Driving in the future

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

10 ga, 00-Buck.

Let's see - drivers are already ... not too smart. Now add another dimension.

L5wolvesf said:

frenchyd said:

  So why buy a car/ flying car?  Why not take shares in it?   Costs would then be divided by everyone.$100,000 something could be divided at least 10 ways.   And then by the projected life of the unit.  So a monthly payment would amount to $100 a month. Leaving plenty for costs.     

So timeshares on wheels/wings. The criminals who infest that business will pay homage to you (then steal it). Who would regulate that? Dept of Real Estate, FAA or MVD? :) 

Perhaps you aren't aware of shares in airplanes?  
   Some are business deals. Put together by lawyers.  Others by friends who can't afford an airplane on their own dime and get together on terms  sometimes only a handshake deal. 
    I know nothing is perfect. And you are free to buy your own  if you want.  
    
As public roads  you will have to conform to whatever rules are in place. 
  To reassure you.  I know none of this will happen overnight or in my lifetime.    Maybe not even yours. 
  But change is inevitable. 
  Just like my grandparents had to give up horses and deal with cars.  The future will bring many changes  at least as big as what my grandparents went through.   

Datsun310Guy said:

I'm thinking big slot cars allowing higher speeds.  Think of those HO cars from our youth. 

Then each car has a magnetic attaching method allowing us to hook up with each other and freight train down the interstate.

We can be doing 150mph with our cars peg in the slot in the road. 

Heh, heh!   You must have a different youth than I.  When I raced those  I remember  them spinning out and being thrown off the track or being knocked off the track by another 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Whenever I think of flying cars I think of two things:

Danger, everything breaks, and when that thing weighs several thousand pounds and is above you, well..... 

Invasion of privacy. No way in hell do I want people looking down on me, nor do I want them in my near sightlines causing anxiety and harshing my vibe.

If they followed current aircraft regulations  that would be more tenable, but they still have to land, and that means that while they may not be directly above you in your airspace, they may still be following a flightpath which creates aural and visible noise. 

 

Time top stock up on SAMs I guess.  

 

Airplanes are safer than cars to travel in. 
  As far as privacy. Your private property would be off limits.    
I mean  The FAA sets a minimum  altitude.   And if you think someone zipping to work at a1000 feet going 150 MPH  is interested in your underwear? You simply have  to go flying sometime.  

They've been talking about flying cars since the 1950s if not earlier, and nothing's happened yet.  I'm not holding my breath.

In reply to frenchyd :

They would use the same technology those high speed trains use - those trains aren't flying off the tracks.  

Well, flying cars are far more easily automated for flight than The struggle with road cars.. They just have far fewer things to interact with. Insofar as maintenance and expenses, we are already seeing the popularity in things like Zipcar in bigger cities. You don't own it, you have a use subscription to a pool of vehicles. Insofar as safety of those below, well, we already do that some with civil aviation, we lock the automated flying car into pathways not going over houses, like over major roadways. Plus, add V2V/V2I communication and it can work. The big challenge is redundancies in the case of failure. Not insurmountable.  So, it's a question of thrust to weight, packaging, programming, and government planning to incorporate it. 

So, the flying car you pay to have access to can only fly on autonomous mode and only over larger roadways...  useful, limited, but useful. Come up with a powerplant that is light, powerful enough, and oh yeah, not excessively noisy and it's possible. Ooh, and probably close to a trillion $ grant to get the governmental and infrastructure figured out. ( likely underestimate)

Hey Elon, wanna do this instead of Mars?

Our biggest personal transportation challenge is commuting. We kind of had an unintentional experiment in how to make that a whole lot better with maximum working from home with the pandemic. Might be easier to flex that than spinning up the infrastructure to incorporate flying cars. I can't speak for the rest of you, but getting around DC was easy during the height of the pandemic.

frenchyd said:

Not sure jetpacks would be viable.  
     First every place needs some version of weather protection. 
 Up here in the arctic Tundra  flying around in 40 degrees below temps would require really bulky and probably heavy  protective gear.   
  In the South with 110+ temps  I'm not sure how you could keep cool.  
  Then there is rain,  hail,and snow  to add to your misery.  
    Now of course you could have been teasing me, in which case I was stupid. I apologize then.  

Whoa, little too serious there bub. I was just kidding around. 

frenchyd said:

Airplanes are safer than cars to travel in. 

That depends... Commercial aviation is (much) safer. General aviation is on par with motorcycles.

Slippery said:

dean1484 said:

 It also allows for complete tracking of the movements of everyone. That is a world I don't want to live in. ...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news ... but we already live in that world. Too late.

You still have a choice now.  You won't in the future.

I'm having a hard time envisoning how anything like this would integrate into the national airspace system.

Something not yet mentioned: Weather.

First, most people are not going to like bumping along at low level on nice sunny days.

Second, real weather.  I live about 26 mi from NASAs icing research facility, which is here for a reason. Cant find it now, but I have a screenshot of a Partenavia military transport that spent a couple days droning around at 3000ft I assume doing known icing testing a few years back.

There can be weeks where anything without IFR certification and $$$$ ice protection won't be leaving the ground, at least not for long... Similar concerns for convection, low or decreasing IFR conditions, etc.

Not sure how palatable the reality of weather planning, go/no-go decision making, alternates, etc. would be.  People are going to want car-like dispatch reliability with zero planning. 

Driven5 said:

frenchyd said:

Airplanes are safer than cars to travel in. 

That depends... Commercial aviation is (much) safer. General aviation is on par with motorcycles.

I stand corrected.    Presumably by the time flying cars become accepted, they will be developed enough to be safe.   
   I know helicopters can auto-rotate  and  do a controlled landing.   
    If the drone style will do that?  I have no idea.  

mblommel said:

frenchyd said:

Not sure jetpacks would be viable.  
     First every place needs some version of weather protection. 
 Up here in the arctic Tundra  flying around in 40 degrees below temps would require really bulky and probably heavy  protective gear.   
  In the South with 110+ temps  I'm not sure how you could keep cool.  
  Then there is rain,  hail,and snow  to add to your misery.  
    Now of course you could have been teasing me, in which case I was stupid. I apologize then.  

Whoa, little too serious there bub. I was just kidding around. 

As I said, sorry,   It's hard to get the sense of humor  I'm sure I would have detected in person. 

XLR99 (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm having a hard time envisoning how anything like this would integrate into the national airspace system.

Something not yet mentioned: Weather.

First, most people are not going to like bumping along at low level on nice sunny days.

Second, real weather.  I live about 26 mi from NASAs icing research facility, which is here for a reason. Cant find it now, but I have a screenshot of a Partenavia military transport that spent a couple days droning around at 3000ft I assume doing known icing testing a few years back.

There can be weeks where anything without IFR certification and $$$$ ice protection won't be leaving the ground, at least not for long... Similar concerns for convection, low or decreasing IFR conditions, etc.

Not sure how palatable the reality of weather planning, go/no-go decision making, alternates, etc. would be.  People are going to want car-like dispatch reliability with zero planning. 

Really excellent point.  
    Luckily the air force is already flying unstable, seriously fast,  aircraft at extremely low altitude's.   
         Now to simplify and reduce costs for the multitudes?    Clearly it won't happen in my lifetime. 

stuart in mn said:

They've been talking about flying cars since the 1950s if not earlier, and nothing's happened yet.  I'm not holding my breath.

I agree:  I know for certain it won't happen in my lifetime.  

racerfink said:

Slippery said:

dean1484 said:

 It also allows for complete tracking of the movements of everyone. That is a world I don't want to live in. ...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news ... but we already live in that world. Too late.

You still have a choice now.  You won't in the future.

I am aware of this. Automated tolls traffic cameras allow for very accurate tracking of where a car goes now. But currently you can get in your car when ever you want and drive where ever you want by the rout you want. Having big brother controlling that is scary. 
 

Big brother could effectively imprison the population by simply preventing travel. Someone other than you will be deciding if you should be allowed to get in your car and go somewhere.  It will be sold as progress and the way of the future when in fact it really is giving up your freedoms.  

racerfink said:

Slippery said:

dean1484 said:

 It also allows for complete tracking of the movements of everyone. That is a world I don't want to live in. ...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news ... but we already live in that world. Too late.

You still have a choice now.  You won't in the future.

Not really, look up at overhead lighting. Periodically there are camera's watching the freeways now.  
 Plus your phone already keeps track of wherever you go.  Yes there are still some "off the grid" places people can go.  And maybe well into the future too.  
  But Americans want security. Sometimes more than privacy.   That's why so many private homes have security camera's etc.  

   So even in rural areas  you can't tell who's got security camera's that will track your activities. 

Datsun310Guy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

No They would use the same technology those high speed trains use - those trains aren't flying off the tracks.  

That's an interesting concept.  Trade tires for rails?   

frenchyd said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Whenever I think of flying cars I think of two things:

Danger, everything breaks, and when that thing weighs several thousand pounds and is above you, well..... 

Invasion of privacy. No way in hell do I want people looking down on me, nor do I want them in my near sightlines causing anxiety and harshing my vibe.

If they followed current aircraft regulations  that would be more tenable, but they still have to land, and that means that while they may not be directly above you in your airspace, they may still be following a flightpath which creates aural and visible noise. 

 

Time top stock up on SAMs I guess.  

 

Airplanes are safer than cars to travel in. 
  As far as privacy. Your private property would be off limits.    
I mean  The FAA sets a minimum  altitude.   And if you think someone zipping to work at a1000 feet going 150 MPH  is interested in your underwear? You simply have  to go flying sometime.  

At any given time, there are 8000 to 13000 planes in the air worldwide. There are approximately 250 million cars in the USA alone. So the orders of magnitude are completely different and thus the safety considerations. Furthermore, the amount of rules and scrutiny that goes on each plane far outweighs that of automobiles. So lets be honest with ourselves, flying cars will be like planes -  a plaything of the relatively wealthy for the foreseeable future.  But since it will be the domain of the rich, they will of course bring pressure to bear to have relaxed rules for their flying cars. They will want to fly lower to the ground and justify it with safety concerns. So those flying cockroaches won't be a thousand feet up, they'll be closer, louder, more obtrusive. And with the vertical takeoff capabilities, they'll be classed not as planes, but as helicopters, and they'll want less restrictive rules than heliports have for landing and taking off. So again, they'll not be in the far distance, or at an airport. They'll be landing closeby.

I'm not a Luddite, but I am a skeptic. And you appear to be a futurist, entranced with technological possibilities like a teenager with his issue of Popular Science open. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Town next to me has readers, not cameras.  Interesting what they're looking for.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Whenever I think of flying cars I think of two things:

Danger, everything breaks, and when that thing weighs several thousand pounds and is above you, well..... 

Invasion of privacy. No way in hell do I want people looking down on me, nor do I want them in my near sightlines causing anxiety and harshing my vibe.

If they followed current aircraft regulations  that would be more tenable, but they still have to land, and that means that while they may not be directly above you in your airspace, they may still be following a flightpath which creates aural and visible noise. 

 

Time top stock up on SAMs I guess.  

 

Airplanes are safer than cars to travel in. 
  As far as privacy. Your private property would be off limits.    
I mean  The FAA sets a minimum  altitude.   And if you think someone zipping to work at a1000 feet going 150 MPH  is interested in your underwear? You simply have  to go flying sometime.  

At any given time, there are 8000 to 13000 planes in the air worldwide. There are approximately 250 million cars in the USA alone. So the orders of magnitude are completely different and thus the safety considerations. Furthermore, the amount of rules and scrutiny that goes on each plane far outweighs that of automobiles. So lets be honest with ourselves, flying cars will be like planes -  a plaything of the relatively wealthy for the foreseeable future.  But since it will be the domain of the rich, they will of course bring pressure to bear to have relaxed rules for their flying cars. They will want to fly lower to the ground and justify it with safety concerns. So those flying cockroaches won't be a thousand feet up, they'll be closer, louder, more obtrusive. And with the vertical takeoff capabilities, they'll be classed not as planes, but as helicopters, and they'll want less restrictive rules than heliports have for landing and taking off. So again, they'll not be in the far distance, or at an airport. They'll be landing closeby.

I'm not a Luddite, but I am a skeptic. And you appear to be a futurist, entranced with technological possibilities like a teenager with his issue of Popular Science open. 

Your general thrust is correct.   However helicopters are just as restricted as airplanes.   The guy who flies from the Carlson's residence to his towers in a multi million dollar jet helicopter  conforms to all those rules. 
   While I can hear him, he is nowhere near as noisy as  the snowmobiles or jet skis  that are a thousand times more common. 
     As for interested in the future?  Sure!    Didn't you watch the moon landing?  Read about the voyager, Go to air shows? Follow the progress of the Mars Rover?   Attend air shows?  
    OK so I flew off aircraft carriers.  And while the planes I flew were designed in the early 1950's they were still being used 20 years later.  Nope never got to fly an F4 or even an A4 but that didn't mean I didn't want to.  

In reply to Datsun310Guy :

 Most banks have plenty of camera's, as do a high percentage of local businesses.   
     Readers are just camera's aimed where license plates are, they are there to help the police just like all those other camera's. 
     Unreasonable search and seizure?  
  Not really not any more than s police officer is walking his best or driving in a patrol car. 
 Just a fact of modern society. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Flying cars have been predicted for decades.  It's not a concern until something feasible is about to be on the market.

I agree