XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>
>>For your reference, records indicate that
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> The sole reason that flying cars have never been a commercial success
>>> is economics
>>
>>No, it?s simply because they?re a stupid outdated SF concept birthed
>>from a car-crazed society. Once you have a vehicle that can fly between
>>locations, it makes zero sense to also make it suitable for driving on
>>roads. Who in their right mind is going to *drive* anywhere they could
>>just fly to? Who is going trust that a roadworthy vehicle after miles
>>of driving is going to remain airworthy?
>>
>>Eliminate the ?economics? problems and flying cars still make no sense.
>>Imagine a world where everyone is Superman. Superman does not drive to
>>the rescue. Only motorheads ever thought flying cars were a good idea.
>>
>
> No, Jimp. Flying cars were and are a good idea unless you think you
> can just land anywhere you like. If you fly a GA aircraft, what do
> you do once you land it?
You are replying to someone else, not me.
Once you land the plane, you taxi to the tie down area, tie down and
secure the aircraft, then go see the FBO. There will quite often be
a dedicated phone to Enterprise. Don't forget to ask for your Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association discount.
In the post 9/11 world there is yet another complicaton; all airports
have fences around the operating areas, which means if you are not
based at the airport and have the ability to open and close the gate,
you will have to find someone who does to let you on and off the airport
with a flying car.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
