XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
      
   In sci.physics Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   > For your reference, records indicate that   
   > Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Doc O'Leary   wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call   
   >> >it an airplane?  What actual problem does a ?flying car? otherwise solve   
   >> >that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use   
   >> >case that demonstrates *any* added value?   
   >>   
   >> Asked and answered.   
   >   
   > No, it wasn’t.  Where’s the use case?  I’m a guy sitting in my office   
   > and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital,   
   > Detroit or Paris).  I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions   
   > to that problem.  What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in   
   > a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an   
   > airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of   
   > necessary FAA paperwork, etc.?   
      
   Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes.   
      
   There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that   
   is automated.   
      
   >> Do you know what a GA airplane is?  I think you just asserted that   
   >> they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.   
   >   
   > A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I’m   
   > not asking about that segment of the population.  I’m asking about   
   > the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you   
   > make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?   
      
   There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what?   
      
   There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what?   
      
   There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what?   
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)