this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
118 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
23 readers
2 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Driving down the highway, hit a traffic jam. Don't even slow down just go airborne over the jam.
@Lantech
@Ragnell @ExpensiveConstant
Aside from the $300k price tag, sadly….
People's driving senses are so fucking bad, I can't imagine them flying. It'll be in the news often I guess "car crashes into building while trying to back up." "car flies into power lines thousands without power" well I guess that's fairly typical already.
What the hell is the point of a car that can't do more than 25 mph? This thing can fucking fly, but it's as capable as a golf cart on the ground?
I'll believe this when it actually exists (the thing they're promising, not a skeletal prototype), and I'll believe that the FAA is cool with flying cars when I see them on my commute. None of this currently passes the bullshit check.
I imagine that it's supposed to be flown and is only temporarily used on the ground. Same way airplanes don't have a higher ground speed
Airplanes have a plenty high ground speed. They gotta go pretty dang fast for take off. ;)
Lol ok true, I meant more of a maneuvering at speed. Even then, thinking about it my analogy is terrible :/
K well there are a few key differences between cars and airplanes... If planes could drive around on the road, nobody would buy a car. That's kinda the whole goddamn point, that's why people want a car that can fly.
I take issue with a "flying car" that's not a fucking car. What the hell is the point? If you're spending $300k, why wouldn't you actually become a pilot instead of buying some half-baked car that isn't actually usable as a car?
I think it's mostly an expensive toy. They made it VTOL so it does not have to go fast enough on the ground to become airborne. That's ok, it doesn't need a runway to take off, but VTOL is way to make things fly that really have no business flying. Airplanes have a certain shape because they have to. This thing looks like a bar of soap in comparison. I'm sure it uses a ton of energy to stay airborne, it would have the glide coefficient of a rock.
This is a ridiculous comment. Are you intentionally missing the point? Why are you applying airplane design principles to a car? It's not a plane...it's a car.
Glide coefficient? In what scenario do you imagine this car gliding? Do you see wings? They didn't "make it VTOL" because they couldn't design a functional airplane, they designed it as a VTOL from day one because a flying car that isn't VTOL capable wouldn't be viable. The very concept of a flying car is based on VTOL. It can only work as a car if it's VTOL. A fixed-wing flying car would be asinine, where the hell do you expect people to take off?
Look I am not a supporter of this thing. It has too many glaring issues, like the fact that it doesn't currently exist. You cannot, however, criticize this vehicle based on its merits as an airplane, because it's not an airplane.
You ABSOLUTELY can criticize it as an airplane. It's a vehicle that flys. And as a VTOL, it doesn't have much if any of a glide coefficient like deaconblue said. Which is extremely relevant if power goes out and instead of being able to glide to safety, it just falls like a rock on whatever is below. Saying "its a VTOL, so it doesn't matter" puts you on the same safety standards as that submarine guy.
Okay, then I'm going to criticize you as an airplane. You're a fucking piece of shit airplane, dude. You don't even have wings, what the fuck are you doing? You can't produce thrust, you can't generate lift, what good are you as an airplane? Get outta here, stop wasting everyone's time.
See how fuckin' stupid that was?
Yes, there is an inherent risk associated with aircraft that cannot glide. What's your point? Cars can't have wings, it simply isn't viable, so what do you propose? You want them to design a car-shaped object that can magically glide without wings? Think about it for more than a second and you'll see the issue there. What you're suggesting cannot exist within the currently-understood laws of physics. In order for flying cars to become reality, there is a certain level of risk that must be accepted.
You don't know a fucking thing about me, so how about we steer clear of character assumptions? Maybe show me the courtesy of just arguing facts on this one?
That guy knowingly and intentionally broke all of the rules. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting any rules be broken or any safety standards be forsaken, I'm simply pointing out that you cannot judge this concept based on a fundamentally different type of aircraft.
Ever seen a fuckin' helicopter? Hot air balloon? Blimp? Turns out there's more than one way to get and remain airborne. Think...
Your name is well chosen. I think you just wasted a lot of time essentially making the same points I did.
Reading comprehension has always been a struggle for you, I take it. It does not matter how it compares to an airplane, because it is not an airplane. It's not a boat either, you imbecile, do we need to dissect that one as well?