Flying Cars

December 14, 2007

Imagine being able to get in your car and soar like George Jetson over the traffic jam on the highway, and then touch down at your destination in a fraction of  the time it normally takes to drive. Tantalizing, huh? Call it a flying car or a roadable aircraft, but either way, it’s an idea that’s been floating around — no pun intended — since aviation pioneer Waldo Waterman built the Aerobile, the first vehicle that demonstrated the ability to both drive and fly, in 1937.  (Two Aerobiles actually managed to successfully fly from California to Ohio, though a third had to turn around when it got to Arizona.) As the explosive growth of the suburbs in the 1950s increased commuting distances, Ford Motor Co. did a study and determined that not only could flying cars be manufactured economically, but that there was a lucrative potential market for them. However, the idea met stiff opposition from the Federal Aviation Administration, which envisioned tens of thousands of small aircraft wreaking havoc with the national air traffic control system. (It probably didn’t help that the AVE Mizar, an after-market cross between a Cessna Skymaster and a Ford Pinto, crashed in 1973, killing the pilot and the vehicle’s developer.)

Nevertheless, the idea of putting automobiles in the air refuses to go away. There’s an online publication, Roadable Times, devoted to the subject, and in recent years, more than a half dozen companies have developed designs and scale models for flying cars. Moller International has tested a prototype of its rotary engine-powered, vertical-takeoff Moller M400 Skycar, though so far only while attached to a safety tether that the company says is required by its insurance carrier. Meanwhile, Woburn, Mass.-based Terrafugia has flown a one-fifth scale model of the Transition, a small aircraft designed to fold its wings and drive off an airport runway onto the highway. Such a roadable aircraft might fit into the concept of Personal Air Vehicles envisioned by a 2003 National Aeronautics and Space Administration white paper, which suggests small self-operated planes as an alternative to driving on congested freeways for trips of 100 to 500 miles.

The potential advantages of flying cars are fairly obvious. But creating a practical flying car isn’t going to be easy. As the NASA paper notes, “the ability for these vehicles to satisfy higher speed DOT [Dept. of Transportation] highway and crash tests, high-speed gust tolerance while maintaining lane clearance, lightweight suspension and wheels, and failsafe yet simple wing and tail folding systems are significant challenges.” Beyond that, safeguards would be needed to airborne drivers from crashing into each other or buildings accidentally (or on purpose, as terrorists have been known to do). Are the risks worth it? Offer your opinion below.

Comments

[Mothra]

I would love to have a flying car, especially on the Washington beltway. I'd like it to be small, though--more like a jetpack or a flying scooter with a little place to carry a bag of groceries. I guess there would have to be special training to use one, though. What about a flying bumper car? That way, if you smashed into something, it wouldn't matter.

[Geeksquad]

Wait until a flying SUV full of drunk teenagers crashes into your house. This is an example of a great technology that people just don't have the common sense to use safely.

[Tirebiter]

I think it depends on what sort of flying cars are available. A vertical lift-off car like Moller is building makes the most sense, because you could take off from a parking lot instead of having to find an airport. It definitely would be important to train driver-pilots more carefully than we train drivers today.

[Bruce Calkins]

I believe there are two issues when we talk about deploying PAV. First is the technical capabilities of the aircraft, and second, is the interaction of the aircraft with whatever ATC is in place at the time. When (if?) the Moller Skycar first comes out it will be used as a hybrid helicopter/aircraft, and have to comply with all the same rules that those aircraft currently have to work under. (continued)

[Bruce Calkins]

...But it is projected to have some very attractive capabilities, like take off and land from community-based helistops and land at the same, have a useful range of 600+ miles and top speed of over 300 kts. These features offer the tempting thought that lots of people will want to use them for personal travel, and if that is true, then volume could be high enough to drive the cost per unit into the affordable range for many commuters. That's when things will get interesting, because if air traffic density gets higher than the FAA can handle it will drive them towards some of the ideas currently being proposed in the FAA's NextGen ATC and perhaps beyond. What the Skycar and other PAV will need though is a system that allows them to become fully automatic--this will require both a new national ATC infrastructure and on-board systems to work at the level that will be reliable and safe for truly automatic air travel. I know some of the readers are going to say that they would never trust a computer to fly them around, but let's face it...you do that everytime you get on a commercial airliner now. Automated PAV will just be an implementation of this same technology.

[Patrick]

Bruce Calkins is the general manager of Moller International, maker of the Moller M400 Skycar (you can find out more about it at www.moller.com).

[Daniel Klaisner]

To start off i just want to say to Bruce you are a genius. Your skycar i belive will be what people are driving around in the future. Also having a computer driving me and everyone else around is a lot more comfortable then having people flying around. Computers are not prone to our human errors and navigate a lot more efficiantly than the human mind. Also i dont think a computer can get drunk so thats reasuring. Im looking forward to seeing the first skycar in the air and i hope to own one of my own in the future.

[Chauncey]

Hey, where can I buy one of those Moller Skycars? Not only does it fly, but it's a really stylish-looking ride as well.

[Dean Hollingsworth]

A flying car has always been a very cool idea. However, personally I think it's a bad idea considering the practicalities. It would be foolish to sell such a vehicle to just any Joe Q citizen. Extended, specialized training would be required. Unless, of course, there is an automated system in place so that the "pilot" just sits there and enjoys the ride. That's a whole other story. Think about all the bad drivers you see on the road. Do you really want to see these people going 350 mph thousands of feet up in the air... and over your house? I don't. This may all come to pass, but only for the elite. At first. Then they'll test it all out on the general public. After a series of sensationalized accidents, it's back to elite-status.
If they concentrate on an automated system/infrastructure though, it's only a matter of time.

[Generic Viagra]

A regulation to fliying car its near impossible to do. That idea will not work even with a millions o dollar for back up.

[After Menopause]

Regulated these fliying cars is almost impossible so is not a good idea ..

[Online Pharmacy]

With improvements, flying cars use can be regulated very well.

[Viagra]

definitively isn't a good idea use this devices.

[Rheumatoid Arthritis]

I think that is a good idea, thanks for sharing the information.

[Symptom Of Depression]

I dream of air cars but we know that's impossible.

[Yeast Infection]

Fliying cars ? what a waste of time. just another stupid dream of our humankind.

[Get Viagra]

I want one of those nice flaying cars