STAR WARS Hover Tech is HERE!

[@teambellavsteamalice]

Maybe after all cars are selfdriven it might be possible to allow individuals to fly en masse, but as automated ubers.

[@Alex-js8pu]

I FLY STICK!

[@mehmeh1234]

Please no I don't need to see these thing flying above my home

[@teambellavsteamalice]

@@mehmeh1234 Especially if automated when legalized, it would be most practical to assign specific lanes at specific heights. And touch down and fold into ground level traffic where there is space. So letting these fly over residences wouldn't be necessary.

[@mehmeh1234]

@teambellavsteamalice I rather don't want flying cars besides automated ones can get hacked which could lead to a massive accident taking place

[@andrewamos9210]

If we’re talking about just a car that flys sure but once you consider FCM , real time telemetry and some of the Tesla self driving features we literally can and in some ways have started the frame work for air highways merge ramps etc. Drones already do incredibly precise and complex tasks and movements using current telemetry tech. Intelligent implementation is all we are missing. And seriously self driving cars are ridiculously unnecessary. Put a couple billion people in the air and I wouldn’t want to fly myself 😂

[@boostoshi]

People can't even drive in a single plane of movement.

[@Sacrimony]

I am all in for 3D accidents

[@markblamer4969]

brilliant way to make a 2d problem a 3d problem. if they make production they should be self-piloting only (exept in emergency mode which automatically contacts 911), especially in US with the change in marijuana laws lol

[@markbeames7852]

And the very first person killed by a steam locomotive was in Scotland during the 19th century, and because he was naive as to the speed of the train itself, thought he could time his crossing of the railroad track. He didn't. Improvise Adapt Overcome - or die.

[@PoP_Corn2010]

Fr

[@markbeames7852]

@@markblamer4969 DUI is DUI regardless as to where it occurs geographically. Have you ever driven in Rome, London, Moscow, Hong Kong, HoChi Minh City or Paris?

[@TheMiojox]

Imagine a flying car car running into your 8th story window. DUI just got an upgrade.

[@TheAeroInsider]

“DUI just got an upgrade.” 😅

[@MaitlandJones]

It is truly a brave new world for booze cruising!

[@Fuzzled369]

Why people see this and go straight to complaining idk you ever heard of self driving?

[@CommanderHuggins]

@@Fuzzled369Not so sure how much faith I’d put in autonomous vehicles yet. But even if we perfected self driving technology to the point that it never failed, personally owned flying cars would still be very dangerous. Flying is statistically the safest form of travel today. But we didn’t just get there by luck. Aircraft have to be meticulously maintained. Inspections have to be performed before and after every flight to make sure the aircraft is safe. No one is going to have the time to do that with personal flying cars. Not to mention no one is going to be able to afford the constant maintenance that needs to be done any time you find so much as a scratch during an inspection. And if we try to deregulate those things so that the constant inspections and maintenance weren’t required while also adding millions of flying vehicles to the sky then you’re inevitably going to see a huge uptick in aircraft accidents. I’m sorry but the sci fi flying car future just isn’t going to happen.

[@michalviktorin6758]

Rather than fully self driven I would like a feature called safe zone, meaning it would just not let me get close enough to anything during flying unless I would want to land. So it would not self drive itself, just not let me bumb into anything. it can be done by all kinds of programming and inspiration with insects like termites for example, they dont bumb into each other.

[@cuebanb4227]

Lots of moving parts? Lots of potential problems. Lots of moving parts under stress? Sounds like a maintenance nightmare. Absolutely digging it as a technology though!

[@demukazz]

Yeah, "hover" craft will not lift off until there is substantial breakthrough done on the ION wings technology, which significantly reduces moving parts

[@MegaDudon]

Aren't there a lot of moving parts in the regular modern vehicles too?

[@connorowens4955]

@@MegaDudon yeah. but modern vehicles are not a couple 100 feet in the air.

[@MegaDudon]

@@connorowens4955 planes and helicopters are. I'm sorry, I'm not an engineer myself, so for me almost all modern mechanisms seem very complex

[@found6393]

@@MegaDudon The difference is that if your car breaks down while you're driving, you pull off to the side of the road and call for a tow truck. If a flying vehicle (plane, helicopter, this thing in the video) breaks down while you're driving, you very likely die. A mid-air collision will also have a much higher fatality rate than ground cars; likely 100%, as no controlled descent would be possible. This is the reason why pilot training and licensing is so much more serious than for cars, and why they're supposed to be so meticulous with their vehicle maintenance and pre-flight checks. The average driver would completely fail. If flying cars become a thing, they're likely to be driven by highly trained and paid chauffeurs. Pretty much like modern private plane pilots for rich people.

[@daniebello]

regulators will NEVER allow civilians en masse to pilot aircraft as a primary mode of transport, it would be mayhem

[@SriYantraMandala]

They will be flown autonomously.

[@SriYantraMandala]

Private jets will be replaced by evtols within the next 2 years.

[@oldman4827]

But it won't be us peasants, only the elite will have them. 😊

[@artstrology]

Much safer than drunk simians driving directly at each other at high rates of speed while drinking and watching phones and movies.

[@frednel4326]

Well like cars and motor bikes one would have to get a license and requires training too ofcourse, and this seems pretty simple to fly so not like a pilots license either... right ??? ✌

[@ugnbugn]

Looks brilliant. Of course they will need ballistic parachutes in case something stops turning, just like the developing drone-style personal vehicles. Watching this one with great interest! Thanks for sharing.

[@ModelLights]

' just like the developing drone-style personal vehicles. ' The one of these that actually makes sense is the Lilium Jet. With banks of engines and proper redundancy it could easily survive without a parachute. 6 in the front corners and 12 in the mid/rear, done up as 6 redundant sets this could easily have 2 sets fail and still be made to fly on the remaining 4, maybe even 3 fail and only 3 working to land. Could even land while flying instead of hover with 2 sets working. Look that one up if you weren't aware already, it is the one 'drone type aircraft' that really makes sense. I'd be tempted to make it just 3/3/6/6 with 3 larger engine groups for general efficiency, and if 1 goes bad you can land, and if 2 go bad you can still land flying forward. And it's basically a plane except for the VTOL ability, even if all engines fail you should still be able to glide it in, but no doubt it would require speed. I would take that over this by a factor of 20 times easily.

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

@@ModelLights Lots of tech just to fly.

[@tobiasmyers3505]

​@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Odk. It's just a bunch of engines, whether electric or fueled or hybrid. Lots of aircraft have multiple engines and props, rotors, etc.

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

@@tobiasmyers3505 You a mechanist on any of the things you mentioned?

[@goomyman23]

it looks brilliant because its CGI

[@ethandenton3393]

Star Wars tech doesn’t involve air propulsion with special types of fans. It usually seems to involve anti gravity, then some type of rocket fuel propelled jets, then hyperdrive tech.

[@minkorrh]

yeah ...this is a joke.

[@ctuna2011]

Why the hell do you need thrusters if you can control gravity.

[@Emperor_Jp1]

@@ctuna2011 for non-atmospherical transport (outside a planet)

[@realconsulting9745]

@ethandenton3393 I agree, propulsion according to NASA = Energy field density differentials and vectorization , in part through eddy flows. Project a field ahead of the intended direction that lowers relative energy density (proximal) will result in motion. In classic designs think observation of lift generation, or propellers or turbofans, lights should come on about how this should be pursued and likely be achieved. (not discounting other methods of de-coupling through mediation and gravitational field decoupling through electron spin control).

[@jonaskarlsson5901]

@@Emperor_Jp1 you only answered "Why the hell do you need thrusters" but you ignored "if you can control gravity"

[@v3ra30]

we got flying cars before GTA 6

[@TheAeroInsider]

Fr

[@adiuntesserande6893]

GTA now stands for Grand Theft Aircraft....

[@kalliste23]

Forget car bombs here's a cruise missile for the everyman.

[@KerbalFacile]

FPV drones are already in common use right now in Ukraine, just sayin'.

[@kalliste23]

@@KerbalFacile an autonomous flying car could carry substantially more explosives material than an FPV drone and the availability of large numbers of flying cars to steal add a whole new dimension to availability.

[@KerbalFacile]

@@kalliste23 They're already using drones that can level an entire building.

[@mindnumbingclarity5025]

that does look safe enough for widescale applications.

[@maezzologymedia14]

😆 You're funny

[@Tyrell_Corp2019]

There will NEVER be personal vehicles, at least in a city environment. They will be used for those with big properties and mostly military purposes.

[@Travis_22]

Yep could you imagine? It would be carnage. Just look at some of the idiots that drive cars.

[@Tyrell_Corp2019]

@@Travis_22 Oh, I can imagine. Drunken nimrods smashing into each other, buildings, trees, and the occasional dropping down onto pedestrians. That's not even counting the ones pulling "impressive" aerial stunts for social media selfies.

[@heitorcornelius]

there are personal helicopters and airplanes on private properties already... in the end it is just a matter of having a pilot's license and follow the air traffic rules. there will be the ones that are self-driven too (so, not even a pilot's license for these)

[@meantweetsandcheepgas946]

​@@Tyrell_Corp2019nanny state ninnies the lot of you.

[@beniaminbuzun5667]

Those things are not designed to be piloted like planes, but are supposed to be either fully autonomous, or rely heavily on flight assist, that would help pilot avoid collisions.

[@NimbleX-MC]

Looks amazing. Can’t wait to see this be developed.

[@maezzologymedia14]

Don't wait up mr. Mug

[@larsrons7937]

Impressive technology. This could get really exciting.

[@scoochysteve]

Ok so, Blade Runner Spinners! Make it look like a Blade Runner Spinner and I'm in!!!

[@johnpacheco5404]

Booom baby! My thoughts exactly my dude. Cheers to that. funny cuz my first thoughts were "so that's how blade runner spinners work" and why it's called a spinner.

[@vtrbswarmachine]

That was anti Grav. This is not.

[@joesshop3622]

Impressive...but price point is the only thing that will make these sell like hot cakes. Most if not all the cool flying tech is beyond the average wallet. This has turned innovation on its head! Maneuverability safety and noise levels should morph to a whole new USABLE level! I want one today!!

[@NexAngelus405]

120 years ago, cars were too expensive for the average person. Then Ford made the Model T.

[@ModelLights]

@@NexAngelus405 '120 years ago, cars were too expensive for the average person.' That's a meaningless comparison though. Ground transport is relatively easy. To support your weight in a hover you have to separate the air, and then rest your weight on the bottom half, then it slaps back together. That's energy intensive and noisy, nothing is likely to ever change that, it's part of the required physics to support weight on air.

[@edwardclarke768]

yh but u gotta think ai has the potential to drive the cost of everything to near zero or zero in the future

@@NexAngelus405 And now we are back to 120 years ago, apparently :D

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

@@NexAngelus405 apples to oranges...

[@bunnywithmonocle5324]

This is very interesting tech, but there are numerous reasons why going full Jetsons is a terrible idea, and there should be heavy restrictions on who can get a license to fly one of these things. Maybe flight can be more democratised than it is now but I certainly wouldn't feel safe if everyone could go and cause elevated car crashes.

[@kirkthiets2771]

It would make for great races. Screw NASCAR.

[@willcall9431]

To be long range Efficient you need wings or lifting body to provide enough lift in conjunction with the propulsion . I don’t see a lot of that but there are a few doing it.

[@rxonmymind8362]

Maybe the length of the body of the plane provides quasi wings?

[@samus598]

Yep. Lifting a fuel tank off of the ground takes a lot of energy. These wouls have very limited range.

[@Emperor_Jp1]

yeah, but I think for now they are only ment for in-city travel

[@SmoochyRoo]

The good thing about the nature of a cyclo rotor is that having a rotor dedicated to yaw and parallel movement still allows that rotor to contribute to lift as well, unlike a conventional rotor where it's one directional unless made to pivot.

[@g43s]

3:27 i love the look these propellers have, its certantly an improvement from classic hellicopter looking blades.

[@KlingbergWingMkII]

Horrible efficiency. Been tried many times, and the aerodynamics has not changed. This is a dead end.

[@pikachu5188]

Yeah! Eh!? Even I know it can't fly ...🙄 Because it doesn't have any feathers. And I'm 4 going on 5 moons old. 🐾 _Montréal 🇨🇦_

[@jackb3493]

VC CGI bullshit as per usual

[@gregkelmis2435]

Will never harness the power of the atom. Will never break the atmosphere. We will never climb Mount Everest. Will never make a handheld rifle. They can shoot 10,000 yards. In case you were wondering all these things are history. Song nearly a century old far as we know. Of course it doesn’t explain the seven 6000 year old nuclear blast sights spread across the planet.

[@darkframepictures]

Cycle rotors are old, and unnecessary. Standard dual rotors works and has better efficiency. Instead of an animation, watch actual footage of the Jetson 1, cause it works (for twenty minutes). Next steps are going to surround energy density vs weight issues, and small aircraft battery-gas hybrid motor patents. Without range, power, and practical payload solved, this won’t get past the “rich guy toy” stage of development.

[@samguest8165]

Possible improvements in efficiency could come in the form of toroidal rotors

[@Williambraun-t4w]

the best part about this is that the cyclo-rotors look like actual wheels from the side, making them real flying CARS.

[@revtmyers1]

Awesome. I'm glad to see how far you've advanced.

[@TheAeroInsider]

Thank you!

[@chrislong3938]

I dunno... those side things look like they could whack someone's arm or head off as well.

[@Jack-bs6zb]

Well we could have someone walking in front with a red flag, like thet did in past times.

[@citizen_wayne]

I mean....I can do that with my car today...

[@eutub180]

This is the reality now! Great design everything looks totally new and totally real at the same time! Thank you for the video - good to be on top!

[@TheAero1221]

They haven't really solved the danger problem... I imagine these would still kill anyone that got too close. They'd likely also have a problem if anything flew into the cyclorotor... that said... these look absolutely incredible. Those issues may even be solvable with the compact form that these things allow. Very cool!

[@TheAIExplorer-o5j]

1:10 3:32 Totally agree with what you're saying here, you’ve got a great way of presenting complex ideas simply. 🙌

[@dontcallthemliberals3316]

Every cynic in this comment section has forgotten helicopters already exist. People have been flying over houses since the fucking 70's, privately owned craft are here. It's not sci-fi, it's not gonna be mad max, it's already happening. Get that in your heads.

[@marekkos3513]

this is just the beggining.I cant imagine , what technology we will have in the next 50 or 200 years from now.

[@matthewconnor5483]

I could see this on something like a replacement for the little bird. Able to deliver/pick up in tight places where mobility outweights range or efficiency.

[@winstonsmith1457]

There is also a kind of vertical cilinders for ships in order to save fuel.

[@mikelange564]

Man: "A safer vehicle, at least externally" Me: Puts arm in blades to test against said safety standard

[@TheAeroInsider]

At least it’s not your head 😅

[@williamchamberlain2263]

1:35 no chance - nobody could afford that level of liability insurance. Think of all the bad drivers you see on the road and then imagine them being able to fly over your house, or over a school, or between skyscrapers.

[@simonnilsson8375]

No matter how many times I look at these “flying cars” I always think of safety measures. We already struggle with ground vehicles. Just imagine how many deaths crashing these daily would cause… Edit: So all the replies I get is about “as long you get a license, its ok”. People… if 5 drunk guys drive in a plane and the crashes in a crowed airport, how many will die? Just a thought.

[@evilsanta7424]

You would need a license the same as you do for a car, a motorcycle, a truck and or a bus or helicopter or plane.. It would obviously be a more stringent test to obtain a license the same as obtaining a small plane or helicopter license, do you have either of those? Probably not. And you would possibly need a whole load of training hours before you were granted a license. And if you assume the everyday average Joe or Jane is gonna be allowed to just hop in one of these and pop to Tesco without obtaining a fully trained and tested license you are fooling yourself, it's pure fantasy to believe everyone and anyone has the ability to fly a machine like this. But I'm sure gonna try and get a license if they ever get the ok to sell these openly.

[@Ryan.of.the.Valley]

Sort of, but in the air you don't have to worry about accelerating up hills, breaking on downhills, slippery pavement, curves and bumps, etc. Also, other traffic would be more spread out, not a few feet from your bumpers. There could be GPS-based flight plans to prevent vehicles from crashing into each other.

[@CrispyDaFrog]

people can already fly helicopters and planes, they just need a license and tons of training

[@KhaanSolo]

I assume auto-pilot will be the method of control for these. Remove the human and you remove the danger.

[@simonnilsson8375]

@@KhaanSoloah yes, auto-pilot. Like Auto-pilot in real life is reliable.

[@danqarious4733]

I think that the propeller blade might change some things, but we won't have private hovercraft

[@dontcallthemliberals3316]

We already do they're called helicopters.

[@vedametatron]

The comments keep saying people won’t be able to fly personal vehicles but they forget that people won’t be flying them AI will .

[@TheAeroInsider]

Bingo

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

"AI" only "exists" in the realm of science fantasy/fiction and the NewWorldOrder kings/rulers refer to the great myriads of society they have been spending decades stultifying as the actual 'artificial intelligence'. The more dim-witted and dulled-down they make the society, the easier it is to deceive them that something is true, when it's not true. What is called ''AI'' _[a great made up lie by satan]_ by premier swindlers and their victims, is *not no matter how much they claim it is* and it *will never* exist in our God created nature of reality for it was never His plan. Leave it where it was born/gendered.... in the realm of science fantasy fiction. If you actually believe "AI" exists in our God created nature of reality, then you are the actual "AI." Go look up "Luc Julia", the man who invented SIRI, super tech nerd, who makes clear "Artificial Intelligence Does Not Exist".

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

@@TheAeroInsider wrong.

[@joshuaadewale1409]

That's even scarier

[@gregoryl.levitre9759]

That's much worse.

[@onebridge7231]

Very cool looking. Awesome tech if it’s efficient and real.

[@captainsirk1173]

I think paramotors are the closest we’ll get to economically accessible flying cars any time soon.

[@ViciousVinnyD]

Yes, "flying cars" aren't a tech problem, they're a cost and safety problem. Paramotors are far more realistic as they are both safer and cheaper than a 2-ton flying bomb.

[@PaulMillard1973]

Where can I buy shares?💡

[@lilgensho]

this the comment im lookin for lmao

[@Mechaghostman2]

The problem with spinning wings is that they aren't as efficient as regular fixed wings. So you won't get the speed, or the fuel savings.

[@dontcallthemliberals3316]

good for manoeuvrable drones though

[@smittyjohnson9554]

This does look very cool. A lot of applications for first responder vehicles. As well as flying Ubers. Stuff like this makes me excited about the future.

[@jonathanwessner3456]

ugh, it is NOT "anti-gravity" tech. If it were that, you'd appear to be flying off at hundreds of thousands of mph/kph. It is Hover tech as the title says. Also, better hope there is nothing in the way if you use antigravity. You will NOT go straight up.

[@Paul-s6e8i]

For people saying these will never be available for personal use, they would have to be autonomous only. For manual driving, you would need a pilot's license, and take off from an airport.

[@rod3134]

This same technology has been used successfully on ships for many years. It definitely has its merits to potentially change air travel ❤

[@spaceghost4474]

It's still a propeller type of system. Not even close to anti-gravity, which you led us to believe it was.

[@TheAeroInsider]

There is no such thing as anti-gravity. The way we think about “anti-gravity” is still based around the concept of gravity. With “anti-gravity”, you’re just moving or thrusting opposite that of a large source of gravity. TRUE anti-gravity isn’t that; it would be a system in which the mass of objects doesn’t attract other things. It’s not a thing you can have in a system where gravity exists. Hoping for true anti-gravity tech in a universe full of gravity is like waiting to find a dry spot whilst swimming under water.

[@triplec8375]

Personal flying vehicles, whether cyclorotor tech or not, will only be special use cases until there are appropriate regulations and technology in place to manage the airspace traffic flow. Using them in cities would be a disaster without precise control. Driving one out of your garage to go to work downtown probably won't happen for several decades, if then. On the other hand, there could be many commercial uses from forestry to border control, to emergency response where FAA regs are already in place.

[@jvlbme]

The two words you are looking for is "self" and "driving".

[@madkillerz007]

@@jvlbme I can imagine bus services or the like with these kind of vehicles. Easily make travel faster and more efficient.

[@rremnar]

@@madkillerz007 We could have monorails for that, but no one wants to fund it.

[@xmarine73]

I'm not sure why you keep calling this safe. The blades are still fast moving mass and certainly a decapitation hazard. They should have used thrust vectoring, similar to a harrier, that way there's a shroud around the moving parts.

[@Deboraj-tn6oz]

First lightsabers , then hover bikes and now this feels like star wars is really coming to real life . Ironic how star wars is thriving in real life than in movies and television handled by disney.😂

[@mikecypret1045]

Star wars😊❤

[@Exessivecarstuff]

Facts

[@MrSubsound90]

Nothing seems more dangerous to me than all the car accidents we see today, but in the air where they can fall on people below or into the side of a building first...then fall on people. With a large battery pack full of electricity.

[@sbdiaries]

Quite Incredible some of these designs 👌 and feats of engineering ❤❤❤

[@GabrielOlivares123]

Another really cool design. 👍😁

[@nozyspy4967]

Great idea except for the human part. How are you going to trust normal people to use one of these without it ending up sideways into the fifth floor a building instead of just a lamp post?

[@Whyunounderstand]

How loud will these things be

[@manfmalachi]

I don't want my neighbors flying over my house And thankfully, I don't think the government does either

[@robertweekes5783]

Congrats on getting 100k views! I suggest focusing on cutting edge tech like this ^^

[@maezzologymedia14]

this is cutting bs for views and clicks. Nothing else.

[@tihzho]

This will never happen because people can't even drive safely on the roads. lol

[@Jack-bs6zb]

Stop lolling.

[@rremnar]

If we were smart about it, you wouldn't need to manually drive. You wouldn't even need to own a vehicle. It'd should be total autonomous. You plug in your location and destination, pay a reasonable fee, and you have your ride at any time of the day. Though I'd understand why people would want to manually drive such a thing, it is not safe to do so unless it's AI assisted.

[@Jack-bs6zb]

@@rremnar you need to make distinction between urban travel and journeys to rural and often remote places. Communal transport isn't going to provide for the latter for various reasons ... and those who gave you masks, lockdowns and 15 minute ghettoes wouldn't you to have rural access anyway.

[@johnelling2597]

Electrogravitics has been around since about 1955. The craft that use this tech generate a vibrational field around the craft to caucel out the gravity of the earth. That means the craft is almost weightless and only needs a little power in ions to send them zooming.

[@OYME13]

Great, now I have to worry about some idiot landing on my house

[@Chemillioneer]

Also, the biggest reason that planes are so safe, is due to the high standard of safety checks and their regularity. The Layman doesn't service their car nearly as often as it should, and according to law in my country, should be checked before every drive. I doubt more than 1% of people check these things before heading to work at 6 in the morning, so if personal planes were a thing, I betcha maintenence related accidents would be a massive factor. And as a newly reformed believer in public transport, small scale transport for cargo and such in tightly packed areas are perfect for drones, as long as noise pollution isn't a problem. Trains and metros for long distance travel, bikes for short distance, and drones for delivery of goods. Ships are good for freight with trains taking goods from shore inland, and trucks and cars for the very rural areas. Trains already carry extreme loads with very little resistance, and if the railroad is already there for most transport of goods, that means most cities would have a trainstation, like the old days. But the tech is very cool. It does make for some suprisingly stable vehicles.

[@MrProy33]

No, for one reason: drunk drivers.

[@bryanmcleod9346]

He'll, the sober ppl can barely drive either!!

[@josiahgill9610]

I feel that the flying will be automated, reducing risks such as this. Creating specified landing platforms and areas would allow for quick destination selection that would take you straight to your destination with minimal human input.

[@denisloebner4882]

video doesnt deal with the most important question: how is the flight capability after you attach 2 nerf miniguns? also what do you do if one of the hamsters in those drums runs slower than the other hamsters? will you fly in circles until that little guy comes to his senses?

[@jdefrain1]

Dumb idea, high speed spinning blades - human chop-a-matic flying blender - high wind equal to the weight of the craft and items aboard, not to mention loud as hell. Imagine these falling out of the sky - total mess! This is not the answer - stop with this nonsense.

[@philipduttonlescorlett]

I don't see it as a 'personal' vehicle but why not some sort of Taxi vehicle flown by professionals? It could work.

[@AlucardNoir]

Would produce fewer emissions?

[@TheAeroInsider]

Electric rather than gas powered

[@AlucardNoir]

@@TheAeroInsider I'm sorry, but where do you think most of our electricity comes from today and where do you think most will come for the next 30 years?

[@sukumarpaul1949]

Star Wars hover tech based on anti gravity, for evolving anti gravity technology, the present day position is at least a lightyear away.❤👍👍

[@OofHearted]

How are those high speed blades any less dangerous than propeller blades?

[@maxvonkrieger5043]

You have to choose between losing a head or turning into a sallad.

[@The_KingDoge]

now have a fully functional model that works irl at scales and Ill get exited lol

[@CC.R0Y]

We don't need personalized flying vehicles. We need better public transportation.

[@Safe117]

im so excited for this!!! i really want this to be the future

[@johnvonachen1672]

I wonder how small you could make that?

[@noppornwongrassamee8941]

"Cyclorotors are safer than conventional propellers." Maybe because cyclorotors don't cover as wide an area, but the designs shown are in easy reach of any person on the ground and touching or falling into a cyclorotor looks about as safe as falling into a propellor of the same size. And I suspect putting a safety cage around a cyclorotor like how desk and floor fans have would interfere with air flow and their ability to generate thrust, which is why the displayed models didn't have said cages.

[@melbournewolf]

The cyclorotor is the sh&t! The concept is by far the most appealing visually and I want one...lol

[@Pensacola2]

Why are these amazing companies never on the stock market :(

[@TheAeroInsider]

Archer and Joby called. They’d like your money.

[@EinSwitzer]

they lovin that barrel vent flap timing devices.. where it rotates like a 50gal drum that has flaps that open up on time to cause vacuum and pressure effect so spinning the drums it more than just fans spinning faster , each drum has 8 props inside of it

[@HammerThumbs]

There seems to be a lot of surface area that would require a lot of power to keep up pace with a busy or even hectic lifestyle. But I think the technology is ahead of its time and only needs to wait now for power suppliers to innovate and catch up with something like 50 year isotonic battery power i think this is the next generation of personal travel

[@shonnwiscarson9766]

When your car stalls, you pull over and have a bad day. When this stalls, you die and have your last day.

[@Hankpym2837]

How do y'all get your info🧐

[@TheAeroInsider]

Morse code

[@mrCaseycasey]

I want to see a white paper on the thrust efficiency based on Newton's 2nd Law, power vs thurst generated per disc loading. Secondly, the cyclorotor airfoil is moving at the same speed across the span to generate more thrust, unlike a traditional rotor with most of the higher thurst generated closer to the tip. However, the cyclorotor airfoil is only generating net thurst 1/3 of each rotation vs the airfoil of a traditional rotor throughout the entire rotation. You can picture the difference between kick skatebaoard vs bicycle.

[@TheTanman412]

Conventional Electrified Aircraft will be able to go 1800 miles by next year. There are many in operation that can already go 500miles. CATL just announced the highest energy density battery yet. The possibilities in battery chemistry seem endless and progress seems exponential. We may not need too radical of a design or propeller, just the battery. Like other EV’s you’re now using 90% of your energy, as opposed to only 30% efficiency with gas/jet fuel, wasting the other 70% in the atmosphere. Megawatt DC charging can be for Semi-Trucks, and Large Planes.

[@alfyr.e.meyerakaa.r.e.m.4434]

There should be just one question... what powers the craft/motor/engine/fuel?

[@crooker2]

Well... This isn't anti grav. Those are still propellers. Just in a different form (and still potentially dangerous up close). I think any consumer air tech would be beneficial as long as the problems can be worked out. Safety (via autonomy), noise, fuel efficiency, payload and range. There are lots of details to work out, and I doubt this technology will be mass adopted in my lifetime (I'm 52), but technological advances may allow my children to enjoy vehicular freedom. Cool beans.

[@kentamccarter9580]

Any chance they will build a flying car that needs no moving parts for propulsion?

[@mihailniagolov3674]

I think this will be huge when it come out!

so will we need a pilot license?

[@technoverse101]

So many power lines lines, phone lines, and other obstructions in thebair would be a major problem in urban and suburban areas

[@Aintrealy2357]

What's it do when a bird gets in the blades?

[@SpirallingOut]

01:44 "Plus, with no giant propellers swinging around, users wouldn't have to worry about accidentally taking off the neighbours head when parking it on the driveway." ...You're right! They'd just have to worry about juicing a flock of birds while in flight, or Fido the dog while taking off... Or one of their kids... Fargo style! Also, any consumer-level personal flight vehicles had better be all operated by a perfect autonomous system, with zero chance of something going wrong with the system or the network itself. Punch in the destination and there's not possibility of in-vehicle occupant control. Zero chance that it's hackable too. Seriously, I can see this being a tech used for autonomous public transport in the distant future, but not personal transportation.

[@LostinMIA]

Amazing! Hopefully it's an efficient thrust per power/energy ratio.

[@TheAeroInsider]

👀

[@ctuna2011]

The first big problem with personal VTOL's is the overhead wiring infrastructure , the second problem is you wouldn't want one dropping through your roof.

[@ArshadAli-zf8if]

Looking very exciting but very fragile also what are the safety features !

[@randomcommenterurl]

As someone with a private pilot license for recreational use, I can assure that no amount of technological advancement will ever lead to mass adoption of private aircraft. Simply due to these two facts: 1. Something WILL go wrong eventually. 2. Pulling over is not an option.

[@matthewabbott918]

Can it fit 6 ppl in tho

[@craigrussell7542]

How does the drive see? Would need cameras & screens. Uhoh bad weather.

[@tessa63627]

One of the biggest questions will be whether or not they're affordable.

[@edwardclarke768]

i believe even if ai technology was to stop making progress as of now the cost of this type of vehicle will drop to near if not absolute zero in the near future 🤤😆😁🦿🎉

[@DolphLundgrensDolphinDungeon]

I hope we get to live in 5th Element during my lifetime!! That'll be sick!!

[@frednel4326]

I realy like this idea and hope it develops and grows on, it is way better than having rotors and propellers and even conventional helicopters wont be needed anymore because of what can be done with this, and adding a parachute to it too would make it even safer but im betting they will, time to move away from the old and into the new and this looks practical and good to me 👌

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

Have you ever flown an aircraft?

[@Pardogad]

The blades rotate individually. Can be programed or manipulated by the pilot. That's how it works. You're welcome.

[@barrington-luchiemarchandi4613]

March-Town approved 💪🏾🇱🇨👍🏾

[@mrspirus5735]

I believe this will only be operated by AI. If humans operated these it would cause way more accidents and deaths than ground cars do.

[@JoelTopsom]

The 5th element shows what a world driving in 3d could be like.

[@Denver_Risley]

I would consider Star Wars tech to be something more like solid state. No moving parts. All directed energy fields, etc. This example is just rearranging the old propeller into a different package. Still depends on air thrust. If private equity is getting involved in ANYTHING I would stay clear of it. I do hope this research continues, though. It does look promising.