Manually-driven flying cars are a terrible idea even if they were physically practical, which they're not.
Yet we tolerate manually-driven groundcars AND manually-operated aircraft, both. Perhaps you also consider both of these terrible ideas. If not, how would manually-driven flying cars be any different?
As for practical, a few previous designs have proved to be quite practical, as I expect the Terrafugia Transition will be. They fly, they drive, the owners can operate them safely.
I believe that two of the four or five Taylor Aerocars are still in operable condition; I have seen one of them fly with my own eyes.
They might never make economic sense, because of design compromises and costs, but I don't see "physically practical" to be a barrier.
Re: Why so serious?
Yet we tolerate manually-driven groundcars AND manually-operated aircraft, both. Perhaps you also consider both of these terrible ideas. If not, how would manually-driven flying cars be any different?
As for practical, a few previous designs have proved to be quite practical, as I expect the Terrafugia Transition will be. They fly, they drive, the owners can operate them safely.
I believe that two of the four or five Taylor Aerocars are still in operable condition; I have seen one of them fly with my own eyes.
They might never make economic sense, because of design compromises and costs, but I don't see "physically practical" to be a barrier.