I hate to say it ,..because I love innovation but it's just not realistic. There's back up at airports already. This country needs to invest in the rail system again! I would much rather ride a train along the eastern sea board or across country than fly or drive. It would help struggling cities and states ,..and create new jobs all over. The fact that you could have taken a train to Florida from Pennsylvania 60 years ago and can't now is sad. Why not Trains!!!
I already hate all you small time pilots buzzing over my airspace and fucking with my peace. I can imagine what the noise pollution would be like if there were millions of these hybrid car/planes circling overhead! What about the liability, safety, and privacy issues? Not gonna happen!
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
imagine this....all electric car/plane so no pollution....swappable battery like "Better Place" at every airport and along the highways like Israel will be soon....solar at home to recharge...recharge station at work...see the NASA/C.A.F.E challenge results for electric planes flying 1 person 400 miles on the electric equivalent of 1 gal of gas at 100mph(and that is real now)..imagine you living someplace "nice" outside the city and getting to work in the city in under an hour during "rush hour"
very cool :) critics and naysayers aside, the very first airplane the wright brothers made wasn't some fancy vehicle either. but it was necessary. and ultimately what made the cool fancy vehicles possible. i hope you keep developing this thing, cause in 20 or 30 years when i maybe can afford one, it probably will be much cooler than owning any ferrari ^^
A 1031 km drive would take me 12 hours, and more than one tank of fuel.
This car/plane can do the same thing in a 4.5 hour flight time. (and it only goes 777 kms since it's flying a straight line without roads, as-the-crow-flies)
I don't know. I want to have a flying car, but I don't want to use airports and stuff. Either make it like "the fifth element" or don't bother trying.
@omma911 It would seem to me that being able to sidestep the security and baggage issues would make using the airport as a place to land (especially small private landing strips) a workable solution. I do not see another alternative with a trsditional aircraft that requires a significant distance to stop. VTOL is the other option but that is not what they are attempting with this craft.
@schaskins1 But you have to agree that it would be kind of cool to just drive out of your garage, lift off in your street, fly to work, and never ever experience a bloody traffic jam again. Now that google is kinda far with self driving cars, we only need hmm anti-gravity engines or something like that. ;)
sure, it would be more "fun", but it would also be a lot more dangerous. you should probably keep global overpopulation in mind when you're trying to fill the skies. if there was a safe way to make it all happen I'm all for it though...
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
So she basically copied the old designs, but made them comply with regulations. That was indeed the only problem with the old versions. Good job on not wasting money. Bravo.
pilot here. you'd be fucking mental to take this to public parking lots and space. there is a reason why aprons are restricted to authorized personnels only. also they haven't thought about FODs. impractical.
@Silverstarlightt with a price point of $300k and the fact that you have to drive to an airport to fly (or likely be forced out of the sky by the air force for unregulated flying,) the chance of a "drunk idiot" piloting the thing is pretty low. to say nothing of the fact that the whole advantage of being able to fly is getting to do so over poorly developed areas where 100 mph in a straight line is much faster than winding about at 70 on the highway.
@Silverstarlightt >"I don't really want some drunk idiot crashing into my house from above."
doesn't that already happen? no? oh.
so how is this different? it's still pilots in the air, but now just more of them? oh.
so who gets to decide who can and can't fly? the FAA? oh.
So... this is the same pilot certification system that's been QUITE SUCCESSFULLY stopping drunk pilots from crashing into houses for hundreds of years? oh.
THERE WON'T BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FLIGHT IN ANY FORM UNTIL WE HAVE COMPUTER SOFTWARE CAPABLE OF COMPLETELY CONTROLLING A FLYING VEHICLE.
(figured I should text-yell since people are being idiots about practicality... seriously, how many of you think the average person having a powerful machine in the air is a good idea? You're fucking morons if so...)
They've invented a plane that fits in a garage, that's it. Where could you fly this thing? Great I can drive to my local airport and somehow schedule a slot on the runway with air traffic control. They still haven't address the biggest issue: how would they keep planes driven by reckless teens from falling out of the sky?
Yeah, lets turn your average fender-bender caused by an inconsiderate driver into a guaranteed screaming death for all involved, which will happen as demonstrated by their attempts at getting around safety regulations by specialized wording.
Does anybody really want to be traveling 150mph 2 miles in the air along side paris hilton flying whilst putting on her lipstick in the plane beside you...thought not.
Unless you're going for suicide: A big +1 for the world if you take her out with you,lol
Thinking that the target could be people with huge pockets: if they designed it more like a F1 (or similar sports) car, and sell it in other countires (Africa is an excelent market - in many areas it has more airfields than roads), they would sell a bundle of it.
Ppl can't drive now, why would I trust a growing amount of ppl to fly?
I also don't like that this is an old idea, we should be focusing on fixing the problems of congestion with cheaper and cleaner alternatives like AFFORDABLE AND ABUNDANT PUBLIC TRANSIT.
Like all hybrid vehicles ever built, now you can own a crappy airplane and a pathetic car all in one! And it only costs $250,000US. This idea is just dumb and will never be any sort of success. Ever. JMO.
@tankusfred lol, if you had read or understood my comment, you would realize i never said it was impractical!
my comment meant that she said 'everybody thought a flying car was impossible' and thats not the case, the truth is everybody knew a flying car was possible, but my comment is that 'everybody thought a flying car is impractical' is more to the point (and PAST tense)
I am saying that her statement is wrong, not that i think her flying car or driving plane is impractical.
So... to the people saying the estimated price on this thing is reasonable...
Lets take a look at the expenses...
Fuel consumption, weekly or monthly safety checks and crontrols of every little part required for insurance reasons, the insurance... Rental of an air strip for take off, maintenance for said air strip if private, INSURANCE! (risk to other peoples residences, the people themselves, goverment property and so on $)
This thing will only be for the rich and possibly some specialists
@israfel070 Everyone knows regulations are just bureaucratic nonsense. Take speed limits for example. Before they were brought in did everyone just drive arbitrarily fast? No, people drove at the speeds they felt were safe.
@sogghartha Wrong. Speed limits were introduced in America during the war to indirectly ratio fuel. If no one could afford cars then this wouldn't have been an issue.
I will pity all the air traffic controllers out there. The sky will be extremely dense with aircrafts than ever before. Not to mention the higher level of stress and the higher probability of close call incidents. Nonetheless it's definitely a cool concept but might however require sometime before it really generate greater feasibility.
@someonestepmyfoot They are not looking to provide a "cooler" way for you to get around, they are aiming to change how the everyday person gets around by literally looking towards the sky. this means that in the future, they hope to ween the current problems such as stressed air traffic controllers or small amounts of private airports to create a more realistic market. and yes the risk of accidents will increase with airplanes, although this problem exists today in cars, and people still drive.
It is probably OK for either country side or rich dudes where you can spread your wings on the lawn. What about dense populated city? And this jet-car still running on a finite resource (gasoline), has a lot other precious resources wasted and doesn't have a high technology to reduce or eliminate collisions and crashes. The future is after driver-less, solar or electric powered vehicles, but not just another toy for super rich 1% to show off between themselves.
@abemore Seeing as how complex this is compared to say a Ferrari that isn't a very bad pricetag ;) It's still pretty much proto-type stage, so prices may drop when optimized and when there is a market to sell them on larger scale (large scale production = price drops).
First. How about all the morons already killing us on the streets? Do ya' really want that chick zooming down the freeway, in an SUV, at 90 mph, while putting on her mascara, and talking on the phone, flying over your house after happy hour? Me neither.
Second. How to pay for the necessary FAA funding explosion?
Third. Too much freedom. The govt would never allow it, particularly given the recent trend by govt to restrict freedom.
What confuses me is why have this? A Cessna 172 carries more, takes off in less distance, seats 4, has a larger range, and has a higher air speed. It makes no sense to buy something to do both when so many things do one better and more efficiently. Btw, I don't like seeing someone in the air with 20 hours of flight time flying near me. Sounds stupid. Please help me understand the point of this piece of garbage. Please.
It looks cool, but I sure the hell would hate to rely on it daily and end up with engine problems a few hundred feet in the air. Is there any safety features?
@greycloud24 They are saying $279,000 so, low end of your guess. But think about this in ten years a used one will be worth half that which is lower than I've ever seen a Cessna.
@SAsgarters If you are talking about technical hurdles I agree with you. But with unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, there is LESS innovation. And this hurts all of us.
@SAsgarters In this video, the speaker complains of the regulatory hurdles that the FAA and the federal organization that certifies vehicles to be sold. I'm just saying that these two regulatory organizations made her job harder, and thus probably discouraged a lot of other innovators.
I think that voluntary, free market standards are better than those imposed by force. I think that well-meaning people in the govt try to make things better with their regulations, but wind up hurting us.
@freesk8 "In this video, the speaker complains of the regulatory hurdles"
Which push innovators to address real problems instead just trying to boost sales.
"voluntary, free market standards"
Leads to cutting corners and blinding the public with irrelevancies, prevents reactions to actual issues until the outrage gets big enough to make it the cheaper to react and the free market stifles meaningful innovation, because R&D costs money and it's cheaper to just keep reusing the same old crap.
@SAsgarters Govt regulatory power leads to "regulator capture" by big players in the industry. The regulators are hired from the industry, and they tend to be the least capable dropouts from industry at that. The big players buy influence with the regulators. And the big players can handle the bureaucracy better than the small, innovative, entrepreneurial competitors. This gives big business the advantage, and customers lose out.
@freesk8 No, that ends in a net gain for the customers and society as a whole. Furthermore, the fox obviously can't be trusted with the hen house, so if it's "the least capable dropouts" that become the regulators, so be it. I'm more than happy to deny that's the case, too. And the "small, innovative, entrepreneurial competitors" are redundant anyway and their value must be questioned if they can't even handle the bureaucracy.
That's the reality of things. Not to go into any details, but the things I just mentioned are issues I deal with on a daily basis. Companies exist to make money, not to follow standards, whether it's their own or set by a government and what is needed, is organizations that keep them in check, because there is no substandard garbage they won't try to sell to people who can't even be expected to know any better.
@SAsgarters The need to make money drives costs down, and as long as govt does not prevent competition as above, prices fall. This helps consumers. Those in govt are little more informed than customers. Also, competing companies try to win the more sophisticated buyers, because they are at the margin, and could buy from a better competitor. This helps the less sophisticated shoppers, who know less. The best check on the power of a corp is not a regulator, but a competitor.
@freesk8 The only one in this whole equation that is looking after the interests of the consumers, IS the government and they have access to both the bullshit the companies produce to mislead both "sophisticated" and "less sophisticated" customers and results from independent, controlled tests. Companies simply can't be trusted to be honest or to follow any standards unless you keep them on a very short leash.
Fuck parking my car and walking to my air plane... really? You own an air plane? You spent less than a day getting your license? That's what we need the 1% flying above us drunk on power and champagne.
The truth is this car isn't a solution it will be a toy for the well to do, however just like the first motor carriages set in motion an automotive revolution this technology will quite possibly do the same for the flying car.
For those of you complaining that this isn't curing cancer, you're lacking imagination. Think of a hospital that has one of these and is able to mobilize it faster than a regular airplane or when a helicopter isn't possible and HELP PEOPLE who wouldn't get help other wise for moving patients, moving organs, flying in specialists.
@clearmenser You're absolutely right, we need to think laterally. Technology like this has many applications, some of which may actually improve quality of life.
@clearmenser Nonsense. An average helicopter is cheaper than this frankencar plus it can take-off vertically. When exactly will this frankencar be preferable to a helicopter? You can barely sit in this thing plus you can't land on the roof of the hospital!
though this seems impractical now, think about when cars first came through. there were no proper roads and they were kind of dinky so it seemed impractical. later on, when it's made more accessible to the average consumer and airstrips are as common as roads, this will be seen as a milestone in history.
though i am wondering about the environmental impact these things will have...
The other day TED had a guy on here talking about new ways to fight cancer. This woman is talking about making a plane with small wings that no one is going to buy because it's horribly impractical and idiotic.
@Jesuriah, firstly I was talking about the lack of brake dust and tire wear WHILE FLYING. Second, the car weighs, literally, a ton less than most passenger cars, so even while driving it will develop less tire and brake dust. Third, how aggressively will you drive a flying car with a 100hp engine and a CVT? to suggest someone will be rocketing around in this thing while ground-bound is utter insanity.
Finally, mass transit is predicated upon pop. densities that don't exist in most of the USA.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@itchybo510 "This seems like a great idea for People who want to flee the country. Think about a bank robber who just flys to Mexico after robbing a bank"
Think about the police chasing that bank robber in one of these things that is armed with air to air missiles.
How is this different from the mini helicopter that also drives...you can get those for under a 100k
I dont see anything new or innovative here, just the same old stuff mashed back together with more recent technology.
Although it could be a good idea but roflmao not if you allow everyone to just fly one manualy. Better have the whole thing automated. You can't keep track of 250 other planes flying at different altitudes and courses. But a computer can.
Those harping about fuel economy are ignorant of the lack of tire wear or brake dust, and they'll compare it's point to point economy with cars which by their nature must travel longer distances to connect those points.
They will also completely discount any time savings.
They will do these things because they are shortsighted ideologues.
@DannyZRC Dude, if you drive the car aggressively, or live in a hilly area you'll spew just as much brake dust into the air as other people. While tire wear may be down, tire pollution is much easier to deal with(read :Be recycled or re purposed) than exhaust gasses. What's more useful, a toy for the rich/wealthy(A.K.A. this plane/car) or a mass transit system powered by renewable energy?
@cidvisions i missed that, thanks. I still think EV cars + mag lev trains (also electric and much faster than planes) are the real solution. I would like to see some real data on CO2 per km, but nevermind, only a few milionaires will use this
Anyone who thinks the idiots we see driving down the road should be doing the same thing but 2,000 feet up it the air you should ask yourself if sniffing glue today was a good choice.
I hate to say it ,..because I love innovation but it's just not realistic. There's back up at airports already. This country needs to invest in the rail system again! I would much rather ride a train along the eastern sea board or across country than fly or drive. It would help struggling cities and states ,..and create new jobs all over. The fact that you could have taken a train to Florida from Pennsylvania 60 years ago and can't now is sad. Why not Trains!!!
ciabyoung 1 month ago
I already hate all you small time pilots buzzing over my airspace and fucking with my peace. I can imagine what the noise pollution would be like if there were millions of these hybrid car/planes circling overhead! What about the liability, safety, and privacy issues? Not gonna happen!
AmiJurgl 1 month ago
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
lol nice 80's music
LobsterPotsticker 2 months ago
imagine this....all electric car/plane so no pollution....swappable battery like "Better Place" at every airport and along the highways like Israel will be soon....solar at home to recharge...recharge station at work...see the NASA/C.A.F.E challenge results for electric planes flying 1 person 400 miles on the electric equivalent of 1 gal of gas at 100mph(and that is real now)..imagine you living someplace "nice" outside the city and getting to work in the city in under an hour during "rush hour"
maxairspace 2 months ago
very cool :) critics and naysayers aside, the very first airplane the wright brothers made wasn't some fancy vehicle either. but it was necessary. and ultimately what made the cool fancy vehicles possible. i hope you keep developing this thing, cause in 20 or 30 years when i maybe can afford one, it probably will be much cooler than owning any ferrari ^^
jtai36 3 months ago
I'm not impressed.
Frances3654 3 months ago
A 1031 km drive would take me 12 hours, and more than one tank of fuel.
This car/plane can do the same thing in a 4.5 hour flight time. (and it only goes 777 kms since it's flying a straight line without roads, as-the-crow-flies)
That's pretty cool. Less than half the time.
roidroid 3 months ago
That is one ugly caroplane.
NobodysOffTheHook 3 months ago in playlist Watch Later 2
@NobodysOffTheHook It's ugly but it works!
apricotsnms516 3 months ago
I don't know. I want to have a flying car, but I don't want to use airports and stuff. Either make it like "the fifth element" or don't bother trying.
omma911 3 months ago
@omma911 It would seem to me that being able to sidestep the security and baggage issues would make using the airport as a place to land (especially small private landing strips) a workable solution. I do not see another alternative with a trsditional aircraft that requires a significant distance to stop. VTOL is the other option but that is not what they are attempting with this craft.
schaskins1 2 months ago
@schaskins1 But you have to agree that it would be kind of cool to just drive out of your garage, lift off in your street, fly to work, and never ever experience a bloody traffic jam again. Now that google is kinda far with self driving cars, we only need hmm anti-gravity engines or something like that. ;)
omma911 2 months ago
I bet in 50 years this will look silly.
d34d23 3 months ago
sure, it would be more "fun", but it would also be a lot more dangerous. you should probably keep global overpopulation in mind when you're trying to fill the skies. if there was a safe way to make it all happen I'm all for it though...
ThElitE 4 months ago
they should have had highway to the danger zone playing when they showed the first flight.
kiddhitta 4 months ago
this thing wil never be wide spread. too expensive.
drorjs 4 months ago
ted delivers another 10 minute infomercial to generate interest in the next generation of the original vaporware (she even shows the pics up front).
where do i sign up?
tehKap0w 4 months ago
where can i buy one?
JAMamation 4 months ago
Do I hear MASK music!?! Yes I do :)
doloppost 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
So she basically copied the old designs, but made them comply with regulations. That was indeed the only problem with the old versions. Good job on not wasting money. Bravo.
kebakent 4 months ago 6
@silverstarlight: i agree completely
TheLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZ 4 months ago
how about air trafficking issues? how affordable is this?
TheLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZ 4 months ago
pilot here. you'd be fucking mental to take this to public parking lots and space. there is a reason why aprons are restricted to authorized personnels only. also they haven't thought about FODs. impractical.
ccssdxdx 4 months ago 2
While this is really cool, I don't think it's very safe. I don't really want some drunk idiot crashing into my house from above.
Silverstarlightt 4 months ago 2
@Silverstarlightt with a price point of $300k and the fact that you have to drive to an airport to fly (or likely be forced out of the sky by the air force for unregulated flying,) the chance of a "drunk idiot" piloting the thing is pretty low. to say nothing of the fact that the whole advantage of being able to fly is getting to do so over poorly developed areas where 100 mph in a straight line is much faster than winding about at 70 on the highway.
RamadaArtist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Silverstarlightt >"I don't really want some drunk idiot crashing into my house from above."
doesn't that already happen? no? oh.
so how is this different? it's still pilots in the air, but now just more of them? oh.
so who gets to decide who can and can't fly? the FAA? oh.
So... this is the same pilot certification system that's been QUITE SUCCESSFULLY stopping drunk pilots from crashing into houses for hundreds of years? oh.
so what was the problem again?
roidroid 3 months ago
THERE WON'T BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FLIGHT IN ANY FORM UNTIL WE HAVE COMPUTER SOFTWARE CAPABLE OF COMPLETELY CONTROLLING A FLYING VEHICLE.
(figured I should text-yell since people are being idiots about practicality... seriously, how many of you think the average person having a powerful machine in the air is a good idea? You're fucking morons if so...)
Truthiness231 4 months ago
bad music!
Cr0wling 4 months ago
They've invented a plane that fits in a garage, that's it. Where could you fly this thing? Great I can drive to my local airport and somehow schedule a slot on the runway with air traffic control. They still haven't address the biggest issue: how would they keep planes driven by reckless teens from falling out of the sky?
voltinator 4 months ago
FUCK YOU 1 PERCENTER ...their website says the plane costs 279,000 dollars.
arian50 4 months ago
Can I modify it to fly with a PS2 controller ? (Men in black style :P)
styXv3ngeance 4 months ago 3
cop chases would be epic!
Bzdi138 4 months ago 36
@Bzdi138 lol... Call in the air force, the bank robber just achieved lift off
AllOthrNamesWereTakn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bzdi138 lol... Call in the air force, the bank robber just achieved lift off
AllOthrNamesWereTakn 1 month ago
and the point is.....
muetter 4 months ago
Yeah, lets turn your average fender-bender caused by an inconsiderate driver into a guaranteed screaming death for all involved, which will happen as demonstrated by their attempts at getting around safety regulations by specialized wording.
Does anybody really want to be traveling 150mph 2 miles in the air along side paris hilton flying whilst putting on her lipstick in the plane beside you...thought not.
Unless you're going for suicide: A big +1 for the world if you take her out with you,lol
TheIslammiracle 4 months ago
As long as it has wings, it's a complete fail and will NEVER become a serious alternative to the car.
svinehunden 4 months ago
I'll tell you what I'll do...you gimme one of these plane-car thingies, and I will TOTALLY promote it for you on my YouTube channel.
Sounds like a bargain, neh? *Bambi eyes* :)
BionicDance 4 months ago
I want me a motorcycle-plane-car
MCAMVP 4 months ago
I'll give her credit for trying and getting this far,,
scancool 4 months ago
Now if only I had more money than my house costs to spend on an aircar...
KemaTheAtheist 4 months ago
Thinking that the target could be people with huge pockets: if they designed it more like a F1 (or similar sports) car, and sell it in other countires (Africa is an excelent market - in many areas it has more airfields than roads), they would sell a bundle of it.
leonidasx666 4 months ago
Marvelous commercial TedTalks.
Ppl can't drive now, why would I trust a growing amount of ppl to fly?
I also don't like that this is an old idea, we should be focusing on fixing the problems of congestion with cheaper and cleaner alternatives like AFFORDABLE AND ABUNDANT PUBLIC TRANSIT.
thegyger 4 months ago
This is so.. 19th century, never gonna happen.
kaxitaksi 4 months ago
Like all hybrid vehicles ever built, now you can own a crappy airplane and a pathetic car all in one! And it only costs $250,000US. This idea is just dumb and will never be any sort of success. Ever. JMO.
540merlin 4 months ago
why did she not tell the price..?
deLoveofheart 4 months ago
why they didn't show how does it land?!!!!!
laysh2009 4 months ago
hmm, a flying car that's neither practical nor affordable? pass. Tho I'm sure the top 1% will enjoy it as a fad.
Lojikish 4 months ago
nobody ever thought a flying car was impossible, just stupidly impractical.
quosmo1 4 months ago
@quosmo1 If you had watched the video completely, you'll see it's not THAT impractical... and it might just be what some people need.
tankusfred 4 months ago
@tankusfred lol, if you had read or understood my comment, you would realize i never said it was impractical!
my comment meant that she said 'everybody thought a flying car was impossible' and thats not the case, the truth is everybody knew a flying car was possible, but my comment is that 'everybody thought a flying car is impractical' is more to the point (and PAST tense)
I am saying that her statement is wrong, not that i think her flying car or driving plane is impractical.
quosmo1 4 months ago
@quosmo1 yeah... that past tense is REALLY important in that case! XD
tankusfred 4 months ago
@tankusfred :) rarely true but i could have explained it better, i was probably subconsciously fishing for a few bites ... oops :)
quosmo1 4 months ago
@quosmo1 that's how I roll.
rakketakke 4 months ago
@rakketakke lol
quosmo1 4 months ago
hmm, i can't post a comment :/
morthim 4 months ago
@morthim wtf.... maybe youtube doesn't like links and/or equations.
morthim 4 months ago
So... to the people saying the estimated price on this thing is reasonable...
Lets take a look at the expenses...
Fuel consumption, weekly or monthly safety checks and crontrols of every little part required for insurance reasons, the insurance... Rental of an air strip for take off, maintenance for said air strip if private, INSURANCE! (risk to other peoples residences, the people themselves, goverment property and so on $)
This thing will only be for the rich and possibly some specialists
88Kamikaze69 4 months ago
love it. I can my grand kids using it.
qabsar 4 months ago
I've been waiting this since the 50's!
kurydebarcelona 4 months ago
next level shit
ShalloeThought 4 months ago
i want 3
Science1314 4 months ago
Comment removed
Science1314 4 months ago
awesome
Science1314 4 months ago
that's awesome - it's like the Icon A5, but for the road instead of water! :D
BrotherBloat 4 months ago
why was this featured on TED TALKS?
fuckingghey 4 months ago
@fuckingghey TECHNOLOGY Entertainment DESIGN... idiot
idiallin 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what a load of crap
fuckingghey 4 months ago
I wouldn't frame your certification process as getting "safety regulation exemptions"... Maybe get some PR help for your company!
israfel070 4 months ago 13
@israfel070 Everyone knows regulations are just bureaucratic nonsense. Take speed limits for example. Before they were brought in did everyone just drive arbitrarily fast? No, people drove at the speeds they felt were safe.
Individualism101 4 months ago
@Individualism101 Before speed limits, only the lucky few could afford a car. Everyone else rode a bicycle or walked.
sogghartha 4 months ago
@sogghartha Wrong. Speed limits were introduced in America during the war to indirectly ratio fuel. If no one could afford cars then this wouldn't have been an issue.
Individualism101 4 months ago
I will pity all the air traffic controllers out there. The sky will be extremely dense with aircrafts than ever before. Not to mention the higher level of stress and the higher probability of close call incidents. Nonetheless it's definitely a cool concept but might however require sometime before it really generate greater feasibility.
someonestepmyfoot 4 months ago
@someonestepmyfoot They are not looking to provide a "cooler" way for you to get around, they are aiming to change how the everyday person gets around by literally looking towards the sky. this means that in the future, they hope to ween the current problems such as stressed air traffic controllers or small amounts of private airports to create a more realistic market. and yes the risk of accidents will increase with airplanes, although this problem exists today in cars, and people still drive.
RipshawRyan 4 months ago
very nice :)
ebach1 4 months ago
Wow. I really like this idea. I could totally do a flying car.
LazyGirlSuperHero 4 months ago
it's never going to happen ayway.
yoomazir 4 months ago
Calling it a driving plane rather than a driving car made me laugh.
cosmiclovemonkey 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cosmiclovemonkey ... "driving plane rather than a driving car" .... dont you mean a flying car ?
quosmo1 4 months ago
what the hell is with the music int the montage?
mamaleone1 4 months ago
It is probably OK for either country side or rich dudes where you can spread your wings on the lawn. What about dense populated city? And this jet-car still running on a finite resource (gasoline), has a lot other precious resources wasted and doesn't have a high technology to reduce or eliminate collisions and crashes. The future is after driver-less, solar or electric powered vehicles, but not just another toy for super rich 1% to show off between themselves.
ivnat77 4 months ago
I'm curious what'll be mainstream: rails roads or the skies?
xilliah 4 months ago
This is lame, all they have done is added 1 more tyre to a regular plane.
TheDhezballah 4 months ago
"How much does the Transition® cost?
The anticipated base purchase price is $279,000."
abemore 4 months ago 21
@abemore Seeing as how complex this is compared to say a Ferrari that isn't a very bad pricetag ;) It's still pretty much proto-type stage, so prices may drop when optimized and when there is a market to sell them on larger scale (large scale production = price drops).
ThaTyger 4 months ago
@abemore So we can assume it won't have a glass cockpit. Lulz.
BBQPeanut 4 months ago
i just wana hear the cost...
TheAlexandreThompson 4 months ago
Never happen on a mass scale.Three reasons.
First. How about all the morons already killing us on the streets? Do ya' really want that chick zooming down the freeway, in an SUV, at 90 mph, while putting on her mascara, and talking on the phone, flying over your house after happy hour? Me neither.
Second. How to pay for the necessary FAA funding explosion?
Third. Too much freedom. The govt would never allow it, particularly given the recent trend by govt to restrict freedom.
MachOverspeedsPlace 4 months ago
Dat montage music.
CraigusMalaigus 4 months ago
A real pilot will know this is a stupid idea, especially having more people flying around with only 20 hours of experience
SeiPokGuy 4 months ago
What confuses me is why have this? A Cessna 172 carries more, takes off in less distance, seats 4, has a larger range, and has a higher air speed. It makes no sense to buy something to do both when so many things do one better and more efficiently. Btw, I don't like seeing someone in the air with 20 hours of flight time flying near me. Sounds stupid. Please help me understand the point of this piece of garbage. Please.
BBQPeanut 4 months ago
It looks cool, but I sure the hell would hate to rely on it daily and end up with engine problems a few hundred feet in the air. Is there any safety features?
Regardless, it is a step in the right direction.
jathgnos 4 months ago
expect that to cost around $200,000-$800,000. its not something i can afford in my lifetime.
greycloud24 4 months ago
@greycloud24 They are saying $279,000 so, low end of your guess. But think about this in ten years a used one will be worth half that which is lower than I've ever seen a Cessna.
zefphf 4 months ago
This is a toy for rich people, it has no practical use. Why are they allowing people to peddle this crap at TED?
Aetrion 4 months ago
6:38 iiii seeee youuu
JordanClunn 4 months ago
This was a WONDERFUL video.
It is amazing that any creative entrepreneurial innovator does ANYTHING these days with the regulatory hurdles that the government puts in their way.
The govt is probably the biggest hurdle to innovation these days.
freesk8 4 months ago
@freesk8 Without hurdles, there's no innovation.
SAsgarters 4 months ago
@SAsgarters If you are talking about technical hurdles I agree with you. But with unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, there is LESS innovation. And this hurts all of us.
freesk8 4 months ago
@freesk8 Which bureaucratic hurdles, why are they unnecessary and why do you make an exception in their case?
SAsgarters 4 months ago
@SAsgarters In this video, the speaker complains of the regulatory hurdles that the FAA and the federal organization that certifies vehicles to be sold. I'm just saying that these two regulatory organizations made her job harder, and thus probably discouraged a lot of other innovators.
I think that voluntary, free market standards are better than those imposed by force. I think that well-meaning people in the govt try to make things better with their regulations, but wind up hurting us.
freesk8 4 months ago
@freesk8 "In this video, the speaker complains of the regulatory hurdles"
Which push innovators to address real problems instead just trying to boost sales.
"voluntary, free market standards"
Leads to cutting corners and blinding the public with irrelevancies, prevents reactions to actual issues until the outrage gets big enough to make it the cheaper to react and the free market stifles meaningful innovation, because R&D costs money and it's cheaper to just keep reusing the same old crap.
SAsgarters 4 months ago
@SAsgarters Govt regulatory power leads to "regulator capture" by big players in the industry. The regulators are hired from the industry, and they tend to be the least capable dropouts from industry at that. The big players buy influence with the regulators. And the big players can handle the bureaucracy better than the small, innovative, entrepreneurial competitors. This gives big business the advantage, and customers lose out.
freesk8 4 months ago
@freesk8 No, that ends in a net gain for the customers and society as a whole. Furthermore, the fox obviously can't be trusted with the hen house, so if it's "the least capable dropouts" that become the regulators, so be it. I'm more than happy to deny that's the case, too. And the "small, innovative, entrepreneurial competitors" are redundant anyway and their value must be questioned if they can't even handle the bureaucracy.
SAsgarters 4 months ago
@freesk8 cont.
That's the reality of things. Not to go into any details, but the things I just mentioned are issues I deal with on a daily basis. Companies exist to make money, not to follow standards, whether it's their own or set by a government and what is needed, is organizations that keep them in check, because there is no substandard garbage they won't try to sell to people who can't even be expected to know any better.
SAsgarters 4 months ago
@SAsgarters The need to make money drives costs down, and as long as govt does not prevent competition as above, prices fall. This helps consumers. Those in govt are little more informed than customers. Also, competing companies try to win the more sophisticated buyers, because they are at the margin, and could buy from a better competitor. This helps the less sophisticated shoppers, who know less. The best check on the power of a corp is not a regulator, but a competitor.
freesk8 4 months ago
@freesk8 The only one in this whole equation that is looking after the interests of the consumers, IS the government and they have access to both the bullshit the companies produce to mislead both "sophisticated" and "less sophisticated" customers and results from independent, controlled tests. Companies simply can't be trusted to be honest or to follow any standards unless you keep them on a very short leash.
SAsgarters 4 months ago
51 people hate the Jetsons. Sad...
todrobbins 4 months ago
Does a pilot of one of these have to communicate ever with air traffic control, when it comes time to land?
And while driving, how do you check your blind spots with the wings folded up and in the way?
onefortyandwiry 4 months ago
I can't wait till our kids laugh at how wonky this looks.
Jorrellds 4 months ago
Does anyone else think TED's video's are becoming less interesting and inspirational?
christophedetiege 4 months ago
I would have to download the 'Jetsons sound effects' into my Ipod to play when i fly
masluxx 4 months ago
Fuck parking my car and walking to my air plane... really? You own an air plane? You spent less than a day getting your license? That's what we need the 1% flying above us drunk on power and champagne.
dude12nothin 4 months ago
That's nice, but what kind of gas mileage does it get? ;)
Savaniel 4 months ago
@Savaniel i think it is around 35miles per gallon anticipated
onyo101 4 months ago
@onyo101 Holy crap. That's really good! I expect it decreses while flying. Am I right?
Savaniel 4 months ago
@Savaniel not sure i only saw that when it showed the pic of it in the garage but i think it said it has almost 500 mile flight distance
onyo101 4 months ago
@Savaniel on a 23 gallon tank
onyo101 4 months ago
@onyo101 That's really good!
Savaniel 4 months ago
ok this is great, for the next 20 years until we run out of gas
froyboy4life 4 months ago
The truth is this car isn't a solution it will be a toy for the well to do, however just like the first motor carriages set in motion an automotive revolution this technology will quite possibly do the same for the flying car.
puffead 4 months ago
I don't understand what this achieves? Decentralized air-travel?
justicetrooper 4 months ago
For those of you complaining that this isn't curing cancer, you're lacking imagination. Think of a hospital that has one of these and is able to mobilize it faster than a regular airplane or when a helicopter isn't possible and HELP PEOPLE who wouldn't get help other wise for moving patients, moving organs, flying in specialists.
clearmenser 4 months ago 36
@clearmenser You're absolutely right, we need to think laterally. Technology like this has many applications, some of which may actually improve quality of life.
ornitorrinco01 4 months ago
@clearmenser ehm. This thing is a bad plane and a bad aircraft. No space, uses to much fuel, isn't fast. It sounds cool but it sucks balls
rakketakke 4 months ago
@rakketakke ... "a bad plane and a bad aircraft" ... and a bad car too!
quosmo1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clearmenser Nonsense. An average helicopter is cheaper than this frankencar plus it can take-off vertically. When exactly will this frankencar be preferable to a helicopter? You can barely sit in this thing plus you can't land on the roof of the hospital!
KiloSierraAlpha 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
@clearmenser Can you think of a situation where a flying car would be easier to use than a helicopter?
jesuriah 4 months ago
@clearmenser Good point. "Care Flights" to reach people in remote / regional locations cost a lot of money and are often appealing for donations.
Rarae192 4 months ago
How much does it cost?
MihaiBorcan 4 months ago
This is the same flying car crap we've seen for years.
MsNimpnimp 4 months ago
This isn't practical at all, but its still cool to see.
N3rdyDav3 4 months ago
though this seems impractical now, think about when cars first came through. there were no proper roads and they were kind of dinky so it seemed impractical. later on, when it's made more accessible to the average consumer and airstrips are as common as roads, this will be seen as a milestone in history.
though i am wondering about the environmental impact these things will have...
yianimal 4 months ago
Weather starts getting bad mid flight, lower down to the nearest highway if over land and just drive the rest of the way.
TViRuSX900 4 months ago
well done
though a bit like a marketing campaign
gaiagale 4 months ago
The other day TED had a guy on here talking about new ways to fight cancer. This woman is talking about making a plane with small wings that no one is going to buy because it's horribly impractical and idiotic.
maikeru01 4 months ago
Lol is she serious?!!
Tariena1001 4 months ago
This will be great for our top 1%!
zassounotsukushi 4 months ago
I do not want wings on my flying car!
lordmetroid 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordmetroid May I be so bold as to ask,what do you want if you don`t want wings.
naybobdenod 4 months ago
Now imagine that on an open highway.
MisterCovek 4 months ago
@joezef86 i c wat u did thar
slaughtz 4 months ago
Flying cars are sooo 20th century. I want the giant vacuum tubes.
310sucks 4 months ago 6
@joezef86 lulz =)
SonOfTerra92 4 months ago
teleportation or gtfo imo
xjustamem0ryx 4 months ago
and the gas milage for either is probably compromised greatly
DanielManahan 4 months ago
00:15
roryfoote1 4 months ago
A lot of people are missing the point. This thing isn't meant as a flying car, it's meant as a driving plane.
RasdenFasden 4 months ago
"it looks beatiful from up here"
what?!
It's about 10 feet off the ground.
lowey911 4 months ago
Never thought I'd see and hear an 80's style montage in a modern TED talk :p
vagine26 4 months ago 39
@Jesuriah, firstly I was talking about the lack of brake dust and tire wear WHILE FLYING. Second, the car weighs, literally, a ton less than most passenger cars, so even while driving it will develop less tire and brake dust. Third, how aggressively will you drive a flying car with a 100hp engine and a CVT? to suggest someone will be rocketing around in this thing while ground-bound is utter insanity.
Finally, mass transit is predicated upon pop. densities that don't exist in most of the USA.
DannyZRC 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
This seems like a great idea for People who want to flee the country. Think about a bank robber who just flys to Mexico after robbing a bank.
itchybo510 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itchybo510 "This seems like a great idea for People who want to flee the country. Think about a bank robber who just flys to Mexico after robbing a bank"
Think about the police chasing that bank robber in one of these things that is armed with air to air missiles.
ornitorrinco01 4 months ago
Uh oh.. They say planes usually break on the ground. Driving a plane around might break it sooner than later. Nice engineering work, though.
snoeg 4 months ago
Its a bird, its a plane, no wait its a car.
AZipp161 4 months ago
@AZipp161 cute ...I burst into laughter ...stilllaughing as I type ;-]) thanks!
gaiagale 4 months ago
How is this different from the mini helicopter that also drives...you can get those for under a 100k
I dont see anything new or innovative here, just the same old stuff mashed back together with more recent technology.
Although it could be a good idea but roflmao not if you allow everyone to just fly one manualy. Better have the whole thing automated. You can't keep track of 250 other planes flying at different altitudes and courses. But a computer can.
I cant wait to see this deathtrap :D
BrutusAlbion 4 months ago
Those harping about fuel economy are ignorant of the lack of tire wear or brake dust, and they'll compare it's point to point economy with cars which by their nature must travel longer distances to connect those points.
They will also completely discount any time savings.
They will do these things because they are shortsighted ideologues.
DannyZRC 4 months ago
@DannyZRC Dude, if you drive the car aggressively, or live in a hilly area you'll spew just as much brake dust into the air as other people. While tire wear may be down, tire pollution is much easier to deal with(read :Be recycled or re purposed) than exhaust gasses. What's more useful, a toy for the rich/wealthy(A.K.A. this plane/car) or a mass transit system powered by renewable energy?
jesuriah 4 months ago
this sort of became an advert, not so much an inspiring speech
HarrysMusicBlog 4 months ago
Car bumming just got to a whole new level ;) yullaaaaaaa kelelele
juuuust kiddin
bokehpro 4 months ago
not a single mention about fuel... so i guess it runs on sunshine and happiness
Ultra4 4 months ago
@Ultra4 8:42 she specifically mentions unleaded automotive fuel which is more eco friendly than Av-gas.
cidvisions 4 months ago
@cidvisions i missed that, thanks. I still think EV cars + mag lev trains (also electric and much faster than planes) are the real solution. I would like to see some real data on CO2 per km, but nevermind, only a few milionaires will use this
Ultra4 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ultra4 cute ...running on "sunshine and happiness" is quite a novel idea
gaiagale 4 months ago
Anyone who thinks the idiots we see driving down the road should be doing the same thing but 2,000 feet up it the air you should ask yourself if sniffing glue today was a good choice.
Atheistprimate 4 months ago