Air cars will never fly (911 more reasons)

Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars, i.e. millions of
people duking it out in small aircraft instead of automobiles. See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...l+never+fly%22

It was based on this man's (and other technophiles') naive, unworkable
vision of air cars replacing most ground traffic.

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm

Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin. I hope the
latest reason goes without saying! See subject line.

A.J.





ORIGINAL POST
Subject: Air cars will never fly
12-13-98 (sci.space.policy)

The article on the link below epitomizes the deluded "vision" of many
in the space-colonization movement. If the author thinks air-cars are
practical it's no wonder he thinks space-colonization as a means to
keep society sustainable is feasible too (see other links on the
site.)

http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/whynotfly.htm


Here are some obvious reasons why the air-car concept will never fly:

1) It takes FAR more energy to keep something in the air vs. on the
ground, where no energy must be expended to lift its mass. In the
article the author claims that guv'mint fuel regulations inspired him
to think of the air-car concept, but he is completely deluded. He
yearns for transportation that would create energy nightmares on a
much larger scale.

2) Accidents happen often enough with earthbound vehicles restricted
to lanes. If we expand transportation into the air, millions of
vehicles will have to dodge each other with no lane boundaries and a
third dimension as well. It would be complete mayhem. Driving skill
is poor enough as it is, and most accidents would probably be fatal.
Who would trust a naive 16, 18 or 21 year-old to fly and jeopardize
everyone's safety? What about the elderly or infirm who can barely
keep a car on the pavement? Even top pilots have to concentrate hard
to maneuver aircraft in congested situations.

3) When a mechanical breakdown occurs with an earthbound vehicle it
often just rolls to a stop, out of harm's way. But a breakdown in a
airborne vehicle would result is serious danger to anyone in the area.
Controlling air-cars with computers to prevent accidents makes no
sense since it negates the very freedom they are supposed to offer,
plus computer systems fail, and would inevitably cause tragedies in a
sky packed with cars.

4) Environmentally speaking (and this is where the author is really
nuts, since he was partially inspired by a desire for fewer roads)
air-cars would be a visual and auditory nightmare. With no clear
lanes we would have vehicles buzzing all over the place, ruining peace
and quiet and disrupting areas that were formerly safe from roads of
any kind. Wildlife would be routinely scared and you couldn't go
anywhere (or even sleep at night) for fear of a joyrider slamming into
you. It would be like opening the entire planet to airborne jet-skis.

5) There are close to 200 million cars and trucks in use in America
today, and to replace even a fraction of these with air-cars would be
completely impractical for many reasons (cost alone would be
staggering). One big issue is our dependence on trucks of all sizes
for hauling freight, which would be impractical in high speed flying
vehicles. The author claims that air-cars would allow us to tear up
paved routes that spoil natural scenery, but this would prevent the
movement of vital freight everywhere; totally unworkable. Tearing up
roads would be impossibly expensive and it would just leave erosion
scars.

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night? How would
people park as well? Unless some magic anti-gravity propulsion is
developed we would be subject to annoying air-blasts every time
someone pulled into a Wal-Mart. The takeoff scenario after a major
crowd event would be a hopeless maze of flying objects as everyone
tried to leave first.

The author is a Libertarian who detests regulations, but air-cars
would demand more regulations than he could ever imagine. If anyone
thinks air-cars would be remotely practical (except as toys for the
wealthy) I'd like to see your arguments.

A.J. (reposted from 12-13-1998)

wrote:


6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

wrote in message
...
Almost five years ago I started a thread critiquing the technological
and aesthetic problems associated with air cars [...]

Back then, I was surprised to see so many defenders of this insanely
complex, unsafe, environmentally disruptive nightmare, but I think
today's new world has put the final nail in the coffin.

You came back five years later just to say "I told you so"?

Not that I believe you really had that many people disagreeing with you
anyway. Not in the rec.aviation.piloting newsgroup. But doesn't your post
strike you as just a little petty?

Pete

"Gilles KERMARC" wrote in message
news:bl4u58$ng1$1@news-

6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS is not an accepted form of primary instrument natigation, is it?

Plus...how would we hit raccoons and possum?!

-c

well as the old saying goes never say never.
History has proven many things happened that were said would never.
We will probably be long dead in the ground but some form of air car will
someday exist and that is for sure.
--
Mitchell Wing
http://www.mitchellwing.com

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:06:51 +0200, Gilles KERMARC
wrote:

wrote:


6) Navigation in an air car would be a nightmare since it can be hard
enough to reach a destination with defined roads and street markings.
How would people know where they were, especially at night?

Heard about the GPS ?

GPS was covered in some detail in the original 1998 thread. GPS just
isn't accurate or reliable enough for a lot of fast-moving objects in
a crowded space. I've used a GPS handheld extensively and would not
bet my life on its resolution of 14 feet, or even 1 foot if such
accuracy was possible for the public.

Besides, GPS is just one of many flaws in the concept.

A.J.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 04:32:04 GMT, "Gilan" wrote:

well as the old saying goes never say never.
History has proven many things happened that were said would never.
We will probably be long dead in the ground but some form of air car will
someday exist and that is for sure.

It already does, but it's not going anywhe http://www.moller.com/

I could envision something (for light duty) that hovers near the
ground using some sort of antigravity, but I don't want congestion
shoved into the air creating eyesores and hazards far greater than
today's ground traffic.

A.J.

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
snip
You came back five years later just to say "I told you so"?


Seven years is the statute of limitations on *I told you so's* ...anything
after that falls under the asperses of unearthing repressed memories.

--
Montblack

Most of the crap charges levied against air cars (not safe disruptive,
unsightly, eco adverse, security risk ala 9-11) are the same charges levels
against automobiles by people who hate the fact that the auto underpins a
real expansion of the freedoms and horizons of the common folk.

If air cars happen they will grow slowly and an appropriate system of checks
and balances will emerge. Until then ponder this...

Air cars, when operational, shall be no less safe that any other mode of
transport. Ships sink. Cars and planes crash. Trains derail. Balloons
pop. Amish people get kicked, bit and thrown by their horses. All of these
things can be fatal. If they scare you exercise you individual right not to
use them. Do not deprive the rest of us of freedom in order to satisfy your
cravings.

Unsightly is a personal opinion. Everybody has there own opinions.

Environmentalism is an ideology on par with Nazism. It deserves no
comment.

Security is an issue only if we let become one. Technology gives more as
many advantages as disadvantages, and real security is rather simple. If
armed air marshals were available on 9-11 the towers would still be there.

"Montblack" wrote:
...asperses...

Merriam Webster let me down on this one.