Robb Report - 08.2019

GUTTER CREDITS

106 AUGUST 2019

In 1945, long before anyone had man-

aged to launch a spacecraft into orbit,

science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke

realized that if you could place an object

with just the right velocity at just the

right distance above the equator it would

remain suspended over the same spot. Put

a transceiver on it, and you could bounce

signals between any two points in the

hemisphere. Seventeen years later, a US

Delta rocket launched the first Telstar

communications satellite. Voilà: world-

wide telephone service.

Imagination can bring us the future,

but it isn’t infallible. Envisioning a tech-

nology isn’t enough to bring it into being.

No matter how compelling an idea may

seem, no matter how hard people may try

to bring it to fruition, sometimes technol-

ogy just doesn’t want to play along.

The ultimate example of this phenom-

enon is the flying car, the archetypal over-

promised innovation. The Jetsons zipped

around in a flying-saucer station wagon,

Luke Skywalker piloted a floating hot rod,

and Rick Deckard chased replicants in

a levitating cop car. Naturally, most of us

assumed we, too, would be gliding and

hovering at some point. Yet here we are,

deep in the 21st century, still rolling on

rubber tires.

It’s not for a lack of effort. Countless

engineers have tried their hand at flying

cars over the years. In the 1950s, the Pias-

ecki Aircraft Corporation built a test vehi-

cle for the army called the Airgeep, which

flew on two large, enclosed (or “ducted”)

fan blades. It only ever reached a few feet

above the ground. (A few years later, the

Airgeep II managed to reach an altitude of

3,000 feet but wobbled as it hovered, had

trouble flying forward and was quickly

axed.) In the 1970s, inventor Paul Moller

unveiled a UFO-like contraption called

the Discojet, propelled by eight ducted

fans. It remained earthbound, too, though

a later iteration, the Moller Skycar, lifted

off in 2003—only briefly, while attached

by a tether to an overhead crane.

The long track record of disappoint-

ment hasn’t dimmed enthusiasts’ ardor. In

the past decade, the number of aspirants

has climbed to more than 100, including

all the biggest players in aerospace. Air-

bus is working on multiple prototypes,

including one it unveiled in March called

the CityAirbus, which the company says

will carry four passengers at speeds of

up to 75 mph. Boeing has been conduct-

ing test flights of an electric craft called a

passenger air vehicle (or at least had been,

until the sole prototype crashed earlier

this year). Uber has proclaimed that it will

start testing a flying taxi in Los Angeles,

Dallas and Melbourne, Australia, in 2020.

Like their forerunners, the latest

designs feature multiple rotors, generally

ducted. Most are electrically powered.

And like their predecessors, the new

designs have so far failed to live up to their

hype. After an introductory video featur-

ing a teetering flight close to the ground,

most versions are never heard from again.

The idea of the flying car is undeniably

Before we can live

in the future, someone

has to imagine it.

cool, but at our stage of development,

there’s little reason to expect that a per-

sonal hovering vehicle can succeed. The

technical hurdles are just too huge.

A big problem is energy storage.

Today’s batteries are a hundred times

heavier than a tank of gasoline holding an

equivalent amount of energy. This is espe-

cially problematic given that hovering is

inherently inefficient. To counter gravity’s

pull, an aircraft has to keep pushing down

on air. It can push down a lot of air a little

(as a glider’s long wings do) or a little air

a lot (like the engines on a Harrier Jump

Jet). The former turns out to be much

more efficient. Given its small size, a fly-

ing car would be more like a Harrier. That

means burning a lot of energy quickly. Not

great if your energy supply is limited.

Then there’s the problem of control.

The simplest way to guide this type of craft

is to put a trained pilot in it. But there’s a

worldwide pilot shortage. If airlines are

Frank Piasecki

tests his Airgeep

in 1958.

PREVIOUS SPREAD: THE JETSONS: MARY EVANS/AF ARCHIVE/EVERETT COLLECTION;

PIASECKI: RALPH MORSE/THE LIFE PICTURE COLLECTION/GETTY IMAGES

106 AUGUST 2019

In1945,longbeforeanyonehadman-

agedtolaunchaspacecraftintoorbit,

science-fictionwriterArthur C. Clarke

realizedthatifyoucouldplaceanobject

withjusttherightvelocityatjustthe

rightdistanceabovetheequatoritwould

remainsuspendedoverthesamespot.Put

atransceiveronit,andyoucouldbounce

signalsbetween any two pointsinthe

hemisphere.Seventeenyearslater,aUS

DeltarocketlaunchedthefirstTelstar

communicationssatellite.Voilà:world-

widetelephoneservice.

Imaginationcanbringusthefuture,

butitisn’tinfallible.Envisioningatech-

nologyisn’tenoughtobringitintobeing.

Nomatterhowcompellinganideamay

seem,nomatterhowhardpeoplemaytry

tobringittofruition,sometimestechnol-

ogyjustdoesn’twanttoplayalong.

Theultimateexampleofthisphenom-

enonistheflyingcar,thearchetypalover-

promisedinnovation.TheJetsonszipped

aroundinaflying-saucerstationwagon,

LukeSkywalkerpilotedafloatinghotrod,

andRickDeckardchasedreplicantsin

alevitatingcopcar.Naturally,mostofus

assumedwe,too,wouldbeglidingand

hoveringatsomepoint.Yethereweare,

deepinthe21stcentury,stillrollingon

rubbertires.

It’snotforalackofeffort.Countless

engineershavetriedtheirhandatflying

cars over the years. In the 1950s, the Pias-

ecki Aircraft Corporation built a test vehi-

cle for the army called the Airgeep, which

flew on two large, enclosed (or “ducted”)

fan blades. It only ever reached a few feet

above the ground. (A few years later, the

Airgeep II managed to reach an altitude of

3,000 feet but wobbled as it hovered, had

trouble flying forward and was quickly

axed.) In the 1970s, inventor Paul Moller

unveiled a UFO-like contraption called

the Discojet, propelled by eight ducted

fans. It remained earthbound, too, though

a later iteration, the Moller Skycar, lifted

off in 2003—only briefly, while attached

by a tether to an overhead crane.

The long track record of disappoint-

ment hasn’t dimmed enthusiasts’ ardor. In

thepastdecade,thenumberofaspirants

hasclimbedtomorethan100,including

allthebiggestplayersinaerospace.Air-

busisworkingonmultipleprototypes,

includingoneitunveiledinMarchcalled

theCityAirbus,whichthecompanysays

willcarryfourpassengersatspeedsof

upto75mph.Boeinghasbeenconduct-

ingtestflightsofanelectriccraftcalleda

passengerairvehicle(oratleasthadbeen,

untilthesoleprototypecrashedearlier

thisyear).Uberhasproclaimedthatitwill

starttestingaflyingtaxiinLosAngeles,

DallasandMelbourne,Australia,in2020.

Liketheirforerunners,thelatest

designsfeaturemultiplerotors,generally

ducted. Most are electricallypowered.

Andliketheirpredecessors,thenew

designshavesofarfailedtoliveuptotheir

hype.Afteranintroductoryvideofeatur-

ingateeteringflightclosetotheground,

mostversionsareneverheardfromagain.

Theideaoftheflyingcarisundeniably

Before we can live

in the future, someone

has to imagine it.

cool, but at our stage of development,

there’s little reason to expect that a per-

sonal hovering vehicle can succeed. The

technical hurdles are just too huge.

A big problem is energy storage.

Today’s batteries are a hundred times

heavier than a tank of gasoline holding an

equivalent amount of energy. This is espe-

cially problematic given that hovering is

inherently inefficient. To counter gravity’s

pull, an aircraft has to keep pushing down

on air. It can push down a lot of air a little

(as a glider’s long wings do) or a little air

a lot (like the engines on a Harrier Jump

Jet). The former turns out to be much

more efficient. Given its small size, a fly-

ing car would be more like a Harrier. That

means burning a lot of energy quickly. Not

great if your energy supply is limited.

Then there’s the problem of control.

The simplest way to guide this type of craft

is to put a trained pilot in it. But there’s a

worldwide pilot shortage. If airlines are

Frank Piasecki

tests his Airgeep

in 1958.

PREVIOUS SPREAD: THE JETSONS: MARY EVANS/AF ARCHIVE/EVERETT COLLECTION;

PIASECKI: RALPH MORSE/THE LIFE PICTURE COLLECTION/GETTY IMAGES