Jump to content

Talk:Flying car/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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.
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

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)

Three types?

  • The difference between flying cars and (other types of) and roadable aircraft needs to be made clear. And in sorting out types of these, there needs to be 3 classes, not 2:
    1. The whole vehicle drives on land and flies.
    2. When driving on land, it must leave parts at the airport.
    3. When flying, it must leave parts at the airport.
    See Roadable aircraft#List of roadable aircraft. Class (3) may arise in some vehicles in the type "integrated — all components can be carried in the vehicle, or on a trailer attached to the vehicle": if it needs a trailer, what happens to the trailer (rather than the trailer's load) when the vehicle is flying? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2021 (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)

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:

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 IITalk 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)

I agree and believe some of the statements are misleading. For example, "AeroMobil is a flying car that perfectly makes use of existing infrastructure created for automobiles and planes, and opens doors to real door-to-door travel." What does "perfectly makes use of existing infrastructure" and "real door-to-door travel" mean in some kind of quantifiable terms. It is also unclear if this vehicle will require an airport or can provide air travel from non-airfields. Advert tag has been added but I have not seen any guidance on how long to wait for cleanup before delete. I can't find the source for this information to make immediate cleanup. November 2016 should be sufficient for changes before deletion now the articles has the advert tag. If anyone has definite wait times please note them. Jleipold (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The whole text is just copied from AeroMobil's home page so in addition to breaking advertisment rules, it also breaks copyright rules. I will remove it. StenSoft (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Update Modern Development

Developments should be better and more neutrally organized as well as updated. As mentioned before by Stevemidgley, it is biased towards the AeroMobil out of chronological order. More recent additions should be e-volo's Volocopter, Ehang's Ehang184 and possibly other PAVs. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a19708/future-of-the-flying-car/ http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/ Houdinipeter (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

History section is beyond rubbish, it´s outright silly

Why is Henry Ford brought up 3 times, first time is about a PLANE trying to be COMMON as a car, ergo has nothing to do with the subject at all, second time is a quote which comes AFTER flying cars have already been built and is therefore completely useless as part of a history section even if it was truly relevant, which it isn´t. And the third mention, while at least relevant never went beyond scale model, which is something that has happened many times, why should Ford get the showtime when others doesn´t?

And then ACTUAL flying cars that were built that are not mentioned at all!

Earlier flying cars Wikipedia already have articles on:
Taylor Aerocar from 1949, 6 built.
Aerauto PL.5C from 1949, single prototype.
ACA AC-35 Autogiro from 1936.
Bryan Autoplane from 1953, 2 built(1 rebuilt).
Convair Model 116 and 118 from 1946, 1 and 2 built respectively.
Curtiss Autoplane from 1917! Didn´t quite work, but it´s one helluva lot more interesting history note than the current Ford-commercial.
Fulton Airphibian from 1946, 4 built.
Gwinn Aircar from 1937, 2 built.
Skroback Roadable Airplane from 1934, single prototype.
Waterman Arrowbile from 1937, 5 built.

Please anyone who has the time to actually do a decent edit, dump the current commercial and add something actually useful instead, like the above actual flying cars.

DW75 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Also missing are the early attempts at flying cars by Gustave Whitehead. They got so embroiled in controversy over whether they actually flew before the Wright brothers that people tend to forget they were not just aeroplanes but were proper flying cars, in some cases with separate power trains and auxiliary engines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. This article has more on fiction than impractica fact. And a lot of the examples in fiction are levitating without explanation rather than flying anyway. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Also the early developments/modern developments split confuses me. All cars and all powered flying vehicles are modern developments.173.66.5.216 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

America-centered

All “notable” examples of flying cars in fiction that are listed here are completely obscure to me. The only example that I can immediately recall is the flying car in a French “Fantomas” movie. These three movies are, I think, well-known in Europe, and they are certainly famous in Russia (back in the days when the movies were shot, crowds of Russian children dreamt Fantomas). Yet, there is no mention here. I say this to mean that such sections don't make much sense: Wikipedia is not a magazine, and there is no outlook to fit anybody. Making the section America-centered (or Europe-centered) is not a viable solution. The best option is to remove the section altogether, as it adds no encyclopedic content. - 91.122.6.33 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hovercars

Many of the fictional examples listed here are also listed in the hovercar article. Hovercars should be removed from here (The alternative is to merge the two articles but I don't think that is sensible). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fact vs fiction

The term "flying car" has been widely used to describe real prototypes and design projects. The idea that the term is used only in fiction is misplaced. I just added a cite to a reliable source in the Moller Skycar section, here is another such link for a machine not listed: [2]. If you disagree, please do not delete or contradict cites to reliable sources but establish your case here first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For those fans of the fictional variety, may I suggest creating a separate article such as Flying cars in fiction or List of fictional flying cars. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Reading back, I see all this has been discussed before and one editor's opinion has dominated. Like others on those previous discussions, I disagree with that editor. So here are a few thoughts: Wikipedia works from reliable sources. If they say something is a flying car then it is a flying car. If a facetious source talks about a "flying car" meaning an ordinary car catapulted into the air, that is not a reliable usage. The term roadable aircraft is broader than "flying car" because it includes flying motorcycles and why not flying container trucks. No non-roadable VTOL craft is ever seriously described as a flying car, though it might well be described as a personal air vehicle - on the other hand a large VTOL point-to-point commuter, such as a helicopter, is not a personal air vehicle. These three classes of vehicle are all quite distinct and Wikipedia needs to have an article for each class. There will be some overlap, i.e. repetition of content, but that is perfectly acceptable. I am happy to accept that the case in fiction may be different, frankly I don't care. It may prove sensible to split this article into separate articles for the fact and fiction aspects. The technical matter then arises, as to how to preserve the associated discussions and edit histories in the right place. But let's get consensus for a sensible article structure first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flying car (aircraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate entries in Flying Cars in Fiction

There are some duplicate entries in the Flying Cars in Fiction (Live-action movies) section. Star Wars, Blade Runner, Back to the Future and The Fifth Element all appear first with a very long paragraph, and then again further down the list with a much shorter one. I was about to delete the shorter ones, but then hesitated as I think there's actually no reason for those movies to have a much longer (and differently formatted) entry than the others, so maybe the longer ones should be removed instead, or shortened. Not sure which is better, leaving this to discussion. -- 93.231.213.56 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved, due to the unanimous consensus below. (non-admin closure) In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Flying car (aircraft) → Flying car – There is no apparent need for a disambiguation page. The other entries are not even title matches. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early Developments

In 2000, Henry Ford displayed an experimental single-seat aeroplane" 2000?? 2001:56A:F03F:5200:B9DB:852D:C660:6D85 (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it was vandalism from last week that was not spotted. MilborneOne (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

For consideration

Lilium Jet; related to proposed Lake Nona "Vertiport" in Florida (Central Florida lands hub for Jetsons-like ‘flying cars’, November 11, 2020). Mapsax (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Roadable aircraft into Flying car. Consensus was unanimous. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am proposing to merge Roadable aircraft here. There is already a strong overlap between the two articles, with each claiming that the other is a subclass of its own topic.

Although there are various opinions on the distinction, if any, between a flying car and a roadable aircraft, there appears to be no reliable definition. The view that they mean the same thing is as widespread as any other. Otherwise, the nearest I can find is the suggestion that a flying car needs no special runway or landing area, while a roadable aircraft does. But F1 racing cars need special flat racetracks, while many helicopters need no special helipad, so that opinion does not seem especially helpful. Certification authorities are not joined up; the vehicle must be certified independently by each authority, for example the Terrafugia Transition has gained flight certification but cannot yet be driven on public roads, while the PAL-V Liberty has gained road certification but cannot yet be flown by private pilots. On the basis of that evidence, I am proposing a merge.

But under which title? Although "roadable aircraft" is gaining in popularity with those in the business who wish to distance themselves from the fantasy connotations, no books with titles referencing them have been published; to the contrary, published books and our WP:COMMONNAME policy direct us firmly towards "Flying car". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Classification

Standard lists of aircraft include a classification of the aircraft type. I'd suggest we use this to distinguish the broad lift configurations here. For example; Detachable wings, Folding wings, Ducted rotor, Vectored fan, Autogyro, Hybrid.

But as a road vehicle, one might consider say Car, Three-wheeler, Bicycle, all with or without towed trailer.

Options which occur to me:

  1. Jam both descriptions into a single data cell, for example; "car, folding wings" but that is annoying if you want to sort the list on the second one.
  2. Ignore the ground vehicle type as essentially trivial, but I am not sure our Automobile WikiProject colleagues would agree with that.
  3. Use a nonstandard table layout, for example having say separate Ground Class and Air Class columns.

Any thoughts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding to "recentism" tag

Steelpillow, the article has a lot of examples of early 21st century prototypes, but not a lot on other sections. I don't think that it is in due proportions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That is because development activity vastly increased around the turn of the millennium. Check out the other sections, such as the Design and Popular culture, and you will see plenty of balanced historical material. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I should have read the article more carefully next time. Thanks for the head up, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Flying car

The flying car term is useful for people awareness rn, so they can look it up, but it’s necessary to update information to the most recent news and get rid of the old information, flying car is a reality on commercialization. Autenea (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Autenea: You can add the two projects you added in the lead, but please place them as new rows in the table. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I would disagree that these are worth including. These projects are just non-notable wannabee studies, there is nothing to verify that they are anything more than vapourware. Wikipedia documents knowledge. It is not Wikinews, nor does it document wishlists. At best adding them here would be WP:TOOSOON. The editors who reverted this stuff were right to do so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I do agree that some of the older vapourware projects need culling. No other aircraft design gets included on Wikipedia unless it has flown, or meets our general notability guidelines for some other reason. A wild design study or concept model, mentioned in the odd news item here and there, is generally not encyclopedic material - be it old or new. This article needs bringing in line with that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an issue with links to other language versions of this page: a lot of them are missing.

I tried adding one to the French version ("Voiture volante") but I had the following error: "Site link frwiki:Voiture volante is already used by item Q1423125.". Item Q1423125 seems to be "Roadable aircraft", but redirects to this page (due to the merge mentioned above).

How should this error be fixed? Should we move all the references from item Q1423125 to item Q5463565 ? Or the other way round, as there are less to move ? Arkane (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like as usual WikiData is non-functional. The alternative would be to add them directly into this article and by-pass WikiData. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Welp, other languages on item Q5463565 (fa, ja, tr, uk, zh) have different (duplicate?) pages (although for zh it is redirected), so moving all the links is no-go.
The category for this item is "fictional aircraft", so in my opinion the link to the English "Flying car" page should not be referenced.
I propose removing the link to enwiki:Flying car from item Q5463565 and, in item Q1423125, replacing the link to enwiki:Roadable aircraft by a link to enwiki:Flying car. Arkane (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
"WikiData makes your life better"TM. I think you should just go ahead if there is anyway to fix this mess at all. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Alef Model A

A radical concept, which has reputedly been flown as a model but no more, does not rate significant coverage in this overview article. Contrary to persistent claims by another editor, there is no hardware yet to gain the claimed "first" road and flight capability - indeed, many others have already demonstrated these in hardware and the only "first" remaining is significant production volume. So can we please stop trying to puff this thing up out of all proportion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this edit comment claims I removed citations to RS. I did not, I moved them elsewhere in the article, as can be seen here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. We need citations from WP:RS stating that 'firsts' have actually been demonstrated (with an actual human-carrying vehicle, not a model) before we can even contemplate describing this as the 'first' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah it all reads like too many Alef press releases and not enough aircraft, at least for now. - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Flight certification

This type has recently received FAA certification to begin experimental flying. Almost every type ever built in the US has received that, so this is not encyclopedic information. Alef's publicity machine would have us believe otherwise, but that is their problem not ours. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Whitehead

Including Gustave Whitehead's supposed aircraft in this list [3] seems inappropriate to me. The claims that Whitehead actually flew anything at all attract little credibility amongst serious aviation historians, and inclusion here, even in equivocal terms (e.g. "Believed not to have flown, although this has been challenged") seems entirely undue, per WP:REDFLAG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite a number of the list entries were mere projects and never even built. Some have been accused of being outright scams. Achieving flight is in no way a criterion for inclusion, I am puzzled why you are under the impression it is? The No. 21's intended roadability is what matters here. I added the "but this has been challenged" bit because the cited sources for the flying car aspect also put the case that it did fly, and I thought it helpful to give some context as to why they contradict the (mainstream) view that it did not. Can you think of a better way to make that last point? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
If the inclusion criteria for this list is 'projected flying cars', that should be the title. And 'projections' don't generally involve claims, contrary to the views of more or less every subject-matter expert, to have beaten the Wright brothers to fly. Whitehead is discussed, with due weight, in the relevant place - an article on him. Including fringe claims about it here is entirely undue. This isn't a 'projection' - an assertion that something will take place in the future - it is a narrative relating to alleged events 120 years or so ago built around sources that historians of aviation have rejected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The first-to-fly controversy is utterly irrelevant here. Moreover, you are abusing the term "project" - it does not just mean current projects, and is an item description in the status column not an overarching title; that is crystal clear from the table format. Please stay on topic and stop bashing your PoV rhetoric. An editor as experienced as you should know better. Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
What an utterly ridiculous response. Given your refusal to actually address the substantive issue (undue promotion of claims rejected by mainstream historians) I shall be raising this at the fringe theories noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Let us agree to differ then. Don't forget to drop a note here so I can join in the fun. Alternatively, would you like one of us to ping the Aircraft WikiProject first, to gain some idea of the current expert consensus? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:FTN thread: [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Flying cars and Whitehead — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has recently added walls of text to the Whitehead table entry. I'd suggest this verbose discrediting tacitly gives his claims undue screen space. Since everything in the table entry is cited in the main text, would it be acceptable to merge the whole Notes entry into the main text? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
As of now, I have still to see a clear explanation as to why Whitehead is included in the list at all. The only sources offered for any 'flying car' label (i.e. one that implies it had any roadgoing capability to speak of) all ultimately derive their characterisation from a discredited 1901 newspaper source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
typically when you talk about other editors, it is customary to tag them. Please do so in the future, thanks. No I think it's important to describe Whitehead's claims in the table with mainstream views. But I am happy to shorten the entry if appropriate mainstream consensus is respected in the main text. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a source regarding what Whitehead himself had to say on the machines intended roadgoing capabilities? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if we have a quote to be honest. I was looking... But we do have evidence he was designing things like this, with an attempt to make them roadable or road-worthy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Evidence from which source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Yknow, you're right. I don't actually see "roadable" or "road-worthy" or "car" in any sources. I don't know if we have that.... We would need a source which says he was designing road-worthy aeroplanes, not simply that they had wheels.
I actually think this may count: [5] but you're right, it does not say that Whitehead was intentionally designing it in that way. We can reword to be more accurate. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
You are citing John Brown. His claims regarding Whitehead have been rejected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
oh I see, it's a brown quote. Well we do have the SciAm description of his crafts to go off of instead. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
If you are referring to the 2014 Scientific American article cited for the list, it quotes material it wrote in the 1900s regarding Whitehead's machine, but certainly doesn't endorse it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Shibbolethink@ Currently cited in the article: Bongartz (Popular mechanics) uses the term "flying car", Jackson (Jane's 2013) discusses its roadability, another citation for "flying car" from the Huffington Post was for some reason removed by your own self in this edit. All these publications are frequently-cited reliable sources (save for Jackson's claim of actual flight). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Popular Mechanics is clearly reliable here, but HuffPo is questionable in this space, since it has no domain expertise. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Popular Mechanics is merely reporting what the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of 1901 said. Which has been rejected as a source. What I am asking for is material from recent recognised authoritative sources which have anything to say on the 1901 machines roadgoing aspirations. Not statements from RS about was written earlier, actual recent RS discussing the 1901 machines roadgoing aspirations themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I doubt very much that what you ask for exists. Unless and until someone comes up with it, we just have to follow policy and make do with the RS that does exist - without indulging in OR as to where it is really coming from. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Which RS is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that no mainstream RS seek to refute the roadable/flying aspect. In all the many critiques of Whitehead, not one challenges that aspect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
We base articles on what reliable sources say about subjects, not on what they haven't 'refuted'. If Whitehead's machine merits inclusion in the list, we need to cite a source to justify it. This is elementary Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Both HuffPost (see WP:HUFFPO) and Popular Mechanics are considered reliable sources. It doesn't matter that they "appear to be a precis of earlier material". Both sources apparently did not see a reason to refute the title of "flying car", while they did choose not to endorse the claims that it actually flew. If you still don't believe the sources to be reliable in this case, feel free to bring it up at WP:RS/N. - ZLEA T\C 14:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
If those are the only sources actually offered to justify inclusion of Whitehead's machine in the list, I shall certainly bring it up at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

List section heading

Following a most unusual edit, I have reverted it per WP:BRD and started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lists of aircraft. This issue affects multiple articles, so please engage in the discussion there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Why the hell should we? Intentionally-misleading list titles are against Wikipedia policy. This isn't an issue where the views of a particular Wikiproject are relevant. Not trhat you have provided the slightest evidence that the Wikiproject even has an opinion on this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
How does an edit to this page affect multiple articles? I mean, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is silly. jps (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not change from one article to another. There are hundreds of list and article titles to which the same issue applies. For the ongoing debate, see the Aircraft Wikiproject and Fringe discussions and, if you are a glutton for punishment, ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
How does 'the same issue' apply? Are claims about Whitehead flying in 1901 included in 'hundreds of' other lists? I'd assume not. Which makes this a debate about the inclusion of one item, on one list. Syle guides are not inclusion criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Split up the list into those which have flown, have not flown, and are theoretical

We should split the list into three subheadings or three separate lists all on this page:

  • "Models with recorded flight"
  • "Designs that never flew"
  • "Still under development"

Thoughts, feelings? Workshopping subtitles? This delineation would go a long way towards not misleading our readers about prototypes, disputed flying machines, and theoretical designs which only exist on paper. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Tagging @Steelpillow, @AndyTheGrump, @Chipmunkdavis, @Nigel Ish, @M.nelson, @ජපස, @Ahunt, @Blueboar, @Rhododendrites from FT/N. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No particular problem with that, as a general principle. I'd merely note that the evidence that Whitehead's machine meets any of them is questionable, in that little in the way of RS-based evidence has been offered that it was even intended to have significant on-road capability. The engine-powered wheels seem to have been a launch-assist mechanism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought I’d read somewhere that the road capability was to allow the machine to transport itself to a launch site rather than as a means of transporting people, but (of course) I can’t find it now. Can anyone more familiar with the subject and sources help? Not sure how this would affect the machine’s status. Brunton (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, such a vehicle is nowadays often described as a "roadable aircraft". Both these and obvious flying cars are rare and there is no clear dividing line between them; as such it is fairly common to treat both under the same umbrella, and the article lead explicitly states that it is doing so. This does not affect the vehicle's status here in any way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn’t quite make that clear, referring to both as vehicles that “function both as a personal car or automobile and as an aircraft“. Brunton (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Inclusion requires sources to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Brunton@ There is no requirement for a roadable aircraft to be a practical automobile for day-to-day use. As long as it can be driven on the roads, that is enough. If you can find a better form of words, please do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, I’ve come up with a form of words that says that. Brunton (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I think there are two approaches that need to be reconciled here. A great many aviation books cover both flown and unflown types without any special indication outside the individual entries. The Putnam's series of monographs on British aircraft manufacturers are a good example. Other books are dedicated to flying types or the cancelled projects, though there is often modest spillover. Nobody makes a big fuss once one gets past the book's title. These professionally-produced books are the way they are for a reason, and the bunch of aviation enthusiasts here tend to follow that resource base for much the same reasons. On the other hand, a visitor to Wikipedia may have no such background. They may be confused to find a list of "aircraft", some of which are real and some of which are mere design studies or useless hulks. Separating out the one from the other is very helpful to them. The question here is, can we achieve that cleanly in a single list, or is it better to split up the list? One problem with a split is that every visitor wants a different one. Some would want rotorcraft, fixed wings and powered lift separated. Others would want them listed by date or, like an index, alphabetically so they can easily find the one that interests them. This led to the adoption of sortable tables, such as the present one. Frankly, if we split it for one group of readers we will upset all the other groups. We could look at improving some of the columns to give a better fly/no-fly separation (currently requires reference to both the Status and Notes), but I would not recommend any actual split. There is also an ongoing discussion by the Aircraft WikiProject about the implications of this issue across all the aircraft articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
One problem with a split is that every visitor wants a different one. Some would want rotorcraft, fixed wings and powered lift separated. Others would want them listed by date or, like an index, alphabetically so they can easily find the one that interests them. This led to the adoption of sortable tables, such as the present one. Frankly, if we split it for one group of readers we will upset all the other groups Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I see no evidence of anyone being upset by the delineations you describe. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Covering a topic within a book is a very different matter to putting items into a simple list. I don't think anyone has suggested removing discussion of failed prototypes from the article (supposing of course they have due weight). CMD (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is a source which calls something a "flying car" and it was able to actually fly, I think that's what a naive reader like myself would expect to see delineated. Other failed attempts or prototypes or bizarre claims can also be included, but it needs to be much clearer than the current free for all. Split it up or make sure that we are very upfront in the section title so that we can tell what is included in the list. That would help this naive reader the most. jps (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a thought. If the sortable Status entries were changed to say "Flown", "Failed to fly" and "Unbuilt", it would be a quick and easy check on whether the full split was really necessary. Worth a try? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I have updated the status values. Does this meet our needs? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the need to determine whether Whitehead's machine should be considered an attempted 'flying car' at all. Where is the RS to support this? Sources that suggest Whitehead intended it to function as an automobile, as well as an aircraft? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Disregarding the obvious Whitehead fan site, the HuffPost source states that "[Whitehead] purportedly took aloft a flying car of his own design". A source used earlier in the article, the December 1981 Popular Mechanics, states that "[Stanley Y.] Beech described the plane as self-powered on the ground, like an automobile" and later explicitly describes the aircraft as a "flying automobile" (here it is on Internet Archive). - ZLEA T\C 17:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I knew I had seen it somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@ZLEA Agreed, in the absence of RSes which directly contradict, this is sufficient to describe the Whitehead device as a flying car. Doesn't mean it flew, which is the essence of why we need better delineation here of which ones did and did not. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the HuffPost is the best of sources for aviation history - that citation is of much more use for its discussion of Jackson, and of subsequent responses. The relevant content in the Popular Mechanics article appears to be a precis of earlier material, from the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of 1901. A source given little credibility in subsequent assessments. It seems likely this description is from the "single flawed news article" that the RAeS was so dismissive of in its report on the Jane's piece of 2013. [6] We really need more recent sources discussing the roadgoing merits of the machine, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Steelpillow I would still heavily prefer separate lists delineated by whether or not they actually flew, this does not meet my needs or (I would guess), the needs of others who have responded similarly. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Personally I prefer a single sortable list format over a bunch of different lists in the same article, based on differing status. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
and I think I would be happy if a consensus here clearly showed that a delineating column in the table is enough, and multiple tables is too much. I would disagree, but I am always happy to respect a clear consensus against me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the list as it is now, with a column clearly stating whether or not they flew, is adequate. Brunton (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I doubt the average reader would find the current list structure confusing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. - ZLEA T\C 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I also agree. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Ahunt but perhaps we can find something better then "Failed to Fly" like "Not Flown" or something. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I think those are importantly two different things. A design you never tried to fly would be the latter, but one you tried and failed could more neutrally be described as "Unsuccessful attempts" or something like that — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I did find this an issue when updating the table. We can always add more status values, such as "Built (not flown)" or whatever. There is a danger with more values that alphabetical sorting would no longer give clean groupings of similar statuses, while adding a sort key would confuse readers who assume alphabetical sorting. And we could end up with either wordy status entries that mess up the display, or short ones where we need to explain that "not flown" means not tried to fly and excludes failures, etc. etc. But yes, this built-not-flown was the main issue I came across, so maybe just a fourth value can be included. Any better suggestions for its wording? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
To be honest I don't think we need to delineate more than "built, not flown" and "not flown". I think flown, not flown, and not built are perfectly fine. (edited 21:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, the distinction would need be between no attempt made and failed when attempted. Possibly replacing "Not flown" with "Built (not flown)" and "Failed to fly". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the point MilborneOne is making is that "Failed to fly" is ? wrt WP:NPOV — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
However "not flown" does not make the distinction between hangar queens and those which actively refused to take off. The former have unknown capability, the latter have it all too painfully known. Certainly, "Failed to fly" does not cover the former. It is a standard enough distinction, and I wonder if it might be what MilborneOne has in mind. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
"Failed to fly" didnt seem to be that useful in the table (it could have stayed in the hangar and failed to fly). Really only need "Not Built", Not Flown and Flown. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Passenger drone into Flying car

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given that these are sufficiently distinct topics warranting separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Evident duplicate article under an obscure synonym; also overlaps heavily with Air taxi. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 Both terms are not obscure synonyms. A flying car is intended for use both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft, whereas most passenger drones are not intended for road operations, but nonetheless serve a similar purpose to road taxis. Passenger drone does need a lot of work, but I don't think merging it with this article is the right move. Furthermore, while many sources do refer to passenger drones as "air taxis", the Air taxi article covers an entirely separate topic of the same name regarding a type of service provided by some small airlines, so merging with that article would not be right either. - ZLEA T\C 19:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I have rewritten the lead in that case, since it failed to properly define the topic. It is still very essay-like. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
AGAINST and WP:SNOW. Per ZLEA. A flying car doubles as a road vehicle, a passenger drone does not. Passenger drones are more a part of the autonomous air vehicle/personal air vehicle crossover space, you might find a better merge target in there somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Per above comments, as defined in their respective articles these are two different concepts, making a merge inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conceptual misunderstanding

The concept of a flying car is in NO WAY a roadable aircraft. In fact it is not supposed to drive. It is a car which flies INSTEAD of drives, as predicted by Gyro Gearloose and the Jetsons, not to mention science fiction in general. It should be something which directly can replace a car as a general commuter vehicle, but which flies instead of drives. It should take of from your house and fly directly to your work. It requires a completely new kind of technology to work, and we do not have this technology at all. Having an actual car stupidly suspended from a wing is not a flying car, other than there's a car and it is indeed flying, but is an aircraft with a car attached to it. 217.74.144.6 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What recommendations do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, what reliable sources do you have to support your narrow use of the English language? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
You have to understand that there is a reason it's called science fiction. While science fiction may have predicted certain technologies that have made their way into reality, the current accepted definition of "flying car" is a vehicle that is capable of both flight and driving on a road. That is how most reliable sources define it. - ZLEA T\C 00:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The conceptual misunderstanding that is being proposed is quite frankly referring to an urban plane and is in no way a flying car. To disprove that misunderstanding the supplied article confirms the types of flying taxis and vehicles that help inspire the further development of truly flying cars and supplies designs and the current development of hybrid vehicles that fly and drive with proper folding capacity. While it still remains to be science fiction currently, with proper development and funding flying cars is not an impossibility.[1] --MordredPhantom
  1. ^ "Urban air mobility and flying cars: Overview, examples, prospects, drawbacks, and solutions". Degruyter. Osama A. Marzouk. Retrieved 5 May 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_car/Archive_1&oldid=1243138687"