Відео

The USAF received the first one, reported on August 15. Not only have several aircraft been completed but they have over 400 test flights and are in the final stages of certification ahead of schedule . This is from every article I can find and their website.

Mmm Joby yes quiter. But Archer is much SAFER. Also this is the old Archer I actually expect the bigger Midnight Archer be louder. But l think due to safety Archer win my vote

i didn't even see you on the stock market?

wow. ya'll are out for blood. you've made a killing already. you must be really pissed off at archer. really was cringe. hard to get advancement in this country. so many want to take anything new out if they can't do it themselves

OK, to answer the question first it IS ",more of the same" - not exactly pushing the envelope in terms of actual test flying not even poking a little outside of the sedate languid saunter with no manouvering to speak of, like you might fly an air ambulance or an air sick passenger, revealing nothing about the limits of handling or things like partial power failure for example. While it is an achievement to get it off the ground at all we might expect something more for a million dollars per day expenditure (same for Joby) The racket Midnight makes fully matches Elon Musk's dismissive " like a horde of angry bees' prediction that damns evtol per se , the Maker flight's seem to be muted or is that actually how much noisier Midnight is? The Cessna 172 taking off during one flight was drowned out by Midnight which says something. Is it being flown remotely or autonomously (eg via GPS ) ? It is shrouded in fog briefly and is that smog otherwise? - it would be IFR or close and sunlight reflecting off ground mist can blind a pilot (even if flying from video feed) again there is no visible movement of the control surfaces. The landing gear looks to be nearly rigid with only a few inches of travel - inadequate for vtol. I'm sorry to say but I think this film will go straight to cable and get a rotten tomatoes score near zero, too little action,no plot and wooden performances. "Midnight cowboy" it ain't nor does it stand comparison with other films featuring 'flying cars' like Back to the future' Chitty Chitty bang bang" 'Fifth element" etc etc so 'box office poison' for this one despite the enormous budget and cast of thousands behind the scenes,oh, and the cinematography and camera work is not exactly Oscar worthy either.

Archer gotta be noisier by design - small propellers = requires faster speed of blades = more noise, plus they have more of them.

Short attack!!!

Certification is not some sort of guarantee of com 14:47 mercial success as seems to be implied. The list of failed certified aircraft is legion , as is the list (or 'wheel' of misfortune ) of VTOL failures . The combination of extremely low energy density 'fuel' in batteries with the most power hungry flight mode (vtol) is about the worst possible. Even 'solving' the inherent diificulties of this poor design choice is not the real problem. Perhaps the best way to highlight the real achilles heel of all these efforts is to return to the originating Uber Elevate presentations (summits) and refer to the operational rates in movements per minute per vertiport that were required and projected to even break even let alone make any measurable effect on traffic (or the ludicrous stated aim of 'saving one billion people one hòur per day' voiced by Joe Bievert ) The fact that all these aircraft are FIXED geometry that do not fold in any fashion means that the ground , or elevated, operational infrastructure must be HUGE and vastly expensive to get any significant rate of operations or even a chance of profitability. The Uber Elevate conflabs revealed for the first time just how big and sophisticated any useful V 'pad' or 'port,' must actually be - including the landing pads, and passenger boarding, deplaning and baggage transfer, plus ground taxi ranks ,escalators etc etc but also showing aircraft elevators to move the aircraft from the flight deck to clear it for mote arrivals or departures and load/unload pax and recharge . The nearest analogy is to an aircraft carrier but with aircraft that have to stop and start mid air rather than rapidly 'arriving' and being shot off in second but more salently that doNOT fold up to get out of the way either aside or below deck . Yet the projected rate of operations to get near viability must be MUCH higher than an aircraft carrier at full blast and with these fixed wing 'bloated' designs the machinery,lifts etc to get to useful operational rates, and allow pax to get in an out without exposure to galefotce downwash blast or rain etc simply cannot be done at any scale. Rooftop 'helipad' ops are only suitable for occasional medevac or executive type use but are shown as part of this evtol scenario

I love how "EVTOL Research" won't talk about Joby's lack of progress and inability to transition their production prototype plane after a year of "testing." In my opinion, Archer has made more progress than Joby in the last 12 months. If you dedicate some mindshare to the Joby issue, you'll realize they have a serious payload issue that they struggle to overcome. At a >$3bn market cap, this is where the real malfeasance lies.

Dude. All this page does is sh!t on this company. Total one sided garbage.

So Archer literally painted the original Midnight to make it appear to the unsuspecting that this is the aircraft Archer recently built.

Why reduce the sound? Isn’t that important to hear? Is there a problem?

Wow. Too loud!

My take is Joby makes a quieter plane, and the EVTOL winner will have a product that can be used in suburban markets. So i am investing in Joby, but would like to hear contrary views.

航空项目按时完成率低于10%非常普遍 On-Time Completion Percentage (OTCP) lower than 10% are common in aviation projects.

Joby clearly wins the quiet round.

You guys are funny. This sector is in its infancy. Any company in this space with a stock price between .75 and $5 or so is a bargain. Wish I got Tesla or Uber at those prices.

Forgive my ignorance, even with the delays in transition, I thought the current aircraft Midnight was piloted. Learning that the current Midnight isn't piloted aircraft and can't be flown with a pilot, there is ZERO chance the military is going to purchase an EVTOL aircraft to test of this type that isn't able to be flown with a pilot. The fact that they are still building their first aircraft that can be piloted tells you how far behind they are in their timeline, they're not even close to market.

The 'conformance to timelines' is not so important in itself with almost every aircraft or transport infratructure or other projects routinely going way over budget and schedule - Tesla is another case of slippage . More significant should be failure to meet functional criteria (eg the 10 to the minus 9 safety goal) and as you have shown the noise in vtol mode. The FAA has revised it's special conditions to require full control after total power loss (thr worst case of course could be assymetric partial loss or even overspeed on one side - which was a case with the CL 84 Dynavert from prop govenor failure. Certification should involve 'off design' or worst case testing ,eg shooting duck carcasses into running jet engines in anticipation of l ikely scenarios, similarly these types should show survivability after blade shedding from whatever cause. With such extreme prop pylons and wing coupling it would seem unlikely that Archer could pass such a test.(it has the worst case here with the other near clones like Supernal,Wisk, Eve, Vertical, Yuri et al all being far less prone, yet even Joby has had total loss from blade failure as well as Vertical. Whether their coding can account for the scores of failure permutations to instantly compensate is very doubtful. I was working on the F 18 centre barrel fatigue program amidst the F18 'tail shake' test rig to investigate vortex shedding excitation (DSTO Australia) for which they cut several of the attach straps to simulate cracks and see how sensitive it was to small defects or incipient failure likely after some service. Certification has to include similar foreseeable cases and hope that unforseen ones are not critical (like the DeHavilland Comet pressurization fatigue catastrophy that was due to introduction of novel technology, as is evtol - delays are to be expected but obvious design weaknesses should not be overlooked. It was telling that Muntz referred to the DoD funding as helping Archer eg disguised govrrnment support along the lines of the long running Airbus vs Boeing trade dispute. ( and the Wisk lawsuits ) Timing alone may not be most important even if tied to legal or contractual issues.

I wanted to add a few comments to the other side of the debate. Archer has missed their deadlines, but this is common for aircraft development programs. Of course, this is not an excuse, but it is a reflection of how things seem to work in the industry. I think if you pitch far-away timelines, investors will be less interested, and the workforce will be less motivated (for example, a company proposes the commercialization of an electric aircraft by 2040. Does that sound interesting to private investors, and does that sound motivating to the workforce?). If you look at what Archer has delivered so far, as shown by their recent flight testing videos, I would say that they are doing better than many other eVTOL companies. A potential risk is that they may be under so much time pressure that they do not address their design problems from the root. This will be a crucial decision for their leadership: how much will they extend their timelines?

Great questions, thanks for sharing!

Archer has planned out to the Southwest region. They stroke a deal SW airline and plan mass production their fleet in the state of Georgia.

Thanks for this. Archer's plane is quieter...but sounds like an aircraft. Identifiable. The flight at 12:00 is downright noisy. Joby's plane sounds like the wind. A much more viable choice for an urban air taxi. Thanks for the video. Selling my Archer stock to buy more Joby.

Whilst not a perfect comparison, this is the best noise demo i've seen on YT. Thanks a lot.

Note "4" (FOUR)Comments yet only 3(THREE) appear - what has become of the missing fourth ??? (it might show 5 comments after this one now but only display 4 including this....) Taking the opportunity to probe into Wisk further ,have they flown their "Archer config" at any scale, yet? --VFS register shows a wing delivered to them from subcontractors but not hearing anything about flight test (not including Cora in NZ... ) interestingly a replica of the 1903 Pearse Monoplane flown by him in May 1903 has just been placed in a museum there (after IT was flown also) and Pearse's roadable, 'convertiplane' of circa 1920s was also amongst ,if not the first, VTOL and convert -to -wingborne- flight aircraft ever built (but was technically deficient in a number of ways, but the concept lives again, now . The book "The riddle of Richard Pearce" details the extensive research into his pre Wright aircraft R&D to actual flight . Wonder why Wisk is carrying out flight test in far off New Zealand ?

Seems one of my comments has disappeared.... is there reason for this ? (Specifically )

I hear crickets....

It is unclear what Wisk is protecting with patents taken out on it's much different Cora still flying in New Zealand with non tilting lift props and only sized for two seats (the airframe is very close to the German FS 28 from 1972 and non patentable in any case) ,not much of the software could be carried ovrr to tilt prop version nor could much of the Vahana tanden tilt wing be of much value so the "poached" ex staff from both probably added relatively little directly applicable know how (and how much actual flying has the tilt prop Wisk done? ) Thr comparison to two bald men fighting ovrr a comb that i once posted seems even more apt now... the legal stoush masks the deficiencies in their tech and both of them are much inferior by every measure to a Cessna 172 from the 1950s except for the "v" bit and that is the cause of their shortcomings, not the solution, ATOL is the viable approach to avoid the wastefulness,danger,noise and cost of both the aircraft and the extremely costly infrastructure, as shown on Uber elevate depictions with multi story V ports having aircraft carrier style lifts etc etc. Investors ought to research the threat from far more efficient competitor technology to ANY evtol before throwing more billions at the Beta equivalent vs VHS - let alone Bluray and beyond .....

Well done! Not perfect of course, but it is far better comparative video than anything else out there. Thank you. Those must have been long days waiting for action.

AMWAY famously stated "we don't sell soap, we sell hope" - in the evtol "market" it could be revised to ..... "we sell hype" ( I once had an employee who got sucked into Amway, tried to sell me on it, so it got my attention and I looked into the structure as a Ponzi scheme (pyramid selling- con, the product was irrelevant the duping of the gullible was not) See the same forces at work now , the pilching of competitor's staff complete with stolen IP and training is indicative of the level of ethics involved ( but '200 years of experience' might be followed by 'at complete failure to deliver one viable product' - both from Wisk (Cora , Boeing's own abandoned crashed evtol, the Airbus Vahana and others ) . The airbrushing out of the co founder Bret Adcock with acrimonious jibes deprived us of the 'Rocky and Bullwinkel/ Laurel and Hardy double act amidst their spectacular 'reveal' presentation with Taiko drummers, violin solo and enormous projector screen visuals all at a mind boggling expense (but without the video star Maker even turning a rotor...) all the hype and self promotion but little substance and based on theft (not that Boeing has clean hands in that respect either having just been found guilty of stealing technology from Zunum , also in the battery airplane start up hype field with an $81 million judgement against them in yet another lawsuit;- small beer in comparison to the 737 matters but also involving thr overall loss of corporate integrity now being revealed. Surely the evidence of greed driven stupidity in the 1000 plus suddenly emergent 'experts' in evtol on the Vertical Flight Society register must give some pause to investors and call for some due diligence on both the engineering side ,the economics and the principles of those flogging this bubble. Massive 'investment' should come after a first generation of working prototypes and proof of concept trials have succeeded not only from banker's ill informed speculation (eg Morgan Stanley's trillions of dollars of profits founded on other unfounded beat up by Mark Moore via Uber to inflate the whole bloody shebang out of vapourware. Computer generated images and projections that are not based on reality have fuelled an unprecedented orgy of financial recklessness (if you discount the south Sea scam or tulipmania but restrict it to aviation

Lilium ❤️💕🚀🚀🚀

Just on transition per se, if everything goes right the aircraft will remain in trim throughout the 'handover' of the "anti gravity" function from proprotors (powered) to the wing AND tail , it is important to appreciate that the tail's primary function is to trim the whole airplane ie keep it balanced and slso to allow for control in pitch and yaw. There does not appear to be any movement of the tail surfaces at all as must be required during and after a transition , it may be that they have to have lift from the aft props for equilibrium ( ie not transitioned ) and showing the aircraft to be tail heavy. With Joby both the tail and wing are blown by slipstream and there is huge ruddervator deflection as well , the two blade props shown are fixed pitch that would be slower to respond and build up thrust differently to those forward (more 'fixes' in the control software at a minimum if not actually sufficient trim available, the original Uber animations had fixed rear props also as does the VX4 , no way could the Uber elevate depictions trim in pitch with multiple props on the rear tail boom so that was artistic licence only. There is a legitimate question as to viability here and cruise flight would demand tail control surfaces ( not just fixed as might be the case)

Back in Columbo mode, i have scanned many of their videos and still failed to see any actual control surfaces on either the wing or tail(s) - am i missing something? ( or are they?) Normally a pilot, even on RC wiggles the stick and looks out just to see if the controls are working, i hsve not seen any movement at all and cannot see any hinge lines even surely they are not planning on just using differential prop thrust even when (if 😅) fully wingborne? As crazy as this sounds I cannot dismiss it on the evidence so far. It would be beyond ridiculous to only have fixed tail surfaces not even within the slipstreams (propwash) when in hover and with winds trying to upset it and weathervane the whole show. Someone tell me this cannot be true....

Corporate maschinations aside, i am more concerned with the engineering shortcomings inherent in their overall design concept and the possible failure modes and inabilities to rectify the outcomes in time. For example , power loss near ground - the " dead man's zone" for helicopters exists where there is not enough height to transition to autogyro mode but above the height at which kinetic energy stored in the rotor can be used to arrest sink (and the reaction time is very small, any error in pulling collective in either case can be carastrophic, I once burst proofed six sets of Hughes 300 tanks with Kevlar wrapping (got an STC equiv ) for training use including autorotation and arrived at the hangar to find the chopper with tail boom severed two neat holes in the canopy above the pilots and the tanks torn off but undamaged - pulled collective either too early or two late doing power loss training. Glide angle is abysmal at best with rotorcraft , also spoke to medivac pilots with Afghanistan experience about Osprey accidents and emergency helo landings - both far more benign than these evtols with unknown behaviour with partial tilting on wing and tail flows but likely vortex ring issues. So far no demonstration of emergency procedures or even robust handling - just lethargic slow motion blundering around (Bidening perhaps?) - this is chsracteristic of all vtols where you have high mass but little excess power left over to manouver or climb, having so much weight out in the wings makes it so much worse ,(the Vertiia, not a typo) is the worst of all with the batteries at the wingtips don 't even think of spinning these things or even rapid rolling. Instantaneous reflexes would be essential to have any chance, running out of charge in flight will happen and it better be that they all shut down together at the least. Flight in high winds with gustiness thrown in is going to be interesting because unlike helos they cannot store energy and do a jump start after pitch input , the "no man's land" between sitting tight and lift equalling weight ie the hovercraft state ,is highly vulnerable in most of these designs including archer and Joby . Surely they could release some footage of remote control sub scale models flying in bad conditions not just the smooth wind tunnel static testing (curiously done in Europe)

Drones on like a C 130... Are that at full gross of empty?

Video speed and quality improvements are nice. Keep up the good work.

Archer has a very inefficient design. Joby will destroy them

Based on the expressed desire of this website to best inform viewers and potential investors in this field (urban/advanced air mobility it is presumed) of far better and more viable alternatives 'in the wings' as it were. Investing in piston aircraft engines in 1950 as if unaware of the coming jet engine could be likened to the current state of the art in battery powered evtol; the alternative in this field is ATOL which avoids the huge power requirement of vtol with associated massive battery weight and cost, bloated airframes and noise, downblast and so on and is failsafe unlike vtol. In this context almost nothing in terms of infrastructure is needed and,unlike noisy vtol, can be installed in the midst of residential, suburban areas (in your street in fact) giving a real "Jetson's" type experience rather than the same hassles of airport/airline system which evtol reproduces on a smaller scale and is limited by the same constraints as are airports (each landing place needing carparks and waiting rooms etc just as for the hub and spoke airlines and excluding private owner use even if autonomous. For a small idea of how LITTLE physical infrastructure is really needed for aircraft of this size to operate out of built up areas viewers could google 'Brodie launch system' or similar to see a cable based airplane launch and landing apparatus needing no real estate and being energy efficient as compared to brute force vtol ( and ONLY showing how to avoid the need for any runway at all or for high power but in ALL other respects being quite unlike the current technology being developed in ATOL and for Atol compatible flying vehicles. Just for the record I have no affiliation to this website or any evtol company, investment or other business , i do have a background in the aircraft industty and aircraft design and as a pilot but no stake in the financial affairs of any of the 1000 plus evtol promoters on the Vertical Flight Society list ; lest any wrong infrrences be drawn.

Recovering the fantastic amounts of money spent on developing these crazily inefficient vehicles from airfares will be made even more impossible when the overhead costs of "Taj Mahal" style futuristic "vertiports" is added to the downside of the ledger. Economically doomed.

Do you think the 10minute demo milestone flight to secure the stellantis funding was in a craft that was stripped of all the equipment needed for human safety and comfort and was just a shell with extra battery that it wouldn't normally be able to lift with seats and passangers and didn't have any juice left when it landed? I have a feeling a flight like that will not be repeated in over a year.

Did you see the map of poop. That’s what happened to frisco.

Did they ever say on earth? Maybe they were talking about a planet with less gravity and a denser atmosphere.

There is continual confusion created by using the name Maker for the four passenger aircraft (now called Midnight)and the overhyped rhetoric that glosses over the extremely poor claimed range (which is twice the more pertinent radius of action given that recharging may only be available at very few locations and the charging delay will exceed the discharge (flight) time . These type of evtol configurations are prone to propeller whirl flutter (which has already downed two similar designs in the Joby and Vertical VX4 ) with out any external cause like birds trike or icing,erosion etc to cause imbalance and in the transition from hover in edgewise mode the propellers are subject to high assymetrical loading, like helicopters but seemingly without cyclic pitch to even out blade forces and with, in Archer Midnight's case extraordinarily long cantilevered prop pylons, the propensity for interference from adjacent props in crosswind or sides lip and vortex ring state or exciting flutter has been noted. (The Lockheed Electra suffered catastrophic failures from whirl flutter in much more benign flight modes - both the other evtols disintegrated ) . Without any economic or business law background the proprietary ethicality of the "merger" schemes is outside my field of expertise but the parallels to the historical " south Sea bubble" based on exactly the same financial/investor duping is clear and the whole stampede into battery powered vtol designs in a formerly unfailingly unsuccessful segment of aircraft design despite the use of MUCH more efficient energy sources and ultra light weight gas turbine engines and not having to be remotely economic for military use. Pre selling hundreds of aircraft that do not exist and building giant factories before even one passenger has been carried or any convincing, well documented proof of operational feasibility (technical or economic) is unprecedented and extremely hubristic ( with investor's money being played with like monopoly ) - some earlier white elephants in aviation of a similar kind worth a look were the gigantic Princess flying boats built in the late 40s in England or the contemporaneous Bristol Brabazon, Hughes flying boat or other follies in a grand scale. Abbott Aerospace has posted some sobering professional engineering and other evaluations of several highly promoted evtols which are well worth taking a look at. The whole "explosion" of runaway 'investment' and unfettered 'enthusiasm' in the evtol field merits a critical dispassionate assessment not only for potential fraud but from poor engineering right from the conceptual stage on up, wisdom and ethics seem to have been lost in the pursuit of avarice. Maybe corporate regulators (and hopefully the FAA ) will take a harder look , the fundamental requirement for controllability and survivability after total power failure in any flight mode appears to be alone a show stopper for configurations of this kind, much more could,and should, be said.

More like Archers "Faker" aircraft. Seems Archer might be employing the "Fake it till you Make it" approach to it's evtol business strategy. They might be the Nikola of the evtol space.

Both are quiet, both are impressive. Props are always going to produce noiçe

Videos made by this channel are so great and inspiring! Hope to connect with you and discuss evtol worldwide.

That 2 aligned blades propellers to reduce drag argument sounds like baloney to me. You already have six rotors creating flow twist, turbulence being created at the trailing edge of the wing, plus a boom wing interference contaminating the airflow, having the rear rotor blades "aligned to the flow" at that point doesn´t seem to make much of difference in drag. This thing is not a fighter jet either, it is flying at low subsonic speeds - let us remember a Cessna 172 has a strut under a much less optimized wing and it flies fine! It is also worth noting that on the original design, while the front propeller blades have pitch control, the rear two blades are an integral piece, with locked pitch shape. This could be a problem in two aspects: 1- There is a higher chance of rotor axis unbalance because you have propeller mass inertia being spread in one direction only. Helicopters cope this problem with rotor blade balance mechanism, which consists of dummy masses installed in other directions and pitch and yaw control for each blade. 2- It can be inefficient because you might be heavier in some trips but your rotor lift output is constrained by the fixed pitch propeller. Changing to four or three blades stabilizes better the rotor axis, and if they made them pitch variable, they can improve lift performance at a cost of a bit more complexity and weight.

At 90 knots IAS the wings should be producing enough lift already...the slowdown transition is the more tricky phase... These tests are very far from the full flight envelope tests...the company seems to be more focused on stock market/shares than engineering... Lilium and Beta Techn. are the more mature in this respect... Stellantis is not in a good shape anyway...

I don't think you can say that the inside props were turning slower. A different speed for sure. The video may look like that but it could be an artifact of the camera frame rate and the inner props are blurry. Wings generate more lift inboard than outboard, which means more downwash behind the wing inboard, which would mean those props turning faster. I'm not sure it makes any difference to the success of the flight. Four bladed props behind the wing are a problem when you want low drag in flight. They will always have a blade hanging out in the wind creating drag. This is due to small diameter needed since there are twelve of them and this seems a design flaw. Eight larger diameter props would still provide redundancy and be more efficient. Two small blades likely couldn't generate the necessary lift nor could three, so they wound up with four. Update: Looking at a single frame the inside props are turning faster as the blur at the tip is longer than that on the outside blades, hence higher speed.

The EVTOL Research Channel...... yet EVERY VIDEO IS ABOUT ARCHER AVIATION! ......hmmm.... Either this channel is being funded by a short seller, or perhaps a fired ex-employee!!!😂