Joby kicks off NYC electric air taxi demos with historic JFK flight
flyingmag.com
flyingmag.com
A more useful metric is $ per mile of range. Because if the vehicle can do the miles, that's all that matters. With the first generation of passenger drones their range isn't amazing. But their cost per mile is. And these Joby things have a useful enough range to do JFK to down town Manhattan.
I've been following the market a bit. There are a few interesting vehicles moving through certifications. Beta Aviation was touring all the airshows last summer with their ALIA CX300. It's a simplified ctol model of their vtol where they kept the pusher prop but removed the other props to speed up certification. So it's more like a conventional plane. It has a range of around 300 nautical miles depending on the battery configuration (modular). They flew it coast to coast in the US and all around Europe. It should get through certification by 2027 or so. Their vtol version has been flying for a while as well but will take longer to certify. It has less range because landing and taking off vertically just eats a chunk of battery. But once it is up in the air it flies pretty much the same as the ctol.
Of course the arrival of solid state batteries is going to shake things up. Everything that is close to being certified is flying without those. A potential doubling of energy densities is going to be a big deal. But certifying the batteries is going to take years.
It correlates to the energy density of course, but, weight directly goes into the power consumption calculations for vehicles. Efficiency is just a multiplier afterwards.
You can only ignore weight in non-mobile battery applications, i.e. grid applications.
It is a multi-variate problem and petrol currently wins out by a wide margin.
Unfortunately that's probably going to stay fossil for a while. What might matter is things like local ordinances prohibiting it on AQI grounds (especially things like leaded fuel in Cessnas!), as well as more dramatic questions like shortages.
(we're probably never going to get a carbon tax on jet fuel, too much coordination required)
You conveniently forgot about climate change.
It also very much matters that my grandchildren will be able to breath, will have food to eat, won’t have to live underwater and won’t depend on wars in faraway lands.
Is the answer?
1. Carbon emissions - not a problem if you synthesize the jet fuel out of carbon dioxide in the air. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/06/18/e-saf-jet-fuel-... it's expensive today but with cheap-enough energy, such as with abundant solar and wind power, it won't always be.
2. Air quality - If energy is so cheap that you can literally make jet fuel, it follows that we'd stop "burning stuff" for any other reason. No more coal or natural gas plants, gasoline or diesel engines, heating with natural gas or propane. Jet planes' air pollution is a tiny fraction of all those sources. I could live with that.
>>Jet-A has a much lower conversion to useful work than a battery
Edit: Since I have an aerospace engineering degree, I'll post the 100 level concept. https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes...
This is one potential pathway towards cleaner aviation.
Even with Cold War money, Lockheed's famed Kelly Johnson couldn't make the logistics work for the CL-400.
Use your imagination a little. So much status quo bias here.
This is an impressive enough achievement, but let's not kid ourselves this is going to revolutionaise suburban or semi-rural transport. Its maximum payload weight (450kg) barely covers 5 passengers with no baggage. It's for hopping from the country club to the golf course.
I'm referring to Joby, Archer, Wisk and similar.
The range is not really good right now with batteries at 255Wh/kg and much worse energy density than Jet-A fed into turbine(s). None of the evtol companies are big enough or vertically integrated enough to come up with some miracle 500Wh/kg battery on their own, so they're relying on market pressure generally to cause their battery subsystem vendors to make some significant breakthroughs.
More directly related to the PR, I saw the video of the JFK to Manhattan test flights and they're being done with only the pilot on board.
(Electric azimuth thrusters are becoming common in large ships for roughly this reason, too.)
That's a tangent from most sensitive vehicle to weight to the _least_ sensitive one.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2025/01/22/army-tries-out-n...
That’s a ton of weight penalty (the most consequential tradeoff in aircraft design) so the design gains of being able put motors in weird places has to be significant.
Once we have higher density batteries it becomes compelling since you can store power for bursty operations like VTOL while using an ICE engine that otherwise wouldn’t have the power, but currently it doesn’t pen out. You need an order of magnitude more energy density from batteries before you can come anywhere close to what combustion engines can do.
Now look at a photo of a human standing next to a shahed-136 size UAV for a totally different size scale.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/11/in-europe-the-p...
There is an existing market for passenger eVTOL to and from airports. Using that as a beachhead makes way more sense than trying to develop a de novo niche.
The tradeoff is you have to build a cargo business. That costs money and leadership attention. Racing for the beachhead, given sufficient access to capital, is the more focused strategy. (This is a good example of how bootstrapped versus financed companies can be radically different in their technical debts, time to market, culture and discipline around validating hypotheses.)
I mean I could be wrong, im certainly not an expert in future military design and strategy, but I just don't see any advantages once you start scaling these to the size needed to move humans. The only potential I can see is multi-rotor designs being easier to learn to pilot over a collective rotor design, but I don't see any modern military considering a few weeks off a pilot's training being worth the trade off in range, capacity, and safety.
As for survivability, we'll see. Any significant damage to the rotor systems will send most helicopters straight into the ground.
it's doable to do it today, economically, and solve tons of problems .
in a similar to ev rollout:
solve problem for wealthy people, get the premium, scale cheaper options. Nothing new. Technology of today is ready.
I'm skeptical that air taxis could ever meaningfully reduce traffic congestion to / from JFK. Compared to cars, these would seem to require a significantly larger landing pad and passenger unloading space and need much more safety margin in-between drop offs. Maybe this is competitive vs the private helicopter market?
I love aviation, but I also don't see air travel as being a scalable/affordable solution to this problem. Then again, it's only meant to alleviate traffic burden for a certain segment of the population.
In general if you have an affordable enough option you'd never walk into subway, with your several luggages, to travel longer. Train is a decent plan b.
I'm moderately wealthy and lived in New York for a decade. I take the train between JFK and Manhattan. (Specifically, the LIRR.) It's faster, more reliable and–for me–more comfortable than taking a car. (It's also safer.) If I have my cat with me or I feel like having fun, I'll take a Blade, but that's realistically only shaving like 20 minutes off the travel time.
Cars for sure are less convenient.
I've also taken the A from Harlem to JFK once. It was fine. Tougher to read a book, like I can on the LIRR, mostly because the frequency of stops means having to constantly be aware of your belongings.
And agree on helicopters. We already have helicopters. Switching them to eVTOLs is a move forward.
Wow, that makes it sound significantly more feasible than I would have guessed.
Yes, it is better compared to helicopter. cheaper, less noise. e.g. you can place it more applications, for less money.
[1] https://electrek.co/2025/04/28/jeep-dodge-maker-validates-so...
[2] https://www.evlithium.com/lifepo4-battery-news/calb-solid-li...
But batteries have an advantage over turbines, especially small turbines: specific _power_ density.
I mean sure long term the goal may be to wait for battery density to increase to keep moving upmarket and eat longer and longer flights from traditional aviation, but I don’t think better batteries are a requirement for the initial batch of vehicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_to_Papa_Westray_flight
So maybe one day people will take a joby to Papa Westray ;-)
Wouldn't the city be better when the wealthy have to deal with the same services and quality of life as everyone else -- not (literally, in this case) elevating themselves above others, while making everyone else's life worse?
In London a new train line was built deep underground from Heathrow all the way through central London and out the other side. It stops all the way, travels further (19 miles) and still only takes 25 minutes, so don’t pretend it can’t be done.
Instead of supporting people we solve problems for the 0.001% who will give us a quick buck, while we pretend we’ll one day be rich enough to ride these things
Every country says this about every other country. The UK has HS2, and we point to Germany. Germany has Stuttgart 21 and they point to Spain. Spain has the Sagrada Familia. Spain points to China, and China has the HZMB [0]
This stuff is really really hard, and standards have evolved hugely. The london underground would never be built today, because of the ignored costs. HS2's massive problem isn't that we spent £100m on a Bat tunnel [1], it's that nobody was willing to say no because that decision is pinned to you but the blame absolving is "someone elses problem".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong%E2%80%93Zhuhai%E2%80.... [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wryxyljglo
Your analogy is like saying that everyone thinks someone else is a faster runner: amateurs point to collegiate athletes, collegiate athletes point to elites, elites point to Olympians. You can find someone in each of these categories who has run a bad race, but that doesn't invalidate the existence of the differences in ability.
> Funny how every other developed country manages to build more infrastructure cheaper despite having stronger unions and stricter regulations.
I picked a handful of absolutely colossal overspends on massive infra projects to point out that no, not every other western country is doing so. All countries have their success stories and mega disaster projects
What mega project success stories does the US have in the last 20 or 30 years?
[0] https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2014/05/13/inenglish/13999...
Notably, getting to Brussels airport, which takes about 15 minutes from Brussels Nord, costs about 15 euro. For a 15 minute train journey. Hands-down the most expensive train per minute (or per km) I've ever been on. But, at least in theory, it's paying for this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabolo_project
(That's by no means the only one; lots of airports are in awkward places so running rail to them is expensive, and it's common for it to be paid for by special, more expensive services. And people use them.)
The "use helicopters for airport access" thing seems, at best, extremely niche.
And the notion that landing pads will be installed on the roofs of tall buildings is mostly a fantasy. Commercial or high-rise roofs are mostly already occupied with other machinery, and aren't designed to support the extra weight.
Building new massive infrastructure requires a level of ruthlessness that is not socially acceptable these days.
At that rate, even if you just look at extending the A/C/E from Jamaica to JFK, you're talking about 15B or so USD. And compared to today's [subway|LIRR] -> airtrain system, you probably only cut about 25% of the travel time (from 60 minutes down to 45 minutes)
Compare that to, for example, the Gateway Tunnel, estimated to cost about 16B USD and double the daily commuter capacity from NJ to NYC (including traffic to and from EWR!), and it's hard to justify new infrastructure to make it easier to get to the airport.
1. In NYC Subway, a Case Study in Runaway Transit Construction Costs - Bloomberg https://share.google/SPcN8iRDZG7lNiwt9
Still requires lots of cut and cover due to buried power and water mains being poorly documented. And stations will require razing buildings, as well as gentrifying neighborhoods.
It’s also in large part about making sure that your project gets the required funding and other (social) projects don’t.
There’s already a train that does this. It’s the express A train, which gets you to the AirTran. And as someone who has taken the train from Manhattan to JFK on multiple occasions, it most certainly does not take 20 mins or so. It takes at least an hour and that’s not including the highly likely delays.
I think it would be inefficient to have a dedicated train take up the line just for JFK.
I don't understand why it would be inefficient for one of the busiest airports in the world to one of the largest cities in the world to have a similar setup.
No track to JFK can support anything near a 200km/hr train and building a track for such a train is a nonstarter.
Now, the catch there is that this metro isn't going to the airport, it's going _through_ the airport. Even without the airport it would be justifiable, so the airport kind of gets it for free. That's probably the only scenario where you can justify this sort of thing; it would be comically overkill if it was just to serve the airport (it will be able to move 20,000 people per hour per direction, which is... a lot more than the airport can move.)
That said, you'd think something along these lines might be justifiable; as you say, the area surrounding JFK is dense.
But I think GP's point is that it could be done in 20 minutes. The A train is a subway, it's nowhere near the speed of the Heathrow Express.
15 minutes to fly from JFK to lower Manhattan is at least a 3x speed up, likely closer to 4-5x.
I had a similar thought a few days ago in respect of Waymos specifically: "Americans take about 34 million public-transit trips a day. Assuming 25 rides per day, that's about 1.4 million self-driving cars to rival public transport's impact. Waymo has "about 3,000 robotaxis deployed nationwide." Doubling fleet size annually–Waymos and non-Waymos, though currently they have no peers–would get us to parity in less than 10 years. (A more-realistic 35% growth rate puts us around 20 years.)"
You must not live in a dense city. Rail doesn't have traffic and is usually faster, and much faster in heavy traffic, including rush hour, sporting events, airports, bridges/tunnels across the river, parades, marathons, etc. etc.
Also, there's no advantage to Waymo that doesn't apply to rideshare and taxi. I doubt people will care that Waymo vehicles autonomous, beyond the initial novelty (and despite SV's attempted marketing that their robots are better than people).
Finally, despite SV trying to ridicule any attitude that threatens their profits, most people like the greater good.
It's also not true that there's no advantage to Waymo; I take rideshare and taxis everywhere, and it will be a massive draw turning that into a pure transaction with a robot instead of it being a potentially social experience based on the whims and social malfunctions of the driver you get that day. As soon as Waymo or equivalent is available everywhere I will never choose to take a human-driven car again. And that's before getting into the many traffic advantages afforded to a fleet of cars that act as a collaborative swarm.
To me that does describe the greater good. For all its real benefits, passenger rail is inflexible and bulky in comparison.
Obviously not what I'm talking about. It does not increase travel time in a significant way, and I'm including NYC subways. It's not like traffic jams for cars.
> it will be a massive draw turning that into a pure transaction with a robot instead of it being a potentially social experience based on the whims and social malfunctions of the driver you get that day
You're entitled to your personal preferences, of course, and I hope you find what works for you. Assuming your preferences are globalized is not factual: Most humans generally desire social interactions with other humans. We are naturally social animals that live in groups.
> To me that does describe the greater good.
Antisocial behavior is not 'good', it's just what you like. The pandemic was a major negative for society on a social level.
It's still relevant. Waiting for the next train, finding a seat, these are still jams. Travel time is also increased when you are required to be on the transit schedule instead of leaving at any time.
> Most humans generally desire social interactions with other humans. We are naturally social animals that live in groups.
This is a silly leap. Taxi and ride-share drivers are service workers. You don't shoot the shit with the cashier at McDonalds; he is doing his job and is literally forced to politely entertain you if you decide to trap him in conversation. When you are paying somebody to do a job it is not a social interaction anymore and has no bearing on whether one enjoys real social interaction. There are Uber drivers who falsely identify themselves to the app as deaf or hard-of-hearing specifically because they'd rather focus on driving than be a performing clown for chatty riders at the same time.
> Antisocial behavior is not 'good', it's just what you like. The pandemic was a major negative for society on a social level.
It's not antisocial to want privacy; it's not antisocial to want a predictable experience during transit. A Waymo is substantially less likely than a human stranger to rob or kill or rape you; Uber added a feature where women riders can set a preference for hiring women drivers to avoid tension and danger. The human element of taxis is a downside unless you fancy yourself Miss Daisy.
except for being like 10x more expensive, of course
> easier infrastructure build out
lol yes we should just replace Amtrak with 40 lane highways full of waymos. great idea
Expense is largely fake when we're talking about transit. Amtrak specifically is directly federally subsidized; most bus lines run at a substantial loss. At scale there's no specific reason a fleet of cars has to be more expensive to the rider than either of these things.
> lol yes we should just replace Amtrak with 40 lane highways full of waymos. great idea
Didn't suggest replacing what's already there, there's just no justification to start building more in the US in big 2026. The time has really passed for that to be a good investment.
Buses are cars, buses can be self-driving, and they use the same infrastructure as other cars. Cars can also be made to be much smaller for the average trip, 1-2 passenger seats only, if you don't need a driver. They can go faster and stop less if you aren't subject to human reaction time. These changes are obviously future tech, but it seems nearer every day, and if we achieve genuine full self-driving at scale all assumptions and constraints about travel by car have to change.
I used to live on 30th & Madison. Blade was about 30 minutes door to door. LIRR was 50 to 55 minutes. Car 45 to 120 minutes. Helipads are cheaper to build and site than train stations; for most people, eVTOL will almost always be faster than the train. (I mostly take the train.)
> Instead of supporting people we solve problems for the 0.001% who will give us a quick buck
Blade cost $200 a trip. Assuming that's only affordable for someone making $50k a year or more, that covers the top 80% of Manhattan, 30% of New York City and America and about 5% of the world.
I'm not arguing we don't need better rail (and ferry) connectivity between our airports and urban cores. But you're always going to have a need for time-efficient travel options. And eVTOL has significant applications outside luxury transport. This complaint lands like someone complaining that the original Tesla Roadster was "inefficient and painful" as it was only affordable to the rich.
This suggestion lands like someone suggesting that people making $25 an hour in the most expensive city in America are going to consider throwing away $190 to save 15 minutes. In other words: incredibly out of touch with reality.
As a side note: the Tesla Roadster sales figures completely support the idea that it was a complete flop of a car that didn’t even appeal to impractical rich people or anyone else. 2,450 sold for the entire production run. A failure for any purpose except publicity. The model S is the one that changed things, and it was never widely criticized as impractical or only for rich idiots.
Regularly? No. Most people aren't regularly taking helicopters anywhere, in part because their ability to fly around New York usually requires VFR conditions.
Occasionally? Yes. If you live in Harlem and need to get to JFK, you're paying an outsized time tax to get to and through Grand Central or Penn Station compared with taking the West Side Highway down to the 30th Street heliport. If eVTOLs take off, it's way more realistic to site a helipad uptown than dig a new rail tunnel.
(I'm ignoring the outer boroughs and New York's surrounding suburbs, for whom this could actually be a game changer.)
> the Tesla Roadster sales figures completely support the idea that it is a dumb car for rich people
Without which we wouldn't have any EVs in the West, and globally be years behind where we are in EV adoption.
We will see what happens the first time one of them crashes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Hudson_River_helicopter_c...
https://abc7ny.com/post/mta-driver-injured-bus-crashes-store...
... Eh? The very successful Nissan Leaf (for quite a long time the best-selling electric car in the world) came out the year after the Tesla Roadster. The Renault Zoe (again, quite successful) came out about a year after that, if you're really hung up on the 'west' thing.
Tesla never meant to sell it in large numbers, and they probably couldn’t have made many more anyway. And this still represented around $3bn if revenue and helped get Tesla off the ground.
Is that still true once you control for capacity? A modern single-line station is handling, what, 150 people alighting every 2.5 minutes? How many helipads would you need to match that?
> $200 a trip. Assuming that's only affordable for someone making $50k a year or more, that covers the top 80% of Manhattan
Someone making $50k isn't going to spend $200/trip regularly. They might spend it occasionally for an urgent trip, but how often is that going to be to/from an airport? For someone making $50k any flights they're taking will have been planned and booked months in advance, they can't afford to fly spontaneously/last-minute. (And if 80% of the population did want to use it, would it even be possible to build enough enough helipads? There isn't room for anything like 80% of the population to park in Manhattan, and these things look to be bigger than cars and I don't see anyone putting them in a multi-storey garage).
They don’t fly regularly. I picked that number because it puts $200 into the reasonable splurge bucket, and that’s the lowest income of a friend I know who has taken one more than once.
If $50k doesn’t do it, take it to $80k and still understand that covers quite a bit more than half of Manhattan. Plugging these services as top 0.1% is wrong—that’s private jets.
Right, which is why it makes no sense for them to pay extra to get to the airport slightly faster. (They might splurge $200 occasionally to get home from a late night out or something, but this isn't serving that route). They're not doing last-minute spontaneous trips or trying to cram a city break into a weekend. They're not cutting it close on the timing knowing they can always buy a replacement if they miss their flight. They probably don't even have precheck, which tells you how much saving 20 minutes the rare time they fly is worth to them. This is absolutely not a product that fits into a $50k or $80k lifestyle.
Would you splurge $200 on anything? There are 8.6 million people in New York and 1.7 million in Manhattan. Some fraction of those can call this their cup of tea.
Like, I will never splurge for curbside bag check. That doesn't make it a plutocratic privilege. eVTOLs have lots of downsides that are worth debating. Only solving "problems for the 0.001%" is not one of them. That designation belongs to private jets.
As a New Yorker I don't want these things with zero failure ability anywhere near me. At least a helicopter can autorotate.
Doesn't it? It feels like it to me, like that $70 coffee with gold flakes that was doing the rounds a year or two back - sure, it's technically an amount of money that a regular person could spend, but it's absolutely not a product for them.
“Slightly” faster from where they live is like an hour.
> They're not doing last-minute spontaneous trips or trying to cram a city break into a weekend
I’ve taken Blades quite a few times. This describes zero of their clients. It’s folks who want to fly out of EWR without having to deal with New Jersey’s infrastructure, those splurging and a very small number of regulars.
> This is absolutely not a product that fits into a $50k or $80k lifestyle
Agree. But it can and does on occasion. That makes it categorically different from purely plutocratic services. Also, use $80k if that works better for the example. That’s half of New Yorkers and a commanding majority of Manhattan residents.
Helicopters and eVTOLs are relatively accessible in a city as rich as New York.
An express train could. It would be a political non-starter since it does jack shit for the boroughs.
The US is filled with people who don't. And who do drugs. And who rob. So people retreat to places like a Joby aircraft or self driving Waymo, which don't have those issues.
I think the real reason the US has poor public transit is that its transport landscape has been shaped by years of planning and funding decisions that have put the car first, and cities rebuilt accordingly. America’s enormity also makes nationwide PT more difficult (but not impossible).
Then add the meritocratic attitude that if you can’t afford a car it’s somehow your fault, and you end up with little political and societal interest in a good public transit system.
This needs a 20x20ft approximately flat surface.
I can't believe seriously arguing for oversized quadcopters as a mass transport alternative.
I don't know how the economics in the electric VTOL era works out, but the thing about air travel vs train travel is that in order for the train to be useful, you have to build tracks from every train station to every other train station to have perfect routability, which is expensive. However, for a helipad, once you've built the helipad it automatically connects to all other helipads in range.
In Manhattan? I honestly would. If it were a nation, it would be the 22nd-largest economy. Any disruption to that system is massively expensive.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do the math. But we also shouldn't be reaching conclusions without attempting it.
This isn’t in the same category as burying a new train line. I lived around just the Hudson Yard water and electric expansions when those happened. It was years of increased noise, traffic and litigation.
Straw man. Nobody claimed these were existential threats.
OP said "I wouldn't be surprised if cost/passenger over useful lifetime still shakes out better for the trains." I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite came out–take the costs of the disruption and time value of money into account, and building a new train line anywhere in Manhattan is a worse use of resources than (a) increasing capacity on existing lines, a veritable forest of low-hanging fruit or even (b) eVTOLs.
Strawman: yes, but the point stands in its milder form that noise etc isn't substantial economic disruptive.
But yeah the reality is that no one is going to be digging in NY substantially soon/ever because if you look at precedent that's been the case for the last 100 years. And building a tunnel to JFK would be huge
At least try to show curiosity about what they want to solve.
Hypothesis: people aren't familiar with New York's trains. It's a world-class network the likes of which we don't otherwise have in North America. (Sorry Toronto.) So when they see eVTOLs, they emotionally map it to their local trainless context.
In Ireland, everyone thinks it's pretty ridiculous that there's no train to Dublin Airport (all going well, it will finally have one in 2036 or so, after _many_ false starts). Dublin's a city of about 1.5 million people. It's pretty incomprehensible that a city ten times the size wouldn't have one.
EDIT: Oh, wait, misread, I thought you meant a direct train from Grand Central to the airport.
It’s a single, low-bullshit transfer. Frankfurt Airport also requires a connection for terminals 2 and 3 [1].
[1] https://www.frankfurt-airport.com/en/transport-and-parking/t...
Of course on a serious EVTOL you got variable pitch props and tilting rotors (basic 4 rotor design is inefficient just doesn't scale).
Avionics vs modern AEB, ESP, etc likely on par. Inverter redundancy way more important on EVTOL, but EVs have redundancy too.
You have 10000 people who need to do this trip every hour, how will you manage that with this? It can’t scale.
In the end normal people will be stuck without proper transport, while a tiny majority will fly around in comfort.
Have you taken public transit? Either it is good or it is awful.
The only country whose public transit was actually good is Japan, and why is deeper than just having a good transit system.
The privacy convenience and comfort are why I prefer Waymo over a bus/rail or even uber.
I will pay for an air taxi if it’s a good service.
I think they must mean when it’s high overhead. Based on the video, it’s still pretty loud up close.
Electrical motors have high torque and are basically silent. Torque limitations constrain the blade size on a helicopter. The whop whop comes from the relatively long blades. And because of the large diameter that happens at a relatively low RPM. So, the frequency of the noise is low as well. Hence the whop whop sound.
Higher torque electrical motors enable higher RPM with smaller diameter and more blades. So, you get a higher frequency noise. Higher frequencies carry less far than lower frequencies. So, a lot of drones are measurably more quiet than helicopters when they fly overhead because they have lots of smaller propellers spinning faster. There's plenty of footage of electrical planes and drones taking off and landing at airports, air shows, etc. Some youtubers also use decibel meters. This has long stopped being a matter opinion / debate, you can just go out and measure it.
The short version of it is that these things are quieter, as the physics suggests.
Genuine question: do eVTOLs flip over in the water like helicopters do? Or is the battery place low down.
I get that the leap forward here is that it's battery-powered. Still, I can't help feeling underwhelmed.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/28/electric-air...
Could be worse, I guess.
24 pax/hr * $1000/pax * 12 hr/day = $288,000/day in revenue
15 minutes for JFK to West 34th Street is just 14 miles. That doesn't include any boarding/off boarding process, which are far faster in a train than anything, including in a taxi.
That's about the distance from Heathrow to Paddington which also takes 15 minutes.
Joby is more like an Osprey. It takes off and lands hanging from its props, then tilts the props horizontally to operate in airplane mode. This potentially offers more range with less power consumption. They've tried running on hydrogen, and claimed 524 miles of range.
There's also Archer Aviation (https://www.archer.com/) which has a roughly similar vehicle. Test flights since 2021. Was supposed to be in service in 2025. Didn't happen. They supposedly have an air taxi contract for the 2028 Olympics in LA. Owned, or at least heavily financed, by Stellantis.
There seems to be convergence on something that transitions to airplane mode, as opposed to the previous round of giant quadrotor-type drones.
It's now clear that this can be done, but not clear that there's a business in it.
Edit: I'm wrong. https://www.ainonline.com/news-article/2022-04-08/developers...
> Joby also insisted that the high levels of redundancy built into its four-passenger eVTOL design obviate the need for a parachute. The company, which recently lost one of its two prototype aircraft during a flight test accident, said that the vehicle can safely operate after failures to the motors, batteries, or electric propulsion units and also has the option to land vertically or glide to the ground on its wing.
Probably safer than a V-22 Osprey.
Got it. If anything in this high tech state-of-the-art machine causes more than 2 motors to stop motoring then I'll most likely die in a crash. But it's not very likely that'll happen.