Mercedes-backed Volocopter Files for Bankruptcy 35
German electric air taxi company Volocopter has filed for bankruptcy protection, the latest in a string of similar startups to hit financial turbulence. From a report: Volocopter is one of the more well-funded electric air taxi startups, having raised hundreds of millions of dollars over nearly a decade with backing from major automakers like Germany's Mercedes-Benz and China's Geely.
Is Archer doing better? (Score:2)
Their stock has skyrocketed recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Their stock has skyrocketed recently.
Archer was awesome until they started doing the alternate reality timelines. They needed to pull him out of that coma about three seasons earlier, but the damage has been done. They Disney Marvel Multiversed themselves into irrelevance.
Oh, is that not the Archer you were talking about?
The hardest part of going into business (Score:2)
But Hey! they had 10 years of fun and play time spending other peoples money on their pretend business.
Re:The hardest part of going into business (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The hardest part of going into business (Score:5, Informative)
From what I can find, the FAA published the criteria which they plan to apply to Joby's eVTOL aircraft, [flightglobal.com] but as far as I can find, they haven't actually certified the aircraft as airworthy. (That is, as far as I can tell the FAA finally settled on the requirements they intend to apply, but they haven't actually certified the aircraft as complying with those requirements.)
And from what I understand, the path from prototype to an airworthiness certificate is from 3 to 10 years. (It can go faster if the design is well known or an improvement of an existing design--the Cirrus SR22 took less than a year, but it was largely based on the Cirrus SR20 which took 7 years to achieve. And the SR20's design is not far off from various gas-fueled single-engine fix-wing aircraft like the older Piper Archer. The designs being proposed by Joby and Archer are pretty radically different from what you usually see flying.
And from what I can tell the same thing happened with Archer Aviation: [aerotime.aero] they finally received the final airworthiness criteria they need to meet--but they haven't actually achieved type certification.
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for them to get their type certification. And if they do, one thing I'm curious about is if they decide to sell the aircraft separately, tapping the GA market--or if the plan is that their taxi business is the only consumers of those aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get suspicious when companies appear to 'stretch' the truth of where they are with certification. The FAA simply said 'we expect these aircraft to uphold these standards under Part 23', not '... and yea, the airplanes being made by Joby and Archer meet those requirements.' (On the other hand, this is a step forward, because up until about 2022 the FAA wasn't even going to consider eVTOL aircraft for certification at all, so it's definitely a step forward. Not "and we'll be flying people in and out o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't.
I mean, I do see more eVTOLs as experimental aircraft (that is, aircraft people fly in the real world but which do not have a type rating, which means they cannot be used for commercial purposes, such as using them as air taxis).
But a lot of the safety requirements the FAA generally propagates includes things like "can the aircraft continue gliding after losing power" and "can the aircraft stay aloft for at least 30 to 45 minutes after arriving at a secondary airport?
Notice the design for the Joby A [evtol.news]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful. Not until there is a lot more experimental evidence that a quadcopter (or similar vehicles) can remain aloft experiencing multiple rotor failure--and until there is experimental evidence a quadcopter can glide to safety (rather than drop like a stone) in the event of complete power failure.
Keep in mind one of the most common reasons why airplanes fall out of the sky is fuel starvation [skybrary.aero]: that is, running out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Archer is not a quadcopter. It's a fixed-wing V-tail aircraft with a whole bunch of electric rotors.
Re: (Score:2)
Archer and Joby I believe have both passed cert's now and are on their way to production.
They have been certified as far as being allowed to TEST FLY them at remote private airports. That is a far cry from being certified to fly to a real airport, or in most airspace, let alone with passengers.
Once the FAA finalizes criteria for certifying these aircraft, then the actual certification process to get a type certificate and an airworthiness certificate can begin. So give it a year or two for the standards to be finalized. Then it usually takes a few years to get any new aircraft actually certifie
Re: (Score:2)
So many shirts will be lost (Score:5, Insightful)
So many investors are going to lose their shirts in the AAM (advanced air mobility) marketplace because we have idiots promising to deliver solutions that simply can't be created given the current state of battery technology. I predicted the failure of these companies and now we're seeing reality bite.
The fact is that we've had this form of transport for decades -- it's called a helicopter yet even though the capability has existed, we don't see much demand for point to point VTOL transport in the formof "air taxis" do we?
So here's the stupid plan on which these ventures are based:
1. let's reinvent the helicopter, even though clearly there's not much demand for an air-taxi service
2. let's use electric power so the range, payload and turn-around capability is significantly worse than a helicopter
3. let's use tiny propellors so there is no failsafe (autorotation) capability in the event of power system failure
4. let's remove the pilot and rely on GPS -- which could go out or be jammed at any moment.
In short -- create a really bad solution for a problem that really doesn't exist.
Watch for more stupid investors who don't do their due dilligence and got an F in science at school to lose their shirts before this fiasco is over.
Yes, AAM may become a viable business but it is *decades* away from that right now and those who try to make it a commercial reality will die on the bleeding edge.
Re: (Score:3)
When do we get a demonstration of the wave motion gun?
Re: (Score:1)
Right, so that is a different project we call Earth Gun. There are inherent limits to wave motion related to dependence on frequency and amplitude. Earth Gun involves a constellation of satellites with giant magnets on them, and wrapping Earth with a few coils of copper wire. This uses the Earth itself as the rotor of an electric generator. This is Free Power 2.0, our stretch goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a little too dire... (Score:1)
The fact is that we've had this form of transport for decades -- it's called a helicopter
This is not really true for a few reasons:
1) A helicopter implies the need to get significant quantities of fuel to a helicopter. Lots easier.to get substantial power leads to a recharging platform on a building which already has massive power consumption anyway.
2) You simply cannot compare the space needed for a helicopter pad to a compact drone taxi pad. A drone taxi could easily fit into a bus sized parking space a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2) You simply cannot compare the space needed for a helicopter pad to a compact drone taxi pad. A drone taxi could easily fit into a bus sized parking space and not disturb cars around it. A helicopter has a much more massive wash
The downwash is exactly proportional to the mass lifted. There's no particular reason that labeling it an "air taxi" would decrease the downwash.
The big problem with helicopters is that they are famously very difficult to fly. The advances in drone technology have pretty much made the difficulty of flying modern multi-rotor craft zero.
Smaller mass as well (Score:1)
The downwash is exactly proportional to the mass lifted.
Because an aero taxi has much smaller motors and rotors, the overall mass should be much less than a helicopter (even with batteries, fuel is heavy too).
So, less downwash.
The big problem with helicopters is that they are famously very difficult to fly.
Yes also true, much safer to have glorified drones flying over everything than a helicopter, and cities allow helicopters flying over them pretty often.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel is not as heavy as batteries. They only solve that problem by reducing the flight duration.
But really, there's not a significant difference. The downwash from an "air taxi" will pretty much be identical to that of a helicopter of similar payload capacity, it's a glitzy new word, but operates on the same physics.
Oh come on (Score:2)
If you can't build what is basically a person-capable drone after wasting 10 years and spending hundreds of millions of dollars, then you were a hopeless bunch of clowns to begin with. This sounds more like a glitzy grift than a genuine intended business.
FFS, give me 10 million dollars and 2 years and I'll have person-capable drones that can fly safely from point A to point B without all the fanfare and paid-media hype.
They just found out what "regulations" are (Score:3)
Demand for Air Taxi (Score:3)
Technology and safety aside, it's a
super-niche money-losing proposition.
These companies are advertising "Air Taxi",
but none of them are going to or from arbitrary
locations. It's going to only be from a heliport
to the big airport. These heliports can be a bit
smaller than a regular one, maybe. The size of
the rotors (compared to a regular helicopter)
is not the only thing that determines that, though.
The service is for rich people who don't want to
drive all the way to the airport. Instead, they will
drive from their estate to the heliport, which one
hopes is less traffic and time than to the airport.
Then they will transfer their bags, get out of the
car, get into a VERY small electric rotorcraft,
and be flown to the airport. Then get out of that
aircraft, be driven over to the "General Aviation"
ramp at the airport, transferring all the bags,
and board their private jet. If they are poor, they
will go instead to the regular part of the airport
and get on a commercial flight (with the bag
checks, the shoes, the TSA patdown, etc.)
This is supposed to be more convenient than
just getting in the limo at the mansion and having
Jeeves drop you off at the GA terminal.
It doesn't sound more convenient to me.
It is multiple transfers, not super comfortable,
considerable extra expense, and could even
take longer than just driving there.
This "taxi" doesn't come to your house,
you have to come to it, and then it only
takes you to the airport.
It is not as safe as a helicopter (which can lose
all it's engines and still land safely, like a plane
can glide to a landing). Also, if being driven by
your chiefer in your luxury vehicle is not good
enough, you could probably have a helicopter
land at your house, if you have enough land.
I don't see much demand for this "air taxi"
service, except as a novelty. I am sure there
are a few people for whom it might make
some sense. If you have the money, if you
don't want to take a limo or an Uber, and if
you happen to live close to the heliport.
But if everyone meeting that criteria used
the service every day, I still don't see
enough demand for a viable business.
It might even be a more expensive
business to operate than helicopters.
I suppose they are thinking that as time
goes on, the options for the service might
open up. But that is largely driven by the
availability of better battery technology.
Here's an option for you: Wait until science
has invented that technology.
Being first to market is of no advantage.
You're just paying the development cost.
Once there is a regulatory framework,
it will be open to everyone. The only
barrier to entry will be having the aircraft.
And there's really no secret sauce there,
and yours will be certified faster than the
original ones. You can come in with more
advanced aircraft then the "established"
operators, pay none of the costs of the
revolution, and drive your competitors
into the ground in no time at all.
Revolution. Drive into the ground.
I'll be here all week, folks!
Don't forget to visit the firehose and tip your moderator!