What's /o/'s view on flying cars? I've been working

>>14790761
>15 mile range
>$20k
Brand it as Apple or Tesla and it'll still sell

>>14790761
>you don't actually fly or drive it
Nope.

>>14790772
Sorry that's the current limits of technology. All things considered it's a massive drop from the usual quoted price for a flying car of half a million dollars. $20,000 is a good deal considering you're getting helicopter-tier performance.
>>14790782
Sorry only way it will ever comply with legislation.

Anybody? I need your support.

>>14790761
idk where to even start

how the fuck am i to park this in my underground garage in the city

what the fuck about insurance

where do i get gas

Yes what's the MPG though.

>>14790987
>how the fuck am i to park this in my underground garage in the city
It's got wheels, it's a car.
>what the fuck about insurance
Ultralight aircraft don't need insurance.
>where do i get gas
It's battery powered. Plug it into a Tesla charger or something

No infrastructure, unless you turn every roof into a parking lot or something.

>>14790997
Dunno about MPG because it's not gas but the trip will take around 60kW of power.

I'm still here taking questions guys. Your suggestions will go towards the design.

>>14791201
A similar idea with propellers three times the size as the ones on OP's pic barely flew.
You don't need "suggestions" for the design, you need to restart it from scratch.

>>14791201
I suggest you give up

>>14791201
Until you can find something that can go on the road and in the air, and that you'd drive yourself, I'm not interested.

>>14790875
>Sorry that's the current limits of technology. All things considered it's a massive drop from the usual quoted price for a flying car of half a million dollars. $20,000 is a good deal considering you're getting helicopter-tier performance.
For 20k I could get a Gyrocopter that'll take me about 200 miles on the same budget.

If it flies, it's not a car. If it drives, it's not a plane. Trying to create some unholy hermaphrodite is the engineering equivalent of a sex change operation, that is, fucking disgusting, bound to disappoint and no matter how well-excecuted still inferior to the original on either side.

>>14791249
That's a google image Einstein. It's 17 feet long yet can only hold one person for a reason.
>>14791316
There are wheels and ok I'll add a steering wheel for ground use only.
>>14791638
>For 20k I could get a Gyrocopter that'll take me about 200 miles on the same budget.
But you will crash and kill yourself because it's manual. Also you kinda need a runway for that
>If it flies, it's not a car. If it drives, it's not a plane. Trying to create some unholy hermaphrodite is the engineering equivalent of a sex change operation, that is, fucking disgusting, bound to disappoint and no matter how well-excecuted still inferior to the original on either side.
It's not meant to compete with cars or planes it's meant to fit that niche where the road is too shit for a car yet the distance is overkill for a plane. Helicopters fit that niche but they are expensive and difficult to fly.

>>14791937
A gyrocopter needs about twenty yards of runway to take off and zero runway to land. And it's practically impossible to crash because it's stall speed is so low, it sometimes jumps up and down on the runway if the winds are too strong. It does everything this shitbox is supposed to do.

>>14790761
>Impossibly light
>horrible range
>fully autonomous
>20k

Suuuuure buddy. They can't even get the auto-drive shit working on cars, good luck making one fucking fly. And what magical materials are you making it out of that it weights that much, yet will cost less than a kia?

I've got an idea. How about we just make it a ground unit. For traction we use rubber contact circles, and we also cut out the autonomous thing, and have the "driver" use a disc to turn the car and pedals to operate speeding up and slowing down. We should also use an internal combustion engine for range, and that requires a transmission that also needs to be disengageable from the engine. Like a "clutch" in that it "clutches" to the engine.

Best. Idea. Ever. You should pay me.

>>14792011
Bullshit, it's more like 150 yards. And if you are operating in an area with no/shit roads it implies that you will have no runway at all. More disadvantages with the gyrocopter include the fact that you need to learn how to fly it, automated flight is safer than manual flight unless you're an expert, rotors can't be shrouded so if you did land in a built up area you would kill people. So the gyro is only good in sparsely populated areas with long open strips of tarmac. In a city or woods they are useless. Finally the coup de grace is that it is forbidden to use a public highway for takeoff and landing no matter how short. With my completely VTOL flying car you can take off in a field and circumvent that.

>>14790987
You could just lease one and not have to worry about having it for a long time, just like that automatic FRS you have

>Concept includes basic ideas and capabilities of future design.
>Design is nuts and bolts blueprint level shit.

If OP is so fucktarded with engineering he doesn't know the difference, then we have little hope of this even existing as a static display to procure further funding.

>>14792110
And? Same applies to the funny car. You're not allowed to land a VTOL on the street either.

And no, the Gyro can lift off of barely twenty yards of runway. Practically all commercial gyros come with prerotation systems that let it spin up the main rotor to operating speeds that just need a little push to fly away.

>>14792068
>good luck making one fucking fly
I have the math all worked out, it's legit. Other flying cars flop because they try to carry too many people. One person is much more achievable with today's technology. Sorry about the range but that's gravity for you. By buying my flying car you will fund research for more advanced versions with longer range. You wouldn't say planes are pointless because the Wright bros got three feet off the ground before crashing now would you? Early days.
> And what magical materials are you making it out of that it weights that much, yet will cost less than a kia?
Carbon fibre. It's only carrying one guy why does it need to be heavy?
>>14792096
Very funny.

>>14792164
>17 foot long aircraft made out of carbon fiber
>20,000$ US

Tip top pip.

>>14792164
There is no more advanced version of this bullshit to build because it's already been done before, and found shit. You don't even know basic aerodynamics if you think four tiny fixed-downwards ducted fans will be either safe or adequate. If a single one fails the thing will be in a heap of trouble. If two fail it drops out of the sky like a rock.

>>14790761
>fully autonomous (no wheel, just type where you want to go into Google Maps)
What autopilot?

It's a scaled-up quad, isn't it?

>>14792161
>You're not allowed to land a VTOL on the street either.
Which is why i said you can take off and land in a field or private property. You fly a flying car to work, you install a sliding roof on your garage and take off there and you land in your company's parking lot because it's your boss's private land. If you try to fly to work in an autogyro oh dear you need a certified runway to take off from and the nearest one is 20 miles away. Likewise if you are out in the woods there's no runway.
>>14792153
What do you mean?

File: CPCMaoMUAAApWOi.png (394KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 600x338px

>>14792211
>ultralight
>flying over a populated area

>>14792211
>you install a sliding roof on your garage
The thrust necessary to lift this thing off the ground, confined to a small place like a garage, would either generate so much turbulence that it would flip over and crash into the walls while taking off or would blow the windows and doors off the garage. Please cease talking about something you have no fucking idea about and pick up a thermodynamics textbook so you can get started on the very basics of how air flow works.

>>14792179
Most of those 17 feet are propellers so not a lot of carbon fiber really.
>>14792188
omg that is a google image, of course that's a retarded design, nothing to do with me.
>>14792208
Octo.

>>14792230
>octo
Okay, scaled-up octocopter.

...what autopilot?

>>14792217
I actually saw one of those over my city last summer. I was thinking that the gasoline wars had started.

>>14792226
>windows in a garage
>walls create turbulence
>thermodynamics gets you started on the basics of air flow

>>14792237
Ardupilot?

>>14792252
>?
Did you just google that?

I've been using Ardupilot since the Mega came out. Good luck tuning it to control something carrying a person

i don't get how a flying car is a new invention

didn't the wright brothers make one in 1903?

>>14792244
Just stop right there.

>>14792292
Well what you said is why I put the ? I will test different autopilots once I get to that stage. Ardupilot is just what I'm most familiar with right now.
>>14792314
>No VTOL
>Flying car

Flyi ng cars cannot exist within the current regulations there are in the world regarding aircrafts anyway, even if you build one it would be nearly useless
>cannot fly over populated areas
>half of your range would have to be used to get to takeoff and landing sites
>mandatory checkup before any flight makes you lose a lot of time giving it no possible practical use
>overall too unsafe for regular use by many people
even if you can theoretically make it (which judging by everything yo usaid in the thread is not the case at all) it would end up like every other "functionnal flying car" that show up every year or so : a couple specialized magazines would write articles about it saying it is pretty cool and then everyone would forget about it because it is utterly useless.

You guys are getting trolled. Hard

>>14790761
>flying cars
planes and helicopters not good enough for you?

>>14795002
By you I guess, because you just bumped it

>>14795002
Fuck off
>>14792834
>cannot fly over populated areas
If it's proven safe I don't see why not. Helicopters are allowed over cities.
>half of your range would have to be used to get to takeoff and landing sites
It's VTOL
>mandatory checkup before any flight makes you lose a lot of time giving it no possible practical use
multirotors are way simpler than helicopters
>overall too unsafe for regular use by many people
That's what /o/ said about self driving cars, computers have come leaps and bounds you know. I believe the flying car is actually safer than the manual ground car
>>14795019
Well no, one needs a runway and another is expensive and needs extensive training to fly

>>14792834
And let me tell you why all the other cars have been vaporware. The true VTOL ones like Moller are made too heavy to ever get off the ground and the ones that do actually fly like Terrafugia are just cars that need an hour of reconfiguration into a shitty winged aircraft and that's after you had to drive 30 miles to a private runway. Naturally nobody is interested in this either. Mine will a) be VTOL b) actually get off the ground.

>>14795358
>one needs a runway and another is expensive and needs extensive training to fly
unlike a flying car that doesn't exist right?
how about jetpacks?
or just transferring your body into a nano-particle cloud that can go at mach 7?
Yeah flying cars are such a good option.

>>14795358
>multirotors are way simpler than helicopters
>>14795390
holy shit, I missed that part, how fucking retarded can you be?

>>14795358
>multirotors are way simpler than helicopters
They're also a lot shittier. Any number of little engines spread all over will always be a lot less efficient than one big central one, that's just math and engineering 101.

>>14795390
Jetpacks need too high of a power to weight ratio to ever work good. They are also virtually impossible to control automatically. Just because the flying car doesn't exist today doesn't mean it will never exist. Open your mind.
>>14795396
>no swashplate
>no transmission
>no linkages

>>14795358
Again, either as you said it classifies as an ultralight and thus cannot fly over populated areas, OR it can fly over these areas and is pretty much an helicopter with fuctionnal wheels. Which is completely redundant.

>I believe the flying car is actually safer than the manual ground car
Yes, it's harder to collide with something, but in most collisions your chances of survival are much smaller.
But do tell me more about how you magically solved that problem too.

File: hatchan came her to laugh at you lol.jpg (15KB, 400x434px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x434px

>>14795418
>the only helo he knows is the turd-ass Sikorsky design
Try looking up Flettner intermeshers some day dumbshit

>>14795418
>Open your mind.
I'll do that when you actually open your eyes and realize your flying car serves no purpose whatsoever in the current legal frame for aircrafts.

>>14795423
> it classifies as an ultralight and thus cannot fly over populated areas
You are in some countries if it is licensed. Also the fact that it's autonomous may make a difference seeing as pilot error is a major concern of legislation makers. You can fly UAVs over populated areas so why not autonomous aircraft?
>Yes, it's harder to collide with something, but in most collisions your chances of survival are much smaller.
This is the same reason why people still think jumbo jets are unsafe despite the statistic saying the contrary.
>>14795434
The legal problems only start over built up areas I already pointed out that it is still more useful than a gyrocopter in the countryside. Legislation can change you know. Remember when cars were limited to 5 mph and a guy with a flag had to be walking in front of it at all times?

>>14795479
Not hard since a gyrocopter is utterly useless.
Flying cars are "cool" idea for sure but they serve no practical purpose whatsoever.

>>14795486
Gyrocopters are useless because they aren't VTOL. You are one of those guys who will declare something pointless simply because it does not yet exist.

>>14790761
>15 mile range

cant even justify this with a fucking bus ride you lazy autist.

>>14795514
15 miles over shit terrain takes hours by land. it's literally why everyone sailed 200 years ago. And no adding an engine to your carriage doesn't help much, mud is mud.

>>14795508
Wot mate? Gyros can't VTOL?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFNc1iY8wi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RPYWmdv174
And what does it take? A handful more gears. Step it up.

>>14795508
Alright, let's consider the flying car.
What are its advantages? Flying in a city is not only dangerous but it also presents few interesting things since you can hardly takeoff or land (even with vertical landing and takeoff) and you'd need to climb pretty high to be able to disregard the actual plan of the city and cover distances without following the streets. Not to mention that if you have many flying cars over a same city, the congestion would be dangerous, the routes harder to predict.
In the countryside, it could be useful to cover long distances without following roads. But you only have a range of 15 miles which is absurdly short. But even if you get a much more important range, what are the advantages over a regular aircraft? if you do not follow roads at all (and you'd have no reason to follow them if you just leap from one field to another) then it does not need to be able to go on a road. the positive side would be that you do not need to plan your trips according to aerodromes, since you could just land on any field (let's for now disregard the problems of landing on somebody else's property) or any road (if you do so, then why not take the road in the first place?). But it's not as if these sort of long distance are made slow because of the trajectories of the roads. Unless your flying car flies very fast, it will not make you save that much time.
It's not useless because it doesn't exist yet. It's useless because it is an in-between that does not solve any existing problem. the flying car at its core is a sci-fi trope that looks cool on film, in comic books and illustrations but it is not practical in any way. Just like at one peoint, people thought that motorized wheelchairs nd other "walking machines" would make walking an outdated activity.
Flying cars have potential as a recreationnal vehicle, like current ultralights except smaller and slightly more practical. And that all disappears if you make them automated.

>>14790761

Congratulations on your invention of the Moller Merlin.

>>14795535
You're basically a helicopter at that point. Shitload of maintanance and expensive as fuck. Also the swinging blades aren't very safe.
>>14795583
> you'd need to climb pretty high to be able to disregard the actual plan of the city
Not all cities are Manhattan.
>Not to mention that if you have many flying cars over a same city, the congestion would be dangerous, the routes harder to predict.
Automatic and planned by computer, everyone gets their own lane, Jetsons style.
Although I do agree that it would have to jump a lot of huge legal barriers to be allowed in cities. However in the countryside it's an absolute game changer
>But you only have a range of 15 miles which is absurdly short
This is the first prototype, batteries can improve you know.You're right it's not amazing but even so right now it's marginally marketable so I am aiming to get my foot in the door, No point in waiting for 100 mile range but by then some big corporation snapped up the idea. I know it won't replace cars overnight but it will still sell.
Also as I said before if there is no road 15 miles is extremely difficult by car. Even a 4x4 is going to struggle with swamps, thick bushes and crevasses. Usually people in such situation would either fight it out by spending half the journey trying to pull their car out of mud with ropes or buy an expensive helicopter
>. It's useless because it is an in-between that does not solve any existing problem. the flying car at its core is a sci-fi trope that looks cool on film, in comic books and illustrations but it is not practical in any way.
People said the exact same thing about rockets, in fact most of the early rocket pioneers got their ideas from Jules Verne stories. Even when the V-2 was made many still said it was just a stupidly expensive artillery shell. Sometimes the technology can be developed before the use comes along. Modern rockets were developed before nuclear weapons and space travel were a thing.

>>14795645
It's not a helicopter in any way, I can't believe how little you know about aerospace if you're trying to argue for a flying car.

>>14795645
>Not all cities are Manhattan.
No,but unless you are flying over the Isle of Ré or some american suburbs, you'd need to be at least a couple hundred meters high to be on the safe side.
>Automatic and planned by computer, everyone gets their own lane, Jetsons style.
Then it would just create another layer of circulation grid and make you lose the time you gained by flying in the first place. that could be useful in, say, a 5th element type futuristic city in which you could park in altitude but these will not happen until a good century anyway.
>Also as I said before if there is no road 15 miles is extremely difficult by car
Yes, and the people who go across 15 miles off road are :
farmers, who have tractor that can actually quite easily deal with mud and other hazards, and would have no use for a flying engine just to cover some distance since they would also need to bring some heavy equipment along, and I doubt a light aicraft could carry that. the need they have for aircrafts is already covered and would gain from electric propulsion and VTOL, but that would not exactly be a game changer.
firemen and ambulances : again,both have to carry a lot with them when they need to get across parcels of land, so until your flying car can carry a few hundred gallons of water, it will have no advantages over an helicopter.
offroad enthusiasts : the very last thing they want is to not go offroad

To be fair, personal transportation by air does not have much potential. If you could develop some form of larger public transport however that could be much more useful
>replace busses by "public helicopters"
>schedule and map completely independant from streets and congestion

>>14795700
Well there's no point in continued argument against you, you are clearly dead against new ideas. I guess we will just have to see if it's a success or not. I think that what 4chan doesn't understand is that you can sell literally anything provided your marketing is good enough. Not bothering to try selling something just because it isn't completely revolutionary is poor business acumen. There's a niche out there for everything.

Surprisingly in this thread there were few claims that my flying car wouldn't work at all so at least I seem to have convinced you all that it's technologically feasible.

>>14795726
>I seem to have convinced you all that it's technologically feasible
No, you've just replied "I did the math, it works" to anyone who told you it might not be feasible.

>>14792164
>thinking carbon fibre is cheap
TOPLEL

>>14795726
because you can market and sell a product doesn't mean it's a good product
and as you say 4chan disregards that because everyone here goes autistic about quality instead of buying into image and status

File: IMAG0372.jpg (1MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1836x3264px

I like the idea. Single engine to a torque vectoring differential to 4 driveshafts that turn the rotors. Quadrotor is of course the only way to go.

I've been fiddling with an idea
Should be an airtight cabin and should float. Have a helipad for a driveway.

The whole flying cars we have now where it has to change from plane to car or car to plane is silly. You have to drive it to an airport to take off. With a quadrotor setup it's stable flight control, without having verniers to burn everything below you to shit. Would be a fairly intuitive control setup and wouldn't take as much to teach in comparison to a pilots license.

Clearly all fucking concept though, I can't fly anything but a remote control.

>>14795790
Some of it is nonsensical so feel free to call me on my bullshit

>>14795730
propeller math isn't hard
>>14795751
>because you can market and sell a product doesn't mean it's a good product
Exactly, I am here to make money, nothing more. Even if you don't think it's better than your Toyota or whatever you drive my point is there's still a market for it.

>>14795807
>I am here to make money, nothing more
then why were you arguing it was a game changer instead of plainly admitting it is just an overpriced toy for people who can't be bothered to get into light aircrafts?

>>14795790
OP here, I toyed with gas power for a while, I abandoned it in favor of electric because I felt the sheer simplicity of it outweighs the drop in power. For that to work there needs to be a four-output shaft from the engine that can all rotate individually so that alone would require some sort of fluid coupling. Next for each output you would need some sort of CVT between that and the propeller, also the rotors are too small. it would fly but it would blaze a lot of fuel and stress out the components due to high disc loading. You're idea is feasible (It's basically the V-22) but as with the V-22 it would require a beast engineering team to pull it off and be extremely expensive.

>>14795817
It's a game changer for people who can't be bothered to get into light aircrafts. A ten year old could fly in it, how is that not a game changer?

>>14795790
Nice drawings btw

>>14795855
A ten year old isn't going to buy your shitty pipe dream.

>>14795847
Right right. Well I was trying to opt for internal combustion since it will give you significantly longer flight time and less time charging when you just refuel it. But by the time this shit is implemented I'd hope we had an alternative fuel source or propulsion. Electric motors are cool and all and I enjoy the instant torque, it's just not a lot of life to them.

>>14795855
A ten years old does not have 20 grands of disposable income.
And the ten years old whose parents can spend 20 000 bucks in useless toys usually have their own helicopter pilot anyway.

>>14795874
You buy it and you put your kid in it.... you know what, fuck you guys, the only way to beat haters is to succeed.
>>14795880
I've been using computer modeling to suck out every last bit of efficiency from those electric motors, this is how I'm able to achieve those 15 miles. Past that all I can hope for is China to come out with new batteries. Gas would be ideal, it's just complex to control that's the problem. I had this idea though of electric for the hovering and gas to push it forward because it's only the hovering that requires that fine control. Only thing is the electrics have to hover a gas engine along with a passenger

>>14795912
It is a perplexing structure that's for sure
China has this though
https://youtu.be/qPARvS31Oq0

Kinda the same idea. I just want to be able to fly it myself. Of course when the market opens up you know there will be new air traffic regulations. I think for sure the cabin should have deployable chutes in case one rotor cuts out and you start stalling and such.

If you can have a driver, at least one other passenger and room for cargo you could open up a totally new market to the flying cars we have now. But we're gonna hav to get farther than 15 miles, even if it's with how the crow flies.

>>14795938
problem is, you're probably going to need a pilot's licence for it anyway

>>14795938
There are too few propellers on that thing, no way will it fly for 20 minutes. Also not that it has never flown with a passenger. Vaporware. I heard it was just publicity for their drone.
>I think for sure the cabin should have deployable chutes in case one rotor cuts out and you start stalling and such
Some multirotors have redundancy
>If you can have a driver, at least one other passenger and room for cargo
The math won't allow it I'm afraid. Propeller theory says power requirement goes up with weight to the power of 1.5 so double the payload requires nearly 3 times as much power.

>>14795970
Well you would since its much more dangerous and different dynamics from driving on the road. Cars don't hover or strafe. I would just try to develop the controls and interface to be less overwhelming than a traditional helicopter. You still need an understanding of yaw, pitch and roll and it'll all be something taught for probably 2 years in schools of the future. But it ever solves the issue of getting to farther places, faster. And I wanna fucking fly it myself, not be flown.

>>14795997
Which is why I like the idea of an aluminum engine. You should be able to proportionally ballast the craft but still have the power to lift the weight. Even a small high revving motorcycle engine could pull it off I imagine. Just so long as the diff was a little more figured out and everything is made from space frame, cfrp and other such lightweight materials.

>>14791201
It needs a large cock

>>14796028
It's not the engine, you're right all it would require is a 40 hp 2 stroke, it's the transmission that's the problem.
>>14796011
Well i'm sure you could fly it yourself with an autopilot backup in case you fucked up.

ever think about designing a capacitor/battery to fit in an empty spot to have more charge?

>lose GPS signal
>boat crashes into dock

Gg

>>14797645
More batteries = more weight
Capacitors aren't high in energy. I've heard about supercapacitors but I don't know much about them.
>>14797745
What?

I have another product, a hoverboard, six feet diameter, 36 kg weight, 1 mile range, $5,000

I didn't mention it because it's more for leisure since the range is so bad, but seeing as the flying car that I though had acceptable enough range for /o/ went down like a lead balloon I may as well reveal the cheaper product.

C'mon it's only the price of a new gaming rig but unlike nvidia this will get you girls.