Well the idea that everybody will have a personal air transportation craft, that will be as easy to use as a car, seems like science fiction. On the contrary, a consortium to make this into reality already exists, with many serious participations in it.

It is called Southeast SATSLab,it is funded by NASA and it has members from economic and academic areas. Recently a company that has made significant progress, entered this consortium.This company has a ready experimental prototype called "Skycar".

It is a 4-seat vertical takeoff/landing craft,with rotating trusters like a Harrier.Some specs:8 rotary (Wankel) engines,top speed 350MPH,burns common gasoline,range:900Miles.It has satellite navigation,flight computers and even emergency parachutes.

http://www.moller.com/news/pressrelease/satslab.html

There's never going to be flying cars well not that lot's of people will fly around because we just don't have the fuel. Until we start using some other resource like hydrogen we don't have a chance. Maybe a couple of millionaires might fly them but the average person won't have them.

i think so too that the average ppl won't afford it but we can allways glue some wings on our cars=)

You both obviously don't read the news much. Toyota was featured in a news story a few months back about their proto type fr a flying car. They were testing it sucessfully in some desert. Estimated sales price was $50,000. A Corvet costs more. Now you say yea but look how many people have corvets..

How about how many people have $50,000 cars.

I didn't say the car would be expensive I said it would be too expensive to fly it round.

I am pretty sure they will use another form of fuel before it becomes common. I think that building ones that work with fuels we have now will get people interested, and make them realize it is possible. If they see a car flying, they will think, yeah, let's get in on that. Once they find a better form of fuel these things will definately "take off," pun definately intended.

"In limited production (500 units per year) the M400 Skycar will sell for a price comparable to that of a four-passenger high performance helicopter or airplane, approximately $500,000. As the volume of production increases substantially, its price can approach that of a quality automobile ($60,000-$80,000)."

Also, I just realized this would mean an all new kind of license, unless you would only need both a driver's and pilot's license. pulling over will be strange in the future.

/me has both a driver's license and a pilot's license. :x

I don't see it happening... Flying is something that takes quite a bit of skill, and frankly, most people are morons.

Pfffft, Computerised altimiter and GPS navigation. It is possible that it could drive itself actualy. Imagine GPS accident prevention.

Computerized altimeters and GPS Navigation are already here. We even use both of these things in the aircraft on a daily basis (look up the Garmin GNS 430). However, GPS accident prevention is very far off. GPS systems are not accurate to within feet, they are accurate to within yards. Also, GPS systems tend to lag, since information must be received by at least three satellites, and then sent to the unit in the vehicle. This lag time is not very substantial when used in a navigational device (upwards of 3 seconds), but when it comes to accident prevention, 3 seconds may mean quite a difference.

Many high-end aircraft nowadays have a system called TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System). Other aircraft are displayed on a screen relative to your aircraft, with altitude and direction information displayed as well. In the event of a traffic conflict (one aircraft coming dangerously close to another), an alarm will sound. Also, taking the Boeing 747-400 as an example, a message will appear on a screen in front of the pilots giving a recommendation on what to do to resolve the conflict. Examples of these recommendations: Climbing left turn, descending right turn, etc. Keep in mind that the aircraft will not avoid conflicting traffic by itself, however, the technology is there.

lol, watch, you run out of gas, you're 200' in the air in a "sky car"... First thing on your mind "oh fuck me" ktnx...

I've been around planes my whole life because my dad is a pilot, but a lot of people haven't, and they're scared of flying. You'd be suprised at how many people would rather drive then fly because they think driving is safer(which it isn't). My guess is that people wouldn't buy flying cars just because of fear of flying/heights.

I'd buy 4! only i'd wigger a hanglider to the lol...

lol. imagine the wingspan u'd need for a hanglider to support a car. that'd be great

none out of the ordinary. you can pull one from a boat, only differance would be you'd be driving in the air as opposed to the water.

oh, i thought u meant a hangglider so that you could glide the car itself to the ground if it ran out of gas.

Oh my ph34r! This photo was taken by me this morning...and yes, it is stopped.

This is why people like to drive.

Was this an Auto Rotate test? I know Helicopter piolets need to learn how to auto rotate. Just wondering.

Nope. Since I'm working on getting my multi-engine rating, we were doing engine-out work. Generally this is simulated by keeping one throttle at idle and the other at full power. Once in a while though, we'll actually feather (stop) a prop to make things a tad more realistic.

Drake, you said something that I wanna comment on. You and a lot of the educated populace say that flying is safer than driving. You guy point out statistics about how there's more deaths and accidents involved in car wrecks than in plane wrecks.

However, what I say to that is, there's a heck of a lot more people driving around than flying around. So naturally there'll be more car wrecks than plane wrecks. However, that doesn't mean the RATIO is greater with cars. Cars may be considered safer cause the ratio between number of cars, and number or wrecks would be fewer, then the ratio between number of plane flights and number of plane wrecks.

In case I was confusing, here's an example:

Number of cars = 1000
Number of wrecks = 100

Number of planes = 100
Number of wrecks = 20

Now see, there's 100 car wrecks and 20 plane wrecks a year. planes are safer? no, cause you've got a 10% chance of getting in a car wreck, and 20% chance of getting in a plane wreck.

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that flying is inherently dangerous. This is why pilots must go through very rigorous training in order to be licensed by the FAA.

you go throught too much work to crash into my house .

but also one of the reasons people like to drive as opposed to fly is because they like to be in control of the vehicle so if they had the opportunity to own their own aricraft they might go for it, but as far as people being afraid to fly if a car crashes in some cases you have a chance to survive but when you fall from 20,000 feet..

yeah, that brought up another point I had in retort to people saying it's safer to fly than drive. Fatality in plane wrecks are greater than fatality in car crashes. Ratio-wise anyway.

I blame the media for this. If you look at the NTSB reports, the overwhelming majority of aircraft accidents are not fatal. The ones that you hear about, however, are the awful airline accidents.

I'm not talking about aircraft accidents. Bad landings, lost a wheel in landing etcetera. Just like I'm not talking about fender benders in cars that wouldn't have a chance at hurting anybody.

But if a passenger jet plummets to the ground, I mean comon... Sure it's rare - even ratio-wise - but the fatality in those babies...

bah, I'm not 100% convinced of my argument on this point. I shouldn't have said anything. I'll stick to the accidents ratio and leave fatality out unless I have more facts.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm

This is a chart summarizing the number of fatal and nonfatal accidents that have occured in aviation during the year 2001. Taking a look at the chart at major airline statistics (noted as 14 CFR 121), the numbers come out to show that there were 0.013 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Now take into account the fact that there were 15,998,000 hours flown in that year. Chances are higher that you'd be hit by lightning while getting out of your car at the airport than dying on an airliner.

"Chances are higher that you'd be hit by lightning while getting out of your car at the airport than dying on an airliner"

for some reason I don't agree with that. How many people have died getting out of their car and being struck by lightning while at an airport during the year 2001.

screw 2001. I don't think anybody ever has.

While there has been plenty of people killed on airliners.

If ya argue, at least argue convincingly. And as far as ratio. I bet there's a heck of a lot more driving hours than flight hours in the year of 2001. So the number of car wrecks/fatalities - etcetera would of course be greater. It is still debateable as to which side would have the greater ratio of wrecks/fatalities.

Without statistics for driving hours, I don't think I can argue this convincingly, nor can you. My point was that airline travel is very safe. You did, however, catch my hyperbole with lightning strikes. I really don't know the statistics on that; I was merely exaggerating. I thought you of all people would catch on.

Another consideration that you must take into account is that pilots are much more highly skilled in their field compared to the average driver on a highway. Personally, I spent a solid 6 months of very hard work earning my pilot's license, and that was to merely fly small aircraft. Also, maintenance of aircraft is strictly regulated. For most operations (including airline), each aircraft must be thoroughly inspected every 100 hours of flight time, and pass a very strict annual inspection. Also, any time a pilot notices a discrepency, the aircraft is taken off of the line and fixed.

As a pilot, I know from first-hand experience how safe flying is. I'm comfortable up there...it's a mad house down here.

well couldnt all that hard work and training also be used against flying cars, now flying may be safe, but it takes a skilled pilot and well checked maintance...and just like you said the average highway driver isnt as skilled at what they are doing, so wouldnt an aircraft for everyone just be plain dangerous?

(kinda trying to get back on the topic of flying cars here)

When cars first came about, it was belived that if you went over 30 mph the skin on your face would rip off.

When 30 mph was broken many belived women lacked the attention span to drive.

Many people never belived humans would fly

It's like this people, people will adapt. people can learn. There would have to be a whole new set of guidelines and licensing procedure, but if flying cars came out (scary as it may be) people would buy them and learn to fly them.

Look at how advance scociety has become in the last century. We went from just starting to use electricity, and motors to the fast paced scociety we have today. Now the reason this is impresive is look at technology evolution in the centuries before that.

This will speed up, people will adapt, we will see some awsome things in our life time.

1802 till 2002, think about it. When looking at that, do you realy find it so hard to belive? Look at what the average person did in 1802. the average home didn't even have power or running water. Many still went to the well and out house. Car... ha ha ha ha.

Now look at us. Look at what your parents had and did when they were kids, then look at yourself. As technology advances, it will do so quicker than before, and people will step up and meet the challenge. I would not be surprised to see flying cars replace cars of today.

As far as fule,

The U.S. army uses a speacial brand of desile for their aircraft called JP8. There is much that could be done to use the same fule we use now, hell 100 octane is pretty powerful.

It's all about the hydrogen fuel cells, as far as fuel.

so are there also gonna be gass stations in the sky ? lol

Actually, that brings up a good point. If a person runs out of gas in a car, they pull over. Run out of gas in the air? You're coming down whether you like it or not. Pilots are trained to configure the aircraft for maximum glide, choose a landing spot, and successfully execute a dead stick landing. But what about your average person?

yeah right.. and unreal i wanna ask you something since i know you're pretty good in these things..

is it possiable for an air plane to run out of gas (or whatever it uses) in the air ?? what would happend ?

and a question i wanted to know long time ago..

They say that for example, if the plane would damage or something well dunno.. but lets say that the pilot has jumped from the plane you know... to survive, then people say that pilots have some kinda food with them that helps with to stay alive for weeks and that's not normal food, it's something different.. like pills and so on.. you know what i'm talking about ?

i know it sounds stupid but i just wanna know..

Pretty simple realy, Don't run out of fule, it might kill you. Gas stations send a becon signal that cars pick up. Might be also that flying cars are limited to a certain altitude that would not end fataly. Maybe say 10 to 50 feet in the air.

Gas stations get in with onstar or some crap like that. It can all be worked out I assure you. We never used to drive. We never used to fly. We will continue to advance even if some of you do not want to. If not a flying car today, then maybe next year, or the decade after. But you can count on it comeing. With every major invention there will be new laws, rules and much infastructure needed to support it.

Think it not possible? in the early 80's there was no internet, no UGN Security. It was Arpanet, you dialed in to collage servers. Think of everything that supports the net. That happened in about 1 decade. Less actualy. say 1985 to 1995.

Look at cars in general. somewhere in the early 1800's I think they were born. The Modle "T".

There were no roads like there are today. Assphault, gas station, rest stop, fast food, shoulder of the road, traffic light, road signs, driver license, license plate, head lights, auto shops, factories, parts shops, car wash, onstar, computers, T.V.'s in the seat, and on and on and on.

IF these cars are built to hover that leaves much flexibility as far as fuleing options. Millitary fules in flight all the time.

bp: Absolutely it's possible for an aircraft to run out of gas. Some airplanes are able to glide very well, others not so well. As I said, in the case of fuel exhaustion, we're taught to configure the airplane for maximum glide distance, and pick a spot to do an off-airport landing. Contrary to popular belief, most airplanes glide quite well. The aircraft that I initially earned my pilot's license in (a Cessna 172), when configured for glide properly, maintained about a 500 foot-per-minute descent. If you were flying at 10,000 feet over land that was at sea level, you'd have 20 whole minutes to decide what you're going to do.

That airplane had a very good glide ratio. The aircraft I'm flying right now, a PA-44 Seminole (twin engine), has those big ol' engines on the wings that cause a lot of drag if they're both dead. That thing doesn't glide so well if they both die.

Almost forgot... most airplanes you see flying (propeller driven, piston airplanes) run off of 100 Octane leaded fuel. Jets use Jet-A, which is a form of Kerosene.

And your question on food for survival. We have survival kits in the back of the plane in case of an emergency. Basically it's just food, water, flashlight, matches, etc. I'm not sure about those pills...maybe that's a military thing.

Nah we gave our guys MRE's (Meal Ready to eat). A meal packed with extra vitamins, calaries and so one. All soldiers eat them in field enviroment. 1 can give you a healthy diet for 3 days. So grab 5 and you are pretty good.

I used to ride on CH-47 helicopters in the Army. They don't glide at all. That is the one that looks like a school bus in the sky with 2 sets of blades on the top. Had a couple close calls in Nicaragua during a huricane relief mission. But I'm here to tell about it.

anyone else look at the pics of the flying car...didnt look like much of a glider to me
http://www.moller.com/skycar/

4 engines? Hah...I'd like to see a normal person use that successfully.

Think about what happens if you were to lose a single engine. The yawing and rolling tendency into the dead engine would throw this thing out of control. Airplanes have rudders and ailerons that have the leverage to counteract this loss of control tendency. The stubby wings that are on this "sky car" wouldn't do a thing in the event of an engine failure.

I wonder what the price would be for that thing. It says a $5,000 deposit. How long have you been flying for unreal?

Overall, just a little over a year. *shrugs*

wtf.. my car already has the capability to fly. where the hell have you guys been? hahahaha

hey unreal, thanks so much about the explanations now i do understand.. and about the food thing i probably heard about what sin_tax said MRE's...
anyway it's really interesting, i always liked aircrafts and helicopters but i never had a chance to learn about em more or something and dunno maybe i will in the future.

btw unreal, now that you have a license, could you be able to "ride" on an F-16 ?

P.S. Once i used to ride with an Apache helicopter with KFOR soldiers... damnit, it was so cool.

Technically I have most of the qualifications to fly an F-16. My qualifications are "Private Pilot: Airplane Single Engine Land," which is precisely what an F-16 is. However, one would most likely need a type rating in that airplane.

lol, that'd be great Unreal. Walk up to a military base, falsh your license, "Yes I'm gonna have to take out the F-16 for a quick spin..."

Another reason that hasn't been mention is traffic. Now sure you say "what the fuck do you mean traffic? if some one stops im front of you, you just go up and around him" but think about it. we are used to drivin around in a 2 dimensional plane and have a lot of accidents as it is. now think about people drivin in a 3 dimensional environment there might not be as much "traffic", but believe me, the number of accidents would grow exponentially

What if you install a becon device in each car? When aproaching a flying object in a collision path it alerts you the best possible route where a flying car is not?

It looks like these things can hover, If that is true I am sure it can be riged to kinda stop easily by angling the engines at an angle to maintain altitude and work against the direction you were headed.

Think outside that box people. With the ability to network electronicaly like we can now, much of these problems can be fixed.

Maybe set up a sky car to automaticaly take one of 4 routes set by priority in even of possible acident.

1.) up is priority 1
2.) Right is 2nd priority
3.) Down is 3rd priority
4.) if clear left is 4th priority.

Car's computer looks for becons and approching speads and picks best route to avoid collision. I doubt it would even be that hard to do in a flying car like this.

A stinger missle make something like 15,000 adjustments and calculations per second on it course to hit it's target. They were developed in what the 70's? early 80's?

How hard would this be?