Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Nobody's Confidant on 26/10/2007 14:27:09
-
Will these ever happen? That would be great.
-
What do you think is great about them, and why do you think they are great?
I am not trying to contradict you, just understand what you think the concept would deliver.
Essentially, as I understand it, a flying car is merely a compact VTOL aeroplane. Making an aeroplane compact may have advantages, but most people also view the flying car as being something that anybody with a driving licence should be able to fly - but flying is not driving, and the training requirements for pilots are far more stringent than for car drivers (and the spacing of aircraft, and general safety rules, are more stringent - simply because a small bump between cars on the ground might be embarrassing, the same bump at 2,000 feet above the ground would almost certainly be fatal).
-
No more traffic jams at least, and also faster.
-
No more traffic jams at least, and also faster.
But a massive increase in fatalities due to minor accidents.
Motor cars could go a lot faster, if there were not laws to prohibit it.
Traffic jams would not necessarily be that much easier - you would still have to queue for parking (if 2000 people all want to land on the same roof top at 9 o'clock in the morning, and all leave from the same roof top at 5 o'clock in the evening - you still have a traffic jam). But, yes, congestion of long distance roads would be alleviated.
On the other hand, how would you deal with traffic separation (i.e. ensuring that traffic moving is different directions are properly separated so they don't collide with each other). On conventional roads, traffic always stays on the left of the road in the UK (also Japan, and various countries that were part of the British Empire), while staying on the right of the road in the USA and mainland Europe - but if there are no roads, then what is the left and right hand side of the road? Commercial airliners travelling in different directions are separated by 500 feet vertical separation, and travelling in the same direction, are generally about 3 minutes behind each other - this is considerably greater separation than most cars have.
There are also problems with VTOL aircraft that they should not be directly beneath each other lest the downthrust of the upper aircraft force down the lower aircraft - in the early days, a few helicopters crashed when they were flying in tight formation because the lower helicopter got caught in the downthrust of the upper helicopter.
-
I don't want one flying over MY house, thanks.
Cars on a well defined road are a big enough menace without bringing the menace onto my roof.
Much more expensive for fuel , too.
Possibly attractive if they were controlled automatically - but traffic density and average speeds on roads would be much better with totally automatic control, in any case. Takes the dozy human operator out of the equation.
-
I don't want one flying over MY house, thanks.
Cars on a well defined road are a big enough menace without bringing the menace onto my roof.
Much more expensive for fuel , too.
Possibly attractive if they were controlled automatically - but traffic density and average speeds on roads would be much better with totally automatic control, in any case. Takes the dozy human operator out of the equation.
I do agree that driverless cars are definitely the way to go.
On the other hand, I am not totally convinced about your fuel economy argument. There are clearly trade-offs, but there is much debate about whether flying is that inefficient when measured in passenger miles (ofcourse, when measured in passenger hours, it is a different matter). After all, one form of flying machine that bridges the gap are maglev trains, and although they have yet to come into their own, there are many who do regard the advantages outweigh the difficulties in having a train that flies, even if only a few inches off the ground. The real problem with flight, in energy costs, is the large expenditure of energy when going nowhere (it makes the fuel cost of waiting at traffic lights for terrestrial vehicles seem quite cheap).
The calculations become even more complex when you include the environmental, material, and energy costs involved in laying roads (costs that are far lower for building airports - especially if one removes the need for most of the terminal buildings, and lower yet if one looks at landing and takeoff facilities for VTOL flight).
My major concern still remains the safety aspects, and possibly amenity to light (bad enough when you have a major motorway built outside of your house - but when you have a traffic jam 2,000 feet or more high in front of your house, it could make a substantial difference to your quality of life). Even the issue of noise - even if you make the vehicles fairly quite, if you have thousands of them close together, the cumulative effect is still significant, and noise from 2,000 feet up will generally carry further than noise from lower altitude (although at least you don't need to deal with tyre rumble).
-
Can there really be any doubt about the inefficiency of keeping objects suspended in the air, using reaction / wings - fixed or rotating compared with a car waiting with its handbrake on then moving when it needs to?
S/VTOL consumes a lot of fuel and you would need that, if you were to avoid making the end bits of your journey by road, in any case.
Flying to work or to visit friends would be suitable for people living in the outback or similar. Those who can afford to do it, already run light aircraft.
When the antigrav unit is for sale in B&Q, I will bolt one to my car.
-
Can there really be any doubt about the inefficiency of keeping objects suspended in the air, using reaction / wings - fixed or rotating compared with a car waiting with its handbrake on then moving when it needs to?
I did acknowledge the problems with aircraft that are having to wait.
There is no question that keeping an aircraft in the air costs energy, but on the other hand there are savings in energy in not having to contend with rolling resistance, and not having to cross varying terrain (whether it is climbing hills, or just going across speed bumps and pot holes), and very possibly better drag coefficient (bearing in mind that motor cars still produce both lift and drag, albeit it is mostly intended that the lift should be negative). The big issue is, as you point out, there is no need to produce lift or drag when a terrestrial vehicle is stationary. On the other hand, modern air traffic control attempts to ensure that when an aircraft takes off, its entire flight timetable is already planned, right to the point of landing, so as to minimise the likelihood of their being any delays along the route (the delays occur before takeoff, when there is little impact on fuel consumption). If vehicles are totally under automated control (whether air or terrestrial vehicles) then there is no reason why similar traffic management systems could not be in place to reduce the inefficiencies of having to insert delays into the journey.
And, as I mentioned, you also need to fact in the energy costs involved in building and maintaining roads.
So I do not doubt that there are energy costs in flight, the question is how do those compare with the various specific energy costs involved in terrestrial transport?
-
I would need detailed figures to convince me that an airborne system could ,in any way ,be cheaper than a ground based system. The cost of the extremely high level of maintenance needed for all those flying machines would, surely, outweigh the cost of mending roads. (They even replace the oil after every flight, on military aircraft, I believe!)
And where are these things going to land? On the roof? What about for a block of flats? The top floors would all have to be multi-story aeroplane parks. Who would want a penthouse apartment if you were in the middle of everyone coming and going - plus pollution?
-
They even replace the oil after every flight, on military aircraft, I believe!
I cannot see that comparison with military vehicles is really valid (we are not talking about aircraft that are expected to be flying at Mach 2, or undertaking any of the rigorous punishment of a combat vehicle).
I did not disagree with many of the other logistic issues of short distance air transport, I was only really suggesting that the cost factor itself is far more complex, not least because you have to take account of the entire infrastructure cost.
I do think that any transport system that can remove the need to build and maintain roads (even rail roads) has a lot to be said for it (but running a 3 dimensional transport network, rather than a 2 dimensional one, would present more problems, as you point out, not least with the bottlenecks for landing and takeoff facilities).
One can add, if one wants to significantly reduce the cost of flight (at least, at low speed), then one can probably best do that with lighter than air vehicles (although these are scarcely compact).
-
The whole thing about personal 'air cars' smacks too much of early Science fiction films - Fritz Lang, and the like. Very attractive, at first sight, but a bottomless pit of potential expense and hazards.
If you think an extra dimension would help, then let's have a lot more fly-overs and underpasses. I could even contemplate a 'leap-frogging' system to get across busy highways. (Har har)
I just couldn't trust Joe public in the air space above my head. At least I can choose to walk on the pavement and avoid road traffic.
-
The whole thing about personal 'air cars' smacks too much of early Science fiction films
Agreed - and that my explain their popular appeal, but is neither an argument for or against them in practical terms.
If you think an extra dimension would help, then let's have a lot more fly-overs and underpasses.
The key point is that these do not create a 3 dimensional space, but rather simply a more convoluted 2 dimensional space (which is why they avoid the traffic management, and associated safety implications, of having to deal with a true 3 dimensional space).
I just couldn't trust Joe public in the air space above my head. At least I can choose to walk on the pavement and avoid road traffic.
Agreed totally - which is why, even to contemplate the notion, pilotless/driverless vehicles would to my mind have to be a prerequisite (although not necessarily a sufficiency).
-
I could stick my neck out and say "not in my lifetime".
There's a challenge.
-
Yes it would be great, is not difficult we must defeat the gravity sistem, today air let us fly, maybe later we can find a better system for that, maybe not.
Lets stay at ground.
-
is not difficult we must defeat the gravity sistem
??????????? I beg to differ.
You are going to need a totally different system of Science, right from square one. And would that not rather clash with the one we've got already?
This site is called the Naked Scientist - not the Naked Magician.
-
I am not talking about Magic, if i am talking about defeating the gravity i am saying it to do it with technology not with magic. We defeat gravity with aircrafts, is that magic?, NO that is no magic, is technology ,the air that pass throught the winds arise the aicrafts, so we can do the same with cars, but on a city using a car that expulses air at 100 mph just for flying and another 30 cars on the same street doing the same will be anoying and dangerous for people walking on the streets.
-
If I stand up, I am defeating gravity- that's obvious.
An aeroplane is another way of doing it too - but it is neither a new idea nor practical for my rooftop. So far, all ways of lifting an air vehicle depend on 'reaction' - pushing air down or backwards to provide lift.
You, also, seem to reject that as an idea (reasonably enough) so what technology did you have in mind?
It would be 'nice' if it could be done but how?
Without some reasonable Science or Technology it becomes Magic.
-
If I stand up, I am defeating gravity- that's obvious.
An aeroplane is another way of doing it too - but it is neither a new idea nor practical for my rooftop. So far, all ways of lifting an air vehicle depend on 'reaction' - pushing air down or backwards to provide lift.
You, also, seem to reject that as an idea (reasonably enough) so what technology did you have in mind?
It would be 'nice' if it could be done but how?
Without some reasonable Science or Technology it becomes Magic.
I think I already mentioned lighter than air flight (displacement rather than reaction).
Magnetic or electrical reaction is another option. This works in one dimension, when a objects are suspended above or below a metal rail, and travel along a vector parallel to that rail; but could be a bit more problematic trying to manage objects travelling is many layers above/below the rail (or surface) and travelling in many different vectors (plausibly possible to do, but very complex to calculate the fields required).
Other options would be (as you have indicated) simply to walk upright, on very long legs (again, there would be some problems in ensuring the legs of various vehicles don't get entangled - or alternatively, have one vehicle walk upon the tops of lower vehicles).
-
Here we go again with "Magic" i repeating my self? i am just telling one of the ways
-
Here we go again with "Magic" i repeating my self? i am just telling one of the ways
What are you talking about 'magic' - who is talking about 'magic'?
What possible ways are you referring to?
-
ahhh but the technology already exists - no magic. See for yourself
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi231.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee205%2Falandriel00%2Fstuff%2Faa-LH0065304-40.jpg&hash=65bb2e68443f20c8a287460f9971df46)
... marvel at the electro magnetic field that floats the car...
....it just might be a bit tricky though applying that in large scale [;)] [;D]
The thought of driver-less systems is just as scary though - totally at the mercy of technology; not a very happy thought for me at all...
-
The thought of driver-less systems is just as scary though - totally at the mercy of technology; not a very happy thought for me at all...
So you would never fly in an Airbus A320 (and ever more newer aircraft from all the major producers). The pilot may have some control over the aircraft, but it did not stop one of the pre-production models from crashing at a French airshow because the computers decided to lower the landing gear and configure for landing when all the pilot wanted was to perform a low level fly past.
Even aside from issues of fly by wire, you still depend on lots of electronics for navigation, and in poor weather, the plane is likely to land with almost no visual input from the pilot at all, so the pilot is totally dependent upon the MLS technology telling him where the runway is, and if the system gets it wrong, then the pilot is unlikely to recover the situation.
But then, is system error really so much less likely than human error?
-
So you would never fly in an Airbus A320
but an Airbus costs a fortune to maintain - well out of the range for joe public to afford for his runabout. The comparison is not really valid.
-
If you put it like that George…….I can’t argue with you. [;D]
It’s ALL scary LOL. - Perhaps a little of my control-freak-ishness is shining through here but despite all the logic I’m actually less comfortable if all human control is dropped.
Machines/systems are overall statistically probably less error prone than humans but there is something inherently more satisfying if in the end one can blame a human rather than a machine.
I don’t know…. perhaps all my warped thinking is coloured by too many silly sci-fi thrillers (the machines take over a la terminator, matrix etc) or I’m simply an even bigger control freak than I assumed so far. [::)]
-
If you put it like that George…….I can’t argue with you. [;D]
It’s ALL scary LOL. - Perhaps a little of my control-freak-ishness is shining through here but despite all the logic I’m actually less comfortable if all human control is dropped.
Machines/systems are overall statistically probably less error prone than humans but there is something inherently more satisfying if in the end one can blame a human rather than a machine.
I don’t know…. perhaps all my warped thinking is coloured by too many silly sci-fi thrillers (the machines take over a la terminator, matrix etc) or I’m simply an even bigger control freak than I assumed so far. [::)]
I too am a control freak, but if I cannot control something myself, which is why I hate public transport [:)], but I take no pleasure in blaming human or machine - I would rather not have anything to blame them for than to choose someone to blame.
But even today, much of what you believe you control is mediated by machines; from most of our financial transactions, to automatic washing machines (or do you wash by hand?), to automatically opening doors.
With regard to driverless cars, when was the last time you were in a lift that was operated by a lift boy - is that not a driverless car of sorts (you punch in the destination, and it automatically takes you there - except that the destination is not a street address but a floor within a building)? In fact, the Docklands Light Railway is a railway system that runs totally without drivers (although I doubt the passengers consider it any differently to the London Underground, that does have a nominal driver).
-
This is very true - but there is a point when the complexity and cost of a safe system would become so high that corners would (literally, perhaps) be cut. Private systems would have to be around £10k and cost tens of pounds a year to maintain. That's the scary bit.
-
This is very true - but there is a point when the complexity and cost of a safe system would become so high that corners would (literally, perhaps) be cut. Private systems would have to be around £10k and cost tens of pounds a year to maintain. That's the scary bit.
Complexity is a matter of perspective.
The modern motor car is an incredibly complex system, and a very high percentage of that complexity (maybe even the major part of it) is down to safety. From crumple zones, to air bags, to stress design, to ABS braking, to seat belts and anti-dive seats. If someone had dreamt all of this up from the technology available at the start of the 20th century, it would have been unimaginably complex, and simply infeasible.
Perceived complexity is reduced by incremental design, and modularisation. This takes time, but is a manageable task.
-
OK, just stay clear of the airspace over my house.
-
I'd agree that automation (aka autopilot) would definitely be necessary, and that flying cars are definitely something that could (and will) happen. As population density goes up, there'll be a push for some alternative mode of transport that will be faster/easier than cars (since EVERYONE will be on the road, unless we become a VR society as per Isaac Asimov's "Nemesis"). Aircraft are a natural answer.
Congestion wouldn't be a problem, assuming that certain measures were taken. There is a GPS system being developed for the general aviation community that, if combined with certain aspects of the TACAN system (used in commercial/military aircraft), would be a perfect answer. The idea is to equip every with a GPS and have that GPS constantly transmit airspeed/altitude/heading/aircraft type data to ground repeater stations which then transmit that data to all aircraft in the vicinity, giving an effective aerial map of the surrounding area. The TACAN system comes in with collision avoidance. If two aircraft are on a collision course - detected by the computers of either aircraft - a signal is sent from one computer to the other commanding both aircraft to change heading/altitude in certain directions based on relative heading (right of way)/airspeed.
What this gets down to is that you'd have to either automate the entire flight, or license people to fly these. Given, it wouldn't be much above a sport pilot rating, but it'd be something. You'd be constricted to flying on certain airways (so as to not interfere with the general aviation community), and you couldn't fly to controlled airports, but it'd be useful for getting from pt A to pt B a little faster, or even flying to a friend's house (fly on an airway to the general area and then have a free-flight area - if 'twas a convention, you'd have to have controlled airspace instead, but you get the idea).
As for cost, yep, it'd be a mite more. On the other hand, there are gyrocopters out there for $17k! As powerplant technology improves, I don't doubt that these would get cheaper, and I think that a cheap aircraft with rudimentary controls/instrumentation and an autopilot could be made without getting too expensive.
-
As you say, it is not at all inevitable that there will be an increasing need for human transportation, and telecommunication will obviate a lot of the need for human movement. There will continue to be a need for the transport of goods and raw materials, but that is another matter.
As I have indicated before, air travel does not always present itself as a means of increasing traffic density (you cannot see airliners getting anywhere like as near each other as you might see railway trains of similar passenger carrying capacity). This is not merely because of the complexities of traffic control in 3 dimensions, and safety requirements for vehicles travelling at just under the speed of sound, but also because aircraft, by their very nature, need clean air to travel in, yet by their very nature will disturb the air they travel through, thus require to provide sufficient distance between themselves to allow the air to return to a equilibrium before they enter a given airspace. This distance can be reduced when travelling in strict formation (as birds do when they are flying in formation), but this only works where you regard the entire formation as a single large unit, all travelling in the same direction, and cannot be used for vehicles moving in different directions to each other.
-
You could get a very high density of traffic with a multilayer tracked system - automatic, of course. It would have the advantage that it can all slow down and stop quite safely any time. Not quite so sexy but makes sense.
-
The problem with tracked systems, although simple and well understood, are extremely expensive to build and maintain. For all of the concerns about the cost of building flying machines, the cost is predominantly in the cost of the vehicle themselves, and the cost of the supporting infrastructure, while certainly non-zero, is still very small compared to the infrastructure costs of maintaining a tracked system.
This is not to dismiss tracked systems, only to suggest that we do need to find some way of constraining the infrastructure costs better than we do at present.
-
Good traffic control would limit the amount of track needed.
I think you guys spend too much time watching films like The Fifth Element.
In any case, most people will be networking before long - no need to go anywhere - just walk to your local pub.
-
A_s: Why are you a newbie. all of a sudden? Have you been round the clock?
-
A_s: Why are you a newbie. all of a sudden? Have you been round the clock?
No, the account was deleted and recreated - complex story.
-
Good traffic control would limit the amount of track needed.
That is an argument that is still used today to squeeze more from the existing roads and railway networks, but has still not solved current congestion problems. Aside from congestion issues, there still remains the cost of maintenance of the current network (constant resurfacing of roads, and repairs of the rails - failure to do either adequately leading to accidents), and still new roads need to be built whenever new facilities need to be services (new estates, or new airports, etc.). All of this is extremely expensive, and rarely done adequately.
If you compare the relative infrastructure cost between running more flights between London to Paris, and building the Eurostar network, the cost of the flights is minuscule. Furthermore, the only real infrastructure cost involves the total traffic volumes at each endpoint, but there no significant cost involved in rerouteing traffic (i.e. assuming London, Frankfurt, and Paris all have sufficient endpoint capacity, whether the flight is going from London to Paris, or London to Frankfurt matters not, but laying new track for a direct train route from London to Frankfurt is still expensive).
Another problem with trying to eke ever more capacity out of the same infrastructure by simply improving efficiency of utilisation of the infrastructure is that the network ever more loses redundancy and resilience, so that a single failure of the network (e.g. an accident, or bad weather) creates ever greater degradation on the network. Creating networks with lots of redundancy, because the network infrastructure costs have been reduced sufficiently to allow this to be done, makes it easy to reroute traffic around points of network failure.
Another issue to consider is what is meant by flying? The original question supposed a full 3 dimensional traffic management scheme as a means of alleviating congestion. If we are merely looking at ways of alleviating the cost of laying track on a 2 dimensional traffic management scheme, this could be achieved simply by using flying heights from 6 inches to 10 feet above the surface (e.g. as in hovercraft), and these do not carry the same safety implication that flying 30,000 feet above the surface might do.
-
this could be achieved simply by using flying heights from 6 inches to 10 feet above the surface (e.g. as in hovercraft), and these do not carry the same safety implication that flying 30,000 feet above the surface might do.
That would be fine; I could go for some such system but I don't think that was what the original post was about. The spirit of the post was very Buck Rogers and that is a great fun idea. However, your system doesn't give direct routes because it shares space with buildings. It is more like multi lanes, stacked vertically.
I don't think you are taking into consideration, enough, the problem of actually stopping and waiting in any mass airborne system.
I have the same problem when in my boat, even. There's no such thing as a handbrake. The anchor is very much not a handbrake and is very often not possible to use and, even when you can, it involves a lot of preparation and faffing around.
A ground-based system is gloriously fail safe. Nothing else is. We make up for this in the present flying environment by making it very exclusive and very expensive. Of course, if it were just you and me with the air cars it would be a terrific system. It's all the other punters I'm hesitant about. Just imagine the Arthur Daley air car!
-
That would be fine; I could go for some such system but I don't think that was what the original post was about. The spirit of the post was very Buck Rogers and that is a great fun idea. However, your system doesn't give direct routes because it shares space with buildings. It is more like multi lanes, stacked vertically.
I agree - it is looking at a different problem.
I don't think you are taking into consideration, enough, the problem of actually stopping and waiting in any mass airborne system.
I have the same problem when in my boat, even. There's no such thing as a handbrake. The anchor is very much not a handbrake and is very often not possible to use and, even when you can, it involves a lot of preparation and faffing around.
I think that you are overstressing this issue.
Waiting in traffic is a problem for poorly managed traffic, but proper traffic management systems (available only with proper robotic control under guidance from an integrated traffic management system) should substantially alleviate this problem.
Where you might have more legitimate argument is with regard to susceptibility to wind gusting when operating in confined spaces (such as dense traffic patterns). No traffic management system can anticipate wind gusts.
A ground-based system is gloriously fail safe. Nothing else is. We make up for this in the present flying environment by making it very exclusive and very expensive.
That is the point, flying is actually not that expensive at all (when you take into account passenger miles). Flying becomes expensive at short distances, but the moment you wish to travel over 1000 miles, you'd be hard put to find a cheaper way of doing it than by air.
-
Ach...this is what I get for missing time due to having my wisdom teeth out.
I'm not too sure if I'm seeing the waiting in traffic argument here...I'm envisioning something more along the lines of fixed-wing aircraft with S/VTOL capability than helicopters. Helicopters aren't really ideal for civilian travel (save in cities or areas where their landing pads can be isolated on top of skyscrapers or in the middle of no where (aka Alaska)) due to the immense amount of noise and vertical wind shear that they whip up. I really don't see the need for a pure helicopter/hover system...anything that can at least made to hold a controlled vertical descent or land in <100 feet without destroying the airframe should be fine.
What could be done is to have a set schedule of usage times for these established airways, hence developing formations that could be tracked via GPS. Autopilot control could keep the formation in order with enough separation (vertical or horizontal (abreast or astern)) so, given a hundred feet of separation and an autopilot's response time, I'd venture that anything short of a hurricane-strength gust could be accounted for. Given, there would need to be an upper limit to the system's use in windy/stormy environments, at which point only appropriately rated pilots would be allowed to fly. We already have an international air navigation system in place (VOR and VORTAC stations)...it wouldn't be too much more (in the long run) to add on a automated GPS-run controller to each one.
Also, about that fail-safe ground based system...I've heard of a lot of traffic accidents. There is a lot more space in the air that we can use to keep folks from attempting to occupy the same point.
-
I've heard of a lot of traffic accidents.
These are because people can't control vehicles effectively and they don't concentrate.
Have there been many with completely automated systems?
Do you really trust other people to be flying over your head in their little run-arounds, gossiping to their passengers and forgetting to have the vehicle serviced?
At least you are relatively safe on the pavement, these days.
-
That's why you automate the whole thing and set reasonable limitations on use. Aircraft autopilots are pretty danged good these days.
I'm thinking that completely automated cars aren't around yet because there A) isn't enough room on the roads for a GPS system (uncertainty in measurement) - and there's lots of room to play with just 6,000 feet upstairs - and B) it'd cost too much to redo all of the roads currently in existence. However, building this up from "scratch" - so to speak, since almost all of the elements are already in existence - would cost significantly less. As mentioned before, the main cost is that of the aircraft itself, and that wouldn't even be factored into the installation, since that's a personal cost. The only long-term one would be maintaining the facilities.
As for vehicle maintenance, how many folks forget to have their car serviced? After a point, 'tis illegal not to, right?
That could be something else factored into the system. The navigation system (or even a program initiated by the ignition system) could query a locked memory file aboard the vehicle and makes sure that the aircraft is within legal operating limits (diagnostic check of systems as well as a check of the last inspection) before takeoff.
If you want a different look at this, do you trust the general aviation community? They're flying overhead in Cessnas and Pipers, likely just running from one airfield to another for a cup of coffee and a bit of gossip. The aircraft, to the everyday person, would be another mode of transportation that would require the same attention as a car does today.
-
I'm not too sure if I'm seeing the waiting in traffic argument here...I'm envisioning something more along the lines of fixed-wing aircraft with S/VTOL capability than helicopters. Helicopters aren't really ideal for civilian travel (save in cities or areas where their landing pads can be isolated on top of skyscrapers or in the middle of no where (aka Alaska)) due to the immense amount of noise and vertical wind shear that they whip up. I really don't see the need for a pure helicopter/hover system...anything that can at least made to hold a controlled vertical descent or land in <100 feet without destroying the airframe should be fine.
So you are talking about a transportation system that would operate in rural, low population density, areas. You could not build 100 foot runways all over a major metropolitan complex.
This might work for Australia (where air transport was always important in the outback), but won't work anywhere in Europe.
Even in rural areas, most people live in small communities, and would not expect to have a 100 foot runway for each house, but would share a community runway, so still requiring a support infrastructure to and from the airstrip.
-
Yes and no. I'm talking about using what makes the most sense where it makes the most sense -- in other words, allowing VTOL in cities/locations, and STOL in rural areas where you can grab yourself 100 feet (or less, as technology develops (namely, airfoil design) to allow for slower approach speeds) of grass, roadway, or anything of the sort. You don't need a runway. You will need a clear bit of land, yes, but that's something to factor into design of the aircraft again. Do you make it such that the wings fold (such as found in naval aviation), the landing gear powered, and the aircraft able to operate on roads for short distances at slow speeds? Agreed, some folks might want a runway - sometimes it might be needed, but those places may also provide an economical spot for it (small urban areas, etc).
The fixed wing deal is also for maintenance -- fixed wing aircraft can survive longer than rotary winged aircraft (especially their props!).
I'm not saying that VTOL is a bad idea -- I'm just saying that a pure VTOL machine isn't the way to go.
-
Yes and no. I'm talking about using what makes the most sense where it makes the most sense -- in other words, allowing VTOL in cities/locations, and STOL in rural areas where you can grab yourself 100 feet (or less, as technology develops (namely, airfoil design) to allow for slower approach speeds) of grass, roadway, or anything of the sort. You don't need a runway. You will need a clear bit of land, yes, but that's something to factor into design of the aircraft again.
If you are looking to provide a transportation system for 6 million city dwellers, and half a million in the surrounding rural areas, then the commercial interest will be in supplying those 6 million customers, and the other half million will merely be an add-on.
Furthermore, if you have a fully managed system, with predictive traffic management, then that means you need to manage the landing/takeoff areas as well. You cannot just allocate an unprepared grass field over which you have no control, and bring the aircraft onto finals, and just as it is about to touch down, an antelope runs across the field, or the local yocal decides to use the runway as a shortcut to where he wanted to drive his pick-up. You also need to ensure that the airstrip is fairly immune to weather, and the landing strip does not suddenly become marshland after a heavy rain.
Using VTOL will still demand that the landing strip is secure and remains usable in most weather conditions (and when it is not usable, it is predictable in that the system can determine that the field is unfit for use before a vehicle tries to use it rather than afterwards). Nonetheless, the fact that VTOL uses less land makes it easier to manage, and potentially this could be a roof top, which is a more easily managed area than something at ground level (antelopes and yocals with pick-ups don't usually get up on roof tops).
If one is going to be really innovative, one could speculate about a system where the aircraft to not land or takeoff themselves, but are picked off a parking lot by a giant crane, which then catapults them into the air; and when the aircraft wishes to land, it connects in mid air with this same crane, which then places them down on a parking lot.
The other alternative is to use separate ducted fans for takeoff and landing, these becoming redundant in level flight.
Most proposals for 'flying cars' seem to revolve around the use of swivelling ducted fans, using downthrust from the fans for takeoff and landing, and converting to winged flight, and swivelling the fans to provide rearward thrust, when in level flight.
Do you make it such that the wings fold (such as found in naval aviation), the landing gear powered, and the aircraft able to operate on roads for short distances at slow speeds? Agreed, some folks might want a runway - sometimes it might be needed, but those places may also provide an economical spot for it (small urban areas, etc).
Cannot see how you are going to transmit power down to the wheels of an aircraft - possibly a small electric motor embedded in the hub of each wheel, but it will have very little power, and the whole system is not well suited to traction.
Even if you could get the power to the wheels, the whole vehicle would have a very, very, high centre of gravity, and would be a serious liability on the roads (aside from not being able to fit under low lying structures, such as power cables or low bridges).
Another aspect of folding wings is that they generally would have be be fairly short, which mean a high wing loading, which means poor low speed performance (naval aircraft can only be considered as STOL by virtual of using catapults, and very, very, powerful jet engines).
The fixed wing deal is also for maintenance -- fixed wing aircraft can survive longer than rotary winged aircraft (especially their props!).
Agreed - although gyrocoptors (which generally are short takeoff/vertical landing) should not be high maintenance, although they have other limitations (not least of which is having to carefully manage the centre of gravity of the aircraft - although this is to some extent true of all aircraft).
-
If you are looking to provide a transportation system for 6 million city dwellers, and half a million in the surrounding rural areas, then the commercial interest will be in supplying those 6 million customers, and the other half million will merely be an add-on.
Agreed, but why would an intracity system (hence necessitating primarily VTOL aircraft manufacturing) be the focus? I'd think that you'd want something that could travel between cities or to/from them...not within them - hence necessitating something that's good for distance travel (and hence allowing a greater focus on STOVL capability than solely VTOL - you'd still need it, don't get me wrong, but it wouldn't be as if you're building a helicopter). I like the compromise of a ducted system (akin to what in used on the F-35's main engine save done over for props)...it'd require some engineering, but I think it could be done (and efficiently so, for all involved).
As for the fully managed system - to an extent. That's why you necessitate licensing for all users -- just like with cars -- and put aircraft on manual once they have adequate separate within a particular zone that includes their laid-in destination (keeping them in practice with maneuvering/landing/takeoff). Computers can't beat human judgment on some issues, agreed, so let's not put them in the pilot's seat the whole way.
I'm assuming that there are roads near the place in question (for soaked fields - that was just an option). While you could use the main engines to taxi, some sort of PTO system would be a better choice. I'm supposing that it'd be possible to harness the drive motor to the landing gear, though the gears probably wouldn't engage until the aircraft was on the ground (a manual control).
A "parking lot" of sorts would be helpful, but that wouldn't make these cars the personal transport that we're thinking of, right? Ground cars would still be necessary for 100% of all travel done in rural areas.
Another aspect of folding wings is that they generally would have be be fairly short, which mean a high wing loading, which means poor low speed performance (naval aircraft can only be considered as STOL by virtual of using catapults, and very, very, powerful jet engines).
Had forgotten about aspect ratios for a moment there. However, you could build things such that the wings A) fold aft (after rotating 90 degrees - if you've ever seen a sailplane packed into its trailer, like that, save with that the wings are still attached) and fold upon themselves again (perhaps with a greater section of the wing going forward to balance things out) to keep the aircraft relatively short and able to manage a turn with only a little difficulty. They aren't meant to be ground vehicles, so we shouldn't push them to be -- at least not at the current level of technology (or that designable in the next 20 years or so (I'm assuming that's the idea here anyhow)).
-
If you are looking to provide a transportation system for 6 million city dwellers, and half a million in the surrounding rural areas, then the commercial interest will be in supplying those 6 million customers, and the other half million will merely be an add-on.
Agreed, but why would an intracity system (hence necessitating primarily VTOL aircraft manufacturing) be the focus? I'd think that you'd want something that could travel between cities or to/from them...not within them - hence necessitating something that's good for distance travel (and hence allowing a greater focus on STOVL capability than solely VTOL - you'd still need it, don't get me wrong, but it wouldn't be as if you're building a helicopter).
But intercity air transport already exists, and while you may look at expanding it, and making it more flexible, it still more about providing a mass transit system than about applying personal transport. Personal transport is required for end to end journeys, but when you deal with hub to hub journeys, then mass transit systems are more than adequate (i.e. aircraft that carry 50+ people, rather than individuals).
As for the fully managed system - to an extent. That's why you necessitate licensing for all users -- just like with cars -- and put aircraft on manual once they have adequate separate within a particular zone that includes their laid-in destination (keeping them in practice with maneuvering/landing/takeoff). Computers can't beat human judgment on some issues, agreed, so let's not put them in the pilot's seat the whole way.
The problem is that if you have a hybrid system, part manual and part computer controlled, do you not have the worst of both worlds - a computer controlled system that tries to integrate a human component.
The point about a computer controlled system is that it must have total authority over their environment. If you complain that computers lack judgement, then how are they to judge what a human operator in their midst that is operating in manual mode is going to do?
And bear in mind what has already been said, that car drivers have far lower levels of training than aircraft pilots, and the idea is that if we are to have as many pilots as we presently have drivers, then we have to reduce the training requirements.
I'm supposing that it'd be possible to harness the drive motor to the landing gear, though the gears probably wouldn't engage until the aircraft was on the ground (a manual control).
It is not the gear box that concerns me but the primary drive shaft delivering power to the wheels - might just be possible with a fixed undercarriage, but are you going to forgo retractable undercarriages?
A "parking lot" of sorts would be helpful, but that wouldn't make these cars the personal transport that we're thinking of, right? Ground cars would still be necessary for 100% of all travel done in rural areas.
The term 'parking lot' can have a number of interpretations - your driveway could be regarded as a parking lot, but it depends on whether it can be integrated into the system.
Looking at the concept of a crane, if it was sufficiently large, you could have one crane for each block of buildings, and deliver the vehicle into any driveway within that block.
Had forgotten about aspect ratios for a moment there. However, you could build things such that the wings A) fold aft (after rotating 90 degrees - if you've ever seen a sailplane packed into its trailer, like that, save with that the wings are still attached) and fold upon themselves again (perhaps with a greater section of the wing going forward to balance things out) to keep the aircraft relatively short and able to manage a turn with only a little difficulty. They aren't meant to be ground vehicles, so we shouldn't push them to be -- at least not at the current level of technology (or that designable in the next 20 years or so (I'm assuming that's the idea here anyhow)).
There is another scenario - detachable wings - leave the wings at the airport, and pick them up again on the way out. You could even leave the undercarriage behind, so you have a fairly conventional small car that drives up to a partial airframe, connects up with the wings and undercarriage, and flies off.
-
But intercity air transport already exists, and while you may look at expanding it, and making it more flexible, it still more about providing a mass transit system than about applying personal transport. Personal transport is required for end to end journeys, but when you deal with hub to hub journeys, then mass transit systems are more than adequate (i.e. aircraft that carry 50+ people, rather than individuals).
Intercity air transport does exist, but it isn't localized in the sense that you'll still need the car. What if your destination is relatively close to the city, but not enough to merit flying straight there? Why not fly there, and then rent the aircar for the rest of 0the voyage - same for flying into the major city. You still save the money, you still get to go more or less directly and fairly swiftly to your destination.
The problem is that if you have a hybrid system, part manual and part computer controlled, do you not have the worst of both worlds - a computer controlled system that tries to integrate a human component.
The point about a computer controlled system is that it must have total authority over their environment. If you complain that computers lack judgement, then how are they to judge what a human operator in their midst that is operating in manual mode is going to do?
Allow me to reexplain. I'm saying that computers are fine for controlling and I'm saying that humans are sometimes better - the key is to play to their strengths. Computers don't fatigue, humans do. Humans can make rapid and highly situational judgments in wide and varied, computers cannot. Whilst in the airways, computers are a good choice - low amount of variables, easy handling (wind factors can be adjusted for), no fatigue in the system. Whilst landing/taking off/maneuvering to land (after the vehicle has exited the airway), humans are the best choice (judgment). Neither component interferes with the other unless manual control is deemed necessary by the situation (aka emergencies).
And bear in mind what has already been said, that car drivers have far lower levels of training than aircraft pilots, and the idea is that if we are to have as many pilots as we presently have drivers, then we have to reduce the training requirements.
As much as I dislike the idea, yeah. I'd like everyone to be trained to at least the minimum for the current sport pilot license, though. It'd be a little harder to train folks, but possible.
It is not the gear box that concerns me but the primary drive shaft delivering power to the wheels - might just be possible with a fixed undercarriage, but are you going to forgo retractable undercarriages?
We could...but I don't see how it'd be a problem if 'twas kept retractable, so long as everything was kept disconnected until deployment/touchdown. Sure, you'd have to get it to align each time, but that could be done.
The term 'parking lot' can have a number of interpretations - your driveway could be regarded as a parking lot, but it depends on whether it can be integrated into the system.
Looking at the concept of a crane, if it was sufficiently large, you could have one crane for each block of buildings, and deliver the vehicle into any driveway within that block.
I'm trying to interpret what you brought up. Tell me what you're saying if I got it wrong.
That'd be one heck of a crane, though. And one heck of a hard way to land! Have you ever seen the system that the British built to do that with Harriers? That's some touchy flying.
I'm think that, even if you don't use it as the landing system in and of itself, it'd still be more infeasible that landing directly at home. Community airstrips would be good but, as you said, that's a lot of infrastructure. I guess it could be an "as needed" item, however, that would be brought before the township in question.
There is another scenario - detachable wings - leave the wings at the airport, and pick them up again on the way out. You could even leave the undercarriage behind, so you have a fairly conventional small car that drives up to a partial airframe, connects up with the wings and undercarriage, and flies off.
That'll work. Someone tried that one before - the Hall (or Convair) Aerocar if you want to look it up - though the market wasn't in for it at the time. The only thing you're running into again is having the community airport, which I've discussed above. Sounds good.
-
Intercity air transport does exist, but it isn't localized in the sense that you'll still need the car. What if your destination is relatively close to the city, but not enough to merit flying straight there? Why not fly there, and then rent the aircar for the rest of 0the voyage - same for flying into the major city. You still save the money, you still get to go more or less directly and fairly swiftly to your destination.
You have already suggested that some road transport will be required in the final stage of the journey (because you will not be flying directly into your driveway or rooftop). If I read you correctly, you are now suggesting a 3 level journey - road transport to the point of local flight, then from local flight to intercity flight. This sounds like it will be adding complexity without much benefit.
Allow me to reexplain. I'm saying that computers are fine for controlling and I'm saying that humans are sometimes better - the key is to play to their strengths. Computers don't fatigue, humans do. Humans can make rapid and highly situational judgments in wide and varied, computers cannot. Whilst in the airways, computers are a good choice - low amount of variables, easy handling (wind factors can be adjusted for), no fatigue in the system. Whilst landing/taking off/maneuvering to land (after the vehicle has exited the airway), humans are the best choice (judgment). Neither component interferes with the other unless manual control is deemed necessary by the situation (aka emergencies).
I would argue the contrary. We already have commercial airliners that can be landed with MLS without any human intervention, and we have fly by wire aircraft that have computers controlling situations that are simply too complex for humans (even well trained humans) to manage.
The issue with computers is not that they cannot make complex decisions - they can make them as well, and more consistently, than humans. The problem at present is with the lack of sophistication in sensory input (humans can still process vision, sound, and touch, far better than any machine - at least that is so at present, although the gap is closing very rapidly).
And bear in mind what has already been said, that car drivers have far lower levels of training than aircraft pilots, and the idea is that if we are to have as many pilots as we presently have drivers, then we have to reduce the training requirements.
As much as I dislike the idea, yeah. I'd like everyone to be trained to at least the minimum for the current sport pilot license, though. It'd be a little harder to train folks, but possible.
As has been pointed out already, even with the present training for drivers, there are large numbers of accidents happening every day, simply down to human error. The same is true with sports aviation pilots, but because there are relatively so few of them, the overall death toll remains small.
It appears to me that you live in a fairly rural area, with low road traffic densities (and even lower air traffic densities). If you were to try driving in a typical large European city, you'll quickly see how much more training is required for to drive in high traffic densities (and the reason why we still have about 3,000 deaths (and 33,000 serious injuries) on our roads each year from a population of 60 million). Would you really trust all these people with an aeroplane (even with extra training)? And who will pay for all this extra training?
It is not the gear box that concerns me but the primary drive shaft delivering power to the wheels - might just be possible with a fixed undercarriage, but are you going to forgo retractable undercarriages?
We could...but I don't see how it'd be a problem if 'twas kept retractable, so long as everything was kept disconnected until deployment/touchdown. Sure, you'd have to get it to align each time, but that could be done.
That sounds like complexity waiting to go wrong (failure for the undercarriage to function properly is not that uncommon, and if you make the whole thing more complex, it will only get worse).
Aside from that, the normally expected stresses for which an undercarriage is designed for are very different from the stresses needed to apply traction to the vehicle. There is also the enhanced risk of accidental damage to the undercarriage when driving on the roads, and while a totally destroyed undercarriage is not a problem (it just needs to be replaced or fixed), a minor damage may not be considered significant enough to repair, but yet may turn out to be catastrophic at a critical point in a future landing.
The term 'parking lot' can have a number of interpretations - your driveway could be regarded as a parking lot, but it depends on whether it can be integrated into the system.
Looking at the concept of a crane, if it was sufficiently large, you could have one crane for each block of buildings, and deliver the vehicle into any driveway within that block.
I'm trying to interpret what you brought up. Tell me what you're saying if I got it wrong.
That'd be one heck of a crane, though. And one heck of a hard way to land! Have you ever seen the system that the British built to do that with Harriers? That's some touchy flying.
I'm think that, even if you don't use it as the landing system in and of itself, it'd still be more infeasible that landing directly at home. Community airstrips would be good but, as you said, that's a lot of infrastructure. I guess it could be an "as needed" item, however, that would be brought before the township in question.
OK, the idea I have (and I am not suggesting it is a solution, only an idea I've played with for a while) is to have a large, but highly segmented, crane.
Each segment would be a module of maybe about 10 metres (or maybe even less) in length, and attached to its neighbour through a joint that allows freedom of movement in two directions. What you have here is a kind of giant snake, with a very high degree of flexibility.
Clearly, much as each segment must be able to lift its own weight, it would not be practical to provide sufficient power to each segment that it would be able to lift all of the segments beyond itself. Thus, rather than relying on a simple application of force at one point in the chain to lift the entire chain in the air, it will use its own inertia, and generate a kind of wave function in order to lift the entire chain up (thus, it is not a crane that could usefully keep something suspended in the air, but it can carry things dynamically through the air).
The aircraft itself will fly a gradual descent (or even a level flight) precisely guided by electronic means, while the crane, also guided by electronic means, will be guided onto a convergent course to the aircraft, and lock on to it when in flight. Then the crane will pull the aircraft gently out of the air and guide it onto the landing platform.
For takeoff, the same undulating motion will lift the body of the crane up, while the tip of the crane is carefully guided to the parked aircraft; it will then lock onto the aircraft, lift itself into the air again, and throw the aircraft into flight (rather like a glider might be launched with a winch).
In principle, because the system is composed of small, easily fabricated, standard modules; costs can be kept low, while allowing for a highly variable configuration in the end product.
Nonetheless, I am not saying that I do not foresee problems with the device (even if the concept of the undulating crane can be made to work). The large number of components constantly swishing around in all directions, and multiple small sources of power, could make could be quite noisy, which may offend the sensibility of the local residents. Then there is the problem that it can only manage one takeoff or landing within a given block at any one time; so if everybody in the block want to go to work at once, some will have a long wait at the end of the queue. Then there is the problem as to whether an aircraft should be attached to from below (better for handling in the air) or from above (better for putting down on, or picking up off, the ground), or is some way can be found to change the attachment point while the aircraft is being manipulated by the crane (e.g. an attachment point on the nose of the aircraft when the aircraft is being dragged through the air, and one on the top that is used for ground handling).
There is another scenario - detachable wings - leave the wings at the airport, and pick them up again on the way out. You could even leave the undercarriage behind, so you have a fairly conventional small car that drives up to a partial airframe, connects up with the wings and undercarriage, and flies off.
That'll work. Someone tried that one before - the Hall (or Convair) Aerocar if you want to look it up - though the market wasn't in for it at the time. The only thing you're running into again is having the community airport, which I've discussed above. Sounds good.
There seem to be several designs along the same concept (aome allow the detached wings to be towed behind the car, while others assume the wings will be left at the airfield).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Mizar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_Airphibian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocar_2000
All seem to be based upon a fairly powerful (and hence large) car to which you add wings, but sounds like they would be better cars than aeroplanes; when it looks like what you want is the converse. Thus I might think of, rather than having a large car, with a large powerplant, maybe have a very small car, that was electrically driven (for short distances), and have the big engine built into the airframe (and able to charge the batteries of the small, fibreglass, low speed car), thus allowing you to better optimise the machine for flying than for driving.
-
You have already suggested that some road transport will be required in the final stage of the journey (because you will not be flying directly into your driveway or rooftop). If I read you correctly, you are now suggesting a 3 level journey - road transport to the point of local flight, then from local flight to intercity flight. This sounds like it will be adding complexity without much benefit.
OK, let's take this all in context.
If you're flying into an extremely rural area (think New Hampshire rural with trees everywhere), then yes, you'd have to find an open spot to land in...such as a roadway or an area cleared and hardened for the purpose. Then we'll get into the fact that you still need to drive home, since 'tis impossible to fly there anyhow (or get craned there). Makes sense, no?
However, if you're flying into a less rural/somewhat urban area, you probably could land AT home/on a road about fifty meters from your house, depending on what variety of aircar you bought/is available (STOVL).
If you're flying intercity, the best bet would be to take said existent transport to within the city and then airtaxi to your destination simply because of economy -- mass transit.
You can't have one system for everything -- it'll have to change depending on the area, which is also what I'm arguing for the navigation systems. Either you or someone else on here stated something before to the effect that regardless of computer precision in flight, it cannot judge things such as the condition of the landing field, etc. What if the engine fails and you need to land out? A human is going to have to do that (unless you can guarantee an airfield with an MLS installed within gliding distance of every airway...which you could do in many places (if it gets mandated by the FAA for all FOBs at some point) - but NOT all, especially in wooded/mountainous areas...in which case your only chance for survival lays with the pilot).
Enough of that, but we'll be touching on MLS again in a second.
Training...do you have a copy of the FARs (CFRs, whatever you want to call 'em) around? Look in part 61.56a -aka flight reviews (annually, though, not biennials). That's the key. I'm not saying 'tis a cure-all, but it'll knock out bad habits that often lead to accidents/incidents (by the way -- something that you might enjoy: CFR 61.153c, eligibility requirements for an ATP rating: "be of good moral character." That appears for no other rating that I've yet looked at.).
Besides this, the absolute minimum training requirement for the sport pilot license is 30 hours of instruction -- that's not that much below what's required for a private license (40 hrs in airplanes)! Looking at the PTS for sport pilot, I'm thinking that 'tis possible to get folks adequately trained. The NTSB hasn't released accident data for sport pilots (nothing since 2002, or so I've found, and sport licenses are a fairly recent development), and there isn't much discussion online about it (AOPA, Flying magazine, Google, etc). Where are you getting your accident data from?
Who's going to pay? Those who wish to use the system. Do you have to pay for a driver's license? No, you don't HAVE to...but you do for the convenience. This'll cost more, true, but for a greater convenience. Capitalism! Not that I'm a fan of the system, but that's what we live in (right now).
OK...the crane. I'll grant you that 'tis QUITE an idea...an interesting one to...but I really don't think that a crane (any at all) is the way to go, if only for reasons of economy, the fact that you'd have to pass its payload over inhabited areas (do you trust that to be failsafe?), that you couldn't use it for anything BUT returning aircars to their respective homes...all of these things that you could easily do with the aircar design.
Either have separable wings (which I can vouch for as being safe...as can every single glider pilot in the world who connects everything properly) or foldup. My vote's with the detachable option. Very much with the detachable option.
So, let's see what we have here:
Short range fiberglass/carbon fiber composite electrically powered car that can attach to a set of wings/tail assembly as well as a powerplant (which recharges the car batteries when in operation). Aircar is then STOVL capable (or VTOL, depending on starting location (air taxi (I'm going to revive the VTOL concept for them, since they're short range only))), is automatically flown to an airway if need be (determined from a preprogrammed destination) and thereby to the destination area where it is landed, unless the area lacks a MLS in which case the PIC will then assume control and land the aircraft (as would also be done in the event of an emergency outside of an MLS). Car will detach or aircraft will be driven to park (depending on landing location (home or local airfield).
How abouts that?
-
OK, let's take this all in context.
If you're flying into an extremely rural area (think New Hampshire rural with trees everywhere), then yes, you'd have to find an open spot to land in...such as a roadway or an area cleared and hardened for the purpose. Then we'll get into the fact that you still need to drive home, since 'tis impossible to fly there anyhow (or get craned there). Makes sense, no?
However, if you're flying into a less rural/somewhat urban area, you probably could land AT home/on a road about fifty meters from your house, depending on what variety of aircar you bought/is available (STOVL).
If you're flying intercity, the best bet would be to take said existent transport to within the city and then airtaxi to your destination simply because of economy -- mass transit.
So, from my position, where I have a commercial airport about 4 or 5 miles away, another two about 40 miles away, and one more which (by train) through the city centre is probably about 80 miles away, although taking the ring road around London would be considerably further.
Clearly, those commercial airports presently support city to city traffic, so where would you see my using an airtaxi or flying car?
There used to be a small airfield for private flying about 20 miles from me, but it has now (as with so many small airfields) been closed down as it was more profitable to build houses and business parks on that land than keep it for the small, and very select, group of people who fly private or executive aircraft.
At present there is enormous political pressure to build another 2 million houses in the south-east of England (the closure of the airfield came before the pressure for housebuilding became a political priority), so every inch of land that can be allocated to housing is being done so (at the expense of every other land use).
I realise that this is very different from New Hampshire, even though I have never actually visited New Hampshire (visited the old Hampshire, but not the new one [:)]).
You can't have one system for everything -- it'll have to change depending on the area, which is also what I'm arguing for the navigation systems. Either you or someone else on here stated something before to the effect that regardless of computer precision in flight, it cannot judge things such as the condition of the landing field, etc. What if the engine fails and you need to land out? A human is going to have to do that (unless you can guarantee an airfield with an MLS installed within gliding distance of every airway...which you could do in many places (if it gets mandated by the FAA for all FOBs at some point) - but NOT all, especially in wooded/mountainous areas...in which case your only chance for survival lays with the pilot).
It rather depends on the context. If you are flying in poor visibility, then one way or another, you are going to have to rely on electronic navigation to get you down, or you are dead. Whether that be MLS, or it be GPS and ground mapping radar, it is not going to be eyeball navigation.
Clearly, this may be less of a problem if one restricts flying to VFR, but in this country, that will probably restrict you to about half the days of the year, and then you have the problem of night time flying as well (sunset today is before 16:00, and will get earlier yet before the days start to lengthen again). At present, this is all that a PPL-A allows you to do (I suspect the PPL-D is much the same) - which is why a PPL, without IFR certification, is nothing more than hobby flying, and not something one can ever use for commuting.
The problem is that where I live, we have a population of just under 30,000 people. The neighbouring town, 5 miles away, which owns the local commercial airport, has a population of 230,000. That is in excess of 260,000 people living within 5 miles of a commercial airport. If even 30% of these people own a flying car (I would guess that is about the proportion of people who own a non-flying car), that is around 78,000 flying cars based within 5 miles of a commercial airport. It only takes 1 of them to venture into the flight path of a commercial airliner on finals, or on takeoff, to cause a major disaster. It is absolutely imperative to ensure (not merely mandate, but physically ensure) that no fool is going to do exactly that. It might be reasonable to merely mandate the airspace is kept clear when you are dealing with a mere couple of hundred private pilots, but not when you are dealing with 78,000 of them.
This problem is even worse if one looks at the population within 5 miles of Heathrow airport (one of the commercial airports about 40 miles of me, and depending on whom you listen to, either the busiest, or the third busiest, airport in the world). The other airport at that distance, Stanstead, is not quite so bad.
Training...do you have a copy of the FARs (CFRs, whatever you want to call 'em) around? Look in part 61.56a -aka flight reviews (annually, though, not biennials). That's the key. I'm not saying 'tis a cure-all, but it'll knock out bad habits that often lead to accidents/incidents (by the way -- something that you might enjoy: CFR 61.153c, eligibility requirements for an ATP rating: "be of good moral character." That appears for no other rating that I've yet looked at.).
Besides this, the absolute minimum training requirement for the sport pilot license is 30 hours of instruction -- that's not that much below what's required for a private license (40 hrs in airplanes)! Looking at the PTS for sport pilot, I'm thinking that 'tis possible to get folks adequately trained. The NTSB hasn't released accident data for sport pilots (nothing since 2002, or so I've found, and sport licenses are a fairly recent development), and there isn't much discussion online about it (AOPA, Flying magazine, Google, etc). Where are you getting your accident data from?
Who's going to pay? Those who wish to use the system. Do you have to pay for a driver's license? No, you don't HAVE to...but you do for the convenience. This'll cost more, true, but for a greater convenience. Capitalism! Not that I'm a fan of the system, but that's what we live in (right now).
Looking at current prices for one of our local flight schools:
http://www.firecrestaviation.co.uk/pricelist.php
I just picked up one at a local airfield, so I cannot say how it compares to others, but it seems plausible. They suggest that a PPL-A would be about 45 hours, and a package price for 45 hours flight training is about £5K ($10K). You can understand that this does not fit everbodies pocket.
Besides that, we come back to the problem of visibility. I got half way through my PPL-A training (about 15 years ago), but finally gave up because for a period of about 3 months, every day I turned up at the airfield for a flight, one look at the weather, and the flight was called off. I think this has been somewhat mitigated now as last time I visited a flight training school, I was told that when the weather was bad, they simply put students on the flight simulators (just simple PC based things, so I don't know exactly how much use they were, but it kept the money flowing in).
Quite a number of people actually have found it cheaper to fly over to the US, do their entire flight training somewhere in the US where weather is more predictable, and then return to the UK, and do a quick conversion course to convert their US pilots licence to a UK pilots licence.
Either have separable wings (which I can vouch for as being safe...as can every single glider pilot in the world who connects everything properly) or foldup. My vote's with the detachable option. Very much with the detachable option.
So, let's see what we have here:
Short range fiberglass/carbon fiber composite electrically powered car that can attach to a set of wings/tail assembly as well as a powerplant (which recharges the car batteries when in operation). Aircar is then STOVL capable (or VTOL, depending on starting location (air taxi (I'm going to revive the VTOL concept for them, since they're short range only))), is automatically flown to an airway if need be (determined from a preprogrammed destination) and thereby to the destination area where it is landed, unless the area lacks a MLS in which case the PIC will then assume control and land the aircraft (as would also be done in the event of an emergency outside of an MLS). Car will detach or aircraft will be driven to park (depending on landing location (home or local airfield).
How abouts that?
OK, since you brought up the issue of power out landings, how do you power-out land a VTOL aircraft with fixed wings, and ducted fans. Cannot be done - you either guarantee no power outs, or you must have a glide path available to a landing strip (possibly in dense urban areas - which is why we are talking about VTOL, and in dense traffic).
I would suggest that in that context, rotary wings would actually be safer (not necessarily the fully articulated wings of a helicopter, but something closer to a gyrocoper, with either passive rotary wings, or simple, non-articulated, powered wings that can quickly switch to autogyration when power fails).
I have already made it quite clear that I think switching to manual control is too much of a liability (maybe OK when you are far away from anywhere, and the only person you can kill is yourself, but not where there is other air traffic around, not even in an emergency). That means that there should not even be the possibility of switching to manual when a vehicle is entering a high traffic zone. In reality, I don't think it should be allowed anywhere - not least because even if the PIC is trained and qualified, how do you ensure they retain consistent experience in flying when all the flying (outside of the once in a lifetime emergency) will be on automatic?
-
So, from my position, where I have a commercial airport about 4 or 5 miles away, another two about 40 miles away, and one more which (by train) through the city centre is probably about 80 miles away, although taking the ring road around London would be considerably further.
Clearly, those commercial airports presently support city to city traffic, so where would you see my using an airtaxi or flying car?
Airports are away from the areas of large population density (relatively speaking - as in they aren't IN the depths of the city) for practicality (takeoff/landing over obstacles) as well as for noise concerns, right? In essence, airliners cannot drop you off AT your destination. That's where airtaxis/etc come in. The mass transit option just makes things a mite cheaper to travel the distance.
As for where to actually set down...well, the New Hampshire isn't too full of empty space either, save 'tis full of forests, mountains, and lakes rather than houses. This is, in my mind, the main problem with the system, and why emergencies should not be delegated to computer control. The best bet you have with an engine failure over that sort of terrain (let's say you're over the middle of a forest) is dropping the aircraft between two trees and whacking off the wings to bleed as much energy as possible without crushing the cabin. Unless imaging programs get a LOT smarter...I don't think that a computer is going to be able to figure out how to do that (and when to do that) anytime in the near future...not for a good while yet.
It rather depends on the context. If you are flying in poor visibility, then one way or another, you are going to have to rely on electronic navigation to get you down, or you are dead. Whether that be MLS, or it be GPS and ground mapping radar, it is not going to be eyeball navigation.
You'll note that I'm not advocating flying by eye and the seat of your pants -- I'm advocating manual control in emergencies. I also realize that computers do have the advantage under certain circumstances. The problem is discriminating between the two. How will the computer know that a field has a drainage ditch in it, a fence at one end, and a set of power lines in the way of a normal approach (let's imagine a power-off landing scenario)? I can't think of any agency that has mapped the Earth's surface that thoroughly or plans to do so (and add in things every time a farmer adds a wall to his farmland). I know this would be a heck of a problem over farmland in Britain in especial, given all of the enclosed fields that you guys have.
I realize that if the field's socked in (we're still talking about the farmer's field) and you don't have anything to guide you down, there's going to have to be a way to at least attempt the landing. In that case, OK, GPS or what have you. There will have to be a program to check the glide distance of the aircraft (with the measured winds aloft, etc) against possible landing sites and current reported visibility (via empirical tests done on board the aircar by automatics or aviation weather sources...probably the latter) to determine automatic or manual.
Ahhh...sorry about the many and varied CFR (Code of Federal Regulations on aviation in the US) references that I've made. I didn't realize that you were British...hope that you made them out OK. Flight training IS indeed cheaper in the states, but I get what you're saying. Then again, are we also anticipating no shift to alternative energy (and I don't mean ethanol...don't get me started on that one)? Most of that cost (especially in your flight school's cost) is probably toward buying avgas. Unfortunately, I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon either (unless a Manhattan project-style commission gets on it).
Hmm...how much would it cost to do a majority of training in the sim, and then take actual flights towards the end of your career? Sims are actually advocated for their ability to force students to use their instruments and get used to what things look like without the distraction of all of the different sensations of flight (I know, they aren't distractions, I'm a big advocate of flying by the seat of your pants myself (being a glider pilot) -- I just needed a word). Sim time is accepted for many licenses nowadays (in the US), including power.
As for airspace - we can do better than merely making a mandate -- we can make a all flight in a 20 mile radius of any major airport (class B airspace in the US...I can't find the English equivalent) automatically slaved to computer control, save in case of an emergency under the conditions already discussed (such as an engine failure or something that required an immediate landing off-airport).
Speaking of engine failure, powered aircraft may have the glide ratio of something close to a brick (most still manage a 10:1 L/D at best), but they still have a glide ratio -- they can still be safely landed with a failed engine. The STOVL aircraft that I'm talking about still have wings -- the most efficient wings that you can get for a good price (I'm not talking wings from something like the eta, but they could probably be designed to a higher standard than, say, a Cessna 172 without too much cost).
In reality, I don't think it should be allowed anywhere - not least because even if the PIC is trained and qualified, how do you ensure they retain consistent experience in flying when all the flying (outside of the once in a lifetime emergency) will be on automatic?
Finally, as noted before -- flight reviews! You HAVE to take a checkride at least once a year, receive a sim training course/one in reality before being able to fly again...at least in IFR conditions or to/from the middle of no where (can be checked via ownership and locked via computer -- data comes from aviation weather and GPS).
-
Airports are away from the areas of large population density (relatively speaking - as in they aren't IN the depths of the city) for practicality (takeoff/landing over obstacles) as well as for noise concerns, right? In essence, airliners cannot drop you off AT your destination. That's where airtaxis/etc come in. The mass transit option just makes things a mite cheaper to travel the distance.
This is all relative, as you say.
The innermost airport in London is the London city airport, which is well within the metropolitan area of London, intended to service the financial heart of the city. It is specifically intended only to support STOL aircraft, and only a couple of aircraft types are licensed to use the short runway, and steep approach and take-off required by nearby buildings, not least being the recently built bridge over the river Thames.
The problem with other airports is that the oldest of them, Heathrow, may well have been on the edge of the urban conurbation, but the urban conurbation has since spread, and one of the problems it has is that apart from noise restrictions, it finds it impossible to expand very much simply because of the urban areas that have grown up around it.
Stansted is still relatively away from housing, although whether that will still be the case in two or three decades time is another matter.
Luton airport, which is the airport that is 5 miles from me, was only ever intended as a small regional airport, on the edge of a provincial town. The size of the airport has grown (at least in terms of passenger numbers - it still only has one runway, although the runway has been lengthened); but more critically, the town and the surrounding smaller towns have grown (partly taking on the overspill from the London area, which is only 40 miles away, and Luton airport itself sells itself as an airport for London).
Another problem with major commercial airports is that they are not very friendly for small aircraft to land in - so using small aircraft (aircars) to take you to a major commercial airport would present problems in that regard. There are a number of issue. Firstly, simply the problem of landing charges (they are geared for the big carriers, who can afford to pay them). This is linked also to the shortage of landing/takeoff slots that are always a part of a busy airport, and these landing and takeoff slots are sold between the major carriers themselves for very substantial sums of money. There is no way a small aircar owner would be able to play in the same league. Then there is also the problem of separation - not least the matter of avoiding the wingtip vortexes of the aircraft ahead (the wingtip vortexes of a major airliner can tear a small plane apart if it gets too close - even the airliners themselves have to be careful, and at least one air accident in New York, shortly after 9/11, which was feared to be another terrorist attack, turned out to be one airliner getting caught in the vortexes of the preceding airliner - how much more of a problem if you are talking about a very much smaller aircraft).
As for where to actually set down...well, the New Hampshire isn't too full of empty space either, save 'tis full of forests, mountains, and lakes rather than houses. This is, in my mind, the main problem with the system, and why emergencies should not be delegated to computer control. The best bet you have with an engine failure over that sort of terrain (let's say you're over the middle of a forest) is dropping the aircraft between two trees and whacking off the wings to bleed as much energy as possible without crushing the cabin. Unless imaging programs get a LOT smarter...I don't think that a computer is going to be able to figure out how to do that (and when to do that) anytime in the near future...not for a good while yet.
We don't have very many trees (the odd one here or there), but lots of houses. Landing between houses and, and whacking off the wings to absorb the energy will just not working, not if there is a kiddy playing in the garden of the house whose side you have just demolished to absorb the impact of landing.
Maybe a more practical way to absorb impact is to have very large airbags to absorb landing impact (it will ofcourse have to be quite a complex system, because you will want to reduce forward motion as well as vertical motion).
You'll note that I'm not advocating flying by eye and the seat of your pants -- I'm advocating manual control in emergencies. I also realize that computers do have the advantage under certain circumstances. The problem is discriminating between the two. How will the computer know that a field has a drainage ditch in it, a fence at one end, and a set of power lines in the way of a normal approach (let's imagine a power-off landing scenario)? I can't think of any agency that has mapped the Earth's surface that thoroughly or plans to do so (and add in things every time a farmer adds a wall to his farmland). I know this would be a heck of a problem over farmland in Britain in especial, given all of the enclosed fields that you guys have.
I would suggest that the same problem also exists for most humans. Ask the average Londoner what a drainage ditch in a field looks like, they'd be hard put identify what a drainage ditch looks like (many would be hard put to tell you what a cow looks like).
But if a human can see it, so a computer can see it. In many ways, it really does not matter matter whether you have identified a wall or a line of trees, or any other projection - if it stands proud of the ground, then it is a potential obstacle, and its not hard for a computer with stereoscopic vision to identify something standing proud of the ground. And all of this even assumes you can see the ground - if you cannot see the ground, then whether human of computer, you still become dependent on electronic senses, and then a human can't see anything a computer cannot see (laser or radar images will mean the same to both).
Another factor that humans may take into account, but that a computer probably will not, is that landing in a farmers field will very possibly lead you to heavy financial charges from the farmer in order to allow you to retrieve the aircar (it is a problem that balloonists often have problems with - but it does depend on the goodwill of the farmer, which can be variable).
Ahhh...sorry about the many and varied CFR (Code of Federal Regulations on aviation in the US) references that I've made.
Don't worry – I knew what CFR's are, even if I don't have ready access to them – although I can't say I knew what the acronym stood for.
I didn't realize that you were British...hope that you made them out OK. Flight training IS indeed cheaper in the states, but I get what you're saying. Then again, are we also anticipating no shift to alternative energy (and I don't mean ethanol...don't get me started on that one)? Most of that cost (especially in your flight school's cost) is probably toward buying avgas. Unfortunately, I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon either (unless a Manhattan project-style commission gets on it).
Flying is expensive for all sorts of reasons, not just fuel costs (that composes a part of it, but not all).
The cost of maintaining an aircraft in flightworthy condition costs far more than keeping a car in road worthy condition (the margins of safety enforced are far wider, so parts are changed more often).
Some of the costs of flying are down to the small market involved. There are fewer people buying aircraft, so the economies of scale are less (and again, the greater conservatism in safety standards for aircraft makes getting safety certification for a new aircraft type far more expensive than doing the same for a car, and that cost is shared amongst fewer customers).
But the higher costs of flying also mean that the cost of being a professional flight instructor are higher, so they pass those costs on by charging higher fees for the time (many of them don't make much money out of it, simple because they are using it merely to fund their own hobby flying - but if the demand for trainers increases sharply, then we may have to look at more professional flight trainers, who are seeking to make a reasonable living out of flight training, and so the prices on this front may actually rise rather than fall).
Another big problem in the UK is, as I have said before, one of weather – so flight schools have to invest in hardware that is spending a lot of its time on the ground, not earning any money on their investment, simply because the weather is not suitable for flying. Economies of scale will not alter this. The only way this will change is to allow all weather training for novice students, but I cannot see this as being feasable.
Hmm...how much would it cost to do a majority of training in the sim, and then take actual flights towards the end of your career? Sims are actually advocated for their ability to force students to use their instruments and get used to what things look like without the distraction of all of the different sensations of flight (I know, they aren't distractions, I'm a big advocate of flying by the seat of your pants myself (being a glider pilot) -- I just needed a word). Sim time is accepted for many licenses nowadays (in the US), including power.
It ought to be able to force down prices considerably, as the amount of flying hardware required to be purchased to support a given number of students (and hence a given revenue stream) should be reduced considerably. The question is still that how you share out the limited amount of flying time available – it is still going to be a problem that when you do have a clear flying day, you will want to get as many students as you can into the air on that day. The problem is that you may have 100 students all on sims, perfectly happily for several weeks, but given a few clear days, days that you cannot necessarily be able to anticipate, you want to take maximum advantage of it, so you want at least 50 of those students in the air – how do you do that unless you have purchased the capacity to do it?
As for airspace - we can do better than merely making a mandate -- we can make a all flight in a 20 mile radius of any major airport (class B airspace in the US...I can't find the English equivalent) automatically slaved to computer control, save in case of an emergency under the conditions already discussed (such as an engine failure or something that required an immediate landing off-airport).
I think the term in the UK is 'controlled airspace' – although that is not quite the same as a 20 mile radius – otherwise, if it were, the few remaining flying schools in the south-east of England would quickly be out of business, and most are within about that range, and if they are just outside of that range, they would quickly end up flying into it.
I really cannot see that even in the case of an engine failure, the switchover to manual is meaningful. Just imagine the scene where a tired commuter, on his way home from work, gets into his aircar, switches it into auto, and takes off. Within a few minutes, tired from a days work, he dozes off. Some time later, he is alerted by an alarm going off telling him there is an emergency (maybe 1000 feet above the ground) – he is still half asleep, and trying to make sense of the situation (he has probably lost a couple hundred feet even before he opens his eyes – assuming he even wakes to the alarm at all) – there will simply not be time for him to make a meaningful assessment of the situation, take the controls, and take corrective action. Ofcourse, you could mandate that the pilot must be awake and alert at all time – but mandating it and making it happen are two different things. It is a very different situation where you have a pilot that is continually actively controlling the aircraft the whole time, so by definition, he must be alert to his environment the whole way; but that is not what we are talking about. I suppose you could use a dead man's handle to ensure that there is at least someone awake in the cabin during the entire flight, but awake and alert to their environment are different things (and in theory, the dead man's handle could be held down by an unqualified passenger).
Speaking of engine failure, powered aircraft may have the glide ratio of something close to a brick (most still manage a 10:1 L/D at best), but they still have a glide ratio -- they can still be safely landed with a failed engine.
So do helicopters, if the are quickly switched into autogyration mode. It is true that the glide ratio of an autogyrating helicopter is still very stead in comparison to a fixed wing aircraft, but the number of potential emergency landing sites that a helicopter can use are so much greater. The real question one has to ask is not how far it can fly, but what is the probability of finding a suitable landing area in the given available flight time, and if the number of suitable landing sites increases more than offsets the reduction available range in unpowered flight, then the helicopter would still have the advantage.
Finally, as noted before -- flight reviews! You HAVE to take a checkride at least once a year, receive a sim training course/one in reality before being able to fly again...at least in IFR conditions or to/from the middle of no where (can be checked via ownership and locked via computer -- data comes from aviation weather and GPS).
I don;t know how many registered drivers there are in the UK (or how this will compare to the number of pilots we would expect out of this scheme – although I suspect a fair number of car drivers would fail their medical for a pilots licence), but IIRC there are something like 28 million cars in the UK (and one would expect a fair number of people who are licensed to drive who do not own their own car). Assuming we talk about 20 million people will be licensed to use fly aircars, that is 20 million checkout flights each year – that is a lot of capacity to build up. How many hours do you expect each pilot to be required to take to remain current? (this is time they will have to take out of their busy lives – ok, it is is your profession, or your hobby, but not so ok when it is simply a means to an end – a way of commuting to and from work)?
-
I have skimmed through a lot of the above posts but has anyone mentioned the necessary safe separation distance between flying craft so that their turbulence doesn't have a mutual effect?
Bicycles sound very appealing at the moment!
-
I have skimmed through a lot of the above posts but has anyone mentioned the necessary safe separation distance between flying craft so that their turbulence doesn't have a mutual effect?
I have mentioned it in two contexts: the downthrust of helicopters causing problems for aircraft beneath them (but then kayazor rather disapproves of helicopters anyway); and the problems problems of wingtip vortexes of commercial airliners.
The vortexes created by small aircraft are not very significant, unless you get really close up (and in some cases, you could even utilise them to gain benefit, just as a flight of birds can use the wingtip vortexes of the birds ahead of them to improve their own flight efficiency).
-
Before I get into this, sorry about the delay...homework had me laid up all week.
Another problem with major commercial airports is that they are not very friendly for small aircraft to land in - so using small aircraft (aircars) to take you to a major commercial airport would present problems in that regard. There are a number of issue. Firstly, simply the problem of landing charges (they are geared for the big carriers, who can afford to pay them).
Aye aye! You are right to be concerned about safety. However, do these airtaxis/aircars need to take off from the same runways as large aircraft? STOVLs/STOLs, right? Since they're computer controlled in the vicinity of heavy metal for all intents and purposes, we can place them on a separate ramp (which they probably would have to be anyhow) and give them their own separate takeoff area far enough away from the main runway that they can be vectored out of the way of departing/incoming traffic before wingtip vortices become an issue (it wouldn't be that far off, really).
We don't have very many trees (the odd one here or there), but lots of houses. Landing between houses and, and whacking off the wings to absorb the energy will just not working, not if there is a kiddy playing in the garden of the house whose side you have just demolished to absorb the impact of landing.
Maybe a more practical way to absorb impact is to have very large airbags to absorb landing impact (it will of course have to be quite a complex system, because you will want to reduce forward motion as well as vertical motion).
Obviously, you aren't going to smash your way through houses in order to land. Killing your aircraft is fine, endangering others isn't so fine. The only problem with the airbags is that although is helps the pilot/passengers out, it leaves them with an aircraft going at a couple dozen knots! What if you're landing on muddy/wet terrain too, so wheelbrakes aren't counting for much? Perhaps a ballistic parachute would prove better in this case - a nice, one-shot, emergency-use-only parachute for the entire aircraft (currently used in general aviation and sold commercially to anyone who wants one). You'd probably be able to rig up a steering system of sorts (by controlling the risers with a computer to limit control if you get too close to collapsing the thing).
As for control (human v computer), I'd agree that a computer could see it (al la AGM-65A Maverick seekers), but could it do anything with that? It took a long time to get Mavericks to even be able to track a target that a Weapons Systems Officer (WSO - the backseat weapons guy in a military aircraft) had slaved the TV seeker to. How would a computer be able to figure out what's what by itself? I just don't see that happening for a good long while, especially with natural objects at a distance.
As for human judgment on landing in farmer's fields, etc...which would you prefer - less money, or less life? I know what you mean, though -- glider folks land out a lot, and you get responses from the farmer standing by your cockpit with a burger and a coke in hand or running out to get you with a rock-salt loaded shotgun. Still, my statement stands. When you're in an emergency situation, the general reaction is to get "tunnel-vision" of a sort, to focus directly onto fixing the situation at hand. In this case, it would be getting the aircraft on the ground and, thus, surviving.
So do helicopters, if the are quickly switched into autogyration mode. It is true that the glide ratio of an autogyrating helicopter is still very stead in comparison to a fixed wing aircraft, but the number of potential emergency landing sites that a helicopter can use are so much greater. The real question one has to ask is not how far it can fly, but what is the probability of finding a suitable landing area in the given available flight time, and if the number of suitable landing sites increases more than offsets the reduction available range in unpowered flight, then the helicopter would still have the advantage.
Ok, but I'm still going to cite the problems I have with the safety factors and range limitations in rotary-wing aircraft. I don't think that it is worth it. A fixed-wing plane will work just as well, and not have said problems.
I don;t know how many registered drivers there are in the UK (or how this will compare to the number of pilots we would expect out of this scheme – although I suspect a fair number of car drivers would fail their medical for a pilots licence), but IIRC there are something like 28 million cars in the UK (and one would expect a fair number of people who are licensed to drive who do not own their own car). Assuming we talk about 20 million people will be licensed to use fly aircars, that is 20 million checkout flights each year – that is a lot of capacity to build up. How many hours do you expect each pilot to be required to take to remain current? (this is time they will have to take out of their busy lives – ok, it is is your profession, or your hobby, but not so ok when it is simply a means to an end – a way of commuting to and from work)?
Hmm...what about not having to maintain any hours...just pass the test? Given the low amount of flying required, it wouldn't be too rigorous - just enough to make sure that you'll be able to fly in an emergency, since that's what we're focusing on (and we're imagining that MLS beacons will be installed on rooftops, I think...or something like that). AKA - lots of short field work/power off stuff/emergency procedures.
Also, massive amount of people needing to take a test...I'd think that the cost would go down.
The cost of maintaining an aircraft in flightworthy condition costs far more than keeping a car in road worthy condition (the margins of safety enforced are far wider, so parts are changed more often).
Some of the costs of flying are down to the small market involved. There are fewer people buying aircraft, so the economies of scale are less (and again, the greater conservatism in safety standards for aircraft makes getting safety certification for a new aircraft type far more expensive than doing the same for a car, and that cost is shared amongst fewer customers).
But the higher costs of flying also mean that the cost of being a professional flight instructor are higher, so they pass those costs on by charging higher fees for the time (many of them don't make much money out of it, simple because they are using it merely to fund their own hobby flying - but if the demand for trainers increases sharply, then we may have to look at more professional flight trainers, who are seeking to make a reasonable living out of flight training, and so the prices on this front may actually rise rather than fall).
Another big problem in the UK is, as I have said before, one of weather – so flight schools have to invest in hardware that is spending a lot of its time on the ground, not earning any money on their investment, simply because the weather is not suitable for flying. Economies of scale will not alter this. The only way this will change is to allow all weather training for novice students, but I cannot see this as being feasable.
I really cannot see that even in the case of an engine failure, the switchover to manual is meaningful. Just imagine the scene where a tired commuter, on his way home from work, gets into his aircar, switches it into auto, and takes off. Within a few minutes, tired from a days work, he dozes off. Some time later, he is alerted by an alarm going off telling him there is an emergency (maybe 1000 feet above the ground) – he is still half asleep, and trying to make sense of the situation (he has probably lost a couple hundred feet even before he opens his eyes – assuming he even wakes to the alarm at all) – there will simply not be time for him to make a meaningful assessment of the situation, take the controls, and take corrective action. Ofcourse, you could mandate that the pilot must be awake and alert at all time – but mandating it and making it happen are two different things. It is a very different situation where you have a pilot that is continually actively controlling the aircraft the whole time, so by definition, he must be alert to his environment the whole way; but that is not what we are talking about. I suppose you could use a dead man's handle to ensure that there is at least someone awake in the cabin during the entire flight, but awake and alert to their environment are different things (and in theory, the dead man's handle could be held down by an unqualified passenger).
It's too late (as in 11:25PM and I need sleep) for me to think too very straight. I'll get back to considering these tomorrow, OK?
-
Before I get into this, sorry about the delay...homework had me laid up all week.
No problem - real life has a habit of getting in the way of things.
Aye aye! You are right to be concerned about safety. However, do these airtaxis/aircars need to take off from the same runways as large aircraft? STOVLs/STOLs, right? Since they're computer controlled in the vicinity of heavy metal for all intents and purposes, we can place them on a separate ramp (which they probably would have to be anyhow) and give them their own separate takeoff area far enough away from the main runway that they can be vectored out of the way of departing/incoming traffic before wingtip vortices become an issue (it wouldn't be that far off, really).
I suspect from the perspective of terrorist security also, as well as not mixing international air traffic (with passengers that have cleared customs) with domestic traffic (that has not cleared customs), would all demand that these kind of air taxis would land in a nearby parking lot, and passengers then ferried to the departure terminals.
The problem is still where is land going to be made available for these extra runways. Even commercial runways, where large amounts of big corporate vested interests are driving the process, can still take 5 or more years of political haggling (and this is before even the first clod of earth is turned) to get off the ground. We are talking here not about one runway, but a whole infrastructure, and no currently established commercial vested interested to drive it.
Obviously, you aren't going to smash your way through houses in order to land. Killing your aircraft is fine, endangering others isn't so fine. The only problem with the airbags is that although is helps the pilot/passengers out, it leaves them with an aircraft going at a couple dozen knots! What if you're landing on muddy/wet terrain too, so wheelbrakes aren't counting for much? Perhaps a ballistic parachute would prove better in this case - a nice, one-shot, emergency-use-only parachute for the entire aircraft (currently used in general aviation and sold commercially to anyone who wants one). You'd probably be able to rig up a steering system of sorts (by controlling the risers with a computer to limit control if you get too close to collapsing the thing).
My concern with parachutes is that they may be fine in relatively uncrowded airspace, but they don't give you very much control over your flight path (some control, yes - but very rudimentary); and when you have a lot of other air users around you, and have to be very precise both in your descent path through the traffic, and the point on which you hit the ground, I don't think parachutes would achieve that (think about the precision with which the old Apollo space craft landed on chutes, and the comparable precision of a shuttle).
With regard to air bags - I was not thinking of air bags within the aircraft (although that may be a different issue), but air bags outside of the aircraft, actually absorbing the impact velocity of the aircraft on an emergency landing.
As for control (human v computer), I'd agree that a computer could see it (al la AGM-65A Maverick seekers), but could it do anything with that? It took a long time to get Mavericks to even be able to track a target that a Weapons Systems Officer (WSO - the backseat weapons guy in a military aircraft) had slaved the TV seeker to. How would a computer be able to figure out what's what by itself? I just don't see that happening for a good long while, especially with natural objects at a distance.
The Maverick has a long history, and things have moved on by leaps and bounds (compare to a cruise missile – yes cruise missiles do make mistakes, but so do humans (and in many cases, the fault is not with the cruise missile hitting the wrong building, but with human error selecting the wrong building). We can send unmanned missions to far off planets, and land on the planet without a human being anywhere near by.
Bear in mind that a civilian emergency landing system is very different from a battlefield weapon. Landing strips are not trying to disguise themselves, or avoid detection; and even if the landing system happens to land you in a different field than the one you first thought of, it does not matter so long as it safely gets you down (somewhat different from hitting the wrong target – the landing system can afford to err on the side of safety, and ignore something it is dubious about and move on to something else).
As for human judgment on landing in farmer's fields, etc...which would you prefer - less money, or less life? I know what you mean, though -- glider folks land out a lot, and you get responses from the farmer standing by your cockpit with a burger and a coke in hand or running out to get you with a rock-salt loaded shotgun. Still, my statement stands. When you're in an emergency situation, the general reaction is to get "tunnel-vision" of a sort, to focus directly onto fixing the situation at hand. In this case, it would be getting the aircraft on the ground and, thus, surviving.
Sounds nice in theory, but in practice, my observation of human nature is that anything about which you can say that people will behave in a particular way, will at most be true for 90% of the people, and will be wholly false for the other 10%.
It is not that when people are given a choice between paying up, or getting killed, they will choose to get killed (maybe 1 in 10,000 might even prefer that, but it is not something one would normally expect), but rather a judgement of what risks they might take (are they going to land safely, but expensively, in a field right beneath them; or will they risk extending the glide in the hope they might be able to land somewhere cheaper, but further away – and maybe that risk simply does not pay off).
Hmm...what about not having to maintain any hours...just pass the test? Given the low amount of flying required, it wouldn't be too rigorous - just enough to make sure that you'll be able to fly in an emergency, since that's what we're focusing on (and we're imagining that MLS beacons will be installed on rooftops, I think...or something like that). AKA - lots of short field work/power off stuff/emergency procedures.
If we are talking about a fully automated system, then I am not even sure why one needs to pass a test in the first place; and if the idea is that passing a test 10 years ago, with no practical experience, or even refresher courses in between, will have any meaning at all in 10 years time, then I would have to seriously doubt it (rather like all the people who passed all sorts of exams at school, but 10 years later, never having used any of the material in real life, have totally forgotten all the material they crammed for to get through the exam).
It's too late (as in 11:25PM and I need sleep) for me to think too very straight. I'll get back to considering these tomorrow, OK?
Look forward to your responses when you have the time, and sleep.
-
The problem is still where is land going to be made available for these extra runways. Even commercial runways, where large amounts of big corporate vested interests are driving the process, can still take 5 or more years of political haggling (and this is before even the first clod of earth is turned) to get off the ground. We are talking here not about one runway, but a whole infrastructure, and no currently established commercial vested interested to drive it.
What about private interests? Hotels operate airport parking lots, and it wouldn't be that much of a leap to dedicate that same area to a small runway (100ft or less) and parking ramp. True, they'd have to go through certification and all, but it would get them money...a decent amount too...
My concern with parachutes is that they may be fine in relatively uncrowded airspace, but they don't give you very much control over your flight path (some control, yes - but very rudimentary); and when you have a lot of other air users around you, and have to be very precise both in your descent path through the traffic, and the point on which you hit the ground, I don't think parachutes would achieve that (think about the precision with which the old Apollo space craft landed on chutes, and the comparable precision of a shuttle).
With regard to air bags - I was not thinking of air bags within the aircraft (although that may be a different issue), but air bags outside of the aircraft, actually absorbing the impact velocity of the aircraft on an emergency landing.
If you're using a chute, your aircraft has dropped out of the airway due to a lost engine. You're away from any lines of aircar traffic, and there simply isn't enough GA traffic to crowd up the skies to the extent where ballistic parachutes would create a hazard. I do see your argument about needing precision, though -- especially for a power-off landing in within city limits...which I'd trust to a computer-controlled glide landing to the top of a building or down to the street (yes, I know that there are cars below, but would you rather plow into an office building?). It depends on how large the wingspan is (which is what nullifies the housing development landing scenario - the wings aren't wide enough to cause that sort of trouble - not unless you're talking 15+ meters).
Airbags on aircraft...while that would provide some amount of cushioning for the aircraft/object impact, I'm thinking of how it would impact the aircraft's fuel capacity. If you stuff them into your standard wings, you decrease the amount of fuel that you can carry (which is something you don't want to decrease if you want this to be commercially viable...or we could use a permanent magnet to generate a current and use that to power the aircraft (or some other alternative power source)). I'd mark it as a possibility.
Which brings me to a previous argument that you brought up -- the switchover from computer to manual. Now that I'm thinking about it more, I guess you could make something with a laser rangefinder and an optical sensor. It'd be a fun moment of computerized photo analysis, but it could be done. You'd have to tackle some extensive R&D work on that, though, to troubleshoot, though. Not that that would be a problem...it would just be another cost.
If we are talking about a fully automated system, then I am not even sure why one needs to pass a test in the first place; and if the idea is that passing a test 10 years ago, with no practical experience, or even refresher courses in between, will have any meaning at all in 10 years time, then I would have to seriously doubt it (rather like all the people who passed all sorts of exams at school, but 10 years later, never having used any of the material in real life, have totally forgotten all the material they crammed for to get through the exam).
You're misunderstanding me. Link the two thoughts of the initial test and the annuals together! You have to pass the initial test, and then annuals to keep you up to scratch. However, if a computer-guided landing system -- for landing virtually ANYWHERE (perhaps an incorporation of topo data with GPS and the rangefinder/optical analysis package that I speculated about earlier, or if you have an idea to that end) -- can be made, I'll concede the manual control point.
-
What about private interests? Hotels operate airport parking lots, and it wouldn't be that much of a leap to dedicate that same area to a small runway (100ft or less) and parking ramp.
Not here they don't. The only airport parking one has is provided by the airport authorities themselves (often in multi-storey car parks).
If you're using a chute, your aircraft has dropped out of the airway due to a lost engine. You're away from any lines of aircar traffic, and there simply isn't enough GA traffic to crowd up the skies to the extent where ballistic parachutes would create a hazard.
Not sure what you mean by 'away from any lines of aircar traffic'?
The original raison d'etre that was proposed for the aircar (my own arguments were slightly different, but my own arguments did not require high altitude flight at all) was to allow 3 dimensional traffic to alleviate the congestion of a 2 dimensional road network. If one follows this line of argument, then one can reasonably expect a fairly congested airspace, and expect that when a chute opens, you will have a high probability of another aircar beneath you, and another close behind you.
I do see your argument about needing precision, though -- especially for a power-off landing in within city limits...which I'd trust to a computer-controlled glide landing to the top of a building or down to the street (yes, I know that there are cars below, but would you rather plow into an office building?).
Landing on any road around here, other than in the early hours of the morning, before dawn, would guarantee taking out about a dozen cars beneath you - that is a lot of potential casualties if it is just to save the pilots life. The only safe place to land would be in an open field (a playing field, park, or small farm).
Airbags on aircraft...while that would provide some amount of cushioning for the aircraft/object impact, I'm thinking of how it would impact the aircraft's fuel capacity. If you stuff them into your standard wings, you decrease the amount of fuel that you can carry (which is something you don't want to decrease if you want this to be commercially viable...or we could use a permanent magnet to generate a current and use that to power the aircraft (or some other alternative power source)). I'd mark it as a possibility.
Not in the wings - insufficient structural strength - the only place is built under the fuselage itself (possibly even blasting the underside of the fuselage skin itself into the ground beneath).
The whole point about airbags is that they can be very compact when not in use - the size comes from when it becomes inflated by explosives.
Which brings me to a previous argument that you brought up -- the switchover from computer to manual. Now that I'm thinking about it more, I guess you could make something with a laser rangefinder and an optical sensor. It'd be a fun moment of computerized photo analysis, but it could be done. You'd have to tackle some extensive R&D work on that, though, to troubleshoot, though. Not that that would be a problem...it would just be another cost.
Much of this kind of work is already being undertaken for R&D the DoD is doing for fully automated vehicles (aircraft and ground vehicles). In a different context, we already have (albeit, rather primitive) cybercars that are self guiding, although only under limited environments. There is a lot of commercial and military interest in fully automated transport guidance systems.
In terms of cost - yes, it is an issue, but one has to separate one off costs from ongoing costs (and there is very little political cost to this kind of R&D, unlike the political costs involved in land usage issues).
-
You are cordially invited to see my flyable automobile project at
http://www.strongware.com/dragon
-
You are cordially invited to see my flyable automobile project at
http://www.strongware.com/dragon
How does it drive? I imagine the suspension would need to be tougher and heavier than for a normal aircraft.
It sounds to me very much along the lines of the 'amphicar' which is made locally. The amphicar is not too good to drive and is not a satisfactory water craft.
What's wrong with a decent public transport system and hired vehicles each end?
I think that too many of the contributions to this thread show the unhealthy influence of Boys' Sci Fi comics. I just would not like the thought of enthusiastic clowns buzzing around over my house. The local flying club are not allowed to fly over towns with their most basic aircraft. I'd lie to keep it that way.
-
OBTW, StrongMobiles are designed for quieter flight with ducted fans and automotive mufflers, so they will not "buzz". These features are intended to provide nice for airport neighbor friends.
-
You are cordially invited to see my flyable automobile project at
http://www.strongware.com/dragon
How does it drive? I imagine the suspension would need to be tougher and heavier than for a normal aircraft.
The design calls for Commercial-Off-The-Shelf suspension; the full-size mockup model has Chevrolet Geo suspension and steering.
-
You are cordially invited to see my flyable automobile project at
http://www.strongware.com/dragon
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-laughing015.gif&hash=7f5137fae01c9d30efc6c7a8e14342ff) (http://www.freesmileys.org)This idea will never take off!!!!
-
I wonder why you make such a comment. I suggest you read the website piece about engineering calculations and focus on theose that deal with analysis of take-off.
(or were you simply making a lame attempt at a joke?)
-
Has it actually taken off, though?
-
That +/- 3 deg pitch range for take-off/landing seems rather wide to me. I'd also be concerned that with the 6 degree pitch range, when combined with the short arm-length, both the vertical stabilisers and the center section of the horizontal stabiliser will be masked by the wide fuselage/cabin.
-
I wonder (and this may have already been discussed, but there is too much to read here [;D]):
1) Can a flying car be considered a sustainable alternative to the car for hundred of millions of people?
2) If not, why bother?
3) Ignoring personal safety issues, can a flying transportation vehicle use less energy to be manufactured and for necessary travel purposes (home to work/shopping for supplies/school) than an efficient car and therefor be considered safer for our environment?
4) If not, why bother?
5) Assuming that it will be necessary in the near future for the vast majority of people to move around locally and live in huge cities, what are the benefits of a flying car in this environment?
6) How do you combine the need for road safety with the need for a light vehicle while considering environmental impacts of "space-age" materials?
7) Is this another toy for those who did not get it, do not care, and can afford it?
8) If yes, why bother?
-
You are cordially invited to see my flyable automobile project at
http://www.strongware.com/dragon
To be considered flyable it should at least be able to fly. There are no pictures at that site. Does it fly?
I once designed myself a little airplane. It was supposed to be an ultralight with the steering mechanism more like a hang glider. I built a little model. I called it the "Mayfly". One day it may, but I doubt it. Times have changed.
-
Has it actually taken off, though?
The design process has followed the traditional engineering method of build-up of analysis and evaluation. As a professional aeronautical engineer, I have worked on a few projects for the USAF over a period of some thirty years, in engineering, flight test, and research. The design was tested in wind tunnel and tether/free flight models. The goald now is to re-do the analysis and wind tunnel testing for a prototype.
LeeE: Check the wind tunnel photo of the tufting over the turtledeck to see that the body does not blanket the empennage.
-
I wonder (and this may have already been discussed, but there is too much to read here [;D]):
1) Can a flying car be considered a sustainable alternative to the car for hundred of millions of people?
2) If not, why bother?
3) Ignoring personal safety issues, can a flying transportation vehicle use less energy to be manufactured and for necessary travel purposes (home to work/shopping for supplies/school) than an efficient car and therefor be considered safer for our environment?
4) If not, why bother?
5) Assuming that it will be necessary in the near future for the vast majority of people to move around locally and live in huge cities, what are the benefits of a flying car in this environment?
6) How do you combine the need for road safety with the need for a light vehicle while considering environmental impacts of "space-age" materials?
7) Is this another toy for those who did not get it, do not care, and can afford it?
8) If yes, why bother?
Karsten: The StrongMobiles are intended for frequent regional business travelling where the costs of the StrongMobiles are offset by avoiding user costs from a time viewpoint. I really do not foresee much general popular use of flying cars. Like any other business tool or special purpose vehicle, the market will likely be a limited "niche" market.
As an example, consider mail delivery.
-
Karsten
I agree that the problem is not only getting what could be a nifty little machine into the air. The real issue is how a system involving much more private flying can be made to work efficiently and safely.
NIMBY i.e. I don't want one landing there or on my roof.
-
Karsten
I agree that the problem is not only getting what could be a nifty little machine into the air. The real issue is how a system involving much more private flying can be made to work efficiently and safely.
NIMBY i.e. I don't want one landing there or on my roof.
I spent most of my USAF career specializing in system safety engineering, that is, working the bugs out of the aerospace systems before they were built. You can see an example of a hazrd report about my StrongMobile designs on my website, relating to birdstrikes.
-
Regardless of whether or not this thing can fly, it would need a clear runway to take off and land. Using public roads would be out of the question. So you will need take-off/landing strips controlled by air traffic controllers. How far would the nearest landing strip be to where you commence and terminate your journey? Say I want to get from Manhattan to Brooklyn or from Greenwich to Kensington. I would probably cover more distance getting from start point to landing strip and landing strip to destination than I would have covered if I had just stayed on the ground and gone straight from one to the other. If I wanted to get from London to Manchester or New York to Washington, I doubt this thing would have sufficient range for a non-stop journey.
There is also the point that we want to get people out of private cars and on to public mass transport, not out of cars into private planes!
I'm sure this thing would be a fantastic toy for the rich. As for the rest of us, as I said, it will never take off. Not a 'lame attempt at a joke', a pun, but a serious one.
-
Regardless of whether or not this thing can fly, it would need a clear runway to take off and land. Using public roads would be out of the question. So you will need take-off/landing strips controlled by air traffic controllers. How far would the nearest landing strip be to where you commence and terminate your journey? Say I want to get from Manhattan to Brooklyn or from Greenwich to Kensington. I would probably cover more distance getting from start point to landing strip and landing strip to destination than I would have covered if I had just stayed on the ground and gone straight from one to the other. If I wanted to get from London to Manchester or New York to Washington, I doubt this thing would have sufficient range for a non-stop journey.
There is also the point that we want to get people out of private cars and on to public mass transport, not out of cars into private planes!
I'm sure this thing would be a fantastic toy for the rich. As for the rest of us, as I said, it will never take off. Not a 'lame attempt at a joke', a pun, but a serious one.
StrongMobiles are designed for flying ranges of 100-600 miles.
When you write "we" are trying to "use mass transit", I wonder which "we", you are writing about; certainly not yours truly!
-
Regardless of whether or not this thing can fly, it would need a clear runway to take off and land. Using public roads would be out of the question. So you will need take-off/landing strips controlled by air traffic controllers. How far would the nearest landing strip be to where you commence and terminate your journey? Say I want to get from Manhattan to Brooklyn or from Greenwich to Kensington. I would probably cover more distance getting from start point to landing strip and landing strip to destination than I would have covered if I had just stayed on the ground and gone straight from one to the other. If I wanted to get from London to Manchester or New York to Washington, I doubt this thing would have sufficient range for a non-stop journey.
There is also the point that we want to get people out of private cars and on to public mass transport, not out of cars into private planes!
I'm sure this thing would be a fantastic toy for the rich. As for the rest of us, as I said, it will never take off. Not a 'lame attempt at a joke', a pun, but a serious one.
Don - My personal tragedy is that, unless I'm paid to fly one of my StrongMobiles by some company, I cannot afford to own one. So, my incentive is only that I might be able to rent one occasionally for fun.
-
OK, so the flight distance from London to Birmingham is 102 miles, but I have to travel 23 miles south to my nearest landing strip and the landing strip at Birmingham is 9 miles north of my destination. My 102 mile flight has been extended to 134 miles plus the 32 miles I must cover by road giving a total of 168 miles.
Time-wise this would equate to 1 hr urban driving, say 1 hr flying (assuming cross moderate wind) and say 15 – 30 mins waiting for a suitable take-off and landing slot. So around 2 ½ hrs. I could do it quicker by road. OK That said, probably London to Manchester would be marginal and London to Glasgow would be quicker by air. But at what cost? What is the fuel consumption going to be by air, compared to road?
As for the we I refer to, we means all of us. Like it or not we will all have to get used to using mass transport systems sooner or later. The sooner the better. We all need to travel less and be more frugal with the fuel we use, hence every auto manufacturer is doing their level best to improve fuel efficiency. What is the consumption of this?
I said this idea will never take off! Perhaps I should have said it flies in the face of all modern thinking.
It’s a plaything for the rich and an occupier of the mind of dreamers.
-
Continuing the transport theme, I think that you are entirely right Don. When I lived in the UK, we had 2 cars and rarely used any sort of public transport. I don't need to go into details to convey the cost of this, I'm sure. Now that we are in Germany, we have 1 car, a monthly transport ticket that covers trains, trams and buses in the region (€45 pm) and a well-used bike. Clearly, it is cheaper for us under the German scenario, but this has to be supported by an appropriate public oriened infrastrucure. My opinion of the UK "integrated" transport network is that it is expensive, dirty, slow and inefficient. (Please let me know if I'm wrong!) Until there is a proper incentive for people to use bikes/trams/trains/buses, there will always be this alternative option as an "answer" to the car problem.
(Edit) And that incentive should not be based on how expensive everything else is. It should be a positive incentive towards public transport and cycle networks, not a disincentive to use cars.
-
the UK "integrated" transport network....... is expensive, dirty, slow and inefficient.
You are wrong........... You missed out dangerous and unreliable.
-
the UK "integrated" transport network....... is expensive, dirty, slow and inefficient.
You are wrong........... You missed out dangerous and unreliable.
I sit corrected! It's even worse that I thought!
-
Until there is a proper incentive for people to use bikes/trams/trains/buses, there will always be this alternative option as an "answer" to the car problem.
I fear that as long as we wait for public transport (or any alternative to the car) to become as popular as the car, we will have to deal with people promoting the convenient, fun, clean, inexpensive, flexible and enjoyable solutions while desperately looking away from true costs for our species and society. This is not a technology problem any longer. This is a mind set problem. The solutions are often there, however we (who are used to "better") are just too good to use them or find it impossible to adjust our lives. Incentives that are acceptable by most people living the good life are most likely at a level that is not sustainable. Few Americans want to sacrifice comfort and all too often even slightly reduced comfort is equated with "living on trees again". We will need to begin doing the right thing even if it is not as enjoyable and somehow teach our children that this is not only acceptable but better.
-
Karsten
I totally agree with you. Proponents of even more novel, private transport systems are living in the past. They need to get real.
We will never live like the Jetsons, however attractive the model may be.