Talk:Flying car

Proposal: Split up the list into those which have flown, have not flown, and are theoretical
We should split the list into three subheadings or three separate lists all on this page: Thoughts, feelings? Workshopping subtitles? This delineation would go a long way towards not misleading our readers about prototypes, disputed flying machines, and theoretical designs which only exist on paper. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Models with recorded flight"
 * "Designs that never flew"
 * "Still under development"
 * Tagging @Steelpillow, @AndyTheGrump, @Chipmunkdavis, @Nigel Ish, @M.nelson, @ජපස, @Ahunt, @Blueboar, @Rhododendrites from FT/N. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No particular problem with that, as a general principle. I'd merely note that the evidence that Whitehead's machine meets any of them is questionable, in that little in the way of RS-based evidence has been offered that it was even intended to have significant on-road capability. The engine-powered wheels seem to have been a launch-assist mechanism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought I’d read somewhere that the road capability was to allow the machine to transport itself to a launch site rather than as a means of transporting people, but (of course) I can’t find it now. Can anyone more familiar with the subject and sources help? Not sure how this would affect the machine’s status. Brunton (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, such a vehicle is nowadays often described as a "roadable aircraft". Both these and obvious flying cars are rare and there is no clear dividing line between them; as such it is fairly common to treat both under the same umbrella, and the article lead explicitly states that it is doing so. This does not affect the vehicle's status here in any way. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn’t quite make that clear, referring to both as vehicles that “function both as a personal car or automobile and as an aircraft“. Brunton (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Inclusion requires sources to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Brunton@undefined There is no requirement for a roadable aircraft to be a practical automobile for day-to-day use. As long as it can be driven on the roads, that is enough. If you can find a better form of words, please do. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I’ve come up with a form of words that says that. Brunton (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think there are two approaches that need to be reconciled here. A great many aviation books cover both flown and unflown types without any special indication outside the individual entries. The Putnam's series of monographs on British aircraft manufacturers are a good example. Other books are dedicated to flying types or the cancelled projects, though there is often modest spillover. Nobody makes a big fuss once one gets past the book's title. These professionally-produced books are the way they are for a reason, and the bunch of aviation enthusiasts here tend to follow that resource base for much the same reasons. On the other hand, a visitor to Wikipedia may have no such background. They may be confused to find a list of "aircraft", some of which are real and some of which are mere design studies or useless hulks. Separating out the one from the other is very helpful to them. The question here is, can we achieve that cleanly in a single list, or is it better to split up the list? One problem with a split is that every visitor wants a different one. Some would want rotorcraft, fixed wings and powered lift separated. Others would want them listed by date or, like an index, alphabetically so they can easily find the one that interests them. This led to the adoption of sortable tables, such as the present one. Frankly, if we split it for one group of readers we will upset all the other groups. We could look at improving some of the columns to give a better fly/no-fly separation (currently requires reference to both the Status and Notes), but I would not recommend any actual split. There is also an ongoing discussion by the Aircraft WikiProject about the implications of this issue across all the aircraft articles. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One problem with a split is that every visitor wants a different one. Some would want rotorcraft, fixed wings and powered lift separated. Others would want them listed by date or, like an index, alphabetically so they can easily find the one that interests them. This led to the adoption of sortable tables, such as the present one. Frankly, if we split it for one group of readers we will upset all the other groups Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I see no evidence of anyone being upset by the delineations you describe. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Covering a topic within a book is a very different matter to putting items into a simple list. I don't think anyone has suggested removing discussion of failed prototypes from the article (supposing of course they have due weight). CMD (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is a source which calls something a "flying car" and it was able to actually fly, I think that's what a naive reader like myself would expect to see delineated. Other failed attempts or prototypes or bizarre claims can also be included, but it needs to be much clearer than the current free for all. Split it up or make sure that we are very upfront in the section title so that we can tell what is included in the list. That would help this naive reader the most. jps (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a thought. If the sortable Status entries were changed to say "Flown", "Failed to fly" and "Unbuilt", it would be a quick and easy check on whether the full split was really necessary. Worth a try? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would surely make it clear and keep all the entries in 1 table too. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think having all the entries in 1 table is necessarily a virtue. If they are all in one section but in multiple tables or subsections, very little is lost. As a naive reader, I primarily want to know whether each "flying machine" actually "flew." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated the status values. Does this meet our needs? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It doesn't meet the need to determine whether Whitehead's machine should be considered an attempted 'flying car' at all. Where is the RS to support this? Sources that suggest Whitehead intended it to function as an automobile, as well as an aircraft? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Disregarding the obvious Whitehead fan site, the HuffPost source states that "[Whitehead] purportedly took aloft a flying car of his own design". A source used earlier in the article, the December 1981 Popular Mechanics, states that "[Stanley Y.] Beech described the plane as self-powered on the ground, like an automobile" and later explicitly describes the aircraft as a "flying automobile" (here it is on Internet Archive). -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I knew I had seen it somewhere. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ZLEA Agreed, in the absence of RSes which directly contradict, this is sufficient to describe the Whitehead device as a flying car. Doesn't mean it flew, which is the essence of why we need better delineation here of which ones did and did not. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the HuffPost is the best of sources for aviation history - that citation is of much more use for its discussion of Jackson, and of subsequent responses. The relevant content in the Popular Mechanics article appears to be a precis of earlier material, from the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of 1901. A source given little credibility in subsequent assessments. It seems likely this description is from the "single flawed news article" that the RAeS was so dismissive of in its report on the Jane's piece of 2013. We really need more recent sources discussing the roadgoing merits of the machine, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Steelpillow I would still heavily prefer separate lists delineated by whether or not they actually flew, this does not meet my needs or (I would guess), the needs of others who have responded similarly. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer a single sortable list format over a bunch of different lists in the same article, based on differing status. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * and I think I would be happy if a consensus here clearly showed that a delineating column in the table is enough, and multiple tables is too much. I would disagree, but I am always happy to respect a clear consensus against me. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the list as it is now, with a column clearly stating whether or not they flew, is adequate. Brunton (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I doubt the average reader would find the current list structure confusing.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -  ZLEA  T \ C 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ahunt but perhaps we can find something better then "Failed to Fly" like "Not Flown" or something. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those are importantly two different things. A design you never tried to fly would be the latter, but one you tried and failed could more neutrally be described as "Unsuccessful attempts" or something like that — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did find this an issue when updating the table. We can always add more status values, such as "Built (not flown)" or whatever. There is a danger with more values that alphabetical sorting would no longer give clean groupings of similar statuses, while adding a sort key would confuse readers who assume alphabetical sorting. And we could end up with either wordy status entries that mess up the display, or short ones where we need to explain that "not flown" means not tried to fly and excludes failures, etc. etc. But yes, this built-not-flown was the main issue I came across, so maybe just a fourth value can be included. Any better suggestions for its wording? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't think we need to delineate more than "built, not flown" and "not flown". I think flown, not flown, and not built are perfectly fine. (edited 21:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, the distinction would need be between no attempt made and failed when attempted. Possibly replacing "Not flown" with "Built (not flown)" and "Failed to fly". &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the point MilborneOne is making is that "Failed to fly" is ? wrt WP:NPOV — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However "not flown" does not make the distinction between hangar queens and those which actively refused to take off. The former have unknown capability, the latter have it all too painfully known. Certainly, "Failed to fly" does not cover the former. It is a standard enough distinction, and I wonder if it might be what has in mind. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Failed to fly" didnt seem to be that useful in the table (it could have stayed in the hangar and failed to fly). Really only need "Not Built", Not Flown and Flown. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Passenger drone into Flying car
Evident duplicate article under an obscure synonym; also overlaps heavily with Air taxi. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 19:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Both terms are not obscure synonyms. A flying car is intended for use both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft, whereas most passenger drones are not intended for road operations, but nonetheless serve a similar purpose to road taxis.  Passenger drone does need a lot of work, but I don't think merging it with this article is the right move.  Furthermore, while many sources do refer to passenger drones as "air taxis", the Air taxi article covers an entirely separate topic of the same name regarding a type of service provided by some small airlines, so merging with that article would not be right either. -  ZLEA  T \ C 19:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the lead in that case, since it failed to properly define the topic. It is still very essay-like. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AGAINST and WP:SNOW. Per . A flying car doubles as a road vehicle, a passenger drone does not. Passenger drones are more a part of the autonomous air vehicle/personal air vehicle crossover space, you might find a better merge target in there somewhere. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per above comments, as defined in their respective articles these are two different concepts, making a merge inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Conceptual misunderstanding
The concept of a flying car is in NO WAY a roadable aircraft. In fact it is not supposed to drive. It is a car which flies INSTEAD of drives, as predicted by Gyro Gearloose and the Jetsons, not to mention science fiction in general. It should be something which directly can replace a car as a general commuter vehicle, but which flies instead of drives. It should take of from your house and fly directly to your work. It requires a completely new kind of technology to work, and we do not have this technology at all. Having an actual car stupidly suspended from a wing is not a flying car, other than there's a car and it is indeed flying, but is an aircraft with a car attached to it. 217.74.144.6 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What recommendations do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, what reliable sources do you have to support your narrow use of the English language? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that there is a reason it's called science fiction. While science fiction may have predicted certain technologies that have made their way into reality, the current accepted definition of "flying car" is a vehicle that is capable of both flight and driving on a road.  That is how most reliable sources define it. -  ZLEA  T \ C 00:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The conceptual misunderstanding that is being proposed is quite frankly referring to an urban plane and is in no way a flying car. To disprove that misunderstanding the supplied article confirms the types of flying taxis and vehicles that help inspire the further development of truly flying cars and supplies designs and the current development of hybrid vehicles that fly and drive with proper folding capacity. While it still remains to be science fiction currently, with proper development and funding flying cars is not an impossibility. --MordredPhantom

Contradictory info
Under design, the first paragraph says "able to fly without a fully qualified pilot at the controls". Then in a lower sub-heading, it says "The person controlling the vehicle must also be licensed as both driver and pilot". Which is it?
 * It's important to read the first sentence in context. "For mass adoption, it will also need to be ... able to fly without a fully qualified pilot at the controls."  That doesn't mean that all flying cars are capable of flying without a qualified pilot, just that it would not be feasible for a flying car available for mass adoption to require a qualified pilot.  Most, if not all flying cars built to this day were either prototypes or were produced in limited numbers partially for that reason. -  ZLEA  T \ C 14:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If I may suggest: Rewording would be helpful. As written, the text certainly implies machines that are self-flying. How about: "For mass adoption, it will also need to be environmentally friendly, flown by a person who is not a fully qualified pilot and have an affordable price and operating costs." DonFB (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the current sentence is appropriate. Instead of changing it, I inserted a sentence on the current state of play. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It remains ambiguous. Is the phrase "without a fully qualified pilot at the controls" supposed to mean that mass adoption can happen only if the vehicle can fly without anyone at the controls, or that a non-qualified person will be allowed to fly it? Or both? DonFB (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both - and any other variations we might not have thought of. We have no idea how it might pan out, so the less we confuse ourselves about it all the better. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "...it would also need to be environmentally friendly, able to fly with or without a fully qualified pilot at the controls...." avoiding the suggestion that all mass-adopted machines will fly with no one at the controls. Or, consider: "...able to fly autonomously or with a person at the controls who is not a fully qualified pilot...." DonFB (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with whatever phrasing is used, provided it is grammatical and does not rule out any options. Whatever floats your boat (or flies your car!) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)