Flying Cars for everyone!

[Dan Thomas]

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

No amount of sensors will control a VTOL in a strong rotor or any other vortex off a building. Those things can easily overpower the roll or pitch or climb or descent capabilities of almost any flying machine.

Ever flown through a pass in the Rockies when there's a 30-knot wind blowing across the ridges? That's one way how too many flatlanders get into trouble when they didn't bother taking some mountain training.

Been there, done that, had the training. It can be nasty.

 

[Salty]

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

Full size multi rotor aircraft are not as overpowered as the drones you see sitting rock solid in gusty wind. Those drones essentially have zero payload. They are all battery and motors. And they still only fly for 15 minutes because they are using so much power.
Reduce the battery and motor size to make room for passengers, then reduce power so it’ll fly long enough to have any use at all, and that aircraft will not perform nearly as well.

ever pay attention to the attack of killer wasps sound the drones make while they are holding still in gusty wind? Imagine what one will sound like with passengers onboard. Nobody will want one landing within 500 feet of them.

 

[tspear]

@Sally @Dan Thomas

Yes there will be physical limits the UAM cannot overcome. What those limits are? I do not know. And that is something that the FAA and the companies must determine.
In terms of noise, I have multiple window fans which are mounted on the window frame allowing me to still open/close the windows. Two smaller fans mounted on two windows about one foot apart with a higher total CFM than the larger fan on the other side of the house produce much less noise (measured using a phone app). Why that is, I have no clue.

Tim

 

[2-Bit Speed]

VLJ failed because the costs were too high;

Ah... and these brand new wonder-planes will be so cheap.

 

[tspear]

Ah... and these brand new wonder-planes will be so cheap.

Yes, and I have said the same thing multiple times.

 

[Llk]

Evtol companies are already signing non disclosures and briefing state, county and local governments on “vertiports” with an eye towards signing land contracts.

Some shippers / online retailers delivering by drone are doing the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tantalum]

There's an actual flying viable one that both flies, and drives on the road. It's Slovakian

It made the rounds about 2 years ago and I hadn't heard since so I thought it was dead but Top Gear, I mean Grand Tour, just featured it in their most recent June episode

This one isn't vaporware crap designed to milk investors out of their money and make a few people rich:

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Yes, and I have said the same thing multiple times.

Oh, well, in that case I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[midwestpa24]

The biggest problem I see with all of these eVTOL startups, they have entirely unrealistic expectations of cost. They think they can build and operate these aircraft for the same cost as a luxury SUV. Remember the original sales pitch for the Raptor? $100k for a 4 seat aircraft that will go 200 knots on 4 gallons per hour, something like that?

Anyone price a brand new 172 or Cherokee lately?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

The biggest problem I see with all of these eVTOL startups, they have entirely unrealistic expectations of cost.

My problem is... they're new. Or young. However you want to phrase it. People look at the rate that capabilities increase within IT (AMD have 16 core, 4GHz+ CPUs for under $1000 compared to the $1000 P4 Extreme Edition dual core of two decades ago) and think that they can create those same developments in other areas. I think there was a high-level Intel employee that made some derogatory remarks about the pace of medical discoveries because he thought medicine was so simple when compared to integrated circuits.

Same thing with these eVTOLs. They think that they can achieve the same increase in battery capacity (per weight) in the same time frame that Intel and AMD achieved in processor speed in the 90s and early 2000s (and core-counts in modern years).

 

[GaryM]

I think there was a high-level Intel employee that made some derogatory remarks about the pace of medical discoveries because he thought medicine was so simple when compared to integrated circuits.

That would be the Andy Grove fallacy, named for the former CEO of Intel, who thought that if Biopharma researchers were as smart as Silicon Valley engineers, Moore's law would apply to drug discovery and development as well.

The fallacy is that the computer industry creates both the software AND the hardware on which it runs. Pharma can create the drugs, but did not have a hand in creating the biological systems with which they interact. Often, those biological systems are only poorly understood, at best, and are enormously more complex than integrated circuits.

 

[midwestpa24]

The fallacy is that the computer industry creates both the software AND the hardware on which it runs. Pharma can create the drugs, but did not have a hand in creating the biological systems with which they interact. Often, those biological systems are only poorly understood, at best, and are enormously more complex than integrated circuits.

And aviation is dependent on physics, which is not easily worked around. And even harder to work around, Federal Aviation Regulations. A guy in his garage is not going to be allowed to start flying paying passengers. I mean its not like taking passengers miles under the ocean to see the Titanic...

 

[Daleandee]

No amount of sensors will control a VTOL in a strong rotor or any other vortex off a building. Those things can easily overpower the roll or pitch or climb or descent capabilities of almost any flying machine.

There's a lotta folks that don't care to fly in planes with people that they know are highly trained pilots. Put them in a box without a pilot and let it get tossed about in the winds. Perhaps over time the folks will adapt but I believe it will be quite a hard sell to get some folks into one of them eVTOL contraptions.

 

[Bell206]

The biggest problem I see with all of these eVTOL startups, they have entirely unrealistic expectations of cost.

Curious. What unrealistic expectations? The few I've personally seen and follow are realistic with their costs and expectations.

Same thing with these eVTOLs. They think that they can achieve the same increase in battery capacity

You'll find a number of eVTOL programs are using commercially available batteries and components in their designs and flight tests. Some have even started the certification process with the current battery technology as it meets the defined requirements of the project.

 

[midwestpa24]

Curious. What unrealistic expectations? The few I've personally seen and follow are realistic with their costs and expectations.

The flying car that started this thread is said to sell for $300k. That would be drastically cheaper than most other factory built aircraft available today, except for LSAs.

Even at $300k, how many "rides" would such a vehicle need to sell and at what price-point to break even? If you compare to ground vehicles, basic acquisition cost is well above what the average cab, uber, or even bus is. The only comparison would be to some type of exotic car, and you know what those rent for?

Tack on FAA required maintenance and inspections, insurance, etc., can any of these operations even come close to being affordable enough to expand the UAM market beyond what the current helicopter technology can? I see UAM simply supplementing or replacing traditional rotorcraft, but not expanding the marketplace. The average Joe consumer will not be able to afford UAM.

 

[Half Fast]

The flying car that started this thread is said to sell for $300k.

Yes, that's what they said. It's pretty easy to state a price for a product you don't have for sale yet. And even if they can sell it for that, how many customers will pay $300,000 for a flying car that only goes 35mph on the ground and in the air? Maybe it will be a status symbol on the golf course...

I see UAM simply supplementing or replacing traditional rotorcraft, but not expanding the marketplace.

Exactly. There won't be a "new" market; UAM will rely on people choosing UAM over some (cheaper) alternative, like a taxi. (And of course, they'll still need a taxi anyway to get to the vertiport.)

Disruptive technologies typically begin at a lower performance point and lower price point than an existing technology, creating a new market from customers who can't afford the existing solution. The DT then increases its capability until it intersects the existing capability, surpassing it and (by virtue of lower price) capturing a substantial share of the original market. Data storage (tape -> disc -> solid state) is the classic textbook example.

UAM vehicles are the exact opposite, having less technical performance and a substantially higher cost than existing solutions. Furthermore, the breakthrough technology (large capacity batteries) needed to make them work is still vaporware.

That makes for a very steep hill.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

You'll find a number of eVTOL programs are using commercially available batteries and components in their designs and flight tests. Some have even started the certification process with the current battery technology as it meets the defined requirements of the project.

You mean like the Joby with a range of less than 200 miles? Or the Alef (which started this thread) which hasn't yet had a maiden flight? Or the Sikorsky craft which is unmanned and has a MGTOW 115lbs? Or the Lilium which has done little more than take off?

So far, none of the craft I've found have demonstrated a range beyond one hour (except the Joby). The Joby is the closest thing I can find to something more than vaporware and I have to wonder if they had a 30 minute reserve after their 77 minute flight. If not, the 77 minute flight demonstrates a maximum endurance of 47 minutes. Even if they had endurance for 30 more minutes of flight, a useful endurance of 77 minutes is much less than traditional piston aircraft.

 

[midwestpa24]

Yes, that's what they said. It's pretty easy to state a price for a product you don't have for sale yet. And even if they can sell it for that, how many customers will pay $300,000 for a flying car that only goes 35mph on the ground and in the air? Maybe it will be a status symbol on the golf course...

Exactly my point, $300k (it won't be that) for something that is neither a good car nor a good aircraft. Honestly I've never seen a future for flying cars, as both require significantly different design requirements. Any combination of them makes for a vehicle that isn't good at either. Just like the old Amphibicars, they weren't good cars or boats. What's the cliché, jack of all trades, master of none?

 

[SkyChaser]

Maybe it will be a status symbol on the golf course...

Oh, you mean like when they won't be able to make it to an airport because they went into power saver mode?

 

[Dan Thomas]

We would do well to remember the Cessna Skycatcher cost fiasco. Projected selling prices are just that: projections. They are not real. The real price is whatever it turns out to be, after all the unforeseen hiccups are sorted out and paid for.

From Wiki:

Cessna President and CEO Jack Pelton had originally indicated that Cessna was aiming for a price of under US$100,000 for the aircraft, which Pelton indicated would be a challenge to achieve. At that price point, Pelton predicted that Cessna would be able to sell 600 of the aircraft per year.[29]

The 22 July 2007 announcement indicated that these price goals were not met. The first 1000 aircraft ordered were sold for US$109,500. The price was increased to US$111,500 in 2008 and US$112,250 in 2010.[12][30]

In November 2011, the company indicated that the price was being increased to US$149,000.

All orders were cancelled when it hit that price, and Cessna eventually scrapped all the remaining stock, including their engines.

 

[Half Fast]

We would do well to remember the Cessna Skycatcher cost fiasco. Projected selling prices are just that: projections. They are not real. The real price is whatever it turns out to be, after all the unforeseen hiccups are sorted out and paid for.

From Wiki:

Cessna President and CEO Jack Pelton had originally indicated that Cessna was aiming for a price of under US$100,000 for the aircraft, which Pelton indicated would be a challenge to achieve. At that price point, Pelton predicted that Cessna would be able to sell 600 of the aircraft per year.[29]

The 22 July 2007 announcement indicated that these price goals were not met. The first 1000 aircraft ordered were sold for US$109,500. The price was increased to US$111,500 in 2008 and US$112,250 in 2010.[12][30]

In November 2011, the company indicated that the price was being increased to US$149,000.

All orders were cancelled when it hit that price, and Cessna eventually scrapped all the remaining stock, including their engines.

Yep.

And the Skycatcher was at least a capable airplane with some degree of utility, and it was designed on well-known principles using proven components, not depending upon any new technology breakthroughs.

 

[midwestpa24]

We would do well to remember the Cessna Skycatcher cost fiasco. Projected selling prices are just that: projections. They are not real. The real price is whatever it turns out to be, after all the unforeseen hiccups are sorted out and paid for.

From Wiki:

Cessna President and CEO Jack Pelton had originally indicated that Cessna was aiming for a price of under US$100,000 for the aircraft, which Pelton indicated would be a challenge to achieve. At that price point, Pelton predicted that Cessna would be able to sell 600 of the aircraft per year.[29]

The 22 July 2007 announcement indicated that these price goals were not met. The first 1000 aircraft ordered were sold for US$109,500. The price was increased to US$111,500 in 2008 and US$112,250 in 2010.[12][30]

In November 2011, the company indicated that the price was being increased to US$149,000.

All orders were cancelled when it hit that price, and Cessna eventually scrapped all the remaining stock, including their engines.

If I recall correctly, the last batch of Skycatchers weren't probably protected when shipped from China and showed up covered in corrosion, and were therefore scrapped.

I honestly think BasicMed helped spell the end for many LSAs. The only appeal of most LSA aircraft was the lack of medical requirement. Otherwise, they were fairly high priced for their capabilities compared to their competition, 1970s and 80s Cessnas and Pipers.

 

[Bell206]

can any of these operations even come close to being affordable enough to expand the UAM market beyond what the current helicopter technology can?

I think they have a 50/50 chance provided they don’t start dropping out the sky on a regular basis. While the Alef appears to be targeted to private individuals, the general eVTOL market is targeted at the commercial transport level. At least initially, I doubt very seriously any of the current “commercial” eVTOLs will be available to the “average Joe customer” for purchase given the existing partnerships with OEM providers are strictly at the commercial level.

Keep in mind UAM is a transport system and helicopters, eVTOLs, etc. are separate components of that system. Its never been the intent of mainstream eVTOLs to replace helicopters in an urban environment only go where a helicopter cannot. But the main cost driver in this part of the UAM spectrum is measured in seat mile costs and occupancy rates. Now whether those costs are realistic I have no clue.

What I find interesting is the speed at which this industry is moving through the processes which is very unique for aviation in general. Regardless, all the UAM research and market studies that were performed years ago are coming into their own and are one of the reasons it is moving this fast. And had the FAA stuck to the original plan they wouldn’t be a year behind the EASA on the certification side. Plus with the reorganization of UAM into AAM and RAM I believe they are starting the next phase of development as shown in the NextGen master plan.

You mean like the Joby with a range of less than 200 miles?

none of the craft I've found have demonstrated a range beyond one hour

Don’t know where you got your info from, but you’re making assumptions that the target range for current eVTOLs is more than 200 miles with endurances of more than 1 hour. It’s not. And its been publicly stated as such. There have been a number of public reports and documents over the years that give more details on the goals of UAM and the basic concept on how it will mature over time with the FAA recently issuing its latest UAM update if you’re interested. The EASA also has several reports out as well among other agencies.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

And its been publicly stated as such.

Stated but not demonstrated.

 

[Bell206]

Stated but not demonstrated.

??? I believe I posted its been publically stated the targets for eVTOLs are not 200+ mile range and not over 1 hour in length. Depending on the source, initially, the average trip in a eVTOL will be 10-20 minutes in length and cover less than 30-50 miles. So I dont know where you are getting your range and endurance numbers from.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

??? I believe I posted its been publically stated the targets for eVTOLs are not 200+ mile range and not over 1 hour in length. Depending on the source, initially, the average trip in a eVTOL will be 10-20 minutes in length and cover less than 30-50 miles. So I dont know where you are getting your range and endurance numbers from.

The goal of the netburst microarchitecture was to reach 10GHz. They never reached 4.

They can state their goals as much as they want. They have demonstrated a (maximum) range of less than 200 miles and endurance less than 2 hours.

 

[Dan Thomas]

There's an actual flying viable one that both flies, and drives on the road. It's Slovakian

It made the rounds about 2 years ago and I hadn't heard since so I thought it was dead but Top Gear, I mean Grand Tour, just featured it in their most recent June episode

This one isn't vaporware crap designed to milk investors out of their money and make a few people rich:

Well. it's not electric. It resembles the already- flying Terrafugia pretty closely. And it seems to fly rather nose-high in the air-to-air shots, unless they're in slow flight for some reason. The front wheels come down pretty hard on landing, typical of an "airplane" with its mains far aft of the CG.

I got a chuckle out of the claim that it's the first flying car to land at a different airport than it took off from. Big achievement, that, but I think Molt Taylor beat them to it more than 70 years ago.

 

[midwestpa24]

??? I believe I posted its been publically stated the targets for eVTOLs are not 200+ mile range and not over 1 hour in length. Depending on the source, initially, the average trip in a eVTOL will be 10-20 minutes in length and cover less than 30-50 miles. So I dont know where you are getting your range and endurance numbers from.

So it does one flight of 20 minutes in length, then has to park for an hour or longer to recharge? Deadhead and repositioning flights wipe out half or more of it's useful charge? Even if a single flight isn't more than the quoted range, the required rest time between such short flights eats into its ability. The proposed verti-ports are going to be crammed full of aircraft waiting to charge.

 

[Bell206]

So it does one flight of 20 minutes in length, then has to park for an hour or longer to recharge?

Not at all. Part of the eVTOL proposed certification requirements is a 45 minute power reserve. This is why they arent designed for 200 miles and more than 1 hour endurance at this point like some people think. The power use for the 20 minute flight is minimal and will require only a fast top charge between flights measured in minutes. Regardless, I'm mainly involved on the hybrid side but have access to a lot of other info. If you and others think eVTOL wont work fine. I see a different point of view and try to share the info I have access to. But people didnt think jet aircraft were viable in the civilian world either. As the rotor turns....

 

[Capngrog]

What is the power use for a 20 minute flight? I understand that power use is very much dependent upon vehicle gross weight (among other factors), and I am wondering what the design size/weight and performance figures are for your projected eVTOL. I've seen several different design proposals, and many of them are focusing on 3 PAX plus pilot with autonomous vehicles designed to carry 4 passengers. Is your vehicle within the 3-4 passenger size/performance range?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

The power use for the 20 minute flight is minimal and will require only a fast top charge between flights measured in minutes.

Except for the 'energy gobbling' takeoff portion...

Yes. Let's put more takeoff cycles on the battery and motors for less flight-time. That's incredibly efficient.

 

[Bell206]

I am wondering what the design size/weight and performance figures are for your projected eVTOL.

As I've stated, I'm not directly involved with a specific eVTOL project. But two current projects entering the certification stages are designed for one pilot and 4 passengers, Archer and Joby. Regardless, there are numerous reports and documents in the public domain which can specifically answer your design/weight/performance questions.

That's incredibly efficient.

Efficient or not, those projects are moving into the FAA certification phase with several on the EASA side as well. So what have you done lately?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Efficient or not, those projects are moving into the FAA certification phase with several on the EASA side as well. So what have you done lately?

Taken awesome pictures of my cats!!

 

[Tantalum]

it's not electric.

Admittedly I skimmed the thread, did not realize this was a requirement

I'm not an EV hater, but with their pathetic energy density batteries have no place in airplanes right now. "1-2 years away" for the last 20. Cars, sure. Planes - no

 

[Dan Thomas]

I'm not an EV hater, but with their pathetic energy density batteries have no place in airplanes right now. "1-2 years away" for the last 20. Cars, sure. Planes - no

I think most pilots know that helicopters require considerably more power than fixed-wing aircraft to lift the same weight and move it at the same speed. That makes electric helicopters unlikely anytime soon. Multicopters, I believe, need even more power than helicopters. Most of them are using short, fixed-pitch rotors.

A 150-hp engine such as the O-320 might generate 500 pounds of thrust, max, with a 76" fixed-pitch prop at 2700 RPM. That won't lift any helicopter. But gear it down and spin a 30-foot rotor at around 450 or 500 RPM and it will lift a small two-place helicopter and its occupants. Sure, the helicopter rotor is articulated and its design maximized for its job, but the fixed-pitch rotors on multicopters look pretty much like propellers to me. I think full-size VTOLs won't fly well until they use articulated rotors, and then watch the costs go ballistic.

 

[Bell206]

Most of them are using short, fixed-pitch rotors.

The Joby S4 uses variable-pitch props and the Archer Midnight uses variable up front and fixed-pitch props in the back. The Jaunt Journey uses a flexbeam for collective pitch and variable-pitch props on the wings. However the Jaunt is an outlier as it will pursue Part 27/29 certification as a gyrodyne class and has the ability to autorotate. And even though the Jaunt is a solid year behind the other eVTOLs I think it will have the greater success in the long run especially if they add a hybrid powerplant into the mix as projected.

 

[Kinder]

Compare the disc area of a helicopter to a multicopter and you will find how much difference?

 

[Bell206]

Compare the disc area of a helicopter to a multicopter and you will find how much difference?

It’s disc loading that is the comparative value which is the ratio of the disc area and aircraft weight. In light helicopters the disc loading is usually around 4 lbs/ft. To use the Joby S4, I believe it is in the 10-12 lbs/ft range so doesn’t have the same hover efficiency. For comparison, the V22 disc loading is over 20 lbs/ft and one of the reasons it doesn’t autorotate very well. However, the Joby will spend most of its time in forward flight with lift generated by the wings which falls under a different set of comparative values. Regardless the Joby will travel a lot faster than any light helicopter.

 

[X3 Skier]

We would do well to remember the Cessna Skycatcher cost fiasco. Projected selling prices are just that: projections. They are not real. The real price is whatever it turns out to be, after all the unforeseen hiccups are sorted out and paid for.

From Wiki:

Cessna President and CEO Jack Pelton had originally indicated that Cessna was aiming for a price of under US$100,000 for the aircraft, which Pelton indicated would be a challenge to achieve. At that price point, Pelton predicted that Cessna would be able to sell 600 of the aircraft per year.[29]

The 22 July 2007 announcement indicated that these price goals were not met. The first 1000 aircraft ordered were sold for US$109,500. The price was increased to US$111,500 in 2008 and US$112,250 in 2010.[12][30]

In November 2011, the company indicated that the price was being increased to US$149,000.

All orders were cancelled when it hit that price, and Cessna eventually scrapped all the remaining stock, including their engines.

What’s the price of the $140K Icon A5 now? $270K to an eye watering $390K

 

[Kinder]

1946: All the WWII pilots will continue to fly and own their own aircraft, didn’t happen. 1970s: Everyone is going to be flying ultralights and there will be a separate Oshkosh fly in for them! didn’t happen. 2000s: You will be able to fly a VLJ point to point cheaper than buying an airline ticket. Didn’t happen This flying car/taxi will not happen either.