[HN Gopher] Japan's Entry in Flying-Car Race Takes to the Air
___________________________________________________________________
Japan's Entry in Flying-Car Race Takes to the Air
Author : psim1
Score : 19 points
Date : 2020-08-29 17:44 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| dvh wrote:
| Imagine if every one of your neighbours had one or two...
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| It's the ultimate wonderful if you own one. Terrible when
| everyone else does. It's like automobiles X 100.
| manfredo wrote:
| Aren't flying cars called, "helicopters"?
|
| Perhaps a bit too snide, but helicopters can take off and land
| vertically and can carry roughly as many people as most passenger
| vehicles. And they're mature technology that has been around for
| over half a century at this point. The problem of moving people
| through the air without a runway for takeoff and landing has been
| solved for 60+ years.
|
| What advantage does this flying car have over a helicopter? It's
| a quad rotor craft so presumably is mechanically simpler (no
| swashplate) but at the expense of lower speed and reduced ability
| to operate in the wind. Also it means a crash if any of the four
| rotors fail (no autorotation). It can also drive in the road like
| a car. But on the other hand it looks like it seats just one
| person, and in an open top vehicle so it'll be uncomfortable in
| the rain.
|
| Helicopters are already supplemented by cars in most use cases. I
| don't really see the advantage of a flying car over flying a
| helicopter to the nearest heliport and driving in a car the rest
| of the way. The only real advantage is the fact that there is no
| vehicle change. But that comes at the expense of using a vehicle
| that makes major sacrifices to both fly and drive on roads.
| gkolli wrote:
| didn't think about that, great point!
| Animats wrote:
| eHang is further along. [1] 16 rotors.
|
| Battery energy density seems to be the big remaining problem.
| Flight times are too short.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/T_mezyLhvlA
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Wow, those are gonna turn someone into ground meat at some
| point. I'm not sure that having that many propellers at knee
| and waist level is a good idea. These seem like less safe
| helicopters?
| Animats wrote:
| That's a problem. You don't want anyone anywhere near those
| things on takeoff and landing. Which is a problem if they use
| them for package delivery. However, the eHang really does
| fly, it really does carry people, and it works well enough
| they sent a reporter for the SCMP up in it. Closest thing to
| a flying car so far.
| supernova87a wrote:
| A question I've always had is, how is the decision on how many
| propellers made? Why 16, and not 4? Or why 1?
| Animats wrote:
| The drone-type designs cannot autorotate like a helicopter.
| They don't have the variable-pitch blade controls a
| helicopter does. If you lose an engine or prop, you crash
| uncontrollably unless you have some spare props.
| swatkat wrote:
| Looks like a worthy competitor of Moller Skycar /s
| cevans01 wrote:
| Flying cars are interesting because they have the potential to
| partially make obsolete the natural monopoly of roads.
| Governments are heavily involved in natural monopolies (possibly
| for good reason) but I worry that that involvement may crowd out
| innovative private organizations that would otherwise have the
| incentive to bypass the natural monopoly. I wonder what other
| innovations are being stifled in the same way.
|
| As far as flying cars go, they sure are loud. But cars are fairly
| noisy as well -- in cities the roads are often very close to
| apartment buildings.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Natural monopolies are physical monopolies. There's literally
| only so much room on the Earth's surface. So to the extent that
| anything is being stifled here, it's because two objects can't
| occupy the same space at once, not because governments have
| anything to do with it.
|
| And the challenges airplanes face are very physical as well.
| It's not really the government's fault if no one proves ever
| capable of making flying cars safe enough for the airspace
| above cities to be full of them. At some point it's just an
| intractable engineering challenge and the limits of human
| ability.
|
| Personally, I'm doubtful that flying cars will ever be a
| reality in our lifetime, but the only possible way I envision
| them ever working is if they're 100% autonomous and owned and
| operated as a fleet.
| notahacker wrote:
| You run into the natural monopoly of airspace instead.
|
| There's more room up there, but owners of the land beneath and
| users of other aircraft alike have a vested interest in the
| skies not being a free-for-all, and sure enough it's government
| agencies stepping into the air traffic control and regulation
| breach.
| Yoric wrote:
| So, what is the attraction, exactly? It doesn't look as fast as a
| car or any more convenient, at least until cities are redesigned
| to accommodate these vehicles. I also assume that it is more
| energy-hungry than a car and I imagine that accidents are bound
| to be worse than cars for the foreseeable future.
|
| Is it safer to pilot than an helicopter?
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I don't see how this could ever be feasible for consumers. People
| still struggle to drive when there are roads, what's going to
| happen when you add a third dimension to control?
| mrec wrote:
| I suspect self-driving is much, much easier when you get up
| above ground clutter.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/lg4yx
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Why not focus on building better and cheaper helicopters?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-29 23:00 UTC)