4 ms·
So, I don't mean to be a hater, and it looks like they've put a lot of effort into this from a technical standpoint, but this does not actually solve actual pra
by roughly 4y ago
So, I don't mean to be a hater, and it looks like they've put a lot of effort into this from a technical standpoint, but this does not actually solve actual practical problems for actual urban mobility for any reasonable fraction of the population.
The aircraft need to take off and land from somewhere, and given that they're multi-ton objects with rapidly-spinning metal protrusions, that'll need to be designated spaces. Designated spaces mean rate limiting - think of a taxi queue outside an airport. These will not just be allowed to fly _anywhere_ - they will have approved flight paths, because there's no way we'll allow a substantial number of flying vehicles to just fly wherever without some kind of controls, and they'll absolutely require more space between them than cars on a highway get. They've got a range of 90 miles, which is nice, but what's the turnaround time look like? How long between flights does it take to get the air taxi back in the air?
This may be a fine way for the wealthy to avoid traffic between their tower and the airport, but there's absolutely no world where this makes any kind of genuine impact on traffic or urban transit broadly.
- jeffbee 4y agoThere will always be a VC who does not understand basic geometry and you can just take his money for this flying taxi garbage every time.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- forgetfreeman 4y agoYou say that in jest any yet it's so accurate that I can name at least one pharmaceutical company that went in on the flying taxi grift to score several rounds of funding.
- FabHK 4y agoWhat does it have to do with geometry? And FWIW, there is more space in the sky than on earth, where cars are rather prevalent.
- vba616 4y ago>a fine way for the wealthy to avoid traffic between their tower and the airport HeliNY says from NYC to the Hamptons is "Round Trip – $2,995" by chartered helicopter where each way is a little over half an hour. Ziprecruiter says "As of Oct 2, 2022, the average hourly pay for a Helicopter Pilot in the United States is $47.41 an hour" So eliminating the pilot is probably not that lucrative?
- hindsightbias 4y agoWhile pilots are getting more expensive, that’s because there aren’t any.
- elil17 4y agoI’d say eliminating the AvGas is more important. Plus, a big efficiency jump in absolute terms vs. rotorcraft. There are certainly advantages to the eVTOL but I agree that it’s a pretty limited market. Although, there are inexpensive helicopter rides in NYC. $200 for a seat in a 5 minute flight from Manhattan to JFK.
- rapjr9 4y agoEliminating the pilot lets it carry another passenger instead of the pilot. They still have to pay the people at the base station to monitor and potentially take over the flight, which means they probably have to be pilots, unless they've really automated the whole thing to the point where there is no manual control, just up/down, start/stop, follow route buttons. That may be the case since I can't see a pilot manually controlling 13 motors to maintain balance and guide the aircraft. Not sure you need a pilot if there is a "land in any open space" button/remote control.
- fasthands9 4y agoI cant imagine this would be able to raise enough money but feel like if this tech was working they should just start in tourist locations. Perhaps drop you off with skis somewhere remote or island hop.
- walrus01 4y agohaving helipads on top of tall buildings in manhattan has been tried: https://thepointsguy.com/news/when-helicopters-landed-on-manhattan-skyscrapers-all-the-time/ https://thepointsguy.com/news/when-helicopters-landed-on-man... It did not work out so well... On May 16, 1977, the landing gear failed on a Sikorsky S-61L (N619PA) while it was taking on passengers on the roof of the Pan Am Building. The aircraft fell onto its side. Its spinning principal rotor blades killed four passengers waiting to board (including movie director Michael Findlay) and injured a fifth. Parts of a broken blade fell into the streets below, killing one pedestrian and injuring another. The accident precipitated the permanent closure of the heliport.[11]
- hailwren 4y agoLuckily there haven’t been any technological advancements in aviation or computation since May 16, 1977.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoDo we really need to review the list of recent autonomous vehicle fails? Really?
- hailwren 4y agoAre you conflating land vehicles with air ones? Because autopilot flies more hours than pilots in 2022.
- ryukafalz 4y agoBetween airports, long distances, on well-known routes. That is a very different problem than autonomous air taxis. (And it's not like autopilot is full automation. You still need a pilot.)
- forgetfreeman 4y agoHow frequently do you think commercial air liners have to dodge a cellphone tower at cruising altitude?
- FabHK 4y agoIt can have an impact on the margin for special purposes initially (ambulance, airport transfers), but then could trickle down. Imagine they’re as prevalent as taxis.
- feistypharit 4y agoFunny enough, the faa recently released guidance on “vertiports”. This may actually happen… https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-releases-vertiport-design-standards-support-safe-integration-advanced-air-mobility https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-releases-vertiport-design-s...