this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
27 points (86.5% liked)

Technology

79985 readers
4883 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] renard_roux@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Looking at some of those photos, I guess 'vertical' is also applied, at least partially, to the vehicles orientation 😳

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If it's a flying CAR, how come it has to be towed to and from it's designated take off and landing sites? The whole point of a flying car is that you can go from ground travel to air travel without much effort.

This isn't a expensive flying car. It's a cheap aircraft that an inexperienced and untrained pilot is going to be allowed to fly.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There is no legal definition for a flying car, so they can use the term if they want. It's like the term AI that gets thrown around a lot, but actually people mean an LLM, but technically even a checkers program is in the AI category.

The USA industry term is a "roadable aircraft" and legal is also moving to that term. In Europe the legal term is FlyDrive vehicle. And the thing in the article is an SC-VTOL (special condition) in Europe and powered-lift aircraft in USA.

I don't think that's the point of the comment.

[–] melfie@lemy.lol 9 points 1 day ago

Flying car

So an aircraft?

[–] finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Buyers don’t need a pilot’s license to operate the aircraft, though they must complete training and take an FAA knowledge test.

That's absolutely fucking insane. How did the FAA approve this? The only saving grace here is that the $200k price tag means few, if any, will be sold to random idiots who want a flying car.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 2 days ago

It's an ultralight. You don't need a pilots license to fly one in the US. You can even build one yourself if you want to. You don't even need any inspection or airworthiness certificate. Since they can't legally be flown over populated areas, it's unlikely for anyone except the pilot to get injured or killed.

[–] sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

There are lots of fairly standard high end cars that go for more money than that. So the potential is quite high for these to sell well

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

A high end luxury car has a lot more utility than this thing. This is more like a $200k atv or snowmobile (ie, a very expensive toy)

[–] finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's horrifying to think about. Most people seem to barely be able to handle 2 dimensions while driving a car.

Yeah no kidding...

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

It also means the people operating them will have a high threshold for consequences and maybe not care so much about the community.

Because anything and everything about this administration is for sale.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

30 minutes range. Which, in practice, probably means ten.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In practice that is zero - you are not allowed to take off unless you have enough fuel to fly for an hour after landing. flying is safe in large part because of hard learned rules like this.

[–] kcuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've never seen a rule requiring any specific fuel reserve except for when filing IFR where you need enough fuel to get to your destination, and alternate, and still have 45 minutes of fuel.

[–] Trilogy3452@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR4d5279ba676bedc/section-91.151

91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speedβ€”

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

[–] kcuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I had not heard that, thank you for sharing. I just go by IFR standards or better for my personal limits, so this never came up.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Note that those are minimums. The pilots I know try to be well above the minimums as a personal rule. Landing without fuel is something they practice in the simulator, not something they ever want to try in real world conditions.

[–] kcuf@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Ya absolutely, I never want a fuel exhaustion event. Always put more in than necessary

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sure that doesn't apply to ultralights.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago

that depends on the pilot. it doesn't apply to bold pilots. There are bold pilots and old pilots - but no old and bold pilots.

Their privacy policy is stupid. Here's an archive link, so you can avoid la time.

The only thing I consider to be a flying car is when the technology is completely different from what we have now.

Tired of these plane/copter/drone-type vehicles that they claim are also cars.

We need Star Wars/Fifth Element/Back to the Future II/Blade Runner-type vehicles.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

These should be banned in cities immediately. The danger here seems insane.

[–] Badabinski@kbin.earth 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As someone posted elsewhere, this is an ultralight aircraft and is therefore forbidden from flying over populated areas.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh that's good news. However their stated business model is in cities so I expect heavy lobbying to lift that ban to start. It could be worthwhile to have layered bans at different levels of government to provide protection in case one layer gets paid off.

[–] antbricks@lemmy.today 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

While your cynicism is well-deserved in the US, Urban Air Mobility is an area of regulatory development. EASA and FAA are both actively working in this area, and VTOL and eVTOL aircraft have their own existing pilot certifications for both manned and remote flights. Lobbying has had very limited success with FAA and EASA, and they remain some of the most heavily regulated organizations.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 14 hours ago

The idea that these vehicles will ever be adequately safe, quiet, or efficient is very dubious. Any regulatory agency that isn't outright rejecting them should be viewed with suspicion.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago

I can't wait until some influencer is half way from LA to Vegas when the low battery dummy light comes on.

People will die, rather quickly, and that will be the end of it.