Flying Cars for everyone!

Dan Thomas said:
Like NASA's Maxwell, it's just more wishful thinking. And there are way too many examples of wishful thinking showing up in the "news."

Suitable batteries are the big problem. They don't exist.
Click to expand...

Dan,

Your making assumptions about required flight time and envelop. I the cruise speed is 35 MPH, a 1 hour flight covers the straight line distance between the "rich neighborhoods" and the downtown of most major metro areas. So, a 1.5 hours flight time using FAA current VFR regs. This is well within the capability of current technology.
What is not well within current tech, is affordable batteries that allow high cycle times, and super fast charging.

I still think it will fail on the economics on it, but stating it cannot be done is not accurate.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I still think it will fail on the economics on it, but stating it cannot be done is not accurate.

Tim
Click to expand...
Time will tell, won't it? If the techology already exists, why has this thing not been beat into the market already? How many such attempts are flying at Oshkosh for an hour or so?
 
Pretty much with everything that works today, there was a time when it didn’t
 
Bob Noel said:
Pretty much with everything that works today, there was a time when it didn’t
Click to expand...


And with pretty much everything that doesn’t work today, there was a time when it didn’t. And for things that won’t work in the near future, too.

Your point?
 
tspear said:
Pipistrel was flying years ago, for fixed wing. Plenty of companies have demonstrated that it can be built, such as:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flying-car-faa-certification-alef-california/

Now, can it be economically viable? That I question.

Tim
Click to expand...
Pipistrel's electric range is low, its speed is also lower than its avgas sibling, and fixed-wing aircraft are FAR more efficient than any rotary-winged affair, especially multicopters. We've been over all that before.

That article on the ALEF certification must be read very carefully. From that article:

Alef, a California-based aeronautics company, recently announced it received a Special Airworthiness Certification from the Federal Aviation Administration, allowing it to fly the car in limited locations.

The company's Armada Model Zero aircraft received the certification on June 12, the FAA told CBS MoneyWatch. "This certificate allows the aircraft to be used for limited purposes, including exhibition, research and development. This is not the first aircraft of its kind for which the FAA has issued a Special Airworthiness Certificate," the agency said in a statement.

It's an authorization to conduct flight tests and maybe a few demo flights at airshows, nothing more. It is NOT certified and ready for market, and the flight tests will reveal whatever shortcomings it has.
 
@Dan Thomas

We might be debating the number of angels on a pin head. ALEF has a cruise speed of 35 MPH (if I recall correctly), it has a one hour plus reserve range, so roughly 35 miles no wind. Pipistrel cruises roughly 2.5 to three times as fast with roughly the same endurance.
Pipistrel is certified. ALEF, is demonstrating the concept, and based on other eVTOLs, such very modest performance range is very achievable.

I just do not get the economics of it. I can see a market, but I think the market is too small to sustain any company.

Tim
 
Dang kids again. Tearing up the boardwalk and scaring the horses with their newfangled motor carriage. Will never work. Just compare the price of gas to hay, if you can even find a feed store that sells it!
 
tspear said:
I just do not get the economics of it. I can see a market, but I think the market is too small to sustain any company.
Click to expand...
Curious. What market are you making the comparison to?
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. What market are you making the comparison to?
Click to expand...

Some of the information released on ALEF was a cruise speed of 35 MPH, one hour endurance plus reserve. With wind, you are likely looking at 25 effective mile range. This works well for the over paid executives living in NJ going to Manhattan; even across all the major US cities, there just is not a lot of people who fit the requirements. Has money to buy a flying car, lives close enough that short range does not matter, has a pilot license or can pay someone to fly, has a landing location at both ends in reasonable proximity to the destination, and the ability to have a charging station at both ends.

Like I said, the universe of people willing to pay that much seem really small to me. There are other businesses models where it might make sense, but none I can think of are practical yet.

Tim
 
tspear said:
....a cruise speed of 35 MPH, one hour endurance plus reserve. With wind, you are likely looking at 25 effective mile range.
Click to expand...


It's supposed to be a flying car. How much road time do you have left after flying for an hour? To me it seems more like a very slow fair weather aircraft that you can taxi at 35mph. Not sure there's much utility in that. It seems somewhat less useful than a powered parachute.
 
tspear said:
There are other businesses models where it might make sense, but none I can think of are practical yet.
Click to expand...
So you're basically comparing the Alef to existing transportation markets? Now what if you compare the Alef to the market Joby, Archer, Volocopter, Airbus eVTOLs are designed for? In general, people have erroneously believed the market for the latter group and similar vehicles like the Alef is to replace existing transportation markets or are strictly a "green" initiative. They're not on both accounts.
 
Half Fast said:
To me it seems more like a very slow fair weather aircraft that you can taxi at 35mph. Not sure there's much utility in that.
Click to expand...
The fall in interest in GA is partly due to the perception of a lack of utility. People want stuff that fits their lifestyles and is useful, but it also has to be affordable. This slow, limited-range machine, at $300K (which WILL go up) will not find a large market. Yes, a fool is born every minute, but this thing needs rich fools, which I think are rather rare.

Half Fast said:
It seems somewhat less useful than a powered parachute.
Click to expand...
And less safe. To be anywhere near safe it will need robust and redundant systems. The FAA might even demand ballistic parachutes effective at low altitudes.
 
Bell206 said:
So you're basically comparing the Alef to existing transportation markets? Now what if you compare the Alef to the market Joby, Archer, Volocopter, Airbus eVTOLs are designed for? In general, people have erroneously believed the market for the latter group and similar vehicles like the Alef is to replace existing transportation markets or are strictly a "green" initiative. They're not on both accounts.
Click to expand...

It is the very modest speed and range which I believe make Alef technically viable at the moment. I also think, the very lack of range and speed limit the market share. Companies which are planning air taxis, like many of those previously mentioned as eVTOLs have for the most part been predicting a brand new market. This market has overlap with Alef, but also covers many more uses due to faster speeds and range.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Companies which are planning air taxis, like many of those previously mentioned as eVTOLs have for the most part been predicting a brand new market.
Click to expand...


If so, they're in error. They haven't identified a truly new market. It's a new way of serving an existing market that is presently being served adequately by ground transportation. There won't be new travelers suddenly needing to go from A to B, so these companies have to offer a clear advantage over existing alternatives at a price users are willing to pay.

If anything, air taxis could be a disruptive technology. According to the Christensen DT model, these companies will need to find a new market where the technology can improve until it intersects the technology required by the larger existing market. I don't think anyone has found that new market yet; they seem to be counting on intruding directly into the existing market and that's a loooong putt.

I've read the hype from the popular magazines and websites, but I haven't yet seen a well-analyzed, persuasive business case.
 
1/2

I would define air taxis as a new market, not as a broader transportation market. However, that is mostly immaterial since whatever terms are used, if we agree on the definition, we agree on that the fact we have seen nothing which makes business sense to us.

Tim
 
tspear said:
eVTOLs have for the most part been predicting a brand new market.
Click to expand...
Its not a "new" market per se, but actually an existing market that recent technologies have allowed to be expanded on a greater scale and level than previously done. That market is actually part of a transportation concept (UAM) that has been around for quite sometime and with the entry of eVTOLs has seen a marked increase in development on all levels.

After the AGATE program ended in the late 90s the results of it led to NextGen which took UAM and expanded it in the 2000s with congressional funding and started the ball rolling. Its really old news for those who have been following it and its the "market" that all the eVTOL money is being spent on to take advantage of. What makes the Alef interesting is it can bridge the gap between UAM and existing transport methods.

I first learned of the UAM concept through AGATE and recently been involved with a support function of it. I can post some general information if interested. Regardless, interesting times ahead as the eVTOLs, H2 hybrid engines, etc go through the certification stages on a global scale.
 
Last edited:
There clearly is a market for point to point VTOL. There is no shortage of ultra wealthy people and corporations willing to spend big bucks for helicopters and associated infrastructure, just to get whisked from their high rise in NYC to their private jet across the river without dealing with tunnel or bridge traffic.

The question is whether eVTOL can broaden that market base by lowering the cost of entry. If you don't need a flight department, a private helipad, and a hangar, maybe that option becomes available to people further down on the ladder. Just the mildly wealthy.
 
Ed Haywood said:
There clearly is a market for point to point VTOL. There is no shortage of ultra wealthy people and corporations willing to spend big bucks for helicopters and associated infrastructure, just to get whisked from their high rise in NYC to their private jet across the river without dealing with tunnel or bridge traffic.

The question is whether eVTOL can broaden that market base by lowering the cost of entry. If you don't need a flight department, a private helipad, and a hangar, maybe that option becomes available to people further down on the ladder. Just the mildly wealthy.
Click to expand...
How does eVTOL remove the need for a private helipad and hangar?
 
Salty said:
How does eVTOL remove the need for a private helipad and hangar?
Click to expand...

One of the assumptions for many of the air taxis concepts, sorry, urban air mobility (UAM), is that the service is provided on demand, and can land in a parking lot with just two - three car spaces.

Tim
 
tspear said:
One of the assumptions for many of the air taxis concepts, sorry, urban air mobility (UAM), is that the service is provided on demand, and can land in a parking lot with just two - three car spaces.

Tim
Click to expand...
And the flying pebbles, dust, vape cartridges, etc won't tear up the finish of the adjacent cars at all!
 
tspear said:
One of the assumptions for many of the air taxis concepts, sorry, urban air mobility (UAM), is that the service is provided on demand, and can land in a parking lot with just two - three car spaces.

Tim
Click to expand...
Yeah, and we know that’s complete ******** too.
 
tspear said:
is that the service is provided on demand, and can land in a parking lot with just two - three car spaces.
Click to expand...
The eVTOLs will actually be using public street level dedicated vertiports where people can catch a ride. The size of the vertiport will be determined by the eVTOLs that fly out of it but will ultimately be similar a ground level inner city parking lot. Below is the current guidance.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/eb-105-vertiports.pdf
 
Zeldman said:
Even this one did not fare well...


ave-mizar.jpg


https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/the-flying-pinto-was-the-worst-idea-in-flying-car-history/
Click to expand...
Had the designer simply put a belly strap to connect the wing struts, the smoking hole episode would have at least been delayed.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Airfoils? Where? Those small side areas of the body? All cluttered up with screens and wheels and the pod? Good luck with that.

View attachment 118653

And where are the massive batteries needed to make it fly? All I see are small electric motors and a tight cockpit pod.



Exactly. Just like this one, promised by no less than Hiller (helicopter company) 67 years ago, for delivery 57 years ago:

View attachment 118654



Aircraft shop rates are usually a lot less than shop rates for exotic cars. An aircraft mechanic can often make more money working on cars or heavy equipment and trucks, never mind Ferraris. It's one reason why A&Ps are getting scarce.
Click to expand...
I hear the sound of a million drones. Ha, if you look at Moller's website, you can see his boondoggle sounding that way, and wobbling like a newborn's head.
 
Bell206 said:
The eVTOLs will actually be using public street level dedicated vertiports where people can catch a ride. The size of the vertiport will be determined by the eVTOLs that fly out of it but will ultimately be similar a ground level inner city parking lot. Below is the current guidance.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/eb-105-vertiports.pdf
Click to expand...


I’m trying to picture how this will work. The UAM providers will somehow, in the middle of downtown NY or Chicago or wherever, acquire enough street-level real estate for a vertiport? How many might there be? One per city, one per square mile, one per block...? (Keep in mind they need a clear path overhead, too; no wires, building projections, etc.)

Seems like a vertiport on top of a parking garage might make more sense than street level and be a more efficient use of expensive downtown real estate.

Will our theoretical user then take a cab or bus or something to the vertiport? That would seem to be contrary to the purpose and take away much of the appeal. Or does he get into a flying car that drives to the vertiport for takeoff?

I think the picture in people’s minds has been that the traveler steps out of the office or apartment and takes the elevator to the building roof to be whisked away, above traffic snarls and congestion. This sounds like something very different.
 
Half Fast said:
The UAM providers will somehow, in the middle of downtown NY or Chicago or wherever, acquire enough street-level real estate for a vertiport? How many might there be?
Click to expand...
No. As I stated they will be public vertiports, i.e., owned by the city, county, or state. The providers may manage them but I doubt the local port authority unions would allow that. Regardless, plenty of public property available for vertiports.

Half Fast said:
One per city, one per square mile, one per block...?
Click to expand...
Whatever the local UAM plan will call for. A number of cities in the US and abroad have started to move their UAM plans from paper to the next level in recent times. In some cities like Chicago they have infrastructure located downtown and will permit eVTOLs to operate out of its existing heliport/vertiport. In the UK they are starting the construction of London’s 1st vertiport. Keep in mind, UAM is a transportation system, eVTOLs are just a part of that system. Most plans also call for dedicated UAM corridors through the city limits similar to current helicopter corridors used today and will be part of the ATC controlled NAS.

Half Fast said:
I think the picture in people’s minds has been that the traveler steps out of the office or apartment and takes the elevator to the building roof to be whisked away, above traffic snarls and congestion.
Click to expand...
This was how they did UAM in the 70s with helicopters. People forget or simply don’t know that the UAM concept has been around for decades. One of the reasons it failed in the 70s, aside from slinging a main rotor blade off the roof on Park Ave, was that the service wasn’t at street level. In 1996, Operation Heli-Star at the Atlanta Olympics provided a real-time exercise of the street level UAM concept and its operation and control. It proved the concept could be done just not with conventional helicopters with noise being one of biggest problem. Ten years later when VTOL technology changed UAM moved to the next level of planning when it was included with larger concepts in RAM and AAM. Now UAM is a sub-level of AAM along with RAM (Regional Air Mobility).
 
Landing downtown, among skyscrapers, on a windy day. Yup. Imagine the wicked turbulence trying to flip that VTOL or whack it into some building.

Just try landing a normal aircraft crosswind and downwind of a nearby large hangar with a 15 or 20-knot wind. Done that many times, and it's not for novices.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Landing downtown, among skyscrapers, on a windy day. Yup. Imagine the wicked turbulence trying to flip that VTOL or whack it into some building.

Just try landing a normal aircraft crosswind and downwind of a nearby large hangar with a 15 or 20-knot wind. Done that many times, and it's not for novices.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, they won't have a pilot so that won't be a problem.
 
tspear said:
1/2

I would define air taxis as a new market, not as a broader transportation market. However, that is mostly immaterial since whatever terms are used, if we agree on the definition, we agree on that the fact we have seen nothing which makes business sense to us.

Tim
Click to expand...
Remember the Eclipse jets? The VLJs were supposed to fly you point to point cheaper than the airlines. The FAA was concerned about the massive increase in traffic, and how they would manage. It never happened and this won’t either!
 
Kinder said:
Remember the Eclipse jets? The VLJs were supposed to fly you point to point cheaper than the airlines. The FAA was concerned about the massive increase in traffic, and how they would manage. It never happened and this won’t either!
Click to expand...

VLJ failed because the costs were too high; does not matter if talking pure financial or talking about the operational restrictions. There were too many barriers to entry.
When you look at the UAM concepts (still dislike the name), the FAA and industry are making significantly progress on initiatives to reduce or eliminate barriers to entry. The problem I foresee is the economics largely depend on both the cost of energy storage (battery replacement), and the ability to get required energy density (kwh/kg) to have a useful/practical range/speed/load. Technology is making slow and steady progress on both energy issues (cost is moving much faster than density now). By the time the regulatory structure is in place (a couple decades to my cynical mind), these technical issues might be solved.

I am much less concerned about the issues that @Dan Thomas raised about wind around structures. I have seen some very impressive drone systems which are able to handle crazy wind patterns and gusts through sensors on drone and/or placement of some simple flags to provide optical information on wind. It is only a question of time and resources to solve these problems; and really does not require foundation/basic research.

Tim
 
Pilawt said:
What kind of nav/com equipment will this thing have? ADS-B?
Click to expand...
From whats been put out, the avionics will be dependent on the specific UAM Corridor requirements and its interface with the surrounding airspace classes. But all will have ADSB as that technology is what proved that positive airspace control was possible in an UAM/AAM environment. The Heli-Star ops mentioned above was the first real-time test of the tech/equipment that became the current ADSB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top