|
I think the FAA stance is that flying cars are kosher so long as they meet the same requirements as other planes of comparable weight/size/propulsion. Flying cars might not be very efficient, but that's something else entirely. That doesn't mean Uber could get away with having them work on autopilot with an undertrained pilot to make sure things go okay. And by undertrained I mean 20 hours of flight training. There's also a pesky federal prohibition against sports pilot license holders flying paying passengers. The FAA is certainly less lenient on legalities than the average city council is. The flying car makers know this and are willing to play by the rules. Rules written after lives were lost. Uber, well, they're loving bastards who'll get people killed sooner or later. That's not counting the suicides or the spree killer who also drove for Uber. RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Apr 27, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:02 |
|
Wheany posted:gently caress, Juicero is going to the moon BUY BUY BUY Check the date.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
I mean, flying cars are not on the horizon but if anyone tried to "move fast and break stuff" there the FAA would definitely be all over it to the practical effect of "LOLNO". They just had to wake up to deal with the quadcopters etc. and are in that posture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Check the date. Juicero is crashing SELL SELL SELL!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:I’m surprised the FAA hasn’t said “lolno” to flying cars yet It was always one of the endless amusements of reading SlashDot back in the day, when they'd have of their frequent posts on flying cars. Commenters would insist against all evidence that flying cars were cheap, practical and safe and didn't need a massive investment in infrastructure and administration. Relevant to thread topic, any safety concerns ("can you imagine people flying aircraft like they drive cars") would be hand waved away with technical solutions: autopilot, auto-rotation, parachutes etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
outlier posted:It was always one of the endless amusements of reading SlashDot back in the day, when they'd have of their frequent posts on flying cars. Commenters would insist against all evidence that flying cars were cheap, practical and safe and didn't need a massive investment in infrastructure and administration. *drives flying car like absolute poo poo* *stalls it out* *bails out and watches car smash some FAA inspectors investigating other flying car crash*
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:35
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Isn't that what the help is for?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:02
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Isn't that what the help is for? nah, servants get slow-roasted a jus.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:I’m surprised the FAA hasn’t said “lolno” to flying cars yet Well they have and they haven't. Most flying car designs are large enough to fall into the same pilot license and airframe licensing rules as other small aircraft like your typical cheap Cessna. So you can't legally fly them without those things and if you get caught you're in huge trouble. And if you otherwise break flight rules in them then you're punished just like with a full on plane. A few designs are small enough to qualify as ultralights and thus not require pilot licensing or airframe licensing, but those are mostly toy designs and wouldn't say, fit another person to handle some sort of taxi service. pangstrom posted:I mean, flying cars are not on the horizon but if anyone tried to "move fast and break stuff" there the FAA would definitely be all over it to the practical effect of "LOLNO". They just had to wake up to deal with the quadcopters etc. and are in that posture.  The Taylor Aerocar of 1959 for example, which is actually FAA certified and they sold a whole 6 of them. fishmech fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Isn't that what the help is for? No, the juice you get from squeezing them doesn't taste very good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
duz posted:No, the juice you get from squeezing them doesn't taste very good. Which end are you squeezing there? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
I saw a whole collection of flying cars at Udvar-Hazy a couple weeks back. What a monument to design dead ends and air industry payola that place is.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I saw a whole collection of flying cars at Udvar-Hazy a couple weeks back. What a monument to design dead ends and air industry payola that place is. Dehumanise yourself and face to SST, philistine 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 18:58
|
|
blowfish posted:Dehumanise yourself and face to SST, philistine They had a whole exhibit about what a boondoggle the Concord was.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
The Moller Skycar is the pinnacle of flying car technology. Since I was a kid, they would also be featured on shows about the technology of tomorrow as being "almost ready". But it's been in development for like 50 years, and AFAIK it's mostly just a way for one guy to scam investors out of their money. He's never been able to actually get one to do more than hover unstably for 5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They had a whole exhibit about what a boondoggle the Concord was. But the Concord was Cool and Good and who cares that it could only land at like 3 airports in the world because otherwise it would cause shockwaves that destroyed local homes/businesses? Actually though I really thought the Concord was neat and served a niche for people who for whatever reason really need to make a trans-Atlantic flight fast
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:The Moller Skycar is the pinnacle of flying car technology. Since I was a kid, they would also be featured on shows about the technology of tomorrow as being "almost ready". But it's been in development for like 50 years, and AFAIK it's mostly just a way for one guy to scam investors out of their money. He's never been able to actually get one to do more than hover unstably for 5 minutes. The trouble is, VTOL is hard enough when you've got a nice big fihgter jet to mount all your stuff and carry fuel, a flying car needs to be rather compact cuz it's gotta fit in normal road lanes. So he's spending all this time desperately trying to make VTOL work when the basic design is airworthy and could be used for a normal take off and landing plane/car thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
I love that flying cars are still the gold standard of literal pie in the sky technology fantasy. Juicero's advertising would be like if Campbells came out with a 100 dollar can opener with the line "Lets you create hundreds of delicious soups, when you want it!".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jfruh/status/857720275688767488 Oh come the gently caress on
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
wouldn't VTOL cars be a total nightmare because of downdraft exhaust of superheated fuels? like they wouldn't be able to take off anywhere, they'd still need to go to like a helipad (that can also withstand being blasted by jetfuel constantly). plus they couldn't just fly anywhere, they'd have to be way up in the sky where the exhaust would be harmless and then land at designated pads and then drive to where you're going anyway. like, if you're rich enough to have one of these, just get a helicopter or a private plane. seems to be equally effective
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Flying cars are literally helicopters and I don't understand the functional difference
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:Flying cars are literally helicopters and I don't understand the functional difference I think the main difference is shape and that everyone's idea of a flying car is probably quieter than a helicopter. That's about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:Flying cars are literally helicopters and I don't understand the functional difference flying car is a helicopter with all the downsides engineered away, somehow same as a food pill
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:Flying cars are literally helicopters and I don't understand the functional difference A flying car needs to be capable of being driven a long distance, using normal roads, when you're not flying it. So, it needs to at least fit within the sot of size constraints of a box truck or something, ideally fitting within the size constraints of a normal long wheelbase car if you can manage it. A helicopter really doesn't fit that, usually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
There actually are cars that have helicopter bits. Or helicopter bits attached to a car body. But I can't imagine they're more efficient than purpose-built cars or helicopters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
I understand -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that it's much harder to fly a helicopter than a plane, because you can't look away. Planes want to glide, helicopters want to fall. Would a flying car that's not wing-based have the same problems?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I understand -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that it's much harder to fly a helicopter than a plane, because you can't look away. Planes want to glide, helicopters want to fall. Would a flying car that's not wing-based have the same problems? It's more that it's harder to fly than a plane because doing anything besides going straight up and down is a lot more complicated than a plane's controls. That's just a factor of how most helicopter designs require you to use the main rotors both for maintaining height and generating forward/backward speed. However it's also relatively easier to "safely" take off or land a helicopter than it is to do so with a plane, so it's a wash overall. You've still gotta pay a lot of attention to what you're doing in either craft, if you're not flying in clear airspace on a nice autopilot path.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I understand -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that it's much harder to fly a helicopter than a plane, because you can't look away. Planes want to glide, helicopters want to fall. Would a flying car that's not wing-based have the same problems? not necessarily harder, it's just that helicopters have a worse failure state
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:not necessarily harder, it's just that helicopters have a worse failure state Eh, helicopters are a lot more complex. Landing a plane is precise, but takeoff and flight in a plane is easy for a child to do because they more or less fly themselves. This doesn't apply for military aircraft, but civilian aviation is easy, just super expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well they have and they haven't. Most flying car designs are large enough to fall into the same pilot license and airframe licensing rules as other small aircraft like your typical cheap Cessna. So you can't legally fly them without those things and if you get caught you're in huge trouble. And if you otherwise break flight rules in them then you're punished just like with a full on plane. Hey the Museum of Flight!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
The main difference between planes and helicopters is that planes will carry on flying if you don't provide input, while helicopters are vengeful mechanical beasts who are only capable of deriving joy from destroying themselves and taking at least one meatbag to hell with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Well obviously you could make the wings much smaller if you take advantage of the powered wheels to provide a treadmill-like effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The main difference between planes and helicopters is that planes will carry on flying if you don't provide input, while helicopters are vengeful mechanical beasts who are only capable of deriving joy from destroying themselves and taking at least one meatbag to hell with them. Right, helicopters are a lot harder because they don't self stabilize like typical small planes. A lot of practice needs to go into just maintaining level flight and balance and that goes for just hovering. The controls are complex the rotor cyclic control (balance), rotation, blade pitch and throttle which all need to be juggled simultaneously and interact with each other. Of course some of this could be automated but they're just far more complex to begin with. Though many people don't know - helicopters can in fact glide in a controlled fashion to a non-death landing if they lose the engine but again it's a tricky maneuver to manage (auto-gyration).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:it's a tricky maneuver to manage (auto-gyration). That's what she said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
How about a car that doesn't kill a million people in the millenia after you drive it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
https://technical.ly/brooklyn/2017/04/27/reefill-water-startup-plastic-waste/?utm_content=buffer58d73quote:For the price of one bottle of water, you could get a month’s worth of filtered water and not contribute to any plastic waste. That’s the idea of Reefill, a new, Brooklyn-based startup that’s trying to build a grid of filtered water stations around the city. Centrally distributed drinking water? What a novel idea, I wonder why no one has thought of this before 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Timespy posted:https://technical.ly/brooklyn/2017/04/27/reefill-water-startup-plastic-waste/?utm_content=buffer58d73 If you read the founders description it actually gets even nuttier, he's aware that he's just selling commercialized water fountains. What I am struggling to understand is why he's never heard of bathroom taps and the fact that they disrupt his entire business model.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Tap water doesn't disrupt poo poo. We've spent decades neglecting public water systems (see Flint) to the point that actual clean water from a privately owned fountain is seen as better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Tap water doesn't disrupt poo poo. We've spent decades neglecting public water systems (see Flint) to the point that actual clean water from a privately owned fountain is seen as better. Not in major cities like NYC, where they're trying to operate though? Hell, people get water bottled from NYC's taps because they think it's special for cooking or health even. MiddleOne posted:If you read the founders description it actually gets even nuttier, he's aware that he's just selling commercialized water fountains. What I am struggling to understand is why he's never heard of bathroom taps and the fact that they disrupt his entire business model. Or you know, all those water fountain upgrades you see around major cities where the normal water fountain gets an explicit free water container filler added on the back:  I've been seeing these more and more in public places all up and down the east coast. No user payment or anything, they're just installing them when older water fountains break.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
anonumos posted:Tap water doesn't disrupt poo poo. We've spent decades neglecting public water systems (see Flint) to the point that actual clean water from a privately owned fountain is seen as better. Plus, the amount of waste created by bottled water is incredible (between production, bottling, and distribution), not to mention the effect on aquifers supporting the bottling plants and the locales they should be serving. I see people in the grocery store buying cases of bottled water each week - out of convenience, lack of faith in city water, who knows. Yeah, his product isn't exactly novel but if he can cut down on bottled water consumption that's a good thing. I have far fewer issues with this than, say, Plenti.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:31
|
|
