USAF looking for flying cars. No, seriously.


Ironhold
 Share

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share