DARPA's starting work to develop a flying car. Yeee-HAW!
We live in an age of invention, my friends. DARPA, the research branch of the US Department of Defense, is hosting a workshop on January 14th for many of its developers. The topic: flying cars. That’s right, nearly fifty years after the debut of the Jetsons, we’re finally getting serious about getting people into the sky. DARPA is aiming to eventually have a prototype vehicle, to be named the Transformer or TX, which will spend the majority of its time traveling on land, but is capable of sustained flight. The proposed 1 to 4 passenger craft will need vertical take off and landing (VTOL) capabilities and be able to complete a mission on a single tank of fuel. Proponents hope that such a hybrid should help soldiers in the field avoid road side bombs and ambushes by giving drivers the ability to choose unique and dynamic paths to their destination. If the TX succeeds, it would pave the way for non-military commercial vehicles. In other words, pray that DARPA gets this done right, because it could mean flying cars for all of us.
Timetables for the TX production don’t seem to be in discussion yet. There’s certainly a lot of work to be done: development of enabling technologies, coordinating production across several contractors, and finally building a prototype. DARPA has provided a list of technologies that may be used: adaptive wing structures, ducted fan propulsion, lightweight composite materials, advanced flight control technology, hybrid electric drives, and advanced batteries. That list gives us some idea of what the TX may look like: a gas/electric rover with fold down (or other wise non-fixed) wings and fan propulsion. Definitely a cool concept.
DARPA’s TX sounds to be the opposite of the Transition from Terrafugia, a small plane that transforms into a car for driving home. Developers of flying cars have long had a difficult time figuring out exactly how much time such vehicles should spend on the ground and in the air. The Pal-V seems to want to be half and half, while the Urbanero looks more accustomed to being in the air. When it comes to a reliable commercial market though, I think that a car that is sometimes a plane is going to make more sense than a plane that is sometimes a car.
Flying just isn’t that fuel efficient, and it requires more training, and is more risky (for small personal craft). A car isn’t a bad way to get around most of the time. In emergencies, or over difficult terrain, a short flight could be just what is needed. But most of the time, economic and safety concerns should keep us on the ground for now. Which is why the DARPA TX seems to be on the right track. It has an achievable and useful aim (increased vehicle mobility/tactical versatility), benefits from many pre-existing technologies, and has the support of a major government entity. Who knows, the next decade could be the era of the flying car. I’ll take mine in green, please.
[photo credit: Warner Bros. Pictures]
Comments
Why are there no feasible flying cars yet?
Truth is, a number of attempts have been made in the past and are currently in process.
The focus has been:
1. On a vehicle that could fly directly to and from a point without using roads. This applies primarily to light helicopters of which there are many really good designs available. The problem here is safe take-off and landing points. A helicopter is limited to using established helipads in built-up areas. Use of a ground vehicle is necessary for destinations beyond the helipad.
2. A car with retracting or folding wings that requires a runway to take off and land, also known as a roadable aircraft. This concept is only feasible for relatively long distance travelling, as the nearest airport may be further than the destination.
The only practical way to make a flying VTOL commuter vehicle, usable on the road, is by utilizing rotors in one form or another.
Helicopter blades provide the most efficient form of lift for this application. Small diameter turboprops have been tried, but the result is unstable and very difficult to control.
The large diameter helicopter rotor that is required to lift a small car makes it impractical
The difficulty in flying a helicopter plus the cost of pilot license makes it impractical
CAA certification extremely difficult
Long time high costs in aviation industry due to limited production runs make any form of aircraft costlier than the utility factor of being able to fly.
Earlier accident rates in the rotorcraft industry led to decreased development funds being made available by governments.
Development of the tilt rotor fixed wing was considered to be the way of the future because of the higher speeds attainable
Because there is no friction when the craft is in the air, changes in direction and stopping is slow, making it dangerous in built up areas. This is a major issue with the original thinking in the design of commuter aircraft. They cannot be flown in the suburbs. Period.
Most of the existing designs require a runway, albeit a short one as used by autogyros. Establishing new landing strips is expensive and costly to maintain.
Automobile design and aircraft design are poles apart. Automobiles require high impact resistance and levels of comfort, which make them heavy. Aircraft on the other hand require to be very light, to optimise flight characteristics. A very difficult task for the designer.
So far, nobody else has realized that less may be more when it comes to rotor design and that the only safe development is where safe take off and landing areas are used, such as a network of helipads which are relatively inexpensive to establish and maintain. A helipad can be a paved or concrete area, 10m x 10m with a windsock and a 360 degree clear approach. There are already thousands in existence in shopping malls, industrial areas, hospitals and on top of buildings.
Why are there no feasible flying cars yet?
Truth is, a number of attempts have been made in the past and are currently in process.
The focus has been:
1. On a vehicle that could fly directly to and from a point without using roads. This applies primarily to light helicopters of which there are many really good designs available. The problem here is safe take-off and landing points. A helicopter is limited to using established helipads in built-up areas. Use of a ground vehicle is necessary for destinations beyond the helipad.
2. A car with retracting or folding wings that requires a runway to take off and land, also known as a roadable aircraft. This concept is only feasible for relatively long distance travelling, as the nearest airport may be further than the destination.
The only practical way to make a flying VTOL commuter vehicle, usable on the road, is by utilizing rotors in one form or another.
Helicopter blades provide the most efficient form of lift for this application. Small diameter turboprops have been tried, but the result is unstable and very difficult to control.
The large diameter helicopter rotor that is required to lift a small car makes it impractical
The difficulty in flying a helicopter plus the cost of pilot license makes it impractical
CAA certification extremely difficult
Long time high costs in aviation industry due to limited production runs make any form of aircraft costlier than the utility factor of being able to fly.
Earlier accident rates in the rotorcraft industry led to decreased development funds being made available by governments.
Development of the tilt rotor fixed wing was considered to be the way of the future because of the higher speeds attainable
Because there is no friction when the craft is in the air, changes in direction and stopping is slow, making it dangerous in built up areas. This is a major issue with the original thinking in the design of commuter aircraft. They cannot be flown in the suburbs. Period.
Most of the existing designs require a runway, albeit a short one as used by autogyros. Establishing new landing strips is expensive and costly to maintain.
Automobile design and aircraft design are poles apart. Automobiles require high impact resistance and levels of comfort, which make them heavy. Aircraft on the other hand require to be very light, to optimise flight characteristics. A very difficult task for the designer.
So far, nobody else has realized that less may be more when it comes to rotor design and that the only safe development is where safe take off and landing areas are used, such as a network of helipads which are relatively inexpensive to establish and maintain. A helipad can be a paved or concrete area, 10m x 10m with a windsock and a 360 degree clear approach. There are already thousands in existence in shopping malls, industrial areas, hospitals and on top of buildings.