4 ms·

So, everyone can "drive" it, it would fly above and land into cities… Regulating this is going to be fun.

marcosdumay 10y ago
Probably as much as for helicopters. That said, what's the differential why one would want this instead of an helicopter? It it cheaper? Faster? The site is certainly not telling this.
- p1esk 10y ago
  Probably smaller, faster, and safer.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    This thing cannot autorotate. Sure, it could withstand the loss of a few motors, but it can't survive power loss. A chopper can.
    - p1esk 10y ago
      Yes, but some of the helicopter accidents happen because rotor blades hit something. Those would be avoided here.
      - loup-vaillant 10y ago
        Sorry, I didn't mean those cannot be made safer. I do sense a tradeof however: chopper blades can hit things, and this aircraft cannot handle power loss. Which is safer? I have no idea.
- runako 10y ago
  >what's the differential why one would want this instead of an helicopter From the homepage: "Access inner cities with less noise than a motorbike" That's a huge difference.
  - enimodas 10y ago
    I have a lot of trouble believing that. Ever been in the vicinity of a large drone?
- mithr 10y ago
  If they actually achieve their goals, then this would be a lot faster, quieter, more accessible, and quite a lot cheaper than renting a helicopter. Check the "mission" section on their site for estimated costs -- cheaper than or on-par with a traditional taxi. Aside from not being easily bookable, helicopter rentals today are quite expensive (hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour, depending on the helicopter, origin, and destination).
monkmartinez 10y ago
Not everyone and the regulation is already done. Easy, cut and dry. This is the part about the "flying car" that literally everyone gets wrong. If we are talking USA, ask the FAA if everyone can fly. There is the Class 3 flight physical that is required to fly as a PPL pilot... it is very, very thorough. If you can't pass that, there is a massive and growing sport class of flyers who are not full PPL's but still require pretty expensive training to get certified... and you are quite limited in size and scope. In short, there is not going to be a massive "flying car" moment in this country unless they are autonomous or remotely piloted by ultra qualified people.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  Hey, I'm basing this on the hype they are rousing on their website. From the second paragraph of their "mission" page: > We are bringing personalized, clean and affordable air travel to everyone. Either they're trying to con someone, or they intend to drastically lowers the bars to entry: it must be affordable, legal, and mustn't require much skill. I'm also seeing a beautiful rendering of those things flying over a dense city lower than some rooftops, and a landing pad with people standing on them, just after one craft took off. They're gonna need one hell of a lobbying force to pull that off. Or a couple decades proving this stuff is mighty safe.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Either they're trying to con someone, or they intend to drastically lowers the bars to entry: it must be affordable, legal, and mustn't require much skill. They explicitly say that the "for everyone" part isn't everyone can fly (or afford to own) one, just that you will be able to hail them via a smartphone app and they'll come to you where you need them, because building suitable landing sites will be relatively inexpensive and attractive to property owners.
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      Still, there's the problem of volume. "Everyone" has to mean "more than 1% of the traffic" to be at all meaningful. Air traffic controllers are gonna have to become bloody efficient to absorb that.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> So, everyone can "drive" it It's described as an air taxi, it references guidance to the pilot; there's no indication that it is self-flying. So, AFAICT, it would be flown by people licensed under whatever regime there is for pilots in the jurisdictions it operates in. > Regulating this is going to be fun. It's basically a faster, quieter helicopter taxi. It's not a particularly novel regulatory problem.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > We are bringing personalized, clean and affordable air travel to everyone. No way that'll happen under current regulations of the crushing majority of western countries.
  - Mtinie 10y ago
    Why not? Are you taking issue with their use of the word "personalized"? The implied statement that I take from what they are pitching is "I can request my pickup and destination" vs. having to head to the airport where I pick up a fixed route flight. That form of personalization.
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      I'm taking issue with "everyone". Which can easily mean they intend to take up a sizeable fraction of the commuting traffic, I imagine up to 10%, perhaps even more. The sheer strain this would put on air traffic controllers is unworkable, unless they change how air traffic control is made —'cause there's no way the air above cities is currently uncontrolled, and going through those zones take up at least 30 seconds worth of air controller's attention and talking. (Source: last time I got on a small plane for hobby purpose, we flew close to my city at some point.)
      - Mtinie 10y ago
        Ok, that's a different situation, thank you for the clarification. Automation will most likely force a reworking of the ATC network in the near future. For example, if delivery drones really do take of at scale updates will be needed.

Probably as much as for helicopters. That said, what's the differential why one would want this instead of an helicopter? It it cheaper? Faster? The site is certainly not telling this.

p1esk 10y ago
Probably smaller, faster, and safer.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  This thing cannot autorotate. Sure, it could withstand the loss of a few motors, but it can't survive power loss. A chopper can.
  - p1esk 10y ago
    Yes, but some of the helicopter accidents happen because rotor blades hit something. Those would be avoided here.
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      Sorry, I didn't mean those cannot be made safer. I do sense a tradeof however: chopper blades can hit things, and this aircraft cannot handle power loss. Which is safer? I have no idea.
runako 10y ago
>what's the differential why one would want this instead of an helicopter From the homepage: "Access inner cities with less noise than a motorbike" That's a huge difference.
- enimodas 10y ago
  I have a lot of trouble believing that. Ever been in the vicinity of a large drone?
mithr 10y ago
If they actually achieve their goals, then this would be a lot faster, quieter, more accessible, and quite a lot cheaper than renting a helicopter. Check the "mission" section on their site for estimated costs -- cheaper than or on-par with a traditional taxi. Aside from not being easily bookable, helicopter rentals today are quite expensive (hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour, depending on the helicopter, origin, and destination).

monkmartinez 10y ago

Not everyone and the regulation is already done. Easy, cut and dry. This is the part about the "flying car" that literally everyone gets wrong. If we are talking USA, ask the FAA if everyone can fly. There is the Class 3 flight physical that is required to fly as a PPL pilot... it is very, very thorough. If you can't pass that, there is a massive and growing sport class of flyers who are not full PPL's but still require pretty expensive training to get certified... and you are quite limited in size and scope. In short, there is not going to be a massive "flying car" moment in this country unless they are autonomous or remotely piloted by ultra qualified people.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
Hey, I'm basing this on the hype they are rousing on their website. From the second paragraph of their "mission" page: > We are bringing personalized, clean and affordable air travel to everyone. Either they're trying to con someone, or they intend to drastically lowers the bars to entry: it must be affordable, legal, and mustn't require much skill. I'm also seeing a beautiful rendering of those things flying over a dense city lower than some rooftops, and a landing pad with people standing on them, just after one craft took off. They're gonna need one hell of a lobbying force to pull that off. Or a couple decades proving this stuff is mighty safe.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Either they're trying to con someone, or they intend to drastically lowers the bars to entry: it must be affordable, legal, and mustn't require much skill. They explicitly say that the "for everyone" part isn't everyone can fly (or afford to own) one, just that you will be able to hail them via a smartphone app and they'll come to you where you need them, because building suitable landing sites will be relatively inexpensive and attractive to property owners.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    Still, there's the problem of volume. "Everyone" has to mean "more than 1% of the traffic" to be at all meaningful. Air traffic controllers are gonna have to become bloody efficient to absorb that.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> So, everyone can "drive" it It's described as an air taxi, it references guidance to the pilot; there's no indication that it is self-flying. So, AFAICT, it would be flown by people licensed under whatever regime there is for pilots in the jurisdictions it operates in. > Regulating this is going to be fun. It's basically a faster, quieter helicopter taxi. It's not a particularly novel regulatory problem.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
> We are bringing personalized, clean and affordable air travel to everyone. No way that'll happen under current regulations of the crushing majority of western countries.
- Mtinie 10y ago
  Why not? Are you taking issue with their use of the word "personalized"? The implied statement that I take from what they are pitching is "I can request my pickup and destination" vs. having to head to the airport where I pick up a fixed route flight. That form of personalization.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    I'm taking issue with "everyone". Which can easily mean they intend to take up a sizeable fraction of the commuting traffic, I imagine up to 10%, perhaps even more. The sheer strain this would put on air traffic controllers is unworkable, unless they change how air traffic control is made —'cause there's no way the air above cities is currently uncontrolled, and going through those zones take up at least 30 seconds worth of air controller's attention and talking. (Source: last time I got on a small plane for hobby purpose, we flew close to my city at some point.)
    - Mtinie 10y ago
      Ok, that's a different situation, thank you for the clarification. Automation will most likely force a reworking of the ATC network in the near future. For example, if delivery drones really do take of at scale updates will be needed.