No, that's not a scene from The Fifth Element II. What you see here is the Avcen Limited Jetpod T-100 City Flying Taxi, a VQSTOL (Very Quiet Short Take-off and Landing) vehicle that the company says could be in the air by 2010. The idea is that these
flying cars would volley people between city centers and outlying areas (like airports) in order to reduce highway traffic. Avcen says that 75 of these in London could relieve road traffic of 37,000 return car trips per day all the while keeping things quiet and requiring only short landing strips made of pavement or grass. For air geeks, specs include dual jet engines with a thrust of 2 x 13.3 kN, a cruising speed of 350 mph, a range of 920 miles, an operating payload of 1,543 lbs, and seating for 7 pax. Bruce Willis pilot not included.
[Via
The Contaminated]
posted May 27th 2008 10:19AM
Thats a speed of 350 MPH but man if they got 350 MPG... forget those hybrid cars. Stars wars flying cars here we come!
"It is the year 2000. Where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars! Why? Why! Why?"
75 jets x 7 seats = 525 people. How does this reduce traffic by 37,000 cars per day?
3 trips an hour, 24 hours a day, with all seats full ... it's a bit optimistic, I agree
Read properly.
Not 37,000 cars per day.
"37,000 return car trips per day"
Key words: Return TRIPS
That's still optomisitc. Assuming every car trip has only one person, and not all single taxi trips will replace 2 car trips (there and back) most return trips would require 2 taxi trips.
If it is only used to ferry people, its hard to see how this would be better then something like a subway or train.
Also, by the time you get through security to board these planes...... "please arrive at the airport 2 hours before your flight"
Now i have images of terrorists Hijacking them
Thank you
now i cant take a bottle of water with me in the cab
Their has been a slight delay , he slamed into the ground today
This is coming at the right time indeed. Bet those things are silly environmentally friendly, runs on happy thoughts and feeds birds with their emissions... :p
By the time the consumer is done paying the carbon tax (the company raises prices on tickets) It would be cheaper to just take a real plane.
Eh? 75 of them to relieve 37,000 car journeys per day? So they're being used about 500 times a day each, because they don't look like the could carry many people - or is it 37,000 car journeys per year, which is next to nothing in London?
Sadly the reason why vehicles like this have been "almost coming" for decades, but never actually there, is that they basically do and cost the same as helicopters, which fulfil this role in plenty of cities (Sao Paulo as the best example). Nice idea, but will still use more fuel than cars and basically be a toy for the rich or a viable alternative for people whose time is really, really valuable.
What's with the hate??
He is right.
Do we have to be at the Flying Taxi Port 3 hours early for security checks?
Engadget readers love to down rank the pessimistic - but, be realistic, THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
#1 The current aviation infrastructure is being held hostage to technology built in the 1970's. Vacuum tubes and computers the size of rooms - used to simply calculate trajectory.
For example, most airplanes don't have GPS real time positioning. Air Traffic control NEVER knows exactly where a plane is. They have to "guestimate" their position to within 4 miles.
For sky taxis we'd need an entirely new infrastructure.
#2 Terrorists would load one of these with explosives and slam it into something - likely a crowd.
#3 We can't even fuel our SUV, we need a nuclear/electric energy source for this
#4 Taxi drivers already drive horribly - give them pilot's wings and I'll give you fatalities.
Even if you sort out all of those problems where are you going to find enough space to land/ take off these things in London
Jon, it's VQSTOL; they could take off in my garden.
Yea, I read this, and all I can think is that I wont be holding my breath for this one anytime soon. I mean, lets go back to the 50's and see what they were saying the year 2000 would be like... the Jetsons are just a little too far out of our reach at the moment, sorry to everyone who was actually thinking that this was going to happen. "as early as 2010" that means that in 2010 they will say, we have a prototype that does 1/3 of what we thought it would for 3 times the price, but we care getting there, please buy our IPO, lol.
@Raheem:
Upon first reading, I misread the VQSTL to mean Vertical Takeoff and Landing, as anything that is VxTL always is. However, they are abusing the V and making it stand for Very. The idea of Londoners accepting Short Takeoff and Landing (requiring short landing strips) isn't very inspiring, especially with all the trouble Heathrow has with adding new runways to an existing airport.
When they have mastered VQVTL (Very Quiet Vertical Takeoff and Landing), then things'll get moving.
If it was vertical take off/ landing that would be fine. But good luck to anyone finding 300 meters of clear land in the center of london, and no tall buildings around.
#1 Helicopters and small planes seem to manage. You're using the old "everyone can't have a flying car" mentality. Less than 100 of these is absolutely manageable.
#2 Again, small planes and helicopters. How would this provide a tool for terrorists that isn't already available? Stupid argument IMO. Operators of these types of craft would be licensed and screened more diligently than people who can get a pilot license.
#3 Ummm, no. Again, have you heard of the invention known as a helicopter?
#4 Yes of course. That's exactly what they're thinking of. Give some immigrant with an incense burner the keys to these things. Brilliant. I'm sure that's exactly how it would work.
please never use the word guestimate, you can either estimate something or guess something, there is no in between. If you guess you are doing so without any evidence or knowledge on the subject, if you estimate you are are doing so with evidence or knowledge on the subject. If you guestimate you're a chimpanzee.
First, they must improve their website
it takes eternity to download :(
"abdul" in Arabic means servant.
"abdullah means "servant of god".
I'd rather get an abdul than an Al Tar
NO.
What we se here is a CGI of a "Avcen Limited Jetpod T-100 City Flying Taxi"
Which, in all likelyhood will never fly.
Just like all the other flying cars of the last 50-odd years.
This is the real world, not the bloody Jetsons!
With the number of idiots out there with drivers licenses, I'd be afraid of what kind of accidents they'd cause. Plus, and this is the sensitive one, senior citizens behind one of these would be lethal. Seniors don't want to hear you say "ok pops, you're not allowed to drive anymore. It's not safe." The AARP will come on you harder, and louder, than a thunderstorm. On the bright side, however, this would be great for trips. But, our skies are so crowded these days, specially in big cities, that this would be interesting. I'm all for it. Let's see what they come up with. Maybe, we can also get away from combustion engines while they're at it.
Didn't CNN cover this over three years ago? Oh yeah, here it is http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/18/explorers.jetpods/
thanks for the link
@ WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot now since you have all the nfo Answers me this
where my flying taxi
ps
whats old to one person is new/news to another
With "proof of concept" test flights scheduled for 2006, Avcen hopes the first jetpods will cost around $1 million.
lol
Looks more like The 6th Day.
No thanks. As a Londoner, i'll stick to the ground!
It would have to be in service for some time with an impeccable safety accident record, but I would still use a train.
75 cabbies with good piloting skills in London ... I'll believe that when I see it
;-)
"a range of 920 miles,"
he wont reach america from pakistan..
you would still need to take a car or Tube to the landing strip so how would that be any benefit to the passenger? You might as well just take a regular taxi all the way to the airport or stay on the Tube.
Plus you might only need a tiny patch of grass for a landing strip but you would still need to clear large parking areas around it for arriving passengers.
So basically you're just creating mini-airports.
What about no-fly zones?
You can't fly them there.
I'd take the roflcopter over one of these anyday of the week
So long as it's not Paula Abdul... she has a hard enough time keeping sober on TV.
You..... You're ....you're ... just..... *breaks down in tears and claps*
"Bruce Willis pilot not included."
Deal breaker.
im willing to bet they try to get im on board for an endorsement if/when the thing hits the "streets"?
I've been waiting a really long time for this. Every morning I open up Edgadget and ask, "Are there flying cars yet?"
Don't ruin my dream! Bastard.
Its the 'stall' in VQ'STOL' that leaves me a tiny bit on edge...
corbin, corbin my man... i don't feel right.
Flying Taxi != Flying Car
This is nothing more than the equivalent of a small business jet that is somehow more quiet and is capable of short takeoffs and landings. While I believe we do have the technology at this time for this kind of thing, the practicality (and cost) of it just doesn't seem worth it.
For those of you worried about ''bad taxi drivers'', I am quite sure flying one of these would require at least a commercial pilot's license; that will rule out virtually all car taxi drivers you see on the street.
Also, according to their crappy website, this thing is supposedly powered by used and new vegetable oil. Not that I think it's the best idea to use food sources for fuel, but I digress.
Finally, if terrorists really wanted to blow something up, they could just as easily rent a cargo truck and fill that with explosives than go through the trouble of stealing one of these.
looks like it would glide like a brick when the engines break.
Rumour has it cab drivers are receiving training right now at the prestigious Silverlit Flying Academy of polystyrene goods.
http://www.silverlit.com/
A runway at Potsdamer Platz in Berlin!? That'll make the area MUCH less congested (insert sarcasm).
BTW, Cabs in Berlin are beige, not yellow.
Um, why is this filed under 'Tablet PCs'? Because the Jetpod T-100 looks about as aerodynamic as one?
300 Meters doesn't seem that short of a runway! Very Quick maybe, but not Short...
I'm still waiting for the human particle transporter, MUCH safer! At least you know your going to die then... ;-)
Leeloo dallas Mool-tee-pass...mool-tee-pass.
"Its the car of the future... TODAY(ish)!!!!"
Sounds a bit far fetched... but fun to consider just the same.
This brought back fond memories of the game "Space Taxi" for the Commodore 64. What a cool little game that was!
Those tiny wings are going to require high takeoff speeds for an airplane of this weight. Using the figures given, we see:
2 x 13.3 kN (3000 lb) thrust engines (guessing Williams FJ44-3)
Specific fuel consumption = 0.46 lb/hr/eng in cruise (much higher at takeoff, and in low altitude flight typical of these missions), which works out to 1380 lb per hour per engine.
Range 920 miles, speed 350 mph = endurance approx 3 hours
This would need 8280 lb of fuel
Add to that 1543 lb of payload, and (guessing?) 5000 lb (very optimistic) empty weight; total = 14,823.
This is in the weight range of a Cessna CJ3 which uses the same engine. It needs 3,180 feet (balanced field, FAR 25) for takeoff, and it has a lot more wing area (meaning it can get airborne at a lower speed).
The 125 meters takeoff distance cited elsewhere can't include a provision for accelerating to V1 and aborting, nor for accelerating to V2 and continuing (shallower climb angle).
And jet fuel costs what in Britain these days? A 15-minute mission (taxi, takeoff, landing) will easily burn 1000 lb (150 gal). At $8/gal that's $1200 per mission in fuel alone -- or $171/person if they fill all 7 seats with paying customers.
I don't think so! Even if I'm off by a factor of 2 in my estimates, it can't make economic sense. Toss in some bad weather, the need to approach and depart over congested areas, the aforementioned checkin delays, etc ...
And even if it could take off and land vertically, remember what's needed: thrust downward equal to weight just to hover. So the chap who mentioned "it can take off in my garden" may want to reconsider the offer :-) Your garden would soon resemble the airport -- a nice, flat, open expanse of land!
Bit more thought needed for practical use given that a 7 person people carrier probably has massively better fuel economy for short runs.
Be interesting to see how they'd compare to short flights though to infrequent destinations, replacing the need for small / medium size airports and planes to be run on those services.
People drive like dumbasses when the only option is to turn left and right, could you immagine if they could go up and down too! and planes don't have "fender benders," fender bender equals you DIE! an air bag isn't going to help you!!!
How hard can it be to make these things operate without a pilot?
This is cash money! Yes there is risk in crashing but same goes for a car on the road. There is risk in everything, regardless, this is a GREAT idea and I glad it is coming to fruition.
News Flash: the inventor died while testing the plane on the fourth take off test after failed the first 3!
News Flash: the inventor died while testing the plane on the fourthtake off test after failed the first 3!
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/latest-world-news/2009/08/16/british-pilot-dies-in-malaysia-91466-24453075/
Hot news everybody, I believe this flying taxi conduct testing at Ipoh airbase , Perak state, Malaysia 16 August 2009, and crash, the Russian pilot was kill,
Correction, not russian , but British pilot. Michael Robert .The site is Tekah airport, Taiping, Perak state.
Their has been a slight delay in the production of the taxi because it taxied into the ground with the owner owner of the company at the helm
RIP Michael Dacre. I hope someone will pick up where he left off. The concept is great.