As if a baby orca had been hitched to two snowplows
August 3, 2024 3:14 AM Subscribe
People in the industry tend to think that flight is useful and awesome, and not necessarily in that order. One of the reasons that the idea of flying cars has endured is that it seems to promise two different kinds of freedom: on the one hand, to get from point A to point B without a lot of hassle; on the other hand, to know the euphoria of exploring the third dimension. Most people at these companies got into the business because they were personally enraptured by flight. They are nonetheless well aware that airplanes and automobiles have vastly different requirements, and that the vision of a car that both drives and flies never made a ton of sense. from Are Flying Cars Finally Here? [The New Yorker; ungated]
Never mind the flying, where’s my self-driving car?
posted by Phanx at 3:46 AM on August 3 [4 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 3:46 AM on August 3 [4 favorites]
Invoking Thiel in the very first sentence doesn’t exactly make me want to take this seriously.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:50 AM on August 3 [19 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 3:50 AM on August 3 [19 favorites]
"Why can't I have a fictional thing I saw on TV when I was a child? I blame big government!" Thank you, Reaganite Peter Pan, The Boy Who Had So Much Money He Never Had To Grow Up.
posted by mhoye at 4:03 AM on August 3 [17 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 4:03 AM on August 3 [17 favorites]
I’m mostly a “don’t barge in early all negative” poster, but the slightly weird air of “flying cars because freedom” tone of some of the proponents in the article was… if a flying car was not regulated vastly more than a surface car, it would be a death trap. No freedom for you, fellas.
Additionally, I already have to deal with motorists trying to kill me daily on the street; this would allow me to die of a vehicle collision in my apartment.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:07 AM on August 3 [26 favorites]
Additionally, I already have to deal with motorists trying to kill me daily on the street; this would allow me to die of a vehicle collision in my apartment.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:07 AM on August 3 [26 favorites]
It’s weird how it’s always “where is my almost unobtainable personal transport, a technology which is pretty much impossible and harmful to the environment” and never “where is my cheap and/or free public transport, a technology which is available right now and a vast improvement for the environment”.
posted by The River Ivel at 4:30 AM on August 3 [45 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 4:30 AM on August 3 [45 favorites]
With the NYT, it's always, "Where's my flying car?" and never "Where's my fully automated luxury gay space communism built on top of the last king strangled by the entrails of the last priest?"
posted by AlSweigart at 4:57 AM on August 3 [37 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 4:57 AM on August 3 [37 favorites]
Metafilter: Fully automated luxury gay space communism built on top of the last king strangled by the entrails of the last priest.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:00 AM on August 3 [11 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 5:00 AM on August 3 [11 favorites]
Seems like rather than a flying car, it would be smarter to have some kind of flying bus that can carry hundreds of people at a time.
posted by Foosnark at 5:58 AM on August 3 [15 favorites]
posted by Foosnark at 5:58 AM on August 3 [15 favorites]
It's weird how so many allegedly smart people didn't realize the energy costs of a flying car.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:11 AM on August 3 [7 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:11 AM on August 3 [7 favorites]
Maybe I'm spending too much time on left-leaning internet -- no, that's a definite. But it seems irresponsible to not note immediately after mentioning Marinetti that he was a Fascist, the original brew, and Thiel is fascist-adjacent. This is a man who believes we stopped having The Future because women got the right to vote.
I don't suspect the gearheads involved of being fascists, not at all. But it's disappointing that they mention and immediately dismiss the observation that most people are bad enough drivers as it is. It's dangerous enough to be near an accident, but at least you can try to step out of the way on a sidewalk or try to swerve on the road. What happens when parts and people rain down? And who wants to pay the insurance for it?
posted by Countess Elena at 6:14 AM on August 3 [9 favorites]
I don't suspect the gearheads involved of being fascists, not at all. But it's disappointing that they mention and immediately dismiss the observation that most people are bad enough drivers as it is. It's dangerous enough to be near an accident, but at least you can try to step out of the way on a sidewalk or try to swerve on the road. What happens when parts and people rain down? And who wants to pay the insurance for it?
posted by Countess Elena at 6:14 AM on August 3 [9 favorites]
Well, once we invent cold fusion then the energy problem is solved. I heard the technology is only five years away!
posted by AlSweigart at 6:14 AM on August 3 [6 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 6:14 AM on August 3 [6 favorites]
Not reading TFA, because I can look at the title and answer "no."
If a car breaks during use, you coast to the side of the road and call the motor club.
If an airplane breaks during use, it falls from the sky, everybody on board dies, and so does anybody who was sitting on the ground where it hit. Not to mention property damage in the landing zone.
These are facts that nobody is ever going to get around, and they are why a new Chevy Lumina can be got for about $30,000, while a new Cessna 172 costs $400,000.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:40 AM on August 3 [10 favorites]
If a car breaks during use, you coast to the side of the road and call the motor club.
If an airplane breaks during use, it falls from the sky, everybody on board dies, and so does anybody who was sitting on the ground where it hit. Not to mention property damage in the landing zone.
These are facts that nobody is ever going to get around, and they are why a new Chevy Lumina can be got for about $30,000, while a new Cessna 172 costs $400,000.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:40 AM on August 3 [10 favorites]
But it seems irresponsible to not note immediately after mentioning Marinetti that he was a Fascist, the original brew, and Thiel is fascist-adjacent.
That also jumped out at me. The urge for speed, action, and progress at all costs is one of the elements of fascism, and blithely invoking literal Fascist supporters with no comment is… well, a choice.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:41 AM on August 3 [5 favorites]
That also jumped out at me. The urge for speed, action, and progress at all costs is one of the elements of fascism, and blithely invoking literal Fascist supporters with no comment is… well, a choice.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:41 AM on August 3 [5 favorites]
Flying cars? What about the flying equivalent to motorcycles, the jet pack?
posted by njohnson23 at 6:42 AM on August 3 [3 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 6:42 AM on August 3 [3 favorites]
@njohnson23, right. As a late boomer, I feel that I was never promised flying cars but I was definitely promised jet packs.
Not long ago I saw a feature article about the original jet pack and how it was basically a scam attempt on the Military Industrial Complex, how there was only ever one of them, how the guy that did all of the flying was somebody who was recruited to young to have any idea what crazy risks he was running, and what an incredibly impractical technology was used. How anybody could ever imagine that something practical could be made of it is beyond me.
But Johnny Quest had a jetpack, one that was eminently practical and safe, and I have always missed that in my life.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:50 AM on August 3 [1 favorite]
Not long ago I saw a feature article about the original jet pack and how it was basically a scam attempt on the Military Industrial Complex, how there was only ever one of them, how the guy that did all of the flying was somebody who was recruited to young to have any idea what crazy risks he was running, and what an incredibly impractical technology was used. How anybody could ever imagine that something practical could be made of it is beyond me.
But Johnny Quest had a jetpack, one that was eminently practical and safe, and I have always missed that in my life.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 6:50 AM on August 3 [1 favorite]
Started reading this, got to the mention of Thiel, and thought, "This isn't going to last many comments on Metafilter before being eviscerated."
This line hints at a fundamental issue with the concept:
"Storrs Hall estimates that George has a 1,341-horsepower vehicle, which draws on the equivalent of a thousand pounds of jet fuel."
Much as I grew up expecting a flying car, I didn't expect to grow up in a world where we'd all die by rising temperatures. Carbon-neutral power production has to be solved before we can safely expend those amounts of energy on a daily basis (indeed, until it's solved, what we're expending each day on ground cars is far, far too much). And yes, the article raises the dream of cheap nuclear power. But that hasn't come true yet. And the realization of that dream may be far away - much farther than flying cars.
I also grew up expecting a future like Star Trek TNG. Yes, gay space communism. Can I have that future? Maybe you can throw in some force fields and transporter beams.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:56 AM on August 3 [5 favorites]
This line hints at a fundamental issue with the concept:
"Storrs Hall estimates that George has a 1,341-horsepower vehicle, which draws on the equivalent of a thousand pounds of jet fuel."
Much as I grew up expecting a flying car, I didn't expect to grow up in a world where we'd all die by rising temperatures. Carbon-neutral power production has to be solved before we can safely expend those amounts of energy on a daily basis (indeed, until it's solved, what we're expending each day on ground cars is far, far too much). And yes, the article raises the dream of cheap nuclear power. But that hasn't come true yet. And the realization of that dream may be far away - much farther than flying cars.
I also grew up expecting a future like Star Trek TNG. Yes, gay space communism. Can I have that future? Maybe you can throw in some force fields and transporter beams.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 6:56 AM on August 3 [5 favorites]
If even a small proportion of cars on the road today become flying cars, we will have succeeded in extending some of the worst aspects of US urban life (traffic, noise, really inefficient land use) to the skies.
It would be nice if we could learn from the mistakes of the past.
posted by Pemdas at 7:07 AM on August 3 [3 favorites]
It would be nice if we could learn from the mistakes of the past.
posted by Pemdas at 7:07 AM on August 3 [3 favorites]
If an airplane breaks during use, it falls from the sky, everybody on board dies, and so does anybody who was sitting on the ground where it hit. Not to mention property damage in the landing zone.(Lapsed -- this is an expensive hobby) glider pilot here, and I'm gonna call bullshit. In an airplane, there are some catastrophic structural failures where this is maybe a little true (the PA-28 wing spar AD comes to mind). Most issues involve your airplane turning into a bad glider and ending up in a field/the trees/a lake. I'm distantly socially acquainted with a guy who landed his Mooney on a city street in Van Nuys after an engine out a few years back. The plane was a hull loss, and some cars were damaged, but no fatalities. There are definitely worse cases that happen too, but I want to push back on the "any failure in an airplane = massive death and destruction" thing here.
That said, multicopters are a whole separate thing and honestly a bit scarier from a failure perspective. Helicopters, you can autorotate to a landing in many cases. Multicopters are actively stabilized. I don't know a ton about these particular vehicles but I assume they have some redundancy, but I've crashed enough hobby RC multicopters to be skeptical of the safety/redundancy story there.
posted by Alterscape at 7:32 AM on August 3 [10 favorites]
Have you seen how people drive? Flying cars are probably the absolute worst idea ever. Autonomous ground vehicles are all we need, although that's going to take a while (and the transition is going be ugly).
posted by tommasz at 8:33 AM on August 3 [4 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 8:33 AM on August 3 [4 favorites]
Rando Joe will never be allowed to pilot a flying car. The only tolerable system will be automated air taxis.
It's weird how so many allegedly smart people didn't realize the energy costs of a flying car.
And they're so goddam noisy!
posted by Rash at 8:53 AM on August 3 [2 favorites]
It's weird how so many allegedly smart people didn't realize the energy costs of a flying car.
And they're so goddam noisy!
posted by Rash at 8:53 AM on August 3 [2 favorites]
I was definitely promised jet packs.
Dunno about promised but I was definitely hoping there was one in my future. James bond flew with one back in 1965.
posted by Rash at 9:00 AM on August 3 [2 favorites]
Dunno about promised but I was definitely hoping there was one in my future. James bond flew with one back in 1965.
posted by Rash at 9:00 AM on August 3 [2 favorites]
They'll have a successful flying car once they figure out how to not make them sound like a horde of murderous africanized bees
posted by slater at 10:35 AM on August 3 [1 favorite]
posted by slater at 10:35 AM on August 3 [1 favorite]
Never mind the flying, where’s my self-driving car?
Phenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles.
posted by sammyo at 12:14 PM on August 3 [1 favorite]
Phenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles.
posted by sammyo at 12:14 PM on August 3 [1 favorite]
I'd like to dream that it's less likely that the flying cars would run into other flying cars, but I'm not a pilot so what do I know.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:38 PM on August 3 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:38 PM on August 3 [1 favorite]
The state of modern jetpackery. A couple of grand to try out.
posted by porpoise at 2:07 PM on August 3 [1 favorite]
posted by porpoise at 2:07 PM on August 3 [1 favorite]
eVTOL, Urban Air Mobility, all these terms are attempts to rebrand helicopters and sell dubious new helicopter designs. Their boosters want to sell childhood fantasies to grown-up tech boys dreaming of the “flying cars” that have graced pulp science magazines since the 1920s.
Paul Poberezny grew up on that stuff. After WWII, he worked his way up to editor of Mechanix Illustrated, where he promoted the idea of heroic aerospace inventors tinkering away in garages. He founded the Experimental Aircraft Association, which has been instrumental in the creation of ultralight and experimental aircraft categories within which these so-called “flying cars” are now being tested.
Incredible developments have emerged from this experimental milieu, including new rotorcraft. But electric helicopter startups are missing one of the most important lessons of 100+ years of experimentation: the capabilities of rotorcraft are continuously encroached on by simpler, cheaper, fixed-wing aircraft.
Paramotor rigs and tilt-based ultralights are less than most new cars. Some are even less than $10,000. They can take off in very small spaces and you can learn to fly one in a couple of weekends worth of training.
Go watch a National STOL competition to see simple small planes that can take off and land in less than 100 feet. Some can do so consistently in less than 50. If the revised Light Sport licensing leads to greater demand, mass production could make these planes more broadly attainable.
Who wants an unproven, weird helicopter when you can get an extensively tested fixed-wing airplane that is much safer, takes less maintenance, and can still land practically anywhere? Sooner or later, people will add a little automation and electrification to these proven aircraft designs, eating into any temporary advantages seen in the startups this article profiles.
posted by Headfullofair at 7:05 PM on August 3 [5 favorites]
Paul Poberezny grew up on that stuff. After WWII, he worked his way up to editor of Mechanix Illustrated, where he promoted the idea of heroic aerospace inventors tinkering away in garages. He founded the Experimental Aircraft Association, which has been instrumental in the creation of ultralight and experimental aircraft categories within which these so-called “flying cars” are now being tested.
Incredible developments have emerged from this experimental milieu, including new rotorcraft. But electric helicopter startups are missing one of the most important lessons of 100+ years of experimentation: the capabilities of rotorcraft are continuously encroached on by simpler, cheaper, fixed-wing aircraft.
Paramotor rigs and tilt-based ultralights are less than most new cars. Some are even less than $10,000. They can take off in very small spaces and you can learn to fly one in a couple of weekends worth of training.
Go watch a National STOL competition to see simple small planes that can take off and land in less than 100 feet. Some can do so consistently in less than 50. If the revised Light Sport licensing leads to greater demand, mass production could make these planes more broadly attainable.
Who wants an unproven, weird helicopter when you can get an extensively tested fixed-wing airplane that is much safer, takes less maintenance, and can still land practically anywhere? Sooner or later, people will add a little automation and electrification to these proven aircraft designs, eating into any temporary advantages seen in the startups this article profiles.
posted by Headfullofair at 7:05 PM on August 3 [5 favorites]
If a car breaks during use, you coast to the side of the road and call the motor club.
If an airplane breaks during use, it falls from the sky, everybody on board dies, and so does anybody who was sitting on the ground where it hit. Not to mention property damage in the landing zone.
I see others have already addressed the fact that most failures on an airplane in flight just turn it into a bad glider, but there's the other half of this as well: there are definitely ways a car can break during use where you can't just coast to the side of the road and call for a recovery. Brake failure on a downhill. A wheel coming loose or off at speed (this has serious flipping risk for e.g. SUVs). Steering linkage failure at speed. Stuck throttle (a nice recent one that also plagues EVs!) is certainly not a case of just coasting safely to a stop.
Yes planes are more dangerous in some ways, but cars are not a harmless thing where you can just pull over without concern if anything goes wrong. Cars are fucking dangerous, especially in traffic.
posted by Dysk at 12:30 AM on August 4 [3 favorites]
If an airplane breaks during use, it falls from the sky, everybody on board dies, and so does anybody who was sitting on the ground where it hit. Not to mention property damage in the landing zone.
I see others have already addressed the fact that most failures on an airplane in flight just turn it into a bad glider, but there's the other half of this as well: there are definitely ways a car can break during use where you can't just coast to the side of the road and call for a recovery. Brake failure on a downhill. A wheel coming loose or off at speed (this has serious flipping risk for e.g. SUVs). Steering linkage failure at speed. Stuck throttle (a nice recent one that also plagues EVs!) is certainly not a case of just coasting safely to a stop.
Yes planes are more dangerous in some ways, but cars are not a harmless thing where you can just pull over without concern if anything goes wrong. Cars are fucking dangerous, especially in traffic.
posted by Dysk at 12:30 AM on August 4 [3 favorites]
We would need foolproof, digital detect-and-avoid systems to prevent collisions.
Weird that they don't talk about vehicle-to-vehicle mesh data and how insect-like swarming is very easy to implement in autonomous members of a swarm. You may also need an emergency 'I'm low battery' protocol that's not exploitable to jump queues for landing sites or fall faster through traffic.
This conversation is also missing:
- this is a niche interest piece, the people funding it are exceptional individuals and we can't all be exceptional individuals, we have to be a collective that's greater than the sum of its parts.
- complex systems failure and training, where pilots know their planes are outside of their ability to manage in all situations, so have drills in simulators and checklists for emergency use (one pilot flies, one works through the problem) that turn a complex failure into a complicated-but-manageable situation. Car drivers barely want licensing, regular roadworthiness checks and insurance, and the people pushing 'fly, it's so freeing' are unaware that their solutions need to turn complexity into manageable complications in order to be viable products.
- the second iteration of "consider the energy use" which aims for economy of scale -- and that means chaining together devices for aerodynamic efficiency, and ultimately 'carcinization' into public transit.
posted by k3ninho at 3:45 AM on August 4 [1 favorite]
Weird that they don't talk about vehicle-to-vehicle mesh data and how insect-like swarming is very easy to implement in autonomous members of a swarm. You may also need an emergency 'I'm low battery' protocol that's not exploitable to jump queues for landing sites or fall faster through traffic.
This conversation is also missing:
- this is a niche interest piece, the people funding it are exceptional individuals and we can't all be exceptional individuals, we have to be a collective that's greater than the sum of its parts.
- complex systems failure and training, where pilots know their planes are outside of their ability to manage in all situations, so have drills in simulators and checklists for emergency use (one pilot flies, one works through the problem) that turn a complex failure into a complicated-but-manageable situation. Car drivers barely want licensing, regular roadworthiness checks and insurance, and the people pushing 'fly, it's so freeing' are unaware that their solutions need to turn complexity into manageable complications in order to be viable products.
- the second iteration of "consider the energy use" which aims for economy of scale -- and that means chaining together devices for aerodynamic efficiency, and ultimately 'carcinization' into public transit.
posted by k3ninho at 3:45 AM on August 4 [1 favorite]
K3ninho, the vehicle-to-vehicle detect and avoid systems are being developed in Advanced Air Mobility, a NASA x FAA collab.
I’m a little miffed that I’m is subsidizing the creation of an air taxi network. I want access to urban airspace in the US for affordable, quiet paraglider flights before we cede the sky to rich people’s noise pollution. This should be us. It’s a viable commuting option.
posted by Headfullofair at 5:58 AM on August 4 [1 favorite]
I’m a little miffed that I’m is subsidizing the creation of an air taxi network. I want access to urban airspace in the US for affordable, quiet paraglider flights before we cede the sky to rich people’s noise pollution. This should be us. It’s a viable commuting option.
posted by Headfullofair at 5:58 AM on August 4 [1 favorite]
We have a flying car. It's called a helicopter, and it was invented 85 years ago.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:23 AM on August 4 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:23 AM on August 4 [3 favorites]
Another thing: pilots have a lot of medical requirements to get qualified by the FAA. I'm fascinated by aviation, but I'm disqualified six ways to Sunday, and I'm a pretty ordinary person. Eyesight is the big one, of course. Also, sleep apnea -- which has to be significant for middle-aged potential customers -- means you have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to fly. And they look very askance on even everyday psychiatric medications. Then there's rest requirements! How can the democratization of flying cars work around all that? Do you just throw it all out and leave it for commercial pilots, the way we leave it for commercial drivers?
This isn't even at the top of the list of problems, but I think it's a sign of ableism, albeit unintended, that the issue didn't ring anyone's bells.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:49 AM on August 4 [1 favorite]
This isn't even at the top of the list of problems, but I think it's a sign of ableism, albeit unintended, that the issue didn't ring anyone's bells.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:49 AM on August 4 [1 favorite]
Hey Countess Elena, you should look into Sport Pilot (no formal medical requirement, but must not have failed a FAA medical in the past; for now daytime VFR only, limited to Light Sport-category aircraft), sailplanes/gliders (no medical/pilots self-certify), and/or Part 103 ultralights. I could probably get a medical but it would take months and many thousands of dollars to get through the Special Issuance path, and I don't want to risk failing and lock myself out of Light Sport. Gliders were my way in. Find a soaring site and give it a try, you can probably get an intro ride for less than $200. Feel free to memail me if you want more info.
I suspect the eVTOL pitch is increased automation makes it less necessary for the pilot to hold a medical. Not sure I entirely believe that, but I suspect that's the pitch.
posted by Alterscape at 8:13 AM on August 4 [2 favorites]
I suspect the eVTOL pitch is increased automation makes it less necessary for the pilot to hold a medical. Not sure I entirely believe that, but I suspect that's the pitch.
posted by Alterscape at 8:13 AM on August 4 [2 favorites]
That’s definitely the pitch, Alterscape. But it doesn’t pencil out for me. Many tech companies are betting that tilt-rotors—literally the most dangerous aircraft platform on earth despite 70 years of development—are going to be cleared for urban passenger service because computers. It ridiculous.
posted by Headfullofair at 8:35 AM on August 4 [2 favorites]
posted by Headfullofair at 8:35 AM on August 4 [2 favorites]
We have flying cars, they are called helicopters and you are too poor to afford them.
We have self-driving cars, they are called chauffeurs, and you are too poor to afford them.
We have exo-skeleton/Mech-suits and they are called cars, and even without the weapons you get yourself killed in them at alarming rates.
Was it Oscar Wilde who said "hell is other people", well, wait until those other people take to the skies.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 1:47 PM on August 4
We have self-driving cars, they are called chauffeurs, and you are too poor to afford them.
We have exo-skeleton/Mech-suits and they are called cars, and even without the weapons you get yourself killed in them at alarming rates.
Was it Oscar Wilde who said "hell is other people", well, wait until those other people take to the skies.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 1:47 PM on August 4
« Older "People are idiots." | Bossman vs Roadman Newer »
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:44 AM on August 3 [13 favorites]