Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars | Hacker News Reader

Larry Page’s startups working on flying cars

bloomberg.com

278 pointspiyushmakhija217 comments

Helicopters and small planes already exist. We might have autonomous helicopters and small planes in the future, but flying car concept is flawed and not because it's hard to build one.

- Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight. This is actually good subgoal to work with even without flying cars in mind. Reliable infrastructure that checks and calibrates instruments so reliably that you don't need manual checks would be revolution in aerospace. Just walking from your car into your future Cessna-Android and flying off would be sci-fi for aviators.

- Energy consumption. No matter how energy efficient the engines are, hovering and short takeoffs use lots of energy. Flying with small wings with little lift is equivalent to driving monster trucks in full power. You don't want flying becoming everyday phenomenon until we have abundance of carbon free energy.

- Noise and safety regulations, aviation regulations over urban areas. Flying cars are not happening in the suburbs or anyone where lots of people live. In the meantime try to get new helicopter landing sites approved in your neighborhood. If you have to take car to your flying car hangar, just have a small plane instead. Or walk to a buss station.

Your first point makes sense, but if the flying cars are fully electric then I'm not sure how much of the work to make existing small aircraft totally reliable would be applicable to such a different machine.

I guess that leads on to the question of, why not start by making an electric self-maintaining self-flying Cessna?

Energy density of jet fuel and gasoline is something like 45-46 MJ/kg. All rechargeable lithium-whatever batteries have less than MJ/kg.

Turboprops are efficient and reliable. They have good power-to-weight ratio. Currently electric motors are good only for things like gliders that need relatively little power.

This link (recently on HN) provides an interesting analysis of the options: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-i-designed-a...

It seems like a fuel cell could be a viable option in the not-too-distant future, but still comes with a good number of trade-offs...

If self-flying taxi average flight times are 15 min, does this matter?

It does if you want to operate your self-flying taxi in an economically sound manner. All the time that it is on the ground it is not making money. Which means you'll be charging it when the number of requested rides is low, so you'll need to make a number (possibly quite a large number) of 15 minute rides before you get to recharge.

15 minute flight, 15 minute back to depot, 5 minute battery swap, charge batteries at the depot.

Yes, I know, jet fuel is one of the most energy dense things out there. But the article talks endlessly about electric power being the key to a self flying car, so I assumed the whole discussion was contingent on that being practical.

Blimps would also be viable. You can significantly reduce the required energy to get them to move

I love blimps. Even more so the semi-rigid ones. We can even get some of them solar powered now.

However, have we solved all the mooring requirements? I can't envision blimps used by individuals until they can self-moor or something.

You could hold the hydrogen or helium as liquid prior and post use. There's a bunch of stuff we would have to figure out to make it work, but it doesn't seem entirely impractical.

>>In the meantime try to get new helicopter landing sites approved in your neighborhood.

Which takes us right back to the noise issue which needs to be solved, first. 'Till then, no way.

Helicopters (nicknamed 'choppers' for good reason) buzzing over neighborhoods aren't exactly the average homeowner's dream. The "whapwhapwhapwhap" of a helicopter overhead, reverberating through a home, is just as desirable as open-pipe Harley Davidson motorbikes or roaring hotrods. That is to say, it's not.

Other than a crash, I can't think of a surer way to put people off from air traffic than noise.

(edit: grammatical typo: than->as)

IMO fenestron equipped helicopters are significantly more pleasant to listen to. There's no sharp slapping from the tail rotor.

I don't think cities have the ability to regulate helicopters. Airspace is regulated by the FAA, which pre-empts the states from regulating them further. I remember reading an article about some city where helicopter noise had become a problem and they couldn't do much about it. Although I suppose with enough complaints the FAA might change their rules.

Surely they can regulate use of land. What good is your helicopter without a helipad?

Increase the amount of helicopter-style traffic by 10x, and eventually congress will make the FAA enact new regulations.

Airspace is regulated federally in most countries, but what you can build on the ground is almost always local in regulation.

You might be allowed to fly overhead without he city being able to do much about it, but you won't be able to land or take off.

(And to be honest, if the city complains to the federal regulators regarding noise, they almost always listen - almost every airport in a town has strict noise-reducing approach patterns for this reason already.)

The primary problem with flying things is that they currently rely on atmospheric lift. Loss of lift equals death of occupants and vehicle.

It's only when we transition to alternate means of lift that flying will be "safe" for public consumption and operation.

There are safety measures such as autorotation and airframe parachutes that can safely land the aircraft after an engine failure.

And what happens when a Cessna parachutes onto the roof of your house? Onto the middle of a busy street? etc. If we were all using flying cars, this would become a regular occurrence. It's just not practical at that scale.

What happens when a car veers off the road into your living room?

Probably much less damage, because a typical car in the city is going much slower than a typical plane falling from the sky, and kinetic energy goes with square of velocity...

A plane (with BRS parachute) falls at 10-20mph, according to BRS's website. Typically a small plane will weigh about 2000-3000lb.

A car in the city will be going at about 30mph, and will weigh about 4000lb.

There are news stories here regularly of cars driving into storefronts. Generally when I hear a story about a Cirrus activating their parachute, it lands on empty space and doesn't do any damage.

Any reason you couldn't add steering controls to an emergency parachute, just like skydivers use? Not manually pulled, but with some small emergency actuators? Basically you'd just need the ability to pull down corners of the parachute, right?

If the engine is still operating, you might be able to steer:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/b/pull_ear...

(although obviously most of the times you would want to use the chute is because the engine has died!)

Maybe. But if you're making an emergency landing in a populated area, there is generally no safe place to land. Parachute or not, you're probably going to land on or in the middle of something, and injury or property damage is almost certain.

Whereas, if my car breaks down on the street...

Drop a 3,000 lb aircraft on a roof at 20 mph, and I think it will break through the roof.

Maybe not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2014_season)#Pian...

a 1400lb piano dropped from 50ft (40mph at impact) won't break through a roof.

Uh, yes it did. Did you read what you cited?

> A baby grand piano weighing 1,400 pounds (640 kg) pierced its legs through the roof but was unable to fully break through.

I consider the legs breaking through to be "breaking through the roof."

Then:

> Calling the myth busted, the team loaded another upright piano with enough sand to reach a total weight of 2,600 pounds (1,200 kg), much more than a full-size grand piano, then dropped it from 75 feet (23 m) above the roof. This time, the piano did smash a hole in the roof and landed on the floor.

Since we've been talking about a heavier aircraft, anyway, I hardly think this Mythbusters experiment proves anything here. As much as I enjoy watching the show, it's not a scientific study of how roofs are affected by heavy objects falling on them. There are a variety of factors to consider, including design, materials, condition, etc.

And finally, even if it didn't pierce the roof in any way, when it slid off the roof, it would land on something, damaging or injuring it.

The bottom line is that you don't want aircraft falling on your house.

The basic design of roads and their surroundings mean that an out-of-control car is relatively unlikely to collide with a building, as opposed to another car, a utility pole, a divider/barrier, etc. Conversely, an aircraft falling over a built-up area is very likely to encounter a building, and even if it lands in a road, it's going to be harder for moving cars to spot and avoid than an out-of-control car would be.

Most roads don't point at people's living rooms. Now and then I see a house at the top of a T intersection, and I can't imagine living there. I used to drive down a country road that had nice houses a few feet from a curve in the road, so any car that didn't make the turn would hit the house. I would never live there, either.

But imagine hundreds or thousands of small aircraft flying over your house every day, driven by non-pilots, maintained like automobiles. I wouldn't want to live there, either.

Lots of people fly currently and there is seldom fatal loss of lift.

So lets get silly here; granted I wanted a flying car ever since seeing a Spinner in Blade Runner.

Deploy a balloon above the vehicle when not under power which reuses the helium when not moving beyond a set speed. Pretty sure it can be an airfoil in itself and compact enough to sit above the craft. When transitioning to full on flight it can be partially deflated to reduce its air resistance but still retain the shape needed for lift. Plus why do these air cars need such high speeds when flying?

Since I am not a wiz at these things I am not sure how much balloon you need to compensate sufficiently for the vehicle weight. You don't need to compensate all of it, just enough so that when all power fails you don't hit the ground beyond the means of the occupants to survive. With modern electronics losing power at altitude should allow a glide landing.

To "reuse" the helium it would need to compress it again - and that uses a lot of energy. Not to mention that you would need a lot of helium, and helium, almost like hydrogen, has a tendency to escape from its containers so you need really heavy lead bottles to store even a few litres. It's not impossible, but it does not seem practical in any way.

Helium is typically stored in steel or aluminum pressure vessels. Not lead. Lead is heavier and more expensive, and it's soft enough that attaching valves can be problematic.

> Preflight checks and flight safety. Larry should first build normal small aircraft that can do without constant manual checks before flight.

Omg, this. The amount of checks required for any sort of aircraft is ridiculous. A lot of it involves button pushing and checking status. This could be automated.

For instance, for a cessna 150:

STARTING ENGINE Mixture – RICH Carb heat – COLD Prime – AS REQUIRED Master switch -- ON Beacon Light – ON Throttle – OPEN 1/8” Prop Area – CLEAR Ignition – START Oil Pressure – CHK Radio – ON/SET Transponder – ON / STBY Wing Flaps – UP Mixture – LEAN 1 INCH READY TO TAXI

Most of these things could be set automatically.

With modern FADEC engines, all of this is automated (from what I read...I've never actually flown anything with FADEC).

The recent diesel installs with FADEC that Redbird has been doing in 172s have a one button run up: You just hold the breaks and hit a button and the FADEC does the run up and checks all parameters and gives you a go/no-go.

FADEC - Full Authority Digital Engine Control

And here I thought it was 'Automatic', but I haven't dealt with a FADEC since I wrote avionics test scripts almost 20 years ago.

Very interesting. Do you know how this system handles eventual sensor failure?

The examples you gave take no more than 30 seconds. Sure, FADEC can eliminate most of them, but they're quick.

Other examples–checking the oil, the tank sumps, the intake, the tires, the flap tracks, the rudder bolt(s), the wing tips, the tailwheel springs, etc.–are the stuff that software largely can't replace, and are the more time-consuming part of taking off.

Put another way, the latest fighter jets and commercial heavies still have significant visual preflights.

> The examples you gave take no more than 30 seconds. Sure, FADEC can eliminate most of them, but they're quick.

Sure. Maybe I shouldn't have picked the engine section as the example.

In the context of this thread, way more than that is needed.

> Put another way, the latest fighter jets and commercial heavies still have significant visual preflights.

And that is fine. The stakes are high, the plane itself is much more complex and placed in high demand, plus they can hire staff.

The "staff" you mention that does the walk-around of the major commercial airliner is/are also the person(s) who will be piloting the plane, IIRC.

I just flew on an a320 and watched the plane taxi to the gate. Someone on the ground crew in an orange vest walked around the plane and did a visual inspection using a flashlight. At no point did someone from the flight crew leave the plane.

This is typically what happens during our hot seat evolutions in the Navy, as well. As Aircrew, I'm more concerned about performing my own walkaround if any maintenance had been performed between flights and/or it's the aircraft's first flight that day.

Curious as to what airline and at what airport? Usually pre-flight is before the plane taxis "from" the gate not when it arrives "at" the gate.

Are you referring to only the first flight of the day?

A plane lands, taxis to the gate. Passengers disembark, the plane gets cleaned and refueled, people on the ground checked it out, new passengers board (me), and it taxis from the gate. At no point did the pilots leave the airplane to "walk-around".

Could cameras at various points of the plane could identify when things are not perfect? Computer vision has limits, but identifying leaks, ripples on a surface that should be smooth, and rivet discoloration seem pretty feasible. Granted, I'm not a pilot, and i've never done a walk around.

I can't figure out how you'd check the tips of the wings, but the leading edges should be visible from up by the nose. Similarly, the trailing edges from the tail.

It's also easy to be extra cautious. bias to 0 false positives. Sure it will detect problems that turn out to be dirt or poor lighting or something, but one visual check seems faster than 20 (or however many are necessary).

in a controlled environment like that, you could require stuff to be painted computer vision friendly colors. Even more, i'd bet oil reflects differently than metal under different lighting. internal stuff could be lit up with IR or some other part of the spectrum for easy detection.

I dunno. seems like perhaps a few pounds of electronics.

Everything you set automatically is now more complicated.

You forgot the big one: Most small aircraft cannot fly in bad weather. If it's raining, windy, or even cloudy these things are going to be grounded if the pilot doesn't have an instrument rating.

Not to mention icing conditions!

Not to mention how little skill that a big percentage of people have just driving cars. Can't even get people to follow the speed limit - fat chance you'd get them to follow aviation regulations.

Most people in cars that make mistakes end up in a crash but don't die. Everyone in a portable flying device that makes a mistake will die.

Sure, but that's not a reason to just punt on trying to build a flying car. Larry Page has the money to invest both in stuff he thinks will change the world (which he does both independently and at Alphabet) as well as in things he just wants to exist.

They can be automatically disabled for when there's bad weather.

That rules out selling any in large parts of the world then.

Hahaha. The function of my flying car is controlled by - Meteorology? Now that's funny. I have respect for meteorologist (heck - for me it was either that or computer science) but even today local forecasting is not reliable enough to base the functionality of devices upon.

Flying cars, of course, are ridiculous.

Best sentence in the article.

They could do some kind of drone and do all the safety checks regularly before dispatching them, perhaps. Then the people doing the checks only need to be at the site. Maybe also allow remote control that can take over in emergencies and keep a few pilots around for that.

That said, convenient landing spots may not exist for many trips, so I have no idea what a good use case would be for this kind of thing.

> Noise and safety regulations, aviation regulations over urban areas.

Did you read the entire article? An entire section was devoted to how the rise of electric engines addresses the noise issue, as well as some of the safety issues by removing the bomb (internal combustion engine) from the vehicle.

No matter how energy efficient the engines are, hovering and short takeoffs use lots of energy.

What about electric vehicles with beamed power? The "heavy lifting" for a small electric aircraft could be done at the airport using beamed power, freeing up weight and increasing the effective range of the aircraft.

The question is, how much power would be needed. It screams "military-grade futuristic microwave weapon" to me.

LASER!

Probably even worse / more dangerous.

But it sounds cooler!

Rather than beamed power, how about some sort of ground vehicle that launches the aircraft (or pushes it up to a given speed and then releases)?

The ground footprint for VTOL vehicles using beamed power is a lot smaller. Even a vertical accelerator built up the side of a skyscraper would have a larger footprint and higher costs.

> into your future Cessna-Android and flying off

Dear god, please don't let Android anywhere near my airplane instruments and flight controls. It's like the exact opposite of a real-time system - practically guaranteed to hang and crash.

I just emailed the people at Moller this week asking them what the biggest challenge in making a flying car was. Their reply was:

Thanks for reaching out to Moller International. Your question is a good one, with a multitude of answers. For now, I’ll explain 3 of the biggest factors. First, there is a lot of FAA and government regulations regarding aircraft. Airworthiness certification is a lengthy process, and depending on the level at which a company wishes to test, operate, and potential sell their aircraft, the process can take anywhere from a few months to a few years. Second, as stated previously, time is a major factor not only for development, but also testing, marketing, etc. In aviation, there are no “unimportant” parts at 10,000 ft. Safety is always a top priority throughout the entire process. Third, and finally, funding. Companies like Moller International depend greatly on their investors and supporters to keep the lights on. Until there is a product being sold, and cash being brought in regularly, a company must depend on some other source of funding. Aircraft programs are not known to be easy and cheap; these programs are some of the more expensive ones out there, especially in the private sector. With all of this said, all of us here at Moller International are working hard to ensure the latter two have as minimal an impact as possible. We have been working in cooperation with the FAA to get things going as quickly and safely as possible. Let me know if you have any other questions.

And of course the #1 reason: developing an economical, practical flying car is very hard within the constraints set by physics.

Well even if it works the #2 reason is you have to have a qualified person to fly it.

One quick glance between US Driving Regulations and Tests versus FAA Pilot Certification programs reveals the two are very divergent. I've yet to see an IFR-conditions capable car. Not saying it isn't possible, but just spitballing the technical and competency thresholds here.

I don't know the extent of their tests but it's interesting to see this in the news yesterday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/08/flying-robo...

Moller is going nowhere. He's been advertising the same thing for decades with little progress, adjusting the years on the web site so it always seems to be just a few years ahead. He's been in trouble with the SEC for his fun-raising activities. He's been trying to do VTOL with souped-up Wankel engines, and that just isn't working.

Here's Moller's brochure from 1974.[1] Forty years of hype. That guy is responsible for flying cars having a bad name.

[1] http://www.downside.com/scams/moller/

So, Moller claims to have a flying car, but can't afford to get it tested? Or that they could make a flying car, if they had enough money and time to build and test it? No technical challenges?

Uh-huh.

So they biggest obstacle is regulation/money and not in the technical challenges of making a 3,500 pound rectangle zip around the air? Ok.

As long as there's the FAA involved, flying cars are a stupid idea.

They are shitty cars if they're any good at being airplanes, and they're underperforming and over-priced airplanes just because they can somewhat function as a car. Now, if Larry Page's flying car company is also lobbying to gut the FAA's ability to regulate his creation, that's a whole other can of worms.

I don't think personal flight devices are a bad idea, which is why I'm working on my own. Flying cars are so contradictory in construction and purpose that I can't help but get really peeved at any praise directed toward the endeavor. There are more factors than simply "can this 4 wheeler get airborne" to keep at top of mind.

Good luck getting a reasonably priced AME to keep the thing airborne.

>But better materials, autonomous navigation systems, and other technical advances have convinced a growing body of smart, wealthy, and apparently serious people that within the next few years we’ll have a self-flying car that takes off and lands vertically—at least a small, electric, mostly autonomous commuter plane.

The latter half of that sentence is plausible. Flying cars are not. Sorry.

Flying cars would be a product for the world market. The FAA only controls a small part of that airspace.

Maybe the .001% of people in the world market, and even then, of those people, approximately a much smaller amount would be capable of flying such a vehicle properly. They might be financially able to purchase, but will they be competent enough not to crash it within the first month? I seem to recall Dodge Vipers being notorious for being crashed within the first week of ownership due to lack of proper training (which was subsequently provided in advance of delivery IIRC). We're talking airplanes here.

Obviously the FAA doesn't control global airspace, as evidenced by a Malaysia Air passenger jet flying over an active combat zone and being shot out of the sky by a SAM. Sometimes the FAA does good work. Sometimes not, but it's definitely the foremost "authority" in aviation.

The article implies that these vehicles would be autonomous.

It might imply that some would be autonomous, but that's not a genuine "flying car" now is it? It's an "autonomous passenger transport pod" that could describe anything from a hyperloop to an automated self-propelled wheelchair. All this dancing around to try and make it seem like the idea isn't a fool's errand is interesting, I will grant that.

You're associating "car" with "something a homeowner can regularly control." I associate "car" more with "a personal vehicle."

I'd rather high speed chunks of metal not be under individual control, personally. Road or air.

That's fine, you can use whatever inaccurate terms you'd like but I won't share that approach.

Personally, having grown up in an aviation family and being a studied gear-head, I simply don't share your confidence that individual control is inferior to automation at the root. In fact, I think until AI is comparable to the human brain, arguing that automation and programming is better is wrong; moreover it's unsuitable for a conversation regarding powered flight is irresponsible. There are simply no technological systems which have proven themselves trustworthy - thus far, I concede - to being a replacement for the human brain and synapses.

We have machine operated lifts and trains, almost self driving cars, aircraft autopilots and having witnessed my own efforts at flying a plane I think a computer could quite likely do a safer job.

Oh really? Because there's a bunch of Air France wreckage just North of South America regarding a computer fuck-up that wasn't properly ajudicated by the pilots in command, which would have saved the passengers (as it had in other instances where the pilots saved the plane). That's just a high-profile one by pilots who were easily more qualified than you or I to be in charge of a major airliner.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/avi...

And 400,000 Americans dead in traffic accidents in the last 20 years. All happily driven by humans.

It crashed because the pilots didn't know what they needed to know. That is not a computer fuck-up. Pretty bad example to pick when you're arguing against autopilot being superior to humans.

I too believe that only a live, thinking animal beneath my flanks possess the sufficient intelligence to navigate the potholed streets of our fair city and that those trusting in cold hard iron are bound for a fool's errand. I am certain that this "automobile" is a fad that will in due time run it's course and that we will all be back to the trusty steed by decade's end.

you think other countries regulatory agencies are going to be kinder?

Actually, they will. Not necessarily "kinder" but certainly more "lax" in my opinion.

The thirst for pilots in expanding markets - notably Asia - is forecasted to exceed the number of pilots working globally at the present. In order to fulfill this need, qualifications will conceivably be relaxed.

>We noticed that you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the performance and content on Bloomberg.com. For the best experience, please whitelist the site.

Yeah, ok Bloomberg.

Heh, I guess a page loading faster could be an adverse affect, depending on perspective.

Performance as in ad performance as in impressions as in money. for them. Their performance, not yours.

Kind of how Android is "open" to OEMs, not you.

Is reflashing your phone so hard?

It is if the bootloader is locked.

I'm on mobile, not using an ad blocker, and I still got this message... really Bloomberg...?

Also by performance being affected perhaps they are referring to the 5 extra secondtheys make you wait.

Same here. And of course the ads themselves bog down the page so that it's hard to read even after their popup.

I'm on a smartphone (Android 6.01) and I am using ad blocker and I'm not getting any warning.

My AdBlocker must have blocked that because I never saw it either.

Heck, I had to go out of my way and adblock the animated gif at the top of the article, it was pegging my processor for some reason.

Every time I see an article on flying cars, I can't help but be reminded of an old IBM commercial[0] from 2000.

Deliciously ironic considering it represented the fact that mainstream culture had all but written off the idea entirely.

[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo

The Sisko is of... IBM?

More disappointingly, we still can't just walk out of a store with goods and have it charge us. That said, the idea of all the products having RF things on them would be ultra creepy, so I'm guessing that's the limiting factor.

Well, in some stores, RFID on all products already exists.

Especially as they were originally added to prevent theft, and are now kinda for free, it’s quite cheap to add that feature.

What problems do flying cars solve? I know it looks cool but is there some huge thing that would get solved with this?

They can probably go in a straighter line to wherever they're headed.

Also being able to add layers atop one another as traffic increases.

There are a number of potential issues they solve:

1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain.

2) Reduce congestion. How much fuel in a car is burnt in traffic? With flying cars, congestion will largely be a thing of the past, you have effectively unlimited road just by changing altitude.

3) Reduce urban sprawl. You can get rid of a lot of the roads that plaster the countryside. There will still need to be some obviously. But less.

4) Reduce national infrastructure costs. As above, you get rid of the roads, you don't need to maintain them anymore.

5) Convenience. You don't need a driveway or garage on your house when you can land on the roof ;)

All in all there are quite a few decent reasons for it. Just depends on whether you can beat that efficiency level.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has done calculations factoring in the cost savings from reducing sprawl and the miles of road that are maintained each year.

The efficiency argument doesn't work: moving up against gravity will always be more expensive.

There are always tradeoffs... airplanes move more or less at a steady speed, and are much more aerodynamic than cars, which spent quite a bit of time stuck in traffic. Thus in many cases planes are more efficient than cars (despite needing to lift).

Airplanes have to go faster than the stall speed. Stall speed is typically ~60mph or more, and air resistance goes up as the square of the speed (times the aerodynamc cross section). Airplanes aren't really that much more aerodynamic than modern cars.

Not necessarily. If a car is twice as efficient, but has to travel three times as far because of the windy road system, the flying car will have it beat in a straight line.

> travel three times as far because of the windy road system,

Ironic choice of words. The winding road system adds distance to your commute, but a windy airspace adds air-miles to your commute.

That is, a flying car doesn't travel through the same amount of air when going 1 ground mile in different directions.

Haha, completely unintentional. Very good point though.

Personally I don't think flying cars will take off (ha, done it again...) for quite some time, if only for risk reasons. Think about just how many car accidents there are every day, now imagine every accident ending with a 100m death plunge from the sky. I just can't see it going mainstream for a long time.

I think you'll need to adjust that from "three times", to "90 times" for the physics and math to work.

> 1) Efficiency.

I expect it will always be more efficient to roll an object on wheels than to keep an object lifted under power and moving forward at the same time. Rolling friction is not very high. This and safety are major reasons we don't have flying cars today. Prop planes are in the sub 20 mpg range and jets are in the gallons per mile.

>2) Reduce congestion

I think that autonomous cars (on the ground) will solve this a lot faster than flying cars.

> 3) Reduce urban sprawl.

This is just incorrect. The roads are not what causes urban sprawl and the roads are not the only negative impact. Urban sprawl happened for two reasons: "white flight" and easy transportation. This does nothing for one and makes the other easier.

> 4) Reduce national infrastructure costs.

This would be a very long term benefit after ubiquity of flying cars:cars as cars:trains now. I don't think it will ever get there because of point 1). Personal flight consumes more energy than personal rolling.

>5) convenience.

True. Although houses would have to have heli landing pads installed making it more of a rich toy item. Not to mention noise. Also, autonomous rolling vehicles will solve this too. Is going to your roof more convenient than going to your driveway?

You have to take into account more than just the pure physical efficiency of rolling cars vs. flying. There is the practical efficiency too.

When I drive my car to work, I have to take a big dogleg out to the motorway, sit in traffic for 5 minutes to join, then drive down the motorway which is winding between the towns but mostly going the right direction, then take another big dogleg off + traffic, and finally I'm at my destination. I wouldn't be surprised if I'd driven the equivalent of 2-3 times the straight line distance.

Normal efficiency calcs focus on the gallons part, a flying car would reduce the miles.

That's a good point. Although the VTOL aspect is still very energy consumptive.

Or one could increase the density of where you live, and build a transit network.

The metro also usually goes in straight lines.

Yes, but much like a motorway, it's someone else's straight line, not mine. I still have to get to a station and then get to my destination afterwards, which could involve a lot of walking. Not to mention that not everybody wants to live in high density housing, it has a whole set of unwelcome problems of its own.

Personally speaking I love dense living and walking everywhere, but it's not for everyone.

> 1) Efficiency. A flying car can theoretically take a straight line to its destination instead of having to follow a complex road layout. It might be less efficient to fly per minute, but if you're flying less minutes, it could be a net gain.

Theoretically. That fact that standard commercial flights don't do that should be a red flag. Commercial flights follow pre-designated airways.

Smaller aircraft in unregulated airspace aren't that constrained. But that's because there's too few of them.

Cars and trucks are relegated to the 2d grid of streets. They consume an inordinate amount of space, and require that all travel occur in series down a road. When an accident occurs, this disrupts the flow of traffic down that path, and also frequently disrupts the flow of surrounding roads as drivers seek alternate routes around the problem. Roads wear down over time, and require maintenance to repair. Salt and chemicals placed on roads to melt ice and snow can have adverse impacts on the local water tables and have other negative ecological impacts.

Air-travel doesn't have those same constraints. Travel could be more point-to-point. An accident by one or two aircraft doesn't need to inhibit the travel of all other crafts flying in the general vicinity. Air space, while regulated and crowded in some urban areas, is largely under-utilized and expansive. It's also not a space that is shared with foot traffic, so pedestrians could reclaim some of the space currently allocated to roads since the volume of vehicular traffic would likely drop.

That's not to say that personal air travel doesn't introduce an entire set of new problems and challenges - it absolutely does, but there are many problems that cars and roads cause which air-travel avoids by-design.

Think of air-travel in the context of this cartoon:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/24948/to-a-pedestri...

This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major price premium for parking. Getting to work in 10 minutes instead of 30 is going to be attractive and that'll raise parking demand, but there's only going to be so much parking available. Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500+ a month flying car space.

Its also worth mentioning that none of these proposed designs are vtol, so you'll need a real runway to land or take off.

Worse, how do you leave the massive underground parking lot? Drive to the street then somewhere you can safely lift off? Now you have to wait to taxi to the proper runway or lift off zone or whatever these things will ultimately be allowed to use. Double worse, now we're less invested in solutions that actually work and don't require massive parking spaces like public trans via light rail, e-bikes, traditional bikes, etc.

There's a reason why the personal plane never took off. I'm pretty bearish about the flying car concept, even if all the technical and regulatory issues are easily solved (hint: they wont be) there's still pricing and safety issues on top of the parking problem. Oh and 9/11 is fresh in everyone's minds. Can you imagine anyone approving these things flying near the skyscrapers we work in? I suspect that if that these things catch on, they'll be like the Concorde. A toy for rich people in a hurry but with so many strict regulations and limitations that it'll ultimately be infeasible in the long run.

If Page and Google have shown anything, they're poor futurists outside of the information realm. When it comes to hardware, they're batting very poorly. They let Valve and Oculus take the VR crown, they let Musk take space tourism and electric cars, they let Jobs take the first mass market smartphone, let Amazon take the e-book crown, etc.

"Tearing down profitable office buildings to make flying car parking lots will be cost prohibitive and I doubt Joe Officeworker is interested in a $500 a month flying car space."

Rooftops have been used for ages as landing pads for helicopters. I don't see why you couldn't do the same for these. And the article mentions adoption of the uber-model of non-ownership, so it's not like you'd need a parking lot of these sitting idly at the workplace for end-of-day. They'd come and go on-demand.

My rooftop is full of HVAC equipment and my building is 28 stories high. Even if it was engineered to hold that much weight and redone to make it safe for landing a vtol plane, we're looking at what? 3 or 4 spaces at most in a building that holds over 2,000 people.

A helicopter pad on a rooftop can generally only hold one helicopter. Where would the other people in the office park? Besides, hardly any of these flying car designs take off & land vertically.

You could have the tesla self park / pick up feature. It drops you off and then Flys off some here where there is much space. Then you just call it back when you ready to leave.

Sounds like a lot of wasted energy if that thing has to fly any reasonable distance.

> This doesn't solve the parking problem. Sure, you get to work a bit faster but now you need to put that thing down. In a downtown area where there's a major price premium for parking.

What I envision instead is an extension of the office park concept, but suddenly there's no traffic congestion. You could have massive suburban/exurban growth and still have incredibly short commutes -- employees fly to their offices and park on the grounds.

Folks who work downtown should probably live in the city/commuter suburbs and would be better served by other types of transit such as rail. I doubt this type of vehicle would even be allowed in a dense urban area. Flying cars in Manhattan sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Except its the dense urban areas with the serious traffic and the kinds of people with the disposable income to consider a $300,000 vehicle who are probably going to be the main buyers here.

I think suburban people probably aren't as motivated and if this stuff can't handle skyscrapers then the concept is pretty much dead outside of recreational usage.

Wait, now - you want to exacerbate sprawl and worsen suburban inefficiency, and this is supposed to be a benefit? I think you have just convinced me that personal flying vehicles are a terrible idea to be opposed at all costs.

I'm not saying this view is a positive thing, it's merely what I imagine will happen if personal flying vehicles become affordable, based on past trends and our political environment. I would personally prefer more investment in public transit and dense urbanity, which isn't even really possible due to overly restrictive zoning laws.

Ah, sounds like we are much in agreement then.

> An accident by one or two aircraft doesn't need to inhibit the travel of all other crafts flying in the general vicinity

lol, an accident by one or two aircraft might not immediately inhibit the travel of nearby crafts, but it will certainly cause a legal storm that will eventually inhibit it!

I'm actually currently working on projects related to traffic management systems for UAS. I'd say that currently air travel is much more complicated than street travel. And there is a lot of research and engineering that needs to be done before we can safely handle large amounts of UAS traffic.

For one, UAS take up more space than cars. Sure they can be smaller, but operators/systems need more space to safely fly. Two, we don't have systems in place to handle large amounts of traffic. Traffic on roads is much simpler. You have well defined routes, and you have well-defined regulations to safely handle adverse driving situations. UAS do not currently have systems that can automatically handle large amounts of traffic or adverse flying conditions. Plus the autonomous systems are currently not quite up to a human pilot's ability to fly. There may be some very advanced autonomous flight systems, but there isn't anything that could handle the amount of traffic comparable to current street traffic.

I think this is definitely an exciting time for autonomous flight. But I also think we are just really starting to get around to solving the problems caused by UAS. I don't know if it's fair to compare large amounts of UAS traffic to street traffic. I think the state of UAS traffic management is closer to the state of street traffic 100 or so years ago. UAS safety systems and airspace regulations definitely aren't sophisticated.

Bicycles also solve all the problems you listed.

Bicycles are a great alternative for many commuters but they can't match the range that cars or planes can provide for most cyclists.

You can go faster and in a straighter line, and -- given good communication between autonomous vehicles -- there is essentially no limit to traffic throughput. Also, you don't have to build as many roads, which are expensive and take up lots of valuable land.

This is true at least until we become so overpopulated that we're living in Jetson's-style sky-houses.

Would that we have those problems :)

I work around dozens of pilots. Most of them used to own, co-own, share, or lease a plane. Only a few of them actually have a plane they could go fly right now.

Maintenance, upkeep, costs, and regulations are obvious reasons why some would be deterred from owning and using a private plane.

But most everyone of the pilots said, if you want to go to the beach, in general, the best way to get there is a 6 to 8-hour drive in a minivan. The faster you go in the plane, the faster you burn fuel, and the more likely you'll have to land to refuel. Even if you don't refuel, loading, landing, unpacking, and rental cars are all unpleasant time sucks at a small airport in a small plane which saves you maybe 2 or 3 hours on your commute.

This squares with my experience. The folks I know that travel by small plane do so because they enjoy flying, not because it offers any real benefits over driving.

These folks are also not lacking for disposable income.

One quick look at the "estimated" price tags for the flying cars in the article - $280,000 & $400,000 as examples - should be enough to reveal how stupid the idea is at the core.

For $400,000 I could get a decent shape used Beechcraft Bonanza and a 2 year old Corvette or BMW M-class sedan. Both of which would out-perform the Flying Car in either respect. Easily.

Mostly true. For me I go a lot of places that are a 2 hour plane ride followed by a 2 hour car ride. In those cases it's faster to just fly directly where I want to go, and avoid the car portion. Most places have smaller airports a lot closer to a rural destination. Of course, if you only go to larger cities, this is never an issue.

Float plane. Tie up at your dock.

Larry Page has a lot of money, and a reputation for building the future. People will say, "Hey this smartphone is okay, but where's my flying car?"

This is encouraging. There's no fundamental problem with building a "flying car"; all sorts of strange VTOL craft were built in the 1950s. Many of them ended up in the Hiller Aviation Museum on 101 in San Carlos, CA.

The main problems with VTOL are stability, engine cost, and fuel consumption/range. Pure-thrust lift requires enormous power. Most of the successful pure-thrust VTOLs are jet fighters, which are mostly engine. The Harrier and the F-35 are examples.

Jet engines are expensive, and they don't get much cheaper below 6-passenger bizjet size. This is why general aviation still uses props. A lot of effort has gone into cheaper jet engines, but without much success. (Yes, there are large model aircraft jet engines, which is what the Flyboard Air uses. They're good for a few hundred hours, not the 10,000 hours between overhauls of aviation jet engines.)

Electric VTOL is going to be interesting. There are lots of electric drones, after all. Engine power to weight is good. Siemens has a water-cooled electric aircraft engine in test.

Battery energy density sucks. NASA is talking about aircraft where there's a gas turbine or two driving a generator, with lots of electric props. This could work out. Meanwhile, until the battery situation improves, you can build short-ranged flying cars. There's a cute little one out of China, apparently intended to get China's rich and powerful around Beijing's traffic jams.

It's great seeing a strong push toward aviation as a superior method of transportation. One of the side effects will be people gradual spreading out, away from huge city congestion, which is largely set up due to our transportation. It will enable us to live more in tune with nature, while not giving up the conveniences of having everything we need within short distance. I touched upon this in a blog post: https://medium.com/@eblanshey/the-world-is-undergoing-massiv...

What if what we need is frequent in person interaction with other people?

Spreading out further and further, eating up arable land with exurban homes, putting more distance between ourselves and others. It seems unhealthy for us and the "nature" you want to be in tune with.

"Across the study period, 66 595 youths died by suicide, and rural suicide rates were nearly double those of urban areas for both males (19.93 and 10.31 per 100 000, respectively) and females (4.40 and 2.39 per 100 000, respectively)." http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=21950...

VR solves that.

How deliciously dystopian.

> What if what we need is frequent in person interaction with other people?

I don't see how it would be any different from living in suburban area (what many would consider the perfect middle ground between the city and rural areas). Most people for at least 5 minutes to get to where they want to go. Flying (in the future at least) can be no different.

I didn't say that cars are going to disappear anyway. You can still live close to your friends and get to each other via car/bike/golf cart/atv/whatever.

I think you missed my point. The idea is that living the rural life will give you the same experience at a suburban one, and I'd argue, similar to the urban one. Most people still walk 15+ minutes to work in the city. 15 minutes of flying will get you much farther, to a multitude more possible destinations.

I disagree. Most people do not want to live more in tune with nature when it comes to living in it. They have very little interest in immersing themselves in nature outside of an occasional hike or camping trip. That's made exceptionally clear by how people actively choose to live and the things they choose not to do. There is no great pent-up demand for telecommuting, a very small percentage of the working population wants to do it.

Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way. Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a multiplier for each person you add to a city. Cities are far more vibrant in every regard except for nature, that includes art, science, fashion, social, lifestyle, networking, work, access to resources and public institutions.

On the other hand, cities have higher crime rates, more pollution, more noise, less space, and higher cost of living.

Have you ever lived in an apartment building? Have you ever had noisy neighbors and wished you lived in a detached house with a spacious yard? Have you ever been awakened by a truck's backup beeper at 5 AM? Have you ever thought about what it would be like to live in a city where a riot takes place, or a terrorist attack, or a public health epidemic?

There is a big gap between "living in tune with nature" (whatever that means to whoever reads it) and living in a city. Some people prefer living in less densely populated areas. Some people prefer living in the wilderness. Some people prefer living in skyscrapers, stacked on top of each other like sardines.

Personally, I think that the more people are packed together in small areas, the less happy people are. People are happier when they have space of their own, giving them privacy--not just in terms of being hidden from sight, but in terms of having their space not being intruded upon by noise, pollution, etc.

> Most people do not want to live more in tune with nature when it comes to living in it.

I'll agree with you on that one; I hope that will change, esp. when easy flight becomes more available.

> Cities are vastly superior to spreading out, in nearly every possible way. Cities are far more efficient. Cities produce far greater innovation due to concentration of ideas and the knock-on effects; generally speaking you get a multiplier for each person you add to a city.

I disagree. WHAT is it that makes cities currently more efficient? It's proximity to all the things that make it great, which is the innovation. The concentration's utility that you speak of is only proximity. What other purpose does concentration serve? When flight is freely available to all, this will no longer be the case. Any 10-15 minute flight (far less than many city-dwellers' walking/subway commutes) will bring you to pretty much everything a city would offer you, but without the traffic, the noise, and with much more property and privacy. Of course, you will also have easy access to your immediate community around you. It's really the best of both worlds.

Related is this one-man drone by a Chinese company which should being test flights in Nevada:

  http://www.ehang.com/news/146.html

"Drone" because the on board computer handles all the flying (just pick a destination).

I am so curious about how this Ehang 146 thing will pan out.

If it does really work, I think it is one of the best idea I have ever seen !

When we do eventually get working personal VTOL vehicles (let's call them something that is not not flying car), they will look something like this. Maybe with different characteristics for body shape and rotor arrangement, but definitely with gimbaled electric motors and with no wings or control surfaces.

And hopefully one that won't have any issue with 8 rotating blades coming into contact with wildlife or squishy humans.

We'll all be happier and healthier and have more money for other stuff if we build our cities around walking, biking, and shared transit. Suburbs = unhealthy, inefficient, unhappy (it has been studied - look it up don't just comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere").

> look it up don't just comment reply "I love the suburbs and my driving my Model X everywhere

Instead of this passive aggressive remark, perhaps post links to the research that you believe validates your point? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I bet it's probably possible to find "studies" that back up both sides of the argument.

Apologies - wasn't meant to be passive aggressive. Thanks for suggestion. Here're some more resources:

- Commuting linked to stress, bad health, no friends - Urban low income live longer: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/04/when-youre-poor-where... - Commute linked to divorce: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/divorce-study_n_375... - Commute linked to poor health: https://www.google.com/search?q=commute+linked+to+poor+healt...

I contend that people are happier and healthier where the population density is lower, resulting in less crime, less pollution, less noise, lower cost of living, more space, more privacy, etc.

If you want to live in big buildings, packed together like sardines, unable to escape from the noise of your neighbors and everything that goes on in the city outside the window, more power to you. But don't presume to say that everyone else will be happier if they would just do what you prefer.

If you want to live in the wilderness, isolated with no human soul around, unable to get any social contacts, and no ability to get anywhere without wasting so much energy that it melts greenland thrice, sure.

But most people wouldn’t. Most people are social, and want the ability to have direct social contact with others, and the ability to walk to places.

The problem is that usually you still have to commute to work. Living far away from jobs means a long, unhappy commute. The unhappiness caused by long commutes is well researched - look it up if you like. People compromise and live somewhere in between, which often means the worst of both worlds.

Contrary to what you say, dense cities can be quiet and have isolated private space. Look at the vast single-family-home suburbs of Tokyo. The population density is high even without large buildings, and you can live without a car easily (if desired), but you have your own house with a garden on a quiet, secluded street in a safe neighborhood all within walking distance of the train that can take you downtown. Not particularly cheap or spacious, though. The noisy, crime-riddled, no-privacy-at-all hellish city you describe is common, but it's not the only possibility.

What the sibling comment says is true about social interaction in cities as well. Living in the city people have more friends, more sexual partners, attend more events, and interact more with strangers. For some that is a plus.

> The problem is that usually you still have to commute to work. Living far away from jobs means a long, unhappy commute. The unhappiness caused by long commutes is well researched - look it up if you like. People compromise and live somewhere in between, which often means the worst of both worlds.

Plenty of people do not have to make long commutes, or they choose to do so for certain reasons. This is such a generalization that it's not very useful.

More interesting would be solving the problem of people needing to commute in the first place. How many of those jobs that people commute to actually must be done in the place they commute to? And I don't mean telecommuting, I mean, does that business really need to be located in that city? In the case of many office jobs, they could be located in smaller cities to begin with, so people wouldn't have to live as far away. Of course, this is also a nearly useless generalization.

However, I would suggest that the real problem here is, sadly, politics. How many business decisions are dictated by local laws, regulations, taxes, etc? How many businesses would relocate if it weren't for certain of these that make only a few locations feasible? And how many of those political decisions are caused by other businesses lobbying for them, whether to enhance their own advantages or disadvantage their competitors?

> Contrary to what you say, dense cities can be quiet and have isolated private space. Look at the vast single-family-home suburbs of Tokyo. The population density is high even without large buildings, and you can live without a car easily (if desired), but you have your own house with a garden on a quiet, secluded street in a safe neighborhood all within walking distance of the train that can take you downtown. Not particularly cheap or spacious, though. The noisy, crime-riddled, no-privacy-at-all hellish city you describe is common, but it's not the only possibility.

This is the exception, not the rule. And I don't think Tokyo is a great example. My neighbors have a garden--it occupies as much space as their house. What kind of a garden would they have if they lived in a single-family home in a Tokyo suburb? A window box? And they would probably pay 5 times as much in living expenses, at least.

I would suggest that most cities in the world are noisy, crime-riddled, no-privacy hellholes--at least, unless you are very wealthy. The average person in the average city can't afford to live in a quiet, safe, private dwelling. But the same person making the same money living in a suburb or small town can afford a much nicer, safer, quieter home, and nearly everything they need to buy is cheaper there as well.

> What the sibling comment says is true about social interaction in cities as well. Living in the city people have more friends, more sexual partners, attend more events, and interact more with strangers. For some that is a plus.

For some, it is. Of course, it depends on how you define "city." But many people live happily and healthily in smaller places all around the world, with families and friends and local events (ones they probably have a larger role in, as well). It's not necessary to live in a big city to have a social life or a vibrant community. People have been celebrating harvest festivals for thousands of years.

am I the only one that doesn't want flying cars? I want to be able to look up and see the sky, not traffic. I don't want drunk drivers ramming into buildings. I don't want to have to build a horizontal wall over my backyard for privacy. what benefit do they even have? I'd rather just have fast ground transportation

I think they would have to be self-flying cars to make it feasible.

maybe this is cynical but I can imagine a steady stream of litter raining from the sky's as people toss trash out their windows

I'd rather just have slow ground transportation that's practical. Walking is a human's natural mode of transportation, yet so many modern cities are built in a way that makes walking useless. Allowing all to live within walking distance of stores, work, and friends would be a greater achievement than a society built on the flying car.

"The paradox of transportation in the late 20th Century is that while it became possible to travel to the moon, it also became impossible, in many cases, to walk across the street."

If the (ground) car enabled urban sprawl... just think what the flying car would do for it.

> “Self-flying aircraft is so much easier than what the auto companies are trying to do with self-driving cars”

I guess until everybody starts using them :)

I think they are getting at the 3 dimensions available and a lot less fixed and unpredictable 'vehicles', including people... Hopefully they'll standardise things, or maybe we'll end up with Apple airspace that users pay to fly in and lower down in the smog some 'open access' space...

Because there is no terrain to worry about.

There are broadcast towers with wires that are certainly worth worrying about if not accounted for in advance.

I think that autonomous vehicles make flying cars possible. On one hand, learning to fly is difficult (the problem has a dimension more than driving on the surface) and people really do not like wreckage falling from the sky. So one needs a highly trained expert to pilot any flying vehicle, or a fully autonomous autopilot.

The second thing is energy, a plane needs to handle a lot more energy than a car, simply because it flies, so it is more expensive. If someone own a flying car, then they are investing a lot into a capability they use very rarely. With a Uber like model of shared transportation one orders a car only when one needs it. And it makes sense to have a flying car in the pool, even at a hundred times the cost of a regular vehicle. So each individual customer will use that flying car almost never, but there are many, and the ones who pay a $100 to shave five minutes of their time are probably in that moment very happy, that they have that option.

Flight takes less energy than you might think. The real issue is landing in city's. You need virticle takeoff and landing which creates a lot of issues.

People are working on planes that can land vertically under computer control.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...