Man I hope this concept never "gets off the ground". I don't trust the average person in a car. Let alone in a flying machine? But it seems like such a waste of a concept. Probably can't use it in most cities, with big airports usually claiming the airspace around them. This one still requires a runway to take off. Try and find the space for that in a city.
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
98 points (92.2% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I agree. There is this scene at the very beginning of Back to the Future 2 where the sky is full of flying cars and they risk running into each other because there are no lanes and everyone is driving recklessly. That's an omen! ๐
I think the main application is for licensed pilots to be able to simply drive their plane home and store it somewhere that doesn't cost a ton of money every month, as would be the case with a regular plane.
Also, you can land it and then drive to your destination, for example. The concept is to replace planes, not cars.
What a terrible article. Trying to instill FOMO just because the Chinese are coming for it!!!!, despite the technology being destined to be exclusively used for rich people's toys.
"This brave new world of personal transport is acting as a great leveller," said aviation consultant Steve Wright.
Compared to cars: Energy consumption is much higher. Physical space use is higher. Material use is higher. Steering difficulty is higher. Insurance rates are going to be much higher. (...)
Trying to instill FOMO just because the Chinese are coming for it!!!
Take a look at the posts OP makes โ they seem obsessed with posting negative articles about China.
Take a look at the posts OP makes โ they seem obsessed with posting negative articles about China.
I have absolutely no interest of posting negative articles on China or any country, company or person. Some friends of mine are Chinese, and they largely support these posts, just fyi.
You're basically making the "I have black friends so I can't be racist" argument. Your post history is like 90% articles like these:
- Chinese Communist Party-Backed Businessman in Fiji is a Top Australian Criminal Target
- Calls for sanctions against China after Beijing accused of cyber espionage in US and UK
- China's Private Property Developers Face Persistent Funding Constraints, Fitch Ratings Says
- UK lawmakers claim 'harassment, impersonation, and attempted hacking' from China
- Millions of U.S. citizens' online accounts have been caught up in a "sinister" Chinese hacking plot that targeted US officials, officials say
- Threats, fear and surveillance: Chinese students in the UK say they are scared to return home and worry for their families in China after being followed and harassed by the regime in Beijing
- Oxford University held training sessions attended by Chinese doctors accused of illegally harvesting organs
Like, this is not a normal amount of articles about China. This feels like an obsession. If I was posting a similar amount of pro-China articles, I'd rightfully be called a shill.
Thank you for your opinion. Please feel free to also comment on the articles' contents.
I have chinese friends too, and they think your posts suck
I have absolutely no interest of posting negative articles on China or any country, company or person.
OP is by no means neutral: https://sopuli.xyz/comment/8043368
Flying cars are the stuff politicans love, because they do not have to change anything about car centric infrastructure at all, do not have to buitl public transport and only the rich can afford them. We call the helicopters today.
Germany's Minister of Infrastructure just invested 150Million โฌ into a flying taxi company. Its just helicopters.
What I find really disturbing about this is the fact that so many people fall for this scam.
Career politicians tend to be rich themselves, they can't even imagine someone being unable to afford a flying car.
We've had viable "flying cars" since the 70s. We call them helicopters.
Unfortunately for the futurists, there is a major floor with flying cars, and that's the failure mode. If a car breaks down, it stops. If 2 cars crash, they come to a stop, generally in the road. If a helicopter breaks down, it will have a very bad time, even in the best case. If 2 helicopters crash, then both will almost certainly plummet to their doom, as well as risking those below them.
Because of this, the regulations are a lot stricter on flying cars. This makes them a lot less practical or economically viable. Any other variant will run into the same limitations.
Helicopters have been around for much longer than that, as early as 1906 apparently. The first mass produced helicopter was the Sikorsky R-4, introduced in 1943
Apparently the first passenger helicopter service was in 1950, so I was out by 20 years. It's a bit of a grey area when they switched from "weapon of war" to "flying taxi", but it would be somewhere around the 40s.
I still find it insane that the helicopter was invented only 20 years after the car.
Well DaVinci already toyed with the idea (which didn't work obviously), so the idea is much older. It's still impressive indeed how soon we got working helicopters
If 2 helicopters crash, then both will almost certainly plummet to their doom, as well as risking those below them.
So, it's about time to discuss mandatory wearing of helmets for everybody outside of a house.
Would be definitely at fault if killed by being hit from a flying car dropping out of the sky because he's wearing all black and no high-visibility jacket.
They successfully unloaded their failed company on some greater fool. These things will never be viable for anything other than being rich people toys.
They're not even great toys though.
But you can use it to show off to your "friends", so what makes it worthwhile to them.
China is the best chance for it to succeed though. It would be far more expensive to gain regulatory approval across dozens of western countries than to just bribe a bunch of CCP regulators and gain domestic access to millions of millionaires in one of the largest countries on Earth.
But after a few of those fall from the sky, bribes won't help any more.
At least they bought the tech this time instead of just copying it. Shame for us though
The Chinese have copied car-building techniques through the JVs Western companies established in China. However, the Chinese have also been heavily funding research into batteries and electric cars for decades. So, to a much larger degree the electric bits are actually their own inventions.
It's not a flying car, it's a shitty car that can with some effort be turned into a rather shitty airplane. At that point it's functionally an airplane, doing everything an (shitty) airplane can do and none of the things a car can do. When it's turned into a car again it can do none of the airplane things and only do everything a (shitty) car can do.
Calling it a flying car is just playing on peoples fictional vision of what a flying car is and then leaves them disappointed when they see this thing.
Not to say it isn't a marvelous piece of engineering and deserving of admiration for this, but more in the way we admire a piece of art.
A "flying car" is just a small, cheap plane/helicopter/quadcopter
You forgot the crucial aspect of the flying car concept. Privately owned flying cars are flown by unqualified idiots instead of qualified pilots and get basically no maintenance of safety inspections compared to planes and helicopters.