Anyone else tired of hearing about eVTOL?

Lachlan said:
I must certainly be wrong. I’m stoopid, right?

I would bet that an airliner-sized VTOL (with any power configuration currently in prototype testing) would generate more dB than a Jet-A turbofan. But a GA sized eVTOL is gong to surprise you. That’s one reason to read about them whenever you get the chance. There are new twists (pun intended!) in the methods to produce the same old thrust. Don’t be scared of change, Gramps. It won’t hurtcha. Or you can stay on the porch and yell at clouds. :)
Click to expand...

Most of the noise from aircraft is generated from the propeller. So with most of the eVTOL designs I've seen, you end up with 4+ propellers, sometimes 8. Should sound like a whisper . . .
 
Albany Tom said:
Yes, tired of it. But they don't have to actually be safe to be marketable. They just have to have the appearance of being safe. Like self driving cars. They drive under trailers and into fire trucks, but nobody seems to mind too much.
Click to expand...
Nobody minds the self-driving cars, 'cuz they are statistically better than human-driven cars.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
No ****. Talk about dropping your dick on the table. Insulting more than half of the US population because of a bigoted view of the people in a certain geographical area. So sophisticated.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out how not to take this a bit personally. But I can't. So hey @Lachlan I think imma need an explanation. Either that or, for the first time on this forum, I may have been offended.

The above text has been redacted and @Deelee and @Lachlan have officially made up and are now aviation-themed-forum-pals. :)

Back on topic -

I am not sure how feasible any of this will ever be for GA. But I am a fan of Austin Meyer and his flight sim product x-plane. He is an investor in BETA which makes the ALIA - https://www.beta.team/ Kind of cool...
 
Last edited:
The cost will always self-regulate new ideas in aviation. No need to be concerned about everyone flying around in eVTOL’s as the average person can’t even afford a new Cessna 172 (designed in the 1950’s!) An R-44 sells for about $500,000 and does everything better than the latest proposals coming out of fantasy land, yet the skies are not full of them. Can you make a Robinson fly autonomously and safely? Maybe, but add at least another half million to the price and see how many commuters buy one.
Can you imagine a sky full of eVTOL’s commuting to work on a foggy Monday morning in Los Angeles? Autonomous or not, a rather unpleasant thought. Also, Walt Disney had all these great ideas (and the money) for flying cars back in his day, but I noticed all his ideas for the future are still nailed to the ground spinning round and round and going nowhere. Dreamers are important, but dreams are limited by practicality.
 
I agree. I suppose the business case will make sense one day... no gas $ spent (typically 17-20% of an airlines' revenues), and no $ pilot wages, pensions, strikes, training, and personal days off. Oh, and battery life beyond a standard pizza delivery run would help. Yeah, I don't see it either. Maybe they will delivery me to the cemetery in one a long (really long I hope) time from now.
 
We old guys are cynical because we were sold magazines that fed us garbage like this:

upload_2021-9-2_11-8-55.jpeg

upload_2021-9-2_11-11-3.jpeg

upload_2021-9-2_11-13-1.jpeg

All of this is driven by the desire to make money. Magazines sold by making empty promises to readers. Vaporware has replaced the magazine, but the motive is still the same: get the reader's money. Someday someone might honestly come up with a real, practical, safe eVTOL machine, but it will likely appear out of nowhere after it has been developed and tested and proven and will get lots of legitimate interest by flying around Oshkosh all day every day for a week.
 
AGLyme said:
I agree. I suppose the business case will make sense one day... no gas $ spent (typically 17-20% of an airlines' revenues), and no $ pilot wages, pensions, strikes, training, and personal days off. Oh, and battery life beyond a standard pizza delivery run would help. Yeah, I don't see it either. Maybe they will delivery me to the cemetery in one a long (really long I hope) time from now.
Click to expand...

By that time you’ll be turned into “Soylent Green” and save a bunch of money. After all, wouldn’t that be the “green”way to handle that particular event?
 
Deelee said:
I'm trying to figure out how not to take this a bit personally. But I can't. So hey @Lachlan I think imma need an explanation.
Click to expand...

Salty said that people are stupid, “all inclusive.” I suggested that perhaps he has not spent time in the company of intellectually gifted people, and also that his map did not provide evidence that he’s “been everywhere, man.” (May Johnny Cash Rest In Peace. One piece at a time, of course!) You can choose to be offended if you want. :) It’s your God-given right as an American. ;) First beer is my treat. After that you’re on your own. Cheers!

I type poorly on my phone when I’m outside on a rare sunny day. Edited for my spelling/autofill errors.
 
No one has mentioned SPACs. That’s what’s driving this. All of these companies realized that they could only fleece Venture Capitalists but for so long and needed one tap into a new source of funding: pimple-faced 23 year olds with $100 and a Robinhood account. They all feel like they missed out on Apple, Amazon, Tesla, etc., so they want to get rich on the next big idea. Urban air mobility offers that perfect balance of jetsons, greenism, and perceived disruptor technology that’s irresistible to that generation. How do you think these start ups are literally getting billions of dollars.

SPACs basically facilitate these start ups to publically trade before even a dollar of revenue is ever generated.
 
Like I said earlier, due to this subject pretty much pitching tent in my yard I did a lot of research and it seems that many people here are not aware of the current state of this eVTOL technology. Both Lilium and Joby have full sized, flying prototypes that have a thousand or more test flight hours logged. They are not going to be "airliner" sized, they are 4 to 6 seats so more like the size of a Cessna 210 and because of the multiple rotors, or ducted fans in the Lilium case, they are quieter than a piston driven GA aircraft and certainly quieter than a helicopter. They've already worked out most of the issues for a speed of 160 to 200 kts and a range of 100 miles with reserve. So the things do work but there still needs to be infrastructure (you need to land at a charging station) and there still needs to be certification (for which the FAA is far more accommodating than most of you are imagining). But foremost the business model has to work. You pay a couple million dollars for one of these it has to make money, they aren't being marketed as Icon A5 sport toys. That, I believe is going to be the downfall. I just don't see them turning a profit as an air taxi, at least not in the foreseeable future. If the whole thing does take off (pun intended) as they are imagining then be prepared to see the sky littered with these things, you won't be able to walk outside in an urban environment, and not see one in the sky.
 
Last edited:
Silvaire said:
Both Lilium and Joby have full sized, flying prototypes that have a thousand or more test flight hours logged.
Click to expand...

Source?

Not trying to be snarky, as I know some of these eVTOL prototypes have flown under their own power. But, "a thousand or more hours?"

I went on Lilium's website to try to find more info. It's a struggle - the "News" section of Lilium's website is chock-full of announcements of new board members, new VC funding, etc. Just about everything except, you know, news about their prototype flying.

Also, didn't Lilium's first prototype burn to the ground awhile back?

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but 1,000+ hours on any of these prototypes sounds suspect.
 
The point has actually been really well made. We have half million dollar machines that can do this job right now. Helicopters. They don't fill the sky, and they work better than the VTOLs will in our lifetime. Sky isn't full of them. The VTOLs aren't going to be anything but more expensive to operate methinks.

That said, there was a boom in little two-seater trainers after WWII for a perceived market for the returning GIs. The market didn't materialize, lots of companies went TU, but we're left with all these great airframes. Maybe the VTOL thing won't go anywhere, but if we're lucky they'll make some cool airplanes from venture capital before they go TU, and we'll be the beneficiaries.
 
Lachlan said:
Salty said that people are stupid, “all inclusive.” I suggested that perhaps he has not spent time in the company of intellectually gifted people, and also that his map did not provide evidence that he’s “been everywhere, man.” (May Johnny Cash Rest In Peace. One piece at a time, of course!) You can choose to be offended if you want. :) It’s your God-given right as an American. ;) First beer is my treat. After that you’re on your own. Cheers!

I type poorly on my phone when I’m outside on a rare sunny day. Edited for my spelling/autofill errors.
Click to expand...
It appears that you do not understand what I mean when I say "People are stupid <all inclusive>". That's ok.
 
To mangle a phase from 1984 "People are stupid, but some are more stupid". ROTFL
 
fasteddie said:
Source?

Not trying to be snarky, as I know some of these eVTOL prototypes have flown under their own power. But, "a thousand or more hours?"...
Click to expand...

Right, I'm pretty sure that number means all of their testing which would include scale models used in early development. There is a lot of secrecy involved in this tech and as we are seeing emerge now litigation such as the law suits between Archer and Wisk. Many of them have big pocket backers like Boeing, Airbus, Toyota, etc... It all seems rather ludicrous but I remember thinking years ago how silly it seemed to me that people were investing so much in stupid things like Facebook so don't count on me for any sage advice.
 
steingar said:
That said, there was a boom in little two-seater trainers after WWII for a perceived market for the returning GIs. The market didn't materialize, lots of companies went TU, but we're left with all these great airframes. Maybe the VTOL thing won't go anywhere, but if we're lucky they'll make some cool airplanes from venture capital before they go TU, and we'll be the beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

I've heard the same said about the railroads in the 1800s. Over-expansion and over-speculation led to many railroad bankruptcies in the late 1800's. But the upshot was the country was left with an incredible amount of railroad infrastructure (rails, bridges, stations, etc), much of which is still in use today.

With eVTOL, I question if they'll leave behind anything of value, or just a bunch of snazzy web sites and some shiny mockups. For the moment, I guess they can all claim they have some sort of incredibly valuable breakthrough technology, that they just can't quite let anyone see yet (but just wait, they'll reveal it soon, in the meantime, just buy their stock).

Aerion Supersonic's assets are slated to go through liquidation in December. They also seemed to be nothing more than a bunch of vaporware, but hopefully the liquidation will show what they had (if anything).
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I understand the appeal to broad journalism. Greenism has many adherents.

But I don’t understand the breathless, uncritical prose from the likes of FLYING and AOPA Pilot. Their readers are actual pilots, with about as much interest in Urban Air Mobility as the readers of Hot Rod would have in moving sidewalks.
Click to expand...

The subject has infected AW&ST too. For some reason I thought they would provide rational and sober evaluation of the subject, but the articles they print read like press releases from the companies being discussed.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
...But I don’t understand the breathless, uncritical prose from the likes of FLYING and AOPA Pilot. Their readers are actual pilots, with about as much interest in Urban Air Mobility as the readers of Hot Rod would have in moving sidewalks.
Click to expand...
Advertising. How many of those articles are paid content?

FormerHangie said:
Where are you going to get the hydrogen from?
Click to expand...
One of things I liked about United Nuclear's approach to hydrogen-powered cars was their off-the-grid solar production of hydrogen from solar power.

Also the fuel system modifications to run on hydrogen were minor, so the equipped vehicles could be dual fuel, gas and H2.
 
The Raptor NG is electric-powered.

All it needs is another pair of ducted fan.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I understand the appeal to broad journalism. Greenism has many adherents.

But I don’t understand the breathless, uncritical prose from the likes of FLYING and AOPA Pilot. Their readers are actual pilots, with about as much interest in Urban Air Mobility as the readers of Hot Rod would have in moving sidewalks.
Click to expand...
Because they are pilot-writers and not pilot-engineers? I would slay their asses in every article.
 
FormerHangie said:
Where are you going to get the hydrogen
Click to expand...
The Achilles of this abundant, clean, magic fuel! I really don't see a serious future in batteries, (A) because the improvements are slow and incremental and this 'breakthrough tech' may never happen, and (B) Lithium mining.. we're trading one evil for another with that. It's not free to the environment or otherwise to mine this stuff. Hydrogen is where it's at, the puzzle has to be solved of how to get it easily. Toyota has it 'right' with their work on Hydrogen, but Tesla beat them to the punch with marketing sex appeal

Interestingly enough, the Orkney islands have too much electricity, and they've been experimenting with using that to liberate hydrogen

 
Old97 said:
pilot-writers and not pilot-engineers
Click to expand...
but they seem to be on a 'different page' than most pilots.. I think they're trying to appeal to the millennial gen Z 'like and subscribe' YouTube audience non pilots. If it was strictly an article by pilots / for pilots it wouldn't have all that trash in there

SAIL magazine has drifted from its roots too
 
Albany Tom said:
Yes, tired of it. But they don't have to actually be safe to be marketable. They just have to have the appearance of being safe. Like self driving cars. They drive under trailers and into fire trucks, but nobody seems to mind too much.
Click to expand...

They're safer than current cars, driven by all kinds of idiots.

For some reason people seem to think that a new tech such as self driving is only acceptable if it's 100% perfectly safe. That's nonsense. It just needs to be better than the 38,000 people who currently die on US roads each year.
 
Katamarino said:
They're safer than current cars, driven by all kinds of idiots.

For some reason people seem to think that a new tech such as self driving is only acceptable if it's 100% perfectly safe. That's nonsense. It just needs to be better than the 38,000 people who currently die on US roads each year.
Click to expand...
Maybe technically true, but people are more understanding of human error than machine error. Also, there is fear that accidents could be caused either accidentally by rolling out a bug in the code, or intentionally by someone with nefarious motives. I personally know of a developer that went to jail after he put an Easter egg into code just before he quit. They didn't find it until a year later when it "woke up" and caused 100's of thousands of dollars damage to the company. Crap like that can and will happen. Imagine a 9-11 style terrorist attack where every car on the road at 9 am on 9/11 floors it and swerves off the road.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Maybe technically true, but people are more understanding of human error than machine error. Also, there is fear that accidents could be caused either accidentally by rolling out a bug in the code, or intentionally by someone with nefarious motives. I personally know of a developer that went to jail after he put an Easter egg into code just before he quit. They didn't find it until a year later when it "woke up" and caused 100's of thousands of dollars damage to the company. Crap like that can and will happen.
Click to expand...
Oh, man. . . .kind of like in the 1970’s, when disgruntled auto workers supposedly put boxes of nuts and bolts under fenders, just to make a rattle in a new car.
 
Salty said:
Maybe technically true, but people are more understanding of human error than machine error. Also, there is fear that accidents could be caused either accidentally by rolling out a bug in the code, or intentionally by someone with nefarious motives. I personally know of a developer that went to jail after he put an Easter egg into code just before he quit. They didn't find it until a year later when it "woke up" and caused 100's of thousands of dollars damage to the company. Crap like that can and will happen. Imagine a 9-11 style terrorist attack where every car on the road at 9 am on 9/11 floors it and swerves off the road.
Click to expand...


 
Katamarino said:
driven by all kinds of idiots
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm in the minority but I trust machines over most people

Salty said:
but people are more understanding of human error than machine error
Click to expand...
This is also true. How many planes crash because of human error? Back when the Airbus plane went down automation was blamed heavily, but up until Boeing came along that was (if I recall correctly) the only major accident that could potentially be somewhat tied to Airbus' control logic

It's sorta silly really.. how many of you would trust your STEC / GFC / etc., autopilot in hard IMC vs your pilot buddy sitting next to you.
 
Katamarino said:
They're safer than current cars, driven by all kinds of idiots.

For some reason people seem to think that a new tech such as self driving is only acceptable if it's 100% perfectly safe. That's nonsense. It just needs to be better than the 38,000 people who currently die on US roads each year.
Click to expand...

:) That's not it at all. Self driving cars are based, in part, on a premise that any pilot should know is completely false, and unsafe. Specifically, that the driver is supposed to "follow" along with the car, and take over if the software puts the car into a dangerous situation. The problem is, that doesn't take into consideration the amount of time it takes for a human to react to the situation.

Software control of mechanical systems has been around for a long time, and neither the technical or legal aspects of it are appreciated very well by either the news media or the general public. From a perspective of technology, processes, systems management, development, legislation, it's in it's infancy. Roughly equivalent, in my view, to the technology around steam engines before ATSM was founded.

After the general public figures it out, and is tired of software companies killing their friends by driving their cars into them while they were responding to an emergency scene, we'll get some changes. Until then, it's just be shiny new technology that everyone drools over, with the people bankrolling just writing off the problems as acceptable losses.
 
Salty said:
To mangle a phase from 1984 "People are stupid, but some are more stupid". ROTFL
Click to expand...
Gag me with a spoon. Same era? I wouldn't know. But it's how I feel about the EVTOL hype...I think
 
Silvaire said:
Like I said earlier, due to this subject pretty much pitching tent in my yard I did a lot of research and it seems that many people here are not aware of the current state of this eVTOL technology. Both Lilium and Joby have full sized, flying prototypes that have a thousand or more test flight hours logged. They are not going to be "airliner" sized, they are 4 to 6 seats so more like the size of a Cessna 210 and because of the multiple rotors, or ducted fans in the Lilium case, they are quieter than a piston driven GA aircraft and certainly quieter than a helicopter. They've already worked out most of the issues for a speed of 160 to 200 kts and a range of 100 miles with reserve. So the things do work but there still needs to be infrastructure (you need to land at a charging station) and there still needs to be certification (for which the FAA is far more accommodating than most of you are imagining). But foremost the business model has to work. You pay a couple million dollars for one of these it has to make money, they aren't being marketed as Icon A5 sport toys. That, I believe is going to be the downfall. I just don't see them turning a profit as an air taxi, at least not in the foreseeable future. If the whole thing does take off (pun intended) as they are imagining then be prepared to see the sky littered with these things, you won't be able to walk outside in an urban environment, and not see one in the sky.
Click to expand...
Don't forget blackfly and their "4300+ flights and 35,000+ miles flown"
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Oh, man. . . .kind of like in the 1970’s, when disgruntled auto workers supposedly put boxes of nuts and bolts under fenders, just to make a rattle in a new car.
Click to expand...
.

Its true .... I worked in autobody back then and a customer with a new car asked me to diagnose a noise he heard every time he went around a corner.

I took it for a drive and determined it came from inside the door .... took the panel off and there was an empty whiskey bottle rolling around in there.

Quality control was horrible back then , especially Chevrolet's . to get the front fenders to line up with the doors they used stacks of shims under the bolts to make everything fit.

.
 
Tantalum said:
Yup. I'm in the minority but I trust machines over most people...
Click to expand...
At least currently, trusting a machine is trusting a person or persons--faceless, near-pubescent, software developers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top