Levitating vehicles of the future!

[bandit957]

Is anybody else waiting for the day when everyone can have a new, futuristic, easy-to-use levitating vehicle?

Here's how it would work. It would be the size of a regular car, and would be sort of like a convertible in that you can use it with or without the roof. It could levitate hundreds of feet above the ground, but it would work best at lower altitudes. It could reach regular car speeds or better. It could hover in one place, and it could ascend and descend back to the ground gently. It would be as easy to operate as a computer keyboard. You might be able to just type in a destination.

It would be the coolest thing ever, and it would revolutionize transportation!

Will we see something like this in the near future?

[bandit957]

Also, because it could levitate, it wouldn't be limited to just traveling above roads. It could also travel above any other surface, whether it's buildings, parks, woods, industrial parks, you name it.

[kphoger]

If I learned anything from Back to the Future, it's that such a car wouldn't work over water.

[abefroman329]

If I learned anything from Back to the Future, it's that such a car wouldn't work over water.

UNLESS YOU'VE GOT POWER!

[GaryV]

Also, because it could levitate, it wouldn't be limited to just traveling above roads. It could also travel above any other surface, whether it's buildings, parks, woods, industrial parks, you name it.

Have you never watched the opening credits of the Jetsons?

[Max Rockatansky]

If I learned anything from Back to the Future, it's that such a car wouldn't work over water.

UNLESS YOU'VE GOT POWER!

Geeze, just a bunch of bojos in this thread.

[kurumi]

Also, because it could levitate, it wouldn't be limited to just traveling above roads. It could also travel above any other surface, whether it's buildings, parks, woods, industrial parks, you name it.

A lot of access control is predicated on drivers unable or unwilling to take tires over/through a ditch, curb, spikes, gates, bollards, etc. If people could drive just anywhere, then different deterrents would need to be employed. Meaning:

It would rain bullets in certain places. Not everything would hit its target. You'd have to walk around in kevlar and a football helmet.

[Dirt Roads]

There's a strict rule on the Mass Transit board that guys like me are not supposed to "admonish users for their choice of mode of transport".  But I feel the need to point out the difference between levitation and flying. 

I've worked numerous projects that proposed different types of levitating AGT and non-automated Maglev vehicles, and they levitate less than 1/2 inch off of a flat surface plane.  What Bandit957 is referring falls in the category of flying cars (which have been around since before the Wright Brothers).  Today, there is also the newer technology of Personal Air Vehicle (PAV), which is more like an autonomous passenger air drone that is capable of autonomous driving on surface roads.  Both of these technologies are literally "waiting in the wings" of the autonomous vehicle craze because most folks are not willing to take the cost risk of a product with an inherently high safety risk (ergo, risk = frequency x severity and the most frequent severity of air crashes is catastrophic).  All that being said, I find all of these levitating and flying technologies to be very interesting.

Another category outside of the ones that Bandit957 is talking about is the Air Taxi philosophy.  These are small, personal sized traditional aircraft intended to be bounced around between small airports similar to ground taxi fleets.  Each one needs a certified pilot and would have the advantage of fleet ownership.  Canada has a small, but healthy Air Taxi industry but it has failed to get jump-started here in the States.  But I point this out because the advent of small VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) and eVTOL (electric) aircraft has the potential of making the Air Taxi industry much closer to what Bandit957 is suggesting.

There's a bunch of technical issues to get past approval from safety guys like me.  Much of my world has just switched over from Department of Defense system safety protocols to Aerospace Industry system safety management processes.  I've yet to get a handle on all of this (both in the mass transit world and in flying car world), but it looks like a really tough nut to crack open.

Hopefully, this sets the tone for the next round of comments.

[Scott5114]

There's a strict rule on the Mass Transit board that guys like me are not supposed to "admonish users for their choice of mode of transport". 

That's mostly so that if someone starts running around telling everyone they are Satan for driving instead of taking a bus, we can ban them.

[hotdogPi]

There's a strict rule on the Mass Transit board that guys like me are not supposed to "admonish users for their choice of mode of transport". 

That's mostly so that if someone starts running around telling everyone they are Satan for driving instead of taking a bus, we can ban them.

Sounds like a double standard to me. Why didn't kernals12 get hit by this rule?

[Rothman]

There's a strict rule on the Mass Transit board that guys like me are not supposed to "admonish users for their choice of mode of transport". 

That's mostly so that if someone starts running around telling everyone they are Satan for driving instead of taking a bus, we can ban them.

Sounds like a double standard to me. Why didn't kernals12 get hit by this rule?

Say his name three times and he'll appear.

[thspfc]

Your cars don't levitate?

[Max Rockatansky]

Wasn't this something that was promised at the Stark Expo of 1943?

[Dirt Roads]

There's a strict rule on the Mass Transit board that guys like me are not supposed to "admonish users for their choice of mode of transport". 

That's mostly so that if someone starts running around telling everyone they are Satan for driving instead of taking a bus, we can ban them.

Guilty as charged.  On all counts.

[Scott5114]

There's a strict rule on the Mass Transit board that guys like me are not supposed to "admonish users for their choice of mode of transport". 

That's mostly so that if someone starts running around telling everyone they are Satan for driving instead of taking a bus, we can ban them.

Sounds like a double standard to me. Why didn't kernals12 get hit by this rule?

the name of the forum is AARoads, not AATransit

[kkt]

Flying cars would still have to fly in air lanes, so they don't run into each other, right?  Cars would need even more space around them while flying than while rolling on roads, right?  I see them still stuck in traffic jams, just with fatalities resulting from fender benders and using a lot more fuel.

[Henry]

Even a video game predicted that we'd have flying cars in 2019, and it didn't happen then either.

[Rothman]

Even a video game predicted that we'd have flying cars in 2019, and it didn't happen then either.

Huh.  I thought video games were quite reliable in the prediction department.

[Dirt Roads]

Flying cars would still have to fly in air lanes, so they don't run into each other, right?  Cars would need even more space around them while flying than while rolling on roads, right?  I see them still stuck in traffic jams, just with fatalities resulting from fender benders and using a lot more fuel.

Except for one thing, traffic density is a function of the fleet size.  With passenger cars (automobiles), there is a huge privately-owned fleet that will all show up to a Who concert all at the same time.  Flying cars should operate like "true PRT" where the vehicles get assigned a route and then are checked into the traffic pattern such that the wayside control system handles the merging processes.  Just like PRT, there would only be a limited number of flying cars in the "system" (ergo, vicinity) at a time (for the same reasons, vehicle costs, vehicle storage issues and local availability).

[skluth]

It's so disappointing the OP definition of levitating is hundreds of feet above the surface. I so wanted a discussion of speeders, like is the XP-38 really that much better than the XP-34? Also, what's the latest tech in podracers? I think we could cover all the important questions.

[kkt]

Flying cars would still have to fly in air lanes, so they don't run into each other, right?  Cars would need even more space around them while flying than while rolling on roads, right?  I see them still stuck in traffic jams, just with fatalities resulting from fender benders and using a lot more fuel.

Except for one thing, traffic density is a function of the fleet size.  With passenger cars (automobiles), there is a huge privately-owned fleet that will all show up to a Who concert all at the same time.  Flying cars should operate like "true PRT" where the vehicles get assigned a route and then are checked into the traffic pattern such that the wayside control system handles the merging processes.  Just like PRT, there would only be a limited number of flying cars in the "system" (ergo, vicinity) at a time (for the same reasons, vehicle costs, vehicle storage issues and local availability).

Drivers don't accept assigned routes for cars.  Would they with flying cars?

[Max Rockatansky]

Even a video game predicted that we'd have flying cars in 2019, and it didn't happen then either.

We've had flying cars for awhile.  The problem is that they aren't practical and require specialized skills akin to piloting an aircraft to operate.  Levitating cars would be a different animal in theory since they wouldn't just drop out of the sky when stopped.

[skluth]

Flying cars would still have to fly in air lanes, so they don't run into each other, right?  Cars would need even more space around them while flying than while rolling on roads, right?  I see them still stuck in traffic jams, just with fatalities resulting from fender benders and using a lot more fuel.

Except for one thing, traffic density is a function of the fleet size.  With passenger cars (automobiles), there is a huge privately-owned fleet that will all show up to a Who concert all at the same time.  Flying cars should operate like "true PRT" where the vehicles get assigned a route and then are checked into the traffic pattern such that the wayside control system handles the merging processes.  Just like PRT, there would only be a limited number of flying cars in the "system" (ergo, vicinity) at a time (for the same reasons, vehicle costs, vehicle storage issues and local availability).

Drivers don't accept assigned routes for cars.  Would they with flying cars?

The FAA controls all US airspace. This includes drones.

40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.–(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.–(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for–

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

As you can see, the government will be involved even if you don't believe it should be. There are already restricted air spaces all over the country (and world). Some are temporary (like when Red Bull has one of their flying demos). Others are permanent (like anyone who tries flying over North Korea will quickly learn).

I'm not an expert by any means. I worked in our Maritime office, but I worked with many of my aviation counterparts. I know far more about how their data is disseminated than the actual rules. But if you think the government won't get involved if flying cars become more common, you're living in a dream world.

[kkt]

Flying cars would still have to fly in air lanes, so they don't run into each other, right?  Cars would need even more space around them while flying than while rolling on roads, right?  I see them still stuck in traffic jams, just with fatalities resulting from fender benders and using a lot more fuel.

Except for one thing, traffic density is a function of the fleet size.  With passenger cars (automobiles), there is a huge privately-owned fleet that will all show up to a Who concert all at the same time.  Flying cars should operate like "true PRT" where the vehicles get assigned a route and then are checked into the traffic pattern such that the wayside control system handles the merging processes.  Just like PRT, there would only be a limited number of flying cars in the "system" (ergo, vicinity) at a time (for the same reasons, vehicle costs, vehicle storage issues and local availability).

Drivers don't accept assigned routes for cars.  Would they with flying cars?

The FAA controls all US airspace. This includes drones.

40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.–(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.–(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for–

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

As you can see, the government will be involved even if you don't believe it should be. There are already restricted air spaces all over the country (and world). Some are temporary (like when Red Bull has one of their flying demos). Others are permanent (like anyone who tries flying over North Korea will quickly learn).

I'm not an expert by any means. I worked in our Maritime office, but I worked with many of my aviation counterparts. I know far more about how their data is disseminated than the actual rules. But if you think the government won't get involved if flying cars become more common, you're living in a dream world.

I agree with that being the law.  But drivers flout laws all the time, speed limits, right of way, posted signs.  Are they going to change their attitude just because they're piloting an aircraft now?  I'm not sure.

[Scott5114]

The FAA can make your life hell in ways that Sheriff Fortyguns can only dream of.