8 ms·

The Death and Life of Helicopter Commuting [video]

58 points by kenneth 9y ago

melling 9y ago
They could just extend the NJ PATH by 3 miles and make it a $3 ride to the airport. The distance to any of the 3 major airports from Manhattan is quite short. The idea that we need helicopters to make good time is crazy. It doesn't scale.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Fair point, though as a study in potential, promise, players, and failure modes, this is a fascinating story.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  I live in Manhattan and it's an absolute joke that there isn't good mass transit to any of the three major airports in the area (Newark, JFK, and La Guardia). There are various air trams and buses and such, but none that are directly part of the mass transit system. Considering that NYC has the best mass transit in the country, you'd think it could take you to the airports, but nope! The best ways to get to the three are subway to regional rail for Newark, subway to air tram for JFK, and subway to bus for La Guardia (which has guaranteed terrible traffic pretty much always). Contrast with Washington National Airport, which has a Metro station right at the airport.
  - alexhutcheson 9y ago
    Airports normally aren't the most valuable nodes to connect in a mass transit system, compared to other projects that could be accomplished with a similar amount of space and money. Alon Levy wrote a fairly detailed argument to that effect here: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/05/28/airport-connectors/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/05/28/airport-connec...
    - melling 9y ago
      According to the article: "The mode of transportation that best suits the needs of international airports is then mainline rail."
      - alexhutcheson 9y ago
        Exactly, and mainline rail is not normally what people are referring to when they complain that the airports aren't connected to NYC's mass transit system.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      There are 472 stops in the MTA subway system alone. Theoretical JFK and La Guardia stops would get more daily riders than the majority of the existing ones. Airport connections tend to serve higher value riders too, so you make back more in total economic value to the city from airport riders than from riders at some random stop. This study is treating all riders as equal.
bmomb 9y ago
Just a curiosity, in Brazil some executives are using ambulances for commuting[0]. [0] https://www.metrojornal.com.br/foco/2017/08/29/empresa-aluga-ambulancias-por-r-200-para-escapar-transito-em-sao-paulo.html https://www.metrojornal.com.br/foco/2017/08/29/empresa-aluga... (article in portuguese)
- rkowalick 9y ago
  Orson Welles also famously used an ambulance to get around to various radio shoes in NYC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOrson_Welles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOrson_Welles Due to his busy radio schedule, he was hard pressed to find ways to get from job to job in busy New York City traffic. In an interview conducted in his later years, Welles tells how he "discovered that there was no law in New York that you had to be sick to travel in an ambulance." Therefore, he took to hiring ambulances to take him, sirens blazing, through the crowded streets to get to various buildings.
  - brightball 9y ago
    There's a lady in South Carolina who's on medicaid that did that to the tune of costing the medicaid office about $400,000. I'll have to see if I can find the article. EDIT: Found it http://www.live5news.com/story/22075845/live-5-news-investigates-woman-accused-of-using-ambulance-for-taxi-service http://www.live5news.com/story/22075845/live-5-news-investig...
    - dogruck 9y ago
      Shameful to see the officials congratulate themselves on busting the lady after she copped a free ambulance ride 100 times. Seems like she was merely hacking a horribly inefficient system.
      - brightball 9y ago
        Can't argue that. Can you imagine the liability from the ambulance staff if they just didn't pick her up though?
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Tl;Dr - helicopters are noisy and expensive to operate, but hopefully electric 'quad copter' like vehicles won't be. The caveats being that batteries, air traffic control, and regulations have to change so in short, "I've your 25 today, perhaps your grand children will see a benefit here." :-(. Somehow I think even the hyperloop is nearer term than this technology, and its still out there.
- sp332 9y ago
  An electric helicopter would be cool, but a single large rotor is more efficient and quieter than four small ones. You could make make a two-rotor VTOL craft like an Osprey. An electric version would be more reliable since you don't have to move fuel and oil around in various dimensions. That would let you get lift from wings during flight, which means longer range than a helicopter with the same battery capacity.
  - bdamm 9y ago
    Exactly right. Aviators know that a propeller blade provides thrust/lift but also induces drag. Given a certain power output, the more blades you have, the more drag you have, but you don't get any more lift/thrust. Therefore, if efficiency is what you want you really want as few blades as you can get away with. Normally more blades are a consequence of other design constraints, such as how wide you can realistically build a propeller blade before the stress causes it to disintegrate. Small multi-rotors have to spin faster to compensate for their reduced efficiency, leading to the characteristic drone sound. Computer cooling guys know this too... bigger slower fans move more air and do it with less noise.
  - Gravityloss 9y ago
    With electric motors it optimizes differently. Torque is expensive while individual motors are cheap. Distributed propulsion makes a lot more sense. Let's say you have one 2 MW rotor disk. Rotors are tip speed limited. Let's make it have an angular velocity a. Torque would need to be 2 MW / a. Having four 0.5 MW disks would have same tip speed but half the span so double the angular velocity and thus each would need torque of only 0.5 MW / (2 x a). Torque dropped to one eighth, and the motor became lighter! Now, at the one end you have a traditional helicopter with one to a few main rotors, high torque, cyclic and collective pitch in each (because torque is slow to change). At the other end you have a huge amount of small thrusters that are directly connected to their own motor and thrust is varied by electric means. In between you have things like intermediate number of thrusters / rotors having maybe a simple gear and/or collective pitch control.
jonawesomegreen 9y ago
In order to commute to offshore oil rigs via helicopter you need to do a training course to learn how to escape a helicopter should it need to be ditched in the water. A large reason for this is that if its ditched it will likely invert as they are top heavy, which makes escape disorienting. This is one certification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Underwater_Escape_Training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Underwater_Escape_T... I've always wondered if folks commuting by helicopter like this have to undergo any sort of training. Given the nature of non-redundant systems in a helicopter it seems like having an emergency plan is prudent. I've never been on a helicopter except to go to an offshore platform though.
- ghaff 9y ago
  I wonder how common it is or if it's always required. When I used to travel out to oil rigs by helicopter (admittedly a long time ago), I never had any training. But it wouldn't shock if rules were stricter today. Given how helicopters are used for all sorts of scenic flights, I'd be surprised if it were any sort of universal requirement.
- trevyn 9y ago
  I've done some helicopter pilot training, and the only specific emergency plan I was informed of for passengers is to get out if appropriate, duck, and run forward. (To avoid the tail rotor.)
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  I think that rule applies for flights at night over water (as it's much less disorientating in light). I think that's the rule in the Royal Navy anyway.
Prego 9y ago
I wonder if "EVTOL" just uses the "E" for takeoff and landing and engines kick in for the flight.

58 points by kenneth 9y ago

They could just extend the NJ PATH by 3 miles and make it a $3 ride to the airport. The distance to any of the 3 major airports from Manhattan is quite short. The idea that we need helicopters to make good time is crazy. It doesn't scale.

dredmorbius 9y ago
Fair point, though as a study in potential, promise, players, and failure modes, this is a fascinating story.
CydeWeys 9y ago
I live in Manhattan and it's an absolute joke that there isn't good mass transit to any of the three major airports in the area (Newark, JFK, and La Guardia). There are various air trams and buses and such, but none that are directly part of the mass transit system. Considering that NYC has the best mass transit in the country, you'd think it could take you to the airports, but nope! The best ways to get to the three are subway to regional rail for Newark, subway to air tram for JFK, and subway to bus for La Guardia (which has guaranteed terrible traffic pretty much always). Contrast with Washington National Airport, which has a Metro station right at the airport.
- alexhutcheson 9y ago
  Airports normally aren't the most valuable nodes to connect in a mass transit system, compared to other projects that could be accomplished with a similar amount of space and money. Alon Levy wrote a fairly detailed argument to that effect here: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/05/28/airport-connectors/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/05/28/airport-connec...
  - melling 9y ago
    According to the article: "The mode of transportation that best suits the needs of international airports is then mainline rail."
    - alexhutcheson 9y ago
      Exactly, and mainline rail is not normally what people are referring to when they complain that the airports aren't connected to NYC's mass transit system.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    There are 472 stops in the MTA subway system alone. Theoretical JFK and La Guardia stops would get more daily riders than the majority of the existing ones. Airport connections tend to serve higher value riders too, so you make back more in total economic value to the city from airport riders than from riders at some random stop. This study is treating all riders as equal.

bmomb 9y ago

Just a curiosity, in Brazil some executives are using ambulances for commuting[0]. [0] https://www.metrojornal.com.br/foco/2017/08/29/empresa-aluga-ambulancias-por-r-200-para-escapar-transito-em-sao-paulo.html https://www.metrojornal.com.br/foco/2017/08/29/empresa-aluga... (article in portuguese)

rkowalick 9y ago
Orson Welles also famously used an ambulance to get around to various radio shoes in NYC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOrson_Welles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOrson_Welles Due to his busy radio schedule, he was hard pressed to find ways to get from job to job in busy New York City traffic. In an interview conducted in his later years, Welles tells how he "discovered that there was no law in New York that you had to be sick to travel in an ambulance." Therefore, he took to hiring ambulances to take him, sirens blazing, through the crowded streets to get to various buildings.
- brightball 9y ago
  There's a lady in South Carolina who's on medicaid that did that to the tune of costing the medicaid office about $400,000. I'll have to see if I can find the article. EDIT: Found it http://www.live5news.com/story/22075845/live-5-news-investigates-woman-accused-of-using-ambulance-for-taxi-service http://www.live5news.com/story/22075845/live-5-news-investig...
  - dogruck 9y ago
    Shameful to see the officials congratulate themselves on busting the lady after she copped a free ambulance ride 100 times. Seems like she was merely hacking a horribly inefficient system.
    - brightball 9y ago
      Can't argue that. Can you imagine the liability from the ambulance staff if they just didn't pick her up though?

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Tl;Dr - helicopters are noisy and expensive to operate, but hopefully electric 'quad copter' like vehicles won't be. The caveats being that batteries, air traffic control, and regulations have to change so in short, "I've your 25 today, perhaps your grand children will see a benefit here." :-(. Somehow I think even the hyperloop is nearer term than this technology, and its still out there.

sp332 9y ago
An electric helicopter would be cool, but a single large rotor is more efficient and quieter than four small ones. You could make make a two-rotor VTOL craft like an Osprey. An electric version would be more reliable since you don't have to move fuel and oil around in various dimensions. That would let you get lift from wings during flight, which means longer range than a helicopter with the same battery capacity.
- bdamm 9y ago
  Exactly right. Aviators know that a propeller blade provides thrust/lift but also induces drag. Given a certain power output, the more blades you have, the more drag you have, but you don't get any more lift/thrust. Therefore, if efficiency is what you want you really want as few blades as you can get away with. Normally more blades are a consequence of other design constraints, such as how wide you can realistically build a propeller blade before the stress causes it to disintegrate. Small multi-rotors have to spin faster to compensate for their reduced efficiency, leading to the characteristic drone sound. Computer cooling guys know this too... bigger slower fans move more air and do it with less noise.
- Gravityloss 9y ago
  With electric motors it optimizes differently. Torque is expensive while individual motors are cheap. Distributed propulsion makes a lot more sense. Let's say you have one 2 MW rotor disk. Rotors are tip speed limited. Let's make it have an angular velocity a. Torque would need to be 2 MW / a. Having four 0.5 MW disks would have same tip speed but half the span so double the angular velocity and thus each would need torque of only 0.5 MW / (2 x a). Torque dropped to one eighth, and the motor became lighter! Now, at the one end you have a traditional helicopter with one to a few main rotors, high torque, cyclic and collective pitch in each (because torque is slow to change). At the other end you have a huge amount of small thrusters that are directly connected to their own motor and thrust is varied by electric means. In between you have things like intermediate number of thrusters / rotors having maybe a simple gear and/or collective pitch control.

jonawesomegreen 9y ago

In order to commute to offshore oil rigs via helicopter you need to do a training course to learn how to escape a helicopter should it need to be ditched in the water. A large reason for this is that if its ditched it will likely invert as they are top heavy, which makes escape disorienting. This is one certification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Underwater_Escape_Training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Underwater_Escape_T... I've always wondered if folks commuting by helicopter like this have to undergo any sort of training. Given the nature of non-redundant systems in a helicopter it seems like having an emergency plan is prudent. I've never been on a helicopter except to go to an offshore platform though.

ghaff 9y ago
I wonder how common it is or if it's always required. When I used to travel out to oil rigs by helicopter (admittedly a long time ago), I never had any training. But it wouldn't shock if rules were stricter today. Given how helicopters are used for all sorts of scenic flights, I'd be surprised if it were any sort of universal requirement.
trevyn 9y ago
I've done some helicopter pilot training, and the only specific emergency plan I was informed of for passengers is to get out if appropriate, duck, and run forward. (To avoid the tail rotor.)
chrisseaton 9y ago
I think that rule applies for flights at night over water (as it's much less disorientating in light). I think that's the rule in the Royal Navy anyway.

Prego 9y ago

I wonder if "EVTOL" just uses the "E" for takeoff and landing and engines kick in for the flight.