USAF looking for flying cars. No, seriously.

[Ironhold]

https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-to-launch-search-for-flying-cars-this-month/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB 04.15.20&utm_term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

The United States Air Force has kicked off a contest in which they're searching for viable designs for flying cars. 

[NeuroTypical]

'bout dang time.     Shouldn't be that hard now.

 

[NeedleinA]

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

'bout dang time.     Shouldn't be that hard now.

At a minimum he built a hover lawn mower.

[Carborendum]

We actually have the technology to build a flying car today.  But it would cost several million dollars just to get someone to work.

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We actually have the technology to build a flying car today.  But it would cost several million dollars just to get someone to work.

To to mention how the thrust needed to lift a car would inadvertently effect anyone or thing below it. We will never have flying car highways unless we can utilize some sort of quantum atomic entangling wobbly wobbly time stuff that defies our current understanding of physics.

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, Fether said:

To to mention how the thrust needed to lift a car would inadvertently effect anyone or thing below it. We will never have flying car highways unless we can utilize some sort of quantum atomic entangling wobbly wobbly time stuff that defies our current understanding of physics.

You'e overthinking this.  We actually have working models of flying cars right now that fly at low aviation altitudes (helicopter).  They don't go along highways.  They aren't close enough to the ground to have their wakes affect anyone or anything on the ground.

If you're talking about lift off and landing, yes, they'd have to essentially have mini-air-bases.

Their underlying flight principles are more similar to gyrocopters.  And they are about as (un)safe.  For something like a mass-produced commercial item, they'd have to have higher safety standards.  For today's prototype models to be brought up to modern aviation safety standards, they'd cost significantly more than they do now.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest Scott]

This one is currently on sale:
 

 

[JohnsonJones]

Something that might work is an oversized drone.  You now like those things that have four propellers and that you can buy at an electronics store.  Get a few of those and fly with them but with people.

That may be expensive as well.

[Carborendum]

49 minutes ago, Scott said:

This one is currently on sale:

No, it isn't.  That was unveiled four+ years ago. Video is 2 years old.  But not a single unit has been sold.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

15 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Something that might work is an oversized drone.  You now like those things that have four propellers and that you can buy at an electronics store.  Get a few of those and fly with them but with people.

That may be expensive as well.

That is essentially what they would be.  Let's get this clear.  We're talking about individual level airplanes.  But the appearance and utility of a traditional car is being added to the design.  This is really the only change.  But that includes major obstacles.

• Easily fit it into a typical parking lot.
• Operates at a level that the common man can learn to an acceptable level of safety.
• Logistics of getting in and out, storing luggage, etc.  This is largely geometry.  But to couple those requirements with aerodynamics sufficient to make fuel economy reasonable is difficult.

[Fether]

51 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You'e overthinking this.  We actually have working models of flying cars right now that fly at low aviation altitudes (helicopter).  They don't go along highways.  They aren't close enough to the ground to have their wakes affect anyone or anything on the ground.

If you're talking about lift off and landing, yes, they'd have to essentially have mini-air-bases.

Their underlying flight principles are more similar to gyrocopters.  And they are about as (un)safe.  For something like a mass-produced commercial item, they'd have to have higher safety standards.  For today's prototype models to be brought up to modern aviation safety standards, they'd cost significantly more than they do now.

Having “flying cars” comes with the assumption of mass production and being at least somewhat as common as normal cars. If not, then why are we having this conversation cause obviously we have had flying cars since the invention of the airplane.
 

Sure a helicopter doesn’t disrupt the ground at all. But what about 5000+ helicopters flying around in the Salt Lake City area? Surely that would cause some sort of wind disturbance to both the ground and the other flying cars around.

admittedly I have not once taken a physics or engineering class so I am willing to admit I’m wrong, but I can’t imagine a world where 5,000+ helicopter type vehicles do not cause some sort of noticeable disturbance that would make it unsafe to everyone around and the environment or extremely annoying.

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

Having “flying cars” comes with the assumption of mass production and being at least somewhat as common as normal cars. If not, then why are we having this conversation cause obviously we have had flying cars since the invention of the airplane.

Yup.  And that is the difficulty.  See what I wrote to JJ above.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Yup.  And that is the difficulty.  See what I wrote to JJ above.

Which is what I was referring to in my initial post. 

[Carborendum]

Just now, Fether said:

Which is what I was referring to in my initial post. 

What are you calling your "initial" post?  I first addressed this:

2 hours ago, Fether said:

To to mention how the thrust needed to lift a car would inadvertently effect anyone or thing below it. We will never have flying car highways unless we can utilize some sort of quantum atomic entangling wobbly wobbly time stuff that defies our current understanding of physics.

This has nothing to do with "what we call it" or "mass production" or anything you just brought up in the previous post.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to understand. 

I am just getting confused about your posts apparently conflating several issues that are not in direct causal relationship with one another.  So, what are you talking about?

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Having “flying cars” comes with the assumption of mass production and being at least somewhat as common as normal cars. If not, then why are we having this conversation cause obviously we have had flying cars since the invention of the airplane.

Sure a helicopter doesn’t disrupt the ground at all. But what about 5000+ helicopters flying around in the Salt Lake City area? Surely that would cause some sort of wind disturbance to both the ground and the other flying cars around.

admittedly I have not once taken a physics or engineering class so I am willing to admit I’m wrong, but I can’t imagine a world where 5,000+ helicopter type vehicles do not cause some sort of noticeable disturbance that would make it unsafe to everyone around and the environment or extremely annoying.

Why would a "flying car" be V/STOL like a helicopter or a jump jet?

[Traveler]

I do not know why but this reminded me of a old theory of mine - when I was like in jr high or high school that involved symmetric sub atomic particles that are anti mass particles.  I had forgotten all about it; until this thread - I will have to revisit the old idea in lieu of Dark Energy which is causing the universe not just to expand but to accelerate the expansion over time.   But there is a problem - such anti gravity particles would not hover but be repelled not just from earth but the solar system into deep regions of space - likely between galaxies.  This would cause at least two new strangeness to dimensional space - first that the expansion of dimensional space is not uniform and second that time dilations could be as powerful in seemingly empty undetectable space as at event horizons of black holes.   --  Crap - I wish I had the ability to fill in a story - if nothing else this would be a great idea for a feature  in a syfi novel.

 

The Traveler

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Why would a "flying car" be V/STOL like a helicopter or a jump jet?

There needs to be some force pushing it in the air , no?

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

There needs to be some force pushing it in the air , no?

Sure, but regular airplanes have that. No need for overhead propellers.

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Why would a "flying car" be V/STOL like a helicopter or a jump jet?

This somewhat addresses the space requirement for take of and landing in an urban setting.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

This somewhat addresses the space requirement for take of and landing in an urban setting.

The point is that the USAF's call for flying cars doesn't imply supersized hovering drones.

[Carborendum]

On 4/15/2020 at 1:40 PM, NeuroTypical said:

'bout dang time.     Shouldn't be that hard now.

 

This really is quite impressive from a guy who doesn't have an engineering background.  All he needs is proper louvers and funnels with accompanying controls.  That would allow a greater altitude and steering capability.  He may not even need more/bigger engines if he applies that correctly.

[Vort]

Tucking the tie in is a good idea. A better idea would be not to wear a tie.

[mordorbund]

You can totally see the wires. Very clever of him to spin it as a "one string teather (sic) test".

[Carborendum]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

The point is that the USAF's call for flying cars doesn't imply supersized hovering drones.

Whatever label you want to put on them doesn't make much of a difference.  The requirements outlined in the article are the following:

• Air Force's label: Advanced Air Mobility Vehicles
• Applicable uses:
  • medical evacuation
  • installation security
  • disaster relief
• Eventually scalable to mass produce for the broader public
• Carry 3 to 8 people @ over 100 mph.

Now, we already have small single or twin engine aircraft that can do that.  So, considering the mission description, it is likely to be used in difficult terrain.  Small aircraft simply cannot have the kind of landing gear required for adverse terrain.  So, a VTOL is a quick and dirty solution.

[Carborendum]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Tucking the tie in is a good idea. A better idea would be not to wear a tie.

A guy apparently in his 20s or 30s is wearing a tie while riding a homemade amateur hovercraft?  Gotta be LDS.