United Airlines Reveals First eVTOL Passenger Route Starting In 2025 (arstechnica.com) 56
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In 2025, United Airlines will fly an air taxi service between the downtown Vertiport Chicago and O'Hare International Airport, using electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft it is purchasing from Archer Aviation. The Archer Midnight eVTOL aircraft will complete the route in about 10 minutes; according to local resident and Ars Managing Editor Eric Bangeman, that journey by car can take over an hour due to road construction. "Both Archer and United are committed to decarbonizing air travel and leveraging innovative technologies to deliver on the promise of the electrification of the aviation industry," said Michael Leskinen, president of United Airlines Ventures. "Once operational, we're excited to offer our customers a more sustainable, convenient, and cost-effective mode of transportation during their commutes to the airport."
If Chicago works out, United plans to add other airport-to-city "trunk routes," with "branch" routes between different communities coming later. The Archer Midnight has a range of 100 miles (160 km) and a top speed of 150 mph (241 km/h). If approved by the FAA, the Chicago air shuttle would be the first commercial eVTOL service to begin operating in North America. Asked about the cost, an Archer spokesperson told the Chicago Sun-Times that the company hopes to make the service competitive with Uber Black, so it will be roughly $100 for the trip.
If Chicago works out, United plans to add other airport-to-city "trunk routes," with "branch" routes between different communities coming later. The Archer Midnight has a range of 100 miles (160 km) and a top speed of 150 mph (241 km/h). If approved by the FAA, the Chicago air shuttle would be the first commercial eVTOL service to begin operating in North America. Asked about the cost, an Archer spokesperson told the Chicago Sun-Times that the company hopes to make the service competitive with Uber Black, so it will be roughly $100 for the trip.
Similarities to the Bell V-280 (Score:5, Interesting)
The concept drawing looks a little like the military's replacement for the V-22 Osprey -- the Bell Helicopter's V-280 Valor.
It has rotatable drive blades that tilt forward to supply thrust for normal fixed-wing flight. With six motors supplying forward thrust, it should still have enough power to maintain lift even if one motor has problems.
If the cost is the same as a using a limo or ride share, I would love to get to the airport in just 10 minutes. The disadvantage to the limo service is I would still need to get to the Vertiport, but that might be easier than getting to O'Hare with traffic.
Re: (Score:1)
If the cost is the same as a using a limo or ride share, I would love to get to the airport in just 10 minutes. The disadvantage to the limo service is I would still need to get to the Vertiport,
One advantage I see, as a VTOL that should be a lot quieter than current a/c is you can operate from a relatively dense population location from a small field, and with a 100 mile range potentially fly to more airports than just the local one, as the article states. This opens up smaller airports to take passengers from major airports and allowing discount carriers to operate out of cheaper airports while still reaching a valuable demographic. The range will need to increase to make this viable, but in so
Re: Similarities to the Bell V-280 (Score:1, Insightful)
The noise from aircraft that you hear is most fan/rotor/propeller noise, not the sound of the piston engine or power generating portion of a turbine.
This thing will be just as noisy as any helicopter, probably higher pitched but physics Trump the trendy 'its electric' hysteria.
Remember, a Tesla st highway speed sounds like every other modern car on the road, the ICE isn't the primary noise source as soon as you start moving.
As far as carbon production- where is its power coming from? Unless your putting a
Re: (Score:2)
The noise from aircraft that you hear is most fan/rotor/propeller noise, not the sound of the piston engine or power generating portion of a turbine.
This thing will be just as noisy as any helicopter, probably higher pitched but physics Trump the trendy 'its electric' hysteria.
More along the lines of not using RJ’s and requiring less space while ideally having a larger capacity than a helicopter so it is economically viable; plus propellor design has done a lot to reduce noise. Looking at noise, a jet is about 40dB higher than a turboprop, which has turbine as well as propellor noise.
Remember, a Tesla st highway speed sounds like every other modern car on the road, the ICE isn't the primary noise source as soon as you start moving; which is largely irrelevant in a VTOL at takeoff.
Aerodynamic noise is of course a component.
As far as carbon production- where is its power coming from?
I never said it was better environmentally. Electricity comes from somewhere, not just a wall outlet.
Re: (Score:1)
By concentrating the burning of <harmful things> into fewer places (each which burn more) then distributing the result safely as electricity, its possible to put more effort into making it as safe as possible at each location. It wouldn't be cost effective to equip each redneck monster truck with the best (and thus most cost-prohibitive) means to keep emissions to the minimum possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought NY was buying Hydro from Quebec, though the last I heard, there were nimby problems with the power line.
Years for certification (Score:2)
US/FAA:
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/a... [faa.gov].
Years to certificate a supplementary type certificiate (STC), like taking a Boeing 737-8 and certificating a 737-9: 3-5 years. If, during that time, engine or battery technology changes are sufficient for redesign most of that 3-5 years starts over.
Years to certificate an entirely new aircraft 9+ years.
This eVTOL won't be flying passengers in 2025. They'll be extremely "fortunate" to have it available for UAL to start training on it in 2032, first fights 20
Re: Years for certification (Score:1)
https://aviationweek.com/air-t... [aviationweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Where did you ever get the idea that that ugly neologism "certificate" was a word? You should have used the simpler existing word, "certify." Go ahead, mod me down for being a language nazi, I don't care.
Those are two different words and they mean different things. The FAA and other agencies use certificated meaning a certificate has been issued.
You're not a language Nazi, just an idiot who wants to tell other people to use the wrong words because of his personal self-importance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Before posting, I checked at dictionary.com, and found no results. If I had, I wouldn't have said anything.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with this website:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Dictionary.com is for people too stupid to go to Cartoon-Dictionary.com. Next time try Oxford or Cambridge or Britannica or Merriam-Webster.
Those are what adults use.
Re: (Score:2)
Should also remove the referrer etc from search engine links, like https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com], I could have corrected the spelling as well and shortened the URL, but typos happen
Slower than a helicopter (Score:1)
Re:Slower than a helicopter (Score:5, Informative)
Bit of a shame as a vtol it's still slower than a helicopter which go around 200 mph ...
Helicopters cruise at 160 knots (around 160MPH).
I'm a current FAA commercial rotorcraft pilot, and helicopters don't go 200mph (174 knots). The tiltrotors aren't helicopters, and the V-22 Osprey and V-280 demonstrate those faster speeds in fixed-wing prop-plane mode, not VTOL/SVTOL helicopter mode. SImilarly, experimental aircraft with a pusher motor like the X2 are a hybrid, but lack sufficient lift to cary a bunch of VIPs cross-town.
If you include military aircraft, here are the top 18 speed demons in the helicopter world https://engineerine.com/fastes... [engineerine.com]
You'll note that maximum speed on some exceeds 200MPH but only momentaritly. Cruise speed is 180MPH (156kts).
Some science:
This is a result of two aerodynamic factors. One is disemmetry of lift, where the blade advancing into the wind generates much more lift than the retreating blade. This is usally compensated for in Russian and Chinese helicopters by coaxial counter-rotating main rotors. This works but results in more turbulence and less power at the main rotor because the rotors interfere with each other's airflow.
The second factor is that going faster and faster, the outer edge of the leading blade approaches the speed of sound while the inner part is below that. Crossing that sound barrier mid-blade would likely lead to blade shatter. No test pilot has made such a flight. Sci-fi wise, Airworlf would "disengage its rotor" and use a rocket engine ("give me turbos, Dom") to blast from airspeed+rotor-edge-speed sonic+retreating-blade-edge-speed. It's sci fi, but during such an "event" the rotors would be "disengaged" meaning no lift, no thrust, and no controls. Fun show though.
There are other factors (the aircraft shape through the air, crabbing to reduce drag but lower efficience and speed, etc.) but disymmetry of lift is the hudle yet to be overcome.
NEVERTHELESS, what if this eVTOL thing DID go 200MPH or even 250MPH? What difference does it make on a 10 minute run --assuming instantaneous ground to max airspeed and the reverse on setdown -- 10 min @ 150MPH = 4Min. 10 min @ 200MPH = 3 Min. Time to board and put small carryon case, find seat, sit down, sorry no drink or lav service, seat belt briefing because airlines seat belt laws were created when seat belts in vehicles were a dealer option -- WELL ABOVE THE ENTIRE FLIGHT TIME.
The point of this futuristic wish eVTOL is to avoid exiting the sterile area, hailing a ride, getting through crosstown traffic, rescreening through security theater, and going to the gate. That's where the true time savings is. 3min or 4min for travel, nobody cares.
Re: (Score:1)
Mod parent up
Re: (Score:2)
More like 184.12+ mph. 8 knots is roughly 9 mph.
Re: (Score:1)
Helicopters cruise at 160 knots (around 160MPH).
More like 184.12+ mph. 8 knots is roughly 9 mph.
Yeah, one three typos in that early-morning writeup. MPH=KTS*1.15 roughly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"disymmetry of lift is the hudle yet to be overcome" -- The CarterCopter engineers figured this out ...
Not really. Gerogopters don't have disemmetry of lift to overcome. The CC wasn't a helicopter and was incapable of VTOL or hovering flight maneuvering. That makes it require a runway (or equivalent) so top-of-building to top-of-building cross-town shuttle is not an option.
I mean you could say "Jeep figured out how not to have disimmerty of lift" because they got rid of the pesky rotors and just put in 4WD drive wheels, but it doesn't contribute to how United will Jeep you over from one roof to another avo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About Airwolf...
A friend of mine told me that a helicopter can't exceed the speed of sound. Turbulence "would tear the rotor right off."
In one episode, the pilot told the co-pilot "Give me turbos!" The copilot yelled back "NO!! That last hit took out the automatic lockdown... if you hit the turbos right now, it would tear the rotor right off!"
That, IMHO, is a first-class handwave of the problem. The rotor is locked down somehow by some automatic system when they hit the turbos. I guess lifting body some
Re: (Score:1)
The USAF experimented with lifting bodies using small fixed-wing aircraft. (See, e.g. the intro to The Six Million Dollar Man. THAT footage was from one such test, and yes, it ended up in the desert.)
A helicopter is a different breed, as it is impossible to have a horizontal rotor disc provide vertical lift and yet somehow have the air flow horizontally over it more efficiently than on the bottom of the aircraft so as to create lift. That top part (including the rotor hub) is so mechanically "dirty" it w
Only 10 minutes twice a day (Score:2)
The Archer Midnight eVTOL aircraft will complete the route in about 10 minutes; according to local resident and Ars Managing Editor Eric Bangeman, that journey by car can take over an hour due to road construction.
Only 10 minutes, but how long to recharge it for the return flight?
Re: (Score:2)
The Archer Midnight eVTOL aircraft will complete the route in about 10 minutes; according to local resident and Ars Managing Editor Eric Bangeman, that journey by car can take over an hour due to road construction.
Only 10 minutes, but how long to recharge it for the return flight?
It's an airport, dumdum. These flights will be one-way.
Re: (Score:2)
The correct answer is:
"With a suitable charger? About as long as it takes to get the next set of passengers on board"
Re: (Score:2)
With 350kW chargers you can put around 60kWh of charge in a pack in 10 minutes. That’s best case, but if you are charging in the 20-80% range it shouldn’t be too far off.
The 6 packs in the aircraft are 140kWh or so. A 10 min / 20 mile flight (out of a 100 mile range) might take around 60kWh of that, vertical flight being the more energy intensive part of the trip. So you could recharge for the next
Re: (Score:2)
I like the tech as much as any other aerophile, but this is the sadly amusing reality. I like how the marketers say "this will be sustainable, efficient transportation!"
The most effective way to be green is to reduce consumption, and requiring 60kW-hr to travel 20 miles is astonishingly inefficient; 20 miles in my car requires between 6-8kW-hr. Even if the road distance is 3x longer due to not being line-of-sight like the plane, thi
Re: (Score:1)
I don't care where the energy is produced; consuming 10x the energy for the same outcome is irresponsible at best. And no, I don't think reduced travel time makes up for that magnitude of energy "premium".
I can tell you aren't rich. Rich people don't think that way.
Re: (Score:2)
So sure it's electric, but for short-haul trips like this it's going to consume 3-10x the energy.
I don't care where the energy is produced; consuming 10x the energy for the same outcome is irresponsible at best. And no, I don't think reduced travel time makes up for that magnitude of energy "premium".
Now factor in the cost and energy and oil savings from reduction in road paving. With properly designed drone delivery networks and VTOL between distribution centers, if they can get the cost down enough, the use of large-scale trucking may very well decline considerably, which would mean that a lot of roads wouldn't get the abuse that they do now, and could go decades without having to be resurfaced — doubly so if high-speed rail takes off.
One of my regular commute trips is 42 miles and takes up to
Re: (Score:1)
Less paving? I haven't seen much for new roads, mostly repaving roads when they deteriorate. Which, in the northeast, is due to the harsh winter conditions, plows and road salt, and tractor trailer trucks. Are these electric planes going to reduce any of those? Even if widely adopted, it'll only carry a fraction of daily commuters or travelers. They can only go from airport to airport. Still have to travel to the airport. I see it being a rich persons luxury, or something like the monorail that'll be a fad
Re: (Score:2)
Less paving? I haven't seen much for new roads, mostly repaving roads when they deteriorate. Which, in the northeast, is due to the harsh winter conditions, plows and road salt, and tractor trailer trucks.
Obviously it won't reduce freeze-thaw damage, but over time, between this, drone delivery, rail, self-driving light trucks, and other technologies, there's a good chance that tractor trailer trucks will go away.
Even if widely adopted, it'll only carry a fraction of daily commuters or travelers. They can only go from airport to airport.
See also the last part of the comment you're replying to:
Where this would gain real traction is for people's daily commutes. Sadly, that works only if there are thousands of landing-pad-capable rooftops around the region.
So as I see it, the first step is to prove that the technology is realistical
Re: (Score:2)
The most effective way to be green is to reduce consumption, and requiring 60kW-hr to travel 20 miles is astonishingly inefficient; 20 miles in my car requires between 6-8kW-hr. Even if the road distance is 3x longer due to not being line-of-sight like the plane, this eVTOL will still take 3x the energy. So sure it's electric, but for short-haul trips like this it's going to consume 3-10x the energy.
How many passengers are in that flight? I didn't read the article of course but if it is over 3-10 passengers and you're driving solo in your car, that is still an improvement per person.
Re: (Score:2)
Swap battery packs.
Or just take the train... (Score:5, Interesting)
Modernise the train coonnections -- they're already there, and it won't take much more than 10 minutes and be a heck of a lot cheaper for the volume.
Re: (Score:3)
Modernise the train coonnections -- they're already there, and it won't take much more than 10 minutes and be a heck of a lot cheaper for the volume.
Yep. Build a tunnel (or monorail, I don't know the topography) and EVERYBODY can get to the airport in 10 minutes, not just a few millionaires.
Re: (Score:1)
Here we go.... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Build a tunnel (or monorail, I don't know the topography) and EVERYBODY can get to the airport in 10 minutes, not just a few millionaires.
We already have an "el" train that runs directly to O'Hare Airport. It takes longer than 10 minutes, but last time I took it, it worked fine.
On a related note, I'm confused by this term "air taxi". I think of a "taxi" as something that picks you up at a place of your choosing and delivers you to another place of your choosing, What they're describing here is just a very short-hop flight from one airport to another. If you live in the northern part of Chicago (which is where most of the richer folk live
Re: (Score:2)
We already have an "el" train that runs directly to O'Hare Airport. It takes longer than 10 minutes, but last time I took it, it worked fine.
On a related note, I'm confused by this term "air taxi". I think of a "taxi" as something that picks you up at a place of your choosing and delivers you to another place of your choosing, What they're describing here is just a very short-hop flight from one airport to another. If you live in the northern part of Chicago (which is where most of the richer folk live anyway), it's probably faster to drive to O'Hare than it is to drive to Vertiport Chicago (which is southwest of the Loop, about 20-40 minutes' drive depending on where you start from). Even if you're staying at a hotel in the Loop, it's probably faster just to Uber it to O'Hare.
This exactly. So now instead of driving or taking a taxi to the airport, you drive or take a taxi to the heliport. So not likely to be much difference in time overall. Just everything like it was, but with extra steps.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have an "el" train that runs directly to O'Hare Airport. It takes longer than 10 minutes, but last time I took it, it worked fine.
On a related note, I'm confused by this term "air taxi". I think of a "taxi" as something that picks you up at a place of your choosing and delivers you to another place of your choosing, What they're describing here is just a very short-hop flight from one airport to another. If you live in the northern part of Chicago (which is where most of the richer folk live anyway), it's probably faster to drive to O'Hare than it is to drive to Vertiport Chicago (which is southwest of the Loop, about 20-40 minutes' drive depending on where you start from). Even if you're staying at a hotel in the Loop, it's probably faster just to Uber it to O'Hare.
This exactly. So now instead of driving or taking a taxi to the airport, you drive or take a taxi to the heliport. So not likely to be much difference in time overall. Just everything like it was, but with extra steps.
On the flip side, if you work in a business that's close to there, you can leave your car at work for free, versus leaving it at the airport, so this might makes it a two-minute Uber from the office to the heliport and a posh flight, versus a half-hour Uber or drive from home or whatever.
I have no idea if that is actually a realistic scenario, mind you (I'm not from Chicago), but you do have to factor in where people work, availability of parking, etc.
Re:Or just take the train... (Score:4, Funny)
Modernise the train coonnections -- they're already there, and it won't take much more than 10 minutes and be a heck of a lot cheaper for the volume
Sorry, that sounds like communism!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be commutism?
Commutism for autism
Absolute horseshit (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This won't start in 2025. The Archer Midnight won't even have got regulatory approval by then. Pure shambles
Another happy grift is more like it.
leveraging (Score:2)
They are decarbonizing and leveraging. Failure is in the stars, say I.
Same niche as helicopters (Score:2)
security (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Jan (Score:2)
Asked about the cost, an Archer spokesperson told the Chicago Sun-Times that the company hopes to make the service competitive with Uber Black, so it will be roughly $100 for the trip.
And I hope to have beautiful babies with Scarlett Johansson. Operating a helicopter service is expensive, and once there is an accident and this requires management by an air traffic control system, it will be even more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)