Re: Eeeek!
Or: OOOK! as the librarian warns you not to land on the dome of the library.
Not long ago the famous Massachusetts startup Terrafugia caused something of a stir by releasing details of a new electric hybrid flying-car design, the TF-X - though the company is now very late in delivering even its less-radical Transition design. The Terrafugia Transition in flight tests accompanied by chase plane …
Nobody wants a flying car except a few rich gullible Americans who are too fat and lazy to get out of their air-conditioned car and hump their carcass the 20 feet to their PPL, Helicopter or business jet. Until somebody invents cheap gravity neutralisation we will just have to get along with normal cars. As for flying the plane/car you will still need a pilots license so not likely to get too many untrained pilots up there. 4D manoeuvres are those where you aim to be at a certain 3D point at a particular time. It's not easy at all. Most car drivers struggle to remember to KEEP LEFT on motorways, let alone keep track of traffic around them in 3 dimensions. Even if they do come up with aircars for the masses, they will HAVE to be computer controlled. No way in hell I would get in one otherwise.
4D routes?
That's funny...because when I program a route into the GPS, I always arrive within a minute of the ETA. And I alway keep left on our UK motorways. It's recommended in my Audi user manual I'm sure, if I ever chose to read it.
<-- observe before pressing red button.
Gas Turbines, a flat twelve of some description (everyone loves a flat twelve, and anyone who doesn't is a TRAITOR), and, quite specifically given the design of the intake plenum chambers, an LSx Corvette engine.
I do hope that's what they wanted, rather than it being the only model they could find in Autodesk.
Steven R
Hmmm, most people drive pretty poorly to start with, and are REALLY out of their depth (so to speak) when trying to do something like sail a boat. I have had 40' sailboats slam into my boat while at anchor in broad daylight in open water. Given how many poor sailors there are in the water, I cringe at the thought of people with the same training (or lack thereof) taking to the skies - things get very, very messy when there are no marked roadways or lines, and you have to rely upon personal judgement and spacial awareness - many people seem to lack one or the other.
On another note, will these things have Breathalyzer interlocks to prevent drunken flying? I can't see a patrolman stopping a pilot in mid-air, and given that you can land a Transition nearly anywhere they will be hard to audit. But how long will it be before the first drunken Transition pilot slams into a housing development, or a skyscraper even?
In making claims of the vertical take-off vehicle, they're probably assuming better batteries in the next 8-10 years, with a significantly higher capacity per kg.
Don't worry, the great unwashed will never buy these puppies and invade "your" airspace en masse. Beyond the issue of plunking down $200K to buy one, most of us probably won't be able to afford the gas to run it either.
Autogyros is where cheap, mass-market aviation is heading. Besides being inherently safe and easy to fly, they can do VSTOL or even VTOL. The fact that they don't have wings makes it much easier to take them on the road. The rotor on the Artur Trendak Zen (formerly Celier Xenon) assembles/disassembles in 20 minutes. Of course, would be nice if it just folded, which isn't far fetched.
Of course, the Zen can't directly drive its tiny wheels for moving on the highway, but if making a roadable aircaft or flying car, I'd surely go this route.
I still have no idea why battery - motor - generator / IC engine hybrid vehicles are seriously proposed, except to get the hybrid buzzword into investment proposals.
A bigger generator, high power electronic control circuitry, motors, heavy duty wiring, battery weight, all add up to a huge weight addition in comparison to adding a couple of extra cylinders to an IC engine, or a slightly larger gas turbine.
Gas turbines are not fuel efficient, in fact they are the opposite, but they weigh so little compared to their power output, that they are popular on aircraft.
You do realise that many (most?) diesel rail locomotives are diesel electrics, ie. Big diesel generator and electric motors.
Its a very efficient design as you can design a motor to operate at a specific output very efficiently. For cars store the excess power (in a few smaller batteries) while cruising for when lots of power is needed and charge them at other times. Current hybrids are a joke though, your right there, putting an electric motor on the other side of a drive train, talk about needless losses!
Hate to burst your bubble, but while locomotive serial electric transmissions are quite efficient for serial electric transmissions, they are not more efficient than a manual gearbox, a double clutched computer shifted non-slushbox auto, and possibly even late model slushboxes.
Locomotive electric transmissions are about 85% efficient from the shaft of the diesel to the wheels (this excludes a maximum of about 50% efficiency in current medium speed diesels). A manual gearbox is 96 to 99% efficient. The only reason locomotives use the serial electric transmission design is that you can handle much larger amounts of power than a gearbox can reliably for the size constraints of a locomotive. Imagine trying to pop the clutch on not just one 4500HP engine, but 3 of them, maintain wheel slip below 10%, and start a 150 car coal train. That is un-possible :)
However, take a 4500HP mechanical input, convert it to 3-phase AC, rectify it, feed that through a computer controlled 3-phase inverter, or PWM modulator for DC locos, and a computer can quite easily do the hard parts for you, including making sure the government enviro-nannies are happy about the soot output of the diesel turning the alternator.
Even manually controlling such a getup is possible.
This post has been deleted by its author
Nice analysis by Lewis of why the TF-X (probably) won't work if batteries are used to provide the take-off grunt: the batteries are very heavy.
Which begs the question: why are batteries needed when there is already another power source on board? The internal combustion engine (ICE) can be used to provide the juice for the take-off rotors. The only reason why the ICE is not driving the rotors directly is because the mechanical linkages would be too complex, so it makes sense for the ICE to run a generator and have 'leccy motors for the rotors (this is a similar arrangement to diesel-electric trains, as someone already pointed out). No heavy batteries mean the numbers now add up and the concept is feasible (noise and downwash notwithstanding).
p.s. I want a flying car, and I want it now!
``Highly reliable robotic takeoff, landing, cruise flight and traffic control certainly isn't a dream - the problems are actually easier than robotic ground cars, and they have pretty much been solved already.''
Sure, for objects separated by miles horizontally and thousands of feet vertically.
But that's not the situation for a genuine flying car. Take the road populace of New York City, elevate it all to a variety of altitudes, and watch your autopilots have nervous breakdowns. A population of flying cars in numbers comparable to what we have on the ground is such a difference in degree as to become a difference in kind. Ask any programmer scaling up a program from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of instances.
Forget about the vertical take-off/landing nonsense - it is not necessary as well as technologically impractical and hideously expensive.
There are small personal flying machines that can take off and land in as little as 6 metres - as small as your average lounge room, have a useful ceiling for commuters and good rate of climb: powered paragliders. And there are even electric-powered paragliders, which are reasonably quiet.
As a paraglider pilot, it is possible to fly these low-speed machines in reasonably tight gaggles and formations which suggest some sort of airborne analogy of "thoroughfares" and "traffic rules" might work. Even better, these things glide reasonably well and are even able to survive (continue flying) and land safely in very small spaces with some pretty serious malfunctions in the "airframe (canopy). Their low flying speed implies a collision with the ground is usually survivable and the pilot is even equipped with a reserve parachute, for emergencies - more than can be said for most light aircraft.
That the use of powered ultra-lights, hang-gliders and paragliders is forbidden over large urban areas should give you landlubbers a clue: large numbers of flying machines over urban areas is a really, really bad idea.