Airbus CEO sees 'flying car' prototype ready by end of year

I see the #1 danger to fully automated flight being the atmosphere. Nasty weather, rotors around buildings, high DA, they all seem like significant deterrents to full automation.
 
If they make enough "individual" flying cars, then congestion will simply move from the ground to the air. Unless they are priced similar to today's new aircraft, in which case there will so few that nothing will change. . .
 
All airplanes are compromises and everything has a price. What could extract a greater compromise than cross-breeding a car with an airplane? Given the current state of our pot-hole ridden roads, drunk or texting drivers, and the headaches of maintaining an airplane in traffic, at street-level, along with the complexity of flight, I don't see a market for such a thing. Better with a Bonanza and a rented Yugo.
 
This will be ready after Moellers flying contraption is in the market.....
 
Bobanna said:
All airplanes are compromises and everything has a price. What could extract a greater compromise than cross-breeding a car with an airplane? Given the current state of our pot-hole ridden roads, drunk or texting drivers, and the headaches of maintaining an airplane in traffic, at street-level, along with the complexity of flight, I don't see a market for such a thing. Better with a Bonanza and a rented Yugo.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Previous attempts have ended up with something that is not a very good car, and not a very good airplane either.
Airbus is getting distracted by these "science projects", including the electric trainer airplane. Interesting, but so far from the core business it has to be good news for Boeing.
 
Hank S said:
If they make enough "individual" flying cars, then congestion will simply move from the ground to the air. Unless they are priced similar to today's new aircraft, in which case there will so few that nothing will change. . .
Click to expand...
I have wondered about that, but then I think that rather than having ALL traffic at 0 AGL the traffic would be spread over more altitude levels. And not all traffic wold immediately lift off. I suspect it would be a gradual migration giving technology a chance to keep up. If I am not mistaken, the single largest cause of traffic accidents is human error. Computers are not nearly as unreliable as people. Except when they do screw up.

To err is human; to really screw things up quickly requires a computer.
 
There may be some logic to it.
Creating an autonomous ("self-driving") car is a difficult problem. It has to recognize and deal with constant changes such as the road being barricaded for construction with new signs that weren't there during yesterday's commute.
It's easier to automate a plane. Nothing to hit in transit as long as the computers keep them apart.
 
GRG55 said:
...It's easier to automate a plane. Nothing to hit in transit as long as the computers keep them apart.
Click to expand...
Except rotors, severe updrafts and downdrafts, inflight icing, severe turbulence, etc.
 
Palmpilot said:
Except rotors, severe updrafts and downdrafts, inflight icing, severe turbulence, etc.
Click to expand...
And, not to mention, landings are mandatory. Some nutcase commentator went off on how you could just land them anywhere in Santa Cruz, this morning. I suppose you could if you removed all the trees, light poles, overhead wires, and other obstacles. Good luck with that.
 
The only way I could see this happening is if the flying car was fully autonomous and knew to the foot where you were in all 3 dimensions and where everyone else was in all 3 dimensions that was an extremely accurate system and triple redundant.

Here is a good example, We were leaving the air space one day on a NW track at 1000ft MSL/AGL and we hear a Cessna announce they were like 10miles to the north on a straight in to Rwy 360. The Tower tells them about us and tells us about them, but we are almost clear of the rwy's extended center line by that point, so while we were looking around for helos the other Cessna wasn't the main aircraft to be on the lookout for. Then all of a sudden the other Cessna comes on the freq and all you can hear in the back ground is some type of collision avoidance system going off!!!! The dudes panicking because he can't see us, either the tower asked or he offered his altitude and it was like 1200 feet, I knew we were at 1000 because I just glanced down a second a go, so I held alt, then all of a sudden Mr. Cessna is trucking along in front of us and about 200 feet above us...:eek:

So, I get on the mic state traffic in sight and that we are under the traffic.:confused:

So...yeah I don't know about all this flying car stuff.
 
I believe that if you could make a 1-2 man ultralight frame with a quad-copter setup roughly the size of a parking space (or two), you might be able to tap the personal air transport market. I don't think it would supplant the traditional car due to weight and range limitations, but if you could get 45-60 mile range out of one, it might serve as a decent vehicle to get to/from work. No runway required, perhaps a dedicated landing zone at a shopping center or workplace, and simply push it into a parking space. VFR-only, and below 500AGL. Automation should be able to deal with an obstructions and such, and GPS mapping should be able to get it within a few meters of the landing zone while a camera could locate the landing zone for final adjustments to landing. You'd still need a vehicle to carry more than 2 people, but it could be the daily driver with a normal vehicle used for poor weather or higher-occupancy needs. Hell, make the system in the quad-copter search out the local METARs/weather and if it's at a specified wind/temp/precipitation limit it won't go. Charge at home, charge it at work if needed.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I believe that if you could make a 1-2 man ultralight frame with a quad-copter setup roughly the size of a parking space (or two), you might be able to tap the personal air transport market. I don't think it would supplant the traditional car due to weight and range limitations, but if you could get 45-60 mile range out of one, it might serve as a decent vehicle to get to/from work. No runway required, perhaps a dedicated landing zone at a shopping center or workplace, and simply push it into a parking space. VFR-only, and below 500AGL. Automation should be able to deal with an obstructions and such, and GPS mapping should be able to get it within a few meters of the landing zone while a camera could locate the landing zone for final adjustments to landing. You'd still need a vehicle to carry more than 2 people, but it could be the daily driver with a normal vehicle used for poor weather or higher-occupancy needs. Hell, make the system in the quad-copter search out the local METARs/weather and if it's at a specified wind/temp/precipitation limit it won't go. Charge at home, charge it at work if needed.
Click to expand...


What happens if you have an engine failure.
 
dell30rb said:
What happens if you have an engine failure.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is up to the design of the contraption isn't it? If you've got an octo-copter, is it capable of adjusting for the failure (i.e. the dreaded 7-motor approach)? If it's a quad-copter, maybe not as the thrust might be too asymmetric (I'm not an aerospace engineer). Perhaps a form of auto-rotation? If this is electrical-motor based, the modes of failure should be pretty small, and the failure rates, assuming not controller-related, would have to be near infinitesimal since electric motors have so few components/moveable parts.
 
dell30rb said:
What happens if you have an engine failure.
Click to expand...
The same thing that happens when an idiot in another car runs head-on into you. And I think the chances of mechanical failure are lower that the chance of operator error, so we woulld still be ahead of the game.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I believe that if you could make a 1-2 man ultralight frame with a quad-copter setup roughly the size of a parking space (or two), you might be able to tap the personal air transport market.
Click to expand...
Make it "fold up" similar to the Jetsons' car so it fits into a smaller parking space. It doesn't necessarily have to fit in a brief case though.
 
JOhnH said:
The same thing that happens when an idiot in another car runs head-on into you. And I think the chances of mechanical failure are lower that the chance of operator error, so we woulld still be ahead of the game.
Click to expand...

4 engines and 4 controllers to fail. No autorotating with fixed pitch blades. Believe me I have built a few of them and seen them flip over and crater!

Now a 6 or 8 motor version could survive a single engine failure and still fly or at least retain control.

I think the technology is probably available and you could build something electric and redundant enough to ferry one or two people around, short distances in relative safety. But at this point you might as well buy an R22. A multi-rotor big enough to do this will be just as large and loud as a Robinson.
 
Really the only advantage to a multi rotor is the ability to make a helicopter with cheap electric motors, fixed pitch props and controllers. I don't think you gain any performance.
 
I think the biggest hurdle turbulence, which will be pronounced in an aircraft skimming along an urban environmental a few hundred feet off the ground. Think about how much people complain about potholes... There simply isn't a practical way of reliably delivering a smooth ride, unless you have some type of elaborate ($$$, and heavy) electro-magnetic suspension system for the seats.
 
I think weather alone is enough to make it not practical.
 
I don't think weather matters...computers a sophisticated enough to analyse, and determine if a direction is safe or not..just takes someone to write the code.

I mean we as pilots look at the weather, determine a route, to go or not, why couldn't a computer?

"Here is a good example, We were leaving the air space one day on a NW track at 1000ft MSL/AGL and we hear a Cessna announce they were like 10miles to the north on a straight in to Rwy 360. The Tower tells them about us and tells us about them, but we are almost clear of the rwy's extended center line by that point, so while we were looking around for helos the other Cessna wasn't the main aircraft to be on the lookout for. Then all of a sudden the other Cessna comes on the freq and all you can hear in the back ground is some type of collision avoidance system going off!!!! The dudes panicking because he can't see us, either the tower asked or he offered his altitude and it was like 1200 feet, I knew we were at 1000 because I just glanced down a second a go, so I held alt, then all of a sudden Mr. Cessna is trucking along in front of us and about 200 feet above us..."

This would never happen in automated systems...sure you would get close but all aircraft would be talking to each other so it would be a nonfactor...kind of like that thing the FAA is switching over to..What's it called? O yea ADS-B.
 
Some times maybe.

I'm really sorry a computer can replace you.

And a computer can make better decisions.
 
Last edited:
Technology is very scary for alot of ludite pilots.

Have you ever let a old timer see a g1000 glass cockpit? It is practically witchcraft to them
 
Explorin said:
Some times maybe.

I'm really sorry a computer can replace you.

And a computer can make better decisions.
Click to expand...
How long have you been an engineer?

No, computers do not make better decisions. They do not have intuition. They can make simple, rote decisions. Just determining how fast to approach in gusty weather will be quite difficult. An experienced pilot does it by feel, not by ATIS an hour old.

For your example, what do you do if your ADSB system glitches or you lose GPS signal? Die?

Ever driven around an autonomous vehicle? They are not good drivers. FAR too skittish.
 
The flying car. The quintessential boondoggle. It sounds like such a great idea, yet is actually such a horrible idea if you think about it beyond a child like fascination level.

Anybody that would drive their airplane on a public road on a regular basis is a moron. Don't even get me started on leaving it parked in a public lot. and if you can't do these things, what use is it in the first place?

Imagine a vehicle that not only leaves you stranded hundreds of miles from home in a vehicle that makes a poor long range car, but that costs you $10,000 to fix when a shopping cart rolls into it. Sounds awesome to me.

Any vehicle strong enough to be a decent car, is going to suck as an airplane. Any vehicle that flies well is going to suck as a car. It's just physics.

I don't know about you, but I'm really looking forward to the day I have to have pay for FAA certified equipment and an A&P to replace my windshield wipers on my car.
 
Explorin said:
Technology is very scary for alot of ludite pilots.

Have you ever let a old timer see a g1000 glass cockpit? It is practically witchcraft to them
Click to expand...

"Ludite pilots"...now there's an oxymoron.
 
Here's another way to look at it.

Flying cars will still have to use air fields for takeoff and landing. There's no way you will be able to land on an interstate and certainly not downtown.

So please explain to me how a flying car that will be more expensive has any benefit whatsoever over flying a more efficient, faster aircraft with more range to the airport and then renting a nice luxury car that's safer, more comfortable and efficient and also has more range.

It's not ludditist to understand that the flying car is nothing but hype. It's naive to think it makes any sense at all. The only way it could possibly work is to revamp the entire transportation system overnight. For everyone. Everyone would have to stop driving non autonomous cars completely, and all roads would have to be reconstructed with no overhead signs, stoplights, power lines, etc.

It's pure fantasy.
 
Last edited:
When a flying car can be left in a Wal-Mart parking lot, we will have flying cars...
 
Explorin said:
I don't think weather matters...computers a sophisticated enough to analyse, and determine if a direction is safe or not..just takes someone to write the code.
Click to expand...

I assume that you've heard of the concept of "garbage in/garbage out." The problem is not lack of code, it's lack of dependable data. What I'm referring to here is the fact that the weather reporting system is not comprehensive enough to make all of the weather hazards known to the computer all of the time; not even close. And forecasts are even less dependable.

I mean we as pilots look at the weather, determine a route, to go or not, why couldn't a computer
Click to expand...

The go/no-go decision is only half the problem. The computer is also going to have to be continuously making real-time decisions about whether it's necessary to divert, and to where.

"Here is a good example, We were leaving the air space one day on a NW track at 1000ft MSL/AGL and we hear a Cessna announce they were like 10miles to the north on a straight in to Rwy 360. The Tower tells them about us and tells us about them, but we are almost clear of the rwy's extended center line by that point, so while we were looking around for helos the other Cessna wasn't the main aircraft to be on the lookout for. Then all of a sudden the other Cessna comes on the freq and all you can hear in the back ground is some type of collision avoidance system going off!!!! The dudes panicking because he can't see us, either the tower asked or he offered his altitude and it was like 1200 feet, I knew we were at 1000 because I just glanced down a second a go, so I held alt, then all of a sudden Mr. Cessna is trucking along in front of us and about 200 feet above us..."

This would never happen in automated systems...sure you would get close but all aircraft would be talking to each other so it would be a nonfactor...kind of like that thing the FAA is switching over to..What's it called? O yea ADS-B.
Click to expand...

Not all planes have electrical systems, let alone ADS-B. And electrical systems do fail occasionally.

Even if you assume universal equippage and assume that the equipment will be sufficiently reliable to make human pilots unnecessary, traffic avoidance is NOT a good example of what it would take to implement automated real-time hazardous weather avoidance.
 
Explorin said:
I'm really sorry a computer can replace you.
Click to expand...

There's no need to apologize; it's only a difference of opinion, after all. :)

And a computer can make better decisions.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, but don't forget that this computer, and its software, will be developed by fallible humans.

By the way, have you worked out how to make these autonomous aircraft affordable for individuals?
 
Explorin said:
Technology is very scary for alot of ludite pilots.
Click to expand...

Name-calling is not a good sales strategy.

Have you ever let a old timer see a g1000 glass cockpit? It is practically witchcraft to them
Click to expand...

I'm a semi-old timer, and I've been flying almost exclusively in a glass cockpit for a year and a half.
 
Regarding the ATIS: that's a simple solution. Have the ATIS broadcast digitally on a continuous basis (say once per minute) and use some averaging over several minutes to smooth out the data. It isn't hard to implement, it simply just hasn't been necessary for most pilots. If autonomous systems are being used, it would force a bit of clean up of data and an increase in the refresh rate.

Regarding takeoff/landing at airports, that's entirely dependent on the aerocar's design, right? If it uses a quad/octo-copter arrangement, then a simple landing pad would be sufficient. It could be solved by creating a designated area in a parking lot. Now, I'm not really including the "car" portion of it, because it would be pointless, imo, to have something like a manned-octocopter with capability like a helicopter, and use it on the roadways instead of just flying 100ft above the road (or direct-to). Eliminates a lot of potential damage that way.

I'm not saying it'll be simple, I'm just saying that there are solutions that are entirely achievable if it was given enough focus.
 
Palmpilot said:
Name-calling is not a good sales strategy.



I'm a semi-old timer, and I've been flying almost exclusively in a glass cockpit for a year and a half.
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially incorrect name calling.

I fly G1000 rather regularly. It's not magic. Actually, it's pretty bad interface engineering, much more complex than it needs to be. Especially rules about when it does what you tell it and when it doesn't (e.g., ALT SEL during VNAV or rules for automatic CDI switching at the FAF). It's vast overkill for any VFR operation, and moderate overkill for IFR.

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like Explorin is the one assuming G1000 is magic. It has a lot of ways to fail, and he can't have been flying one for very long if it hasn't tried to kill him. I've had the GFC700 wind off trim for me twice (once in each direction), and climb hard to intercept a GS over its head several times (KLVK ILS). One of the planes magically loses the terrain DB once in a while (that's gotta be fun for an "automatic" routing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top