in the air... but at least this would reduce the amount of bad drivers in the world after a few years

reply posted on 13-5-2011 @ 04:24 AM by waynos

Originally posted by butcherguy
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.

You do seem to have wilfully ignored the reply you got that addressed this question, the one that pointed out the whole of tne ground is your potential target assoon as you are off it.

If automation is going to be what keeps us safe I hope Renault never gets into this business.

reply posted on 13-5-2011 @ 06:09 AM by butcherguy

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by butcherguy
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.

You do seem to have wilfully ignored the reply you got that addressed this question, the one that pointed out the whole of tne ground is your potential target assoon as you are off it.

If automation is going to be what keeps us safe I hope Renault never gets into this business.

Not quite.
It is my point and has been from the very beginning. The ground provides the danger, and while you are interacting with it you are at the highest risk. That is why I referred to FAA minimum altitude requirements.

I had a friend (years ago) that willfully ignored the minimum altitude very often in the rural area that we lived in. He hit something while flying. That something was a power pole, which interestingly enough was planted in the ground. The same kind of poles that cars hit.

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >> ^^TOP^^