Where did I leave my flying car?

Building the Future Headlines

Videos

Most Recent Videos

Previous Videos

Air Car Magazine Galleries

An Air Car Engine weights one-third that of a combustion engine

Hybrid Diesel, Hydrogen, Vegetable Oil - you name it

Podcasts

Blogs

Where did I leave my flying car?

A shot of the show's opening title card.

How about that 20th century? The 1930s promised Germany a VW Beetle in every driveway; and by the 1950s, forward thinkers and magazines were promising us a Flying Car in every driveway. When we put a man on the moon in 1969 it seemed all the pieces of the puzzle were in place and that the future would just come to us if we would only sit back and watch it arrive.

This article discusses what happened to the promise that 20th century technology advancements held for our society; and I'll explain what has stalled implementation of these technologies for the past 50 years. I'll discuss who I believe is responsible for the stall; and finally, how we to turn the corner and put technical advancement back into the homes of our society. I hope you enjoy the read!

In 2007, many North Americans endure 10+ hour workdays which end by filling up late model Hemi-combustion-engined vehicles with about $100 in gasoline as they commute for an hour to and from home. Terrific - that tank will set us up for another 150 kms or so.

Why do most of us fail to ask, why doesn't our workday resemble George Jetson's 3 hour workday; and where is his robot maid and flying car?

The fact that so many of us fail to ask these questions is a very bad thing - because when you compare the futuristic life of George Jetson, our workdays in North America, our standard of living, stress levels, and automobiles - we appear to have made almost no significant advancements since that show first aired in the 1960s. Sure we have a few more gadgets; maybe an insignificant robotic vacuum cleaner/novelty here and there, but the fact of the matter is that most dramatic technology strides really stopped for the average citizen in the mid and late 1960s.

On consideration of this topic, I think I can explain what happened - with your indulgence - but first I have to take you back a ways ...

In 1966, hot on the heals of the most prolific and exciting 80 years of human technological advancement in history, Gene Roddenbury (the creator of Star Trek) captured the essence of our excitement when he laid out his view of a roadmap for where this was all headed. No longer would mankind be constrained by a pointless monetary system nor petty squabbles over border lines or race; the advancement of human potential and exploration would be the priority. And we bought it - at least I did as a kid growing up on reruns of Captain Kirk - millions of us loved the notion of a future with such a lofty purpose.

40+ years later, amazing websites like StarTrek.com chronicle oceans of minutia about the incredible future we were all going to share - as Roddenbury portrayed it through 3 or 4 generations and crews.

But instead of setting out to build ourselves this marvelous future, society became distracted. We became distracted by a lot of things - by Hollywood celebrities, by making a living - aka - the American dream, personal computers, self-fulfillment, fear of the enemy, you name it...

Working for personal gain was exactly juxtapose and opposite to the social formula required to build a winning roadmap for the future - but our TV ads, magazines, political leaders, you name it, were all encouraging society to be completely self-obsessed.

No-one was asking the right questions. Questions like what are the "Next Steps" needed to achieve this utopian future? And no-one was taking those next steps.

We were all too busy, and worse, society was too poorly educated - to notice that no-one else was working on our future either. If our kids were being taught to build us a brighter future - they weren't being taught to recognize that the future wasn't moving forward any longer.

As soon as our graduates hit the workplace they are told that quarterly or yearly profit targets is their new objective. Those employees who accept the "Greed is Good" dogma, and meet quarterly profit targets, are richly rewarded - while strategic visionaries were fired or marginalized.

If it sounds like I am condemning us all, in plain fact - we all missed the boat - because if we had done everything we should have done, when we should have started it 40 years ago, there would be a Flying Car sitting in the exact spot that my Hemi Durango sits today.

When you and I go to our driveways, we probably will find a gasoline combustion automobile sitting right where our flying cars should be. In my case, my Durango sports the nearly-exact "Hemi" engine block and drive-train that my father drove 42 years ago in 1965.

This vehicle is a relic - with the possible exception of the airbag, there is nothing "modern" about it. Why would anyone buy this car - and at 10 times the price my father paid for it 40 years ago?

Well, unhappily, I had little choice but to buy it. As many of you probably realized when you went shopping for your vehicles, there was nothing else on the lot that would haul my large family and, happily, I was too busy raising kids and earning a living to redesign and build myself a better car.

What the heck?

What, the heck, has happened to the promise of 1969? 38 years after landing a man on the moon, a vastly more complex and expensive American space agency can't get a 30 year old rocket into orbit and back reliably. There is another "cold-war" to be fear-mongered over on the evening news. The average man's pensions, financials, and quality of life (at least in North America) are in general decline and the outlook for our children is not so "cheery" as it was for us.

Did mankind have a global labotomy? What could have possibly changed after the 1950s and 60s to squash the tide of exploration and why are we no further ahead in so many ways?

Who is responsible?

As the late president Ronald Reagan oft put it - "Well".

Is Business to Blame?

I understand that a company led by managers who are accountable for quarterly profitability can not lead technology programs that might not yield a profit in the short term. And I also get that a profitable status-quo product disincents corporations from taking on the R&D complexity and cost challenges required to change. That's what governments are for - right? Well no - that's not entirely true either.

Is Government to Blame?

Simplifying things a lot here, its specifically the role of elected government Leaders to set social program direction - but in most democratic countries, Government Leaders have an electoral process to contend with. Its this four year, plus or minus, electoral cycle that works directly against the setting of a consistent, long-term goal. How can even a 10 year goal, for example, be achieved if every four years "the last leader was all wrong and we have to go in the exact opposite direction now".

This back and forth tennis game has continued for 40 years and suffers a setback every time security "incidents" come along. Some examples in time:

1950s & 60s	2000s
a security incident called the "cold-war" came along in the late 1950s on concerns of nuclear missile technology advances and deployment. An environment not very unlike today's post-911 US political scene unfolded. Fear and protection from "the enemy" were more important than the advancement of the country's citizenry. Technology advances were hidden away for "military advantage" and the technologies that were released for public consumption were carefully screened to ensure that little tangible advantage would be exploited by citizens. Businesses could profit from the military's secreted technology advances, but government leaders were more guarded and far less committed to advancing John Q. Public's lot it life for concern over enemy adoption.	a terrorist attack dubbed "911" occurred in 2003. Reports of "Fear Mongering" by the US Government continue from 2003 throughout 2008 without interuption.
A war was waged between North Vietnam and the US. The US never achieved their goals and South Vietnam fell to Communist control in 1976. The US lost 58,000 and 304,000 were wounded.	The US invaded Oil-rich Iraq in 2003 based on unfounded reports of Nuclear research. Iraq boasted the 3rd largest army in the world when the war began and had never killed an American. After 6 years of Iraqi occupation, 1,173,743 Iraqis and 3,239 Americans are reported killed. Other reasons given for the attack included Saddam Hussein's human rights violations and his ordered execution of 100,000 Iraqis. Iraq was accused of harbouring terrorists but few were arrested. The war cost the US people $494 billion; it has devalued the US Dollar; and it set the United States into recession in early 2008. Its probably fair to expect that the next US President, be he/she Republican or Democrat, will be forced to siphon oil profits - alongside the big oil companies - from Iraq Oil exports to offset these costs.
John F. Kennedy - arguably the most popular US President of the 20th century - authorized one of the most politically popular programs of the 20th Century - a NASA space mission to land a Man on the Moon.	George W. Bush - arguably the least popular US President since a Watergate era Nixon, authorizes a Man on Mars space flight. Is the Mars exploration too little, too late? Where are the other technology pieces needed for out flying-car future being assembled? Where is anti-gravity? Where is food replication? Where are the self-renewing energy source and propulsion technologies? Although a trip to Mars might seem a logical next step for society on the surface; underneath, this Mars Expedition is more likely a political card played by a despirate US Republican party to distract Americans from their having bankrupt the US economy. Its hard to get excited about a science and exploration project setup solely as a thinly-scripted attempt to reincarnate some of John Kennedy's popularity in having approved a similar mission 40 years earlier.

As a global community, humanity seems to have missed an important point this past 40 years. We've allowed hurdles like the A-Bomb, the Cuban Missile Crisis, 911, and dozens of other distractions to deter us from taking the "next steps" needed to build on the promise our technology had to deliver. We have forgotten the future that we all saw ahead as we watched Neil Armstrong take that first moon-walk.

So Who is Responsible?!

It helps me to recall a couple of wisdom's my father passed along: like "Blame" only belongs in a courtroom; and

My own simple wisdom boils down to this:

When you don't see a flying car in every driveway a few years hence 
- you voted for the wrong leader.

We are responsible ... and we have the power to change the world for the better - with our Vote...

Yes - your vote! It might sound lame, but its not; your vote is like US tax law - its got teeth.

Here are a few voting suggestions designed to change your world for the better (readers, please feel free to comment and revise this list )...

A candidates resume is everything. Can this individual execute on promises effectively and consistently? Its not easy to accomplish difficult changes - it takes good process and good management skills. It also takes some courage and tenacity. My favourite wisdom is - "Believe everything you see, Half of what you read, and Nothing you hear" - look at track record - and not speaches.
Ensure your candidate and party has a long term social program (10 years+) and has at least tried to ratify it with competing parties ( Ask yourself if your vote will lead to positive social change over the next 10 years ).
Do not vote for parties and candidates that don't participate in and manage long-term objectives. A Candidate committed to managing your future should never disregard the targets handed down by a previous governing parties. These "flip-floppers" are the ones that gain by maintaining the status quo - they do not hold your best interest first.
As best you can, separate emotion and religion from your voting decision. Unscrupulous candidates WILL use your core beliefs, values, sickness and fears to defraud your grand-children of a future. "Baby kissers" are playing to your emotions so look elsewhere for substance.
Lead - and don't follow. Have you ever cast a vote because someone told you to? Or because your parents voted for a political party. These are your kid's lives in your hands here - so use your head and vote for a future - else a perpetual status quo...
A vote for a scupulous underdog candidate is never a wasted ballot. Read a local, reputable newspaper's comparison of each candidate promises and plans at least a week before you cast your vote.
And - most important of all - GET OUT AND VOTE ! And make a difference...

Why do we vote, or don't vote, as we do?

When it comes to voting, I think most of us find ourselves in the same dilemma as I was when I went looking for my family vehicle (the Hemi-packing Durango mentioned above). We have no options.

The political candidates that we hear from align with the short-term goals of their business sponsors; and the others, we don't/won't hear from because they haven't got the corporate backing to afford $100 million ad campaigns. As long as our laws permit campaign contributions, our big-party political candidates will keep a very careful alignment on business's short-term goals - it seems.

When asked, why do 42% of registered voters not vote?

I have to assume that the decision to take no part in short sighted, gain-driven political fog is probably the most morally reconcilable options we are left with...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite these challenges - there is a vibrant community of technology dreamers still out there and - like those of the 1850s through 1960s - these great men are keeping the dream alive despite the snubs of both government and industry.

This time, most seem to be coming from the United Kingdom and Europe - and less and less from the stalwart US inventors of old. Quite literally flying-in-the-face of this convention is a Texas inventor who is shipping a flying, three wheeled motorcycle / gyrocopter. The design is very promising and we may well see a real-live two seater flying car from him in the very near future. See Flying Motorcycles for more info.

Here are just a few of our favourite Flying Car videos!

The Amazing Flying - Vauxhaul ?! Though little better than a car-shaped balloon, this $100k, helium filled car is directed by air jets about a car show stage in the UK.
Mollar Flying Car - In Red. Your neighbours would hate you in this thing by the way.
As with the saucer design, my basic objection is that neither the weight of the vehicle, nor the countermeasures for inertia are addressed sufficiently in the Mollar prototypes. One bump and you are headed ass over tea kettle - as my father put it...
The Mollar Flying Car - or is it a Flying Saucer? - You decide.
With all due respect to the inventors, you wouldn't get me into one of these without a yet-unseen generation of body armor. My objection to this design is that neither the weight of the vehicle, nor the countermeasures for inertia are addressed sufficiently in the Mollar prototypes. One bump and you are going to look a little like Steve Austin's crash footage on the old six million dollar man series... Mr. Mollar - brilliant effort here of course - but until you can rig cantelevering props that swivel in 3 dimensions with blinding speed and intellegence, may I suggest that you rework your design so that the lift, and the vehicle's center of gravity, is well above the passenger(s). A flying helicopter-like "beeny-cap" design can work safely, cheaply and within a fairly short time-window; but a magic carpet is going to take a gravity-shield drive - or that 3d cantelever jet that I mentioned above. To build a safe, widely adopted production car based on this design has been tried (see the Avrocar), and I suspect, is 40+ years away from adoption by the public. However - if you put a skirt on it and call it a hovercar - maybe you've got something?
In this design there needs to be at least another couple of large negative props in the front. Always remember that it takes as much or more energy to stop than it does to accelerate. Interesting computer model of how a flying car might look.
Another remote controlled balloon-car. Neat all the same.