Another nonsense marketing piece. The image in the article is not even remotely close to a flying car. It is a ducted fan ground effect craft, no different than what NASA and USAF have worked on since the 1950's. Sure you could sort out the stability and flight automation problems with modern software. But the underlying problem to solve is one of energy storage, not aerospace engineering. This company will run into the exact same wall that every other effort to do this has. Until battery power density is increased 10x, electric flying cars will never be a thing.
> It is a ducted fan ground effect craft, no different than what NASA and USAF have worked on since the 1950's.
No, it's not. It's a modern multi-rotor, which have only been possible recently with computer control. No ducts, no (useful) ground effect. Ground effect craft have wings:
Ground effect isn't only a factor for fixed-wing aircraft, it also impacts rotary-wing aircraft including helicopters and the Kitty Hawk Flyer. When you fly a helicopter there is a sudden noticeable loss of lift as you climb out of the ground effect. I'll bet the Kitty Hawk is staying close to the surface at least partially to take advantage of ground effect lift, although the article doesn't make that clear.
I note that the rotary wing ground effect works to a height of about the rotor diameter, so it's not clear to me that this is a useful effect with these small rotors.
Only if you sit on the inside ;) Highway noises are extremely loud, and engine noises on local roads, especially from trucks, are painful in some places.
People may also be misled by how comparatively quiet electric cars are in an urban/suburban environment, and expect electric flyers will be similar (assuming the battery problem is solved.) This view overlooks two things: 1) a VTOL flyer would be at maximum power at take-off and landing, and at a high power level in cruise; 2) a lot of noise comes from the propellers or fans, and there is not much scope for reducing it.
