Hopefully a system to keep them from crashing into the ground 
1 Like
After a well-publicized tragic accident, he’ll go on the record with, “even though I rode it 30 times, I knew it wasn’t safe.”
Thanks James!
1 Like
Irrelevant if it also comes with spandex jackets for everyone.
1 Like
Generally we are in agreement, but not in this case. These are not designed to replace ground vehicles. They are designed to replace helicopters and short hop aircraft. They are electric so they eliminate fossil fuel use. They are flying taxis with no downside to society at large. The goal is to supply short commuter flights of up to 150 miles at a price which is competitive with the airlines. Maybe try reading some of the development history and criteria on Joby Aviation and Archer Aviation. Joby is most of the way through FAA certification just like any other aircraft must do. Archer has just added an FAA expert to their development team and is only slightly behind. Both are working on the noise issue and are far quieter than any copter or propeller aircraft. They will have to comply fully with all current aircraft regulations, and any new eVTOL regulations which may be added.
2 Likes
The very phrase “flying taxi” implies they are intended to replace and/or augment personal transportation services, not just to replace the (precious few) legitimate uses for helicopters in or near urban environments.
6 Likes
OK, I’ll bite. What’s a “personal transportation service?” Is that a taxi, or a small shuttle bus, or a limo, or a private auto? I would think that you would be happy to have fewer vehicles clogging the highways.
If you could land at LAX, and take one of these to a small terminal a short distance from your house in Ventura, quicker and without fighting the traffic of the LA freeways, would you not think that would be an improvement? I do. And if they aren’t cost effective, they won’t succeed. You aren’t going to be required to fly in one, feel free to use whatever ground transportation service that you choose.
1 Like
An improvement for the privileged few that get to make personal use of these, maybe, but not so for the folks who live under the flight paths.
In order to make even the tiniest dent in freeway traffic the number of these 2-seat craft (one passenger and one pilot) would need to be ludicrously large. Far more than the air traffic control system could safely deal with. And even if it could, that would be a huge quality of life issue for the regular folks living under the swarm.
9 Likes
Seriously, this would be an even dumber approach to solving traffic jams than Elon Musk’s plan to dig a bunch of subterranean Tesla tubes.
Buses and trains are the only way to move enough people to make a real difference in road traffic.
There may be a practical application for electric “air taxis” in an urban setting but if so it would be a limited-use case like emergency medical transport.
3 Likes
3 Likes
I prefered the sequel “Master of the Flying Guillotine” starring Jimmy Wang Yu @euansmith…
I knew I should have red the rest of the posts before I posted.@anon33932455
As to this flying contraption I’d just like to reiterate “What could possibly go wrong?”
2 Likes
To echo what @brainspore mentioned, I would count noise pollution as a major issue. As yet unaddressed.
6 Likes
Out of curiosity, is there anything special about the multirotor designs that make them particularly amenable to having the computer do much of the work; or is it more of a historical artifact based on ‘drone’ style designs being mostly built for unqualified users(often hobbled further by very high latency inputs through a dodgy app interface and/or very low bidder RF link) in an environment where mechanical complexity is very expensive but electronic and sensor complexity is very cheap; while classic ‘helicopter’ designs are mostly aimed at qualified operators with very low latency access to the controls; in an environment where mechanical complexity is costly but manageable and electronic and sensor complexity is also costly to very costly?
2 Likes
In fact there is! It’s the simplicity of the flight characteristics and the level of control authority that makes it possible for a simple algorithm to fly it.
Having a vertical rotor at each corner means flight control is simple- more or less throttle at each corner to maintain level, more throttle on all corners to go up, and more throttle on two corners to move in a direction. No control surfaces, no swash plates, and flight inputs are fairly independent of each other.
Control authority is the other big one. The rotors have so much power over the vehicle that constant quick changes are possible. Computer control of vehicles with low control authority is really difficult because the software has to be immensely more complex to handle build ups of momentum, roll, pitch, and yaw over time. This is part of what makes controlling cars so difficult, even if they weren’t operating in such a complex environment.
Electric power is key to this as well. While it’s theoretically possible to build an internal combustion-powered multi rotor (and people are certainly trying) it doesn’t work well. Gas engines have poor throttle response, a very narrow torque band, and are very heavy. All of this reduces control authority. It’s also the reason nobody invented these until now- until we had lightweight, high power electric motors and batteries, none of this was possible.
Both those variables are also why we don’t already have autonomous helicopters flying around.
6 Likes
What about lamppost boats?
Or rocket trains?
6 Likes
Again…
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
