Paris Plans Electric Air Taxis Next Summer, More eVTOLs Predicted by 2028 (msn.com) 72
The Associated Press reports from the Paris Air Show, where developers of electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (or eVTOLs) demonstrated their surprisingly quiet electrically-powered craft. And in one year the Paris region "is planning for a small fleet of electric flying taxis to operate on multiple routes when it hosts the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games next summer."
Unless aviation regulators in China beat Paris to the punch by green-lighting a pilotless taxi for two passengers under development there, the French capital's prospective operator — Volocopter of Germany — could be the first to fly taxis commercially if European regulators give their OK...
The limited power of battery technology restricts the range and number of paying passengers they can carry, so eVTOL hops are likely to be short and not cheap at the outset. And while the vision of simply beating city traffic by zooming over it is enticing, it also is dependent on advances in airspace management. Manufacturers of eVTOLs aim in the coming decade to unfurl fleets in cities and on more niche routes for luxury passengers, including the French Riveria. But they need technological leaps so flying taxis don't crash into each other and all the other things already congesting the skies or expected to take to them in very large numbers — including millions of drones.
Starting first on existing helicopter routes, "we'll continue to scale up using AI, using machine-learning to make sure that our airspace can handle it," said Billy Nolen of Archer Aviation Inc. It aims to start flying between downtown Manhattan and Newark's Liberty Airport in 2025. That's normally a 1-hour train or old-fashioned taxi ride that Archer says its sleek, electric 4-passenger prototype could cover in under 10 minutes. Nolen was formerly acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. regulator that during his time at the agency was already working with NASA on technology to safely separate flying taxis.
Just as Paris is using its Olympic Games to test flying taxis, Nolen said the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics offer another target for the industry to aim for and show that it can fly passengers in growing numbers safely, cleanly and affordably. "We'll have hundreds, if not thousands, of eVTOLs by the time you get to 2028," he said in an interview with The Associated Press at the Paris show. The "very small" hoped-for experiment with Volocopter for the Paris Games is "great stuff. We take our hats off to them," he added. "But by the time we get to 2028 and beyond ... you will see full-scale deployment across major cities throughout the world."
The article includes a skeptical quote from Richard Aboulafia of aerospace consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory.
"You and I can take air taxis right now. It's called a helicopter."
The limited power of battery technology restricts the range and number of paying passengers they can carry, so eVTOL hops are likely to be short and not cheap at the outset. And while the vision of simply beating city traffic by zooming over it is enticing, it also is dependent on advances in airspace management. Manufacturers of eVTOLs aim in the coming decade to unfurl fleets in cities and on more niche routes for luxury passengers, including the French Riveria. But they need technological leaps so flying taxis don't crash into each other and all the other things already congesting the skies or expected to take to them in very large numbers — including millions of drones.
Starting first on existing helicopter routes, "we'll continue to scale up using AI, using machine-learning to make sure that our airspace can handle it," said Billy Nolen of Archer Aviation Inc. It aims to start flying between downtown Manhattan and Newark's Liberty Airport in 2025. That's normally a 1-hour train or old-fashioned taxi ride that Archer says its sleek, electric 4-passenger prototype could cover in under 10 minutes. Nolen was formerly acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. regulator that during his time at the agency was already working with NASA on technology to safely separate flying taxis.
Just as Paris is using its Olympic Games to test flying taxis, Nolen said the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics offer another target for the industry to aim for and show that it can fly passengers in growing numbers safely, cleanly and affordably. "We'll have hundreds, if not thousands, of eVTOLs by the time you get to 2028," he said in an interview with The Associated Press at the Paris show. The "very small" hoped-for experiment with Volocopter for the Paris Games is "great stuff. We take our hats off to them," he added. "But by the time we get to 2028 and beyond ... you will see full-scale deployment across major cities throughout the world."
The article includes a skeptical quote from Richard Aboulafia of aerospace consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory.
"You and I can take air taxis right now. It's called a helicopter."
Prefer Safety Over Rush To First (Score:3)
I would prefer a safe eVTOL solution over a rush to achieve the goal of Being First
"First to crash" (Score:3)
"First to crash", Exactly like Ocean-Crush-Gate.
Move fast, break things.
OK, but do not include human lives in the things to break.
There are good modern methods to act fast, yet keep safety reasonable.
At least imploding subs don't fall on your head... (Score:2)
And you don't have to worry if some inbred fatcat or inbred fatcat wannabe is gonna fall on your head because damn regulations impeded innovation so much said fatcat wannabe decided to take the matter in his own hands.
Anyway... I hear umbrellas are all the rage lately. Particularly the kevlar kind. [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Safety is a big problem, as this article [jpost.com] clearly shows, however the single largest challenge to the entire concept of eVTOL air taxis is the fact that it's just not economically viable right now.
So many investors are going to lose their shirts on this because none of these craft are actually viable without new battery technology.
Think for a moment about what they're doing...
They're taking an existing, quite practical, well-proven craft (a helicopter) and then reducing its range and endurance by a *huge* amo
Re: (Score:2)
You can't use helicopters because they're too loud. I work near a hospital equipped with a helicopter pad, and the helicopter actually shakes our building when it flies over. It's not even especially large.
It is a pity though, that Volocopter and the Paris government don't know how batteries work, or that they cost money. Hopefully someone will let them know before they hit the on switch and nothing happens.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems Graphene-Aluminum Batteries [graphenemg.com] could be a big enough break-through, but more work obviously needs to be done before commercialization.
Re: (Score:2)
I track battery technology pretty closely and you'll see a *lot* of press releases claiming "battery breakthrough" but these rarely (perhaps once every 20-25 years) actually turn into a commercially viable technology.
To be commercially viable a number of criteria must be met, including: increased capacity, increased charge rates, increased durability, increased energy densities, increased cost/performance ratio. Inevitably these "battery breakthroughs" may provide superior performance in one of these are
Re: (Score:1)
The cost of batteries fell by 97% from 1991 to 2018.
And energy density of batteries has increased from 90 Wh/l in 2010 to 140 Wh/l in 2013 to 250 wH/l in 2017 to 450 Wh/l to in 2020
("Data Reveals Tremendous Growth In Volumetric Energy Density Of EV Batteries")
And energy density is expected to increase another 56% from 2020 to 2030.
(tho we may be ahead of schedule: "Development of a lithium-air battery with an energy density over 500 wh/kg")
Helicoptors cost $300 per hour per person. Since you have to pay s
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter pilots actually get paid much less than most people think :-)
And, as I said, the economics of a helicopter are vastly better than any eVTOL craft currently on the drawing board so if you're paying $300 to fly across Paris in a heli, you'll be paying more to do the same flight in an eVTOL - but without the ability to do an autorotational landing in the event of a major power system failure.
Even worse, if the lithium-ion battery decides to have an anomoly in mid-flight, there is no effective safety
Re: (Score:1)
I looked into the fire risk and it's much lower that for vehicles with fuel. Basically, selective reporting.
And I also looked into the fire incidents on planes. Out of 45 million flights (with an average of 100 people per flight) in the U.S. there were about 50 ( 52? 57? can't recall) total incidents.
Regular inspection and maintenance and proper regulation is going to deal with battery fire issues.
per "Why the age of electric flight is finally upon us" on BBC, electric flight costs about 1/20th as much
Re: (Score:2)
I won't dispute what you're saying. it's a healthy dose of reality, but it is a "promising" development for a number of reasons like no toxic, expensive rare earth metals. If the numbers are true, and I've seen no evidence to the contrary, it could be genuinely groundbreaking.
Key words: "promising", "could be", "if".
Re: (Score:2)
I have huge folder of press releases detailing "promising" new battery technologies that have been announced over the past decade. Suffice to say *NONE* of them have usurped the lithium-ion batteries we're using.
Many researchers make bold claims and announcements in an attempt to raise extra funding in an attempt to continue their work. Don't believe *everything* you read in those releases -- they're not independently peer reviewed scientific papers :-)
Ridiculous Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
This is going to be abandoned a few hours after they get their first jihadi passenger, it does not even need to be a religious one - a politically motivated one can be just as dangerous. It is also inconsistent with France's ban on short-haul flights.
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to be abandoned a few hours after they get their first jihadi passenger, it does not even need to be a religious one - a politically motivated one can be just as dangerous. It is also inconsistent with France's ban on short-haul flights.
Air taxis are also inconsistent with current trends that ICE vehicle should be banned because they are bad for the planet. Even if electric, the amount of energy needed to fly and the resources needed to build those air taxis will be pretty nefarious to the environment.
The amount of energy needed to fly 1km in an air taxi must be like 10-20 times more than to drive 1km on wheels, on the ground, ICE or not...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That simple, isn't it? Getting the energy from a renewable source guarantees no environmental costs. Got it, thanks you!
Re: (Score:2)
We still haven't arrived at the point where we could simply forgo fossil fuel. In other words, that renewable energy could go towards pushing back on fossil fuel instead of some pipe dream of flying.
Sorry, not convinced.
Re: (Score:3)
This is going to be abandoned a few hours after they get their first jihadi passenger, it does not even need to be a religious one - a politically motivated one can be just as dangerous. It is also inconsistent with France's ban on short-haul flights.
Air taxis are also inconsistent with current trends that ICE vehicle should be banned because they are bad for the planet. Even if electric, the amount of energy needed to fly and the resources needed to build those air taxis will be pretty nefarious to the environment.
The amount of energy needed to fly 1km in an air taxi must be like 10-20 times more than to drive 1km on wheels, on the ground, ICE or not...
I fully agree. However, if you've ever tried getting around Paris, you might be a lot more willing to forego those other concerns.
Bicycle (Score:2)
That's only because you never used a bicycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. :)
So, if it is in miles, probably it is in the US, so even more commendable
Re: (Score:2)
Paris isn't too bad, they have a half decent metro. In recent years they have been reducing the number of cars that can enter the city, and increasing the amount of public transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Air taxis are also inconsistent with current trends that ICE vehicle should be banned because they are bad for the planet. Even if electric, the amount of energy needed to fly and the resources needed to build those air taxis will be pretty nefarious to the environment.
The amount of energy needed to fly 1km in an air taxi must be like 10-20 times more than to drive 1km on wheels, on the ground, ICE or not...
I doubt 10-20X more. Chances are it will be more. Of course, let's not forget that, at a certain scale, traditional aviation actually uses less fuel per passenger-mile than driving. Probably not going to be the case at this scale though. The main thing that would make this take more energy is the need to gain altitude to fly. What I wonder though, is if any of these evtols have a flying form of regenerative braking that can allow them to recover energy on descent. That might make a big difference in the ove
Re: (Score:2)
All airplanes glide to an extend and gliders take 0 energy once in flight. I don't think air taxi glide much, not the ones I have seen anyway. With no gliding, one needs a lot of energy just to keep it in the air. That's one of the reason helicopter rides are so expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopters do, in a way, glide. The rotor is still a form of wing. Remember that, if the engine goes out in a helicopter, it can autorotate to a safe landing (maybe). Autorotation is basically a form of gliding. Lift is provided through airflow through the rotors. Also remember that, just like airplanes, helicopters don't need to produce more thrust than their own weight to take off and fly.
In any case, most of these new evtols are hybrid craft with wings and rotors. So some amount of gliding, rotors or no
Re: (Score:2)
I wrote:
I don't think air taxi glide much
So I say the gliding is negligible compared to the wing span and surface of airplanes or gliders thus they need a lot more energy to stay airborne.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on what the definition of "much" is. Many aircraft, probably including these evtols can fly with thrust below 50% of their weight (not to be confused with their maximum thrust to weight ratio, which I expect to be over 100% for light aircraft with electric motors). If you're only providing say 50% of the weight of the craft as thrust, then the other 50% is basically from gliding (i.e. aerodynamic lift from movement of the craft through the air). So the question is if 50% is "much" or ev
Re: (Score:2)
I think the bigger issue is just going to be noise. Yes, EVTOL will be quieter than existing helicopters, but it's not going to be that quiet (just consider drones as an example). If you had hundreds of these things buzzing around a city all day, it would get very annoying very quickly. Already there are huge amounts of money spent mitigating road noise, but you can't exactly do that when your radiator is a bunch of moving point sources in the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget the noise - think of the down draft as it lands, throwing dust and debris up in a wide circle.
And in a city... where's it going to land? You're not bringing it down to street level, and not every roof can take a landing of even a light passenger-capable craft... and certainly not every roof is designed for convenient passenger traffic.
At best it could be as convenient as a subway ride, only more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, EVTOL will be quieter than existing helicopters
I seriously doubt this since smaller rotors produce more noise and at more sensitive frequencies.
Re: (Score:3)
This is going to be abandoned a few hours after they get their first jihadi passenger, it does not even need to be a religious one - a politically motivated one can be just as dangerous
Do you know that anyone can book a helicopter for a ride right now?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll still let someone else be the guinea pig and just walk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Assuming you mean "Terrorist" (a non-religious jihadi is a contradiction in terms), I'm not seeing any way in which a glorified two-person lightweight air taxi (including pilot) could be more easily used for terror than a car on the ground."
The only way really is if you hacked their operations center and then piloted all of the craft into different difficult to reach flammable locations. That's a real threat, though...
Re: (Score:2)
If one of these crashed into the Eiffel Tower
This was actually their original plan, 7 years before 9/11, see Air France flight 8969 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (1994). They failed or better, special police force performed one of the greatest police raids in history (in a crowded airplane: all terrorists dead, no civilian casualties, one self-sprayed ankle by someone jumping). Here the raid https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] when they stopped at Marseilles for "refueling" (no refueling was necessary, the pilots used that trick to have them stop be
Says who? (Score:2)
At the air show, the company wanting to sell air taxis says they will be running in Paris in a year. I didn't see (TFS) any statement at all from the French government, though.
"Flying Car company says Flying Cars Coming Soon". It seems like there have been several stories lately. I guess it is Flying Car Season again.
Flying cars is pure Bullshit bingo. (Score:2)
"Flying cars" is a meaningless oxymoron anyway.
A BS bingoword coming only from politicians and BS startup companies seeking to reap in subventions from said clueless politicians and investors.
If it flies, it is per definition an airplane, not a car.
Re: (Score:2)
If it flies, it is per definition an airplane, not a car.
As long as we're being pedantic, not airplane. Aircraft. If we want to add another layer of pedantry, you forgot to qualify "if it flies" with "and it's a man-made vehicle". Of course, in the end "car" is just a diminutive derivative of "chariot" and, historically, scholars have not felt the need to refer to mythical flying chariots as either airplanes or aircraft. Chariots of the gods are chariots that fly, simple as that. So your original premise might not fit historical usage of the root word that "car"
Re: (Score:2)
I take "flying car" to be something that is street legal as ordinary surface transportation, and also airworthy.
Safety first (Score:5, Funny)
I for one am not stepping into one unless the hull is made of 5 inch thick carbon fiber with titanium end caps.
Re: (Score:3)
I for one am not stepping into one unless the hull is made of 5 inch thick carbon fiber with titanium end caps.
Sure, but what if it's operated with a Logitech gamepad? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing they are using AI as well! (Score:3)
I was afraid they would stop at using a blockchain for something but using AI will bring a whole new wave of innovation to this circus.
You can't (Score:2)
You and I can take air taxis right now. It's called a helicopter.
...for a rich man's definition of "can".
For the rest of us, "can" also intersects with "afford", which is why I could fly supersonic when the Concorde was still around but I didn't, and now I have the money to fly supersonic but I won't.
Stall And Fall (Score:2)
New rhyme for the new tech.
Always oversell when seeking investors (Score:5, Informative)
Disclosure: I'm an FAA-certificated commercial helicopter pilot
There is no rush to create EVs that can travel 500 miles without a charging station to reach, but without one, trip planning requires a lot of work. Until then, some trips are circuitous to always have a charging station within reach. That's because batteries are currently heavy and their power density is incredibly low compared to fossil fuels. (Power density refers to how much power can be stored in a limited amount of space and weight).
The Volocopter finds one medium ground. It's a VERY SMALL electric helicopter with ALL of its maxium take off weight (MTOW) taken by batteries and room for one passenger and a pilot. Its range is 20 minutes. Under FAA regulations that's insufficient for time of flight plus fuel reserves, but they may change that for electric aircraft (EA?). The French authorities have similar regulations.
The Volocopter has not yet proven power-off landing. That's "gliding" for a fixed-wing aircraft, "autorotation" for a helicopter, or "pulling off onto the side of the road" for your vehicle. Power-off landing is a requirement for *ALL* aircraft today, including sport, experimental, glider, rotary-craft, etc. That includes those large Boeing and Airbus guys up in the sky. Whether they have two engines or three or four and no matter how "redudant" (duplicative) they say in their sales brochures, they must prove that with total loss of all engines they stil have control (think "hydraulic pumps no longer operating by engine power or pressure") and ability to land unaided and safely on the ground.
Finally, the process of certification for passenger carry adds a lot of regulations that aren't a requirement for flying yourself ("experimental") or just flying for fun ("private flying.") That process --in the US-- takes at least two years. Take a look at how long it took Boeing to get the new MAX-9 and 777X certificated, and they have DECADES of experience AND were building on pre-existing models which requires less paperwork. I'd be amazed if Volocopter survived long enough to get there.
Investors will come. Money will flow in. Executives will get paid. Prototypes may get built before they decide they need to retool for a larger aircraft with a better range, and start the certification process again. Flying has been around a long time, and regulators aren't shy about saying "Non."
Re: (Score:2)
Power-off landing is a requirement for *ALL* aircraft today,
To be fair, power off landing is not useful if you're in the middle of the pacific ocean, yet aircraft are certified to operate under those conditions on the basis of engine redundancy. The approach behind these multi-rotors is just that, so I don't see why there would be any fundamental reason an aircraft without power off landing capability is not allowed.
Also, keep in mind that traditional helicopters have a single point of failure (rotor assembly) which, if it fails, is always going to be catastrophic.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, power off landing is not useful if you're in the middle of the pacific ocean, yet aircraft are certified to operate under those conditions on the basis of engine redundancy.
Engine redundancy is there to increase the odds of making it to the nearest land. Power off landing in watch ('Ditching') is a requirement. Note how the "landing on the Hudson" had the aircraft "floating" on the water long enough for people to get out. That's by design.
Also, keep in mind that traditional helicopters have a single point of failure (rotor assembly) which, if it fails, is always going to be catastrophic. A multi-rotor removes this single failure point, which is an important improvement in system level safety.
Any structural or lifting element failure (a wing, a rotor, etc.) can be catastrophic, but those aren't power off landings. Those are parts of the aircraft subject to strenuous testing. The multi-rotor requires that balanced motors fail
Re: (Score:2)
The multi-rotor requires that balanced motors fail in order to be viable. If the wrong motors fail it will not be able to sustain stable flight, hover, land, or anything.
I don't know how they designed their craft, but that's not necessarily accurate. 1) A quadcopter with reversible motors or props could be designed to land on 3/4 motors and it would be a purely software change at that point from not being able to do it. 2) If you care about reliability then you have at least 2 of everything and at least twice as much motor power as you need to make a landing gracefully. You can put two motors at the end of each boom, one with a prop facing upwards and one downwards. Or if y
Re: (Score:2)
Note how the "landing on the Hudson" had the aircraft "floating" on the water long enough for people to get out. That's by design.
I though it was lift generated by the toxins in the Hudson River reacting with the aluminium hull to form bubbles.
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't see them being proven viable as approved commercial transport craft any time in the foreseeable future. It sure would be fun to fly one around.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now here is my question: is there any difference in the aerodynamics between a standard helicopter and these eVTOL vehicles?
Quite a bit. When you have one main rotor the blades follow each other, get in the preceding rotor blade's wash, become inefficient, and consume more power to generate the required lift for hover, pickup, and setdown.
Secondly a standard helicopter (even coaxial main rotors like the Russiand use aboard boats) and tandem rotors (Chinook CH-47) generate torque, so one way or another that must be eliminated. The larger the rotor and the heavier, the more torque is required to turn it. On coaxial rotors they
Re: (Score:2)
On coaxial rotors they counter-rotate so that eliminates the yaw, but the air from the upper rotor disk going down through the lower rotor disk is incredibly less efficient.
That's not actually correct. Coaxial results in less swirl so the thrust efficiency is actually better. See here. [strath.ac.uk]
The big issue with coaxial is the complicated rotor head design, and (certainly in the case of the X2) the increased frontal area drag of the rotor mast.
Commercially flying passengers in an ultralight ? (Score:2)
The volocopter in the linked article's picture is registered in Germany as an ultralight aircraft. (D-M...)
AFAIK in France there is currently no set of rules that would permit flying regular passengers (not "air experience bla bla") with ultralight aircraft and I heavily doubt this will change before 2024 or even at any foreseeable point in the future.
Is that the same Paris that banned scooters? (Score:2)
That town already had a problem with rentable e-scooters. Reason: Clutter on the sidewalk and reckless use.
Imagine what they will think of a constant buzzing and whirring overhead. Because that's what is in store here. Essentially, what you're looking at is oversized drones. Have you heard what a dozen of these things sound like? It's like a swarm of hornets. Now imagine this, only louder and permanently buzzing around you.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what they will think of a constant buzzing and whirring overhead.
The first line says "surprisingly quiet". I can't confirm how quiet it is, but certainly quieter than a full size helicopter. And given they travel on the same existing routes where they will replace helicopters, Paris with these quadcopters is going to be less noisy than previously.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Helicopters are prohibited to overfly Paris (except emergency services)
There is only 2 helipads usable for non-emergency, both are outside of Paris.
Re: (Score:2)
"Surprisingly quiet" can also mean "we expected these monsters to make the same sound as a starting Lear Jet, i.e. high turbine sounds at at least 140 dB, but they only make a high pitched whining noise at 80 dB".
If you look at these things, I have a hunch that this may well be what "surprisingly quiet" means in this context.
A tin hat... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Use a 130mm thick carbon fiber tube instead.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
What a bunch of jackasses.
Iâ(TM)m sure in this project there exists a type-a jacksss out to prove how clever and mold-breaking he is. Lemme guess: his biggest idols are Steve Jobs and Elon Musk.
The word is "helicopter." (Score:2)
The word is "marketing." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A helicopter is a collection of moving parts flying in close formation...
What's the cost per hour to operate these eVTOL's? (Score:1)
"A small two-seat helicopter with a pilot will cost around $300 per flight hour to rent. For 4-6 seats between $500-$3,000. For 6-12 seats between $2,000 - $10,000."
What's the cost per hour to operate these eVTOL's?
Consider the Concorde (Score:2)
The Concorde was also a technically feasible craft. But it was not practical. I see many problems with these air taxis as well. Technically achievable but in practice there are a lot of downsides.
Speaking of unsound ideas (Score:2)
Sounds about as safe as a carbon fibre submersible.