Also, where is the vertical stabilizer and rudder? I assume they're using differential thrust in powered flight, but what if they lose power? Can this plane be controlled in a glide?
Also, where is the vertical stabilizer and rudder? I assume they're using differential thrust in powered flight, but what if they lose power? Can this plane be controlled in a glide?
The only reason you are seeing them in small planes is that electric propulsion makes VTOL viable, and VTOL favors small planes. There is just this niche in aviation that can't be filled at all by fossil fuel engines, so it's the first to adopt electric ones.
And yes, regulations will be the most important factor for those. I imagine it all depends on how silent those planes can be. But I doubt safety will be the limiting factor.
The lower that relation, the smaller you can make your VTOL vehicles, and the smaller the vehicles, the cheapest and more economical they are on total.
I agree. I’d say, though, not just how silent, but how pleasant sounding. Aesthetics of sound could make or break this industry.
Well, for instance, if they could line up the harmonics to create a missing fundamental (eg with the addition of external sounds), they could make propellers present an artificially lower pitch.
Private-transport helicopters or equivalents have no place in cities. The gain is in no way worth the cost.
Its not just unreasonable because the person flying gets less utility that is otherwise lost. It is also an unfair form of theft.
There is also a lot of space on how you maneuver it on the landing and take-out, so you make less sound when it matters the most.
There is the entire thing about minimizing weight too, that also reduces sound, but it's also not clear how much can be done.
Overall, it's not clear at all how much noise the eVTOL planes will make.
if that is true (I do not think that he left references either) then I would think that your statements seem less plausible.
a replier who later deleted their comment left a reference saying the energy density is 50 to 1, comparing lithium-ion battery to diesel: https://www.batterypowertips.com/comparing-ev-battery-and-fu...
I don't want some rich dude flying over my house just because he/she can afford to take a airtaxi from the airport to city center while everyone else uses car or train.
For other use cases they can do what they want. Australian outback perhaps.
But airspace pollution and a potential small airplane crashing down in a city? No way.
On the other hand, making it cheap enough that mono-millionaires can do it regularly is going to make a big difference compared to the status quo.
Ah right, moving it from 0.1%-ers to 1%-ers is really going to make a big difference.
It's hard to find precise qualifications for how they determine that, though. The households figure doesn't include primary residence value (why?), and the individual statistics don't mention liquidity. I suspect that only a small percent of that 8% actually has $1+ million liquid.
So yeah, 4%-ers then. Really makes a big difference to my point. This is totally gonna change everybody's life. (I.e. those who can afford it, while the majority is scraping by from paycheck to paycheck.)
Blockchain was supposedly created by a single person. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has mentioned creating a digital currency. As they pump more money into that idea and develop some neat tweaks or totally control blockchains, will we look back in 50 years and say, "Look at how much the government did for blockchain." forgetting that it exists in the first place to spite them?
Ah wait let me rephrase this: while more people can fly now economy got shittier than ever.
Also we live in 2022, the narrative that rich risk there life's was probably never true (they have test personal) and we have enough capital in our society to do certain things without the money of the rich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#Childhood
> Earhart was the daughter of Samuel "Edwin" Stanton Earhart (1867–1930) and Amelia "Amy" (née Otis; 1869–1962).[13] She was born in Atchison, Kansas, in the home of her maternal grandfather, Alfred Gideon Otis (1827–1912), who was a former federal judge, the president of the Atchison Savings Bank and a leading citizen in the town. Amelia was the second child of the marriage after an infant was stillborn in August 1896.[14]
She for one, looks to me to have been wealthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_th...
> and we have enough capital in our society to do certain things without the money of the rich.
Part of the reward for pioneering tech is the taking of the risk and getting the reward while at the end of the day being able to feel a sense of accomplishment having done it largely of your own initiative and cost. The spirit of exploration that existed in early humans, that led to our expansion to the furthest points of the earth, exists today in the form of innovation and invention. While it is enticing of course to create at the behest of government or corporations like was done in Bell Labs or DARPA, there is a severe risk that liabilities and bureaucracy stifle innovation. I cannot imagine a governmental system of incentives that creates an atmosphere quite like the USA had prior to the 1960s that led to innovation, invention, and implementation that we had never seen before, and may never see again.
This is dangerously close to the infamous HN Dropbox critique[1] :-D
And it's likely wrong in the same way.
Bit of a fake concern, no?
>potential small airplane crashing down in a city
Is that really much worse than a SUV driving into a building?
Yes
please don't waste our time.
Risk is a community exercise. You don't (or rather, shouldn't) get to externalize disproportionate risks upon the commons because it makes your life easier.
(An example of such a consideration: what happens when the fire department shows up? They know how to deal with a car accident; are they going to have the presence of mind not to douse a vehicle that looks like a normal personal aircraft in water?)
Why ordinary speeds? Someone driving into a building is likely to be going significantly faster, perhaps because they confused the brake pedal and accelerator.
Things like this happen all the time https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/1529914550266368000
We currently have a billion cars on the road. Of course we have plenty of accidents.
But that's not a valid comparison.
And perhaps we should also get rid of carsnow your argument is totally invalid
And I'd bet a lot more on the crash safety of aerospace cerrified batteries than those of the automotive sector.
Why? Aircraft are optimized for weight far more than automobiles. Making airplane batteries safer than car batteries would make them even less energy dense than they already are. Add to that fact that cars have a crumple zone built into them, while an airplane AFAIK does not -- at least not one that matters when it crashes into my house at 100mph.
Furthermore, some Tesla crashing on the freeway on the way to Tahoe is unlikely to start a forest fire. But what about some rich yahoo making the same trip while flying their personal electric plane who crashes in the Oakland hills?
These problems are non trivial particularly because every personal electric plane company wants to scale into the millions.
And in any case, even if such accidents would be worse, they’d also be vast less common. It’s more difficult to fuck things up in the air, and the level of training required to operate an aircraft is far higher than the level of training required to operate a SUV.
Drivers famously can’t even keep track of which pedal is the brake and which is the throttle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration
How many SUVs do you know of that are crashing into houses at 200mph?
Also, what is the relative mass of the electric airplane with a bunch of lithium batteries, versus the SUV?
What parts of the house might be hit by a falling airplane, versus an SUV crashing into the house from the road?
What is the fire risk of a bunch of lithium batteries having fallen out of the sky, versus the SUV crashing into the house?
There's lots of factors to be considered here, but overall I'd say there's a lot more risk of damage, injury, and death with the falling electric airplane than with the SUV.
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/driver-crashes-through-gas-...
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/car-into-kohls
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/vehicle-careens-into...
https://turnto10.com/amp/news/local/massachusetts-wrentham-v...
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/video-shows-suv-crashing...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-hospitalized-car-plows-dc-res...
https://www.gainsberglaw.com/blog/cars-crash-into-buildings-...
I could find thousands of these.
An airplane falling from the sky is far less likely to hit anyone than a car suddenly accelerating into a store because the driver is flooring the accelerator instead of the brake. These incidents are so common that they have an extensive wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration
You can find some numbers at https://www.storefrontsafety.org/statistics.html They claim this happens around 60 times a day.
Again at least with streets I know that an SUV will only crash close to streets with an air taxi it could crash everywhere.
Kindergarden? Yes.
Can we protect a kindergarden from an accidental SUV acceleration? Of course we can. Easy.
Yes of course, per passenger mile SUVs are far more likely to drive into a building than an air taxi is to fall out of the sky.
> Can we protect a kindergarden from an accidental SUV acceleration? Of course we can. Easy.
But we don’t.
All of the things that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31719861 wrote, and:
> You’d expect there to be far more people at the street level than on top floors.
There are far more people who live near the sky than live near a large road.
> It’s more difficult to fuck things up in the air,
No, it really isn't? Aircraft driver licencing and training is notoriously much harder, longer than the equivalent motor-car licencing and training. Car drivers don't have to learn about stalls for starters. The training is there because a) it's much harder to do right, there are more ways to go wrong and b) potentially greater impact.
The common failure mode for a car is that it stops moving at the side of the road. The equivalent for an aircraft is that it falls out of the sky onto whatever is below. We are not ready for a lot more of that.
remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Glasgow_helicopter_crash
An airtaxi crashes down from a hight and speed. They will crash into and through your roof or into a street or directly into humans.
Airspace pollution is not a fake concern.
Why would we allow one company to fly over my head and another not?
Either it is so niche that it doesn't add any benefit to our society or it becomes so normal that air space pollution is a real issue.
I'm very very happy when I look into an empty/nearly empty sky.
This is a valid concern.
This is something that happens on a daily basis.
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/driver-crashes-through-gas-...
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/car-into-kohls
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/vehicle-careens-into...
https://turnto10.com/amp/news/local/massachusetts-wrentham-v...
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/video-shows-suv-crashing...
The NHTSA estimates that there are 16000 crashes per year in the US caused by drivers confusing the brake and accelerator pedals. A huge chunk of these do end up with the vehicle inside a building.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161226060428/https://www.nhtsa...
> An airtaxi crashes down from a hight and speed. They will crash into and through your roof or into a street or directly into humans.
The odds of a SUV driving into humans is far greater than the odds of a falling airtaxi hitting anyone.
SUVs end up inside stores every single day because of unintended acceleration on parking lots.
> Why would we allow one company to fly over my head and another not?
What does that even mean?
>Either it is so niche that it doesn't add any benefit to our society or it becomes so normal that air space pollution is a real issue.
The “airspace” is very big 3D space that can simultaneously accommodate thousands of flights over a city before congestion becomes an issue.
And yes it's totally valid as well to not allow it at all if only a handful of other people can benefit from it.
We are the people and I don't care if a rich person wants to do that. My airspace is more important than that one rich person.
Hop over a fjord, hop over a mountain range. Much cheaper and eco-friendly than building bridges and tunnels everywhere, especially if the population density isn't high.
Perhaps in 20-50 years when we solved climate change.
Those companies are not trying to just create a cheap and easy to use carplane they want to become rich which needs business viability.
And I don't mind if they solve some niche problems. I mind that they want to fly over my head every 10 minutes.
Look at the rural countryside in places like Norway. I am not talking about rich people primarily, but semi-isolated communities whose older citizens might need specialized healthcare etc.
Also, this was originally a discussion about electric planes, so their effect on climate change is probably neutral-ish.
Wait until you see the motor carriages they claim are going to replace horses one day.
Learning to drive and learning to fly isn’t the same bar today.
And if Lilium think Palo Alto to San Francisco could be $50, they’re gonna need _alot_ of flights to balance their costs.
Autorotations are by no means a "gimme", but if every autorotation "likely" caused significant injuries, there wouldn't be enough helicopters or pilots to go around (no pun intended).
They will probably want to fly across non easy terrain because otherwise you could just use some other means than an expensive helicopter.
Hight perhaps but you will fly across water, woods, power lines, cities.
That’s so the craft can stay in the “autorotation possible” section of the HV diagram as much as possible.
Can you quantify this?
> Most helicopter crashes happen outside that narrow zone of survivability.
AFAIK the majority of helicopter crashes are not caused by a loss of engine power, but autorotation is relevant specifically in that context. It's not relevant to helicopters crashing into hills during storms, or hitting wires with the rotor, or anything like that. We're discussing what happens if the engine stops, not all accident scenarios.
> Even if an autorotation is semi-pulled off it's likely to be a hard landing that causes significant injuries.
Yes, but it's better than being dead.
Control authority yes, but altitude is always a substitute for forward air speed (and is an even better substitute for the eVTOL planes than helicopters).
This is why you rarely see them do that, instead they circle - which any small plane could do but the helicopter can hover if needed. It’s just the most dangerous part.
There's also a lot of other things that can impact the event - for example, the crash I mentioned involved bad weather, tired crew, and losing both engines at once due to icing. They autorotated and nobody died... but they fell into a forest, landed hard enough to destroy undercarriage, and the first officer survived by accident due to helping get passengers into position when a tree smashed his station.
EDIT: corrected captain to first officer, as visible in this photo: https://static.polityka.pl/_resource/res/path/bc/08/bc086fae... (it's Mi-8, so captain sits on the left, not on the right as is normal in western helicopters)
That’s kind of a given, since the successful autorotations do not qualify as crashes.
2020: 94 accidents, 19 fatal accidents, 35 fatalities, 22% decrease in accidents compared to 2019, 36% decrease in accidents compared to 2013
2019: 121 accidents, 24 fatal accidents, 51 fatalities
2018: 122 accidents, 24 fatal accidents, 55 fatalities
2013: 146 accidents, 30 fatal accidents, 62 fatalities
Humans? A uneven roof? A busy road?
And for whom? The rich? People who can afford a few hundred dollars for a quick flight from the airport to the city?
How about no?
For example, to fly a helicopter over London requires pilots to fly only over well defined routes - although those with multiple engines are allowed more scope.
As an example, just on the topic of safety: Why would we assume these machines are relatively dangerous once they reach production? Just because they fly? I know of at least one category of vehicles where on that basis our intuition fails us to this day.
And what happens when they do fail? They are not going to explode randomly or purposefully target the closest building. So what are the chances of all fail-safes failing, and catastrophic outcomes occurring?
Why would we assume whatever this technology eventually enables will be operated by human pilots? I for one would be fairly surprised if that was to happen at any noteworthy scale. Clearly, the interesting part about this prototype is electric flight, not its HID, agreed?
So let's build cool things (electric flight is potentially a cool thing) and then gather actual data about other things it brings (some maybe not so cool), before we "no way" it without any facts on the basis of weak conjecture and personal feelings.
I don't have a particularly positive or negative opinion of the technology here, but the one good reason I can see to treat these machines as inherently dangerous is because they take all the kinetic energy of something traveling faster than a car and add the gravitational potential energy of something hundreds of feet off the ground, while not being constrained to a well-defined corridor that you can protect with safety barriers.
When cars meet stationary objects at speed they tend to make a mess. These things are likely to be lighter, but when out of control they'll be going faster, and this thing specifically, when it goes bad, will go bad carrying several hundred kilos of lithium into an uncontrolled energetic event.
If risk is probability times expected outcome, my estimate would be that Lilium comes out worse than driving on both sides of the formula. That's not a reason per se not to do it because, like you say, let's gather data. But the basic physics of the situation is also not something to ignore.
A) The reason that cars crash (crash meaning doing damage in the process of failure) is by a large margin not mechanical failure, but human error. While in this case the technology is still infantile and will, even after a couple of years of testing, certainly be more prone to mechanical failure, I see no real reason to assume that it would ever be permitted for actual inner city usage before it beats a certain range/failure-ratio, because that seems trivial to secure and exactly what regulatory bodies are made for.
B) Let's assume there will be no humans piloting these things in an urban transportation scenario, ever, because that does indeed seem incredibly dangerous and silly. I don't think we as a species have the capacity to manually navigate these things in a 3d space filled with them. I don't see any reason we have to. Let's not do that.
C) If you think about it, physics are impossibly bad for car safety. There is no time to decelerate safely and then also no safe space to evade to. In contrast, in the case of flying thingies however, you have space and time working for you: Even if parts of the machine fail, it definitely has at least an order of magnitude more seconds to manoeuvre to relative safety. Of course, catastrophic failure (big fireball in the sky) can possibly still occur (I assume), but you are not working against physics, which is great, because then all you need is outstanding engineering and appropriate fail safes. Engineers will take that over having to beat physics any day.
Advances in ai, energy storage etc.
But right now, air taxi is just inherently stupid.
We know how to build those things. There is nothing really you need to invent. you just need to build them.
The problem are things like safety, airspace (who owns it), co2, terrorism, airspace Management...
Let's talk air taxi again when we can fly fully electric, are in the right way for climate change and when air control is no longer handled by humans.
With C, we're well into "what do the safeties look like" because the assumption that you can manoeuvre at all after something Unexpected And Exciting happens is possibly rash. I don't trust that designs like this one have much unpowered lift or even that much flight control at all in a power-out state. And remember too that the whole point of these things is that they're flying over presumably dense areas. The idea that there will be somewhere safe to manoeuvre to in the seconds you may or may not have is definitely on the optimistic side.
But still, even given all that, a parachute should go a long way to being a workable "emergency stop" equivalent. There are failure states which it doesn't help with (for instance: a birdstrike goes badly enough wrong that a short-circuit starts a lithium fire which, thanks to our parachute, slowly drifts an incendiary path across entire city blocks) but in general I'd expect the benefits to outweigh the risks.
Planes will not be a solution for all transportation needs, but where it makes sense they're great. A flying bus basically, routes can be very flexibly changed depending on evolving needs.
Public transport is factors more efficient than air travel.
And yes including initial cost.
We build infrastructure to last not to throw it away 5 years later.
You need to understand how much more energy it actually costs to bring a plain up in the air and down again. We talk magnitude more energy than trains.
We can talk about this again in 20 years when solid state batteries are broken through.and sustainable energy sources are the norm.
Air taxi's ate not hard to build on a technical level. We know how to build them.
And honestly we didn't do a good job. After all climate change is real, lead poisoning was real too.
Drones ought to have megaphones that scream DRONE CRASH IMMINENT before impact.
Re. Australian outback, air taxi already kind of exists in light planes, helis and of course flying doctor.
Biking is not slumming it. There are some pretty fancy eBikes out there.
That said, the particular generation of execs I was referring to largely exist in a culture devoid of bicycle commutes :)
Why is this fine with big planes, but bad with small ones?
But small air taxies would first of fly much lower, always in the city and if it is cheap enough for all of us, you need more than just one.
And if it's not affordable for us, than there is no real reason for us to accept this at all.
And yes the big planes when they travel very high you can not hear them but it's also totally valid to have the discussion about air pollution and sky visual pollution.
But air transport for goods is actually something were we all benefit. Airmail as well.
Why not? He's funding the employment of the air taxi people, plus their technology development, and reducing congestion.
I understand the safety concern, but I don't see how "just because" they can afford it is a reasonable objection.
It's the safety concern and it's flying over my head.
There is always a risk/benefit ratio and just because a handful of people want to spend more money so that they can fly faster from the airport to the city center than others is not worth the security implications.
You are aware how much security is involved whenever you fly?
We talk an expensive license, regular flying hours per year (also not cheap), air control, restricted air zones, very regular safety plain checks.
Every single object on a commercial plane for example is tracked, every replacement etc.
Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies. If a normal taxi costs x, an airtaxi has to cost 4x and more.
We the people don't need to allow everyone everything just because they have the money into do so.
>Congestion is not solved by small expensive air taxies
If you expect a new transport to 'solve congestion' as a requirement for it to be allowed, we're not going to allow anything. Incremental improvements can add up.
I just find these "I can't have it, so you can't either" arguments so short sighted. Lots of technologies start out the domain of the wealthy before achieving scale and mass adoption. Maybe we won't all be mass adopting air taxis, but some of the technologies that come out of these things may well end up in our cars, or houses, or benefiting us indirectly.
My issue is with the argument that simply being wealthy enough (literally 'just because' he is wealthy enough. Check the comment I was replying to.) to do this is by itself reason enough to ban it.
All this redirection back to safety is a smokescreen to distract from the actual issue I'm concerned with.
I also say 'do not start polluting the sky's
And ' keep the noise down'
Congestion would be reduced by people using trains and maybe, I would be actually willing to see this as an option, autonomously driving cars.
fossil fuel VTOL was cracked in the late 60s.
https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/why-regional-air-mobility
> If we imagine for a moment that you work in an office in Palo Alto, you could now choose to live in Hayward (5 min flight, $25), downtown San Francisco (10 min flight, $50), or even San Rafael (15 min flight, $70).
> Or maybe you want to escape to Lake Tahoe for a long weekend? That would be less than an hour on a Lilium Jet, at a cost of around $250 at launch and less in the near future. It might not be something you’d do every weekend, but saving you three hours each way might well make it worthwhile for an occasional trip.
Obviously at first this will be a luxury good, but it's not obvious that it'll remain out of reach for the middle class. (Sure, it'll never be cheaper than a bus.)
It's a fair question exactly how much regulatory change this approach requires, but my impression is that they are trying to operate within existing constraints (I'd appreciate any insight from experts in the aviation space though).
25 * 2 * 22 = $1100/mo = $13.2K / year.
I'm interested in how those prices break down. Without any more details, it's hard to know if they're realistic at all.
Safety: If you crash in a car, its very likely that you survive. With these a crash is very likely deadly. To reach safety levels like commercial airplanes costs will need to rise tremendously. A commercial jet needs maintenance and checks after each flight by trained personnel, high quality parts that can be tracked from the refinery,...
Privacy: You dont want these flying over your house 7/24. They fly much lower than commercial planes, with a mediocre camera you could spy on anyone.
Crime: What if you divert one? Will there be security checkpoints at the entrance?
Weather: I'm no aviation expert, but these look... flimsy. Are they able to run on cold weather? (batteries last much less in cold) Are they able to run in storms? Likely not, even commercial planes avoid them. Then I guess they suspend the service during storms, since with their "local" distances as big as the circumference of a storm cloud?
Privacy: Regulated airspace is your friend, plis why wait for one those if you can have your own drone for the price of one Lilium ticket.
Crime: Regulations also cover airport operations, so that base will be covered as well.
For me the question is not if those aircraft are goong to fly (they will if it os technically possible and people fund development), but rather whether there is an actual market for those big enough to make the manufactirers and operators viable businesses. The last qiestion is hard (IMHO impossible) to answer without getting them to market first.
The FAA thinking is that you have greater understanding as a passenger on a Part 91 operation and are better able to judge the risk yourself, whereas a Part 135 (charter) or Part 121 (scheduled airline) operation, the public cannot effectively judge the safety of the operation so the FAA holds them to a higher standard.
Single engine Part 135 is possible, but there's a large amount of focus on redundancy: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/single-engine...
While the stated/projected costs (which I doubt will be achievable), these would compete very favorably against a helicopter on a cost basis. Without the ability to auto-rotate (or a functional equivalent level of safety system), there's no way I'm getting in one nor recommending my family get in one [and I'm perfectly happy flying my family in single engine piston aircraft at night].
You are right, eVTOL cannot autorotate, but electric motors can be far more reliable than internal combustion engines, with many fewer failure modes. Additionally, they are much lighter, and so you can have much greater redundancy. There is considerable redundancy in the lift motors on these aircraft, so one or in many cases more than one lift motor can fail while still providing safe and controllable flight. The exact level of redundancy needed is verified via probabilistic risk analysis, considering failure probabilities of different components, and as mentioned the target failure rate will be lower for these than for equivalent sized conventional aircraft due to their novelty.
While there's still a lot of design and development work to do, I'd be very surprised if these didn't end up much more reliable and less prone to failure than helicopters and single engine airplanes.
Note: I work for one of these startups, so I may be a bit biased, but I also have insight into the design process and safety and redundancy of systems are absolutely a top concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_height%E2%80%93velo...
In an eVTOL, if you have enough height or velocity, you should be able to glide on the wing. So you'll be wanting to keep yourself in the appropriate region of the HV curve, and your emergency engine out procedure will be much more like a conventional fixed wing aircraft, rather than a helicopter.
The EVTOL community has long lobbied for, and for some time, has gotten away with a whole new set of performance based standards not previously used to certify other aircraft of similar size and weight. This was, of course, until several weeks ago when the FAA made the abrupt rule change going from Part 23 to 21.17b for these vehicles. Much has been said about this in the industry, but I understand that questioning the performance based standards is at the core. We’ll see where the dust lands, but it’s clear that some in the EVTOL community are not interested in applying airliner safety standards to these vehicles.
Questions: is your firm following ARP 4754A and 4761 to the letter? What systems are being mandated to DAL A (requiring a 10 to the minus 9 failure rate?) Are these the usual components found in other jets, or new components that typically haven’t required the same level of safety criticality?
These are a whole new type of aircraft—there are so many unknowns that it’s impossible to compare safety standards to other aircraft, even if the intent is to meet something like Part 25.1309. Case in point: power distribution systems in airliners are rarely DAL A, but I’d recon they’re pretty damn safety critical in an EVTOL. No power distribution = no spinning propellers = no thrust, and all on a “powered lift vehicle…” cue the classic line about the V22, “a plane that can’t glide AND a heli that can’t autorotate—all in one!”
We are following ARP4754A and 4761, yes. We are still in the process of doing our safety assessments at the aircraft and systems levels and finalizing our type certified design, so I can't say which systems are going to be required to be DAL-A, but I expect that the pilot inputs, flight controller, battery systems, high voltage distribution system, low voltage distribution system, lift motors, and control surface servos will be designed to that level. Our strategy is to build ourselves the critical components for an electric aircraft, so we are doing the battery, high voltage distribution, and electric motors, while we are buying the other components (pilot inputs, flight control computer, control surface servos, primary flight displays, etc) from existing suppliers who already have experience in this space.
In the meantime, we are also learning a lot from flight test of our experimental proof-of-concept airframes, which we can feed into this process. We've already built one experimental eVTOL under a previous design, and then two proof of concept airframes with a design much closer to the type certified design that we're now working on; so while we go through the process of breaking down the requirements per 4754A and doing safety assessments per 4761 and working on our final type certified design, we're also learning a lot about operational concerns and refining our design on our experimental proof of concept airframes.
As for the V22 line, well, our aircraft can't autorotate, but it's not bad as a glider. That was a primary design criterion; it should mostly be a glider that happens to have electric power. We recently did a cross-country trip halfway across the country on our PoC aircraft in CTOL configuration (https://evtol.news/news/beta-alia-250-prototype-flies-cross-...), with a number of stops on the way, of course, our range is limited by physics, and the majority of that trip was done such that there was an airport within the glide cone of our aircraft; we did allow for a few legs in which that wasn't always the case, and we would need to ditch in the event of power failure, but for most of the trip there was an airport within our glide cone if we had a power off event.
We are focusing on a slightly different market than the other entrants; we're focusing initially on cargo rather than passenger transit. One initial customer is United Therapeutics, for transporting organ transplants and artificial organs to hospitals. Another is UPS, for getting air freight from airports to distribution centers; cutting out the truck trip can save a ton of time there. We are also making a passenger variant, but since the regulatory and NIMBY concerns for the passenger air taxi market present a lot of risk, we're not betting solely on that market like a lot of the other companies are.
This helps with a lot of the concerns raised in this thread. In fact, another one that I'm not sure has been brought up is vertiport design and siting concerns; right now standards on vertiports are still a work in progress, and there are questions about whether it will be feasible to get them installed, because even with vertical takeoff and landing you generally need to keep approach angles of about 15° clear, which means once a vertiport is installed you need to limit the heights of any surrounding buildings to keep the approach clear.
To address a few of your other concerns: we're located in northern Vermont, we know cold weather. Actually, for our use case hot weather tends to be more of a concern; batteries and motors heat up when used, especially in the very high power vertical lift phase, so our limitations there tend to be thermal and cold air provides better cooling.
Our charging stations also include air for cooling and warming the batteries; so you should be able to avoid the issues with batteries being cold on startup with our air system.
All aircraft have limitations on weather that they can be flown in; crosswind limits for takeoff and landing, etc. As very lightweight aircraft, with high lift/drag, these will be somewhat lower than the limits for your big jumbo jets, but will be high enough to be useful in a lot of weather. All aircraft have requirements for design and testing for HIRF (high intensity radiated field/lightning), so these will all be certified to the same standard there. Aircraft can optionally be certified for flight into known icing conditions (FIKI); I believe our plan is to have the capability, but as an optional add on, as it requires a number of heating elements which add weight and complexity. But overall, the weather concerns shouldn't be too much different than for other small aircraft.
As far as safety goes, that's obviously a concern in any aircraft. One advantage of electric aircraft is that electric propulsion systems are far mechanically simpler, with far fewer moving and wearing parts. The only real wear item of concern are the main bearings on the motors, and the landing gear. So maintenance intervals can be much longer than with ICE aircraft, and I expect reliability to be considerably higher. Additionally, electric motors can be much smaller and lighter, and thus can be made redundant. Each propeller on our aircraft will be driven by multiple independent motors (probably can't say the exact configuration at the moment), so that motor failures can be tolerated without catastrophic consequences.
Most aircraft have a “maximum demonstrated crosswind capability” which is a required test flight item but is not a limitation. It has to be demonstrated during flight testing to a figure of not less than 20% of Vso, but once that’s hit, they don’t have to find a greater crosswind to determine an actual limit.
However, many aircraft do that testing to a higher level than is required. For instance, for a Cessna 172, 20% of Vso would be 8.2 knots, but it has a maximum demonstrated crosswind velocity of 15 knots.
Anyhow, all I'm saying is that at least for our aircraft, it looks likely that the maximum demonstrated crosswind velocity will be on the low side; at least the mandated limit based on Vso, possibly a few knots higher, but like most small aircraft, much much lower than what you have for big jets.
(In VTOL mode, could you wheel the aircraft into the prevailing wind for takeoff and/or land it pointed into the wind to reduce crosswind effects? [I’m a fixed wing guy with I think only 0.7 dual received in a helo.])
But we are also concerned with CTOL performance; in order to add more flexibility, CTOL performance is something that we are focusing on heavily, as if a runway is available you can do a takeoff and/or landing with lower energy use and thus get more range, so we're designing to be able to takoff and land either CTOL or VTOL. For example, one of our use cases is cargo, such as UPS getting packages from an airplane at the airport, to its distribution center. At an airport, you have a runway available for takeoff, so you might do a CTOL takeoff, and then a VTOL landing at the distribution center, and vice versa for the return trip.
And what I'm saying is that our aircraft, at least, won't have crosswind capabilities that are terribly high when doing CTOL takeoff and landing. It's pretty light and floaty and has a strong weathervaning tendency, and control surface sizes are kept limited in order to save weight and drag. It will be able to handle the minimum and maybe a bit more, but I wouldn't expect it to do well significantly above what the demonstrated crosswind velocity is. Ours is designed more as a glider that happens to have electric propulsion and lift capabilities, rather than a conventional powered aircraft, in order to be able to eke more range out of our batteries and provide a greater safety margin in the event of loss of propulsion power, but there are some tradeoffs to that design.
Also, I should say that I'm a software guy, this is my first aviation related job, and I only have about 2 hours in my logbook for dual received, and our certified design is not finalized and we are still doing some trades on things like control surface sizes, so anything I say here might be wrong now or in the future. But right now, we have a fairly limited crosswind envelope.
In an emergency, landing on an aligned taxiway is probably not materially different in risk profile from a VTOL landing on an uncontrolled ramp or parking lot under those same wind conditions.
In Europe there is a tilt rotor initiative. This has a smaller and more intensive downwash than a helicopter.
I also recently read a report about the effects of rattle noise from Chinook helicopters affecting houses above 75dB noise levels.
If my concerns are valid, I estimate travel times to increase. You would need to visit a vertiport first.
It’s not just electric powered planes that have to worry about such things… this was an issue for the Boeing 777 Dreamliner too. If it was powered on for longer than 248 days, it could lose all electrical power due to an overflow in the generator.
https://www.engadget.com/2015-05-01-boeing-787-dreamliner-so...
I’m not saying it isn’t a concern, but rather it is a concern for all planes (and vehicles for that matter). Many commercial passenger planes are now fly by wire. If you lose electrical power, you’ll also lose control. So, while we’re talking about purely electric planes, the problems are universal.
This thing would just fall or glide with zero pilot control. No control surfaces.
This is a contradiction.
A system with that level of redundancy will have a corresponding increase in complexity of management systems. That means software (multiple copies of software on multiple independently powered computers all somehow coordinating). This makes the management software the single point of failure, and frankly I'd sooner trust a 50 year old pair of mechanical engines to a 5 year million line of code program.
I agree that even modern batteries are pretty absurd for any human scale flight, though scaling laws make smaller aircraft more reasonable.
Basically, overprovision and then set electricity rates based on demand, and the renewable energy "storage problem" might just sort itself out. Of course, all those windmills and solar panels will cost an awful lot, so it might not be as simple as "overprovisioning".
Overprovisioning solar to power the grid on ice cold, windless new moon night is going to be hard. Having somewhere to put excess energy and some overprovisioning is always good, but it won't solve all storage problems.
I'd be really happy if there were a good way for me to turn excess electricity into something I could use later. Maybe that's hydrogen. Maybe that's capturing carbon and putting it into liquid fuels. Maybe that's creating graphite that I can use for fun personal projects.
But regardless, I don't expect grid electricity prices to fall. Probably not in the US. Definitely not in CA.
Another approach is to pull the CO2 straight out of sea water. Apparently the US Navy thinks this might be a viable approach, since their nuclear aircraft carriers have power to spare.
> A problem with biofuel is scaling it up, see: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7498153. According to that article the U.S. would need to devote "an area bigger than Texas and California and Pennsylvania combined" to crops specifically for its own jet biofuel needs. That's just for flying, not for food or fuel for ground transportation or anything else.
Also that article says that from 2009-2013 a $100 million effort was made to figure out how to get sufficient synthetic fuel from algae but they eventually gave up and went back to the drawing board.
The future has no place for biofuel in any substantial amount.
Firewood and derivatives have always had an important place in heating and cooking, and are likely to continue in that role for a while. Other types of biomass based hard fuels (from recycled garbage/waste, algae, etc) will most likely also play a role in electricity production and heating, but perhaps a small one (unless algae based biomass takes off).
And for liquid fuels for transportation use, algae may also end up being a competitor to hydrogen when oil runs out. I remember there were a lot of companies working in that space 10 years ago, but then there was the oil price crash in 2015, and it seems many switched away.
For instance algenol was positioning itself as a fuel company, but appear to have diversified:
https://www.algenol.com/sustainable-products/?category=ndust...
If oil prices remain at current levels, though, algae may be only a few years away from scaling up to take a significant part of the market.
Growing algae occupies >10x the area of floating solar panels producing the same usable energy. Harvesting and processing algae costs >>1 orders of magnitude more than delivering electrical power via wire.
The reasonable expectation is that transitions will be toward cheaper alternatives, with societal inertia acting to delay transition well beyond the point of obvious benefit. Thus, existing nukes will continue operating well after building solar + storage and then switching to that would be cheaper.
Does the lady of the house want to collect scraps of firewood and then cook in a hot already smokey kitchen or on a only heats the pan induction cooktop? Yeah.
Getting together $10 for a stove that needs 5x less firewood is a challenge. They need a new one every year because making one that lasts costs more.
https://www.nve.no/Media/7326/energibruk_energivar_2014-kopi...
Here is similar data from Sweden:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Egnell-Gustaf/publicati...
Here is for the world, my understanding is that "Traditional Biomass" is mostly firewood there too:
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/global-energy-substitutio...
The general idea is to use electrolysis to produce hydrogen, then combine that with atmospheric CO2 to produce methanol.
For instance: https://www.efuel-alliance.eu/efuels/what-are-efuels
On the Costs & Outlook page of this site, they list their potential feedstocks; it's all biomass, except for the 'Technical Potential "Unlimited"' column, which mentions Power-to-Liquids. But how does that actually work and does it actually make sense?
Related parody of carbon capture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8
The U.S. navy is interested in a fuel synthesizer that works on co2, seawater and uranium and they can pay more than you per gallon because you don’t have to refuel an aircraft carrier in a war zone.
Energetically, the principal synthetic fuels will be anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen. Capturing CO2 to make methane and kerosene is possible but more expensive. In particular, you need hydrogen as input, and must both capture and crack the CO2.
But for some uses you still need hydrocarbons, at least for now. Given carbon taxes subsidizing synthetics, the synthetics could be competitive.
In the longer term, aviation does much better with liquid hydrogen fuel, but it takes new airframes or, at least, extensive retrofits.
It's capturing energy in point A and being used at point B. You can't just look at point B and yell "CO2 emissions!".
That seems to be the big if.
For pure e-fuels they project 32 PWh. That is, to put it in perspective, more than the total world electricity production today. You'll want to use every technology available to do this in a more efficient way - batteries for very short ranges, hydrogen for mid ranges, e-fuels only for long range where nothing else works. It'll still be very challenging and likely the current growth projections of the aviation industry will be seen as unrealistic fantasies at some point in the future.
Total annual electricity production is 161 PWh. THe PDF you linked puts it in perspective by saying that if it were purely powered by renewable energy it would increase the size of the renewable energy sector by 3 to 5 times. In other words this doesn't sound hard at all from an electricity standpoint. If electrical generation were half the cost it would be economical right now.
> We find that an electricity emissions factor of less than 139 g CO2e per kW h is required for this [Direct Air Capture system paired with Fischer–Tropsch synthesis] pathway to provide a climate benefit over conventional diesel fuel.
The grid averages in most regions are higher than that. I don't think multiplying current renewable generation just for jet fuel is easy.
Did I mention that they are bad for the ozone layer?
I can see it becoming more of "Greyhound for Helicopters". Practically every town in the US greater than a few thousand population has at least a local municipal airport. With electrification, aviation can become so cheap that all of these fields will just have a few commuter size electric aircraft that feed into to the rest of our existing airport infrastructure. And with the planes being so small, there's really no need for TSA security or anything, it becomes as simple as buying a ticket on your phone and hopping on the plane like a bus.
There's no need for larger planes either for zero-risk travelers.
Planning to create a plane that fills this space is planning to create a plane that suffers a lot of accidents for almost no real gain over current options.
Buses are incredibly safe. If you want better busses, build those instead. This obsession with floating to your destination above the ground does not seem wise or worthwhile.
Fuel is not the dominant cost in general aviation. Electrification alone won’t make it cheap.
It's not about fuel efficiency. In fact, any electric aircraft with current battery tech is always going to be less efficient than a jet, because jets burn oxygen from the air.
It's about maintenance. The fixed hourly cost of aviation is almost entirely based on the cost of maintenance. And a fleet of electric aircraft will be orders of magnitude cheaper to maintain than turboprops and jets. That can unlock whole new business models of small scale commercial aviation that aren't possible today.
The reason small electric planes haven't taken off [1] is that they simply haven't proven their cost advantage. About one-sixth of the cost of a flight is fuel, which can be difficult to tax because of jurisdiction shopping. A third is labor, including taking care of the plane. Seven percent goes to building the plane. From:
https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/airfare-d...
Optimistically, electric planes could be cheaper to fuel, build and maintain. That's enough to upset an entrenched industry. But it's not clear how it should be organized, and the infrastructure mostly doesn't exist. Plus, the scale you expect to operate at depends on battery technology, which has been a little up in the air [2], and you don't want to design your operations around 1000-mile ranges if it's going to be 2000 in ten years.
1: Sorry.
2: Sorry. But see: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-022-00626-2
Noise
VTOL
When both are combined, this makes Urban flight closer to feasable.
There's lots more work to do to push it out to the mass market, but I could definitely see a niche for it.
Look at the tiny wings, and at what speed it still depended on vertical thrust. It's going to have horrible glide ratio, which means unpowered landings might be, well, not a thing, which leaves you only with emergency full-plane parachute as an option.
Pretty much all jet engine planes can do unpowered landings in glide, though admittedly some have pretty high speeds involved - but then they operate by default only on airports that have facilities for such speeds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jet-engine-failures-rare-usuall...
This is counter intuitive to even most pilots, but it's how efficient the wing design on a passenger jet is. Their lift to drag ratio is better than small planes.
For airliners the retractable gear saves tons of drag, but they also have things like winglets, and lots of smaller things like optimisation on the wing-root (airliners have smooth transitions here, trainers are sort of just square) that all reduce drag.
An airliner is also much less friendly to handle in a stall condition, while a trainer almost recovers on it's own. And similar for yaw stability, if you get the rudder a bit wrong in a trainer nothing much happens, while an airliner will typically start to oscillate. Both of these are solved on the airliner by electronics, a stick shaker or pusher to avoid the stall and a yaw damper to enhance stability. The Cessna 172 doesn't have any electronics involved in flying, only for navigation and those are optional.
Writing control software that can handle arbitrary failures isn't easy, but there is plenty of redundancy with the three separate flight computers.
Lost 2 batteries and 7 rotors, fine, there's still 6 batteries and 25 rotors left. Or something like that
How short are these short flights? The hugely popular Ponte Aérea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_A%C3%A9rea) has a flight duration of one hour.
Compare that to this battery plane that can fly 200 miles: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/29/rolls-royce-claims-its-...
These aren't in the same ballpark; they aren't even playing the same game. If you want something to replace that plane route, I suggest buying a lot of buses.
Use a hydrogen fuel cell instead:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210401-the-worlds-first...
https://www.aircargoweek.com/zeroavia-and-monte-strike-deal-...
https://www.flyingmag.com/joby-secretly-bought-a-hydrogen-el...
https://interestingengineering.com/german-firm-record-altitu...
Finding landing sites is going to be a major challenge even if they can solve the battery problems. New York City could be a prime market but there are only a few heliports. Politics and safety issues make it difficult to construct more.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/march/flig...
This is probably a silly question, but couldn't the pilot just wait until the plane dropped below the dead zone before deploying the parachute?
Options to resolve this are: make X higher by making the structure able to absorb more energy, or make Y lower by having it deploy faster.
Afaik rooftop helipads have been banned in NYC ever since an accident in 1977 killed five people.
Power density has not been a problem for a while. We are not anywhere near the theoretical limits of battery energy density. So as soon as there are some commercial applications for battery powered flight, there will be a strong economic incentive to get closer to the theoretical limits.
Current jet engines are absolute engineering miracles that go very close to the physical limits to get maximum efficiency. But it took several decades to get there.
Batteries have improved incredibly in my lifetime. As a kid I had an electric RC plane that barely made it off the ground. Now you can get pretty cheap aerobatic RC planes that easily compete with gasoline powered models.
Battery powered screwdrivers used to be incredibly underpowered. Now I have a very decent battery powered rotary hammer...
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/bnef_...
Well if we're talking about commercial aviation, we're talking about jet fuel not gasoline. Regardless, it obviously matters a lot. A fully loaded 747 freighter has somewhere around 200 tons of jet fuel and a max payload of about 130 tons. They already need more fuel than cargo, and that's with the excellent energy density of jet fuel. Furthermore, traditional planes get lighter the longer they fly as they burn off their substantial fuel loads. The last 20% of the fuel goes a lot further than the first 20%. Batteries don't get this advantage at all. (Dropping batteries from the plane with parachutes is a terrible idea, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it proposed..)
> We are not anywhere near the theoretical limits of battery energy density.
This doesn't jive with what I've read. It's my understanding that we're already near the limits of what electrochemistry can give us, and future advancements are likely to come from improved electrode designs, with maybe 2-3x better performance possible if we're lucky.
You only need giant quantities of kerosene for transoceanic or transcontinental travel. The lilium business model requires a range of a few 100 km, which is possible with today's batteries.
Very long distance air travel is impossible with today's commercially available batteries, but is possible with exotic chemistries (see below) or with hydrogen fuel cells.
> This doesn't jive with what I've read. It's my understanding that we're already near the limits of what electrochemistry can give us, and future advancements are likely to come from improved electrode designs, with maybe 2-3x better performance possible if we're lucky.
There are several battery chemistries such as lithium sulfur or lithium air that have extremely high energy densities. But cycle life remains very low, which makes them uneconomical.
There has been decent progress made in improving cycle life, but it is still too low to be economical. There are military applications where a low cycle life is acceptable.
Not with a meaningful amount of cargo it isn't; look up the electric planes that are actually flying today (and it's certainly not for want of trying, this is a very trendy field.) I can think of only a few niches where very light but expensive cargo needs to go somewhere close-by, but faster than is possible with a truck. Organs for transplant, and rich people.
The only company touting range achievable with today's battery tech is Archer, and their range, when you factor out reserve and inefficiencies, is about ~40 miles (~65KM.)
Perhaps, but there is also the middle-ground solution to use a booster rocket assembly similar to what the space shuttle uses. The booster can use its own battery packs and if needed its own additional engines, and when the plane has reached cruising altitude, the booster can decouple and return to the airport of departure.
This is partly because I live right next to a busy crossroads and often get multiple simultaneous sirens; but I do also wonder how faster they can arrive by going as the crow flies rather than following street layouts, and how much they have to slow down both for traffic and for blind corners.
The US market size for existing _air_ ambulances is itself $4.5 billion dollars annually. The market size for standard ambulances is nearly 10x that.
When you expand this to the rest of the world, you can easily see a 100+ billion market for these sorts of vehicles, whether in ambulance services, firefighting, agricultural, or any number of other activities.
It's still possible we develop near-to-city eVTOL airport systems for short distance travel. But even absent that, I still think there's a big market opportunity.
I'm sure they are used based on a cost/benefit calculation - not everyone gets them. If eVTOL reduces the cost, many more can benefit, or those funds can be shifted to something else.
I also find linking videos as a reply to something a bit weird, like how many minutes is one supposed to invest in understanding your point? Are you even making a point / answering a specific question, or is it just an interesting video on the topic? Articles are much easier to quote from or skim, depending on what you mean to say.
Both cities have plenty of potential even with overland banned. New York has a thriving helicopter business between boroughs, up and down both sides of Long Island and to and from the airports. The Bay Area isn’t similarly knitted together, but there is no good argument for not having an electric hop from e.g. Mountain View to SFO.
I'm wondering if there's some context I'm missing.
[1]: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections...
In the late 1970's, all the building-top helipads stopped operation after repeated accidents.
Still, there's the helipads along the river and a VFR corridor in and out of Manhattan. In 2009, the altitude rules for the corridor got a lot stricter because of repeated fatal accidents.
If you're a tour operator and want to use a city heliport, you need to sign a very restrictive agreement about operations, too-- which allows only limited overland stuff (e.g. flying over Yankee's Stadium/the Bronx). Mostly because people were sick of tourist helicopters constantly hovering over Central Park.
https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/rules-tightene...
None of this has anything directly to do with 9/11. Crashes of tourist helicopters and noise concerns has caused the city to clamp down on use of helipads. Crashes of air taxi operations in the 1970s caused the removal of the vast majority of helipads.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-...
...of the idea. Witch is essentially, advertisement aside, "the wealthy who happen to live nearby cities, witch happen to be open-sky prisons^w^w factories stuffed with services to achieve the Chinese lockdown with workers who live in the factory, to work, of course ehrm, to achieve the best work life balance (better not say the best to who) can came and go from such erh smart cities in full comfort with means that made things closer, like if they live inside the city and goes with cars.
...In the LONG term, that means we can benefit from the economy of scale living "near" but far less dense than today so at that point in time we have finally found a way to live sufficiently flexible to withstand the technological, social and climate change still being near enough to be social and have economy of scale phenomenon.
Or: in the short term we need a good solution for those who can pay, in the medium terms slaves ahem citizens have built a new society and new generations will finally benefit from such progress...
In theoretical terms: maintaining roads network is expensive, far expensive if we also need to build new ones, like a potential future arctic "anthropization" due to climate change, so better made few railroads and waterways for heavy loads transports and live humans in the air, far more flexible and cheap. At a certain point in time if we are still alive as a species we will reach that point. Then the "self-sufficiency push" will be the key to reach that goal in an unspecified future.
Ps if they loose power there is AFAIK only an emergency parachute for the entire plane. Only it demand, I suppose, a certain altitude to being able to be deployed...