119
The first flying car, 'Model A,' approved by the FAA and it's 100% electric (www.usatoday.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/tech@kbin.social
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Alef Aeronautics' 'Model A' has a driving range of 200 miles and a flight range of 110 miles. The company plans to start delivering cars by late 2025.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 years ago (18 children)

Will you also need a pilots license to purchase? I wonder where you would even be allowed to transition from driving to flying...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago* (13 children)

    Driving down the highway, hit a traffic jam. Don't even slow down just go airborne over the jam.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    @Lantech

    @Ragnell @ExpensiveConstant

    Aside from the $300k price tag, sadly….

    The car will be a Low Speed Vehicle, meaning it won’t go faster than about 25 miles per hour on a paved surface. If a driver needs a faster route, they will be able to use the vehicle's flight capabilities, according to Alef.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago

    People's driving senses are so fucking bad, I can't imagine them flying. It'll be in the news often I guess "car crashes into building while trying to back up." "car flies into power lines thousands without power" well I guess that's fairly typical already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    What the hell is the point of a car that can't do more than 25 mph? This thing can fucking fly, but it's as capable as a golf cart on the ground?

    I'll believe this when it actually exists (the thing they're promising, not a skeletal prototype), and I'll believe that the FAA is cool with flying cars when I see them on my commute. None of this currently passes the bullshit check.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I imagine that it's supposed to be flown and is only temporarily used on the ground. Same way airplanes don't have a higher ground speed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    K well there are a few key differences between cars and airplanes... If planes could drive around on the road, nobody would buy a car. That's kinda the whole goddamn point, that's why people want a car that can fly.

    I take issue with a "flying car" that's not a fucking car. What the hell is the point? If you're spending $300k, why wouldn't you actually become a pilot instead of buying some half-baked car that isn't actually usable as a car?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I think it's mostly an expensive toy. They made it VTOL so it does not have to go fast enough on the ground to become airborne. That's ok, it doesn't need a runway to take off, but VTOL is way to make things fly that really have no business flying. Airplanes have a certain shape because they have to. This thing looks like a bar of soap in comparison. I'm sure it uses a ton of energy to stay airborne, it would have the glide coefficient of a rock.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)

    This is a ridiculous comment. Are you intentionally missing the point? Why are you applying airplane design principles to a car? It's not a plane...it's a car.

    Glide coefficient? In what scenario do you imagine this car gliding? Do you see wings? They didn't "make it VTOL" because they couldn't design a functional airplane, they designed it as a VTOL from day one because a flying car that isn't VTOL capable wouldn't be viable. The very concept of a flying car is based on VTOL. It can only work as a car if it's VTOL. A fixed-wing flying car would be asinine, where the hell do you expect people to take off?

    Look I am not a supporter of this thing. It has too many glaring issues, like the fact that it doesn't currently exist. You cannot, however, criticize this vehicle based on its merits as an airplane, because it's not an airplane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You ABSOLUTELY can criticize it as an airplane. It's a vehicle that flys. And as a VTOL, it doesn't have much if any of a glide coefficient like deaconblue said. Which is extremely relevant if power goes out and instead of being able to glide to safety, it just falls like a rock on whatever is below. Saying "its a VTOL, so it doesn't matter" puts you on the same safety standards as that submarine guy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Okay, then I'm going to criticize you as an airplane. You're a fucking piece of shit airplane, dude. You don't even have wings, what the fuck are you doing? You can't produce thrust, you can't generate lift, what good are you as an airplane? Get outta here, stop wasting everyone's time.

    See how fuckin' stupid that was?

    Yes, there is an inherent risk associated with aircraft that cannot glide. What's your point? Cars can't have wings, it simply isn't viable, so what do you propose? You want them to design a car-shaped object that can magically glide without wings? Think about it for more than a second and you'll see the issue there. What you're suggesting cannot exist within the currently-understood laws of physics. In order for flying cars to become reality, there is a certain level of risk that must be accepted.

    Saying "its a VTOL, so it doesn't matter" puts you on the same safety standards as that submarine guy.

    You don't know a fucking thing about me, so how about we steer clear of character assumptions? Maybe show me the courtesy of just arguing facts on this one?

    That guy knowingly and intentionally broke all of the rules. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting any rules be broken or any safety standards be forsaken, I'm simply pointing out that you cannot judge this concept based on a fundamentally different type of aircraft.

    It's a vehicle that flys.

    Ever seen a fuckin' helicopter? Hot air balloon? Blimp? Turns out there's more than one way to get and remain airborne. Think...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Your name is well chosen. I think you just wasted a lot of time essentially making the same points I did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    Reading comprehension has always been a struggle for you, I take it. It does not matter how it compares to an airplane, because it is not an airplane. It's not a boat either, you imbecile, do we need to dissect that one as well?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent