I'm sorry, I'm sure you meant to say something meaningful. Unfortunately in the process it became meaningless.
What's the phrase before the "because"... you know, the one you're explaining. "Because" is used to explain something given a question. What was the question?
> their legislature Whose legislature?
> is yet Has yet
> to become aware of "to become aware" is to gain consciousness. I think you mean "to be aware."
> of the invention of the railroad The railroad was not an invention. It was a series of upgrades from the carriage, to the horseless carriage, to a horseless carriage with special "roadways" to the railroad.
Please do add detail. This may prove to be fascinating.
We all have been stuck in traffic, wished we could turn on our antigrav/wings/rotors/magic and fly above the crowd. If there were flying cars that leaves the simple question of why the people ahead of you didn't do just that, which leads to the question I addressed in my original post:
"Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?"
...meaning if that if your car can fly, why the heck would you drive somewhere far enough to possibly be in a traffic jam? You wouldn't. Instead you'd PLAN to fly there and then land and drive to where you want to go... which is why I ended with:
"Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway."
Still... I'm a fan of science fiction because we can ignore the physics and ignore the regulatory world and the law-enforcement and insurance constraints and focus on a better world.
I'm with everyone on this thread who said Jetsons, Rosie, or Rastro!
However, powerplant failure at any phase of flight can be dangerous. It *MUST NOT* be fatal (or more correctly it should be designed survivable). Given the choice of high and fast or slow and low the latter is definitionally less safe.
All excellent points except you don't get to 'define' light aircraft as unpressurized. I appreciate that's what you're suggesting the OP meant, and I agree with the concept.
You do get some fuel savings by leaning the air/fuel mixture no matter how "low" the altitude you climb to... but it's not significant until -- as you pointed out -- the atmosphere is at a fraction of its density at sea-level so the fuel savings are comparable.
Still, fuel savings is not top of the list of goals here, and that presupposes normally-aspirated combustion engines. Since we're talking science-FICTION here we can also presuppose a future fuel with a greater energy density than gasoline -- only nuclear has that now -- and the ability to safely and efficiently use it.
The higher the altitude above sea level the less DENSE the air is. There's not less air. It's also exponential so you have to go REALLY high to make a difference. No such altitudes are discussed here.
>and the easier it is to travel at speed.
I don't know what "easier" or "at speed" means.
>Therefore light aircraft are limited
What is a "light aircraft"? The FAA has a class called Light Sport Aircraft" but that's different. Why do you think that aerodynamics ONLY limit "light" aircraft? Please use big words when making up facts.
>in altitude by the necessity for the occupants to breathe,
Breathing (for humans) occurs just fine and requires no special oxygen in FAA certificated flights at altitudes of 12,000ft and below. That's for all aircraft, "light"[sic] and otherwise.
>lower speeds due to air resistance
Junior-high physics fails again. At the speeds discussed there's no noticeable change in air resistance depending on altitude.
>and friction heating of the aircraft.
Perhaps you're thinking of the SR-71 and Mach-3. For normal aircraft there's no factor of friction heating of the aircraft [airframe] based on airspeed.
Being low and slow are recipes for "nowhere to go" in the event of a power failure because there is not enough "energy" in a low altitude to convert to airspeed before hitting the ground. Similarly if you're going slow there's no way to convert that to distance to get to a safe place.
Disclosure: I'm a current FAA-certificated commercial helicopter pilot.
Dreams of flying are awesome, and dreams of flying cars are great, but the regulatory reality will prevent these from *ever* flying at least in the United States.
A. Reliability and Technology 1. "Drones" and UAS devices don't have the failsafes to allow safe landing (for human passengers) in the event of a failure. All commercially-certificated aircraft *must* demonstrate power-off landing.
2. In order to provide those failsafes, "Drones" and UAS devices would have redundant systems making them too heavy to functionally lift humans and carry them anywhere.
B. Regulations 3. The FAA has control of the air from the ground up. (Yes, there are those who claim it's from 8' up, those who claim 58' up, those who claim 400' up but recent rulings support the "anything from the top of ground or structure on up"). The FAA jealously regulates its airspace -- to the point they don't want to allow military UAVs unless the pilot flying the UAV is a)FAA-certificated (which military pilots are not), and b)Is in radio contact with the appropriate air-traffic control coordinator. In other words, only a pilot can fly one and only while keeping in contact with ATC.
4. All aircraft within the national airspace system (NAS) have to be not only certificated by the FAA but also registered. These add *substantial* fees to what would otherwise be "A car".
C. Exisitng Industries Won't Allow it 5. Law-enforcement has a very big hard-on for the driver being responsible for the equipment. Thus there will never be a self-driving car... not will there ever be a car that can fly away from a road-block.
6. Insurance companies enjoy taking hard-earned money to gamble that you WON'T ever use your policy. Governmental regulations requiring the purchase of insurance provides them a captive audience of clients all of whom also gamble they WON'T ever use that policy. (Not to worry, if the policy gets used, the rates go sky high for at least three years...) That's just to insure a vehicle that at most can cause minor damage. When you put that same mass in the air, (F=ma and all that), its potential for damage is exponentially higher... and so, btw, is the cost of aircraft insurance. (At least for the helicopters we fly)
Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?
Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway.