为什么飞行汽车梦没有成功呢？ [美国媒体]

-------------译者：好死不如赖活着-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------



If you’re ever bothered by the blind spots in the typical car today, then you would hate to drive a flying car.

如果你为今天普通汽车的盲点所困扰，那么你肯定会讨厌驾驶飞行车的。

But a new Toyota patent offers a solution to a classic flying car problem — awful blind spots and a vehicle that’s too wide for roads, parking spaces and garages.

令人欣喜的是丰田公司的一项专利技术解决了阻碍飞行汽车发展的问题——可怕的盲点和因展开的两翼太宽而无法上路，停车和进库。

Flying cars are rare, but you can find a few in the wild. A handful of companies around the globe are developing them. A long list of challenges has held back flying cars since their initial creation almost a century ago. One problem is putting the wings on the side of the car, which blocks driver sight lines and makes the vehicle so wide that it’s difficult to park and drive on roads.

飞行车虽说非常稀少，但是世界上的一小部分公司还是在致力研究的。自从一个世纪前，第一辆飞行车面世后，一系列的挑战让它的发展停滞不前。其中一部分的问题就是把汽车的两翼装在汽车的两侧会阻挡司机两侧的视线和增加汽车的宽度会让其在行驶和停车的时造成很大的不便。

Toyota’s patent calls for stackable wings on top of a flying car.

丰田公司的一项专属产品把飞行车的两翼折叠在飞行车的顶端。

Toyota received a patent for a stackable wing that sits on top of a flying car.

丰田公司把可折叠的双翼设计在飞行车的顶端。

  


-------------译者：CLOUDS-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

NickFleck
2:06 PM GMT+0800
​I do not see the point of having flying cars.

我不了解拥有飞行车有何意义. 

You have to drive to an airport in order to takeoff. You can't just takeoff on the interstate. And you have to fly to an airport to land. Again, you can't land it on the interstate. So you have to drive a number of miles to reach your destination once you land. If you aren't landing at your jobs parking lot, what time did you save?

 为了起飞你必须先架车到机场，而不能在州际公路起飞。为了着陆你又非得飞到一个机场着陆，同样的，你无法在州际公路着陆。所以一旦你要着陆你必须骑很多里才能到达目的地。如果你不能在你工作地点停车，你又能节省到多少时间呢？

Just buy a plane and rent a car once you land, which is how you always had to do it. A car that can takeoff and land like a helicopter would be more practical. You may be able to land it on a pad once you reach your office. You would need at least an acre to land it at your home.

 当你停车时，就仅仅相当于买了辆飞机同时又租了辆车，这便是不得不做事了。一辆像直升机般可以随意起飞和着陆的车将更加具有实用性。一旦你到达办公地点你可以让它停在一个场垫上。你至少需要在家留一亩地去停放它。

Once there are real Hoverboards, they can then make a Hovercar. That's the day I'm waiting for.

​一旦有了真正的悬浮滑板，就有人会制造它。我期待这一天的到来。

 -------------译者：yearning-审核者：菊花与枪------------

JohninCT
1/3/2016 11:52 AM GMT+0800
The first problem, Matt, is no one needs one. If you sell needs, which is what all the sales folks want to do, then you have a slight problem. And, on the wants side, Mat, it's just folks, who sit around out of touch with the real worlf and talk about "innovations", who try to think what people might want. And, this isn't even a "Gee wouldn't that be neat." idea.
Your biggest problem, Matt, is no one wants or needs them!

第一个问题，哥们，是没人需要这个。如果你把这个卖给有需要的人，正如所有销售人员做的那样，那你就会出现小麻烦。同时，对于在想要这个的人群，哥们，这些只是一些脱离现实世界，无所事事空谈“创新”，猜想人们可能想要什么样东西的人。而且这个设想甚至不是那种给人“我擦这个应该不错”感觉的主意。
（译者吐槽：这段拼写错误实在太多，本来不想接了，看留了一段好多天没人接强迫症犯了）
  
jeglackin
1/3/2016 9:15 AM GMT+0800
People cannot operate in two dimensions, within defined lines. You want to add a third dimension, and an infinite number of directions?
It would solve the population problem.

人们在画好车道的二维空间操作都费劲，你还想增加到三维空间，让方向出现无限可能？
这将解决人口问题。（意为会出车祸死很多人）

-------------译者：yearning-审核者：菊花与枪------------

Dr.Zev
1/3/2016 8:28 AM GMT+0800
If it's door-to-door speed you want, consider LeviCar (www.LeviCar.com/), which will let you travel in your own car, on a nationwide Magnetic-Levitation (MagLev) rail network at 300 mph, with only the first few and last few miles on conventional roads.
 
如果你需要的是一步到位，考虑一下LeviCar吧，它会让你驾驶自己的汽车以300英里的时速行驶在遍布全国的磁悬浮轨道网，只需要在起点和终点处行驶在短距离的常规道路上。

socrateos
1/3/2016 7:57 AM GMT+0800
Let's assume it is possible. Then I should be able to fly over the Hudson river and avoid George Washington Bridge or Lincoln Tunnel traffic jam to land onto the New York side from anywhere!

让我们假设这是真的。那么我就可以从任何地方飞越哈德孙河，避免乔治华盛顿大桥或林肯隧道的拥堵而直接到达纽约的那一头！

-------------译者：Mien-审核者：菊花与枪------------

jorge_mt
1/3/2016 5:01 AM GMT+0800
When a car engine fails, you coast or push it to the side of the road.
When a flying car engine fails, the side of a road is 150 meters below.
The towing thing sure solves the parking problem, hahaa.
WIdth and parking are problems, sure.
Weight and power are bigger problems.
Driver proficiency is even worse: people have trouble managing speed and position in a two dimensional space. Imagine that in 3D.
And how about keeping them inside their lanes?
What about emergencies? We train pilots for ages and weed them out and still pilot error keeps happening. What will happend with a million half-cooked pilots going around?
You need two things - even if you solve the problem of weight, power, size and aerodynamics:
- infalible AIs to keep it safe
- passive antigravity - meaning you should battle it to get to the ground, not maintain it to keep altitude.

当汽车发动机出现故障的时候，你可以它泊到公路边。
当一个飞行汽车的发动机出现故障时，而道路却在你的下面150米。
牵引肯定解决停车问题，哈哈。
当然，宽度和停车是问题。
但重量和功率是更大的问题。
驾驶者能力更差：在二维空间中，人们不方便控制速度和位置。以三维空间角度想象一下
还有如何让它们保持在他们的车道上呢？
出现紧急情况怎么办？我们花费大量时间培养飞行员，但错误仍然不断发生。想一下一百万个菜鸟飞行员在空中乱飞会发生什么？
你需要牢记两件事情-即使你解决了动力，重量，尺寸和空气动力学的问题：
- 需要可靠数据保持安全
-被动反重力-这意味着如果你想着陆你就要消除它，而不是保持高度。

-------------译者：氯化钠⊙▽⊙槑-审核者：菊花与枪------------

S_G_Botsford
1/2/2016 9:20 AM GMT+0800
Potential problems:
1. Cost. Even a 1948 Cessna 140 is pulling $25,000 on Trade-a-plane. A more reasonable 172 runs about 70K.
2. Weight. An empty Cessna 172 runs 1700 lbs. Max weight is about 2400 lbs. That includes luggage, passengers and fuel. This is not your average pickup truck, or even SUV in terms of carrying capacity.
3. Size: Wingspan of 36 feet. That's standard 12 foot lanes.
4. Complexity: As you do more things it gets more complicated. And does each task less well. Compare a steak knife to a leatherman tool. Complexity adds weight, or requires more engineering, materials of higher strength per pound (and more bucks)

潜在问题：
1.成本 一架1948年的塞斯纳140要价2.5万美元，而一架好的172要价7万美元。
2.重量    一家空的塞斯纳172重达1700磅。加上背包，乘客，燃料最大载重是2400磅   你的皮卡或者是suv的载货能力都要比它好。
3.尺寸：36英尺的机翼相当于一个标准的12英尺车道。
4.复杂：操作越多越复杂 要兼顾每一项操作将牛排刀和莱瑟曼切肉工具进行比较复杂性增加了载重抑或需要更多的技术和更高强度的材料（更多的钱）。

Barbara T.
12/31/2015 11:24 PM GMT+0800
Since we already limited drones, why would anyone think America needs Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? How many people would pass that flying car driving test? Airspace traffic and overhead congestion do not sound inviting.

由于我们已经对无人机进行了限制，所以为什么人们认为美国需要这种万能飞天车呢？会有多少人通过飞行汽车的驾驶考试？空中交通和堵塞并不是我们想要的吧。

-------------译者：氯化钠⊙▽⊙槑-审核者：菊花与枪------------

in_my_humble_opinion
12/31/2015 11:11 PM GMT+0800
Too heavy and too much energy to lift and fly. Too expensive. If they were able to design a flying car, the traffic in the skies not to mention weather problems would be extremely complicated situations to resolve. Maybe a 22nd century idea. Need a quantum jump in energy.

太重而且飞行（距离）有限 ，太贵。要是他们有能力设计出一款飞行汽车，天上的交通更别提天气问题将很难解决。这或许是22世纪的想法。需要能源上的巨大突破。
 
vacohee
12/31/2015 11:09 PM GMT+0800
It strikes me that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the infrastructure required for supporting air travel and the optimum use of a car and an airplane. What an airplane does best is fast transit: high speeds over straight lines. What a car does best is the provision of specific point to specific point travel. The sorts of car/planes proposed above are all fixed wing designs: they will all require an infrastructure of air fields. This infrastructure already exists—that’s not the problem. The problem is that these sorts of designs will never provide for flying from a specific destination to a specific destination: they will require a take-off and a landing air field between origin and destination.You might, of course, be able to drive to the take-off airport and drive from the landing airport . . . but how is that better than what we have now: a cab to the first airport and a rental car from the second airport? Personally, I’ll wait for teleportation.

空中旅行所需的基础设施与飞行汽车的优化使用之间所存在的根本性的不相容性让我倍受打击。飞机的功用就是快速运输：在直线上快速飞行。而汽车的功用就是提供特定的点对点运输。而文中提及的都是固定翼飞机设计：所以需要使用到飞机场，而飞机场已经存在了，所以不是个问题。问题是这种设计无法提供特定的点对点的飞行服务：这种飞机在出发地和目的地之间需要使用到起飞机场和降落机场。当然，你可以开着这种飞行汽车前往起飞机场，然后再从降落机场开着飞行汽车离开。。。但是这种做法哪里会更好：我们现在不是已经可以打的去机场，然后降落后再打的离开吗？所以我还是继续等待瞬间移动技术的出现吧。

 -------------译者：phcsean-审核者：菊花与枪------------

JoeODonnell
12/31/2015 10:50 PM GMT+0800
Same design problem as for boat / car concepts: tradeoffs required to do both means it does neither well. 
Anyone who can afford a car / plane would probably opt for a good car and a good plane rather than a hobbled combination.

这个设计概念就像是水陆两用车一样：两者兼顾意味着两个方面都做不好。
况且买得起飞行汽车的人完全可以买更好的汽车和飞机，比这种半吊子的产品强多了。
 
foureyedbuzzard
12/31/2015 10:06 PM GMT+0800
Yeah, because adding a third dimension and infinitely variable directions of travel will really be spectacular to watch - on the 4th of July.

可以想象，打破了空间、方向束缚的一段旅途，可以看到很多壮丽的景色。
 
JC1979
12/31/2015 9:58 PM GMT+0800
You forgot the most obvious problem with flying cars...plenty of people drive like morons to begin with...and you want to put them in vehicles that fly?

 说到飞行汽车，作者显然忽视一个最明显的问题，大部分司机都是二把刀，你能指望这些人把汽车开上天？
 
LoveThoseNats
1/3/2016 4:56 AM GMT+0800
Fortunately there's a lot more required to learn to fly than to drive a car. And planes are a lot less forgiving to stupid actions. I think it wouldn't take too long before the problem solves itself. 
Unfortunately, people on the ground are liable to get hurt or killed in the process.

幸运的是，学习飞行比驾驶汽车要复杂多了，而且飞机的容错率很低，很快，这个问题就会被解决。
不幸的是，在这个过程中，陆地上的人们容易因此而受伤，甚至出现生命危险。