youtube .. (Hitting Refresh for videos!)

[zbandito]

[Yak]

Meanwhile, in Parintins:

[RedOktober]

How to survive IKEA.

[zbandito]

[Firefox]

Dug my copy out for a second viewing at the weekend and discovered this gem.



See how many of the cast you can spot!

[zbandito]

[Firefox]

[KlaxonCow]

A cross between a drone and a prop plane - so the propellers push air over an aerofoil (a wing shape) for extra lift.

Angled at 45 degrees, because a drone / helicopter needs the airflow to go down, but an aerofoil generates its lift perpendicular to the airflow running over it - but, at 45 degrees, you can aim both of them downwards (-ish) for combined lift (and for some stability, I'd imagine, as the two airflows push against each other, as well as both upwards).

Nice. But we still have the "weight versus flight time" issue, as it can only fly for about 30 minutes and accommodate one person. The extra lift helps, but it's not that much extra lift to dispel the fundamental problem. Better, but not a "solved problem" until it's a few hours with up to 4 people (like a car or helicopter).

And, of course, none of this addresses the other fundamental problem of "flying cars". In that, if this ever takes off (pardon the pun) as a mass-market vehicle, then you've got yourself an air traffic control nightmare.

Imagine thousands of these things in the air above a city and coordinating them to not crash into each other.

Truth is, on any major scale, "flying cars" would have to be autonomous, so that they could all automatically communicate with each other to avoid crashes in heavily populated air space (because crashes with flying things would be intolerable - imagine a couple of flying cars crashing into each other and then raining down on top of a busy shopping area full of people).

[zbandito]

It would not be that hard to adopt regulations that describe lanes of traffic and stuff, plus it's already mandated to require identify and avoid devices on 'real' aircraft in the US. This does squeeze under the regulations in many ways, though. Under 256 pounds is quite amazing; it can do 40 miles in Canada, and even 25 miles one way is still enough to be quite useful. Sounds relatively affordable, and if they can do it, others can too. I agree that you really need 2 passengers at a minimum, but that pushes it into more heavily regulated territory. As it is, those who live near waterways could use this pretty readily in US urban areas since it is, smartly, amphibious.

Want!

[zbandito]

[zbandito]

[SuperMappy]

[kel]

as an arse hole, i try every dy to be less of an arsehole

[kel]

yah

[venusian]

Puppets, old electronic musical instruments, whimsy.

What's not to like?