32

At last the flying cars (we mean it this time edition)


 

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2047131&w=425&h=350&fv=videoid%3D6931060001]


 
Filed under:

At last the flying cars (we mean it this time edition)

  1. Our hero (landing on the 401) observed the usual imprecise domino arrangement : his runway of roofs.

  2. So, uh, I guess this means that when I, as a canuck, tell someone to “Take off, eh”, I’ll have to specify whether I’m saying it as a pejorative or an imperative.

  3. um… no back window or side mirrors… I think the next scene will show it backing up out of the garage into some garbage cans and a kid’s bike

  4. I don’t know. To me, this ain’t a flying car. This is a plane small enough to drive around on the road.

    Cool and all, but not a flying car.

    • What would possibly meet your impossibly high standards for flying carness? Does it have to look exactly like an Alero?

      • I admit it’s an impossibly high standard, but “something I don’t need a pilot’s license to fly” would be one criteria.

        And to me, flying cars are cars that fly not planes you can drive. A driving plane is cool and all (very cool in fact) but it’s not a flying car.

        • I’m pretty sure that the “flying cars” you speak of require wings to fly. So if your definition of a flying car doesn’t include wings (because that would make it a plane you can drive) then I’m afraid you’re in for a big disappointment.

        • How do you draw the line? Both flying cars and driving planes are able to a) drive and b) fly. Both fulfill the functions of a) planes and b) cars. Its kind of like arguing that a mule is a horsedonkey, not a donkyhorse.

          You can draw arbitrary distinctions between flying cars and driving planes all you like, but do so with the knowledge that your skepticism is holding back this hugely important new technological advancement. You’re like the electric car naysayers, only much, much worse.

          • You can call them flying cars or driving planes. You can even call them “Shirley”. That still won’t help them get off the ground if they don’t have the wingspan of a light aircraft. Also, naysaying is lots of fun. If you say “nay” often enough you start to sound like a horsedonkey. Or is that a donkeyhorse?

          • Wingspans are overrated, I seem to believe. Rockets don’t have wingspans, and they do alright for themselves. Hell, rocketships can make it all the way to outerspace, whereas regualr planes with wingspans are flying around the earth like a bunch of suckers. Does that mean that wingspans are preventing Westjet from reaching Mars? Yes, that’s exactly what it means.

          • “You’re like the electric car naysayers, only much, much worse”.

            lol

            ‘Cause all that preventing the creation of electric cars has the potential to do is destroy the planet, whereas the failure to produce flying cars has the potential to confine us to really, really inconvenient travel!

          • A plane already performs the function of a car, just not conveniently.

            I maintain that that thing above is a plane that can drive more conveniently than a car.

            THESE are flying cars. So’s THIS.

            I want a flying car darn it all, and you won’t fool me with a plane that has fold up wings.

  5. I’ve seen many a car in the movies and on T.V. that flew perfectly well without wings.

    Bruce Willis’s cab in The Fifth Element? No wings. The Delorean from Back to the Future? No wings. The Jetson’s car? NO WINGS.

    I’m quite certain that I’m in for a big disappointment. Just as certain as I am that that cool vehicle above is a plane that can drive, not a flying car.

    • I stand to be corrected, but I thought Harriers didn’t deploy their wings until half way through their vertical take-off. What about some good old Harrier technology? Solar-powered, natch.

      • Solar power is old hat. If Dr. Emmett Brown can create an engine that uses garbage as fuel, surely we can as well.

        • In fairness, he did that in the future, where they already had flying skateboards. We would need time-travel first, flying cars caring flies second.

          • Yea, but to Doc, this is the future. WE’RE ALREADY IN THE FUTURE! And no flying skateboards, garbage engines, nothing, probably because people like you think it will just magically appear at some point in the future. Where would humanity be today if the guy who made the first Segway PT didn’t take the initiative? I shudder to think.

      • You would need an array of solar panels covering an area the size of 30 football fields to provide the thrust needed to launch a Harrier vertically. Solar panels can help prolong the battery life of a lightweight unmanned drone, but that’s about the only practical application of solar power in aviation.

        • So, you think a big fold-out solar panel is feasible? Could you design a 30-football-field one that could fold up in a compact trunk?

          • Well, if you used the thinnest and lightest solar panels available, you might be able to pack a 30-football-field solar array into a small cargo ship. I imagine there might be a slight problem with wind resistance and drag when you unfolded it.

          • Hmm. Slight as in serious, or slight as in slight?

            Sigh. Maybe we have to stick with the plutonium.

      • Kinda depends what you mean by “deploy their wings”. Although some Harriers (particularly for Carrier use) have wings that can fold up for storage purposes (so you can fit a lot of jets below decks) the Harrier is really a fixed wing aircraft. Now, the wings don’t actually provide any LIFT when they’re using their vertical take-off capabilities, that’s all from the jet engines, but the wings are still physically present.

  6. Jay Leno has a motorcycle run by a helicopter jet engine – so what’s the problem strap a foil (parasailing) on it and vroom vroom – as a sidenote apparently someone came up behind Leno in a car and got to close trying to look at the bike and melted his front bumper on his Infinity (now this would be cool keep the tailgaters away and that’s for sure)

  7. Heh heh. Um, no. Not even remotely feasible.

  8. “There are still one or two drawbacks.”

    I think this looks pretty cool but that is a classic English understated comment because I can think of more than or two drawbacks to letting this vehicle lose into the world.

    • That is really a cool aircraft. Wow it makes me want to get to work and make more money so I can have one. you are right it is cool.

  9. My pick is the skywalker, no wings, vtol, freedom from airports, and who cares about the government and the faa its time to begin to be we the people. Lets fly baby just get good coordinates and keep your head on straight. Also the skywalker has programmable capabilities for the armed services. Let the civilians have it also. Get a screen that you put your hand on or let it read your eyes tell it to take you home the coordinates are already loaded and sit back and fly.

    • What’s the street value?

  10. Not a chance that it would pass crash standards. Perhaps if it were a 3 wheeler – then it would be classed as a motorcycle… But then it wouldn’t be a car would it?

  11. What do flying cars and a CLOWNservative majority have in common?

    Two things that ain’t going to happen ;-)

Sign in to comment.