[FnuGk]

I never understood the point of flying cars. Do we not already have those but call them airplanes?

Flying cars seem infeasible to operate for the mass consumer as they (like airplanes) require extensive training to operate safely.

[snowwrestler]

The idea is that they are self-driving flying cars, so consumers don't need training.

While the physics of flight are more complex than driving, the environment is far less complex (straight-line between points, few obstacles along the way). Flight is better suited to automation, and in fact we already have very reliable autopilots and computer-enhanced airplanes.

That said, I think the fuel costs of flying mean it will never be competitive with driving, based on cost.

[FnuGk]

I still do not understand the difference between a flying car and an air plane.

[FabHK]

Terrible name, indeed.

Flying car sort of implies:

* can fly and drive on the road.

While there are concepts along those lines (e.g. the Terrafugia Transformation), that's not what this is about.

What distinguishes this new bred of aircraft is:

* VTOL, so not bound to a traditional airport

* simple control ("like a car"), so don't need a pilot. That distinguishes them from a helicopter, which is harder to fly than a fixed wing plane.

* maybe also autonomous flying and collision avoidance, so more like next-gen cars.

I find PEVA (personal electric VTOL aircraft) more descriptive.