Pilotless Air Taxi From China's Ehang Takes Flight in the US for the First Time (theverge.com) 25
profi writes: Chinese drone maker Ehang demonstrated its autonomous air taxi in the US for the first time. The all-electric two-seater took flight for five minutes above a test track south of Raleigh, North Carolina, on Tuesday afternoon, with approximately 100 people, including the state's governor, Roy Cooper, looking on. It represents the first time that Ehang has received permission to fly from the US Federal Aviation Administration, and it helped set the stage for it to receive approval for passenger demonstrations in the near future. The Ehang 216, powered by 16 electric rotors, flew along a pre-planned route at over 80 mph. The aircraft weighs about 600 pounds and can carry another 500 to 600 pounds of cargo or passengers, the company says. But it's still in its early stages of development and is primarily being used today for sightseeing trips.
Re: (Score:2)
I would call this a big failure (Score:2)
We need atleast 200 people looking at the taxi when it flies. However only hundred people looked at it.
Seriously, how does it matter whether 100 people or 10000 people looked on? The article seems oddly focussed on how many people were looking at the Taxi
Re:I would call this a big failure (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds oddly familiar.
"I have the biggest taxi crowd eeever, believe me! Everybody loves 'em and comes to see me, I mean the taxis. Other taxis are total flops, crash and burn all time, so sad. #MTGA!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article seems oddly focussed on how many people were looking at the Taxi
12 words out of 140 described the crowd size and notable attendee (which demonstrated that it was a public demo, not a closed test), and it was literally a copy-paste from the first paragraph article, not a custom written blurb meant as as summary. So over 90% of the words described something other than the size of the crowd, doesn't seem like a very strong focus. The entire article was over 500 words, so about 2% of the article described the crowd.
Number of passengers? (Score:3, Funny)
That's a polite way of saying "one or two American passenger(s)".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Damn, beat me to it. And I can't wait for angry tweets about how 2 people were 'fat shamed' because they tried to fly on this thing with their bags and the "world yet again didn't accommodate them", and how this is yet another example of thin privilege.
I can just imagine a different scenario...
"I don't care if this is your service animal, the aircraft will not get in the air with both of you and your pony!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's a polite way of saying "one or two American passenger(s)".
I'm somewhere around the 97th percentile in weight at about 230 pounds. If I'm dressed for going out in a Midwest winter with boots and a coat then I could weigh in at about 250 pounds. (And before you call me fat I will point out that I'm in the 99th percentile for height.) If this is to carry two big and tall fellows like myself, with even a bit of cargo, and a margin for error and safety, then this is about right for seating two people if the goal is to fit 99% of the American population.
No need to be
Sounds like a service well suited for deliveries (Score:2)
If you can fit a 75 inch 4K tv and a couple hundred pounds of groceries and cat food into one of these, someone could pilot it into my driveway for speedy delivery...
Blades of death (Score:2)
This thing looks horrifyingly dangerous.
I like it.
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like a pregnant drone to me. When are the dronelets due?
At last the prophecy comes true (Score:2)
Wire automated pannier drones, we finally have those flying cars everyone has been harping on about.
Frankly I think it's an awesome way to get around a city, beat out only by Musk's hyperloop (which would be unaffected by weather).
Hardly a taxi (Score:2)
Reading the limits from Wikipedia Ehang 216 [wikipedia.org]
The range is 16km, or just under 10 miles. From that you have to take the distance from its charging port, and to the charging port after the ride. Why not add solar panels to it to increase its range?
Re:Hardly a taxi (Score:5, Informative)
Why not add solar panels to it to increase its range?
Because they will not extend range. Rather they will reduce it.
Not going to happen in the US (Score:1)
The FAA will not approve passenger air travel for non Part-135 operators. This means if you don't have a pilot, an authorized facility, and the licensing, you don't get to take passengers.
The UAVs can fly all day long. No passengers will ever fly in the US without a pilot until Part 135 is revised.
Don't hold your breath.
Ehud
Toy for the rich. (Score:2)
I could see this actually being a real thing considering there are quite a few ultra-rich in the US that would gladly play a small fortune just to cut five minutes off their daily commute with one of these.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can afford an aircraft for the commute then they can afford a pilot, or lessons to become a pilot themselves. No need to get rid of the pilot.
I'm not so sure this is as much for the rich only. If someone made an average wage in the USA, really really wanted their own aircraft, and learned to fly it themselves, then this is in reach. What keeps aircraft ownership rare yet is the general inconvenience of flying. There aren't that many places to land, and some of the places will charge a lot of mon
Re: (Score:2)
If they can afford an aircraft for the commute then they can afford a pilot, or lessons to become a pilot themselves. No need to get rid of the pilot.
I'm not so sure this is as much for the rich only. If someone made an average wage in the USA, really really wanted their own aircraft, and learned to fly it themselves, then this is in reach. What keeps aircraft ownership rare yet is the general inconvenience of flying. There aren't that many places to land, and some of the places will charge a lot of money to buy fuel, park the aircraft there, and so on. I remember hearing that it's illegal for an airport to charge someone to use the landing site. That doesn't stop them from jacking up the price for fuel, or charging for a place to park.
The actual cost of purchasing a plane isn't particularly onerous, and a lot of people buy into group ownership of planes as well. You can get an older, used plane for around the price of mid-range car (Cessna 172s for $50-80k but they are also 40-50 years old, newer ones will cost as much as a house). As you state, the big expense for a plane is fuel and hangar space. Then of course there's the actual cost of getting a pilots license. Unless you already own or have access to a plane, aircraft rental fee
Try it and see (Score:2)
I'm sure when Wilbur and Orville started shouting about having got a their plane off the ground for a whole 12 seconds back in 1903, people wondered what the hell the point was. Sometimes stuff has to be tried just to see how it goes, not to actually do anything serious but to simply see what people will say and from that you guage if you think ideas are feasible. History is full of ideas that were shot down to start with but later we come to depend on. No idea if this will be one but who knows.
Scale (Score:2)
Aeromodels used to be based on full sized aircraft. Now we have a full sized aircraft which is based on a brand new class of aeromodel.