Talk:Flying car

#21 Status in list

I suggest the Status column for the Whitehead machine be shown as "Built", instead of "Not flown" (there are multiple photographs, after all). In the "Notes" column, let's add: "Historians dismiss claims that it flew." (With appropriate referencing) DonFB (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Other items

• AutoFlight (Prosperity, Matrix and Carry All) world's first formation flightworld’s largest flying car completed China’s first 2-ton eVTOL cargo trial World’s First 5-Ton eVTOL
• Cell Craft
• Skyblazer
• Rictor Skyrider X1 World's First Amphibious Passenger Flying Motorcycle ~2026-33007-63 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Aska 5
• XPeng AeroHT
• Streetwing
• EDAG AIR One
• Urban Aeronautics CityHawk
• Hongqi Tianlin 1
• GAC Govy AirCar / GAC Gove

Safety measures ~2026-33007-63 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the recent proliferation of me-too 'flying car' proposals demonstrated above, few of which seem to go very far, and many of which appear to be little more than exercises in shilling for investors, I am increasingly moving towards an opinion that this article would be best served by limiting inclusion (at least for more recent designs) to projects that have moved beyond the paper aeroplane stage, and actually flown in the configuration proposed: i.e. not just as a prototype, but as a certified passenger-carrying vehicle. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a platform for hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for hype(?) and futurist fantasy stated as reality

This is one of the worst wiki articles I’ve ever seen because much of it is talking about fantasy like it’s reality. “Regulatory regimes are being developed”— no they’re not. “For widespread adoption envisioned”—by who? And then the sources are futurist fantasy nonsense books like “what the year 2000 will look like” written a decade before, in other words, the sources are fortune tellers. The article needs a big revision for how each sentence is framed (with due weight and attributed biased perspective) similar to an article about a cult. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

there doesn't appear to be a problem with anything you've specifically mentioned. I especially love how you made an issue out of one of the sources being a book predicting future developments and then paid no mind to what that source was actually used for. Wiki would be improved a lot easier if you looked for real issues rather than making them where they don't exist. The real rasputin (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Could Tesla Roadster…

…be added to the “flying car” category? MaGioZal (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

No. Meters (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

No. Is it a real car that has demonstrably flown, or is it a publicity stunt used at a press launch? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I don’t like Tesla, but that car did fly S7Nightmare (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Being carried into orbit by a rocket does not make it a "flying car". Meters (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

With that kind of logic, the Wright brothers didn’t fly either… S7Nightmare (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The contraption that Musk demonstrated was not a 'flying car'. It had no driver or passenger - "to make sure we don’t kill anyone", according to Musk. If it did actually use any form of thrusters to fly at all (there are good reasons to doubt this, and personally I suspect it may have even been suspended by cables, since the way it reacted to the 'thrusters' didn't appear at times to make physical sense) there it is no indication that it was capable of operating as a road-going vehicle - Musk himself made it clear that it wasn't road legal (or safe in its current configuration). The only Roadster that Musk states will be made available with a flight capability will be "by invitation only, and given the obvious weight issues involved (and it's lack of practical use, as a non-road-legal single-passenger vehicle, likely very restricted in range, both on the ground and in the air) this version, if it ever appears at all, appears to be some sort of circus act, rather than a practical vehicle. Sadly, much of the mass media seems to be taking Musk claims (including the nonsensical claim that this is the first 'flying car', which is absurd, given the content of our article) at face value. So far, the sources we should be citing for the extraordinary claims being made - those qualified to discuss the technology and physics involved - have said nothing. I suspect that such sources may be forthcoming soon, but meanwhile, we are under no obligation whatsoever to take staged 'demonstrations' to invited audiences seriously. Tesla may at some point sell a standard no-thruster Roadster, but any claims regarding anything meeting the description of a 'flying car' will need much better sources than credulous regurgitation of a publicity stunt of a car-shaped-thing of unknown mass performing dubious manoeuvres. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Quite simply, it does not meet the definition of 'flying car' as stated in the first sentence of the article: "A flying car or roadable aircraft is a type of vehicle which can function both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft." The Musk gizmo functions neither as a road vehicle nor as an aircraft. -- JMC (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Do flying cars need a driver? No.

Do flying cars need a passenger? No.

Do flying cars need to be road legal? No.

Do flying cars need to be a practical vehicle? No.

Do flying cars need to be more than a demonstration? No.

Do flying cars need to have a known mass? No.

That sure was a wall of text giving no substance to the matter at hand.

Hopefully we can all agree that to be a flying car a vehicle must be two things. 1. a car and 2. flying.

Hopefully everyone also agrees that it is a car.

Meaning what must be asked is does it fly, and that is debatable because flying is not well defined. In that regard it certainly didn't go far or high so I'd be hesitant to call it a flying car. However height and distance do not define flight (Wright Flyer 'flew' for 12 seconds, covering 36m) so my feelings on flight shouldn't be used.

Lets instead look at what has already been added as a gauge. I count 6 entries listed as Not flown, 9 entries as Unbuilt and 2 unknowns.

If this page allows for 17 'flying cars' where none flew and not this airborne car, I must call shenanigans. Like for real, The notes for Curtiss Autoplane say "Achieved short hops".

Just because people have a hard on for hating Elon doesn't mean we have to disregard our standards or forgo principles. EatingFudge (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone also agrees that it is a car. How about no? The term 'car', as conventionally used, refers to something which carries people. I can think of no examples offhand to the contrary. Can you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

contained within this very article, vehicles considered flying cars and thus cars that do not and frankly likely will never carry people include the:

SkyRider X2R

Audi Pop.Up Next

Gluhareff' "Air-Car" (illustration in the final section)

every other one listed as unbuilt because i don't feel like listing them all

if an illustration counts as a flying car for the purposes of this article, why shouldn't a car-shaped object that presumably moved like a car under its own power and is being at the very least marketed as a car that flies? even if the entire demonstration was faked (not like he doesn't have a history of faked demonstrations) its still more """real""" that a sketch; the main question i think is whether it is marketed to the public as a car that can fly or a car that can hop short distances if you replace all the insides with compressed air Blobhaj (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I posted the following in a thread above, back in June: Given the recent proliferation of me-too 'flying car' proposals demonstrated above, few of which seem to go very far, and many of which appear to be little more than exercises in shilling for investors, I am increasingly moving towards an opinion that this article would be best served by limiting inclusion (at least for more recent designs) to projects that have moved beyond the paper aeroplane stage, and actually flown in the configuration proposed: i.e. not just as a prototype, but as a certified passenger-carrying vehicle. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a platform for hype. Recent events, needless to say, haven't made me change my mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, perhaps with an exception for vehicles of some historical significance with regards to the development of later flying cars (like the Curtiss Autoplane) Blobhaj (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@S7Nightmare: I was referring to the 2018 SpaceX launch, which used a Tesla Roadster as a dummy payload: Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. I don't think the recent "circus act" (thanks for the well-chosen wording, AndyTheGrump), real or not, qualifies as a flying car either. Meters (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

worth nothing that the article includes plenty of vehicles that never flew or were never built; I don't think not having demonstrably flown is sufficient grounds for not counting as a flying car and the skepticism around the stagedness of the demo would be irrelevant.

but also the FAA did say it's not an aircraft (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/16/faa-tesla-flying-car-01123316) and to me it looked less like an attempt at flying and more jumping Blobhaj (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. What do reliable sources have to say? I see extensive original research couched by personal opinions in this thread. I'm too lazy at the moment to copy the sources, but here is a screenshot of a Google News search; it is clear that the term "flying car" is utilized extensively. I don't have an opinion on this either way (as to whether or not it is a "flying car" or not), but I do think there is more than enough for a mention in the article.  — MWFwiki (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

From WP:OR This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources... It is entirely appropriate to evaluate whether a non-passenger-carrying non-roadworthy device meets the criteria for our article on flying cars. Wikipedia contributors decide inclusion criteria, external sources don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're violating OR simply by speaking about it here; I'm saying that using admitted-OR to justify exclusion or inclusion is not permissible, although I readily cede that is a fine line. Regardless, sources outweigh your opinions. Sources which counter the "flying car" narrative should be added, as well (of which I would assume there are plenty). As I am sure you as well-aware:

"Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information"

Obviously our content is guided by community consensus and we are not dictated to by outside sources, but we merely repeat what secondary sources say in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and manner. — MWFwiki (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Determining inclusion criteria for Wikipedia lists is something that only Wikipedia contributors can do - you won't find WP:RS even discussing the topic. So yes, we can decide to only include roadworthy, driver/passenger-carrying vehicles that fly in this list, if we chose to do so. And there is nothing remotely WP:OR about noting that the Tesla Roadster 'flying car' as demonstrated isn't roadworthy. Musk himself said so, when he showed off the unmanned contraption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether it is "unmanned" or not matters little. Are self-driving cars not cars when they have no passengers? Regardless, My point is that Wikipedia editors can justify virtually anything via consensus. It doesn't mean it is correct. Do sources confirm that a "flying car" needs to be "roadworthy" or that it needs to be deemed an "aircraft" by some regulatory body? Perhaps we are working from a false or exclusionary premise to begin with. One can only stretch the "editors determine inclusion" assertion so far. In other words, we don't get to synthesize or make-up our definitions in order to justify inclusion or exclusion (and perhaps our current definition of a "flying car" is perfectly well-sourced... I have not dug deep enough yet).  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

If I were to tie a toy drone to a rollerskate, would it be a 'flying car'? And yes, we absolutely do determine inclusion criteria for articles/lists. Nobody will do it for us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I reiterate my comment that it simply does not meet the definition of 'flying car' as stated in the first sentence of the article: "A flying car or roadable aircraft is a type of vehicle which can function both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft." If we were to include the Musk gizmo, we'd need to change that definition. -- JMC (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Tesla turns to 50-year-old stunt technology as it tries to Roadster again - Ars Technica, "If you want to make a car spin in the air, compressed gas is a good way to do it", Jonathan M. Gitlin – 16 Oct 2026 is a possible source, but doesn't repeat the "flying car" claim. . .dave souza, talk