Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

EVOTL company has 1.1 Billion in funding

https://electrek.co/2023/08/11/archer-aviation-gets-faa-nod-to-begin-evtol-flights-secures-215m-from-stellantis-and-united/

Thing looks to be at least as big as a 172 and I’d bet is at least as noisy, so even if they can make these things work, what’s the mission, where could it realistically land and takeoff?

Flying cars work, there have been flying cars for 70 years, but they didn’t work well and there was just no mission for the things, is this going to be a 21st Century flying car?

 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

EVOTL company has 1.1 Billion in funding

https://electrek.co/2023/08/11/archer-aviation-gets-faa-nod-to-begin-evtol-flights-secures-215m-from-stellantis-and-united/

Thing looks to be at least as big as a 172 and I’d bet is at least as noisy, so even if they can make these things work, what’s the mission, where could it realistically land and takeoff?

Flying cars work, there have been flying cars for 70 years, but they didn’t work well and there was just no mission for the things, is this going to be a 21st Century flying car?

 

Send me $50 and I will give you the inside scoop……

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

I don’t see these things doing anything that helicopters haven’t been able to do for 80 years. I don’t think they will be any cheaper to run or will be able to operate from anywhere a helicopter can’t operate from. Most helicopters have a range of a few hundred miles. This thing probably has a range of a few tens of miles, with a significant recharge time between flights. I’m not sure how you make money with it.

Posted

High on glitz low on information:

https://www.archer.com/

They claim they will have a type certificate by the end of next year. I have $100 for anybody that wants to take that bet.

The only way that is going to happen is if pressure from the top fast tracks it. Then we can take bets on when the first accident will happen.

They are intended to be autonomous. I just saw my first car the other day without a driver. It took them more than 5 years to go from a babysitter at the wheel to fully autonomous. What I haven't seen yet is an autonomous car with passengers. The number of self driving cars around here has gone up quite a bit lately. I usually see a few a day just driving down my neighbourhood street.

Posted

Yeah, NOW they can actually fly it.

Hmmm, over 1 billion in funding before it gets off the ground.  And if it can't fly and the company folds,  I wonder how much of that 1 billion ends up in the pockets of the higher ups in the company??????

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Yeah, NOW they can actually fly it.

Hmmm, over 1 billion in funding before it gets off the ground.  And if it can't fly and the company folds,  I wonder how much of that 1 billion ends up in the pockets of the higher ups in the company??????

Yeah, This isn't an aviation company, it is a venture capital consumption company. I expect the board is living large while they play with this aircraft.

If they do deploy 6000 of these by the end of the decade (LMFAO), it will be a flash in the pan. people will ride in them for the novelty of the thing, but after the novelty wears off and reality sets in I doubt there will be enough customers to support it. Even though there will be no pilots, There must be support people to hook them up to the chargers, make sure the passengers are belted in properly and the doors are shut properly. You can't expect the passengers to operate things like doors, they will tear them up in no time.

Posted
2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

High on glitz low on information:

https://www.archer.com/

They claim they will have a type certificate by the end of next year. I have $100 for anybody that wants to take that bet.

The only way that is going to happen is if pressure from the top fast tracks it. Then we can take bets on when the first accident will happen.

They are intended to be autonomous. I just saw my first car the other day without a driver. It took them more than 5 years to go from a babysitter at the wheel to fully autonomous. What I haven't seen yet is an autonomous car with passengers. The number of self driving cars around here has gone up quite a bit lately. I usually see a few a day just driving down my neighbourhood street.

Cruise and Waymo are driverless taxi services active in San Francisco.  No babysitter in car, but a team of observers watching remotely.  There was an amusing incident where the passengers filmed as the car did not know how to handle a situation with a police officer giving directions.  There are several incidents, now.  

One example video: 

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Bolter said:

Cruise and Waymo are driverless taxi services active in San Francisco.  No babysitter in car, but a team of observers watching remotely.  There was an amusing incident where the passengers filmed as the car did not know how to handle a situation with a police officer giving directions.  There are several incidents, now.  

One example video: 

 

There are so many here in the southeast valley, it's hard to explain to people how many there are. Every car trip I see 2 or 3 of them. I have messed with them with my bicycle and my car. My wife gets mad when I screw with them. I say "It's a robot, not a person!".  I like to get in front of them and slow down to see how slow I need to get before they change lanes and pass. I have never gotten one to honk at me. I was sitting at a corner down by the university on my bike and a Waymo was trying to turn right. It had a babysitter. As soon as it would start to move I would shove my front wheel in front of it. It would jar to a stop. I would pull my wheel back and it would try to go again and I would do it again. The babysitter was laughing his ass off. I think I was the most entertainment he had had in a long time.

  • Haha 2
Posted
31 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There are so many here in the southeast valley, it's hard to explain to people how many there are. Every car trip I see 2 or 3 of them. I have messed with them with my bicycle and my car. My wife gets mad when I screw with them. I say "It's a robot, not a person!".  I like to get in front of them and slow down to see how slow I need to get before they change lanes and pass. I have never gotten one to honk at me. I was sitting at a corner down by the university on my bike and a Waymo was trying to turn right. It had a babysitter. As soon as it would start to move I would shove my front wheel in front of it. It would jar to a stop. I would pull my wheel back and it would try to go again and I would do it again. The babysitter was laughing his ass off. I think I was the most entertainment he had had in a long time.

The key thing, everyday public gets into these cars as taxis that have no driver and no in-car minder in the driver seat.  

Posted

Wisk had a nice display at Airventure showing off their autonomous eVTOL. They do a better job than Archer at telling the story of their vision. https://wisk.aero/

To the original question, the goal of these designs is to make aerial short-hop transportation much more affordable and mass-market. Yes helicopters can fill the same mission, but these new eVTOLs will (in theory) be a lot cheaper to operate and thus more cost-accessible to the general public.

To that end, it seems like the automation is the real innovation and key feature that will lower the cost of a ride (pilots are expensive and take up a seat). I suspect the fact that it's eVTOL vs. an autonomous helicopter is a secondary outcome. Outfitting any VTOL aircraft to be autonomous is a big deal requiring a ton of new systems and integrations. It probably wouldn't make financial sense to retrofit an existing aircraft vs. design a new airframe; and as long as you're starting fresh, you may as well go with the better airframe and power plant choices for the mission. The manufacturers would argue that their choices have more redundancy and reliability than anything else that's available to fit the mission, and being electric gives them a better sustainability story.

Posted

It seems that every new aircraft design will be cheaper than the existing aircraft. Most new designs are over schedule, over price, overweight and under speed and range. Especially from companies that have never certified an aircraft before. I think this autonomous thing is going to be a big hurdle. How is it supposed to communicate with ATC? Their website shows them landing at major airports. How does that work? I can think of a few ways to make it work, but it will take a bunch of new regulations and the FAA isn't known for getting things done in a hurry.

Posted
1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

It seems that every new aircraft design will be cheaper than the existing aircraft. Most new designs are over schedule, over price, overweight and under speed and range. Especially from companies that have never certified an aircraft before. I think this autonomous thing is going to be a big hurdle. How is it supposed to communicate with ATC? Their website shows them landing at major airports. How does that work? I can think of a few ways to make it work, but it will take a bunch of new regulations and the FAA isn't known for getting things done in a hurry.

The Wisk folks said they'll have remote operators monitoring each flight, communicating with ATC as needed, and intervening when needed. One person will be managing up to 3 flights at the same time. I assume they'll use software extensively to help that person keep track of what's happening and what needs attention.

In terms of "Especially from companies that have never certified an aircraft before", Wisk is now owned by Boeing.

Posted

I think they have to be getting government funding and tax breaks because they are electric or something in order for someone like Boeing to pitch in money.

But sometimes the guys in suits don’t listen.

Remember the Eclipse Jet, because they would be so cheap they would be so many it was going to shut down the airspace system, they would be so cheap because they would be so many, chicken and egg. The guy who owned the factory where I was VP was sure of it, because his rich buddies were telling him it was so, he wouldn’t listen to me, same guy came back from a GAMI meeting extremely concerned that we weren’t doing anything to get ready for ADSB, and again wouldn’t listen to me telling him there was nothing to get ready for, we sold airplanes without avionics, this is no different, it’s just another piece of avionics.

The Eclipse thing was ridiculous, according to their numbers a twin jet was going to be much cheaper than a single engine turbo prop, and yet SO many bought into it.

Posted

Problems I see about it.

1. It won’t have the useful load, can’t I don’t think, battery is just going to be too heavy, maybe one day. And I don’t believe you can pull that much power for very long from a battery without cooking the thing. Some guy in Canada removed the speed limiter on a Tesla Plaid and broke 200 MPH on a runway and apparently the heat pump was running full bore for quite awhile trying to cool that battery after the 15 sec or so it was used, I’m guessing 15 sec. I have no idea how long he had his foot in it.

https://electrek.co/2022/06/30/tesla-model-s-plaid-breaks-200-mph-top-speed/

Other not so dumb people have looked into it and said it’s not feasible, Elon Musk for one, but I think he was really looking for a Bizjet type of aircraft, but I bet if these things were viable he would be a player

2. This thing isn’t small, it will take a large area for a helipad. It’s not going to be like parking a car. So these areas will be few and somewhat far in between, they won’t be like bus stops, that’s what more than anything killed the short hop helicopter ferry services years ago.

3. It will have rotor wash pretty close to a helicopter it will have to have at least as much as I don’t think due to the battery it will be any lighter, prop rotors like the XV-15 and V-22 have much higher speed rotor wash than helicopters of the same weight, because the rotors are smaller.

4. Pipistrel couldn’t make a tiny two seater really work and the power required to fly an airplane is minuscule compared to hovering. There have been 65 HP Cubs forever. Ever seen a 65 HP helicopter? Or at least I think the little EV airplane didn’t work out. I thought it would in niche places in Europe. Maybe I heard wrong, maybe it’s a success?

5. I believe it’s going to be very noisy, GA airplane noisy, ever heard one of the bigger drones? They aren’t quiet, an electric model airplane can be almost silent though, it’s not engine noise, but rotor noise.

You know I’d really like to be wrong, I’d like to see them flying.

Posted

There are new props for drones ( hoops or loops or something) that make them go almost silent

They are used on outboard motors also and the noise reduction there is remarkable

VERY expensive however

The downwash still has to equal the weight when hovering no matter drone vs helicopter dosen't it? 

Posted
11 hours ago, cliffy said:

The downwash still has to equal the weight when hovering no matter drone vs helicopter dosen't it? 

The downwash mass flow does.  But smaller rotor area means higher flow rate to get the mass flow.  That means higher speed downwash mentioned.

My Dad was somewhat involved with the Harrier in the early days.  His question was where they expected to actually land them. The concept was, they could land them in small spaces near the battle field to reduce turn around time to fly home, rearm, refuel, and return.

They propposed a PSP (Pierced Steel Planking) landing site.  He told them it wouldn't work due to the velocity of the downwards flow.  No one accepted that.  So they tested it.

PSP was flying EVERYWHERE. :D

 

Posted

Again common sense isn't so common-

Project the above scenario to confined landing spots for numerous "air taxi" drones. 

Where are they going to land them without tearing up the surrounding terrain?

Ain't as easy as first thought 

Posted
29 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Again common sense isn't so common-

Project the above scenario to confined landing spots for numerous "air taxi" drones. 

Where are they going to land them without tearing up the surrounding terrain?

Ain't as easy as first thought 

I assume that's among the reasons they're targeting airports and heliports.

Posted
On 8/15/2023 at 6:50 AM, A64Pilot said:

EVOTL company has 1.1 Billion in funding

https://electrek.co/2023/08/11/archer-aviation-gets-faa-nod-to-begin-evtol-flights-secures-215m-from-stellantis-and-united/

Thing looks to be at least as big as a 172 and I’d bet is at least as noisy, so even if they can make these things work, what’s the mission, where could it realistically land and takeoff?

Flying cars work, there have been flying cars for 70 years, but they didn’t work well and there was just no mission for the things, is this going to be a 21st Century flying car?

 

Yikes, that thing is a monster!  On the plus side, you could probably lose one or two motors and still be okay.  Given the V-22 record, I would want some test pilots to amass a few thousand hours before I put my neck on the line.

Posted

Had a V-22 do an emergency landing at KPGA a couple years ago after losing an engine 50 miles east of there,

Pilot said he barely made it. 

Do you know that they can land that thing even if the pods don't rotate to the vertical position for a helicopter landing? 

Posted
1 hour ago, cliffy said:

Had a V-22 do an emergency landing at KPGA a couple years ago after losing an engine 50 miles east of there,

Pilot said he barely made it. 

Do you know that they can land that thing even if the pods don't rotate to the vertical position for a helicopter landing? 

The two rotors are connected, so 1 engine can power both rotors. I don’t think they can land with the rotors horizontal, I think they will hit the ground. They may be able to land like an airplane with them tilted 45 deg. 
 

FYI, I have no direct knowledge on how to operate those things.

Posted

Yes they are connected across the wing centerline if one engine fails

Still has density altitude issues just as any twin engine airplane on one engine  (KPGA)

As to the landings the propellers are designed to (as they say) "corn broom" when coming in contact with the runway landing in the forward thrust setting.  

The blades wear down much like a broom at the ends and the entire blade does not come apart upon contact. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Yes they are connected across the wing centerline if one engine fails

Still has density altitude issues just as any twin engine airplane on one engine  (KPGA)

As to the landings the propellers are designed to (as they say) "corn broom" when coming in contact with the runway landing in the forward thrust setting.  

The blades wear down much like a broom at the ends and the entire blade does not come apart upon contact. 

Hell of a way to operate an aircraft.

Your tax dollars at work!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.