The end of flying as we know it??

Sentences about the future that begin "There will never be . . . " rate high on my skeptical meter.

Self driving cars will force highways to be designed to better accomodate them. Self directing, flying vehicles and will force modification of airspace use.
 
tinerj said:
Sentences about the future that begin "There will never be . . . " rate high on my skeptical meter.

Self driving cars will force highways to be designed to better accomodate them. Self directing, flying vehicles and will force modification of airspace use.
Click to expand...

I think that's the saddest part of system automation: to reap the benefits we have to eliminate the odd corner cases that the automation can't handle. And our options are reduced that much every time.
 
Velocity173 said:
a bunch of stuff
Click to expand...
Yes, *this* thing has issues. Yes, all the other prototypes have issues.

So did the Wright Flyer.

We are in the infancy of this kind of transportation, but unlike GA, it's not going to take 40 years to evolve into something practical.

There's too much tech evolving, there's too much money in it and there's too much money to be made from it.

Maybe OP's "plane" will go bankrupt, maybe all the other start-ups will, too, but someone somewhere is going to become a billionaire off of this personal flying tech.

And anything else is just close-mindedness.
 
jimmyjack said:
2) And, like it or not, this is the future of aviation. POA may be an older, jaded, curmudgeon group, but this is the horse and buggy all over again. In ten years, the rich are going to have these toys en masse. In 20, most of us will have something similar to this.

Tech, in all fields, is advancing exponentially. We'll be in flying cars soon enough. Maybe not in my lifetime (though probably) but I'd bet the family fortune my daughter will be.


...

That's all fine, but all the horse-riding cowboys thought the same thing, too. "I don't want Anna-Belle and Lillian riding in those new fangled steam-burners with wheels."

But it's going to happen. In time, this will be what personal transit looks like.
Click to expand...

It’s not. Not until it can fly hundreds of miles without filling up. 20 miles at 20 MPH is useless.

And the automobile wasn’t new tech. It was around in conjunction with the horse until Henry Ford figured out two things, how to make more of them faster, and how to give people who didn’t qualify for ANY loans, personal loans.

His real “contribution” to America wasn’t cars. It was the “one hundred easy payments of only $19.95!” There wasn’t a farm kid or dad who wouldn’t love having a car, they couldn’t AFFORD it.

We’re well into being the most indebted first world people on the planet now, so there’s no pent up desire for toys like this one... anyone could get a loan to buy them, if they wanted to.

The horse and buggy argument never stands up to scrutiny of any sort. People always make it about tech, because tech marketing today is all we are steeped in, but ignore the economic argument. Henry Ford was a loan-making genius. Nobody made loans for vehicles back then.

He figured out that was the way to a personal fortune and knew he had to spread the risk of people not paying their car bills over a LOT of people for him to survive it. So he built a LOT of cars.

And of course we all know his phrase, “You can have it in any color, as long as its black.”
 
It's "issue" is physics. Never in our, or our kids lifetime is it going to make sense to schlep a power source into the sky that weighs as much empty as it does full. Drive it by 10 inefficient rotors that can be easily fail and be damaged, and you have a dangerous, physically limited, toy.
 
denverpilot said:
an essay about Henry Ford
Click to expand...
I never once mentioned Ford.


Salty said:
It's "issue" is physics. Never in our, or our kids lifetime is it going to make sense to schlep a power source into the sky that weighs as much empty as it does full. Drive it by 10 inefficient rotors that can be easily fail and be damaged, and you have a dangerous, physically limited, toy.
Click to expand...
Small quadcopters are already revolutionizing the photography, videography, hollywood industries. If you want more proof of such evolution, I can point you to the fact that the FAA had to create rules for the very same.

Bigger, human-carrying rotor systems are coming, whether you want them to and whether you believe in them or not. I don't know what the final product will look like any more than you, but they'll be here soon enough.

Again, nothing but closed-minds here.
 
jimmyjack said:
Small quadcopters are already revolutionizing the photography, videography, hollywood industries. If you want more proof of such evolution, I can point you to the fact that the FAA had to create rules for the very same.
Click to expand...
Oh, so I guess that's proof that they will also revolutionize virtually everything else also. No, actually it's not proof they will revolutionize anything other than those things.

Again, it's physics. Quadcopters won't be revolutionizing cold fusion or faster than light travel either. Sorry, nothing but rational, critical thinking minds here.
 
Salty said:
Again, it's physics. Quadcopters won't be revolutionizing cold fusion or faster than light travel either. Sorry, nothing but rational, critical thinking minds here.
Click to expand...
Okay, get back to me in 20 years and we'll see who was right.
 
jimmyjack said:
Yes, *this* thing has issues. Yes, all the other prototypes have issues.

So did the Wright Flyer.

We are in the infancy of this kind of transportation, but unlike GA, it's not going to take 40 years to evolve into something practical.

There's too much tech evolving, there's too much money in it and there's too much money to be made from it.

Maybe OP's "plane" will go bankrupt, maybe all the other start-ups will, too, but someone somewhere is going to become a billionaire off of this personal flying tech.

And anything else is just close-mindedness.
Click to expand...

There are physics limitations that exist now and will continue to exist in the future. That’s not closed minded, that’s just reality. Besides, what is to gain by this design over a tilt rotor or even a coaxial helicopter pusher? As if Bell and Sikorsky have no idea what they’ve been missing all along by not going with a quad design.

Fixed, Multi rotor aircraft work fine for a small scale application (photography) and for a single seat toy. They don’t make any sense for large manned aircraft that need to carry a load, fast and for long distances.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-quadcopter-design-so-great-for-small-drones/
 
Last edited:
jimmyjack said:
I never once mentioned Ford.
Click to expand...

Here let me remind you in your own snarky way...

Jimmyjack: Rant about horses and buggies and cars and people supposedly saying the car wouldn’t take over.

(Which isn’t true in automotive history, but it’s a common and stupid statement many use against Luddite behavior. Of course the fact that said arguers don’t even know the history of the automobile is always quite entertaining. They probably think reading history is too “old school” for them. Books. Ewww. The vast majority of people were quite excited by cars. They just couldn’t afford them.)

Where the hell do you think nearly ubiquitous car ownership came from, Sparky? Henry Ford. And personal loans. Something previously almost unheard of in American finance for large capital personal expenditures. Cars were a lovely tech almost nobody could afford because Americans bought things for cash back then.

Anyway...

Let us know what that 20 mile range, 20 MPH gadget costs when you start adding liability costs to it. I don’t think you’re going to find another Henry Ford sized risk taker who’ll be making those personal loans on the things. Aircraft have increased in price over five-fold with nothing but increased liability costs. Half a million bucks for a Cessna new. Most of us don’t fly new.

But if your “dream” comes true, you too can enjoy the ninnies saying you’re “dangerous” and you’re going to kill a schoolbus full of nuns flying your “contraption” just like the rest of us.

Your life insurance (for the most part and most underwriters) is already voided the second you climb on to one of those things. Check the fine print. Aviation related activity.

There’ll be a few widows and widowers who learn about that one the hard way.

It’s not luddites naysaying. It’s cogent people who know the basic economic math. Don’t pretend you’re talking to idiots. Everyone here has at LEAST a base knowledge of aerodynamics and flight physics. A number of us also know what aircraft cost to own and maintain.

You’re talking to people with honest negative points about these things you’re clearly enthusiastic about.

Go be a troll elsewhere and lecture some non-aviators, who’ll probably think you’re smart. The next Elon Musk, I’m sure. Have fun.
 
denverpilot said:
Here let me remind you in your own snarky way...

Jimmyjack: Rant about horses and buggies and cars and people supposedly saying the car wouldn’t take over.

(Which isn’t true in automotive history, but it’s a common and stupid statement many use against Luddite behavior. Of course the fact that said arguers don’t even know the history of the automobile is always quite entertaining. They probably think reading history is too “old school” for them. Books. Ewww. The vast majority of people were quite excited by cars. They just couldn’t afford them.)

Where the hell do you think nearly ubiquitous car ownership came from, Sparky? Henry Ford. And personal loans. Something previously almost unheard of in American finance for large capital personal expenditures. Cars were a lovely tech almost nobody could afford because Americans bought things for cash back then.

Anyway...

Let us know what that 20 mile range, 20 MPH gadget costs when you start adding liability costs to it. I don’t think you’re going to find another Henry Ford sized risk taker who’ll be making those personal loans on the things. Aircraft have increased in price over five-fold with nothing but increased liability costs. Half a million bucks for a Cessna new. Most of us don’t fly new.

But if your “dream” comes true, you too can enjoy the ninnies saying you’re “dangerous” and you’re going to kill a schoolbus full of nuns flying your “contraption” just like the rest of us.

Your life insurance (for the most part and most underwriters) is already voided the second you climb on to one of those things. Check the fine print. Aviation related activity.

There’ll be a few widows and widowers who learn about that one the hard way.

It’s not luddites naysaying. It’s cogent people who know the basic economic math. Don’t pretend you’re talking to idiots. Everyone here has at LEAST a base knowledge of aerodynamics and flight physics. A number of us also know what aircraft cost to own and maintain.

You’re talking to people with honest negative points about these things you’re clearly enthusiastic about.

Go be a troll elsewhere and lecture some non-aviators, who’ll probably think you’re smart. The next Elon Musk, I’m sure. Have fun.
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning Luddite. You're the Luddite, buddy.

I honestly cannot fathom how an aviation-minded functioning adult cannot see the writing on the wall. You're hiding behind excuse after excuse.

"The rotors are dangerous, they're at head level."

Yeah, this design. I'm sure it will be improved upon.

"Physics this, physics that."

The thing is already flying with 2018 technology. It's a prototype.

"It's good for 20 mph and 10 mins of flight time. Who the hell wants that?"

With 2018 battery tech. Also, it's a prototype.

If you want to see what early, early aircraft looked like, just take a look at Google Images.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=631&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=early+aircraft++++

This is, relatively, what you're making fun of. Of course it's comical to us now. It's 100 year old tech. You could even call them prototypes.

You can make fun of me allllllll you want. I couldn't care less what a bunch of short-sighted fools think when there are already dozens of companies with ingenuity and creativity at the wheel.

Here's an article I found, that you'll try to quickly dismiss, of world-changing inventions that were ridiculed, just like you're trying to do now:

http://www.businessinsider.com/inventions-that-were-ridiculed-2016-8#light-bulbs-1
  • light bulbs
  • literally airplanes themselves
  • computers
  • vaccines
 
Also, for some reason you're comparing me, or my thoughts at least, to Elon Musk? One of the most successful people in the world? You ridicule him, too? Yeah, solid burn there, fella.
 
jimmyjack said:
"Physics this, physics that."
Click to expand...
if you took the time to understand the issues rather than hand wave them you’d understand how funny you are.

You do realize there have been a dozen other prototypes over the last decade? Some were even designed better than this one and less limited. It’s actually a step backward.

But hey, I’m a Luddite that’s only been building electric helicopters for 15 years, so I’m obviously clueless about the modern technology.

Here’s a pic of me flying one about 10 years ago... yeah it’s inverted. I’m that awesome.
400B888C-71B4-4834-95A8-8C316B52CA54.jpeg
 
Last edited:
jimmyjack said:
You keep mentioning Luddite. You're the Luddite, buddy.

I honestly cannot fathom how an aviation-minded functioning adult cannot see the writing on the wall. You're hiding behind excuse after excuse.

"The rotors are dangerous, they're at head level."

Yeah, this design. I'm sure it will be improved upon.

"Physics this, physics that."

The thing is already flying with 2018 technology. It's a prototype.

"It's good for 20 mph and 10 mins of flight time. Who the hell wants that?"

With 2018 battery tech. Also, it's a prototype.

If you want to see what early, early aircraft looked like, just take a look at Google Images.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=631&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=early+aircraft++++

This is, relatively, what you're making fun of. Of course it's comical to us now. It's 100 year old tech. You could even call them prototypes.

You can make fun of me allllllll you want. I couldn't care less what a bunch of short-sighted fools think when there are already dozens of companies with ingenuity and creativity at the wheel.

Here's an article I found, that you'll try to quickly dismiss, of world-changing inventions that were ridiculed, just like you're trying to do now:

http://www.businessinsider.com/inventions-that-were-ridiculed-2016-8#light-bulbs-1
  • light bulbs
  • literally airplanes themselves
  • computers
  • vaccines
Click to expand...
Where’s the wireless lightbulb that turns on at voice command and never needs maintenance ?
Where’s my flyingf car that goes Mach 7?
Where’s the sciencient autonomous computer like HAL?
Wheres the vaccine for cancer?

Your examples are not proof that anything you wish can happen will within your lifetime just because you want them too.
 
jimmyjack said:
You keep mentioning Luddite. You're the Luddite, buddy.

I honestly cannot fathom how an aviation-minded functioning adult cannot see the writing on the wall. You're hiding behind excuse after excuse.

"The rotors are dangerous, they're at head level."

Yeah, this design. I'm sure it will be improved upon.

"Physics this, physics that."

The thing is already flying with 2018 technology. It's a prototype.

"It's good for 20 mph and 10 mins of flight time. Who the hell wants that?"

With 2018 battery tech. Also, it's a prototype.

If you want to see what early, early aircraft looked like, just take a look at Google Images.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=631&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=early+aircraft++++

This is, relatively, what you're making fun of. Of course it's comical to us now. It's 100 year old tech. You could even call them prototypes.

You can make fun of me allllllll you want. I couldn't care less what a bunch of short-sighted fools think when there are already dozens of companies with ingenuity and creativity at the wheel.

Here's an article I found, that you'll try to quickly dismiss, of world-changing inventions that were ridiculed, just like you're trying to do now:

http://www.businessinsider.com/inventions-that-were-ridiculed-2016-8#light-bulbs-1
  • light bulbs
  • literally airplanes themselves
  • computers
  • vaccines
Click to expand...

I didn’t say the majority of those things to you.

I’m not having a childish discussion with a troll who can’t even address the correct specific people and points they made.

You can’t even keep the reasonable criticisms of your broken logic and who said them straight. Guess who will probably not be too interested in a completely disorganized person’s business predictions. Everyone.

But I’m sure you’d make a great investor in a people carrying drone business. Plunk down your money and put it where your mouth is. I’m sure with your deep knowledge you’ll be fine.

See ya.
 
Man, I hope POA still exists in 20-30 years so I can laugh in all your faces.
 
jimmyjack said:
Man, I hope POA still exists in 20-30 years so I can laugh in all your faces.
Click to expand...
Will you be able to Fly one of these in a dome on mars? Where you will have escaped our poisoned atmosphere to the wonderful domed habitats under the even more toxic Martian sky. Because building a habitat here instead of on another planet will just be impossible, but flying cars won’t.
 
jimmyjack said:
Man, I hope POA still exists in 20-30 years so I can laugh in all your faces.
Click to expand...

Laugh at what? Specifically, what advantages will this design have in the future for manned aircraft?

Your logic is, we’ll it looks different, therefore it has to be better than what exists today. No, it’s just different. It has pros and cons just like any design and if you would’ve read the article I attached, large multirotor aircraft have some serious drawbacks.

No one here is saying that this isn’t a cool toy. If you are bored with your C172 (I would be too), then go out and spend 4 times the money for a single seat toy that won’t fly very fast, go very far, or haul anything. This really is nothing more than a flying jet ski.
 
Salty said:
Will you be able to Fly one of these in a dome on mars? Where you will have escaped our poisoned atmosphere to the wonderful domed habitats under the even more toxic Martian sky. Because building a habitat here instead of on another planet will just be impossible, but flying cars won’t.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?
Velocity173 said:
Your logic is, we’ll it looks different, therefore it has to be better than what exists today.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly my logic, thanks.
Velocity173 said:
No one here is saying that this isn’t a cool toy. ....then go out and spend 4 times the money for a single seat toy that won’t fly very fast, go very far, or haul anything. This really is nothing more than a flying jet ski.
Click to expand...
Prototypes. Why are ALL of you so absolutely set in stone that what you see in that article is what the finished product is going to be? Can NONE of you really imagine the future? My god.
 
1903: 12 seconds, 120 ft, Wright Brothers.
1923: Lieutenants John Arthur MacReady and Oakley G. Kelly fly nonsrop from New York, to California. 2,800 miles in 27 hours in a Fokker T-2.

In 20 years, an aerial vehicle descended from start ups making their appearance today will do as well.

Slow, old fashioned gas-guzzling, vintage airplanes with their high cost, limited visibility and high maintenance will be fighting to have a section of the sky to call their own.

Electric motor = 40,000 hrs between failure.
Gasoline engine = 3,000 hrs between failure
 
jimmyjack said:
What the hell are you talking about?
Yes, that is exactly my logic, thanks.

Prototypes. Why are ALL of you so absolutely set in stone that what you see in that article is what the finished product is going to be? Can NONE of you really imagine the future? My god.
Click to expand...
Here’s a prototype not all that different but from 60 years ago. I’m sure someone was saying in 20 years they’ll be one in every garage.

Intended to be operated by inexperienced pilots with a minimum of 20 minutes of instruction
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle
 
tinerj said:
Electric motor = 40,000 hrs between failure.
Gasoline engine = 3,000 hrs between failure
Click to expand...

Conveniently skipped turbine engines there, eh?

Electric Motor Ocean Crossing: Learn to swim.
Turbine Engine Ocean Crossing: ETOPS is so 1990.

Chemistry is a *****. Weight to energy, nothing beats petrochemicals on fire.
 
I’ve watched these man carrying drones with some interest because while small drones have made revolutionary strides as photography platforms the cameras are mounted on three axis gimbals. The actual stability of the aircraft itself is nothing like what you see on film and I can only imagine how terrifying it would be to ride on one. Even if you could get past the terror it would be extremely annoying as they are constantly making corrections in order to stay aloft.
 
tinerj said:
1903: 12 seconds, 120 ft, Wright Brothers.
1923: Lieutenants John Arthur MacReady and Oakley G. Kelly fly nonsrop from New York, to California. 2,800 miles in 27 hours in a Fokker T-2.

In 20 years, an aerial vehicle descended from start ups making their appearance today will do as well.

Slow, old fashioned gas-guzzling, vintage airplanes with their high cost, limited visibility and high maintenance will be fighting to have a section of the sky to call their own.

Electric motor = 40,000 hrs between failure.
Gasoline engine = 3,000 hrs between failure
Click to expand...

And again, just because it’s different doesn’t mean it’s better. High cost and slow huh? Try 300 grand to lift a whopping 320 lbs and go 43 mph for 17 miles. Wow! The future looks so bright for multi rotor transportation for the masses.

https://www.volocopter.com/en/product/

This thread reminds me of the Solar Impulse documentary on PBS a few months back. I thought, neat, this thing flew around the world non stop. Nope, it took 16 months for this huge aircraft to lift one person to go around the world at a blazing 30 kts. One of the engineers said we’ll have airliners powered by solar in 10 (now 8) years...I’m anxiously awaiting this.
:rolleyes:

Also, it’s not the failure of the motor I’m concerned about. I’m a Volt owner and I can tell you there are a crap load of owners that have been stranded on the side of the road because of battery failure.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Conveniently skipped turbine engines there, eh?

Electric Motor Ocean Crossing: Learn to swim.
Turbine Engine Ocean Crossing: ETOPS is so 1990.

Chemistry is a *****. Weight to energy, nothing beats petrochemicals on fire.
Click to expand...


Surely you're forgetting that battery density is going to quadruple. Soon. Everyone says so, it must be true.
 
I know there are guys on the board older than I am, and I know they can add a deeper dive into the history of all this.

For the 69 years I have been walking around, we have been promised a cure for cancer, a cure for the common cold, and a "flying car".
I'm still waiting.
The last disease there was an actual cure for was Polio, back in 1954. I remember it well because it didn't arrive in Peekskill, NY until 1955. Six months too late for the two kids in my class and a few dozen others who died in Peekskill while waiting for the vaccine to arrive.
BTW: Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the cure part. Not "treatment", actual cure.
I am a bit of an optimist (sucker) about the flying car bit, though. I keep a space clear in my driveway where I can park it when it finally arrives.
I'll bet my great-grandchildren will be able to make the same post when they hit 69 years of aggravated age.
 
Shepherd said:
I know there are guys on the board older than I am, and I know they can add a deeper dive into the history of all this.

For the 69 years I have been walking around, we have been promised a cure for cancer, a cure for the common cold, and a "flying car".
I'm still waiting.
The last disease there was an actual cure for was Polio, back in 1954. I remember it well because it didn't arrive in Peekskill, NY until 1955. Six months too late for the two kids in my class and a few dozen others who died in Peekskill while waiting for the vaccine to arrive.
BTW: Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the cure part. Not "treatment", actual cure.
I am a bit of an optimist (sucker) about the flying car bit, though. I keep a space clear in my driveway where I can park it when it finally arrives.
I'll bet my great-grandchildren will be able to make the same post when they hit 69 years of aggravated age.
Click to expand...

If you want to randomly switch topics like this, I can counter that I know of two recent vaccines (okay, not cures, but I'll take a vaccine over a cure anyhow) developed in recent memory. HPV and Shingles. I don't follow this stuff, it's just headline information, so I have no idea how much more advancements there have been.
 
jimmyjack said:
Nothing beats hay, grass and water. And the occasional carrot.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Fossil fuels do. See how that works? Actually comparing actual capabilities.
 
Salty said:
Wrong. Fossil fuels do. See how that works? Actually comparing actual capabilities.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if technology evolved to compete and replace antiquated products.
 
That looks like a lot of fun. I wonder if it has a hover mode? Fish from it and have freshly filleted fish after yanking it up through the spinning slicers.
 
Knowing what I know about the Osprey, I have a high level of confidence quadcopters ain't helping aviation progress one bit lol. Arguing different=better is circular reasoning, possibly trolling.
 
Tech advances slooooow. Very Slooooow. I'm old enough to know, nearing retirement from IT. "Cloud" ain't new, just the name is. . . AI precedes my college graduation, deep in the last century; software development? Wake up a developer from a 20 year nap, he'll be productive in a month. Autonomous vehicles been in-work for decades. Pretty much nothing advances in tech "exponentially" - it just jumps out when a clever lad/lass does some "applied science" with pieces already in place (or nearly so). Internet, cell-phones - applied science and not exactly "new" for quite a few decades; much faster network speeds, sure thing, but also taking decades to advance. I think we advanbce the use of already extant tech quickly sometimes, like Uber or Google Earth or WiFi, and that garners attention - but the underlying tech took a long while to blossom. Heck, Amazon spent a good part of two decades as an efficient money loosing endeavor. Not exactly an overnight phenomena.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Knowing what I know about the Osprey, I have a high level of confidence quadcopters ain't helping aviation progress one bit lol. Arguing different=better is circular reasoning, possibly trolling.
Click to expand...

Next time any of you are taking off on 8/26 at ABQ, take a look at the Kirtland ramp where the V-22s are parked. It appears a couple drums of hydraulic fluid have leaked out of each engine onto the concrete.
 
jimmyjack said:
It's almost as if technology evolved to compete and replace antiquated products.
Click to expand...

You're arguing with the same smug , closed minded old farts who are also convinced that electric cars will never happen. No point trying to debate with that lot, all you get is the old "this is the way we've always done it and by gawd it simply can't be beat" rubbish.
 
Lol! Some of you have anger issues. Personal attacks really necessary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top