Why dont we have flying cars?

Question

WE have the technology to do it ! WHy not do it! Just because the air traffic made by palnes???

Answer 1

There are several ways to achieve flight. You can get airborne by displacing more air than your mass, achieving boyoancy; that is what balloon do. Problem: bulky and easily pushed around by the wind, and if your lifting gas is hydrogen, you are flying with a bomb.
You can move fast enough through the air, and use that velocity to obtain lift on a fixed wing; that is what airplane do. Problem: the wing is quite large, and you do need forward speed to achieve lift, this means you need a runway to take off and land.
You can move an airfoil in a circle, and generate lift while having a cabin suspended under it. That is how helicopter work. Problem: helicopters have large rotor that are dangerous to stand around, require constant tweaking by the pilot as they are unstable, but offers the advantage of vertical take off and landing.
You can use direct thrust, usually from a jet engine, to push you upward. This is how jet packs, vertical take-off jet fighters, space shuttle and other rockets work. The problem is that direct lift is *EXTREMELY* inefficient (jet packs have fuel for about one minute) and tend to destroy stuff around on the ground with their jet blast.
Then, you can combine several techniques together, like the convertiplane, where the propellers of a somewhat conventional looking airplane are reorientated to act as helicopter rotor to allow vertical take off, or in the case of fighter jets like the Harrier, redirect the jet blast vertically; the problem here is mostly of stability and control, especially during the transition between vertical and forward flight. Having convertible planes is supposed to ahve the advantage of heliocopter and airplane but usually mostly have the inconveniences of both.

Do we have the technology to make flying cars? Yes. But it will be very (very VERY) expensive, most likely quite energy inefficient (because of the requirements of vertical take off ) and nothing has been said about the certification issues, yet.

If you go around town, you will probably notice several morons swerving around in their SUV, because they are yakking on their &*%# cell phones, or because they are eating breakfast, or because they are drunk, or all of the above combined and at the same time. That is MY main concern. That those idiots will take it to the air, and risk colliding with other flying cars, or even worse, with a 747 with 400 people on board because they were distracted by pushing the buttons on their cell phone to retrieve their messages, and have all those flamings debris fall on a school or something like that. Flying is a difficult and demanding skill, that is why pilots are well paid -- they desserve it -- and unless someone can come up with a 100% automatic flight control system that will not allow idiots to even change speed or altitude by one micron, I would be against flying cars.

Answer 2

We already do. Some inventors have already developed flying cars that are both safe and effective, but they're not practical because the infrastructure is not there to support them. We would need a whole new air highway concept, places to fuel, land, parking lots would have to be rebuilt, etc.
And I don't even want to think about the security risks involved...

An interesting fact: Henry Ford designed a flying Model T called the Sky Flivver. It never quite caught on because of safety concerns, but it's proof that even that early, the desire and technology for a flying car did exist. Maybe it's just a matter of time before it breaks through and becomes a part of life.

Answer 3

Flying cars do exist
http://moller.com/

The only problem is that since people can not safely drive a land based car only dealing with two dementions, ther is no way that a flying car can be made available to the public until the human factor is taken out.

The thought of soccer moms driving flying SUVs while putting on makeup and talking on a cell phone is enough to make me live in a bunker.

Answer 4

They could never be fuel efficient so why would you want one. Just to drive a mile down the street you'd have to lift a 2500 lb car off the ground and get it in the air. That's a lot of energy; an awful lot. PLus you're subject to weather. Get a 30 mph wind and you're probably grounded as well as snow or fog or rain. I don't see us turning into the Jetsons too soon.

Answer 5

Good question. But it is probably more a condition of Capitalistic ideology than social or even scientific. The United States is stunted in its scientific advance because the major businesses must be in control of any new advance in order to make a buck. Also you must understand that our nation is militaristic and as such most of our technology is based upon our ability to make War. It has been estimated that we are approximately 70 years behind where we should be due to the suppression of inventions by major corporation because they have no marketing strategy or are unwilling to retool to create the new technologies. However, you may wish to check Moller.com, they have a version of a flying car in the prototype stage.

Answer 6

The SkyCar is in testing and may be bought for ~$80,000 when ready. We will need the infrastructure for this to become practical-- we also need bountiful renewable resources that would not cause adverse effects on our environment (ie. global warming and pollution).

It is the future, and I think we will be around to see it. we will also live through a shift in our energy source --from fossil fuels to hydrogen (probably).

Streets are two dimensional and thus lead to congestion easier than traveling in three dimensions-- It is an obvious progression for our future, one which i think we'll see sooner than later.

CHECK OUT THIS LINK, it's the company developing the car:

http://www.moller.com/

Answer 7

What technology do we possess that allows us to do it already?

Even if we do have the technology, the cars would be too expensive to afford for most people.

Answer 8

you're good on! no count number what the technologies, gravity nonetheless regulations the earth and see you later as gravity regulations, we are able to not have the funds for for a lower than the effect of alcohol skydriver to crash and land on correct of a progression killing 2 hundred human beings.

Answer 9

Really! All the cartoons when I was little said we'd have one by 2000. Humph!

Answer 10

Because they tend to fall down if they run out of gas.