VTOL On Demand Mobility

[VTOLicious]

In general eVTOL are promoted as less mechanical complex and consequently less maintenace intensive than helicopters...

Now, looking at this picture I see a five-bladed variable pitch propeller, a gearbox, a pivot, a lever and a control rod. And all of that six times (the six propulsion units on the trailing edge are non-tilting and feature fixed pitch propellers)...

...I have a lil doubt this is valid for this kind of tilt rotor configuration. Not even considering all the complex electronic hardware and software involved (But that is indeed a distinctive feature of all eVTOL types).

 

[Nicknick]

Volocopter establishes production setup for electric air taxis

https://verticalmag.com/press-relea...-production-setup-for-electric-air-taxis/?amp

Edit: Tech specs published at their homepage as of today (2019, approximations not yet tested in flight).
View attachment 697708

Slightly concerned that they cant spell Exchangeable or rechargeable.......unless our estranged cousins have been 'simplifying' English again?

More seriously, is their intention to swap the batteries after each flight? Doesn't this constitute a major change in the aircraft, thus requiring a test flight?

Maybe I can understand their English better for obvious reasons, the batteries can be exchanged within 5 min for recharging, which might be a preferred option on busy days but not necessarily the normal mode of operation.

I do see quite a lot of mechanical effort in exchanging the batteries and connecting them safely, durable electric plugs for high current and frequent operations are not trivial. Also you need a kind of robot for the exchanging.

 

[TomcatViP]

In general eVTOL are promoted as less mechanical complex and consequently less maintenace intensive than helicopters...

Now, looking at this picture I see a five-bladed variable pitch propeller, a gearbox, a pivot, a lever and a control rod. And all of that six times (the six propulsion units on the trailing edge are non-tilting and feature fixed pitch propellers)...

...I have a lil doubt this is valid for this kind of tilt rotor configuration. Not even considering all the complex electronic hardware and software involved (But that is indeed a distinctive feature of all eVTOL types).

The push rod system doesn't inspire confidence. Both in term of reliability along time and due to the fact that the mechanism is totally exposed to corrosion.

 

[Fluff]

Volocopter establishes production setup for electric air taxis

https://verticalmag.com/press-relea...-production-setup-for-electric-air-taxis/?amp

Edit: Tech specs published at their homepage as of today (2019, approximations not yet tested in flight).
View attachment 697708

Slightly concerned that they cant spell Exchangeable or rechargeable.......unless our estranged cousins have been 'simplifying' English again?

More seriously, is their intention to swap the batteries after each flight? Doesn't this constitute a major change in the aircraft, thus requiring a test flight?

Maybe I can understand their English better for obvious reasons, the batteries can be exchanged within 5 min for recharging, which might be a preferred option on busy days but not necessarily the normal mode of operation.

I do see quite a lot of mechanical effort in exchanging the batteries and connecting them safely, durable electric plugs for high current and frequent operations are not trivial. Also you need a kind of robot for the exchanging.

Nah, the baggage handlers will be fine with the battery change......

 

[VTOLicious]

Volocopter establishes production setup for electric air taxis

https://verticalmag.com/press-relea...-production-setup-for-electric-air-taxis/?amp

Edit: Tech specs published at their homepage as of today (2019, approximations not yet tested in flight).
View attachment 697708

Slightly concerned that they cant spell Exchangeable or rechargeable.......unless our estranged cousins have been 'simplifying' English again?

More seriously, is their intention to swap the batteries after each flight? Doesn't this constitute a major change in the aircraft, thus requiring a test flight?

Maybe I can understand their English better for obvious reasons, the batteries can be exchanged within 5 min for recharging, which might be a preferred option on busy days but not necessarily the normal mode of operation.

I do see quite a lot of mechanical effort in exchanging the batteries and connecting them safely, durable electric plugs for high current and frequent operations are not trivial. Also you need a kind of robot for the exchanging.

Nah, the baggage handlers will be fine with the battery change......

The pic shows how it was demonstrated on the mock-up (Aircraft and battery mock-up).
But I'm not sure if that's actually how it's implemented on the real thing. I always thought that those 9 sticks were a bit too small to provide sufficient flight time... But what do I know.

 

[Nicknick]

Despite the additional effort, this concept shows, that they are really looking for a realization which doesn’t require hypothetic super batteries. If a battery it constantly operated with high power output and fast charging, cooling will become a major issue. Strangely, the Lilium Jet doesn’t show any hint of a cooling system despite about 2500 kW electric power during hovering and extremely fast charging. I guess, they need to save every gram in the prototype and for the demonstrated flight time, the thermal capacity of the battery is sufficient.

 

[Fluff]

Despite the additional effort, this concept shows, that they are really looking for a realization which doesn’t require hypothetic super batteries. If a battery it constantly operated with high power output and fast charging, cooling will become a major issue. Strangely, the Lilium Jet doesn’t show any hint of a cooling system despite about 2500 kW electric power during hovering and extremely fast charging. I guess, they need to save every gram in the prototype and for the demonstrated flight time, the thermal capacity of the battery is sufficient.

At first, these have to be a gimmic, a tourist ride in Dubai, etc. I would seriously suggest some sort of tethered take off, or microwave beam? Did they state the actual battery capacity? From that picture it looks around Tesla size, so 80-100kwh. When kw/kg improves it might become a city taxi for the Uber rich. Honestly I think I would avoid the offer of a ride in this.

 

[martinbayer]

Sure, high power microwave beams shooting through the atmosphere - what could possibly go wrong... Oh wait, I think I'll have fried pigeon for dinner!

 

[Fluff]

Sure, high power microwave beams shooting through the atmosphere - what could possibly go wrong... Oh wait, I think I'll have fried pigeon for dinner!

The alternative is linking extension cables until you get to 100ft - seems ok until you consider other aircraft coming and going.....

 

[alberchico]

Archer Aviation Stock Tumbles: An eVTOL Dream Crashing? (NYSE:ACHR)

The Archer Aviation Inc. (ACHR) stock schedule seems to be slipping, timeline risk remains. Find out why I am bullish on eVTOLs but not necessarily eVTOL stocks.

seekingalpha.com

Interesting analysis of Archer. They need much more funding as development and certification efforts ramp up or risk running out of cash and collapsing before they cross the finish line. Also, any certification delays or unforseen design changes will also hit them hard financially.

 

[TomcatViP]

You have to wonder what they did of all that money.

 

[Nicknick]

Despite the additional effort, this concept shows, that they are really looking for a realization which doesn’t require hypothetic super batteries. If a battery it constantly operated with high power output and fast charging, cooling will become a major issue. Strangely, the Lilium Jet doesn’t show any hint of a cooling system despite about 2500 kW electric power during hovering and extremely fast charging. I guess, they need to save every gram in the prototype and for the demonstrated flight time, the thermal capacity of the battery is sufficient.

At first, these have to be a gimmic, a tourist ride in Dubai, etc. I would seriously suggest some sort of tethered take off, or microwave beam? Did they state the actual battery capacity? From that picture it looks around Tesla size, so 80-100kwh. When kw/kg improves it might become a city taxi for the Uber rich. Honestly I think I would avoid the offer of a ride in this.

Not sure whether you are talking about Volocopter or Lilium. The targets of Volocopter are totally realistic, but not as spectacular as Lilium. The Volocopter prototypes are flying around for quite a while, even with manned flights. Massive overclaiming still works well to find investors with a lot of stupid money, but fortunately Volocopter choose a different path.

 

[VTOLicious]

Take a look at the wildest vehicles designed by Kittyhawk, Google cofounder Larry Page's failed flying-car company​

https://www.businessinsider.com/fly...er-larry-page-kittyhawk-craziest-ideas-2023-4

 

[GTX]

Funding top-offs come into focus as eVTOL developers continue drive to certification

For eVTOL hopefuls that don’t expect entry into service until 2025 or later, survival will necessarily take precedence over share dilution.

theaircurrent.com

 

[alberchico]

UK Researchers Found eVTOL Propeller Noise Will Be Higher Than Expected

A team of researchers from the University of Bristol in the UK studying eVTOL propeller noise found that Urban Air Mobility may not be as “quiet” as touted.

www.forbes.com

Interesting article about how noise levels will differ in different environments.

 

[GTX]

Will the Lilium Jet work? - Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[alberchico]

Boeing assumes full ownership of eVTOL air taxi developer Wisk

Boeing buys shares of cofounder Kitty Hawk to take 100% of eVTOL company Wisk, which aims to launch air taxis services "this decade."

dronedj.com

Pretty big news. I guess Boeing sees potential in this project. But Wisk's obsession with making this aircraft fully autonomous from day one is going to eat up a lot of resources and slow the project down. Not to mention that the regulatory framework to make that possible is not even in place yet.

 

[BlueFPV]

Hello everyone,
I am starting here with my first post

@alberchico Not sure if Boeing engineers see a technical potential in this project or if just the Boeing management sees a potential in getting some government money and having a new advertising object.

I haven't seen any manned eVTOL project yet that has better performance than a conventional helicopter. And I think if companies were serious about developing some sort of air taxi, they would first try to automate an existing, safe concept (like helicopters) rather than completely unproven and less safe concepts like a VTOL or electric propulsion. Don't forget about the long certification period and many deaths of the AW609 and V-22 which are not even autonomous and use many existing technologies.

 

[zevets]

I haven't seen any manned eVTOL project yet that has better performance than a conventional helicopter. And I think if companies were serious about developing some sort of air taxi, they would first try to automate an existing, safe concept (like helicopters) rather than completely unproven and less safe concepts like a VTOL or electric propulsion. Don't forget about the long certification period and many deaths of the AW609 and V-22 which are not even autonomous and use many existing technologies.

Welcome!

The economics don't pencil out for existing turbine helicopter companies. Pilots are remarkably cheap, and if you go gas turbine, you might as well pilot it, and noise/NIMBY restrictions limit your options to well trafficked routes (aka airports). But for those that disagree, Blade is listed on the NASDAQ. I think there's also a very successful helicopter charter market in Brazil.

The theory of eVTOL is that you can grow the number of destinations, since they are quiet, NIMBY limits "won't apply", and you can do Palo-Alto to SF or whatever. But the large number of routes is critical, as it pushes aircraft productions up, and average unit cost down, as for eVTOL the majority of the cost is expected to be the cost-of-capital for designing, financing and building the aircraft. It also helps if carbon-taxes kill make gas powered aviation much more expensive.

In practice, eVTOL was funded because Elon Musk made fun of a bunch of boring silicon valley billionaires ("where's my flying car") while Sergey Brin who was funding one (zee.aero) was in the room. Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber got super into it, and the aircraft people jumped in, as he successfully defeated the taxi regulators, so surely he can defeat the FAA? (lol)

As a useless anecdote, I was in a room, when the 2nd in command of the FAA declared folks 'overoptimistic' on drones/eVTOL as the FAA statute gave it the ability to regulate anything with "intent to fly" whether successful or not.

But at this point, too much money was dumped in, and the VCs doubled down. That's why there's all sorts of crazy shit in this space, like luxury heliports, as the key was selling the VCs on their dreams, not on a profitable business. But that doesn't mean the designs won't fly!

 

[alberchico]

Hello everyone,
I am starting here with my first post

@alberchico Not sure if Boeing engineers see a technical potential in this project or if just the Boeing management sees a potential in getting some government money and having a new advertising object.

I haven't seen any manned eVTOL project yet that has better performance than a conventional helicopter. And I think if companies were serious about developing some sort of air taxi, they would first try to automate an existing, safe concept (like helicopters) rather than completely unproven and less safe concepts like a VTOL or electric propulsion. Don't forget about the long certification period and many deaths of the AW609 and V-22 which are not even autonomous and use many existing technologies.

Welcome aboard. There actually was until very recently an unmanned helicopter optimized for hauling cargo but it was only used for military missions called the K-MAX.

Kaman to discontinue K-Max production

Kaman Corporation has announced it is ceasing production of the K-Max, as part of a wider restructuring and cost-cutting effort throughout the company.

verticalmag.com

As mentioned in the previous post, the business model for these aircraft has always been flimsy. To me this looks like the Very Light Jet bubble all over again. For those who are not familiar there was a huge burst of activity in the early 2000's regarding small light jets that could cost the same price as a single engine turboprop. The Eclipse 500's price tag of only 800,000 sent many pilots into a frenzy and many people rushed to place deposits. Many in the aviation community thought they were witnessing the birth of a modern day Learjet that would take the industry by storm. And then the project met reality and it all came crashing down, along with many other similar designs that many were hoping would spark a revolution. The article below offers a detailed overview of why the Eclipse 500 failed.

What Went Wrong With Eclipse? - FLYING Magazine

In late November Eclipse Aviation filed for bankruptcy, and investors, suppliers, Eclipse 500 owners and order holders lost well over $1 billion. There has never been a financial failure of this scale in the entire history of general aviation. Eclipse investors have lost hundreds of millions...

www.flyingmag.com

The worrying thing is that even the business model for smaller simpler machines like delivery drones is flimsy and is subject to a barrage of regulations to ensure a high level of safety. Amazon is struggling with their drone project despite their massive resources. Aviation Week had an article a few weeks ago in which it was suggested that as as little as 1 or 2 of these companies would ultimately cross the finish line to achieve certification and succeed in launching full scale production. That's how hard it is to build airplanes.

Amazon’s Drone Delivery Dream Is Crashing

The tech giant dreams of filling the skies with package-bearing drones. But it has repeatedly failed to clear technical and regulatory hurdles.

www.wired.com

 

[martinbayer]

Throw in the 90s craze of RLV startups vying to launch supersized LEO/MEO/sub-GEO comsat constellations in the analogy mix... Of course, ironically SpaceX is doing just that right now, only a quarter century later.

 

[Archibald]

@martinbayer There are many lists out there. Beal, Kistler, Pioneer Rocketplane, Roton, Eclipse (not the same: Astroliner) and a bunch of others.
Also X-prize.

In practice, eVTOL was funded because Elon Musk made fun of a bunch of boring silicon valley billionaires ("where's my flying car") while Sergey Brin who was funding one (zee.aero) was in the room. Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber got super into it, and the aircraft people jumped in, as he successfully defeated the taxi regulators, so surely he can defeat the FAA? (lol)

Oh gosh, that story sounds too stupid to be true - so it must be true. Do you have a source for that ?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber got super into it, and the aircraft people jumped in, as he successfully defeated the taxi regulators, so surely he can defeat the FAA? (lol)

As a useless anecdote, I was in a room, when the 2nd in command of the FAA declared folks 'overoptimistic' on drones/eVTOL as the FAA statute gave it the ability to regulate anything with "intent to fly" whether successful or not.

But at this point, too much money was dumped in, and the VCs doubled down. That's why there's all sorts of crazy shit in this space, like luxury heliports, as the key was selling the VCs on their dreams, not on a profitable business. But that doesn't mean the designs won't fly!

During a recent talk, the CEO of eVTOL company Vertical Aerospace said at the beginning, he didn’t know what the aviation authorities were or did and so believed they had no part to play in his business up until the start of commercial air taxi operations. In his previous non aviation background, regulatory compliance was shown retrospectively, presumably with the services of a good legal team.

Also he selected battery purely because everyone had done the same….. and noted “that might not have been a wise decision”.

 

[Nicknick]

I still believe a simple design which will focus on short distances for inner City traffic or tourist attraction/sightseeing could work. I don’t believe Elon Musk has started the hype but millions of cheap and simple to control quadrocopter drones. The Volocopter and Ehang EVTOLs are still based on this basic idea and I’m quite optimistic that they can reach commercial operation. The disk load in the Volocopter is very low compared to helicopter and they are using simple direct drive fixed propellers. This is in fact much more simpler than any helicopter. All controls are done by varying the rpm of the individual propellers.

The trouble starts with more ambitious projects for longer range and speed which need a more complex design and contols.

 

[BlueFPV]

As mentioned in the previous post, the business model for these aircraft has always been flimsy. To me this looks like the Very Light Jet bubble all over again. For those who are not familiar there was a huge burst of activity in the early 2000's regarding small light jets that could cost the same price as a single engine turboprop. The Eclipse 500's price tag of only 800,000 sent many pilots into a frenzy and many people rushed to place deposits. Many in the aviation community thought they were witnessing the birth of a modern day Learjet that would take the industry by storm. And then the project met reality and it all came crashing down, along with many other similar designs that many were hoping would spark a revolution. The article below offers a detailed overview of why the Eclipse 500 failed.

Throw in the 90s craze of RLV startups vying to launch supersized LEO/MEO/sub-GEO comsat constellations in the analogy mix... Of course, ironically SpaceX is doing just that right now, only a quarter century later.

I would rather compare the situation with the VTOL hype from the 60s and 70s, when also every aviation company had built and tested VTOLs. And the only successful concept out of it were the Harrier and maybe the YAK-38, both very expensive and limited jets, not possible in civil market.
Even flying cars were promised by various companies. Today we have the same situation, only instead of flying cars it is called air taxi.

Once you visited one of these startups, you will see that their business is not creating a new airplane but advertising, create many presentations, promise a great future and almost no one works in engineering. I have already visited two such startups (business). So just inflate a company and collect as much money as possible for unrealistic concepts. And people believe it.

The Volocopter and Ehang EVTOLs are still based on this basic idea and I’m quite optimistic that they can reach commercial operation. The disk load in the Volocopter is very low compared to helicopter and they are using simple direct drive fixed propellers. This is in fact much more simpler than any helicopter. All controls are done by varying the rpm of the individual propellers.

@Nicknick This is what they say to get more money but not the reality. In reality they just applied for an ultralight certification which just means that private people can do a short ride around their airfield. With practically 10 minutes flight time you can't do much and it is not even safe that they will get the certification for an ultralight helicopter because of the short flight time and flight controller. The Volocopter is the best example of a completely useless aircraft because a safer and better performed concept already exists for decades - called helicopter.

 

[Archibald]

At the end of the days it boils down to pretty basic facts.
-2D driving is already hard for many people - think of all the dumbarses that drive like crazies, kill people, and end crashing everywhere.
-3D dimensional driving ( = flying) is even harder for the driver / pilot but, most importantly, far more dangerous in case of crash... below.

Cars weight 3000 pound average, with a speed of 100 mph (or even less) and works only in 2D. Then just watch the annual carnage: in my native country full of lunatics and criminals drivers: 19000 death in 1972, still 3000 something 50 years later. Welcome to France.

Those E-VTOLs will weight much more than 10 000 pounds at more than 200 mph in 3D environment. No surprise they run into the FAA: that one has been created for excellent reasons.

Anybody can drive.
Much less people can drive SAFELY.
Even even less people can pilot a plane or a chopper safely.

Plus on a car, if you run into hail or grasshopers or volcanic ash, you just hit the brakes and stop on the side of the road. The sky is definitively NOT as forgiving...

 

[VTOLicious]

I still believe a simple design which will focus on short distances for inner City traffic or tourist attraction/sightseeing could work. I don’t believe Elon Musk has started the hype but millions of cheap and simple to control quadrocopter drones. The Volocopter and Ehang EVTOLs are still based on this basic idea and I’m quite optimistic that they can reach commercial operation. The disk load in the Volocopter is very low compared to helicopter and they are using simple direct drive fixed propellers. This is in fact much more simpler than any helicopter. All controls are done by varying the rpm of the individual propellers.

The trouble starts with more ambitious projects for longer range and speed which need a more complex design and contols.

Volocity is not a "simple design" per se. It's less complex due to the lack of a mechancial drivetrain and variable pitch mechanism. In exchange it features a wealth of complex airborne electronic hardware and software.
And not to forget, despite a MTOM of 900kg it can carry only 1 passenger! ...for 20 minutes?

Edit: Volo aims for certification in the Enhanced Category in accordance with EASA SC-VTOL (Aircraft intended for operations over congested areas). That means the most stringent system safety objectives are assigned!

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget that rigid transmission, no teetering, no lead/lag pivot and no flapping immensely augment the difficulty of flying safely and efficiently.

Simplification of components actually increases the difficulty for rotary wings design. Counterintuitive? Obviously. But aerodynamics complexity need various decoupled degree of control to be dealt with.

Think about it: who does commercially safe and efficient rigid rotors today? Like she says, Simply the best(s)

View: https://youtu.be/GC5E8ie2pdM

 

[Rhinocrates]

FYI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle

 

[martinbayer]

How does this match the mid 20th century hype of "a helicopter in every suburban garage/driveway" trope in any way, shape, or form? After the hyperventilating peak, it was all downhill. I'll leave the extrapolation of the applicability/validity of the Gardner cycle to the reader.

 

[Rhinocrates]

How does this match the mid 20th century hype of "a helicopter in every suburban garage/driveway" trope in any way, shape, or form? After the hyperventilating peak, it was all downhill. I'll leave the extrapolation of the applicability/validity of the Gardner cycle to the reader.

it has been criticised (scroll down the Wiki article). It really only describes one pathway of implementation of a successful technology seen in retrospect. RLVs, as you mention might follow that curve. Economists sometimes talk of 'dead cat bounce' - if you throw a dead cat out of a high window, it'll bounce but it won't get up after it falls again.

 

[martinbayer]

How does this match the mid 20th century hype of "a helicopter in every suburban garage/driveway" trope in any way, shape, or form? After the hyperventilating peak, it was all downhill. I'll leave the extrapolation of the applicability/validity of the Gardner cycle to the reader.

it has been criticised (scroll down the Wiki article). It really only describes one pathway of implementation of a successful technology seen in retrospect. RLVs, as you mention might follow that curve. Economists sometimes talk of 'dead cat bounce' - if you throw a dead cat out of a high window, it'll bounce but it won't get up after it falls again.

As a cat person, I very strongly prefer to call this a "dead dog bounce' instead (and one more reason for me to truly hate, loathe, disdain, detest, abhor, despise, and abominate so-called "economists" and their vile, evil, repulsive, revolting, vicious, wicked, nasty, villainous, unethical, corrupt, contemptible, nefarious, unsavory, miserable, execrable, unscrupulous, wretched, debauched, unseemly, censurable, ill, sick, mean, degenerate, improper, ignoble, atrocious, offensive, perverted, infernal, reprehensible, pernicious, depraved, and repugnant pseudo theories), but to me it's just one more example of how economists, as opposed to true scientists, get away with any flimsy pseudo "explanation" (but I'm not bitter at all).

 

[TomcatViP]

Looks like a pretty tiny cabin volume:

 

[Rhinocrates]

As a cat person, I very strongly prefer to call this a "dead dog bounce' instead (and one more reason for me to truly hate, loathe, disdain, detest, abhor...

I wonder is anyone's used the phrase 'dead jellyfish splat'? Anyway, as a fellow ailurophile, I heartily agree. It is said OF economists that they exist to make astrologers look credible.

 

[zevets]

The source of my quote is a friend, who is almost certainly telling me an urban legend about the party, but it does line up with several key events - Thiel's "we wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters" made a noticeable difference in the funding availability for the smaller players. Uber/Kalanick is also likely true to intent, as Uber had raised such a huge amount of money at such a huge valuation that they needed a plausible to form a monopoly on approximately all transportation in the USA in order to be not-committing securities fraud. Since that plan isn't viable, they decided to pitch and partially fund the creation of a whole new transportation industry.

Don't forget that rigid transmission, no teetering, no lead/lag pivot and no flapping immensely augment the difficulty of flying safely and efficiently.

Simplification of components actually increases the difficulty for rotary wings design. Counterintuitive? Obviously. But aerodynamics complexity need various decoupled degree of control to be dealt with.

Another useless anecdote from a different friend, who is a fully qualified helicopter engineer gets hired by one of these eVTOL outputs as their first rotorcraft expert. They were years into the design cycle (!) and was hired to tell them why they were seeing fatigue life issues on their rigid rotor design. When I asked him why he worked for such obviously doomed businesses, he responded: "the only feature of the economics of [this aircraft] that matters to me is the size of my paycheck"

 

[Reaper]

FYI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle


View attachment 700795

Mass Media Hype was in 2018/19, now we are at 2nd/3rd rounds of VC funding (despite SPACs) and a product hasnt been in daily operation yet. So probably in 5 years you might see low adoption and some of the main frontrunners have disappeared.

 

[alberchico]

Wisk Aero CEO Brian Yutko on the transition to becoming a fully owned Boeing subsidiary

With Wisk Aero now becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing Company, Vertical reached out to Wisk CEO Brian Yutko for his thoughts on how this new chapter will shape the company’s course into AAM.

verticalmag.com

"We remain absolutely steadfast on going directly to an uncrewed aircraft. There is no backup in the plan and there are no hidden pilot flight controls on board the aircraft"


"Naturally, the regulations can be improved over time. For example, I’d love for there to be specific requirements for subjects like detect and avoid, but as for now, the default is see and avoid. We’ll make the arguments for waivers and exemptions, but we’ll get there over time as an industry."

Does anyone feel it is an extremely high risk strategy to design this aircraft to be fully autonomous from day one with no backup plan and hope that FAA regulations will be in place to permit commercial operations when this thing is ready to enter service ? The FAA is still dragging its feet when it comes to allowing tiny delivery drones to overfly populated areas but Wisk thinks that getting regulatory approval for a vehicle of this size to fly unmanned over cities will not present a massive hurdle ? With the exception of Ehang nobody else is planning to do autonomous operations from day one.

 

[zevets]

Wisk Aero CEO Brian Yutko on the transition to becoming a fully owned Boeing subsidiary

With Wisk Aero now becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing Company, Vertical reached out to Wisk CEO Brian Yutko for his thoughts on how this new chapter will shape the company’s course into AAM.

verticalmag.com

"We remain absolutely steadfast on going directly to an uncrewed aircraft. There is no backup in the plan and there are no hidden pilot flight controls on board the aircraft"


"Naturally, the regulations can be improved over time. For example, I’d love for there to be specific requirements for subjects like detect and avoid, but as for now, the default is see and avoid. We’ll make the arguments for waivers and exemptions, but we’ll get there over time as an industry."

Does anyone feel it is an extremely high risk strategy to design this aircraft to be fully autonomous from day one with no backup plan and hope that FAA regulations will be in place to permit commercial operations when this thing is ready to enter service ? The FAA is still dragging its feet when it comes to allowing tiny delivery drones to overfly populated areas but Wisk thinks that getting regulatory approval for a vehicle of this size to fly unmanned over cities will not present a massive hurdle ? With the exception of Ehang nobody else is planning to do autonomous operations from day one.

That's why Boeing bought them, presumably at a discount. Boeing is going to tell these cute silicon valley engineers that they're working on manned aviation, and then take the not quite FAA-rated autonomy software and sell it to the us government for nearly FAA aproved civilian airspace integrated military drones.

 

[BlueFPV]

I thought something similar when I read the news. Apart from the VTOL/Air taxi hype, passenger planes are able to fly fully autonomous already for many years but the happenings of the last years show that even the concept of just one pilot won't work in real life althoug technically possible.

 

[alberchico]

Interview: Lilium's Daniel Wiegand on its eVTOL plans and progress

We visited Lilium HQ outside Munich to see a spectacular full-size eVTOL mockup, fly the Lilium Jet in a motion rig simulator, tour the premises and meet the team. First stop: CEO and co-founder Daniel Wiegand.

newatlas.com

A detailed interview regarding the future of this project.