Trains solve the transportation issue far better than personal transportation devices. I think EVTOL's are cool but more of a luxury item. I would love to see how Frank would review an innovative train when it comes to design and the issues it fixes. If anyone could make a sexy train video it would be Frank!
Better public transport and more walkable/cyclable cities solve a lot of our present day traffic problems. Of course, they aren't very sexy, but imagine the possibility of a flying train/bus. Even lesser needs for roads and tracks!
Trains are better than EVTOL for sure but it just does not appear practical to implement, alot of metros in city's end up as failed projects when permissions fall through and it costs the government a lot more to support. Completely agree that a train/"hyper loop" system is better on paper
trains are crony capitalist boondoggles, and have been since the Civil War...they allow no freedom of movement for the individual, and make traveling longer than needed. They suffer this more than buses. Neither are safe. Public transport in general is not safe. We're better off with EVTOLs, given they can exist sustainably (aka, without subsidies from taxpayers, who may or may not want to fund it). 100% of EVTOL users are paying because they want to (assuming they stay private companies).
I believe it's essential to advance this technology and crucial that the world's top designers and brands join us on this journey. Taking the automotive industry as a prime example, the rapid innovation in electric cars, motorcycles, and bikes illustrates the need for top engineering talent and strong brand aesthetics to lead the way. It's exciting to see one of the most renowned car designers of our era dedicating his passion to this cause, and I hope it inspires a new generation of designers to get involved. Imagine a future where the M1 is a cycle path connecting the country, with autonomous VTOLs flying above in a safe and orderly path, transforming travel into experiences and advancing human endeavours.
He's right, it's the Battery Race that dominates this evtol industry. Soon all evtol manufactures will not be so constricted, but to design, efficiency, longevity...a million miles? Easy as a Johnny Cab on Mars. And everyone is in the Battery game. Stay tuned folks. What a ride.
Fascinating for sure from a design point of view! As a scientific literate mind, I can postulate future potential of battery tech from many dimensions and scenarios. Energy density for EVs is the largest of quests indeed. As a starter, Lithium brings the highest of all safe elements. I have been observing ongoing hypes and promises around evolving battery tech but all developments in that area are essentially extremely slow moving..., because in the end, electricity has to be moved, stored and made to work safely..., and Lithium is the only base element providing for an energy density required for storage to suit the postulated demand... The element is very scarce at a few concentrated deposits on planet Earth..., causing highly stressed political relations already... A level down are Sodium based compounds and solutions... The next level up goes into the areas of unsafe radiation levels... With high density energy, high-risk heat management is evident of course, in all postulations... Another crucial challenge is that hyping, commerce and investment climates are intertwined, essentially causing pro-profit 'make believe' the de facto leading direction... None of the current battery tech development is going to bring what is required for the future... I repeat..., none. It is my belief that entire new ways of energy abstraction should be developed rather than narrowing down to a single minded track... The project of EVTOLs are cool and gives new area of design of course, that is certainly the case as designs for helicopters have already been touched.
It would be a hugely attractive way to commute from point A to point B. My only real concern is that at the price point you quoted, the uptake would be very high which would mean very crowded skies. Are there traffic management systems that could cope with this? Also, are crowded skies even desirable? I'm sure that these concerns could be managed through appropriate pricing and regulatory measures. BTW, I want one!
Why not instead of creating a whole new IMPRACTICAL and dangerous way of transportation witch will imply RADICAL changes in logistics and infrastructure, a crazy amount pollution, noise in the city, and implementation of new regulations; make the ways of transport and their infrastructures better? (i admit in regards of design it will be amazing)
Yup, it's cool, but if trains were more efficient, walkable planned cities were the norm EVTOLs would be absolutely needless and not a logistical nightmare
We are still awaiting the design that is quiet enough to use in cities. If noise is the basic design perimeter none of these designs would be allowed to fly.
So, do you own property in a city? If so, are you willing to surrender it under imminent domain for pennies on the dollar so that a train can be built? Also, do you think people in wealthy areas will be willing to either give up their property (or even put up with prolonged construction?) Have you ever heard of the 710 underground Freeway project in LA that has been held up for 50 years? This is because the residents of one wealthy neighborhood are unconcerned with the decades long traffic congestion in THREE NEIGHBORING CITIES!!!!! If anything, trains are IMPRACTICAL in these cases. The only thing that is "RADICAL" about EVTOL'S is the battery technology. Electric motors and aircraft are over 100 years old. Helipads are about 70 years old!
“Power beaming” seems a much better technology to Pursue in my opinion for evtols then batteries composition. Continuously topping off the battery by beaming a glorified solar cell from several ground stations for Infinite range vs a marginal 3% increase in battery storage capacity by weight of just battery inovation. Also for the love of god put a deployable emergency parachute 🪂 just in case.
This doesn't solve the fundamental problem, we're spending money on putting more electric noisy helicopters in the sky instead of oh I don't know, building more more railroad infrastructure. How many people does one of these things carry at a time vs a train, or a bus, or a tram? The 'eco friendly' argument is again tossed around, what is the cost of building and maintainting these things, the raw material cost and the human cost of extracting the materials needed to build the batteries? The list goes on. This is just another flawed vision of 'the future'. I have no doubt these things will come around and be pushed onto the public the same as EVs have been for the last decade, just don't have much hope that they will actually solve anything at all, they look cool on paper but that's about it.
Bingo. The e is there to sell it on the 2-garage Tesla crowd that want to feel good about themselves, looking down at others who can't live they way they do. VTOL is hugely restrictive on craft size, and the e makes is even more horrible. 70% of take off weight is then batteries...gotta be great. Imagine a 2-ton battery smashing into a busy mall or concert hall. Or, 1,000 head plebs passenger train... I totally want an eVTOL and a villa that's very far from the smelly noisy city, and then land on top of my personal skyscraper...but it's just not very helpful to the rest of society. It's just a flying raised middle finger, passenger to the rest of the world.
@@Cloxxki I've seen an electric car on fire, it's going to be even more glorious when you're in a tin can in the air. They will never ID the bodies either.
@@null100 For about 4 years of driving worth, yes. So it's basically a CO2 bomb. Which is good, because it's plant food, food prices are way up and people are actually DYING of famine, TODAY. The whole CO2 thing is quasi science, Newton and Einstein are rolling over in their graves for what passes as "science" nowadays.
Technically amazing; from a design point of view great; fabulous it is electrical (the total CO2 footprint from production over USE and recycling). HOWEVER, traveling within cities should be UNDERGROUND! No flying, buzzing and noise making objects above our heads !!!!
Sure, the skies would be more crowded but imagine how much land we currently devote to roads. If this kind of transport would become more widespread, we could have so much additional space for building or nature.
People are always afraid of what they don't know. Motorcycles will be more dangerous than getting into an EV tall I think Jay Leno probably needs to consider this. Jay Leno is recovering from a motorcycle accident last week that left him with multiple broken bones just months after he sustained severe burns in a fire at his Los Angeles-area garage. On Friday, the comedian and talk show host revealed he was "clotheslined," knocked off his motorcycle, and injured with broken ribs and other injuries in a Jan. 17 crash near the Burbank, California facility that houses his car and motorcycle collection. "I got a broken collarbone, a couple of broken ribs, and two cracked kneecaps," Leno said in an interview. "But other than that, I'm okay."
Trains, subway, trams, trolleybuses - that's the solution to the transportation issues. Forcing people to use public transport rather than inefficient personal transport. Evtol can fit what, 5 people? Tram can fit about 50! Subway train - about 100 or more. Those flying taxis are all pretty, of course, but be real, they are more of a luxury taxi option rather than a solution
That sounds so cool, im definetly hyped for the future! One thing you maybe forgot is the possibilities for new ways in logistics to speed up few processes in manufacturing
Amazing stuff, Frank. My primary concern is busy skies. I see many people praising the efficiency of trains… so what about an EVTOL train? Probably 10+ years away, but would carry far more people!
I used to work next to a heliport and the noise is what makes this unlikely to pass regulatory muster probably as much if not more so then the safety issues.
@@MesaAufenhand titan didn’t need certification because it was being operated in international waters. These craft will have to be certified in whatever airspace they are operated in.
Most in development can fly way further than anyone commutes. Once in the air and at speed, they are designed to be decently efficient, although perhaps not compared to a modest electric car driving a lot slower. eVTOLs with a good lift based horizontal cruise can get 100-150 miles without a stop, and do so in roughly an hour. Like a helicopter or light aircraft, really. Just more silent than a heli and hopefully more efficient than old school light aircraft plus the battery virtue signaling bonus. To use these as taxis around downtown or a metropolitan area...would get messy quickly. So many movements then. Short trips are less efficient if there is no space to take-off and land horizontally. And loud. Never far from a few big drones hovering without getting anywhere. If really safe and durable, rides could get pretty cheap I guess. But that doesn't make it a good idea necessarily. So many great ways to interconnect a city and its surrounding area are totally ingored when going for mass eVTOL adoption. But, oh is it ever hip and ego stroking to be involved in it...
I live in an area that’s constantly overflown by all sorts of helicopters at low to very low altitudes. I don’t find them annoyingly loud whatsoever. I’m looking forward to the success of this new ingenious way to travel and sightsee.
Can’t agree more that noise is the biggest obstacle. While some of it would be mitigated by electric propulsion anyone who has been around a drone in flight knows those are quiet either
Amen! I respect you Frank for moving your talents into the future and not being stuck in the past. Us older humans, (when we are flexible to modern change) can add an element of past knowledge applied to forward concepts to help assure that the wisdom from experience helps guide future technology. A pretty good recipe, I believe!
I find this fascinating but I feel like there's a huge risk when it comes to the pursuit of profits above all else when it comes to these light, agile aircraft flying inside cities, and I'd imagine I'm not the only one who'd be highly skeptical of corporations who are willing to take shortcuts to gain just that little bit extra profit. In China and the US alike, we've seen EVs spontaneously combusting due to the relentless pursuit of profits, causing lapses in build quality etc but what would this look like when we're dealing with aircraft flying over busy city centers? How many more people get hurt when an EVTOL had shoddy build quality due to manufacturers rushing to fill quotas, rather than one vehicle on the road stopping and being evacuated? While these sleek, emotionally gripping designs are exquisite, and certainly a very exciting field to watch designers such as yourself, I fear that they will never be accepted as widely as the car, or the boat. Though I'll hold on to just a little bit of hope that I'm wrong, and that maybe we won't get the EVTOL equivalent of the Titan Submarine. Also I feel that I should point out what I saw so many others saying in the comments - this just sounds like a very convoluted option to trains. Trains can be luxurious and comfortable, or they can be extremely cheap (definitely cheaper than a cab ride) depending on your needs!
I think that EVTOLs are only suited to the most congested major cities of the world, as those are the only places that have any use for them and where all forms of transportation are nearing or exceedingly their capacities. Here in flyover country, we won't be seeing too many of these.
I certainly hope we will be able to fly them within designated safe virtual corridors so we can experience the thrill of piloting outside of cities, instead of just being taxied around.
It sure is a wonderful idea and for me reducing street traffic is one of the biggest benefits it has. By it self it might not be good enough but I think if it is combined with some other mass transportation system like Maglev trains it will be fantastic.
The case for last mile transport is convincing, not sure about longer journeys. Smaller cities are a better solution than more complexity but that horse has obviously bolted. This episode is a well rounded critical big picture view of the near future. One of your best episodes. Thank you Frank
TRAINS: It's an investment being made even in, so called, 3rd world countries. The time it takes to go to a EVTOL port, get security checks, check luggage, pack luggage on board then fly, you would be well into the 1st hour of your journey by train.
As a kid I used to dream of flying cars, but as an adult who drives daily I think it's gonna be a nightmare when incompetent drivers start flying in the sky
I genuinely believe this is a good idea. Yes, it can be stated that this is possibly dangerous, and less effective than regular transport but the reality is that we don't know how people will gravitate towards this without trying. It has to be done one way or another. Yes, better infrastructure for trains and travel is important but this could also relieve stress on those systems as well, potentially giving more time for those ways of travel to recoup and better themselves without the non stop reliance from regular traffic. Sometimes it feels like solutions for transportation becomes redundant because there's no room financially or in terms of safety for radical changes to design and the technology of the current ways of transportation. I believe regulations are important, but if we continue to regulate everything into oblivion, we'll just evolve slower. The question to me is why not? There's plenty of other transportation ideas that are substantially more expensive, and with a larger chance of being a huge waste of money and time and space. If these don't work, everything can go back to normal because the impact they would have honestly would be minimal changes. It's not as if we're building new tunnels for cars to travel down, in one state...after years of development....to come to the same issue of traffic.
Has FedEX, UPS, Amazon expressed interest? Here is a EVTOL use case where human lives are not at risk, just packages. Obviously, they all have invested heavily in custom EV vans. I see Amazon's Rivian delivery truck all the time here in Baltimore, it's really cool looking in person.
eVTOL crashing on your head still hurts even if it just had packages on board. Those big corps do ANYTHING that will offer a virtue signaling opportunity, whether it makes sense or not. Their interest is pretty irrelevant. They already do deliveries with smaller drones. The more reliable systems connecting remote medical posts with a central pharmacy in for instance Africa, actually use more efficient horizontal flight on model airplanes. Landing is done with a catch net, no time to do a slow approach or hover and taxi. Arrive, meds taken out, done.
@@Cloxxki EVTOL flight paths, like helicopters, would have the least exposure to human flyover as possible. For example, they would fly over the Hudson River rather than over downtown Manhattan. And for all those businesses time is money. As you say yourself, nothing beats moving goods from point A directly to point B like flight. Way better than dealing with the variables related to traffic and roads. Look at the mess with the I-95 bridge collapse as an example.
@@SoCalFreelance The Hudson is still needed for emergency landings of mere kerosene jets, NY jets crash a lot ;-) The kinds of deliveries fat are justified to ship instantly might not justify significant distances. Evening stores can remain distributed within last mile themselves. No need for air freighting Amazon and IKEA.
I'd totally hire an eVTOL air taxi. Affordable price point is key. I look forward to the day when there are 30, 60, 80 of these things are constantly flying over my head.
When more people get access to these, like now people with 6-figure cars (every big Tesla and up), there's going to be a lot of air traffic in hotspots. How far apart to have these fly and land? Imagine the heliport at Google or Microsoft offices...hundreds of movements per hours, for a modest office complex... Awesome to increase commuting distance achieved in like an hour from ~50 miles to 150 miles would serve the rich a lot. With larger crafts, it will help average wage workers as well, to live affordably in a residential hub far away from the nearest skyscrapers and large workplaces, and still make it to work in reasonable time. Big problem: large crafts need a lot more lift. And imagine the noise of a 20-person eVTOL landing... and needing hundreds nearby at a given time in peak hours. We'd have done away with ICE cars, los a tiny bit of noise, and then we'd live in a loud swarm of electric helicopters that audibly seem to never land or fly off, but just hover at full power non-stop.
Electric powered aircraft to STILL be reliant on propellers, is a bad thing. How old are the battery and propeller now? Ancient technology. We need a solid state tech to overcome gravity and momentum. Hardly any money is being invested into that, by hobbyists. The trillion dollar corps just focus on barbaric batteries and wheels.
@@Cloxxki Man, if only there were some form of solid-state propulsion that could carry huge amounts of people not only far but also fast... (It's called a bullet train)
@@Cloxxki They don't need to be *dead straight* but your point still stands, it's a vast economic undertaking and requires nigh constant maintenance to work. Still, I imagine that by economy of scale, it has to work - otherwise Japan probably would have dropped the idea decades ago, rather than continuously developing and expanding on theirs.
@@MasqueradePW I love fast trains, they can be a great staple just below mass air travel. It takes vision and commitment though. These cute air taxis only take billionaire ego to develop. Maybe some Arabs manage to make them available to specific use cases of their choosing. Tech hippies build the crafts! Arabs only need to provide some landing pads and plugs.
Would they start with routes that follow over train tracks to allow for use as low flying transport. As an alternative to public transport on short journeys . Landing on multi storey car parks 🤔
Billion miles between failures they say. That's a very bar. A neat way of saying "heck no" while allowing a whole new industry to thrive in trying to develope these anyway and offer anyone involved or interested ample virtue signaling bonus points. It's engineering and finance resources directed away from projects that would actually serve a human of merit, though...
@@Cloxxki I would never say no to those introducing new technology, pushing the boundaries, without these innovators there would be zero advances…. This kind of transportation has been a vision for a number of years, no doubt it will succeed, but I cannot imagine our airways smothered with these vehicles….. it’s passed by vision…. But never say never !
Frank, I thought I lost you a year or so ago. I so loved your output that I was crushed. I just ran a search on your name and voila!there you are. I just want to reaffirm how much I value your channel/information, and gratefully re-establish my subscription and alert status. 🙂😊🙂
Frank - really interesting summary, thank you. Who is looking at the infrastructure development at the moment - and will it be proprietary like Tesla, or open + universal? I presume you're all excited by the recent Toyota Solid State announcement.
maybe this change of VTOL in the transportation industry will come much after what we are thinking. Just like the electric vehicles, the initial transports were made electric but later on IC engine vehicle took the place in the market & it took too much time for electric vehicle to come back again.
Frank this is absolutely amazing, and for me at least this is a much better use of EV technology than Electric cars as it is making travel more efficient. I am a BEV skeptic when it comes to cars as I think it is just completely unsustainable in that field. But this technology for aircraft really works as it is creating a way to circumvent a lot of the issues facing sustainable transport. I am loving some of these designs, don't suppose there will be scope for straight-edgd, wedge shaped design to get some proper Star Wars vibes? Forget a submarine, I want a Lotus Esprit that flies. My only worry for this is the infrastructure needed for these will be extensive and while it can be done I am not sure how it will impact the price and accessibility of it. I love the potential of this however, and hope it will make driving more pleasant as it will cut the need for non-car enthusiasts to take up space on the roads!
While replacing some of the world's 26000 civilian helicopters with passenger eVTOLs, which include electric helicopters and gyrodynes, is a good start, they will still only complement other midmile transport, like electric buses, fixed wing aircraft, and trains, as an alternative to door to door (electric) private cars, taxis and ubers. The real gamechanger is cargo eVTOLs from sUAS delivery drones to large cargo drones like the Ehang 216L and Volodrone. Another game changer which started with the little Pipistrel Velis Electro, will be replacing, or repowering, the 450000 GA and LSA aircraft globally, with eCTOL aircraft.
Frank's excitement is understandable. But noise issues mean it is quite possible none of these designs will work. Cartercopter showed how to do this 20 years ago and could be built today without a problem. But it's weird classification spooked everyone. No problem now, and it could be exceptionally quiet too.
I think your idea of them being all slick and new will throw people off the idea. They need to look safe not fast. I would prefer a gondola ride over the city.
Just a test question closer to home for you -- the "Vertical VX4" eVTOL is (was) sitting on the runway ( in the Cotswolds I think )as a pile of wreckage after only just breaking ground and doing nothing in terms of rigorous test flying YET it has 1440 'orders' -pre sales . Is it ethical for someone to take large amounts of money BEFORE even having something that actually works? (the others ,including your clients are doing the same thing, -- the answer to this 'conundrum' might illuminate the difficulty apparent here.
Pile of wreckage? It suffered damage to its starboard wing and happened at Cotswold Airport in Kemble, England during a motor failure test scenario. Those orders you mention come from intelligent and experienced customers like American Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Iberojet, AirAsia and Japan Airlines. I doubt these orders were placed by hoodwinked interns in the marketing strategy divisions of those respective airlines.
Frank- the entire wing is snapped off ! ('just a flesh wound" I hear you say ? as the Black Knight might dismiss it ... the undercarriage has collapsed and God knows how much other internal damage -likely a write off (I repaired -1980 - the Schempp Hirth Janus wings previously involved in a double fatal accident --VERY extensively fractured and considered 'beyond repair' but mated to a new opposite wing and extensively strain gauged for a fatigue determination to justify extending certified fatigue lives of all fiberglass gliders over 3000 hours (test conducted by Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology RMIT, Australian Dept of Defence ,Aeronautical research Laboratories, defence science, dept of Civil Aviation and Gliding federation ,over 11 years ..... the repairability of carbon fibre is much less as is the energy absorbing ability (sacrificial nose cones on F1 etc ) The same stalky weak undercarriage that features on the Joby and others -- all that mass (including massive batteries) ,motors and propellers right up top .... compared to the notorious narrow undercarriages of the Spitfire and Me109 (claiming over 3000 lives according to one source ) but with LOW wings - this design fault should be somewhat obvious at least. And the lack of any stored energy in the system so that it suffered so much destruction . I agree that it is astounding that there is such a headlong rush to 'order' totally unproven aircraft from unknown makers ahead of any certification -- you have to go back to similar enthusiasm for the Concorde or Bristol Brabazon, the giant Princess flying boats or similar misconceived 'great white hopes' that had a few minor 'shortcomings' overlooked in the rush.... 'too big to fail' , any of the manias that occurr from time to time like Bitcoin now or the Tulipmania etc etc - everyone looked at each other to be assured that 'we can't all be wrong' Benjamin Franklin - "when all think alike, none are thinking " To paraquote your video "There are OTHERTHINGS YOU need to know on eVTOLS " -- I would suggest looking at some of the videos of 'Sustainable Skies Foundation " ,the 2018/19 symposia , or the earlier quoted engineering assessments -- given your 'insider confidential knowledge' you might even ask Adam Goldstein WHO actually designed "His" aircraft and from where the 'insider' know how came (Larry Paige already stated it if in doubt ) - conceived in deception it is indeed a bastard of a design. There are precedents for this sort of thing ,including the few noted, but they did not end well -- it is incredible to look at the videos charting the ups and downs of the share prices and 'analysis' by gushing millenials for firms that have produced and sold nothing and furthermore have been debunked by sober experienced independent observers . There was a somewhat comparable 'irrational exuberance' (in general aviation) about 50 years ago involving a very small fast aircraft called the BEDE BD5 -- it garnered thousands of prepaid 'orders' on the basis of advertising oversell and concealment of known deficiencies --even though the design basically WORKED it was , for the intended market , totally unsuitable and a deathtrap "accident waiting to happen' --in much the same way these stupid criminally negligent eVTOLS are -- you can research that too. The question was about the ethics of selling something on hype fundamentally . I am not illuminated by the 'answer' . regards,@@FrankStephensondesign
Since last coming across this video close ups of the pile of wreckage that was the VZ 4 have been posted and the NTSB report on the Joby crash - same cause in both cases,- chain reaction failures after blade breakage, long gawky pylons accentuate catastrophic loads.... all such "cobbled up" monstrosities are prone to such crashing and are anyway just plain ugly, both to the eye and insight.
On battery power, eVTOL, very, very few. A bit more if conventional electric planes. Batteries defy large scale let along long distance air travel. Too barbaric. The maximum fuel weight of an A380 in batteries wouldn't het far at all, and it world need to purge most batteries before landing, it can't land full. Factor that in and A380 with batteries and props barely gets anywhere. Tiny form factor falsely flatters "e" and VTOL. What's needed is tech to replace batteries with a Nikola Tesla power antenna of sorts. What budget is trying to reverse engineer that, though? Billions go into eVTOL that can't be implemented even if it would technically work.
That's where the vertical aspiration aspect is a real hindrance. With a low speed horizontally landing craft, it could be near silent. Take-off can be winch, treadmill of wheel torque assisted. Imagine a light craft on wheels that offers decent traction, and has hub motors. With a short runway it can achieve minimum horizontal take-off speed of much more, and then just transition straight into cruise power rather than high power take-off. One helicopter makes a whole part of the city aware, and that's NOT the fuel engine making the noise...
@@SoCalFreelance Thanks, I just watched it. Okay it's not as noisy as a helicopter or a plane but if we're talking taxis it means there's tons of them at the same time, including night time. One solution would be like planes to make them fly as high as possible, noise dissipates with the square of the distance.
But those don't do the virue signaling as well. They were an f-u to the plebs, and eVTOL is an f-u while expressing a sense of moral superiority. There's a difference. So now all we need to do is place heliports all over downtown, various other business centers, and every villa development worth living in. And of course every lake house. Thank goodness these aren't needed in residential areas where the workers live. They have buses, trams, subways, trains and e-bikes.
Genuinely curious, why electric though? Where are the VTOLs? I'm not opposed to electric vehicles, but I feel like VTOLs that use conventional fuel would be so much simpler. The technology already exists, and they won't have to deal with the weight issues for example. I'd imagine some company would at least be on track of such a vehicle by now if flying taxis is a viable business model. The fact they don't makes me wonder if this whole thing is just some edgy tech hype. Really put some doubt in me.
i knew since a long time they' be coming, it's plain common sense imho. didn't (and really, still don't tbh) expect it to be affordable at all tho. let's see. those are the first cool EVs for me, and that includes those stoopit scooters, that prevent ppl from biking, and demand rare materials from dangerous countries. only thing i'm flabbergusted about, after seeing this wonderful vid, is, that you know Jay - and obviously not only since yesterday. a year ago i dreamt in a comment here, how cool it would be, to listen to a conversation between you two! XD i need moar! best wishes, a Frank-Fan from Germany
I don't think these will ever really become something mainstream or affordable. Why I think that is simply safety. We've all heard about 9/11, right? With these such a concern will return and I don't think people will readily accept them flying in close proximity to buildings.
These are light vehicles. They really should of put parachutes on them...at least for the first set iteration of vehicles. One fatal crash would set them back 2 years easily... and it would ground their entire fleet since they are in the infancy stage. Redundancy is great but chutes would bring it closer to 0 chance of fatalities.
Rule number one is to keep a design simple, these are not , which means they are prone to failure. What happened to the early multi rotor designs? A decade of promises, promises and no sales. Incredible sales talk is the common denominator. Flying snake oil.
I really hope they are silent, having drone noses overhead constantly is not the most appealing thing. However, the idea is very interesting. I wouldn't trade in my car for one, but I would take it to the airport instead of a cab.
No-one is interested in developing inertia/gravity propulsion. Gotta be sexy propellers. We'll just pretend we'll make then silent. Doesn't matter anyway, we can't make then safe as they need to be.
Frank, still awaiting your response . The lilium with 'dustbins' sticking out the nose at the outset should have caused some concern even for those having no engineering know how Have you noticed that that those 'air taxi routes saving so much time just ALL happen to be places where a river or inlet cuts off the road traffic - Manhattan (island) to JFK or SanFrancisco (on the bay) ,crossing Puget sound etc --making the road time excessive. Honesty in advertising, and design seems to lose out when big bucks are involved.
Sorry Ross, response to what question? As to what you say here, I call it a limited perspective. 1. Are you referring to the Lilium’s canards? If so, I’d hope you should know about their purpose and function as to aerodynamics. If you mean the ducted fans, you’re very likely unaware of Lilium’s latest development on this technology. Never a good idea to criticise a feature that you’re not up to speed on or privy to real-time confidential engineering stages. 2. Is your theory that bridge crossing over rivers is the root cause of road traffic delays? I’m not sure whether you’re joking or actually serious. Hopefully you realise the advantages of cities and towns located on rivers, where vertiports can be positioned for easier certifiable access to eVTOL flights.
The 'challenge' I detailed in the post on this page (below) 1, I refer to the fact that the Lilium designers published what they would have you (investors) believe was a feasible design but which was in reality hopeless --the retractable 'dustbins' are meant to be withdrawn into the body and the nose held up by NO canard -just the lift on the body --utterly infeasible as they must have known . Their idea was originally to make a ROADABLE aircraft so that it could take passengers to THEIR actual destination rather than being dumped wherever a 'vertiport' can be placed -- they actually show pictures of the thing with 'dustbins' retracted and the wings folded alongside the body on the road . They failed in their design intention in fact and the resultant device is just as constrained as other 'fixed wing' airplanes -- about as practical as a bird that cannot fold it's wings or walk in comparison . The DESIGN of a viable roadable 'flying car' is not something that can be merely sketched and done without engineering knowledge AND EXPERIENCE -- the fresh faced ,un experienced crop of eVTOL 'makers' with diplomas barely dry ink are set to not just waste billions of dollars on follies and discredit the long standing genuine flying vehicle 'genre' which has a long and previously honourable past ( I sought out the then living 'pioneers' in person after studying their work for years -- there is an unpublished book of over 2000 prior designs recorded ) but leave'scorched earth' in their wake (both literally and metaphorically - burning naive investors fingers and crying 'wolf' with no regard for the effect on aviation , setting back progress perhaps irrepairably for another generation -- the genuine are tarred with the same brush as the hucksters after a quick buck. Lilium's university and teachers have publicly disowned them in fact -a discredit that you should (are?) be aware of in giving your imprimatur. (independent engineering assessment is available to you -- to reevaluate your endorsement and proud association -like a medical person who might question Theranos before pinning their reputation on it and endorsing ) IT is midnight here and I just came across your comments -- I could spend yet more time to refute the innuendos but that would be likely to just add frustration --you implicitly claim relevant and sufficient expertise which you do not have or could have obtained based on published biographical evidence -- it is insulting to infer incompetence based on 'not being up to speed or privy to real-time confidential engineering 'stages' -- sadly the 'workings' of an aircraft are out in the open for those who know what they are looking at and a few years of engineering education, first hand experience with operating (flying) ,designing building and testing real aircraft over five decades (but drawing on the vast published data NACA etc and know how that alone condemns this and the other 'eVTOL" misdesigns ) You can stuff a big motor in a VW or Mini Minor and change it's 'performance' without any external evidence - with aircraft the faults and virtues CAN be assessed and calculated by those who have the understanding ( or not comprehended by those who do not -- eg being told that needing 3000 plus horsepower to get a five or so seat aircraft to "work" is somehow 'efficient' and 'green' ''zero emission' etc or given public funding on that basis . might not just be untrue but outright ridiculous. Why claim that this misbegotten thing is some paragon of virtue ? As to the Comment about 'comparisons' of flying versus driving being NOTABLY the routes and times AS SPECIFIED that DO IN FACT involve the ground route needing to go around a geographical barrier NOT typical of most commutting and NOT (for the eVTOL) taking into account delays and hold ups in arranging, waiting for, changing over from an expensive ground taxi or Uber to and from your actual destination and the isolsated "Vertipads" -- in MOST cases (ie NOT being around waterways,islands or the like )there would be no time saving and a much higher cost -- Falsley calling these things flying cars or flying taxis is deceptive and seeks to free ride on the seamless door to door mobility model they simply cannot deliver . this same principle applies to Archer , Autoflight ,Wisk, Joby et al and essentially all other of the 860 VFS recorded 'breakthrough' eVTOLS. You might want to watch/read some of the more sober YT videos that at least do sensibly critique these things (your own styling criticism of cars could not be done by a blind man no matter how enthusiastic for comparison) Googling Evtol 'will it all end in tears' ? Aero.aero and various other easily found factual ,quantified and reasoned examinations of the most 'prominent' eVTOL floggers would be a good start -- for now,@@FrankStephensondesign
as before, the strike outs are unintentional -a very old computer but all I can afford. (no hundreds of millions of play money ) It used to be that a real artist sacrificed for their art -'starving in a garret' while developing their talent --these people get hundreds of millions of dollars before making anything that works - IPOs compare them based on "funding raised" as to their prospects --ie the inputs not the output .
Why would you think that? My posted reply starting with "The challenge I detailed on this page (below) " .HAS 'strike outs' in the next line --that I refer to . The facts are that I have been working in this field -unfunded- or rather self funded from real manufacturing work over 50 years --your 'clients' have been moneychangers and hype merchants who have blown multi millions on extravagant PR exercises using investor's money or money not gained by honest work and selling non existent aircraft based on purloined IP and employee criminality (see Wisk versus Archer depositions - facts ) If the emperor has no clothes in fact then that should be stated by the 'viewer' who sees through it to at least put on record the truth so as to dissassociate from the scam as a matter of integrity - The challenge specified appears under my name "2 months ago" beggining with -" Frank,this video (and earlier) do NOT tell "everything you NEED to know...." immediately below this . @@FrankStephensondesign
We already have VTOLs, they are called Helicopters and they dont need charging infrastructure. Uber already did Helicopter Taxi between JFK and Manhattan, the ticket was under $200, large part of the expense was landing fees at JFK and Manhattan. eVTOL is more expensive than a helicopter, eVTOL has much shorter uptime due to charging needs and there is no infrastructure for it. If you say a ticket would cost $70, that wont cover landing fees. What happens when the subsidies run out? Do we get a more expensive Uber Helicopter? Also, Uber failed because the drive to helipad, flight to another helipad, then drive to your destination took just as long as a single drive :)
@@FrankStephensondesign oh trust me I wish I was wrong, I love my 5500 lbs Model X and I would equally love to fly one :) Here is the JFK-West 30th street breakdown for you: Fixed hourly cost of operating a helicopter is ~$900 (cost of aircraft, pilot salary, hangar) and per hour direct costs are $600. Let's assume the eVTOL costs the same as Bell 407 GXi (eVTOL will probably cost more but lets ignore that for now) Since eVTOLs will require all the same fixed costs and may only reduce direct costs due to lower maintenance, lets be very generous and give $1500/hour helicopter vs $1300/hour eVTOL JFK to 30th West street is a 15 min flight so with passenger boarding, charging you can probably make a trip back and forth once per hour. Your landing fee is $200, no matter what aircraft you use. With 50% air-time we have $400 landing fees + $750 flight cost = $1150 cost of 2 trips. Bell 407 takes max 5 passengers, with 80% booking we get 8 passengers to cover $1150 -> cost of $143 per passenger trip. The same calculation for eVTOL: $400 + $650 = $1050, for 8 passengers: $131 All assumptions are in favor of eVTOLS: the eVTOL can carry 5 passengers and a pilot, eVTOL costs the same as a Bell 407 (eVTOL is actually more expensive), eVTOL will have large maintenance savings, eVTOL charging infrastructure is free. Do I believe you that you will charge $70 per passenger? Yes. Tech startups subsidize their services and incur massive losses.
There are so many companies in this space (and probably a lot of fluff). Lilium's shrouded turbine-rotor engine design is very compelling to me though. Engine compactness, safety, and redundancy is most important for vehicles like this. Bring on the uber-exclusive flying taxis of the future!
What we are already seeing is how complex how far they are gone with drone regulation. Noise and air traffic are going to be major issues. For sure they will introduce fixed routes for such evtols making me doubt about the real benefit whereas you could just get a train/tram/subway
I sincerely hope EVTOLs dont succeed! 1. I don't want things flying above my head all the time, which would be the case if they really get successfull in a mass market (which they obviously want to be). 2. I don't see actual environmental benefits if you compare them to their direct competition of electric cars. Oh and lets not forget about functioning public transport. No way it could keep up with that. Sorry this argument doesn't... fly :D 3. These things will not solve any issues we have with cars. They are basicly flying cars. Most issues still apply (at least in cities). 4. The prize: if they really are cheaper than a taxi the demand would be to high to be accomodated if the airspace is going to stay regulated and not overpopulated. So the prize goes up until it meets demand. 5. Security: I have no problem with statistical safety of technical failures. But there are external factors you simply can not ignore. And if anything does go wrong (in a city!) damage will be even higher than with cars (property damage as well as mortality). 6. The noise: Have you heard how loud small drones are? Who would want that times 100 as mass transport? (Could possibly be fixed by some technical wizzardry) 7. The money you would have to spend would be way better invested in public transport and that would positively affect way more people and areas. The positives: 1. They, and their possibilities, are extremely interesting from a design standpoint! 2. If they come to replace the current traditional helicopters, there are really no downsides to them. They would still be for emergency, news and rich people only though. So yeah. Overall I don't see them succeeding in what you imagined them to be in this video. Your marketed vision honestly feels incredibly out of touch with the reality of most people. On the other hand you spent way more time thinking about them and if you proof me wrong I will be the first to admit it. Also: as a luxury item I think they can be very successful - sure :) Just don't compare a Bugatti to a VW in its place in society... Since this comment seems way more negative than it is meant: I won't ever be able to afford a supercar. I don't even enjoy driving. I still love cars though - as well as your content. So you keep on doing your thing. I'm excited for whats next. Good luck! :)
Aerodynamics of tall buildings are going to be key to get such multicopter any way close, let alone for millions of landings without crash. To keep the noise away from society, you could make a cluster of 500 meter tall skyscrapers, with a central suspension bridge at 500 m housing the heli port. Departure might as well NOT be vertical then, but horizontal gaining speed and lift from gliding down a bit first and then transitioning to low power cruise rather than high power vertical take-off. Low speed vertical landing would save a lot of energy and hover time I'd guess. Wind conditions would need to be super tame to pass any sort of certification, especially near office spaces and grounds where people talk in droves. It would help a lot if residential heli ports were hidden acoustically. Like a crater or hollow building, lined with acoustic foam walls. It's all quite pointless until crafts get well into the dozens of occupants, and travel between heliport and nearby hotspots is optimized. Underground monorails? Build heliports right on top of a central train station? Where a lot of tracks are side to side, the heliport could be put on top, turning the train yard or station entry/exit into a large hall. eVTOL users feel entitled to land close to home and work, though, so that's going to take villas where swift and silent landing is enabled, and city heliports serve just a few building, not all of downtown to force a long walk or public transport ride. Forcing all news buildings to get eVTOL access isn't exactly a green solution, we want to use buildings for as long as reasonably possible.
How paradoxal is it that in an attempt to have everything close by you end up making it harder to reach in the end? Big cities are supposed to be something you want to live in, all your nececities in one place, endless entertainment opertunities and all the shops you would ever need, schools and healthcare facilities. Yet it most likely takes close to an hour on avarage to get anywhere. The solution is simply not to live inside a city. The cost is too high and there are literally no benefits asides from same day shipping for your online purchases. 15 minute cities will never work in practice and no amount of public transport will fix that.
The vertical part makes a design likely MUCH less energy efficient. With high electric torque, might as well have a short runway and get out of the noise sensitive area, efficiently? Let alone if combined with a winch or treadmill type of external help. Works for the navy and gliders.
In theory less volatile battery chemistries can be chosen, but right now those are less energy dense. Makes it a short taxi service type of deal with loads of recharging. Batteries will do their 2000 cycles in as little as a year or less.
@@Cloxxki how aboout hybrid helicopter type long range applicatin with super capacotor batteries so the only thing is they carry fuel tank instead of massive battery
@@Houthiandtheblowfish Super capacitors are super useless in air. Heavy and no capacity. In the air you need power all the time, especially heli. Supercaps might be useful in buses and cars. Right now they hardly appear in race cars.
@@Cloxxki i meant for the lack of capacity you replace the size of the battery to small size and fuel tank for a turbine engine where it converts it to electricity and finally to capacitors and to electric motors it would be safer than gearbox helicopters issue
@@Houthiandtheblowfish Oh a series hybrid then. Well if the engine is significantly more efficient driving a generator that fill up capacitors that drive an electric motor...maybe. Every conversion introduces losses, though. With a helicopter I would guess power output and blade rpm are kind of stable, much more so than in a race car negotiation tight bends. Even at standstill, the heli takes a lot of power. I can imagine a well designed engine and gearbox to be more efficient in a heli than a complex (let alone heavy) series hybrid setup. What we need is Nikola Tesla style power antennas to replace batteries. Or engines that run on water. Its inventors tend to die young and suddenly thusfar. Alternatively, a magnet motor that fills a battery rather than empty it. Very little effort is put into the development of such, only hobbyists are trying, at low budget. Big corps develop eVTOL that is only ever going to work for the ultra rich, and batteries that are still very much barabaric technology and only on the surface (exhaust) "green".
@phdonme1, Stay-tuned for future events. What you don't understand is that there has to be infrastructure set in place, in order for any new industry to thrive.
For the current battery technology, evtols is far from completion, maybe if they tried another aproach like using flywheel batteries. Hybrid/hyrogen VTOL is more implementable in offshore, coastal, deserts areas and archipelagic countries. i have my own design of vtol and it use unique propulsion system.
Batteries falling from the sky will make a real mess. We need to research how Tesla sent power across vast distances, with for all intents and purposes, antennas. No battery heft, same driving power. To get a VTOL port near work and home, it will need to be amazingly safe and silent.
Aside from every other problem this could make, what makes it different from the history of cars? We all love cars in this channel but we all hate traffic, and traffic was caused by a poor planning and vision of the infrastructure surrounding cars. Cities were built around cars making them unwalkable all with the exact same excuse of "faster, more efficient travel" which at the time was compared to walking, horse riding and carriges. So how will they overcome this problem? What will avoid in 50-100 years time an overly congested sky filled with EVTOLs causing major havoc and traffic? Its easy to say "Safety and regulations" yet here we are, the same was promised from cars and we find ourselves with the need of flying because the poor planning of the infrastructure around cars cause the problem these vehicles look to solve. So? How will it be any different in 100 years time? Will humans then turn to space to bypass the congestion of EVTOLS?
I highly respect Frank's design skills and i understand that designing a new and sleek mode of transportation is amzing. But! It will be very noisy, and definitively not friendly to the environment and have terrible passenger throughput. Just comes to simple physics having to fight against gravity and a big vehicle mass compared to passenger mass. So it doesn’t matter if it's electric it won't be sustainable at all. Electric trains and trams do everything better than EVTOLs. But the design of trains is usually not that great and who wants to be surrounded in bad design? Frank, please design a train for those who think they would like to fly in evtols and not just get from point a to point b.
We want these toys to land right next to or on skyscrapers, that's where money is made. But also where the worst wind conditions happen. People who can afford these will have a backyard to land in, but imagine how much that will ruin HAVING a yard in a nice 'hood, when neighbors keep flying low over your tanning deck where the wife and daughters like to work on their bikini lines.
Self driving in the ski might actually be peanuts compared to on the road where you encounter more complex situations of human drivers and physical obstacles. Sound is the biggie though. Electric makes the crafts HEAVY as they can possibly be. Vertical take-off/landing is super loud for a long time per movement and with a heavy craft even more so. Why not short low speed glide and horizontal landing? Not as sexy, is why. But so much better when processing multiple movements a minute, which will be necessary with eVTOL being already really hard for a 2-seater. You won't be moving many people, just a high net monetaryh value of people who get to feel better than others for flying where an advanced (mono)rail system (don't get me started on hyperloop) would be better. In a city with a more or less flat geography, rail cars could be mostly gravity powered. Roll down a steep hill to gain speed, have a flat cruise section, and add enough kinetic energy to make it up the ramp to the destination. Gravity provides acceleration and cruise speed, electric power overcome all the rolling/aero losses introduced. The getting up to speed in a rail car like a metro let alone train takes forever. Average speeds are low because of it. Think rollercoaster but less dramatic.
Cloxx, stay with us, this is the 21st century. AutoFlight’s Prosperity 1 is fairly quiet, producing 65 dBA while hovering, roughly the volume of a normal conversation. Currently it tops out at 200kph with a range of 250km. Rich people will only have to fork out the price of an Uber for their trip. Things will get better and more efficient as this industry progresses. You’ll be fine, relax.
@@FrankStephensondesign That sounds lovely Frank! Does it come in Rosso Corsa? I'd be happy to help push tech forward. Getting the higher density cells into NY sort of production would be super helpful now, not just for eVTOL but also car racing which I care more about. A high density swappable pack will open a world of BEV endurance racing and big rallies. Right now, Indycar and Formula 2 could be BEV, and manage the dame stint lengths. In Indycar it's quite short anyway. A higher level of engineering is needed, more encapsulated wheels. Fine for endurance, not sure FIA wants to put LMP2 looking cars in place of F2. Formula E is doing all it can to remain lame. Tiny fixed batteries, long races, tock hard tyres. Empty grandstands in the FE Seoul race, where such graat BEVs are designed. I am 180° opposed to the climate rhetoric, CO2 obviously needs to remain high to prevent billions of us from starving. Climate was never stable anywhere, even on uninhabited planets next door. But I do love ve the efficiency and (potential) simplicity of electric drive. Batteries...a necessary evil, grossly barbaric compared to fuels that produce undiluted ready to eat plant food as main exhaust product. Less oil mess, less noise... I'm all for that. How do I get my lady into an EV though, she sense some electromagnetic radiation she's not having any of! I've come to learn better than to ignore her senses. At least EVs seem to work for those who like them.
Can't say I'm looking forward to millions of idiots who can't properly drive an automobile attempting to fly one. Even with the high bar of entry for private aviation, fatal mistakes are still regularly made. One of those things crashes in Manhattan, a dozen people are dead. Nobody has thought this through.
Why keeping the narrative of batteries density capacity. I know it's important but the present technology of generating electricity will help to improve distance even better than petroleum fuel and that's a fact.
Trains solve the transportation issue far better than personal transportation devices. I think EVTOL's are cool but more of a luxury item. I would love to see how Frank would review an innovative train when it comes to design and the issues it fixes. If anyone could make a sexy train video it would be Frank!
Better public transport and more walkable/cyclable cities solve a lot of our present day traffic problems. Of course, they aren't very sexy, but imagine the possibility of a flying train/bus. Even lesser needs for roads and tracks!
Trains are better than EVTOL for sure but it just does not appear practical to implement, alot of metros in city's end up as failed projects when permissions fall through and it costs the government a lot more to support. Completely agree that a train/"hyper loop" system is better on paper
@@Baronnax Flying trains already exist, it's called derailment, probably something to avoid
Yes train or bus, creating a nice, practical and vandalism proof interior for minimal funds is a nice challenge
trains are crony capitalist boondoggles, and have been since the Civil War...they allow no freedom of movement for the individual, and make traveling longer than needed. They suffer this more than buses. Neither are safe. Public transport in general is not safe. We're better off with EVTOLs, given they can exist sustainably (aka, without subsidies from taxpayers, who may or may not want to fund it). 100% of EVTOL users are paying because they want to (assuming they stay private companies).
I believe it's essential to advance this technology and crucial that the world's top designers and brands join us on this journey. Taking the automotive industry as a prime example, the rapid innovation in electric cars, motorcycles, and bikes illustrates the need for top engineering talent and strong brand aesthetics to lead the way. It's exciting to see one of the most renowned car designers of our era dedicating his passion to this cause, and I hope it inspires a new generation of designers to get involved. Imagine a future where the M1 is a cycle path connecting the country, with autonomous VTOLs flying above in a safe and orderly path, transforming travel into experiences and advancing human endeavours.
Never happening
I see the vision, and I believe in the future of these vehicles.
Extremely interesting and pleasure to the eye.There is a lot to explore in this new geometry of multi-rotor vehicles
I think this going to be big ! I am in ! Don’t want to miss it !
He's right, it's the Battery Race that dominates this evtol industry. Soon all evtol manufactures will not be so constricted, but to design, efficiency, longevity...a million miles? Easy as a Johnny Cab on Mars.
And everyone is in the Battery game. Stay tuned folks. What a ride.
Fascinating for sure from a design point of view! As a scientific literate mind, I can postulate future potential of battery tech from many dimensions and scenarios. Energy density for EVs is the largest of quests indeed. As a starter, Lithium brings the highest of all safe elements.
I have been observing ongoing hypes and promises around evolving battery tech but all developments in that area are essentially extremely slow moving..., because in the end, electricity has to be moved, stored and made to work safely..., and Lithium is the only base element providing for an energy density required for storage to suit the postulated demand...
The element is very scarce at a few concentrated deposits on planet Earth..., causing highly stressed political relations already... A level down are Sodium based compounds and solutions... The next level up goes into the areas of unsafe radiation levels...
With high density energy, high-risk heat management is evident of course, in all postulations...
Another crucial challenge is that hyping, commerce and investment climates are intertwined, essentially causing pro-profit 'make believe' the de facto leading direction... None of the current battery tech development is going to bring what is required for the future... I repeat..., none.
It is my belief that entire new ways of energy abstraction should be developed rather than narrowing down to a single minded track...
The project of EVTOLs are cool and gives new area of design of course, that is certainly the case as designs for helicopters have already been touched.
It would be a hugely attractive way to commute from point A to point B. My only real concern is that at the price point you quoted, the uptake would be very high which would mean very crowded skies. Are there traffic management systems that could cope with this? Also, are crowded skies even desirable? I'm sure that these concerns could be managed through appropriate pricing and regulatory measures. BTW, I want one!
think swarm robotics incorporated into AI driverless features.
Why not instead of creating a whole new IMPRACTICAL and dangerous way of transportation witch will imply RADICAL changes in logistics and infrastructure, a crazy amount pollution, noise in the city, and implementation of new regulations; make the ways of transport and their infrastructures better? (i admit in regards of design it will be amazing)
Trains, need more trains
Yup, it's cool, but if trains were more efficient, walkable planned cities were the norm EVTOLs would be absolutely needless and not a logistical nightmare
We are still awaiting the design that is quiet enough to use in cities. If noise is the basic design perimeter none of these designs would be allowed to fly.
Because no governments are delivering any rail related infrastructure with any level of competency
So, do you own property in a city? If so, are you willing to surrender it under imminent domain for pennies on the dollar so that a train can be built? Also, do you think people in wealthy areas will be willing to either give up their property (or even put up with prolonged construction?) Have you ever heard of the 710 underground Freeway project in LA that has been held up for 50 years? This is because the residents of one wealthy neighborhood are unconcerned with the decades long traffic congestion in THREE NEIGHBORING CITIES!!!!!
If anything, trains are IMPRACTICAL in these cases. The only thing that is "RADICAL" about EVTOL'S is the battery technology. Electric motors and aircraft are over 100 years old. Helipads are about 70 years old!
“Power beaming” seems a much better technology to Pursue in my opinion for evtols then batteries composition. Continuously topping off the battery by beaming a glorified solar cell from several ground stations for Infinite range vs a marginal 3% increase in battery storage capacity by weight of just battery inovation.
Also for the love of god put a deployable emergency parachute 🪂 just in case.
This doesn't solve the fundamental problem, we're spending money on putting more electric noisy helicopters in the sky instead of oh I don't know, building more more railroad infrastructure. How many people does one of these things carry at a time vs a train, or a bus, or a tram? The 'eco friendly' argument is again tossed around, what is the cost of building and maintainting these things, the raw material cost and the human cost of extracting the materials needed to build the batteries? The list goes on. This is just another flawed vision of 'the future'. I have no doubt these things will come around and be pushed onto the public the same as EVs have been for the last decade, just don't have much hope that they will actually solve anything at all, they look cool on paper but that's about it.
Bingo. The e is there to sell it on the 2-garage Tesla crowd that want to feel good about themselves, looking down at others who can't live they way they do.
VTOL is hugely restrictive on craft size, and the e makes is even more horrible. 70% of take off weight is then batteries...gotta be great. Imagine a 2-ton battery smashing into a busy mall or concert hall. Or, 1,000 head plebs passenger train... I totally want an eVTOL and a villa that's very far from the smelly noisy city, and then land on top of my personal skyscraper...but it's just not very helpful to the rest of society. It's just a flying raised middle finger, passenger to the rest of the world.
@@Cloxxki I've seen an electric car on fire, it's going to be even more glorious when you're in a tin can in the air. They will never ID the bodies either.
I've heard that production of batteries which are used in EVs are emitting CO2 at high values making them equal to fuel engines
@@null100 For about 4 years of driving worth, yes. So it's basically a CO2 bomb. Which is good, because it's plant food, food prices are way up and people are actually DYING of famine, TODAY. The whole CO2 thing is quasi science, Newton and Einstein are rolling over in their graves for what passes as "science" nowadays.
Technically amazing; from a design point of view great; fabulous it is electrical (the total CO2 footprint from production over USE and recycling). HOWEVER, traveling within cities should be UNDERGROUND! No flying, buzzing and noise making objects above our heads !!!!
Sure, the skies would be more crowded but imagine how much land we currently devote to roads. If this kind of transport would become more widespread, we could have so much additional space for building or nature.
People are always afraid of what they don't know. Motorcycles will be more dangerous than getting into an EV tall I think Jay Leno probably needs to consider this. Jay Leno is recovering from a motorcycle accident last week that left him with multiple broken bones just months after he sustained severe burns in a fire at his Los Angeles-area garage.
On Friday, the comedian and talk show host revealed he was "clotheslined," knocked off his motorcycle, and injured with broken ribs and other injuries in a Jan. 17 crash near the Burbank, California facility that houses his car and motorcycle collection.
"I got a broken collarbone, a couple of broken ribs, and two cracked kneecaps," Leno said in an interview. "But other than that, I'm okay."
Trains, subway, trams, trolleybuses - that's the solution to the transportation issues. Forcing people to use public transport rather than inefficient personal transport. Evtol can fit what, 5 people? Tram can fit about 50! Subway train - about 100 or more. Those flying taxis are all pretty, of course, but be real, they are more of a luxury taxi option rather than a solution
That sounds so cool, im definetly hyped for the future! One thing you maybe forgot is the possibilities for new ways in logistics to speed up few processes in manufacturing
Amazing stuff, Frank. My primary concern is busy skies. I see many people praising the efficiency of trains… so what about an EVTOL train? Probably 10+ years away, but would carry far more people!
I used to work next to a heliport and the noise is what makes this unlikely to pass regulatory muster probably as much if not more so then the safety issues.
This will be the Titan submarine for the skies
@@MesaAufenhand titan didn’t need certification because it was being operated in international waters. These craft will have to be certified in whatever airspace they are operated in.
It’s a matter of working the trades. How far can it go? How safe can they make it? How affordable can they make each ride? Etc? Etc?
Most in development can fly way further than anyone commutes. Once in the air and at speed, they are designed to be decently efficient, although perhaps not compared to a modest electric car driving a lot slower.
eVTOLs with a good lift based horizontal cruise can get 100-150 miles without a stop, and do so in roughly an hour. Like a helicopter or light aircraft, really. Just more silent than a heli and hopefully more efficient than old school light aircraft plus the battery virtue signaling bonus.
To use these as taxis around downtown or a metropolitan area...would get messy quickly. So many movements then. Short trips are less efficient if there is no space to take-off and land horizontally. And loud. Never far from a few big drones hovering without getting anywhere. If really safe and durable, rides could get pretty cheap I guess. But that doesn't make it a good idea necessarily. So many great ways to interconnect a city and its surrounding area are totally ingored when going for mass eVTOL adoption. But, oh is it ever hip and ego stroking to be involved in it...
I live in an area that’s constantly overflown by all sorts of helicopters at low to very low altitudes. I don’t find them annoyingly loud whatsoever.
I’m looking forward to the success of this new ingenious way to travel and sightsee.
Can’t agree more that noise is the biggest obstacle. While some of it would be mitigated by electric propulsion anyone who has been around a drone in flight knows those are quiet either
Hi Frank, it's been a while since you put out a video. This is another great one. The EVTOL revolution is indeed coming.
We've been hearing that for 100 years
Amen! I respect you Frank for moving your talents into the future and not being stuck in the past. Us older humans, (when we are flexible to modern change) can add an element of past knowledge applied to forward concepts to help assure that the wisdom from experience helps guide future technology. A pretty good recipe, I believe!
Thanks for your feedback z!
Till a few drop outta the sky.
More public transportation is always a great idea. EVTOLs will find their space in the grid and there's a reason to be excited about that.
I find this fascinating but I feel like there's a huge risk when it comes to the pursuit of profits above all else when it comes to these light, agile aircraft flying inside cities, and I'd imagine I'm not the only one who'd be highly skeptical of corporations who are willing to take shortcuts to gain just that little bit extra profit.
In China and the US alike, we've seen EVs spontaneously combusting due to the relentless pursuit of profits, causing lapses in build quality etc but what would this look like when we're dealing with aircraft flying over busy city centers? How many more people get hurt when an EVTOL had shoddy build quality due to manufacturers rushing to fill quotas, rather than one vehicle on the road stopping and being evacuated?
While these sleek, emotionally gripping designs are exquisite, and certainly a very exciting field to watch designers such as yourself, I fear that they will never be accepted as widely as the car, or the boat. Though I'll hold on to just a little bit of hope that I'm wrong, and that maybe we won't get the EVTOL equivalent of the Titan Submarine.
Also I feel that I should point out what I saw so many others saying in the comments - this just sounds like a very convoluted option to trains. Trains can be luxurious and comfortable, or they can be extremely cheap (definitely cheaper than a cab ride) depending on your needs!
Agree on balance being what makes most beautiful
We've missed you, Frank!
I think that EVTOLs are only suited to the most congested major cities of the world, as those are the only places that have any use for them and where all forms of transportation are nearing or exceedingly their capacities. Here in flyover country, we won't be seeing too many of these.
I certainly hope we will be able to fly them within designated safe virtual corridors so we can experience the thrill of piloting outside of cities, instead of just being taxied around.
It sure is a wonderful idea and for me reducing street traffic is one of the biggest benefits it has. By it self it might not be good enough but I think if it is combined with some other mass transportation system like Maglev trains it will be fantastic.
Still waiting for the BATMOBILE.
yeah
The case for last mile transport is convincing, not sure about longer journeys. Smaller cities are a better solution than more complexity but that horse has obviously bolted.
This episode is a well rounded critical big picture view of the near future. One of your best episodes. Thank you Frank
Thanks for your feedback Jason! 👍
TRAINS: It's an investment being made even in, so called, 3rd world countries. The time it takes to go to a EVTOL port, get security checks, check luggage, pack luggage on board then fly, you would be well into the 1st hour of your journey by train.
Great to see you back!
As a kid I used to dream of flying cars, but as an adult who drives daily I think it's gonna be a nightmare when incompetent drivers start flying in the sky
I genuinely believe this is a good idea. Yes, it can be stated that this is possibly dangerous, and less effective than regular transport but the reality is that we don't know how people will gravitate towards this without trying.
It has to be done one way or another. Yes, better infrastructure for trains and travel is important but this could also relieve stress on those systems as well, potentially giving more time for those ways of travel to recoup and better themselves without the non stop reliance from regular traffic.
Sometimes it feels like solutions for transportation becomes redundant because there's no room financially or in terms of safety for radical changes to design and the technology of the current ways of transportation.
I believe regulations are important, but if we continue to regulate everything into oblivion, we'll just evolve slower.
The question to me is why not? There's plenty of other transportation ideas that are substantially more expensive, and with a larger chance of being a huge waste of money and time and space. If these don't work, everything can go back to normal because the impact they would have honestly would be minimal changes.
It's not as if we're building new tunnels for cars to travel down, in one state...after years of development....to come to the same issue of traffic.
Has FedEX, UPS, Amazon expressed interest? Here is a EVTOL use case where human lives are not at risk, just packages. Obviously, they all have invested heavily in custom EV vans. I see Amazon's Rivian delivery truck all the time here in Baltimore, it's really cool looking in person.
eVTOL crashing on your head still hurts even if it just had packages on board.
Those big corps do ANYTHING that will offer a virtue signaling opportunity, whether it makes sense or not. Their interest is pretty irrelevant. They already do deliveries with smaller drones. The more reliable systems connecting remote medical posts with a central pharmacy in for instance Africa, actually use more efficient horizontal flight on model airplanes. Landing is done with a catch net, no time to do a slow approach or hover and taxi. Arrive, meds taken out, done.
@@Cloxxki EVTOL flight paths, like helicopters, would have the least exposure to human flyover as possible. For example, they would fly over the Hudson River rather than over downtown Manhattan. And for all those businesses time is money. As you say yourself, nothing beats moving goods from point A directly to point B like flight. Way better than dealing with the variables related to traffic and roads. Look at the mess with the I-95 bridge collapse as an example.
@@SoCalFreelance The Hudson is still needed for emergency landings of mere kerosene jets, NY jets crash a lot ;-)
The kinds of deliveries fat are justified to ship instantly might not justify significant distances. Evening stores can remain distributed within last mile themselves. No need for air freighting Amazon and IKEA.
I'd totally hire an eVTOL air taxi. Affordable price point is key. I look forward to the day when there are 30, 60, 80 of these things are constantly flying over my head.
When more people get access to these, like now people with 6-figure cars (every big Tesla and up), there's going to be a lot of air traffic in hotspots. How far apart to have these fly and land? Imagine the heliport at Google or Microsoft offices...hundreds of movements per hours, for a modest office complex... Awesome to increase commuting distance achieved in like an hour from ~50 miles to 150 miles would serve the rich a lot. With larger crafts, it will help average wage workers as well, to live affordably in a residential hub far away from the nearest skyscrapers and large workplaces, and still make it to work in reasonable time. Big problem: large crafts need a lot more lift. And imagine the noise of a 20-person eVTOL landing... and needing hundreds nearby at a given time in peak hours. We'd have done away with ICE cars, los a tiny bit of noise, and then we'd live in a loud swarm of electric helicopters that audibly seem to never land or fly off, but just hover at full power non-stop.
Electric powered aircraft to STILL be reliant on propellers, is a bad thing. How old are the battery and propeller now? Ancient technology. We need a solid state tech to overcome gravity and momentum. Hardly any money is being invested into that, by hobbyists. The trillion dollar corps just focus on barbaric batteries and wheels.
@@Cloxxki Man, if only there were some form of solid-state propulsion that could carry huge amounts of people not only far but also fast...
(It's called a bullet train)
@@MasqueradePW It exists, but downside is the cost and space requirements of infrastructure. Stations need to be fast apart and lines dead straight.
@@Cloxxki They don't need to be *dead straight* but your point still stands, it's a vast economic undertaking and requires nigh constant maintenance to work. Still, I imagine that by economy of scale, it has to work - otherwise Japan probably would have dropped the idea decades ago, rather than continuously developing and expanding on theirs.
@@MasqueradePW I love fast trains, they can be a great staple just below mass air travel. It takes vision and commitment though. These cute air taxis only take billionaire ego to develop. Maybe some Arabs manage to make them available to specific use cases of their choosing. Tech hippies build the crafts! Arabs only need to provide some landing pads and plugs.
Zip lining from town to town would be fun with aerial assistance from motors would be fun.
Would they start with routes that follow over train tracks to allow for use as low flying transport. As an alternative to public transport on short journeys . Landing on multi storey car parks 🤔
What about the Highway Code for the air ..?? How can it keep safe when there are eventually so many of these in the air….?
Billion miles between failures they say. That's a very bar. A neat way of saying "heck no" while allowing a whole new industry to thrive in trying to develope these anyway and offer anyone involved or interested ample virtue signaling bonus points. It's engineering and finance resources directed away from projects that would actually serve a human of merit, though...
@@Cloxxki I would never say no to those introducing new technology, pushing the boundaries, without these innovators there would be zero advances…. This kind of transportation has been a vision for a number of years, no doubt it will succeed, but I cannot imagine our airways smothered with these vehicles….. it’s passed by vision…. But never say never !
Please do a design analysis on the new Aston Martin DB12!
This is genuinely fascinating content. I think it'll be very exciting to see how you and other innovators shape this space!
Thanks fellow! 👍
@@FrankStephensondesign thank you for helping me stay excited about the future
Frank, I thought I lost you a year or so ago. I so loved your output that I was crushed. I just ran a search on your name and voila!there you are. I just want to reaffirm how much I value your channel/information, and gratefully re-establish my subscription and alert status. 🙂😊🙂
Wow! It’s a pleasure TamTran! 👍
Frank - really interesting summary, thank you. Who is looking at the infrastructure development at the moment - and will it be proprietary like Tesla, or open + universal? I presume you're all excited by the recent Toyota Solid State announcement.
maybe this change of VTOL in the transportation industry will come much after what we are thinking. Just like the electric vehicles, the initial transports were made electric but later on IC engine vehicle took the place in the market & it took too much time for electric vehicle to come back again.
Will there be any more critiques on here because I really miss those videos.
Frank this is absolutely amazing, and for me at least this is a much better use of EV technology than Electric cars as it is making travel more efficient. I am a BEV skeptic when it comes to cars as I think it is just completely unsustainable in that field. But this technology for aircraft really works as it is creating a way to circumvent a lot of the issues facing sustainable transport. I am loving some of these designs, don't suppose there will be scope for straight-edgd, wedge shaped design to get some proper Star Wars vibes? Forget a submarine, I want a Lotus Esprit that flies. My only worry for this is the infrastructure needed for these will be extensive and while it can be done I am not sure how it will impact the price and accessibility of it. I love the potential of this however, and hope it will make driving more pleasant as it will cut the need for non-car enthusiasts to take up space on the roads!
Cheers Ben! 👍
While replacing some of the world's 26000 civilian helicopters with passenger eVTOLs, which include electric helicopters and gyrodynes, is a good start, they will still only complement other midmile transport, like electric buses, fixed wing aircraft, and trains, as an alternative to door to door (electric) private cars, taxis and ubers.
The real gamechanger is cargo eVTOLs from sUAS delivery drones to large cargo drones like the Ehang 216L and Volodrone. Another game changer which started with the little Pipistrel Velis Electro, will be replacing, or repowering, the 450000 GA and LSA aircraft globally, with eCTOL aircraft.
Very much in agreement Gary.
Frank's excitement is understandable. But noise issues mean it is quite possible none of these designs will work. Cartercopter showed how to do this 20 years ago and could be built today without a problem. But it's weird classification spooked everyone. No problem now, and it could be exceptionally quiet too.
Bad time to be a helicopter pilot soon.
Nice presentation..
I think your idea of them being all slick and new will throw people off the idea. They need to look safe not fast. I would prefer a gondola ride over the city.
Just a test question closer to home for you -- the "Vertical VX4" eVTOL is (was) sitting on the runway ( in the Cotswolds I think )as a pile of wreckage after only just breaking ground and doing nothing in terms of rigorous test flying YET it has 1440 'orders' -pre sales . Is it ethical for someone to take large amounts of money BEFORE even having something that actually works? (the others ,including your clients are doing the same thing, -- the answer to this 'conundrum' might illuminate the difficulty apparent here.
Pile of wreckage? It suffered damage to its starboard wing and happened at Cotswold Airport in Kemble, England during a motor failure test scenario. Those orders you mention come from intelligent and experienced customers like American Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Iberojet, AirAsia and Japan Airlines. I doubt these orders were placed by hoodwinked interns in the marketing strategy divisions of those respective airlines.
Frank- the entire wing is snapped off ! ('just a flesh wound" I hear you say ? as the Black Knight might dismiss it ... the undercarriage has collapsed and God knows how much other internal damage -likely a write off (I repaired -1980 - the Schempp Hirth Janus wings previously involved in a double fatal accident --VERY extensively fractured and considered 'beyond repair' but mated to a new opposite wing and extensively strain gauged for a fatigue determination to justify extending certified fatigue lives of all fiberglass gliders over 3000 hours (test conducted by Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology RMIT, Australian Dept of Defence ,Aeronautical research Laboratories, defence science, dept of Civil Aviation and Gliding federation ,over 11 years ..... the repairability of carbon fibre is much less as is the energy absorbing ability (sacrificial nose cones on F1 etc ) The same stalky weak undercarriage that features on the Joby and others -- all that mass (including massive batteries) ,motors and propellers right up top .... compared to the notorious narrow undercarriages of the Spitfire and Me109 (claiming over 3000 lives according to one source ) but with LOW wings - this design fault should be somewhat obvious at least. And the lack of any stored energy in the system so that it suffered so much destruction . I agree that it is astounding that there is such a headlong rush to 'order' totally unproven aircraft from unknown makers ahead of any certification -- you have to go back to similar enthusiasm for the Concorde or Bristol Brabazon, the giant Princess flying boats or similar misconceived 'great white hopes' that had a few minor 'shortcomings' overlooked in the rush.... 'too big to fail' , any of the manias that occurr from time to time like Bitcoin now or the Tulipmania etc etc - everyone looked at each other to be assured that 'we can't all be wrong' Benjamin Franklin - "when all think alike, none are thinking "
To paraquote your video "There are OTHERTHINGS YOU need to know on eVTOLS " -- I would suggest looking at some of the videos of 'Sustainable Skies Foundation " ,the 2018/19 symposia , or the earlier quoted engineering assessments -- given your 'insider confidential knowledge' you might even ask Adam Goldstein WHO actually designed "His" aircraft and from where the 'insider' know how came (Larry Paige already stated it if in doubt ) - conceived in deception it is indeed a bastard of a design. There are precedents for this sort of thing ,including the few noted, but they did not end well -- it is incredible to look at the videos charting the ups and downs of the share prices and 'analysis' by gushing millenials for firms that have produced and sold nothing and furthermore have been debunked by sober experienced independent observers . There was a somewhat comparable 'irrational exuberance' (in general aviation) about 50 years ago involving a very small fast aircraft called the BEDE BD5 -- it garnered thousands of prepaid 'orders' on the basis of advertising oversell and concealment of known deficiencies --even though the design basically WORKED it was , for the intended market , totally unsuitable and a deathtrap "accident waiting to happen' --in much the same way these stupid criminally negligent eVTOLS are -- you can research that too.
The question was about the ethics of selling something on hype fundamentally . I am not illuminated by the 'answer' . regards,@@FrankStephensondesign
Same deal on the 'cross outs' unintentional,can't trace or fix, old computer.
Just posted a response to this - above, regards,@@FrankStephensondesign
Since last coming across this video close ups of the pile of wreckage that was the VZ 4 have been posted and the NTSB report on the Joby crash - same cause in both cases,- chain reaction failures after blade breakage, long gawky pylons accentuate catastrophic loads.... all such "cobbled up" monstrosities are prone to such crashing and are anyway just plain ugly, both to the eye and insight.
Great video Frank! What is the maximum seats this type of aircraft can have?
On battery power, eVTOL, very, very few. A bit more if conventional electric planes. Batteries defy large scale let along long distance air travel. Too barbaric. The maximum fuel weight of an A380 in batteries wouldn't het far at all, and it world need to purge most batteries before landing, it can't land full. Factor that in and A380 with batteries and props barely gets anywhere. Tiny form factor falsely flatters "e" and VTOL. What's needed is tech to replace batteries with a Nikola Tesla power antenna of sorts. What budget is trying to reverse engineer that, though? Billions go into eVTOL that can't be implemented even if it would technically work.
Afortunado quién te ve, Curro !! Los avioncitos están muy bien, pero porfi, no te olvides de las cuatro ruedas. Saludos desde Cádiz
Seguimos con el mundo de las cuatro ruedas también Javier. 👍
@@FrankStephensondesign bravooooo !!! Ya veo que estás liado. Eso es sinónimo de fuerza y salud. Cuídate.
What about noise ?
A drone is already noisy, I can't imagine something 100x heavier.
That's where the vertical aspiration aspect is a real hindrance. With a low speed horizontally landing craft, it could be near silent. Take-off can be winch, treadmill of wheel torque assisted. Imagine a light craft on wheels that offers decent traction, and has hub motors. With a short runway it can achieve minimum horizontal take-off speed of much more, and then just transition straight into cruise power rather than high power take-off. One helicopter makes a whole part of the city aware, and that's NOT the fuel engine making the noise...
Watch the video "How Quiet is the Joby Aircraft During Flyover?"
@@SoCalFreelance Thanks, I just watched it. Okay it's not as noisy as a helicopter or a plane but if we're talking taxis it means there's tons of them at the same time, including night time. One solution would be like planes to make them fly as high as possible, noise dissipates with the square of the distance.
@@Ryanux Sounds reasonable.
65dB
It’s already here. It’s called a helicopter.
But those don't do the virue signaling as well. They were an f-u to the plebs, and eVTOL is an f-u while expressing a sense of moral superiority. There's a difference. So now all we need to do is place heliports all over downtown, various other business centers, and every villa development worth living in. And of course every lake house. Thank goodness these aren't needed in residential areas where the workers live. They have buses, trams, subways, trains and e-bikes.
Like it love it it's about time
I hope to work in this space one day!
Genuinely curious, why electric though? Where are the VTOLs? I'm not opposed to electric vehicles, but I feel like VTOLs that use conventional fuel would be so much simpler. The technology already exists, and they won't have to deal with the weight issues for example. I'd imagine some company would at least be on track of such a vehicle by now if flying taxis is a viable business model. The fact they don't makes me wonder if this whole thing is just some edgy tech hype. Really put some doubt in me.
Are you working with Lilium?
I sometimes doubt whether they’ll ever take off.
AutoFlight.
i knew since a long time they' be coming, it's plain common sense imho. didn't (and really, still don't tbh) expect it to be affordable at all tho. let's see.
those are the first cool EVs for me, and that includes those stoopit scooters, that prevent ppl from biking, and demand rare materials from dangerous countries.
only thing i'm flabbergusted about, after seeing this wonderful vid, is, that you know Jay - and obviously not only since yesterday. a year ago i dreamt in a comment here, how cool it would be, to listen to a conversation between you two! XD i need moar! best wishes, a Frank-Fan from Germany
Vielen dank Thilo! 👍
I don't think these will ever really become something mainstream or affordable.
Why I think that is simply safety.
We've all heard about 9/11, right? With these such a concern will return and I don't think people will readily accept them flying in close proximity to buildings.
These are light vehicles. They really should of put parachutes on them...at least for the first set iteration of vehicles. One fatal crash would set them back 2 years easily... and it would ground their entire fleet since they are in the infancy stage. Redundancy is great but chutes would bring it closer to 0 chance of fatalities.
Parachutes as well as gliding ability are integrated as part of added safety applications Zoe.
Rule number one is to keep a design simple, these are not , which means they are prone to failure.
What happened to the early multi rotor designs?
A decade of promises, promises and no sales.
Incredible sales talk is the common denominator.
Flying snake oil.
Dang Arturo, you sure are so last decade. Get with the program, keep up man.
I really hope they are silent, having drone noses overhead constantly is not the most appealing thing. However, the idea is very interesting. I wouldn't trade in my car for one, but I would take it to the airport instead of a cab.
No-one is interested in developing inertia/gravity propulsion. Gotta be sexy propellers. We'll just pretend we'll make then silent. Doesn't matter anyway, we can't make then safe as they need to be.
Frank, still awaiting your response . The lilium with 'dustbins' sticking out the nose at the outset should have caused some concern even for those having no engineering know how
Have you noticed that that those 'air taxi routes saving so much time just ALL happen to be places where a river or inlet cuts off the road traffic - Manhattan (island) to JFK or SanFrancisco (on the bay) ,crossing Puget sound etc --making the road time excessive. Honesty in advertising, and design seems to lose out when big bucks are involved.
Sorry Ross, response to what question? As to what you say here, I call it a limited perspective. 1. Are you referring to the Lilium’s canards? If so, I’d hope you should know about their purpose and function as to aerodynamics. If you mean the ducted fans, you’re very likely unaware of Lilium’s latest development on this technology. Never a good idea to criticise a feature that you’re not up to speed on or privy to real-time confidential engineering stages. 2. Is your theory that bridge crossing over rivers is the root cause of road traffic delays? I’m not sure whether you’re joking or actually serious. Hopefully you realise the advantages of cities and towns located on rivers, where vertiports can be positioned for easier certifiable access to eVTOL flights.
The 'challenge' I detailed in the post on this page (below) 1, I refer to the fact that the Lilium designers published what they would have you (investors) believe was a feasible design but which was in reality hopeless --the retractable 'dustbins' are meant to be withdrawn into the body and the nose held up by NO canard -just the lift on the body --utterly infeasible as they must have known . Their idea was originally to make a ROADABLE aircraft so that it could take passengers to THEIR actual destination rather than being dumped wherever a 'vertiport' can be placed -- they actually show pictures of the thing with 'dustbins' retracted and the wings folded alongside the body on the road . They failed in their design intention in fact and the resultant device is just as constrained as other 'fixed wing' airplanes -- about as practical as a bird that cannot fold it's wings or walk in comparison . The DESIGN of a viable roadable 'flying car' is not something that can be merely sketched and done without engineering knowledge AND EXPERIENCE -- the fresh faced ,un experienced crop of eVTOL 'makers' with diplomas barely dry ink are set to not just waste billions of dollars on follies and discredit the long standing genuine flying vehicle 'genre' which has a long and previously honourable past ( I sought out the then living 'pioneers' in person after studying their work for years -- there is an unpublished book of over 2000 prior designs recorded ) but leave'scorched earth' in their wake (both literally and metaphorically - burning naive investors fingers and crying 'wolf' with no regard for the effect on aviation , setting back progress perhaps irrepairably for another generation -- the genuine are tarred with the same brush as the hucksters after a quick buck. Lilium's university and teachers have publicly disowned them in fact -a discredit that you should (are?) be aware of in giving your imprimatur. (independent engineering assessment is available to you -- to reevaluate your endorsement and proud association -like a medical person who might question Theranos before pinning their reputation on it and endorsing )
IT is midnight here and I just came across your comments -- I could spend yet more time to refute the innuendos but that would be likely to just add frustration --you implicitly claim relevant and sufficient expertise which you do not have or could have obtained based on published biographical evidence -- it is insulting to infer incompetence based on 'not being up to speed or privy to real-time confidential engineering 'stages' -- sadly the 'workings' of an aircraft are out in the open for those who know what they are looking at and a few years of engineering education, first hand experience with operating (flying) ,designing building and testing real aircraft over five decades (but drawing on the vast published data NACA etc and know how that alone condemns this and the other 'eVTOL" misdesigns ) You can stuff a big motor in a VW or Mini Minor and change it's 'performance' without any external evidence - with aircraft the faults and virtues CAN be assessed and calculated by those who have the understanding ( or not comprehended by those who do not -- eg being told that needing 3000 plus horsepower to get a five or so seat aircraft to "work" is somehow 'efficient' and 'green' ''zero emission' etc or given public funding on that basis . might not just be untrue but outright ridiculous. Why claim that this misbegotten thing is some paragon of virtue ?
As to the Comment about 'comparisons' of flying versus driving being NOTABLY the routes and times AS SPECIFIED that DO IN FACT involve the ground route needing to go around a geographical barrier NOT typical of most commutting and NOT (for the eVTOL) taking into account delays and hold ups in arranging, waiting for, changing over from an expensive ground taxi or Uber to and from your actual destination and the isolsated "Vertipads" -- in MOST cases (ie NOT being around waterways,islands or the like )there would be no time saving and a much higher cost -- Falsley calling these things flying cars or flying taxis is deceptive and seeks to free ride on the seamless door to door mobility model they simply cannot deliver . this same principle applies to Archer , Autoflight ,Wisk, Joby et al and essentially all other of the 860 VFS recorded 'breakthrough' eVTOLS. You might want to watch/read some of the more sober YT videos that at least do sensibly critique these things (your own styling criticism of cars could not be done by a blind man no matter how enthusiastic for comparison)
Googling Evtol 'will it all end in tears' ? Aero.aero and various other easily found factual ,quantified and reasoned examinations of the most 'prominent' eVTOL floggers would be a good start -- for now,@@FrankStephensondesign
as before, the strike outs are unintentional -a very old computer but all I can afford. (no hundreds of millions of play money ) It used to be that a real artist sacrificed for their art -'starving in a garret' while developing their talent --these people get hundreds of millions of dollars before making anything that works - IPOs compare them based on "funding raised" as to their prospects --ie the inputs not the output .
? I think your message here was meant for some other person’s thread.
Why would you think that? My posted reply starting with "The challenge I detailed on this page (below) " .HAS 'strike outs' in the next line --that I refer to . The facts are that I have been working in this field -unfunded- or rather self funded from real manufacturing work over 50 years --your 'clients' have been moneychangers and hype merchants who have blown multi millions on extravagant PR exercises using investor's money or money not gained by honest work and selling non existent aircraft based on purloined IP and employee criminality (see Wisk versus Archer depositions - facts ) If the emperor has no clothes in fact then that should be stated by the 'viewer' who sees through it to at least put on record the truth so as to dissassociate from the scam as a matter of integrity - The challenge specified appears under my name "2 months ago" beggining with -" Frank,this video (and earlier) do NOT tell "everything you NEED to know...." immediately below this . @@FrankStephensondesign
I have a paradigm shifting evtol design how can I share it with you?
We already have VTOLs, they are called Helicopters and they dont need charging infrastructure. Uber already did Helicopter Taxi between JFK and Manhattan, the ticket was under $200, large part of the expense was landing fees at JFK and Manhattan. eVTOL is more expensive than a helicopter, eVTOL has much shorter uptime due to charging needs and there is no infrastructure for it. If you say a ticket would cost $70, that wont cover landing fees. What happens when the subsidies run out? Do we get a more expensive Uber Helicopter?
Also, Uber failed because the drive to helipad, flight to another helipad, then drive to your destination took just as long as a single drive :)
You need to do your research better stubb, you’re pretty much wrong on all points.
@@FrankStephensondesign oh trust me I wish I was wrong, I love my 5500 lbs Model X and I would equally love to fly one :)
Here is the JFK-West 30th street breakdown for you:
Fixed hourly cost of operating a helicopter is ~$900 (cost of aircraft, pilot salary, hangar) and per hour direct costs are $600.
Let's assume the eVTOL costs the same as Bell 407 GXi (eVTOL will probably cost more but lets ignore that for now)
Since eVTOLs will require all the same fixed costs and may only reduce direct costs due to lower maintenance, lets be very generous and give $1500/hour helicopter vs $1300/hour eVTOL
JFK to 30th West street is a 15 min flight so with passenger boarding, charging you can probably make a trip back and forth once per hour. Your landing fee is $200, no matter what aircraft you use.
With 50% air-time we have $400 landing fees + $750 flight cost = $1150 cost of 2 trips. Bell 407 takes max 5 passengers, with 80% booking we get 8 passengers to cover $1150 -> cost of $143 per passenger trip.
The same calculation for eVTOL: $400 + $650 = $1050, for 8 passengers: $131
All assumptions are in favor of eVTOLS: the eVTOL can carry 5 passengers and a pilot, eVTOL costs the same as a Bell 407 (eVTOL is actually more expensive), eVTOL will have large maintenance savings, eVTOL charging infrastructure is free.
Do I believe you that you will charge $70 per passenger? Yes. Tech startups subsidize their services and incur massive losses.
For me EVs are for the future. Maybe 50 or 100 years from now.
Why Luis?
Could you add further information for aviation battery technology Development. Thanks
Then we’d be talking about solid state battery tech Harry.
There are so many companies in this space (and probably a lot of fluff). Lilium's shrouded turbine-rotor engine design is very compelling to me though. Engine compactness, safety, and redundancy is most important for vehicles like this. Bring on the uber-exclusive flying taxis of the future!
The future is here.
What we are already seeing is how complex how far they are gone with drone regulation. Noise and air traffic are going to be major issues. For sure they will introduce fixed routes for such evtols making me doubt about the real benefit whereas you could just get a train/tram/subway
Not really Federico. The noise levels cannot exceed 65dB and air traffic control will keep them sufficiently dispersed.
I sincerely hope EVTOLs dont succeed!
1. I don't want things flying above my head all the time, which would be the case if they really get successfull in a mass market (which they obviously want to be).
2. I don't see actual environmental benefits if you compare them to their direct competition of electric cars. Oh and lets not forget about functioning public transport. No way it could keep up with that. Sorry this argument doesn't... fly :D
3. These things will not solve any issues we have with cars. They are basicly flying cars. Most issues still apply (at least in cities).
4. The prize: if they really are cheaper than a taxi the demand would be to high to be accomodated if the airspace is going to stay regulated and not overpopulated. So the prize goes up until it meets demand.
5. Security: I have no problem with statistical safety of technical failures. But there are external factors you simply can not ignore. And if anything does go wrong (in a city!) damage will be even higher than with cars (property damage as well as mortality).
6. The noise: Have you heard how loud small drones are? Who would want that times 100 as mass transport? (Could possibly be fixed by some technical wizzardry)
7. The money you would have to spend would be way better invested in public transport and that would positively affect way more people and areas.
The positives:
1. They, and their possibilities, are extremely interesting from a design standpoint!
2. If they come to replace the current traditional helicopters, there are really no downsides to them. They would still be for emergency, news and rich people only though.
So yeah. Overall I don't see them succeeding in what you imagined them to be in this video. Your marketed vision honestly feels incredibly out of touch with the reality of most people.
On the other hand you spent way more time thinking about them and if you proof me wrong I will be the first to admit it.
Also: as a luxury item I think they can be very successful - sure :) Just don't compare a Bugatti to a VW in its place in society...
Since this comment seems way more negative than it is meant: I won't ever be able to afford a supercar. I don't even enjoy driving. I still love cars though - as well as your content. So you keep on doing your thing. I'm excited for whats next. Good luck! :)
Frank I'd love to chat w you from an Architects perfective & drone opperator. I really enjoyed this video!
Aerodynamics of tall buildings are going to be key to get such multicopter any way close, let alone for millions of landings without crash. To keep the noise away from society, you could make a cluster of 500 meter tall skyscrapers, with a central suspension bridge at 500 m housing the heli port. Departure might as well NOT be vertical then, but horizontal gaining speed and lift from gliding down a bit first and then transitioning to low power cruise rather than high power vertical take-off. Low speed vertical landing would save a lot of energy and hover time I'd guess. Wind conditions would need to be super tame to pass any sort of certification, especially near office spaces and grounds where people talk in droves.
It would help a lot if residential heli ports were hidden acoustically. Like a crater or hollow building, lined with acoustic foam walls. It's all quite pointless until crafts get well into the dozens of occupants, and travel between heliport and nearby hotspots is optimized. Underground monorails? Build heliports right on top of a central train station? Where a lot of tracks are side to side, the heliport could be put on top, turning the train yard or station entry/exit into a large hall. eVTOL users feel entitled to land close to home and work, though, so that's going to take villas where swift and silent landing is enabled, and city heliports serve just a few building, not all of downtown to force a long walk or public transport ride. Forcing all news buildings to get eVTOL access isn't exactly a green solution, we want to use buildings for as long as reasonably possible.
How paradoxal is it that in an attempt to have everything close by you end up making it harder to reach in the end? Big cities are supposed to be something you want to live in, all your nececities in one place, endless entertainment opertunities and all the shops you would ever need, schools and healthcare facilities. Yet it most likely takes close to an hour on avarage to get anywhere.
The solution is simply not to live inside a city. The cost is too high and there are literally no benefits asides from same day shipping for your online purchases. 15 minute cities will never work in practice and no amount of public transport will fix that.
The vertical part makes a design likely MUCH less energy efficient. With high electric torque, might as well have a short runway and get out of the noise sensitive area, efficiently? Let alone if combined with a winch or treadmill type of external help. Works for the navy and gliders.
Vertical takeoff and landing has hugely beneficial applications Cloxx.
Will there be mass public transport versions of EVTOLS?
Mass meaning how many…?
Yes 👍...like 50 or 100 passenger carriers. Just means big ones, and not taxis.
I don’t think an eVTOL will bring any benefits to carrying that many passengers Stephen. Electric or hydrogen powered yes, but not eVTOL.
imagine exploding batteries on top of sky scrapers
In theory less volatile battery chemistries can be chosen, but right now those are less energy dense. Makes it a short taxi service type of deal with loads of recharging. Batteries will do their 2000 cycles in as little as a year or less.
@@Cloxxki how aboout hybrid helicopter type long range applicatin with super capacotor batteries so the only thing is they carry fuel tank instead of massive battery
@@Houthiandtheblowfish Super capacitors are super useless in air. Heavy and no capacity. In the air you need power all the time, especially heli. Supercaps might be useful in buses and cars. Right now they hardly appear in race cars.
@@Cloxxki i meant for the lack of capacity you replace the size of the battery to small size and fuel tank for a turbine engine where it converts it to electricity and finally to capacitors and to electric motors
it would be safer than gearbox helicopters issue
@@Houthiandtheblowfish Oh a series hybrid then. Well if the engine is significantly more efficient driving a generator that fill up capacitors that drive an electric motor...maybe. Every conversion introduces losses, though. With a helicopter I would guess power output and blade rpm are kind of stable, much more so than in a race car negotiation tight bends. Even at standstill, the heli takes a lot of power. I can imagine a well designed engine and gearbox to be more efficient in a heli than a complex (let alone heavy) series hybrid setup. What we need is Nikola Tesla style power antennas to replace batteries. Or engines that run on water. Its inventors tend to die young and suddenly thusfar. Alternatively, a magnet motor that fills a battery rather than empty it. Very little effort is put into the development of such, only hobbyists are trying, at low budget. Big corps develop eVTOL that is only ever going to work for the ultra rich, and batteries that are still very much barabaric technology and only on the surface (exhaust) "green".
Would love to pilot one.
@phdonme1, Stay-tuned for future events.
What you don't understand is that there has to be infrastructure set in place, in order for any new industry to thrive.
lilium.com/newsroom-detail/lilium-and-luxaviation-take-partnership-to-next-phase-focused-on-operations-and-ground-infrastructure
@@FrankStephensondesign Always good to hear from you Frank.
Congratulation on designing a beautiful plane.
@@richardike2342 Thank you Richard!
@@FrankStephensondesign You are welcome, Frank. We have been missing your tutorial videos.
You have to get rappers to flex about it
I’m up in the clouds and in the EVTOL
So high you ain’t even know 💨
For the current battery technology, evtols is far from completion, maybe if they tried another aproach like using flywheel batteries. Hybrid/hyrogen VTOL is more implementable in offshore, coastal, deserts areas and archipelagic countries. i have my own design of vtol and it use unique propulsion system.
The biggest thing in this space is noise. No one wants more noise. These things are noisy.
65dBA.
Batteries falling from the sky will make a real mess.
We need to research how Tesla sent power across vast distances, with for all intents and purposes, antennas. No battery heft, same driving power.
To get a VTOL port near work and home, it will need to be amazingly safe and silent.
Aside from every other problem this could make, what makes it different from the history of cars? We all love cars in this channel but we all hate traffic, and traffic was caused by a poor planning and vision of the infrastructure surrounding cars. Cities were built around cars making them unwalkable all with the exact same excuse of "faster, more efficient travel" which at the time was compared to walking, horse riding and carriges. So how will they overcome this problem? What will avoid in 50-100 years time an overly congested sky filled with EVTOLs causing major havoc and traffic? Its easy to say "Safety and regulations" yet here we are, the same was promised from cars and we find ourselves with the need of flying because the poor planning of the infrastructure around cars cause the problem these vehicles look to solve. So? How will it be any different in 100 years time? Will humans then turn to space to bypass the congestion of EVTOLS?
Patience Adrian, eVTOL transportation must precede teleportation.
Заменть батареи газовой турбиной и наступит будущее
Noise levels??? What about those blades?
65dBA.
This will never be a mass market transport option. It's got rich and privileged written all over it.
Is this your latest project that a company has commissioned you on?
Doesn’t seem like it. Just a high Gee Whiz factor.
Yes. I’m leading the team of designers on AutoFlight since 2 years now as a official member of the organisation.
I highly respect Frank's design skills and i understand that designing a new and sleek mode of transportation is amzing. But! It will be very noisy, and definitively not friendly to the environment and have terrible passenger throughput. Just comes to simple physics having to fight against gravity and a big vehicle mass compared to passenger mass. So it doesn’t matter if it's electric it won't be sustainable at all. Electric trains and trams do everything better than EVTOLs. But the design of trains is usually not that great and who wants to be surrounded in bad design? Frank, please design a train for those who think they would like to fly in evtols and not just get from point a to point b.
And in the cold😂😂😂
As long as normal people don’t get the pilot them I’m cool with it
soo many propellers... how about a new propulsion system as well?
We want these toys to land right next to or on skyscrapers, that's where money is made. But also where the worst wind conditions happen. People who can afford these will have a backyard to land in, but imagine how much that will ruin HAVING a yard in a nice 'hood, when neighbors keep flying low over your tanning deck where the wife and daughters like to work on their bikini lines.
We’ve thought of everything Cloxx.
It'a a stupid idea. Sound pollution, self-driving is nowhere close and the skies will be ruined. Nah.
Watch the video "How Quiet is the Joby Aircraft During Flyover?"
Self driving in the ski might actually be peanuts compared to on the road where you encounter more complex situations of human drivers and physical obstacles. Sound is the biggie though. Electric makes the crafts HEAVY as they can possibly be. Vertical take-off/landing is super loud for a long time per movement and with a heavy craft even more so. Why not short low speed glide and horizontal landing? Not as sexy, is why. But so much better when processing multiple movements a minute, which will be necessary with eVTOL being already really hard for a 2-seater. You won't be moving many people, just a high net monetaryh value of people who get to feel better than others for flying where an advanced (mono)rail system (don't get me started on hyperloop) would be better.
In a city with a more or less flat geography, rail cars could be mostly gravity powered. Roll down a steep hill to gain speed, have a flat cruise section, and add enough kinetic energy to make it up the ramp to the destination. Gravity provides acceleration and cruise speed, electric power overcome all the rolling/aero losses introduced. The getting up to speed in a rail car like a metro let alone train takes forever. Average speeds are low because of it. Think rollercoaster but less dramatic.
Cloxx, stay with us, this is the 21st century. AutoFlight’s Prosperity 1 is fairly quiet, producing 65 dBA while hovering, roughly the volume of a normal conversation. Currently it tops out at 200kph with a range of 250km. Rich people will only have to fork out the price of an Uber for their trip. Things will get better and more efficient as this industry progresses. You’ll be fine, relax.
@@FrankStephensondesign That sounds lovely Frank! Does it come in Rosso Corsa? I'd be happy to help push tech forward. Getting the higher density cells into NY sort of production would be super helpful now, not just for eVTOL but also car racing which I care more about. A high density swappable pack will open a world of BEV endurance racing and big rallies. Right now, Indycar and Formula 2 could be BEV, and manage the dame stint lengths. In Indycar it's quite short anyway. A higher level of engineering is needed, more encapsulated wheels. Fine for endurance, not sure FIA wants to put LMP2 looking cars in place of F2. Formula E is doing all it can to remain lame. Tiny fixed batteries, long races, tock hard tyres. Empty grandstands in the FE Seoul race, where such graat BEVs are designed.
I am 180° opposed to the climate rhetoric, CO2 obviously needs to remain high to prevent billions of us from starving. Climate was never stable anywhere, even on uninhabited planets next door. But I do love ve the efficiency and (potential) simplicity of electric drive. Batteries...a necessary evil, grossly barbaric compared to fuels that produce undiluted ready to eat plant food as main exhaust product. Less oil mess, less noise... I'm all for that. How do I get my lady into an EV though, she sense some electromagnetic radiation she's not having any of! I've come to learn better than to ignore her senses. At least EVs seem to work for those who like them.
Sooner we fly together Sir
Can't say I'm looking forward to millions of idiots who can't properly drive an automobile attempting to fly one. Even with the high bar of entry for private aviation, fatal mistakes are still regularly made. One of those things crashes in Manhattan, a dozen people are dead. Nobody has thought this through.
These aircraft won’t be made available or flown in the private client sector rich.
Batteries have to become 10x better first. Probability 100 years away.
Why keeping the narrative of batteries density capacity. I know it's important but the present technology of generating electricity will help to improve distance even better than petroleum fuel and that's a fact.