Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Technology

South Korea Tests System for Controlling Air Taxis (reuters.com) 27

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
South Korea demonstrated a system for controlling urban air mobility vehicles (UAM) on Thursday, which it hopes will serve as taxis between major airports and downtown Seoul as soon as 2025, cutting travel time by two-thirds. From a report: Last year, South Korea announced a roadmap to begin commercial urban air travel by 2025. The transport ministry estimates such services could cut travel time for distances between 30-50km (19-31 miles) from an hour by car to 20 minutes by air. "As UAM is expected to become one of the common means of transportation that citizens use in daily life, it is absolutely imperative that we test and try out UAM services in various environments," Transport Minister Noh Hyeong-ouk, who attended the demonstration on Thursday, said in a statement. A pilot flew a two-seat model made by Germany's Volocopter at Seoul's Gimpo Airport to test and demonstrate its control and coordination.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Korea Tests System for Controlling Air Taxis More

South Korea Tests System for Controlling Air Taxis

Comments Filter:

  • A lot of the air taxis being pushed by various companies are basically bastardized helicopters. In most cases a helicopter would do the job better. Very few companies are working on actual flying cars â" vehicles you can drive on the road.

    • Ok, now look at this story and what the Volocopter looks like!
      *roflcopter*

      • There are a large number of roflcopters in development, mostly relying on the flies like a brick principle.

        • There are a large number of roflcopters in development, mostly relying on the flies like a brick principle.

          Indeed, now click the link and look a the picture of the Volocopter that South Korea will likely be using soon.

          It is a cross between the Jetson's flying car and a toy drone. Lots of rotor redundancy, (15? rotors) solid frame, little glass egg for the humans, solid landing skids.

          Perfect for a short range airport-to-city taxi. Probably very simple to fly.

          • It's not the worst, by far, but it still comes across as a roflcopter to me. Noisy, slow, limited range, limited payload. It has triply redundant control systems but does it have triply redundant power systems? Because if the motors stop then that gizimo is flying straight down.

            • Noisy, slow, limited range, limited payload

              Three out of the 4 are features for this use case. If you make if fast, long range, with a large payload, now it is too big to fly safely as an urban air taxi and/or to land in the desired locations.

              Because if the motors stop then that gizimo is flying straight down.

              This is, in fact, the desired failure mode. Flying straight down and going "thud."
              Battery electric power systems are pretty easy to keep going though. You can build a robust power bus fairly easily. The batteries have a hard time losing their potential instantly, even if a few cells catch fire.

              • Slow is not a feature. It is 50 kilometers from Incheon Terminal to downtown Seoul. The videos we have seen of Volocopter have it something like 50 kph, sorry that's just too pathetic. If they can actually achieve their hundred miles an hour then it's tolerable but that's a big if. Multirotor power consumption skyrockets with speed.

                Limited range isn't a feature either. Fifty kilometers with enough passengers to turn a buck on the operation? Good luck, you'll need it. As I mentioned, try to do it faster than

                • That is silly handwaving. You don't get to choose what is a feature, or isn't a feature. Slow is a feature, because there is other air traffic, air defense monitoring, etc. That's not up to you.

                  You were doing well at first, but then you decided to go whole-hog into wacky bullshit about your own fantasies, instead of sticking with analysis of the thing being talked about, which exists in its own real-world context.

                  And then you get really confused about how the rotors are powered, and if they have redundancie

                  • Your huffing and puffing does not make this evtol prototype not slow, not short range, not small, not weak and not dangerous.

                  • You have no concept whatsoever of the fire hazard. A lithium-ion battery fire is nigh on impossible to extinguish and carbon fiber composite is highly flammable. And you're up in the sky where the only immediate exit option is a parachute. Imagine how well a parachute plays with 18 sharp little rotors.

                  • You also seem to be completely clueless about cascading thermal runaway. Do you always spout like this?

                    • It can runaway and burn just fine, why would that stop it from landing using the power from the battery modules that aren't burning?
                      Once thermal runaway happens, the resistance is really super high, it isn't pulling down the power rails or anything. It's just burning. And the craft lands. It isn't like it is flying at high altitude.

                    • If you have a burning battery in a carbon fiber airframe high in the sky then there is no question your life is in danger. What happens when the heat from the runaway degrades the surrounding structure? Also, much higher current will be drawn from remaining battery packs, greatly increasing the chance of thermal runaway in another packs, another type of cascading failure. Two pack failures virtually guarantees falling out of the sky.

                  • And when the battery pack does catch fire the cockpit is most probably going to fill immediately with toxic vaporized electrolyte. Did you bring your hazmat suit?

                    • Why do you think the battery is inside the cockpit, and not in the frame? Did you even look at the picture of the craft?

                    • Because the cockpit is not hermetically sealed. Cables travel from the battery through the structure. Use your brains.

    • Helicopters are hideously expensive to operate; these taxis are a lot simpler and cheaper to construct and maintain. For use on shorter distances like these, they may be a far more affordable choice.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BranMan ( 29917 )

        Absolutely - helos cost a couple of million, even for a small one. If they can sell these air taxis for a few hundred thousand instead - that would be really something. Might be possible - a helo has ONE engine, so if it fails you are in deep. The air taxis have lots and lots of redundant rotors - so the reliability can be much lower on each. That save's a ton in maintenance and certification. Add a parachute for emergencies and I could see them being quite a bit cheaper to operate. They do, of cours

      • Now just need to figure out how to keep them from catching fire and falling out of the sky.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Affordable perhaps but in line with climate change fixes we need? Flying is always going to use more energy than rolling over ground.

    • Flying cars are not mentioned in the summary or story. The only time cars are mentioned is in comparing how much faster air taxis will be.

  • TCAS?

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close