If it were to take off (whoops I see what I did there) I might have to take up rocketeering and start building some really tiny SAMs. Well that or take up skeet shooting again 🙂

Please don’t confuse a silly tv commercial with reality.

Flying cars have been around since before WW II. There is no “physics” that prevent building them, but no one wants to buy them. It’s basic engineering and simple economics. Automobiles suffer from road wear. A typical car is worn out after maybe 10 years. Airplanes last for decades.

It doesn’t make sense to drive your airplane on the road and have to replace it every 10 years. It’s more practical to have two machines, for two separate jobs.

But if you *really* want a flying car, you can buy one. They still show up at Oshkosh every year — no matter what Avery Brooks thinks.

http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/05/flying-cars-rocket-belts-and-space-travel/

1) They can’t fly autonomously. That means each unit still requires a pilot.
2) FAA requires that RC aircraft be in sight of the person controlling it, and it takes the FAA a very very long time to change it’s rules.
3) Small aircraft have extra challenges with wind and turbulence that is going to make them unsafe in neighborhoods or around people.
4) Range. Carrying anything at all, these are not going to have any significant range. Thirty minutes is a long time for a small aircraft. That means, 10 mins out, 10 mins back, and 10 mins necessary reserves. Add a 10 knot wind and range will be a couple of miles.

The solution to many of these problems is to make a larger aircraft. That makes it even more dangerous when it does have a problem. Now you’re not just getting knocked in the head by a 3 lb out-of-control helicopter (bad enough already), you’re being crushed by a 30 lb aircraft as it plummets to the ground at 100+ mph.

It’s a cool idea whose time is nowhere near. I give it 20 more years.

–bks