Flying cars are, inherently, more dangerous than that.
Helicopters have loads of systems and design features that minimize the risks- and just to clarify, they’re less likely to be involved in an incident than GA aircraft to begin with. they’re absolute shit at gliding, so a loss of lift results in- at best- a controlled crash- where a plane has time. They’re also more likely to be in the situation where they do not have the altitude or airspeed to glide even if they weren’t dogshit at it, which combine to make them more dangerous to be in an incident with, but still not necessarily “unsafe”.
Flying cars would be significantly worse than helicopters, as they have the same glide profile, presumably the same propensity for low-and-slow flight regimes; and probably an inability to autorotate as well (depends on the design. most of the ideas I’ve seen lately are some form of multirotor.)
Though that comment had nothing to do with their inherent lack of safety. It has everything to do with hybridizing land and air vehicles like that never actually works out well. They’re going to be significantly more expensive than either specialized counterpart, less efficient, and less useful. This is why we’ve never seen them come off with commercial success before, and why we’re likely to never see them work, ever. The mechanical nature of something that can both drive on a highway and fly is insanely complex.
And even with all that, they’re also going to be significantly less safe than helicopters are today, probably spending far more time in the low-and-slow regime which makes incidents dramatically more unsafe, and given the usual argument of “reduces traffic” almost certainly going to be flown in areas with significant human presence (making them more likely to crash into someone.)
There’s no specific aircraft type that fits the description of a “flying car”, there are fixed wing, gyrocopter, and likely traditional helicopter designs. While they’re all considered experimental, there’s nothing inherently unsafe about them.
Also, helicopters can autorotate, and land in some very tight places, so what you lose in glide distance, you gain in options of where to put the aircraft down.
Landings under autorotation (especially unplanned landings under autorotation) are still frequently considered “controlled crashes”, even if everyone walks away.
In any case the one common element to “flying car” is that it’s a hybrid land-air vehicles. The currently most common form are multi-rotors; because multirotors are cheap. (Which is also the reason you see them in quads and other drones.)
No matter the design, they all suffer from hybridization. Things that are good at flying are bad on roads, and things that are good on roads are bad at flying.
Flying cars are, inherently, more dangerous than that.
Helicopters have loads of systems and design features that minimize the risks- and just to clarify, they’re less likely to be involved in an incident than GA aircraft to begin with. they’re absolute shit at gliding, so a loss of lift results in- at best- a controlled crash- where a plane has time. They’re also more likely to be in the situation where they do not have the altitude or airspeed to glide even if they weren’t dogshit at it, which combine to make them more dangerous to be in an incident with, but still not necessarily “unsafe”.
Flying cars would be significantly worse than helicopters, as they have the same glide profile, presumably the same propensity for low-and-slow flight regimes; and probably an inability to autorotate as well (depends on the design. most of the ideas I’ve seen lately are some form of multirotor.)
Though that comment had nothing to do with their inherent lack of safety. It has everything to do with hybridizing land and air vehicles like that never actually works out well. They’re going to be significantly more expensive than either specialized counterpart, less efficient, and less useful. This is why we’ve never seen them come off with commercial success before, and why we’re likely to never see them work, ever. The mechanical nature of something that can both drive on a highway and fly is insanely complex.
And even with all that, they’re also going to be significantly less safe than helicopters are today, probably spending far more time in the low-and-slow regime which makes incidents dramatically more unsafe, and given the usual argument of “reduces traffic” almost certainly going to be flown in areas with significant human presence (making them more likely to crash into someone.)
There’s no specific aircraft type that fits the description of a “flying car”, there are fixed wing, gyrocopter, and likely traditional helicopter designs. While they’re all considered experimental, there’s nothing inherently unsafe about them.
Also, helicopters can autorotate, and land in some very tight places, so what you lose in glide distance, you gain in options of where to put the aircraft down.
Landings under autorotation (especially unplanned landings under autorotation) are still frequently considered “controlled crashes”, even if everyone walks away.
In any case the one common element to “flying car” is that it’s a hybrid land-air vehicles. The currently most common form are multi-rotors; because multirotors are cheap. (Which is also the reason you see them in quads and other drones.)
No matter the design, they all suffer from hybridization. Things that are good at flying are bad on roads, and things that are good on roads are bad at flying.