3 ms·

Very talented bunch. I've seen the tech and the engineering behind it, and I have no doubt that they can build the aircraft they're claiming here. What remains

by asteli 9y ago

Very talented bunch. I've seen the tech and the engineering behind it, and I have no doubt that they can build the aircraft they're claiming here. What remains to be seen is how they interface with the existing aviation regulatory framework. They even hint at this in the video, with the "making this useful to society" line, and what looks to me like regulatory allowances from NZ. I'm fairly certain that they know powered lift isn't compatible with dense urban environments, so don't expect a Fifth Element situation in NYC anytime soon. :) I'm super curious to see what the use case ends up being. My money's on super short haul, like Mountain View to Oakland sort of distances, with numerous small, dedicated taxiports similar in scale to ferry terminals.

aetherson 9y ago
I think that the interesting use for air taxis isn't in going through cities, it's in traversing terrain that's difficult or impossible to build roads through. So going over water or rugged terrain like steep hills or ravines. In the SF area, there's not a ton of use for it, but perhaps a fast hop from Treasure Island to the Embarcadero (feeding into BART) would make the proposed redevelopment of Treasure/Yerba Buena island more attractive (as of right now, it's hard to imagine thinking it was a great idea to live some place where you had to take the Bay Bridge to get literally anywhere). Going mostly over unpopulated terrain would limit (not eliminate, just limit) both safety and noise concerns.
- asteli 9y ago
  The use case is oddly specific- ideally you have a region that's geographically challenging, but not sparse enough that you can just wedge an airstrip somewhere and call it a day. It also can't be so developed that there's existing or imminent Real Infrastructure, like a metro rail link between Treasure Island and SF.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    I think the main tricky bit about the commercial side of the use case is that you need your settlements to be either side of the geographically challenging bit but also quite close together due to range limitations, and probably in areas with usually benign weather conditions. Small archipelagos would be an obvious use case, but I wonder how it compares cost and convenience wise with using a boat.
    - soundwave106 9y ago
      It's probably a bit more faster and more flexible, with the downside of holding much less cargo. I'm not sure that's enough to displace already existing boat services to be honest. Few areas come to mind immediately that fit that criteria. (The only one that came to mind personally as a "maybe" was the small Pacific coastal communities stretching up British Columbia up through Alaska, that are mostly served by water taxi now. I don't see an advantage even there initially.) One other possibility I see for this if there are significant advantages to this over helicopters in certain situations, it might compete with services currently provided that way. (EG: Could this replace a helicopter air ambulance? Is there differences (engine volume comes to mind) that it would be desirable to replace helicopters with this for the tourism market? Etc.)
      - notahacker 9y ago
        It's not going to compete with an air ambulance because it doesn't have the carrying capacity. In the long term it might have favourable economics and possibly even safety vs the Robinson R22, a helicopter which has sold a few thousand units. But yeah, I think there are more cases for it as an alternative low-end short range helicopter sometimes deployed as a taxi than as an Uber alternative
  - aetherson 9y ago
    It is indeed specific, but I think that you're underselling it slightly. Airstrips are low-throughput, you could imagine that VTOL air taxis could offer a lot more individual vehicles in the same geographic footprint. And they're much faster than ferries. They could potentially fly over shipping lanes that make bridges difficult due to height restrictions, and underwater tunnels are expensive. If going over a natural area, people might have fewer environmental concerns about flying air taxis over it than building a rail or road line through it. Some areas I could see it being vaguely plausible are: Kitsap Penninsula or Vashon Island to Seattle. The various islands of NYC. The various islands of Hong Kong. Between Copenhagen and Malmo. I'm sure there are more. I don't think this would add up to a $20B business or anything, but it's unclear to me that Page cares about that.
- adrianmonk 9y ago
  Seems like you could fly over the bay for north/south commutes as an alternative to 101 and 880. Not to mention flying across the bay. There are lots of commutes that involve going north or south, then crossing a congested bridge, then north or south again. Those could be replaced with a straight shot.
majani 9y ago
Sounds like a fancy chopper in that case
- asteli 9y ago
  It's tempting to think of it that way, but there are significant advantages to this configuration: low-power cruise in forward flight, longer maintenance intervals, nearly silent drive system (not counting the props, obviously, but removing the noise generated by one or two turboshafts isn't a trivial difference). BTW for context re: maintenance, on a light aircraft such as a Cessna 172, you must conduct a 100 hour/annual inspection. This would be a deep inspection by automotive standards. This involves taking the cowling off and doing compression tests on each cylinder, for example.[1] The recommended engine Time Before Overhaul is 1800 hours I believe. Removing some of those costs would be a boon to a transport operation that requires high-uptime operation. [1] More complete list here: https://www.cessnaflyer.org/images/PDF/annual_inspection_checklist.pdf https://www.cessnaflyer.org/images/PDF/annual_inspection_che...

by asteli 9y ago

aetherson 9y ago

I think that the interesting use for air taxis isn't in going through cities, it's in traversing terrain that's difficult or impossible to build roads through. So going over water or rugged terrain like steep hills or ravines. In the SF area, there's not a ton of use for it, but perhaps a fast hop from Treasure Island to the Embarcadero (feeding into BART) would make the proposed redevelopment of Treasure/Yerba Buena island more attractive (as of right now, it's hard to imagine thinking it was a great idea to live some place where you had to take the Bay Bridge to get literally anywhere). Going mostly over unpopulated terrain would limit (not eliminate, just limit) both safety and noise concerns.

asteli 9y ago
The use case is oddly specific- ideally you have a region that's geographically challenging, but not sparse enough that you can just wedge an airstrip somewhere and call it a day. It also can't be so developed that there's existing or imminent Real Infrastructure, like a metro rail link between Treasure Island and SF.
- notahacker 9y ago
  I think the main tricky bit about the commercial side of the use case is that you need your settlements to be either side of the geographically challenging bit but also quite close together due to range limitations, and probably in areas with usually benign weather conditions. Small archipelagos would be an obvious use case, but I wonder how it compares cost and convenience wise with using a boat.
  - soundwave106 9y ago
    It's probably a bit more faster and more flexible, with the downside of holding much less cargo. I'm not sure that's enough to displace already existing boat services to be honest. Few areas come to mind immediately that fit that criteria. (The only one that came to mind personally as a "maybe" was the small Pacific coastal communities stretching up British Columbia up through Alaska, that are mostly served by water taxi now. I don't see an advantage even there initially.) One other possibility I see for this if there are significant advantages to this over helicopters in certain situations, it might compete with services currently provided that way. (EG: Could this replace a helicopter air ambulance? Is there differences (engine volume comes to mind) that it would be desirable to replace helicopters with this for the tourism market? Etc.)
    - notahacker 9y ago
      It's not going to compete with an air ambulance because it doesn't have the carrying capacity. In the long term it might have favourable economics and possibly even safety vs the Robinson R22, a helicopter which has sold a few thousand units. But yeah, I think there are more cases for it as an alternative low-end short range helicopter sometimes deployed as a taxi than as an Uber alternative
- aetherson 9y ago
  It is indeed specific, but I think that you're underselling it slightly. Airstrips are low-throughput, you could imagine that VTOL air taxis could offer a lot more individual vehicles in the same geographic footprint. And they're much faster than ferries. They could potentially fly over shipping lanes that make bridges difficult due to height restrictions, and underwater tunnels are expensive. If going over a natural area, people might have fewer environmental concerns about flying air taxis over it than building a rail or road line through it. Some areas I could see it being vaguely plausible are: Kitsap Penninsula or Vashon Island to Seattle. The various islands of NYC. The various islands of Hong Kong. Between Copenhagen and Malmo. I'm sure there are more. I don't think this would add up to a $20B business or anything, but it's unclear to me that Page cares about that.
adrianmonk 9y ago
Seems like you could fly over the bay for north/south commutes as an alternative to 101 and 880. Not to mention flying across the bay. There are lots of commutes that involve going north or south, then crossing a congested bridge, then north or south again. Those could be replaced with a straight shot.

majani 9y ago

Sounds like a fancy chopper in that case

asteli 9y ago
It's tempting to think of it that way, but there are significant advantages to this configuration: low-power cruise in forward flight, longer maintenance intervals, nearly silent drive system (not counting the props, obviously, but removing the noise generated by one or two turboshafts isn't a trivial difference). BTW for context re: maintenance, on a light aircraft such as a Cessna 172, you must conduct a 100 hour/annual inspection. This would be a deep inspection by automotive standards. This involves taking the cowling off and doing compression tests on each cylinder, for example.[1] The recommended engine Time Before Overhaul is 1800 hours I believe. Removing some of those costs would be a boon to a transport operation that requires high-uptime operation. [1] More complete list here: https://www.cessnaflyer.org/images/PDF/annual_inspection_checklist.pdf https://www.cessnaflyer.org/images/PDF/annual_inspection_che...