Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses

Electric Air Taxis are Taking Flight. Can They Succeed as a Business? (msn.com) 42

Posted by EditorDavid from the evolving-eVTOLs dept.
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post: Archer is aiming to launch its first commercially operated [and electrically-powered] flights with a pilot and passengers within a year in Abu Dhabi. A competitor, Joby Aviation, says it is aiming to launch passenger service in Dubai as soon as late 2025. Advancements in batteries and other technologies required for the futuristic tilt-rotor craft are moving so fast that they could soon move beyond the novelty stage and into broader commercial use in a matter of years. Both companies are laying plans to operate at the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles...

Scaling the industry from a novelty ride for the wealthy to a broadly available commuter option will take billions more in start-up money, executives said, including building out a network of takeoff and landing areas (called vertiports) and charging stations. Some high-profile ventures have already faltered. A plan for air taxis to transport spectators around the Paris Olympics fizzled... Still, investors, including big names like Stellantis and Toyota, have poured money into Silicon Valley companies like Archer and Joby. Boeing and Airbus are developing their own versions. All are betting that quieter, greener and battery-powered aircraft can revolutionize the way people travel. Major U.S. airlines including American, Delta, Southwest and United also are building relationships and planting seeds for deals with air taxi companies.
Two interesting quotes from the article:
  • "It feels like the modern-day American Dream, where you can invent a technology and actually bring it to market even [if it's] as crazy as what some people call flying cars."

    — Adam Goldstein, CEO of Archer Aviation.
  • "They have created these amazing new aircraft that really 10 or 15 years ago would've been unimaginable. I think there's something innately attractive about being able to leapfrog all of your terrestrial obstacles. Who hasn't wished that if you live in the suburbs that, you know, something could drop into your cul-de-sac and 15 minutes later you're at the office."

    — Roger Connor, curator of the vertical flight collection at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.

Electric Air Taxis are Taking Flight. Can They Succeed as a Business? More | Reply

Electric Air Taxis are Taking Flight. Can They Succeed as a Business?

Comments Filter:

  • So, helicopters? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by algaeman ( 600564 ) on Sunday December 29, 2024 @11:40AM (#65047717)
    Are they cheaper, safer, or quieter than helicopters? What is the advantage over the existing, well-tested technology?
    • The subject of the article is actually a tilt-rotor, and it says electrics are supposed to be quieter. I'm dubious how much since most helicopter noise that goes downwards is from the rotors not the engine. But clearly the biggie is cost, and perhaps electric motors will allow the design of the tilt-rotor to be greatly simplified and require less maintenance. Otherwise they're doomed.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The difference is that rather rather than one large rotor powered by a turboshaft engine (and a tail rotor as well), these vehicles have multiple, much smaller rotors to generate lift and thrust and no tail rotor is needed. Presumably the rotor RPM would be much higher as well compared to a traditional helicopter's lower RPM, which combined with an enormous rotor generates the pervasive and ubiquitous "thump thump thump" sound associated with them and gives them the nickname "chopper."

      • The subject of the article is actually a tilt-rotor, and it says electrics are supposed to be quieter. I'm dubious how much since most helicopter noise that goes downwards is from the rotors not the engine. But clearly the biggie is cost, and perhaps electric motors will allow the design of the tilt-rotor to be greatly simplified and require less maintenance. Otherwise they're doomed.

        I get your skepticism about rotor noise, but eVTOLs do have an edge over traditional helicopters. Distributed electric rotors are smaller and turn more slowly, which cuts down on the 'whomp-whomp' sound that carries far in urban settings. Electric motors also allow more precise control, so the designs can prioritize noise reduction in a way gas-powered systems can’t. And you’re right about cost—simpler, lower-maintenance designs are a huge advantage, and that efficiency helps make quieter

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Electric also has the advantage that when not in use, they can be off. So an eVTOL that is loading or unloading passengers can turn off all the rotors, making them vastly safer as well as being quiet. In addition, no one has to deal with rotor wash during board or unloading.

          So the only noise from an eVTOL occurs while it's in flight. Otherwise there is no reason to have the motors running so it can idle silently.

          Just like electric cars and planes.

        • It's not that the rotors turn more slowly, it's that the tips of the blades travel more slowly because they are much shorter. They can also have differing shapes that are impractical in a longer blade, which can also reduce noise by reducing cavitation. Even if they were multi-pitch (though I agree they probably won't be) they would use a simpler mechanism than a collective, which is cheaper and more reliable. The same mechanism is used on some helicopter tail rotors. I don't see any need for it on an air t

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by amorsen ( 7485 )

      Helicopters are spectacularly expensive because of the fancy blades that change pitch over the course of a rotation. Then there is the tail rotor, and if either the main rotor or the tail rotor have problems, you are in serious trouble.

      Air taxis are/will be mostly tilt rotor, probably with fixed pitch. There will be multiple rotors + motors for redundancy. Aerodynamically they will have some passive lift from wings or body.

      So they will be cheaper to build and operate because they are simpler and more fuel-e

      • Electricity is cheap in terms of direct costs, but it is expensive in opportunity cost. These copters will be a large capital expense. In order to get good returns on the investment, they will need to have high availability, and be in the air most of the time. Charging batteries eats up some of those prime working hours. Maybe with fast chargers they will only need 30 minutes to top off after a flight.

    • Are they cheaper? Probably, it's expensive to make a good turbine engine, and it's much harder to make a non-turbine ICE that's powerful enough, light enough, and as reliable as a turbine. It's relatively easy and cheap to make electric motors, especially when you're not trying to make just one big one.

      Are they safer? They could be. That depends on both design and parts quality, just like it would in a classic helicopter. If they use at least twice as many motors and rotors as they need to make a landing, a

  • NO (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No electric air taxis, no squid bones saving us from our foolishness, no nothing.

    Thanks a lot, Betteridge.

    • It's okay, I will beat Betteridge with my next cunning submission, "Are Slashdot headlines always incorrect?"

  • Net loss to society (Score:4, Informative)

    by marcle ( 1575627 ) on Sunday December 29, 2024 @11:56AM (#65047761)

    Oh great, a very expensive way for the wealthy to fly over the unwashed masses. Lots more noise pollution, the occasional aircraft falling from the sky over a crowded city, and absolutely no benefit whatsoever to 99% of us.

    • Well, the important thing is that now the merely wealthy can enjoy flying above us instead of just the obscenely rich.

      However, no matter how small the craft, if it can lift a human and carry it a significant distance it's going to make a lot of noise and blow a lot of debris around on landing. That means they aren't going to be taxis any time soon - they will require their own landing pads. In terms of utility they will be less effective than helicopters due to reduced range and increased sensitivity to w

  • We've had three separate jetliner crashes in the past 24 hours. Do we really want these things falling from the sky over cities? There's a reason the Osprey is routinely grounded.

    • We've had three separate jetliner crashes in the past 24 hours. Do we really want these things falling from the sky over cities? There's a reason the Osprey is routinely grounded.

      And how many car crashes in those same 24 hours?

      Air travel has its risks, but it's relatively safe compared to other transportation technologies.

  • As it is when the winds are out of the South (which fortunately is not the prevailing situation), the rich people from the Northwest side of town get caught in holding patterns for helicopters over my Southeast side of town neighborhood in their noisy helicopters. This is particularly irritating at 3AM. We are too far from the airport to hear airplanes. Keeping helicopters safely away from flight paths while reasonably close to the airport apparently means "over my neighborhood". This has only become an

  • At present the FAA has a number of separation rules: how far away an aircraft must be operating from people and buildings, in order to prevent malfunctioning aircraft from killing people on the ground. Do we plan to suspend those rules as, at present, aircraft must operate 1,000 feet from people except in an airport environment?

    And, to me, more importantly, have we solved the energy density problem with batteries so that these oversized drones carrying human beings can follow the FAA rules of having enough

    • And, to me, more importantly, have we solved the energy density problem with batteries so that these oversized drones carrying human beings can follow the FAA rules of having enough fuel (or energy) aboard to divert to an alternate airport and have 45 minutes of run time in reserve for emergencies? Or are we going to suspend those rules as well?

      Here's a question, do those rules still make sense when the craft can safely land on any handy helipad or clear and reasonably flat spot? When it is never further than, say, 15 minutes away from it's home landing spot, does it need to have an extra 45 minutes?

      The needing to be able to divert to an alternate airport and having 45 minutes of reserve is because a traditional big airplane needs a very specific set of infrastructure to land safely.

      These wouldn't need that.

      That said, I know I've read of EV plane

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by w3woody ( 44457 )

        The reason for having 45 minutes reserve is to have plenty of margin in case you get to your alternate landing site and something goes pear-shaped--such as the landing spot being occupied by someone else.

        And, unlike a helicopter or an airplane which can glide for a while (if it is, say, a few thousand feet up in the air), a quad-copter design with multiple rotors does not turn into a flying wing when the power dies. It turns into a brick.

        So I'd definitely argue they absolutely need the additional margin. Ev

        • Then you don't go over water or a forested area. Ferrying fighter craft, with their relatively limited range, can get interesting because you can't take the direct routes and still have an acceptable margin, even with reserve fuel tanks.

          I'm not arguing that they don't need margin, but 45 minutes might be excessive for something that is intended to be an intracity taxi. If they can reach an alternate landing spot in under 5 minutes, maybe a 15-minute margin is enough. As I already acknowledged, the 45-min

  • Traffic is already pretty terrible. If rich people can just fly over it that's going to remove one of the major incentives to solve traffic problems. And us peons are going to get double or triple commutes.

    • People that rich can just take traditional helicopters.

      Or be like Musk and work on making his own tunnel.

      I don't think that rich people actually factor in that much for solving traffic stuff.

  • This an electric drone large enough to POTENTIALLY carry passengers. And this is just an initial test flight. It's got a LONG way to go before it can carry even test pilots and then it will have to go through the very lengthy FAA certification process.

    It is not certified to carry passengers. It is not being used by any form of for hire service. It is not an electric air taxi.

    It is a grifter's dream that may, one day, possible, turn into something real. But, for the time being, it continues to pure propagand

  • We already had a viable flying car from Paul Moller, but the FAA made ever more absurd demands and killed it.

    We do not deserve flying cars.

  • This whole man-carrying drone craze has two reasons:
    1. 1. people who missed the train with Tesla now think this is the next big thing that will go through the roof.
    2. 2. quadcopter drones have been phenominally successful in all kinds of uses, from hobbyists to the military, so man-carrying quadcopters will be equally successful.

    However, those people forget a range of facts:

    1. 1. Flight is an order of magnitude more energy intensive than driving, so the Tesla parallel is wrong. If the total flight time is less t

  • There is nothing to discuss here. We've been watching the death of this niche at CES every year since... 2016? 2017? This segment doesn't exist.

  • I donâ(TM)t see an air taxi service succeeding for short range trips, esp commuting, if it canâ(TM)t be depended upon. Normal (not extreme) weather events have very little effect on commuters. You can still drive or take a taxi or a train even if it is rainy or windy.
  • And I still won't buy an EV !
  • "They have created these amazing new aircraft that really 10 or 15 years ago would've been unimaginable. I think there's something innately attractive about being able to leapfrog all of your terrestrial obstacles. Who hasn't wished that if you live in the suburbs that, you know, something could drop into your cul-de-sac and 15 minutes later you're at the office." — Roger Connor, curator of the vertical flight collection at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. They have those in North A

Slashdot Top Deals

One possible reason that things aren't going according to plan is that there never was a plan in the first place.

Close