Will We Get Private Flying Cars Before the Pentagon Manages To Get This New Jet Off the Ground?
A Swedish company will soon be delivering electric single-person aircraft that can take off and land vertically, which the F-35B struggles with despite billions in funding.

People have anticipated the invention of flying cars for nearly as long as there have been regular cars on the road. Last week, central Virginia's Chesterfield Observer reported on an unexpected problem in Richmond: Flying cars are finally here, whether aviation authorities like it or not.
An adviser to a nearby airport warned the local planning commission that a Charlottesville resident had ordered, and would soon be taking possession of, the appropriately named Jetson One, a $92,000 personal aircraft designed and sold by Swedish company Jetson Aerospace. The Jetson One is an eVTOL—an electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. It operates more like a helicopter than an airplane, able to hover in place and raise and lower its altitude.
Despite the news coverage's framing, flying cars are not imminently arriving in your neighbor's driveway. But it's worth comparing the progress of private companies like Jetson to the billions spent by the Pentagon, and how well each is doing at delivering on a technology that can take off and land vertically.
First things first: The Jetson One is not a flying car, despite what the name might suggest. The company may co-opt The Jetsons for its branding, but the days of a family sedan that can motor around without touching pavement are still a thing of fantasy.
In reality, it's better described as a drone with a seat, resembling a dune buggy with propellers instead of wheels. It can reach top speeds over 60 mph and a cruising altitude of more than 1,500 feet in the air. It's all-electric and a single charge provides around 20 minutes of flight time. The company promotes it as "a formula one racing car for the sky" and boasts that the controls are easy to learn and it can be flown without a pilot's license.
But eVTOLs are a burgeoning market. At this year's Consumer Electronics Show, California-based company Aska debuted the A5, a four-passenger craft the size of an SUV. It hopes to be able to achieve 70 mph on roads and 150 mph in the air, and it will retail for $789,000.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has spent billions of dollars developing a VTOL of its own, with rather different results. The F-35 fighter jet program is a notorious boondoggle, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $1.7 trillion over the program's lifetime. Of the jet's three different designs, the F-35B is designed for vertical takeoffs and landings so that it can operate from smaller runways.
Last month, an anchor from Dallas/Fort Worth's CBS affiliate tweeted a video of an F-35B landing at a local naval air base. The jet spends a few seconds gingerly floating down to the ground, but instead of staying in place it bounces on its landing gear and the nose dips straight down. When it hits the ground again nose-first, the front wheel snaps off, and the plane spins in circles on the ground before the pilot ejects.
#Breaking New much clearer video, courtesy Kitt Wilder, of STOL variant F35 B model landing JRB Fort Worth, and pilot ejects. Condition of pilot still unknown. @CBSDFW pic.twitter.com/BeERIeyhtO
— Doug Dunbar (@cbs11doug) December 15, 2022
As Kelsey Atherton noted at Jalopnik, this was the third F-35 to crash in 2022, with each plane costing $100 million. The F-35B is supposed to represent the newest and best of America's war-making technology. (Of course, no other country spends anything close to what the U.S. does on defense, and it's far from clear that the extra money translates into greater security.) Instead, the Government Accountability Office calls the F-35 program a "material weakness" in the Pentagon's arsenal.
Granted, comparing the F-35 to the Jetson One is apples-and-oranges: The F-35B is intended to operate under high-pressure situations, over longer distances, while loaded down with heavy weaponry. But it's worth noting that while the Pentagon continues throwing untold billions at the F-35, Jetson Aerospace brought the Jetson One to market with $10 million in seed money. Meanwhile, when taxpayers are footing the bill for a plane, even takeoffs and landings can be too much to ask.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why isn’t the F35 being used to establish a “no fly zone” over Ukraine like NATO would like? Because it wouldn’t do well against the S400.
This is an expensive means to take taxpayer money and transfer it to the MIC. Mission accomplished!
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————>>> https://Www.SmartCash1.Com
Joe, Joe, Joe ... are you one of these fools who think "electric jet" makes any sense?
"Backyard grill will be up and running before new restaurant gets its city permit"
"Wife walks out front door before husband backs car out of garage"
"Reason commentariat retires and dies of old age before Reason writers cure TDS."
Dies of TDS.
I remodeled $seven hundred in line with day the employment of my cell in component time. i latterly got my fifth payroll check of $19632 and every one i accustomed be doing is to duplicate and paste paintings online. this domestic paintings makes American state capable of generate further coins day by day competently simple to try and do paintings and standard earnings from this are simply superb. gd20 Here what i’m doing.
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> https://dailyworls7.blogspot.com/
The market for these will first be in places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where the absence of an established regulatory environment will make it easier to get started, improve the products. Despite what you may think, all the engineers, CEO's and marketing people in Toyota, Germany, all these startups, etc. are not actually less intelligent than you; some maybe more intelligent.
When flying cars do arrive, there will be accidents, deaths, and lawsuits, just like with regular automobiles. But in the end, it depends upon percentages determined by actuaries; that translates into insurance rates.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
Here is some solid reporting on eVTOLs from your parent foundation.
The eVTOL depicted looks like a serial decapitation waiting to happen.
"eVTOL of previously non-descript color plows into Christmas parade..."
eVTOL control mandated!!
Here is another:
It's pretty silly to complain about a defense budget when, firstly, it's one of the few things the government should be spending money on, but beyond that, there is a war ongoing in Europe and a likely war happening in the Pacific over Taiwan
I don't think most people complain about spending money on defense, it is the spending on products that never work as advertised, nor at the advertised cost. The US military did not need the F-35. The F-22, F-18, along with the F-16, which as been around forever, would dominate all other militaries.
I do. The current defense budget is exorbitant. Hundreds of bases in dozens of countries. As you mentioned, boondoggle projects. Ukraine isn’t the US. The rest of Europe isn’t the US. Taiwan isn’t the US. If they want defense, they can pay for this themselves.
I'd like to complain about the amount of money our government spends on defense.
The defense budget is one of the most bloated and rife with corruption among all the others.
We don't need 800 bases around the world nor should we have even thought of getting involved in Ukraine.
Bringing democracy to the world is a scam. Regime change is a scam. Making the world safe for democracy is a scam.
It's all about the money.
Ron Paul is right.
But the defence budget is sacrosanct, don'tcha know?
And thirdly, dear uncle Joe, flying cars have been around since the 1930s, and the Harrier was a VTOL combat aircraft from the 1960s.
You really ought to learn what "research" is.
True Lies 2 - Mostly True Lies.
Just combine and invert True Lies and Last Action Hero. Arnold is actually a single, mild-mannered accountant of no notability in a movie who discovers a golden ticket where he's transported to the real world and his agency's ineptitude causes nuclear weapons to be detonated on US soil and no one gives a shit or even remembers who he is 20 min. later.
To update for modern audiences who need the modern era reflected back at them constantly; make Jamie Lee Curtis' role as his partner a man with breasts and make the Jihadis trying to stop his daughter from getting an abortion.
Um, where's the strong black woman and climate activist?
Grace Jones on line 2 ...
I didn't specify the man-with-breast's race, you racist.
Choice: Rail against Lancaster's historical idiocy or sit back and laugh as, after the switch to the hydrogen economy, it's "discovered" that lighter-than-air cargo and hydrogen transport could be instrumental in freeing us from carbon.
It can reach top speeds over 60 mph and a cruising altitude of more than 1,500 feet in the air. It's all-electric and a single charge provides around 20 minutes of flight time.
So, 20 mile range. For an aircraft. Not factoring in your time climbing to altitude.
And assuming you can just slam it into the side of whatever object is 1,500 feet in the air and go about your business.
I like the claim that "it can be flown without a pilot's license". This is not a technical attribute of the vehicle, and if it's a legal characteristic at the moment that situation is likely temporary; the people who write the license requirements don't often bother regulating tech that isn't in somewhat widespread use and/or doesn't yet exist. When these start showing up in any kind of quantity, the licensing laws will be updated to apply to them.
A 747 CAN be flown without a license by anyone who happens to possess the applicable skills, but maybe not have the paperwork in order. In an ideal system, it's not possible to have a license without necessary skills, but there's no world in which it's not possible to have the skills without the license.
It is an ultralight.
It is a toy.
ultralights crash ... a lot.
It may be capable of going 60 mph, but will be legally limited to going 35 mph.
You can fly it to work ... provided you live within walking distance.
So, does the ePlane sport eSidewinders? If not hard pass.
I continue to wonder about the wisdom of spending multiple millions on a military attack aircraft when so much of the air war is conducted with drones and cruise missiles. How much expense is put into having a human pilot on board when there no real need for the pilot. We are paying for the vanity of the combat pilot.
Much military equipment is designed, built, and retired, without ever being used in combat.
Edit: Maybe that's an exaggeration, but the toys being used in the Middle East were all decades old. Ukraine is an opportunity to use the next generation of toys. It's all about having the best toys.
The primary purpose of modern warfare is the transfer of wealth.
War is about power, not wealth.
Correct.
When is the last time we fought an air force with parity?
Vietnam or Korea
Advanced drones are still controlled by humans, just remotely. They do not compare to an onboard pilot that also has visual and no transmission delays.
At the speed the jets are flying the pilot is likely using instruments as much if not more than visual. The value of the pilot in the seat is outweighed by the cost to protect the pilot
You don't lose control of your aircraft if your GPS is spoofed.
Sounds like Joe is trying for a job with Boeing's PR department.
By the way Joe, the F-35B has thousands of flight hours with a pretty good safety record.
F-35B also isn't designed to takeoff vertically, and the specifications have never required that it do so. It's designed to be capable of taking off from short surfaces, and to land vertically (when the weight of the aircraft is much lower due to fuel consumed and weapons expended during operations). The lack of ability to make a vertical takeoff is not a failure of engineering or technology, it's the intended operating envelope of the aircraft.
Would anyone consider a Ferrari 440 a failed design because of its inability to haul full 4'x8' sheets of building materials or drive over 8" tall rocks and unmaintained surfaces? Or insist that s school bus is useless because it'd be unable to compete with F1 cars in the Monaco Grand Prix?
The video shows the aircraft crashing while attempting a vertical landing.
I've seen the video. With the way the plane dropped and bottomed out the landing gear, it looks like either some kind of pilot error, or failure of the flight control electronics/software at a critical moment. The way that it "bounced" looked as if maybe something happened to cause the vertical lift fan (located just behind the cockpit in that version of the plane) slow down or shut off while the thrust at the rear nozzle, which rotates downward in that mode continued at full power or possibly even increased output.
My personal expertise is in structural analysis, but if I had to try to figure out what happened (from 1500 miles away, just seeing bystander video) what happened, my first guess would be that the clutch unit connecting the drive shaft to the lift fan failed, possibly due to overheating, while the airplane was in its final moments of descent thereby altering the dynamics of the plane and causing an unexpected hard landing and suddenly increasing the rear nozzle thrust due to relief of the loading of the engine turbine. The timing in this incident could have left the pilot unable to diagnose or attempt to recover the issue before the jolt from bottoming out the landing gear; the physical impact from that could have jarred the pilots hands off of one or more of the flight controls, or the pilot could have released something in order to attempt to make some corrective action. Either way, the plane appeared to have mostly stopped moving by the time the pilot safely ejected (maybe shutting off power just before punching out to be safe in case something that happened created a fuel leak which might lead to a fire even in a shut down aircraft.
The reports say that the plane was "owned by Lockheed Martin", which likely means it's one of the first few test planes to be built, in which case it's possible some component that was found to be deficient during the testing program might not have been replaced with the corrected version used in the production aircraft (which are transferred to ownership of whichever military is purchasing them).
Either way, there have been dozens of F-35B aircraft built, delivered, and deployed into service already and those planes have unquestionably been used to perform hundreds if not thousands of such landings so far. One failure among hundreds of successes is proof that manufactured goods of all sorts, and their human operators continue to be imperfect even in the year 2023. Hundreds of failures with only a handful of successes would be a reason to question something more fundamental about the design/equipment involved.
I've watched the videos of these in action. Given the level of stupidity and poor judgement exercised by my fellow motorists [as I observe and experience on a daily basis], there is no way in hell they are going to be flying around like George Jetson. Not without mass homicides.
Crossing the street is incredibly tough,
people look left and right but rarely look up.
My bill would mandate… [inaudible]
Sure, Quo, sure.
Not to mention all the accidents caused by self driving vehicles such as Teslas.
Most Americans can barely keep their car in one lane. All you have to do is watch a few dash cam videos involving car accidents.
It's murder out there!
Survival of the fittest!
"In reality, it's better described as a drone with a seat, resembling a dune buggy with propellers instead of wheels. It can reach top speeds over 60 mph and a cruising altitude of more than 1,500 feet in the air."
I bet it goes faster than 60 mph after free fall from 1500 ft.
"Will We Get Private Flying Cars Before the Pentagon Manages To Get This New Jet Off the Ground?"
From the video linked in the article, it doesn't look like they're having as much trouble getting the jets off the ground, as back on it.
And my Amazon ordered drone for kids is the same as a military drone. Apt comparison.
This is by far the stupidest article I’ve read on reason in a long time.
First off, the vertical landing version of the F 35 is only one of three different versions manufactured.
The vertical landing Harrier jet was a proven success, although difficult to handle.
The Israelis have used the standard version of the F 35 over Syria and it has defeated the Russian S 400 anti aircraft system.
So that version at least, is a success.
As for that joke of a car, 20 minute flight time is puny.
I’m certain later versions with internal combustion engines will be far superior.
I am also certain the average road rage type motorist cannot be trusted with a flying car
I’m certain later versions with internal combustion engines will be far superior.
And by "later versions" you mean 100-yr. old gyrocopters, gyroplanes, and autogyros.
Which, if they really wanted to increase the range, is where they are headed.
The F 35 is the greatest boondoggle ever foisted on the American people. The taxpayers are being fleeced to pay for this turkey of an airplane, while congress and sleepy Joe send billions more to that coke sniffing little midget welfare queen in Ukraine. The Hundreds of billions spent on this version of Ford’s Edsel, can only be described as looting the taxpayer. At one time the Air Force experimented with the XB-70 supersonic bomber but gave up after one crashed. Now the F-35 can barely remain in the air and yet the taxpayers continue to foot the bill even if they have to choose between eating for the week or paying for heating their homes. Ron Paul was right.
XB-70 was cancelled because advances in SAM tech by the other side made it less likely that any aircraft of its type could prove useful at completing any mission, as well as the fact that it was always going to be a less capable and more expensive way of doing what ICBMs were already able to do better (and without putting pilots in harm's way).
Experimental aircraft having issues and even crashing during testing is something that’s unavoidable. If there were no possibility of discovering technical issues with a design, there would be no reason to conduct a test phase on any new development project. Instead, the test phase is an integral part of every new development program, done for the purpose of finding and correcting issues which were either unexpected by the engineering effort, or weren’t noticed due to the complexity of the overall project being undertaken. No experimental aircraft of any kind would be entirely cancelled for no reason beyond a crash during the testing phase of development; that would be on par with cancelling a new car model because one of the testing vehicles ran out of gas or had a tire blow out on the road.
Sometimes I think that I am reading rt.com or sputnik news and not Reason. Russian propaganda has continually cast aspersions on the F-35 program, hmm, I wonder why? Obviously this is an active measure to foment such distrust in the aircraft system so that our government cancels it. Sure the F-35 has problems, but I doubt that a multitude of other air forces would be ordering it as the primary fighter if it was the POS that the article and the commenters seem to think it was. I doubt very much that Israel would flying it and ordering still more if it was as useless as you know-it-alls seem to think, or Japan, or the UK, or Holland, or Norway, or, as of recently, Canada. The obvious reason for that is the the F-35 is the only fifth generation fighter made by a western country. And any air force is going to select a 5G fighter over a 4G if they have the funds, especially if they are thinking of the future. Also, the F-35 procurement and operating costs going forward (ie not including sunk costs like development) on a per unit basis are actually cheaper than 4G or so-called 4.5G fighters currently made by Sweden and France. The Swedish 5G is at least 13 years away, probably longer. If the F-35 perfect? Certainly not. Would I have rather we stuck with the F-22 for the USAF and maybe made a naval version? Absolutely. The fact remains that the F-35 is the best all around fifth generation fighter made today, blowing away the systems from Russia and China when you look at total performance, especially when considering avionics and its placement in combined arms warfare.
A carrier-based version of the F-22 would likely have to have had its design altered so extremely that only some parts of the outer surface shape would end up looking similar (which is almost true of the F-35).
My initial reaction to hearing the concept of F-35 (one aircraft intended to replace the F-16, A-10, AV-8B, A-6, and someday F-18 among others) is that it was bound to be a boondoggle, and only politicians could be dumb enough to attempt it. There's a reason for why all of those different aircraft look very different
Based on meeting that criteria, the F-35 is truly a failure but that was never actually the intent of what the F-35 was going to be. In reality there was never any intention to attempt to use a single airframe for all of the functions, and the three variants are essentially three distinct aircraft which happen to have been designed concurrently and get assembled in the same factory using a handful of common parts between them. I'm not sure if there was ever any attempt to explain that reality to Congress (out of 535 members, maybe 260 of them could correctly guess the number of wings that most airplanes have, and probably at most 20-30 could sketch which direction the forces generated by each aerodynamic component act in) and/or the media in general.
One way in which F-35 has actually fallen short of initial expectations is in the ability to leverage economies of scale to reduce costs by making a production run of 3000+ aircraft, but that has been due to the nature of how US Government procurement actually gets done. Economy of scale kicks in when the parts to build 3000 airplanes get ordered in batches big enough to build hundreds or thousands of planes per batch (which would take 10 years to finish), and so far the funding to purchase major components is getting approved year-by-year at the Government level, then distributed through the supply chain in three-month increments; instead of ordering 200-300 airplanes worth of parts, they're getting purchased in batches of 10-20 (and in earlier years in batches of maybe 5-10). Just the manner in which Goverments operate renders the primary mechanism for reducing costs impossible.
It’s a fair question. Personal Air Cars have been ‘ten years away’ my whole life. The F35 has been ‘just over the horizon’ for a shorter time, but it has receded like Nuclear fusion for a long time.
Can anybody tell me what it is about the F35 that is supposed to be worth the money?
The F-35 has the most sophisticated avionics ever flown. Its sensor systems can give the pilot situational awareness like no other aircraft in existance; and these systems can distribute their data across other platforms so as to share that situational awareness with other vehicles or command and control.
That's what all the fuss is about. Whether or not there is genuine ROI for the taxpayer remains to be seen.
The west will continue to fail as it fall further into debt. Furthermore it will adopt social engineering as the final solution. If anything, people will not be allowed to own private vehicles as they will be forced to live in fifteen mile diameter lock down areas. You will not be allowed to travel any further unless medical emergency. Otherwise forget it.
You will own nothing so forget about a flying car. Ain't gonna happen.
You will own nothing.
You will eat bugs
You will be happy.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.PAYNET2.COM
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM