flying vs. ordinary car

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.

would you prefer

flying car
4
50%
ordinary car
4
50%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
tomislavp4
0
Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 17:07
Location: Sweden & The Republic of Macedonia

flying vs. ordinary car

Post

Just out of curiosity, would you prefer a flying car or an ordinary cars like the ones we have? Say what are your thoughts...

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Well, interesting choice, but I'm more into teleportation. :lol:

Seriously, I strongly believe that ultralight airplanes, together with GPS technology and some robotics will replace cars. I imagine we are like people were 100 years ago, in 1907: thinking that locomotives will transport people forever, not taking in account the automobile, just because the sheer size of the railroad network.

So, to answer your question, tomislav: I prefer ultralight airplanes, not simply "flying cars". An airplane, conditioned to serve a dual purpose, I imagine, would be highly inefficient, both as a car and as an airplane.

Few people know that until Henry Ford developed the assembly line AND the steel-vanadium alloy was developed, cars were built as ultralights are build today: by hand, one by one. A car was as expensive in 1907 as an ultralight is nowadays.

We really NEED the development of new, cheap composites, that can be used to build ultralight airplanes "en masse". That day, I imagine, cars will be obsolete, first because of the high cost of infrastructure compared with the cost of airways, and second, because of the speed on long distances. Even today, ultralights represent 20% of the aircrafts in "affluent" countries, according to Wikipedia.

On cities (well, let me dream a little) we could use only urban transportation. Have you read "Caves of Steel" by Asimov? There you will find a couple of good ideas about how to transport people quickly and efficiently. :)

I'm particularly fond of autogiros, not because they were invented by a spaniard (not at all! ;)) but because they don't stall easily. They seem to me safer and easier to operate.

Third successful autogiro by Juan de la Cierva: La Cierva C-6

Image

If you want to dream a little, why don't you check here?

http://www.ultralightsite.com/

Pick your price range from the list to the right of the page: locate the "Price Range" tag.

There you can pick a Light Sport Aircraft less expensive than a car ( for example, 15.000 to 25.000 U$ seem reasonable to begin with), with around 120 mph cruising speed (no traffic jams, my friends!). It should give you better mileage than a car and a really short commuting time. It could open the door to really "urban" cars and relegate long distance travel by car to the dustbin of history.

Skylark, made in Czech Republic: http://www.dovaaircraft.pl/
Image

135 mph cruising, 180 mph top speed, 5 gallons per hour at cruising speed, 2 passengers, IFR option, take off and landing 500 feet runway, 500 pounds payload. There is a 4 passenger version. I could not find the price, sorry, the Dova Aircraft site seems to be down.
Last edited by Ciro Pabón on 02 Apr 2007, 23:58, edited 1 time in total.
Ciro

User avatar
tomislavp4
0
Joined: 16 Jun 2006, 17:07
Location: Sweden & The Republic of Macedonia

Post

I´m arguing with a friend of mine about this... he wants to fly I prefer to stay on the ground :D

Would you like the sky to be full of flying things like the roads are today? :?

User avatar
Tom
0
Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 00:24
Location: Bicester

Post

The sky has a z axis too so traffic problems would be eliminated, the downside is a crash is far more seriouse
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.

dumrick
dumrick
0
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 13:36
Location: Portugal

Post

tomislavp4 wrote:Would you like the sky to be full of flying things like the roads are today? :?
Well, at least it would be tridimensional, to avoid queues... :wink:

More trouble for the air traffic controllers, though...

dumtisdumtis
dumtisdumtis
0
Joined: 24 Dec 2006, 20:56

Post

less power, less emissions...

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

dumrick wrote:
tomislavp4 wrote:Would you like the sky to be full of flying things like the roads are today? :?
Well, at least it would be tridimensional, to avoid queues... :wink:

More trouble for the air traffic controllers, though...
Well, the idea seems to get rid of controllers: simply use GPS and robotics to create lanes on the sky. With a 500 ft landing runway, you don't need more space for these things than the one you need for cars: you need far, far less space than the one you need for cars.

Some of these things approach a runway at 40 mph. I can go faster in my bike, Tom. Check this one, Sting, also made in Czech republic, carbon fiber hull:

Image

http://www.tl-ultralight.cz/

I'm not afraid of flying, I'm much more afraid when someone else is driving. At least, you don't share the "road" with trucks.
Ciro

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

I'm very much

at peace whenever I get the chance to fly somewhere with something (and I've experienced quite a variety of methods of flight by now). So I'm comfortable with the idea of casually zipping around the airspace - even many times a day. There might be something to the idea of not having to pave huge areas over just in order to give everyone a chance to get around.

Heavy transportation (Short of teleportation or defying gravity - a bit over the current horizon unless someone gets a gargantuan heureka moment. Besides, I wouldn't let anything rip apart my molecules unless I understood the process completely ... the philosophical ramifications on identity etc. are huge.) would still have to be organized otherwise.

I've heard of plans to replace the rail networks with giant vacuum tube systems. If societies take to flight in such a comprehensive and everyday manner, perhaps that scheme isn't so farfetched either. There are parachute safeguard systems to some small planes already, btw, so malfunctions need not be catastrophic at all. We'd just drift down, miffed at missing a dinner or something.

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

Well, that's the idea of the Sting: you parachute the whole airplane. Modern ballistic parachutes can be used at an altitude of only 75 feet. That's a real progress. Most of the progress with Light Sport Planes have been made in this decade: the FAA regulations for LSP were released in 2004: never have been a regulation so expected by some (like me! ;))

About teleportation, there have been great advances. The "Eureka" moment you mention has already passed, just almost no one noticed!

Few professions have so clear the "ultimate goal" as transportation: "Beam me up, Scotty!". This is really farfetched, but you can check in the followings links what has been done (don't worry, checkered, even if the world can use two of you :lol:, it's proven that you have to destroy the original):
In 1993 an international group of six scientists, including IBM Fellow Charles H. Bennett, confirmed the intuitions of the majority of science fiction writers by showing that perfect teleportation is indeed possible in principle, but only if the original is destroyed.


The abstract of that seminal paper is here:

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo ... ation.html

You need to have a postscript reader to check it. For example, GhostScript, here: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ You shouldn't bother, believe me, it's just an abstract, but the thing is that it proves it can be done.

For a funny (well, for me... :roll:) article on the subject, you can read here:

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo ... stein.html

Excerpt: "If we forget about recognizing atoms and measuring their velocities and just scale that to a resolution of one-atomic length in each direction that's about 10^32 bits (a one followed by thirty two zeros). This is so much information that even with the best optical fibers conceivable it would take over one hundred million centuries to transmit all that information! It would be easier to walk! If we packed all that information into CD ROMs it would fit into a cube almost 1000 kilometers on a side! Enough said?"

For a hard (well, again, for me) and serious articles on the theory of teleportation, you can check here:

http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0111124

Excerpt:
Image

Now, if we put THAT, together with the fact that you can transport information in the laboratory (light, at least) BEFORE it is produced (you don't have to believe me: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nat ... light.html) the time machine is just around the corner... :roll:

The idea of vacuum tubes, well... I have a Scientific American number from around 1965 that proclaims they will be built in the next 10 years...

I think tomislav should have clear by now I prefer flying cars, btw. However, after writing all that, I think he thinks I'm crazy. Don't worry, I won't vote... :wink:
Ciro

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Seeing is believing, Ciro, unless it's on Star Trek ...

I reserve a right to be sceptical about teleportation, partly because there's not a really clearly quantified ( :lol: ) physical, technological or philosophical definition for it in the first place. Being able to reproduce a quantum state within near-perfect propability may be a start towards that direction - or it may not be. I haven't done a valid logical treatise about this of course, but I'm divided (Quantized? Psychological equivalent of teleportation, anyone? :roll: ) on the merits of calling this teleportation already, other than getting people eventually considering the subject in more depth from other angles, too.

Something that, to my mind, is a heck of a lot closer to what I'd like to perceive as leading to teleportation has a lot to do with a near-singular quantum atom state called "Bose-Einstein condensate". You may well know about this already, so I'll keep my argument short. A very clever physics professor (and her team), Lene Vestergaard Hau, has managed to predictably surpass the quantum-matter treshold in transmitting and retaining information. In either direction, I might add, even if it's a far cry from doing so under conditions that humans might find physiologically habitable. But the nature of that transition could be the key in what could be described as "true" teleportation instead of a "mutually exclusive reproducing" process.

But draw your own conclusions - let's let prof. Hau explain the process herself in a Nature webcast (She isn't making references to teleportation, of course - I have to make clear that this hodgepodge association is my own ill-adviced devising, but hey, writing in an off-off-topic chat of an F1Tech forum, maybe I can be excused for not completely following established scientific principles. :P Besides, it's a "cool" experiment in its own right. Quite literally, in fact.) ... :

http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchi ... index.html

Here's a link to her lab's homepages at Harvard, and a BBC Science link for a short written description, too:

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6343311.stm