Talk:Flying car

Comments

If you're going to let Harry HotPockets into the article, maybe we could mention, or at least provide link to, Kevin Smith's hilarious Randall & Dante "Flying Car" video clip? http://www.viewaskew.com/tv/leno/flyingcar.html

"A flying car? How droll." - Dead End — JIP | Talk 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Moller

Hi,
The Moller Skycar is certainly not a flying car and the assertion: "However, the Moller Skycar passed flight testing in 2003 and is awaiting FAA certification. Over 100 have been reserved and production is expected to begin in 2006." is totally false! Cheers
--Pantoine 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Moller Skycar should be in the science fiction section, or perhaps a new section: persistent frauds. --Tysto 22:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

M400X - IS AN AIRCRAFT, NOT A FLYING CAR

Paul Moller has spent the last 30+ years developing some very innovative Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft.

However, these aircraft and particularly the one shown here is NOT a FLYING CAR, nor is it a practical Roadable Aircraft… it is an aircraft with the word “car” in it’s name.

The definition for a vehicle that may legally travel on a US highway is set by each of the respective states in the country. There is a general consensus that a "roadable vehicle" cannot be greater than 8 feet in width, with some states having a limited exception of 8.5 feet for buses and RVs. Best estimates of the width of the most recent incarnation of the Moller 400X is approximately 12-14 feet. At this width, The Moller vehicle is NOT legal to travel on any US road.

In Moller's own website; FAQ statement 4.10 - 4.13, this aircraft is limited to taking off and landing from an FAA approved airport and must travel on roads to-and-from the actual intended destination. Unless you live on a runway, you cannot get to an airport with this aircraft. It would be the same legal situation as trying to drive a CESSNA down a freeway to a local airport.

Furthermore, in NO place on the Moller website is the claim made that the vehicle is a "CAR", but it does fictitiously claim to be legal to drive on a road.

The references to the Moller aircraft being a "CAR" are completely bogus and a marketing ploy to generate free advertising and monetary gains. Overall, this AIRCRAFT should not be included on the FLYING CAR (AUTOMOBILES) article, which is the title for this page. --Mlabiche 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Moller should be included

I completely agree that the Skycar is 100% aircraft and 0% car. However, it has been touted as a flying car and the average person will expect it to be at-least mentioned in an article about flying cars. I added a reference to the Skycar with proper disclaimers. Rsduhamel 20:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a flying car

I also completely agree that the current definition of a flying car in this article--an aircraft that can be legally driven on public roads--is a good definition. However, I have done a quick straw poll and three out of three people asked think a flying car could also be defined as an aircraft that can be used for the purpose that most people use cars for today. In other words, a flying car could be a practical aircraft that can take off from your driveway and land in the parking lot at work, school or the grocery store. By this definition, a flying car does not need to have any properties of a roadable vehicle at all. It would be a flying car instead of a driving car. This is, of course, pure science fiction today. A helicopter doesn't coun't because it's large rotor makes it impractical to use as an every-day "car". The Skycar may be a step in the right direction but has it's own issues. (Aside from it's size I'm sure your coworkers wouldn't appreciate you sandblasting their cars as you land beside them.) Rsduhamel 16:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, until cars with magnetic levitation or anti-gravity units are invented (as was depicted in various Star Wars episodes), all existing flying cars will have to comply with Newtonian physics, which basically requires that an 850 pound vehicle generates a minimum of 850 pounds of vertical thrust to maintain a hover. You can land an aircraft with a substantial lower vertical thrust to weight ratio, but that type of landing is usually called a 'crash', as anyone who's watched footage of the famous Hawker Siddeley Harrier engine stall during vertical takeoff crash will testify. Even a lightly loaded vehicle is going to be producing a substantial downblast that will easily pick up loose debris in any parking lot areas with the potential of turning them into deadly objects, so you would easily foresee regulations and bylaws prohibiting landings and takeoffs in any populated areas within cities, thus excluding their use as aircraft for much or most of the population. That limitation needs to be kept in mind when updating this article. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your "concepts of operations" are at two extremes -- both of which make flying cars undesirable. At one extreme, flying cars may only land at airports, and must therefore be very "roadable" in order to reach practical destinations. The other extreme envisions VTOL vehicles that don't need to be roadable at all; however they kick up debris when they descend into a parking space, injuring bystanders and damaging the vehicle in the next parking space.

There is a third, very desirable option: if each neighborhood and each large parking lot were served by a dedicated landing pad for VTOL cars. Signage would warn pedestrians to stay out of this area. Flying cars would have to be only minimally roadable: a top road speed of 20 mph would certainly be adequate for driving to a nearby parking space or garage. Experience would soon dictate the necessary size of such a landing pad; however, it could certainly be smaller than a typical helipad -- especially if it's mostly surrounded by a fabric wall that prevents flying debris from escaping.

This is a very workable concept, not a science-fiction concept. As the transition from ground vehicles to flying vehicles progresses, the cost of maintaining landing pads would be more than offset by the reduced cost of maintaining roads. Ultimately, only heavy freight trucks would remain on the roads. Superhighways could be narrowed to two-lane highways, and much land could be reclaimed for other uses. GPS Pilot (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction Based Flying Car

I have three problems with the definition of a Flying Car that does not meet the definition of an automobile.

First, if the vehicle no longer needs a road, it is no longer a "car", so call it what it really is, a personal aircraft or Personnel Air Vehicle (PAV). There is already a section for PAV on Wikipedia, so put Moller's vehicle there.

Secondly, If we are going to include science fiction based concepts of a flying car on this article then it should clearly be denoted in the page. Not until we have anti-gavity engines will a pure science fiction based, George Jetson, like flying car be socially or technically acceptable to the public. Current technology is too dangerous to take off from the drive way of the common public. A flying car today must utilize an automobile road to deliver "point-to-point" travel.

Lastly, using a science fiction style definition blures the line of what people think is possible and what is practical. This is counter-productive to the current Flying Car movement. --Mlabiche 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Other prototypes in development

Israeli Rafi Yoeli is also building one http://www.urbanaero.com/Frame-whatsnew.htm His development pace is somewhat less anemic than Mollers but not at lightingspeed either

What about Volante Aircraft ? they call their creation a Flying Car http://www.volanteaircraft.com/index.htm

Does Fanwing development also classify as flying car ? ( www.fanwing.com ? )

There is also a Dutch effort going on: http://www.pal-v.com/ 87.196.133.36 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

-and French http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140430/DEFREG01/304300036/French-Flying-Car-Undergoes-Testing-Special-Forces TGCP (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Black Knight Transformer flies. TGCP (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Unclear declaration.

Hello, I was reading this article and this sentence perplexes me...

"However, the Skycar is a good demonstration of the technological barriers to developing the VTOL flying car."

This declaration is never explained. HOW is the Skycar a good demonstration of the technological barriers....?

69.141.55.46 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

please delete this if it is not the place to discuss, but what about a plane that is purpose built to carry a purpose built lightweight (say 2 seater sports) car for a fly drive fly solution. exotic variations could use the same electric generator for car and plane? is there anything like that?

"Current development" section

The "Current Development" section is written as if some of these things actually flew. In fact, none of the craft listed has ever achieved free flight out of ground effect. (Which is embarrassing, since several VTOL craft did achieve free flight in the 1950s.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover of Pop Science Mar 2006 Cover 1.jpg

Image:Cover of Pop Science Mar 2006 Cover 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede photograph for this article

While the Aerobile photo displayed at the very top is quite historic, I feel it does a disservice to the article since it doesn't immediately appear to be a flying car/roadable aircraft. Only by reading thru the Waldo Waterman article, linked from a subsequent paragraph, can you verify that its wing was, in fact, detachable. Presumably there were dolly wheels available to allow the wing to be towed behind the fuselage on roadways.

I would suggest that to improve this article, that the Aerobile image be moved further down, and an image similar to the one at the top of the Taylor Aerocar article be used, which immediately conveys the attributes of both auto and aircraft. Comments (yea or nay)? HarryZilber (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ICON A-5

I saw this in PC World, not much info though, don't know if it's worthy of inclusion. [1]

It doesn't fit the definition of a flying car because it's not road legal. And can you please sign your comment?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Which one did James May fly

James May was in a show about unusual air vehicles. He actually flew in Florida in some kind of car-plane which seemed to have been made in the 1950's. It didn't look like any of the models mentioned here. So what was it ? Eregli bob (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:ConvairCar Model 118.jpg

The image File:ConvairCar Model 118.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Jess Dixon in his flying automobile.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Jess Dixon in his flying automobile.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Concepts problems

The Concepts section is problematic. For instance is the iCar even based on a viable lift model? I don't think CAD renderings of nonexistent models is appropriate here. Can a consensus be developed for what to include or not include, both in text and in images? — Brianhe (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brianhe, research about flying cars is a contemporary topic. At this moment, diverse solutions are studied by different groups. One group may learn something from the solutions from another group. I think wikipedia helps this collaborative approach. That is why I think it is important to keep a "concepts section" and make it as rich as possible (i.e. text + images). Concerning the lift model of "iCar 101 Ultimate" concept: Wings surface is 1.6 m² ; Air density is 1.2 kg/m3 ; Takeoff speed is 42 m/s ; Lift coefficient at 3000 rpm should be around 5 (see Magnus effect) ==> Lift should be around 864 kg. I hope this helps. 86.212.96.198 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't resolve the problem as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's not a testbed or communications medium for researchers. WP:NOT#OR and other guidelines spell this out. — Brianhe (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that wikipedia is not a testbed or communications medium for researchers. However, most of the flying cars listed in the first sections would have been in the concept section 5 years ago. 92.140.3.127 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This topic started with the question of what criteria should be developed for inclusion. How long they've been listed in the article is not a good criterion. Hopefully we can come up with something objective and easy to apply, like "covered by at least one independent source" or "demonstrated at a major airshow or trade event". Notice how every referenced item in the section is only noted by its own manufacturer? — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the criterion "covered by at least one independent source" should be sufficient for "concepts". For iCar 101, the article on dvice (http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/01/icar-can-fly-us.php) could be considered as the appropriate "independent source". Isn't it? 92.140.3.127 (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

We're still talking about a good set of criteria, not how they would apply to any particular article. It's too soon to decide what to do with iCar or any of the other concepts. Especially before any other editors contribute to this discussion. — Brianhe (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion is wp:notability. This means it must be the subject or a significant part of an article in a reliable source. Very few blogs count as reliable sources. Greglocock (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

RFCers: What criteria should be established to include a concept flying car in this article? Is a designer's proposal sufficient or should we require a physical model, third-party press coverage, or other? Should physical plausibility be examined by Wikipedia? — Brianhe (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• As-is — Announcement of a concept by an inventor is sufficient.

Add support here

• Third-party coverage — Cited third-party press coverage required.

• Support: Most practical and encyclopedic solution. — HHHIPPO 17:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support: A working model isn't required, but a "concept announcement" without any third party, reliable, coverage is surely insufficient. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Add support here

• Demonstration or mock-up — A physical model exists.

Add support here

• Other — Suggest something else.
• Third-party coverage by an RS — Cited third-party coverage by a WP:RS required.

Add support here

• Support: Blogs, forums, facebook etc are not acceptable RS in general.Greglocock (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Press releases, advertisements, and "journalists" republishing them are not acceptable RS in general either.Krushia (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Most practical and encyclopedic solution. — HHHIPPO 11:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• SupportThis seems to follow WP policy to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support I see no compelling rationale to deviate from our standard policies and guidelines here. -- Scray (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Removed RFC request tag. Overwhelming consensus is for concepts listed to have third party coverage per WP:RS. Note that blogs and other self-published sources are not acceptable. — Brianhe (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Flying car" definition

There is no clear "flying car" definition so it is rather disputed. There are two common meaning of the phase, one is the "roadable aircraft" (a mix of aircraft-automobile) and another that consists an aircraft that could be used at urban enviroments (no such practical aircraft have ever been demonstrated and its largely a science fiction topic). In my opinion, the article should be seperated into two different entitles with the urban aircraft one to contain the Flying car (fiction) article that already covers the topic. Any objections? Virtualerian (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I already did so. While some would oppose and criticize this action now, I believe the attitude would change once I cover the whole entrie by history coverage, obstacles of the concept and ongoing efforts and developments. Virtualerian (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sources that indicate that these two terms actually refer to different things? And what the definitions are for each? There's a danger here of creating unverified material and especially so now since the creation of two separate articles. Also if two articles are appropriate, please be mindful of retaining links between the two for people to whom the distinction is not obvious. I've added back the "flying car" navboxes to Roadable aircraft for starters, since most of the articles described in the navbox fall under the new definition of "roadable aircraft". — Brianhe (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

They are indeed refer to two different things. For instance, 2008 verision of flying car article cites:

A flying car or roadable aircraft is an automobile that can legally travel on roads and can take off, fly, and land as an aircraft. In practice, the vehicle usually has to be converted from a standard aeroplane to an aeroplane with sufficient roadworthiness.

In science fiction, the vision of a flying car is usually a practical aircraft that the average person can fly directly from any point to another (e.g. from home to work or to the supermarket) without the requirement for roads, runways or other special prepared operating areas, and they often start and land in a garage or on a parking lot. In addition, the science-fiction version of the flying car typically resembles a conventional car with no visible means of propulsion, rather than an aeroplane. For more information on the science-fiction stereotype, see hovercar.

As you see, it comprised two different concepts at one article. Since the two concepts were too different, Flying car (fiction) was created to address the problem. Most people associate flying cars as the one that were depicted in science fiction films such as back to the future - an aircraft that could operate in urban eviroment and could be use in replacement of a car. Also, before I edited the article it claimed that "A flying car is envisioned to be an aircraft that can provide practical, personal transportation to destinations that are not near airports.". Therefore the roadable aircrafts did not meet the criterons for flying cars as provided and defined by wikipedia itself. Virtualerian (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what do reliable sources say about these terms? I think we should start with that, not prior versions of the article itself. — Brianhe (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Flying car" is not an official nor academic term. Some roadable aircrafts have been referred to as "flying car" by the press, but then again, cars that fell from heights were also referred to as "flying car". The term can reffer to both roadable aircraft and VTOL ubran aircrafts, but due to the high differences, they require different articles. Consisting both articles would only lead to confusion. A flying car is an hypothetical technology - no one has ever demonstrated a practical aircraft that can take-off and land at urban enviroments, while roadable aircrafts have been reality almost since the invention of the airplane. Also, their definitions don't even overlap, VTOL flying cars aren't always roadable. Besides, most people (and we can put it up to discussion) define a flying car in similar way that was depicted in science fiction, aka a "car" that could fly from your garage to the local grocery shop. Though, I think the article could mention roadable aircrafts in relation to the flying car. Virtualerian (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that without any sources to support your interpretation of these terms I can not agree with splitting this into two articles. At best what we have is an unreferenced subsection about the two terms. — Brianhe (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well as said, there is no solid definition for the term "flying car". But as I have stated, there are two different concepts to the term, which do not overlap (roadable aircraft an Personal Aerial Vehicle (PAV)). For instance, Urban Aeronautics, who i'd cite as a reliable source, claims at its FAQ:

"Aerocar, Terafuggia and many other 'flying car' designs are actually what are known as 'roadable aircraft'. A roadable aircraft is essential a hybrid that that combines the flying capability of a fixed wing aircraft with the option of being driven as an automobile on the ground. Like a fixed wing aircraft, roadable aircraft require a runway for both takeoff and landing and are therefore dependent on airports. Fancraft™ can take off and land vertically and are capable of true point-to-point aerial access independent of airports. As a result, Fancraft™ will be able to fly you directly from one location to another while 'roadable' aircraft will not. 'Roadable' aircraft will be able to fly you from one airport to the other with the added convenience of being able to drive to your specific destination in the same vehicle."

And when the company is asked whether its aircraft is a flying car, it says:

While Fancraft™ may well eventually be the basis for a Personal Aerial Vehicle (PAV) or 'flying car', it will be some time before that is a realistic possibility. For now, the cost of such an aircraft is beyond the reach most individuals and the regulatory infrastructure (highways-in-the-sky) that would be necessary in order to safely fly multitudes of aerial vehicles in constricted airspace is still not in place ....... In short, our long-term vision includes the 'flying car' concept but it will take some time to get there.

If you still do not agree that these two article should stay separated, then I think we should lead it up to a survery, and let wikipedia users to decide. Virtualerian (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A third opinion has been invited. — Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Firstly, I don't see any clear evidence that the term "flying car" and "roadable aircraft" are widely used in reliable sources to refer to two different things. A Google search for "flying car", for example, provides almost nothing but hits for what are essentially "roadable aircraft", many of them for their developer's websites, rather than from general media reporting. In order to justify a clear distinction between the two, there would, in my opinion, need to be a clearly referenced solid definition for "flying car" that at least partially excludes roadable aircraft. That is, we'd need to demonstrate that they are clearly different things. So far as I can see, there is no such definition, and I think we all agree on that much, at least. Having said that, it's also seems reasonable to me that there is a distinction between actual, proposed, things of the ilk of the Moller Skycar, and the fictional concept typified by the Jetsons (which typically isn't "roadable"). If we had a substantial amount of material on both of these subjects, it might, therefore, make sense to split them into two separate articles, hat-noted to one another, to prevent the main article from becoming overlong. Or arrange them hierarchically, in the same way that we have articles for, say, both aircraft and helicopters. I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet, though, and the information on the SF concept in particular, is rather sparse. (Indeed, it may never be sufficient to justify a full, separate article). I'd therefore prefer the two articles to be merged, with "flying car" as the title, since it's the most likely term to be searched for, and "roadable aircraft" as a redirect, and offered as an alternative term in the lead. Anaxial (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you for putting thought and time into your reply, I think that is a robust and sensible approach. Greglocock (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

X-Hawk never flew

Note that the X-Hawk never flew. First flight was supposed to be in 2009. Didn't happen. No significant news in recent years. That was the most credible flying car project. There's no fundamental reason it couldn't have worked. It was going to use jet turbines for power, which have successfully powered previous VTOLs. They had Bell Helicopter involved until 2009. Any info on what went wrong? --John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Flying car (aircraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110124232804/http://www.empsfm.org:80/documents/press/EMPSFMBrochure.pdf to http://www.empsfm.org/documents/press/EMPSFMBrochure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130602174648/http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/8ca6d4d03cb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html to http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/8ca6d4d03cb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

AeroMobil text reads like an advertisment

The text under modern developments section about AeroMobil read like a Kickstarter campaign or other speculative piece of marketing. There are no links to external sources and no factual citations. Recommend removing entirely if sources cannot be produced. Stevemidgley (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)