B) It doesn't even have wheels, how is it a car?
C) What is that tiny propeller on the back for? I would assume a quadcopter design would propel forward via tilting, the way any normal quadcopter would...do the 4 propellers just _lift_ it?
D) In what world would this thing not require like 3 different complex flight licenses just to be allowed to fly, let alone use in an urban environment?
To play devil's advocate: it's a flying car in the sense of "a small enclosed powered vehicle that takes a few passengers from A to B without a guide track, only it flies instead of drives" not "a normal car that can also fly". Just like "electronic books" replicate the basic functionality of (traditional) books, but don't use the same methods.
Unless it is significantly cheaper to operate or quieter, I don't understand the benefits of these new vehicles/ form factor.
Maybe the hope is that cities will not regulate them, but I am not sure why they would. Please enlighten me if there something else obvious I missed. If both Boeing and Airbus are working on it, there must be something else.
Also much easier to fly I imagine.
The Uber Elevate white paper probably has a lot more info: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/
B.) News outlets are sensational. This is an aircraft, but people equate the future to flying "cars." Also, pedantically speaking, car doesn't have to mean automobile. Car comes from carriage, which was drawn by a horse. By your logic a car should require a horse too, right? :o)
C.) This is a vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) fixed-wing aircraft. The outboard rotors provide vertical lift during takeoff and landing (so yes they are designed to just _lift_ it), but in flight the rear rotor provides forward thrust while the wings provide vertical lift. I assume the outboard rotors will be seized during cruising speeds, or spinning to provide extra lift assuming the fixed wings are not designed to carry the weight of the aircraft themselves during cruise.
D.) If this were to be flown today, it would likely not meet existing civil regulations. Experimental registration and certification aside, there isn't anything like it that isn't military (i.e. the V-22 Osprey) and I don't know of anything that has both VTOL and fixed wing certification. But as you'd expect, part of this effort is to work with the FAA/ICAO to define regulation. It will probably require a single pilot license with perhaps a "VTOL fixed wing" endorsement, exhaustive training will be required, and will probably be allowed to land and anywhere a helicopter can land but be vectored as if it were a fixed wing.
The propeller at the back is for forward motion, presumably because it's less comfortable for human passengers to travel at a 60 degree forward tilt).
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."
Huh. I never considered that a basic requirement for a flying car is that it, well, would also be a land car.
It is a flying something, but that does not sound cool. Cars _are_ cool, so we call it flying car.
I'm personally working on a concept called the driving airplane. It cannot fly, but it will drive.
When can I invest?
Bell is building their Nexus.
To me, "car" implies still being able to enter those areas like other people with traditional automobiles.