2018

um no sweetie. your just retarded.

Attached: drone.png (1033x718, 315K)

recently tested

Attached: _102495938_whatsubject.jpg (624x351, 18K)

also Moller has been at this a while

Attached: a3dadd2e2dcc9ddc026920198e1f2fa9--flying-car-flying-saucer.jpg (474x246, 22K)

Flying cars aren't practical because of fuel consumption and the necessarily far higher maintenance requirements. If you break down on the highway you get a tow. Break down in the sky and you're fucked. There are airframe parachute systems but the vehicle is still totaled and whatever you hit isn't going to have a good time. Then there's piloting. Unless the system is totally autonomous (completely sci-fi technology still) I wouldn't trust random assholes to fly even with heavy computer assistance.

>i would trust the average person to pilot a jet

Attached: flat 900x900 070 f.u1.jpg (900x900, 73K)

The problem is that people are stupid

You could literally attach wings to a car and it would werk for most small cars, having runways around the city were you could install your wing, but fucking hell, people can barely drive in the road and do you think they will behave in the air?

It just needs to be autonomous with preprogrammed routes and flight paths. It would literally only take a Google Maps with AI, an Uber like app and a smartphone interface.
>I want to go here smartphone app
>calculating
>ok wait 15 minutes and get in the car human
>15 minutes later human is sitting in car ready to go
>vwooosh car takes off on predetermined route already aware of other cars traveling through the area
>lands at destination

its on the verge of happening, tesla and some other big companies are putting alot of their money toward flying personal vehicles.

It was on the news this mroing

Attached: flying car.jpg (1080x1726, 221K)

I dont trust people driving in 2d, why would they be any better in 3d?

Explain why pilots still exist in 2018 sweetie?

Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Its not like cars don't malfunction, crash and seriously injure or kill their occupants some times. The hazard could be minimized enough to not be that much of an issue. Just kep the cars low to the ground. Its not like a flying car needs to be higher then 20' on average. Also safety technology could be innovated beyond seat belts and air bags easily enough. There is a ton of tech in auto racing right now that could be applied to flying cars.
youtube.com/watch?v=RnyhkBU1yaw

Because they are flying planes sweetie. This conversation is about flying cars though. They will be more like drones. Try and keep up.

Attached: drn.png (1109x813, 845K)

Because 100% autonomous flying doesn't exist yet, and so pilots need to be there for for emergencies. I think pilots only do take off/landing. The actual flying is auto-pilot.

>We have cars that do the job just fine and are extremely efficient for what they are, but waah my future promise!
You totally ignored the part where aircraft are 10x cost to fuel and maintain. And that's for fixed wing. Rotary wing are a fucking nightmare of costs and a LOT of money has been dumped into making them cheaper. Aviation is hard. Fucking deal with it.

If you tried to fly a drone you already know why flying cars are not that easy.

Why do you hate the future so much?

A successful technological society isn't possible in today's climate. People are too concerned with keeping worthless people alive and shoving unskilled workers into fields because they have brown skin. This future will never be realized without a majority white and Asian world. We chose niggers over innovation.

Aircraft technology is in general not consumer friendly. Extremely high prioritization of weight, unless you buy a flying bus all for yourself your can forget about comfort and convenience. Extremely high requirements for pilot skill, flying a plane without crashing ain't easy - most people can't do the GTA helicopter mission with all the pilot assist and cartoon physics, nevermind flying a real aircraft. Extremely expensive because of the engineering and materials involved, the scrutiny of airplane safety procedures is second only to that of spacecraft and that too puts big financial burden. Also extremely low fuel economy inherent to all heavier than air flying ships, especially VTOL, due to having to overcome the force of gravity, on top of having to overcome huge frontal drag at such high speeds. Finally, requirement to have a runway near your house for aircraft to be viable as a personal everyday transport, and that just never gonna happen, no one will put up with airplanes zooming in and out around the clock near their apartments - there's a reason why land around airports is devoid of housing.

that's because batteries are still in the stone age as well as energy production

Sealed batteries will never go out of stone age, lithium metal batteries is as good as it gets, and that's still total fucking shit in terms of energy density. Your best bet is hydrogen-air batteries, aka fuel cells. That's still low compared to oil but at least it's better than rechargeable batteries and you do away with the complex machinery to extract the energy.

I don't. What I hate is that technological advance has been optimized towards hedonsim. Flying cars are a retarded impractical concept that söy bois love because "so cool, I fucking love science! We can do it bros!". But what do they actually do for us? Put a bunch of retards who can't manage 2D into 3D? Fucking wonderful. It's just goddamn wasteful. You want to fly? Awesome! Go learn how to pilot an ultralight. It's not hard and renting one isn't expensive.

Actually the aluminium-air batteries have better energy density but that won't be economical, as it's cheaper to produce new aluminium than recover it from spent battery. And that crap is pretty fucking expensive.

>implying a bunch of gobbledy goopcan't be overcome with recent innovations in AI and a small increase in engine efficiency
>implying flying cars need a runway
Get with the times grandpa

Attached: dronerafts-waterstrider-awesome-Accessory-For-Landing-Take-Off-On-Water-Snow-And-Other-Difficult-Ter (371x209, 1.74M)

Why are you so angry at the world luddite?

>Having realistic expectations is being a luddite
Okay enjoy your flying car in 2087. I'll be over here having fun with a paramotor that works with existing technology and that's being incrementally improved on.

Have you seen how the average joe drives? Imagine them flying.

Because thankfully humanity has realized personal transportation is a retarded idea that leads to suburban sprawl, and cities with a healthy mass transit system with large pedestrian walkways are superior. There is simply little need for a flying car.

Does having every Tom, Dick and Harry own a helicopter sound dangerous and expensive? Yes? Then why do you think a flying car would be any different?

Why do drone pilots exist in 2018 then sweetie?

As long as energy isn't almost free and can't be stored with a much higher density it won't happen. Why?
Flying takes significantly more energy than rolling.
To roll you need energy for the acceleration and to counter air and rolling resistance.
To fly you need to additionally counter fucking gravity so it costs an incredible amount of energy which A would be expensive and B can't be fucking stored.

Planes are vehicles substantially heavier than people. They carry people and when they crash they kill people and destroy the things they hit.
Drones (of that variety) are vehicles lighter than people. They carry replaceable goods not people and when they crash they just break because they're plastic.
Which one of these does a flying car sound more like?

Fully autonomous drones don't need pilots sweetie

It doesn't matter. According to persons in this thread people are idiots so they don't really matter much. If some of them die horribly in the the early years of flying cars becoming mainstream its not a big deal. For example: The use of seat belts in cars wasn't mandatory for like 100 years after the car was invented. Air bags took longer. Helmets on motorcyclists weren't required for close to 100 years as well. Shit loads of people were seriously injured or killed in accidents from lack of safety devices for those 100 years. Don't tell me it matters if for 100 of the first years of flying cars a bunch of persons doomed to die anyway get wiped out by falling out of the sky.

It's not just the people in the cars dying, it's the potential for a vehicle that is faster, carrying more fuel and airborne to destroy people and property that aren't even using flying cars. And yes that potential exists with regular cars as well but it simply isn't comparable. The places where people drive at high speed are typically extremely isolated from where people live and work and have crash barriers, steep slopes and such like to prevent the cars from going too far if they go out of control.

You're also completely missing the point. Helicopters are the closest thing to a flying car at the moment and they are substantially more dangerous than cars. Even if you say people don't matter we've still got a problem. Helicopters are substantially more dangerous than cars AFTER they have been built it a much higher standard, flown by trained professionals and maintained extremely well. If you bring a helicopter down into the price, competence and convenience range of the normal person the accident rate will go through the roof. What was just "Oh some stupid people will die" becomes complete and utter carnage. Expensive carnage to boot as you're not getting around the fact that it consumes substantially more energy than a car.

>blah blah blah I am not listening blah blah blah
just stfu. your not contributing anything to the conversation because you are shouting from a viewpoint located in Saigon around 1970. Technology has changed granpa. AI is a thing now. Stabilization systems exist. No one is talking about Korean War era technology in this thread.

Would like to also point out all the technological dangers and hurdles needed to be dealt with to use a mostly autonomous to completely autonomous flying car are every bit as challenging as basic cars were to maintain and operate 100 years ago.

Ffs get a grip on modern technology before opening your dumb mouth again you uneducated uniformed luddite.

Attached: AJA0PF.jpg (1300x880, 628K)

>Ffs get a grip on modern technology before opening your dumb mouth again you uneducated uniformed luddite.
Get a grip on reality. You are suggesting we can just take a helicopter or small plane and make it vastly more reliable while also building it cheaper, building it to require zero maintenance and zero technical expertise to operate. If we could do that, we would have already done it. Nobody likes having to maintain their aircraft fleets. Nobody likes having to spend tens or hundreds of thousands on precision manufactured rotor hubs. Nobody likes having to pay trained pilots. Everybody would like if their aircraft were substantially cheaper. You can probably get the aircraft a fair bit cheaper with economies of scale but that's about it, economies of scale are not going to make the maintenance requirements go away.

Fucking this, people are retarded drivers as it is, and adding an extra dimension on top of that and removing the street gridlock system would be a fucking disaster

It's a lot less likely for things to crash into each other when they move in 3D space than when they move in 1D/quasi-2D space. The only time airplanes crash into eachother is when they are confined into narrow airways by ATC or when taking off/landing on an airstrip.

that's true now, not when there's tens of thousands of vehicles in a small aerospace at the same time piloted by amateurs. even planes today have ATC guidance to prevent collisions, how would public ATC work?

Fuel is expensive. You can buy a helicopter right now if you want to. But a used jetta is a lot more economical

Autonomous planes are already available at current tech. What’s holding up cars is theres far more traffic/ variables like human driver. Basically you need human level ai to defensively drive against stupid humans. The air is free of 99% of that

Ok your bill is 985$ for fuel

>even planes today have ATC guidance to prevent collisions, how would public ATC work?

The same way swarms work without a central ATC.

Attached: giphy.gif (500x281, 881K)

My friend flew a microlight for a while. Not that expensive to run. The problem was more a matter of finding places to take off and land and where to keep it. He let me have a go while mid air. Pretty fucking awesome to have control of a flying vehicle.

The only way you have a leg to stand on in this argument is because you are talking from a viewpoint of custom items created in a small amount every year. As of 2016 there are more then 17,000,000 new cars built each year all around the world. Helicopters on the other hand only see about 22,000 made each year which come from essentially custom shops in a handful of locations. If there was a need for 17 million helicopters that leg you are standing on gets BTFO by economy of scale.

Next youll tell me the fuel will be affordable

swarms generally head in one direction, everyone does different shit and hence has different places to be

People can't drive cars. Imagine flying

If I can afford that what is the issue here? Poorfags being poor isn't my problem. Do you really think the cost of owning, fueling and maintaining a car was affordable to the common man in 1910? No. Of course it wasn't. It didn't matter. Rich people could afford it.

Attached: 1910-Race-Car.jpg (550x310, 56K)

>t. poorfag
Not my problem you are poor. Judging by your post you couldn't afford to drive pic related land based car either. It costs $1.7-2.7 million and gets 3-7mpg. Just because you and the rest of the plebs populating the earth can't afford it doesn't mean the car isn't produced for those that can.

Attached: download (1).jpg (300x168, 6K)

I've always wanted to try a paramotor, they look fun. I don't live in a very practical place to fly one, though, big urban area with very congested airspace.

Get a job and stop being poor