The same Ohio river valley where the Wright brothers pioneered human flight will soon manufacture cutting-edge electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.
Joby’s production aircraft is designed to transport a pilot and four passengers at speeds of up to 200 miles (321.87 kilometers) per hour, with a maximum range of 100 miles (160.93 kilometers). I
Back in my day we called these contraptions “helicopters”
And those were considered for use as “flying taxis” and they failed for the same reason these will: Flying and landing in cities is dangerous, which is why airports are built very far away.
Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.
Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.
Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.
Great data, now what’s the equivalent for small scale electric motor based helicopters? Considering you’re essentially talking about the maintenance requirements of chemical powerplants and rotor wings lifting 10+ times the weight. That’s like saying because you have to do pre-operational checks on semi trucks during your trip that it’s too expensive to drive cars.
Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.
Do you not realize we already have thousands of aircraft flying that this could already happen to? It’s really strange to have you guys cherry picking this as a thing to be concerned about when aircraft that could fall out of the sky are already over your head right now.
Redundancy is the name of the game, if you have more than the amount of engines you require, then you can have a couple fail and still remain airborne. It’s also why VTOL designs are safer as they have some lift potential even with a dead-stick scenario.
Here you are accusing people of cherry picking when you’re doing the same thing, or just assuming that we can rely on technology that hasn’t even been invented yet, cannot be manufactured at scale, or is far too expensive for anyone but the most wealthy people on the planet to use. 
You’ve made several comments throughout this post that are absurd, reductive, and so out of touch with reality as to be ridiculous and/or hilarious. None of them make any rational sense. 
You’ve made several comments throughout this post that are absurd, reductive, and so out of touch with reality as to be ridiculous and/or hilarious. None of them make any rational sense.
Yeah, unless you know literally anything about aircraft. Which im sure you don’t. Or do you have more years in Aircraft maintenance than me?
Thanks for the strawman, it does however give me an idea of the kind of maintenance he’s talking about and why it’s required on larger platforms but not on smaller electric motors like what eVTOL prototypes use.
People are in here claiming that because larger helicopters need a 30 day inspection that electric motors are going to have the same level of maintenance and servicing requirements. In reality we would probably adapt by creating something in between a private pilots license and whatever certifications ultralight and paramotors enjoy to get off the ground. That would no doubt include training and certification on basic operational maintenance.
That’s not a strawman. You keep arguing about the mechanics of the craft when that has nothing to do with it. THAT is a strawman.
Top it off with guesses without any facts to back it up doesn’t make your argument any better.
Once again, being a mechanic, doesn’t mean you have any knowledge about flying an aircraft. You’ve made that clear by constantly trying to steer the conversation back to engine parts and maintenance.
2 minutes, 21 seconds after touch down, at approximately 5:35 p.m., the right main landing gear of the helicopter failed and the S-61 rolled over to the right. All main rotor blades struck the concrete helipad. Four passengers who were waiting to board were struck by the blades and killed. One of the blades, 28 feet, 10 inches (8.787 meters) long and weighing 209.3 pounds (94.9 kilograms) flew out over the building’s railing and fell alongside the building before crashing through an office window on the 36th floor. The main rotor blade broke into two segments, one of which fell to the street below, striking a pedestrian and killing him.
The airline had two more accidents because helicopters are just an oil leak surrounded by a million parts that want to fly apart
The reason I had to go so far back is because after that and a subsequent deadly accident nobody has tried doing a commuter airline with helicopters. Because it’s significantly more dangerous than flying a normal plane to a normal airport.
That’s a pretty good argument for why flying cars is a pretty stupid idea.  all the dangers of a regular car accident plus the several hundred or several thousand feet crash to the ground, and then all of the bloody, fiery horror of a second collision at that time. 
There would be many more of them in a small area and it’s a completely new type of flight system with which zero people have any type of flight experience. Not to mention the total lack of an air traffic control system and the fact that the risk of a crash is already pretty high.
Are we talking about eVTOL aviation technology in general or this specific airframe and idea? I’m not claiming this specific design is good or the use case is where we should be spending our R&D time on this tech.
What I am saying is that 90% of the responses in here amount to “this is dumb because rich people will use it, build trains.” If that’s the best we can’t expect from the dedicated technology community on this website it’s going to go nowhere fast.
Back in my day we called these contraptions “helicopters”
And those were considered for use as “flying taxis” and they failed for the same reason these will: Flying and landing in cities is dangerous, which is why airports are built very far away.
It’s also expensive as fuck.
Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.
Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.
Great data, now what’s the equivalent for small scale electric motor based helicopters? Considering you’re essentially talking about the maintenance requirements of chemical powerplants and rotor wings lifting 10+ times the weight. That’s like saying because you have to do pre-operational checks on semi trucks during your trip that it’s too expensive to drive cars.
Do you not realize we already have thousands of aircraft flying that this could already happen to? It’s really strange to have you guys cherry picking this as a thing to be concerned about when aircraft that could fall out of the sky are already over your head right now.
Redundancy is the name of the game, if you have more than the amount of engines you require, then you can have a couple fail and still remain airborne. It’s also why VTOL designs are safer as they have some lift potential even with a dead-stick scenario.
Here you are accusing people of cherry picking when you’re doing the same thing, or just assuming that we can rely on technology that hasn’t even been invented yet, cannot be manufactured at scale, or is far too expensive for anyone but the most wealthy people on the planet to use. 
You’ve made several comments throughout this post that are absurd, reductive, and so out of touch with reality as to be ridiculous and/or hilarious. None of them make any rational sense. 
Yeah, unless you know literally anything about aircraft. Which im sure you don’t. Or do you have more years in Aircraft maintenance than me?
Lmao, the this is a joke, right?
Being a mechanic doesn’t make you a pilot or give you any special knowledge about flight systems.
Thanks for the strawman, it does however give me an idea of the kind of maintenance he’s talking about and why it’s required on larger platforms but not on smaller electric motors like what eVTOL prototypes use.
People are in here claiming that because larger helicopters need a 30 day inspection that electric motors are going to have the same level of maintenance and servicing requirements. In reality we would probably adapt by creating something in between a private pilots license and whatever certifications ultralight and paramotors enjoy to get off the ground. That would no doubt include training and certification on basic operational maintenance.
That’s not a strawman. You keep arguing about the mechanics of the craft when that has nothing to do with it. THAT is a strawman. Top it off with guesses without any facts to back it up doesn’t make your argument any better.
Once again, being a mechanic, doesn’t mean you have any knowledge about flying an aircraft. You’ve made that clear by constantly trying to steer the conversation back to engine parts and maintenance.
All the airports I can think of have people living near them. Several are inside major cities.
Airports are quite large though.
Any of those airports have skyscrapers next to them like in big cities?
At least one. Hong Kong.
Helicopters aren’t failures, people still use them to get from the city to an airport and back. However, they are very expensive.
The vehicles in this article have the same use case, but they are intended to be cheaper.
These drone cars won’t be cheap either.
Because it costs a lot more energy to keep something in the air and move it forward, than it is to move it forward on the road.
They are not meant to replace cars, they are meant to replace helicopters. And they will very likely be cheaper than helicopters.
It was mostly a noise/airspace crowding concern, helicopters fly in cities all the time and plenty of roofs have active helipads.
That and seven people died when a helicopter tipped over over on top of a building
The airline had two more accidents because helicopters are just an oil leak surrounded by a million parts that want to fly apart
That was in 1977. Reaching that far back to find a horror story just goes to show how safe commercial aviation is.
The reason I had to go so far back is because after that and a subsequent deadly accident nobody has tried doing a commuter airline with helicopters. Because it’s significantly more dangerous than flying a normal plane to a normal airport.
No, there are still commuter helicopter flights between Manhattan and JFK. As well as EWR.
You can get a seat for $195: https://www.blade.com/jfk
7 people probably died in car accidents in the last hour, I guess cars are too dangerous to drive too.
Yes, but also yes.
Don’t forget about bicycles, there are 2-3 cyclist fatalities in the US every day.
We’re not talking about bicycles here. Try to pay attention to the conversation.
Parent comments were talking about the dangers of air taxis, helicopters, and cars. Why are bikes suddenly off limits?
That’s a pretty good argument for why flying cars is a pretty stupid idea.  all the dangers of a regular car accident plus the several hundred or several thousand feet crash to the ground, and then all of the bloody, fiery horror of a second collision at that time. 
Please explain to me how this type of aircraft is any more vulnerable to crashing or pilot error than any other.
There would be many more of them in a small area and it’s a completely new type of flight system with which zero people have any type of flight experience. Not to mention the total lack of an air traffic control system and the fact that the risk of a crash is already pretty high.
That’s plenty right there.
Are we talking about eVTOL aviation technology in general or this specific airframe and idea? I’m not claiming this specific design is good or the use case is where we should be spending our R&D time on this tech.
What I am saying is that 90% of the responses in here amount to “this is dumb because rich people will use it, build trains.” If that’s the best we can’t expect from the dedicated technology community on this website it’s going to go nowhere fast.
Get outta here with all your common sense making, hater.
deleted by creator