Metroplis mobilized by air?

[Eastward Bound]

I remember watching on Discovery channel the possibilities of giving
the common people minature aircraft that are extreamly simple to fly.

Is such a thing even in the drawing board? A whole metropolis that
has no massive freeways. Just parking lots for the aircraft at the
shopping malls and such. Landing pads everywhere for most all
aircraft takes off and lands virticaly. All aircraft controlled
electronicaly by an advanced type of autopilot. All you have to do is
type in your destination and the aircraft takes off so long as it's
sensors don't show that it's either too low on fuel or certain fluids
and that everything is in working condition.

Does that sound whimsical to you?

[Icebound]

Eastward Bound wrote:
> I remember watching on Discovery channel the possibilities of giving
> the common people minature aircraft that are extreamly simple to fly.
>
> Is such a thing even in the drawing board? A whole metropolis that
> has no massive freeways. Just parking lots for the aircraft at the
> shopping malls and such. Landing pads everywhere for most all
> aircraft takes off and lands virticaly. All aircraft controlled
> electronicaly by an advanced type of autopilot. All you have to do is
> type in your destination and the aircraft takes off so long as it's
> sensors don't show that it's either too low on fuel or certain fluids
> and that everything is in working condition.
>
> Does that sound whimsical to you?

'round about 1488 someone called Leonardo da Vinci had some whimsical
thoughts about flying machines....

http://www.visi.com/~reuteler/vinci/fly2.jpg

[C J Campbell]

"Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
om...
| I remember watching on Discovery channel the possibilities of giving
| the common people minature aircraft that are extreamly simple to fly.
|

The problem is that aircraft require much more energy and resources than do
automobiles, which is another way of saying that they are expensive both to
own and to operate. No one is going to 'give' airplanes to the common people
or anyone else. It takes a lot of fuel to fly, so the small personal
aircraft is going to have either very limited range or it is going to be
bigger than most people realize.

Most cities would prefer to concentrate on mass transportation, which moves
the parking and pollution problems of individual transportation to outlying
areas. Individual aircraft are not mass transit.

NASA and others have been working on aircraft that are more simple to fly,
but so far the technology has not been up to the task. Most pilots think
that there will have to be considerable advances in avionics and other areas
before such an aircraft as you describe will be practical.

One advocate of a system such as you describe has been attempting to build a
"Skycar" for more than forty years. He has spent millions of dollars of
taxpayers' and other peoples' money and has little to show for his efforts.
He is good at media promotion but that is about it. He has never built an
aircraft capable of carrying an actual passenger. He has also been wildly
optimistic on how much his Skycar will cost and has ignored the incredible
fuel cost of operating such a vehicle.

[Jim Fisher]

"Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
> Does that sound whimsical to you?

I reckon flying hundreds of people inside a winged aluminum can weighing
thousands of tons probably sounded whimsical about a hundred years ago (give
or take a day or three).

If Boeing ever works this out
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm) your whimsy will come
true.

--
Jim Fisher

[G.R. Patterson III]

Eastward Bound wrote:
>
> Does that sound whimsical to you?

Sure does.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Marc]

"Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
om...
> I remember watching on Discovery channel the possibilities of giving
> the common people minature aircraft that are extreamly simple to fly.
>
> Is such a thing even in the drawing board? A whole metropolis that
> has no massive freeways. Just parking lots for the aircraft at the
> shopping malls and such. Landing pads everywhere for most all
> aircraft takes off and lands virticaly. All aircraft controlled
> electronicaly by an advanced type of autopilot. All you have to do is
> type in your destination and the aircraft takes off so long as it's
> sensors don't show that it's either too low on fuel or certain fluids
> and that everything is in working condition.
>
> Does that sound whimsical to you?

I'm sure given enough time and advance in technology anything is possible.
What huge advantage there is to flying versus driving on the ground is not
clear to me however, the same advances in technologies could probably
produce more practicle ground transportation systems. But my main reason for
pessimism is that people are inherently afraid of flying. Even with
mountains of statistics showing that a commercial airliner is safer than
driving, most people feel safer on the ground.

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Jim Fisher > wrote:

> I reckon flying hundreds of people inside a winged aluminum can weighing
> thousands of tons probably sounded whimsical about a hundred years ago (give
> or take a day or three).

Still does, for that matter. *Hundreds* of tons, sure. I don't think anyone's
done thousands yet.

No one has had luck reducing the cost of a small aircraft over the last 100
years. I think some new technology will be needed to do it.

Mike Beede

[Eric Miller]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message
...
>
> In short, gravitationally driven air transportation would be cheap and
easy
> to master.

Might be easier, but until you know *how* it's done, you can't conclude a
priori that's it'd be cheap.

Eric

[Jeff Franks]

>..... But my main reason for
> pessimism is that people are inherently afraid of flying. Even with
> mountains of statistics showing that a commercial airliner is safer than
> driving, most people feel safer on the ground.


My Great-Grandmother was afraid of going faster than 35mph in a car. It's
all what your used to I guess.

I have a 1950's era Popular Mechanics of my dad's that proclaims that we'll
all be flying to work in personal aircraft by 1979. Hrm. Missed that one
abit. But to say it's "whimsical" puts your head on a chopping block.
We've proven over the years that if we can imagine it, then we *could* do
it, for the most part. Heck, even transporters like on Star Trek are being
worked with now (VERRRRY early stages compared to TV).

Flying is the next step in our quest for faster transportation and ease. At
this rate, we could easily be flying to space in another 100 years. BTW,
did anyone see the landing of SpaceShip One? They collapsed a main landing
gear and it skidded off the side of the runway. Scaled Composites
statement was to the effect of "ah, we'll buff it out. No big deal.". If it
had been a government project, the program would have been shut down for the
$47 million repair to the craft...lol.

[Brien K. Meehan]

(Eastward Bound) wrote in message >...
> All aircraft controlled
> electronicaly by an advanced type of autopilot. All you have to do is
> type in your destination and the aircraft takes off ...

Why is this "autopilot" feature an obligatory part of this fantasy
every single time a variation of it comes up? That doesn't sound
appealing to me at all.

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message >...
> Well, it doesn't sound appealing to me either, but unfortunately appeal has
> nothing to do with it when it comes to millions (!) of people flittering
> hither and thither in their own personal craft in a major metropolitan area.

This is currently how we do it with cars. No autopilot.

> Getting people safely from point A to point B has.

Cars aren't terribly safe, but are very popular.

Actually, I think personal appeal has the biggest part of the success
formula for "plans" like this. If people just plain don't like it,
they won't use it.

I think that's why mass transit is such a failure almost everywhere,
even though it's safer and hugely more efficient - arguably, "better".
People just like having the little bit of control they get driving
their cars. Sometimes it's the only control they get on any given
day.

Telling people, "It'll be great, just push the button, and sit back
and relax" generally is a recipe for failure.

[Eastward Bound]

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message >...
> "Brien K. Meehan" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> om...
> > (Eastward Bound) wrote in message
> >...
> > > All aircraft controlled
> > > electronicaly by an advanced type of autopilot. All you have to do is
> > > type in your destination and the aircraft takes off ...
> >
> > Why is this "autopilot" feature an obligatory part of this fantasy
> > every single time a variation of it comes up? That doesn't sound
> > appealing to me at all.
>
> Well, it doesn't sound appealing to me either, but unfortunately appeal has
> nothing to do with it when it comes to millions (!) of people flittering
> hither and thither in their own personal craft in a major metropolitan area.
> Getting people safely from point A to point B has.
>
> Mike



YES, this is very true. The skies would become blackened with so many
personal flying automobiles.

Ever seen some of those new Star wars movies where the whole planet is
one big city? Everyone gets around in thier own little flying autos
and they all follow some kind of path through the skies? From above
you see freeways high in the sky crisscrossing each other overlapping
perfectly to make a type of GRID pattern.

And that would be the way of the future because obviously the building
and maintainance of multiple superhighways within one state alone
becomes prohibitively expensive. And the newer metroplitan areas
won't have any ground freeways at all. The big rigs will also take to
the skies and they will have their own dedicated lanes. Not to
mention that the new automobiles in historic cities would never touch
the ground if they are using ground roads. They simply hover over it
about 1 foot leaving the ground unmolested. Cars with wheels would
only be expensive toys for rich people who can afford to locate
gasoline for them. A type of ancient fuel that in no longer being
refined in large quantities. You have to refine it yourself if you
own or know someone who owns an oil well.

In California the corrupt politicians can barely keep up with the
maintainance of it's freeways. How much more in places like Detroit
and the Twin cities where roads need to be repaved each year from the
salt? There is a saying there that Minneapolis has only two seasons
-- Winter and road reconstruction. I'm surprised that major
metropolitan areas up north can survive at all with all of those extra
costs. I guess it's just because those northern states aren't
overburdened with millions of illegal aliens and failing school
systems.

Sounds like a nice future doesn't it?

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
>
> If people just plain don't like it, they won't use it.

Yep. If most New Jersey drivers can't figure out a way to cut other people off,
they won't go.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."