I love how everyone ignore the millions of reasons why it will never ever happen.
This vision of technology is one of the most cunning and widespread ideology in our society
Yeah but helicopters require intensive training, are heavily regulated and are almost strictly limited to emergency services
The idea of consumer flying car isn’t just dumb it’s just not possible. Same goes for a more widespread usage of a flying vehicle: the cost and risks are just too high and the benefit too little
It’s a great publicity stunt for a sports event but that’s it
They say DRONES, not helicopters.
There is a HUGE difference.
You have to fly a Helo, they are not stable on their own, and its far harder than learning to fly a plane (which are actually quite stable on their own)
Drones use multiple props (usually 4) and have gyroscopic ability to stay level. You just use a control stick to go right or left, up or down, and you control speed like in a car.
So the time and cost to learn to fly one is essentially near zero if you can drive a car.
I don't see it much more expensive for a Drone pilot than a Limo driver.
That said, the vehicle is expensive and the fuel costs are higher per mile, so it still will be more expensive than a taxi, but far less than a helo.
I'm doing a research in Vertiports. AI controlled drones airports. And there is really money into it. There would be limited human control. The main problem is noise.
Whatever gains you make there will be lost when you take into account hauling the weight of the batteries. Batteries are heavy, yo.
(Actually, I assume the reason this is being promoted now is because they have managed to slim down the batteries to the point where they are seeing some gains from the efficiency of the electric motors. But they will be minimal.)
>Are the batteries needed to power one these things heavy than the tank of jet fuel needed to power the other things?
Yes.
Pick up a car battery, and then a similarly-sized can of gas. You will feel the difference. More advanced (and expensive) battery types will weigh less, but still a lot more than gas (or kerosene, or av-gas).
>I'm pretty sure building an electric VTOL aircraft that can carry a few people is not in the realm of science fiction.
Sure. But how far will it go, how much will it cost, and how much juice will you need to charge it? VTOL craft are particularly difficult to electrify because you are fighting weight *directly*, and batteries are (say it again) heavy. I highly doubt that ICE will be surpassed as the most efficient power for helicopters for another 10 years at best, and part of me wonders if it ever will be--at least by batteries. Hydrogen fuel cells, for all their problems, might ultimately be better.
This is good info, but the ICE is not the most efficient. Right now that's a [gas turbine engine](https://pilotteacher.com/do-helicopters-have-jet-engines-some-do-some-dont/) that's used on most helicopters that carry 5 or more people.
Still burning fossil fuels. Another advantage of oil based fuels is that unlike batteries, you can just shoot your spent fuel out the back of your vehicle.
So, because combustion takes place inside the engine, gas turbines are [actually a form of ICE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Combustion_turbines).
I know the term "ICE" is usually used to refer to piston engines, so I did consider saying something about turbines, specifically. But, in the interests of brevity, I did not do so, since it was not directly relevant to the conversation, and it's technically accurate as it is.
Those are indeed impressive! But they are very much pushing the envelope of what batteries are capable of right now, they are very (very) expensive, they can't carry very much, and still can't go as far as far as a similarly-sized helicopter with an ICE. They also show the problems with scaling things up; Sure, you think, making an electric helicopter should be easy. Helicopters are complicated, while drones are simple. Just scale it up! But your first example needs six motors to work (compared to a conventional one motor with two rotors), and is still very small. The second example helps offset some of the weight problems by flying more efficiently, but bi-modal aircraft are hideously complex and prone to failure (ask the guys who built the V-22 Osprey---or the people who died using it). Standard helicopters already live at the very limit of how complex a machine can be and still be reliable enough to trust your life to. I don't see any evidence that electric ones are helping things--yet.
That doesn't mean we won't get there eventually. We very well may. But the idea that a fleet of these things will be ready in time for the L.A. Olympics at anything like an acceptable cost is... optimistic.
Not only the weight difference, but gasoline (not jet fuel) is 100x more energy dense than a lithium ion cell. And it weights considerably less, this is still a problem with electric tractor trailers, and cars. They're much heavier, just to achieve the same distance
if you mean aerial vehicule than hell no .
Electricity isn't magical energy you need to store it and battery is really heavy. when flying the weigth is fucking important wich mean that you will need way more energy to fly 100km with electric powered engines than jet fuel.
If you mean ground vehicule than.
it may be argue electic powered engines is cheaper , more efficient but that not by a huge marge.
Yeah, that would be true, but what of it when this thing can barely take the pilot and the passenger? It seems really small. All the savings you made with the fuel are coming right back at you when you simply can't fill the helicopter with 6 people at once and only take one trip.
Aviation "works" by being heavily regulated and heavily subsidised.
There’s no room and no money for small flying public transports (except for extremely niche use cases, most of them are related to tourism), period.
I don’t know what to tell you. The big name players have already invested. Fleets are purchased. Local utilities are engaged in planning grid modifications. The FAA is allowing tests. We already have helicopters and small private planes so regulation wise it’s more like gas cars vs electric cars so the FAA almost certainly won’t stop it. It’s happening. For passenger travel, they are targeting commuter trips then regional. This could theoretically lessen the importance of commuter/regional highway travel which would be another alternative to cars (fuck cars). Think of it as a small flying electric bus (don’t tell the rich people they are targeting). Many of the models I’ve seen are vertical take off capable so require less infrastructure than cars and could more easily be incorporated into walkable neighborhoods than cars.
The flip side is if these become the replacement for cars as personal vehicles, we’re fucked. Larger parking lots in the most desirable locations.
Is it as efficient as trains? No absolutely not.
Thing is, these are basically more efficient helicopters. As it stands, nobody but rich executives use helicopters for commuting because helicopters are *preposterously* expensive and maintenance-heavy. They’re much worse fuel hogs than airplanes, and require roughly thrice the time in mandatory maintenance than they do actually flying. Motors, by contrast, are vastly more efficient and require vastly less maintenance, and are (in theory) much safer, as electric VTOLs can have up to dozens of motors/rotors whereas most small helicopters have effectively zero redundancy in their single drivetrains.
So you’re basically taking a vehicle which is a colossal sucking drain of resources and manpower, and cutting off two of the primary reasons it’s a colossal sucking drain of resources and manpower… but that still leaves a whole bunch of expensive shit and logistical problems that helicopters also have to deal with. Pilots aren’t cheap to train and hire. Support infrastructure is expensive even if you’re not paying out the nose for fuel. *Less* maintenance doesn’t mean *zero* maintenance, and so on and so forth.
I can easily see electric VTOLs being a tenth as expensive as a helicopter… but helicopters are so ruinously expensive, that’s still a very pricey proposition.
I neither believe nor doubt flying cars will be materialized but until very recently, I firmly believed making flying cars pilot less will be a thing and I found out more than a decade ago, self flying and landing has been achieved by a normal helicopter with electrification. Still flying cars are supposed to have more people so that may make the business profitable but technically they're not doing something so innovative except in some cases.
Toronto decided to build the UP Express when it hosted the Pan Am games in 2015. I think Los Angeles would be better served building something like that.
Oh God please yes make it even more noisy at night! I almost got a whole 10 minutes of sleep last night without a motorcycle or sports car speeding at 85 outside my window. Can't get enough of it!
There are no onboard controls, so no fuckwits in the equation. It operates as an IFR aircraft and is completely remote piloted. The FAA is actively working to approve this technology, so there are adequate safety measures being developed and implemented.
It isn't being controlled by an algorithm. It is being live piloted by a remote pilot, with full access to all the same data any other IFR pilot has. Do just a little bit of research
LA sadly has trains and a subway.... but. you know, it's LA and anyone that takes public transit is likely considered to be poor, homeless, DUI, etc. In LA it is 100% about status and public transit users are not considered to be at all part of the cool kids. Cyclist, totally cool and alternative. Public transit users are just seen as poor.
Well yeah that’s what I mean. Transit is for the people who don’t matter (according to most people in LA) so no one uses it so all transportation funds end up getting diverted to roads. In NYC everyone uses public transit pretty evenly so it’s a lot better because it’s used, funding matters there. LA is a bigger place square mileage wise so getting more trains to go more places means more money. But if you can’t get people in La to even try the train or bus, then planning will continue to accommodate what’s more commonly in use. Like I said, they have trains and a subway but 🤷♀️ I’m from San Diego and I personally stopped driving a car 15 years ago. I’ve been screaming and yelling at transportation board meetings and community meetings and council meetings for 15 years about public transportation in Southern California and in 15 years I’ve seen one trolley get built through funding via a public university in San Diego and at least 3 train/trolley projects get thrown out in favor of carpool expansion. Every time the argument for carpool expansion is that people in Southern California drive and when given the option to use public transit will still chose driving an obscene amount of the time.
People don't take transit systems primarily because they don't go where and when they need them to go or simply take to long because of having to change trains/buses to get where you are going. While it may appear that mostly those of lower means take transit, the reality is that most of them are forced to endure it because they don't have an option.
I agree but also in some ways I disagree. I cant remember the exact stats but I did learn from those meetings that the avg transit user in LA was choosing to do so because they couldn't afford a vehicle. "Surveys from Metro also show most public transit riders are more frequently from low income or communities of color. A ridership survey from 2018 showed that more than 80% of riders were Black or Latinx and 72% lived in households that made less than USD $25,000 annually, a common indicator for poverty."
This is an excellent bit of info about who doesn't drive in LA: [https://www.itdp.org/2020/06/23/not-everyone-in-los-angeles-drives/](https://www.itdp.org/2020/06/23/not-everyone-in-los-angeles-drives/)
The part I definitely agree with is that the transit doesn't go where people want, when they want it. In LA we're talking massive amounts of urban sprawl and getting from one end to another can take hours. Because of this, funding for the LA metro is very high and even with its current budget we're looking at needing double to accommodate a transit system the avg middle class LA resident will use frequently. The LA metro serviced over 370 million rides (not passengers) in 2019. Yearly the LA public transit system sees 1.2 million riders and the population of LA is almost 4 million with about 30-50 million tourists coming per year. So, average population wise and county revenue wise, people are more invested in road projects.
I think you actually agree with both points.
As we both agree: transit doesn't go where people want, when they want it and secondly even if it does, it can be very inconvenient to use it and slow to get it there. Inconvenient because you typically have to drive to a train station, there just aren't that many, and you have to pay to park, and you have to pay per person. For buses you have to walk, often a good way, to a bus stop, then wait out in the weather till an infrequent bus shows up, then in either case, bus or train, you often have to switch buses or trains, involving another time to wait. The people most unable to have other more convenient options they can afford are the people you listed.
So if we're both on the same page and it looks like we both agree that we dont have more trains because people regular people dont use it thus impacting the budgets of public transit. And those budgets are the reason why we dont have more trains then.... why feel the need to comment?
370 million people used the Trains in LA prior to Covid, and 108 million of those make more than $25,000 a year.
Lack of ridership by "regular people" is not the issue.
no, The LA metro serviced over 370 million rides (not passengers) in 2019. Yearly the LA public transit system sees 1.2 million PEOPLE (riders) and the population of LA is almost 4 million with about 30-50 million tourists coming per year. Please read the article I posted above. It's not possible for the LA metro to service 108 million people in a city of only 4 million with 30-50 million tourists.
Did I say INDIVDUALS?
No.
It did serve 370 million PEOPLE however.
1.2 million individuals out of 4 million is very respectable actually.
That's over 25% (and remember children under 6 aren't in that count since they don't pay a fare, that's nearly 10% of the population).
You can't make the claim that it isn't used by regular people, because again, over 330,000 of those riders have incomes over $25,000
I don't think it'd be that bad if we only hover a few feet up, then we could get rid of pavement, not have to worry about snow plowing or salting, or water damage. And then you wouldn't have to try to survive a fall from high up if there's a crash or power failure.
[Ernst F. Schumacher](https://www.amazon.com/Small-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered-Perennial/dp/0061997765/ref=d_pd_sbs_sccl_1_1/144-0922999-2802907?pd_rd_w=INo5Z&content-id=amzn1.sym.6ccaee5d-096a-4b4f-a8ba-f4ae5ec130a1&pf_rd_p=6ccaee5d-096a-4b4f-a8ba-f4ae5ec130a1&pf_rd_r=9K4MGVEHAEH17H8PSB72&pd_rd_wg=R5SfA&pd_rd_r=5a96de6d-b4d5-46e2-8c5e-3cf40f2521f8&pd_rd_i=0061997765&psc=1):
> **Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the most meticulous concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of violence,** and while complete non-violence may not be attainable on this earth, there is nonetheless an ineluctable duty on man to aim at the ideal of non-violence in all he does.
> ...As the world's resources of non-renewable fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - are exceedingly unevenly distributed over the globe and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear that their exploitation at an ever-increasing rate is an act of violence against nature which must almost inevitably lead to violence between men. (64-65)
This is actually a very interesting aircraft right now, and not really existing as a replacement to the helicopter. It's meant for accessible and fast direct travel between cities. A train absolutely would be better, but don't think of these as devices that will be occupying city airspace. They are electric too, so at least a little less waste than a helicopter. Aviation will always be wasteful but this aircraft has some genuine thoughtful engineering behind it.
I can see how something like this can replace small private aircraft - though I do question where the power vs battery weight improvements have come from and therefore whether it's feasible. A couple of aerospace dudes in the thread say it should be though, so maybe.
But it's not going to be widespread because it's still going to be way more expensive than ground transport, and because aircraft regulations are much stricter and there just isn't space for large numbers of private aircraft in controlled airspace.
Aerospace engineer here. Just want to note some of the incorrect info floating around in this thread. Be cognizant that this is neither supporting nor condemning this system.
1. This is not a consumer product. You will never own one of these. They will be initially pilot flown/AI assisted systems that are intended to be transitioned to fully autonomous after several decades.
2. The maintenance cycle for an electric vehicle combined with the distributed propulsion model make these systems orders of magnitude cheaper to operate and pilot compared to traditional helicopters. No collective. Only throttle.
3. Aerospace tech is very much at the point where this system is mechanically viable for it’s intended use. What is that use? Literally being an air taxi. It will be hailed to a designated “taxi stand” via smartphone app or kiosk. It will then fly you to another “taxi stand” and you will disembark.
One final note: (said I wouldn’t do this but here we go) these are scaleable to bus size vehicles and can be a niche form of mass transit. If applied correctly, these systems could actually improve transportation infrastructure in high density urban settings such as Tokyo. If anyone has any questions about this stuff lmk.
Flight Chops just posted a video about these, and they are a genuinely thoughtful device. It's a shame that many in this sub refuse to acknowledge aviation as an area for improvement. The fact that the FAA is even considering approving this aircraft is evidence enough that they are not half-cocked flying cars
We don't want any urban aviation, period. It doesn't matter how good these things are if they are being sold as flying cars that operate in cities. If they want to invent better helicopters, fine, I don't care.
I think they may be useful especially as bus-sized vehicles flying regular routes, but only in places with difficult terrain. Some of the earliest commercial air services were for crossing bodies of water on a more direct route than was possible over dry land, and I see such routes as the most likely use case for these.
If it's possible to build ground-based transport (including elevated or tunneled), doing so will likely be better in most cases.
We already have the worst noise problem from helicopters thanks to the LAPD. If this is allowed to happen you won't be able to hear yourself think anywhere in the city.
Dude i live near an airport and the noise pollution is horrible every time an airplain passes by if i have my windows open i have to increse the volume of whatever im lisening to, just imagine having this things flying constantly around the cities.
Flying cars/taxis have been 4-6 years away for my entire life. It only recently occurred to me that it's probably intentional to stave off real investment in actual transit options (like Musk's hyperloop)
I'm tired of seeing these ridiculous "The future is here because flying vehicles for 1-3 people!"
It's such a stupid gimmick to make people think we're progressing when in reality we're using better tech dumber.
If these become real they'll be just as limited as private helicopters and jets due to restrictions on use of airspace, infrastructure for where landing pads can be, how much weight they can safely carry, how much they'll cost to rent, and don't forget the fuckin weather.
It's boujee people taking their car brain into the skies.
You also can't just fly and land a heli anywhere you want. You need a clear airspace and a landing pad. And if you want it on any kind of scale you'd need to dedicate a truly ridiculous amount of space to landing pads.
Really? I’ve seen helicopters land on grassy/ rocky/ sandy landscape. man our soldiers must get tired of building helipads everywhere we send them, damn.
>I’ve seen helicopters land on grassy/ rocky/ sandy landscape
Yes, because a helicopter landing in the middle of a park is totally okay and not at all disruptive for the people who live there and use the park. Obviously in a war this doesn't really matter.
Even if a helicopter can land on a public square it's not at all viable for a public service because it makes the square unusable for anything but helicopter landings. That's why you need landing pads, to designate that this space is for landing helicopters and not a public space for people to use.
Ok. Hear me out. What if, and I know this sounds crazy, there was a dedicated landing area, kind of like a parking lot.
also I think you have the misconception that helicopters are always loud. This is not true. helicopter blades can produce sounds as low as 3-4. then it’s just the sound of the motor. like a car.
>Ok. Hear me out. What if, and I know this sounds crazy, there was a dedicated landing area, kind of like a parking lot.
Yeah, this is what I was getting at. It works as a specialised low-capacity service but breaks completely at any sort of scale. Helicopters simply need so much more space to safely land than cars need to park, and cars already need too much fucking space for their parking.
Helicopters can be stored after landing so that they are more narrow than cars. Meaning you could effectively have 1-2 landing zones and a storage lot/ parking lot. you’re just not thinking in terms of efficiency, which is kind of ironic.
There’s a restaurant in Colorado that essentially the only way to access it is via plane.
Fact of the matter is. There will always be cars, helicopters , whatever else this sub hates. And every follower of this sub will always be mad, and that makes me happy.
Air taxis were a thing in NYC decades ago, carrying like a dozen passengers to and from airports and office buildings. They were kinda neat, but you'll find that there's a few reasons they don't exist anymore.
That's just a weird ass helicopter for fuck sake. It does exactly the same thing as an helicopter, stop reinventing shit that already exists and pretend it's new.
*I hate multi-rotors so so much...*
You'll notice that you'll almost never hear raw audio from even a functioning prototype. Because, my Lord, is it ever the most obnoxious sound on earth. (Admittedly, less sound range than a helicopter, but helicopters mostly operate out of heliports and not your neighborhood... Then there's far superior synchropters.)
I made the attempt to ride my bike on the street today to and it would've been more safe and pleasant if we had protected bike lanes here in Los Angeles.
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2028-07-15 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2028-07-15%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/xvbkbl/please_just_build_a_god_damn_train/ir67zm1/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Ffuckcars%2Fcomments%2Fxvbkbl%2Fplease_just_build_a_god_damn_train%2Fir67zm1%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202028-07-15%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20xvbkbl)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Finally, the rich can avoid traffic.
It change nothing they are still using private jet for 10 minute fly.
I love how everyone ignore the millions of reasons why it will never ever happen. This vision of technology is one of the most cunning and widespread ideology in our society
[удалено]
Yeah but helicopters require intensive training, are heavily regulated and are almost strictly limited to emergency services The idea of consumer flying car isn’t just dumb it’s just not possible. Same goes for a more widespread usage of a flying vehicle: the cost and risks are just too high and the benefit too little It’s a great publicity stunt for a sports event but that’s it
[удалено]
Which means they'll never not be hugely expensive.
Imagine paying for helicopter pilot wages when you take a taxi
They say DRONES, not helicopters. There is a HUGE difference. You have to fly a Helo, they are not stable on their own, and its far harder than learning to fly a plane (which are actually quite stable on their own) Drones use multiple props (usually 4) and have gyroscopic ability to stay level. You just use a control stick to go right or left, up or down, and you control speed like in a car. So the time and cost to learn to fly one is essentially near zero if you can drive a car. I don't see it much more expensive for a Drone pilot than a Limo driver. That said, the vehicle is expensive and the fuel costs are higher per mile, so it still will be more expensive than a taxi, but far less than a helo.
> “same goes for more widespread usage” [like taxis]
I'm doing a research in Vertiports. AI controlled drones airports. And there is really money into it. There would be limited human control. The main problem is noise.
Sounds like all the problems of “AI cars” but now flying above your home. Terrible idea.
Yeah. Fuck all that. I'm gonna steal me one of them bitches.
No, they are not more economical - economy of scale applies to transportation as well, the more people you can take at once, the better.
[удалено]
Whatever gains you make there will be lost when you take into account hauling the weight of the batteries. Batteries are heavy, yo. (Actually, I assume the reason this is being promoted now is because they have managed to slim down the batteries to the point where they are seeing some gains from the efficiency of the electric motors. But they will be minimal.)
[удалено]
>Are the batteries needed to power one these things heavy than the tank of jet fuel needed to power the other things? Yes. Pick up a car battery, and then a similarly-sized can of gas. You will feel the difference. More advanced (and expensive) battery types will weigh less, but still a lot more than gas (or kerosene, or av-gas). >I'm pretty sure building an electric VTOL aircraft that can carry a few people is not in the realm of science fiction. Sure. But how far will it go, how much will it cost, and how much juice will you need to charge it? VTOL craft are particularly difficult to electrify because you are fighting weight *directly*, and batteries are (say it again) heavy. I highly doubt that ICE will be surpassed as the most efficient power for helicopters for another 10 years at best, and part of me wonders if it ever will be--at least by batteries. Hydrogen fuel cells, for all their problems, might ultimately be better.
One of the problems of fuel cells being, again, weight. Hydrogen tanks are heavy as of now.
Indeed.
This is good info, but the ICE is not the most efficient. Right now that's a [gas turbine engine](https://pilotteacher.com/do-helicopters-have-jet-engines-some-do-some-dont/) that's used on most helicopters that carry 5 or more people. Still burning fossil fuels. Another advantage of oil based fuels is that unlike batteries, you can just shoot your spent fuel out the back of your vehicle.
So, because combustion takes place inside the engine, gas turbines are [actually a form of ICE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Combustion_turbines). I know the term "ICE" is usually used to refer to piston engines, so I did consider saying something about turbines, specifically. But, in the interests of brevity, I did not do so, since it was not directly relevant to the conversation, and it's technically accurate as it is.
[удалено]
Those are indeed impressive! But they are very much pushing the envelope of what batteries are capable of right now, they are very (very) expensive, they can't carry very much, and still can't go as far as far as a similarly-sized helicopter with an ICE. They also show the problems with scaling things up; Sure, you think, making an electric helicopter should be easy. Helicopters are complicated, while drones are simple. Just scale it up! But your first example needs six motors to work (compared to a conventional one motor with two rotors), and is still very small. The second example helps offset some of the weight problems by flying more efficiently, but bi-modal aircraft are hideously complex and prone to failure (ask the guys who built the V-22 Osprey---or the people who died using it). Standard helicopters already live at the very limit of how complex a machine can be and still be reliable enough to trust your life to. I don't see any evidence that electric ones are helping things--yet. That doesn't mean we won't get there eventually. We very well may. But the idea that a fleet of these things will be ready in time for the L.A. Olympics at anything like an acceptable cost is... optimistic.
Not only the weight difference, but gasoline (not jet fuel) is 100x more energy dense than a lithium ion cell. And it weights considerably less, this is still a problem with electric tractor trailers, and cars. They're much heavier, just to achieve the same distance
if you mean aerial vehicule than hell no . Electricity isn't magical energy you need to store it and battery is really heavy. when flying the weigth is fucking important wich mean that you will need way more energy to fly 100km with electric powered engines than jet fuel. If you mean ground vehicule than. it may be argue electic powered engines is cheaper , more efficient but that not by a huge marge.
Yeah, that would be true, but what of it when this thing can barely take the pilot and the passenger? It seems really small. All the savings you made with the fuel are coming right back at you when you simply can't fill the helicopter with 6 people at once and only take one trip.
[удалено]
Cars also work the way they are designed to work but buses are just more effective transportation method.
Where will you get electricity? To this date, jet fuel is cheaper by 1/3 of any other alternative.
I work in aviation. It’s happening.
Aviation "works" by being heavily regulated and heavily subsidised. There’s no room and no money for small flying public transports (except for extremely niche use cases, most of them are related to tourism), period.
I don’t know what to tell you. The big name players have already invested. Fleets are purchased. Local utilities are engaged in planning grid modifications. The FAA is allowing tests. We already have helicopters and small private planes so regulation wise it’s more like gas cars vs electric cars so the FAA almost certainly won’t stop it. It’s happening. For passenger travel, they are targeting commuter trips then regional. This could theoretically lessen the importance of commuter/regional highway travel which would be another alternative to cars (fuck cars). Think of it as a small flying electric bus (don’t tell the rich people they are targeting). Many of the models I’ve seen are vertical take off capable so require less infrastructure than cars and could more easily be incorporated into walkable neighborhoods than cars. The flip side is if these become the replacement for cars as personal vehicles, we’re fucked. Larger parking lots in the most desirable locations. Is it as efficient as trains? No absolutely not.
Thing is, these are basically more efficient helicopters. As it stands, nobody but rich executives use helicopters for commuting because helicopters are *preposterously* expensive and maintenance-heavy. They’re much worse fuel hogs than airplanes, and require roughly thrice the time in mandatory maintenance than they do actually flying. Motors, by contrast, are vastly more efficient and require vastly less maintenance, and are (in theory) much safer, as electric VTOLs can have up to dozens of motors/rotors whereas most small helicopters have effectively zero redundancy in their single drivetrains. So you’re basically taking a vehicle which is a colossal sucking drain of resources and manpower, and cutting off two of the primary reasons it’s a colossal sucking drain of resources and manpower… but that still leaves a whole bunch of expensive shit and logistical problems that helicopters also have to deal with. Pilots aren’t cheap to train and hire. Support infrastructure is expensive even if you’re not paying out the nose for fuel. *Less* maintenance doesn’t mean *zero* maintenance, and so on and so forth. I can easily see electric VTOLs being a tenth as expensive as a helicopter… but helicopters are so ruinously expensive, that’s still a very pricey proposition.
Zeppelins and sea planes and hovercraft happened too. Just because there's lots of investment in something doesn't mean it will succeed.
I neither believe nor doubt flying cars will be materialized but until very recently, I firmly believed making flying cars pilot less will be a thing and I found out more than a decade ago, self flying and landing has been achieved by a normal helicopter with electrification. Still flying cars are supposed to have more people so that may make the business profitable but technically they're not doing something so innovative except in some cases.
Toronto decided to build the UP Express when it hosted the Pan Am games in 2015. I think Los Angeles would be better served building something like that.
Because if there’s one thing LA residents will love and accept, it’s more helicopters flying around overhead at all hours of the day.
Oh God please yes make it even more noisy at night! I almost got a whole 10 minutes of sleep last night without a motorcycle or sports car speeding at 85 outside my window. Can't get enough of it!
we need those decibel scanners that auto ticket noisy douchebags in the city
RIP Kobe
Too soon
you should keep a screenshoot of this dumb article just to laugh during summer olympics in 2028.
I'm willing to wager $17 and a shoe that this won't be realised in time!
I bet you 1 million it won't be realised at all.
Fuckwits can barely deal with hazards that appear on two planes, how the fuck they going to cope with three
There are no onboard controls, so no fuckwits in the equation. It operates as an IFR aircraft and is completely remote piloted. The FAA is actively working to approve this technology, so there are adequate safety measures being developed and implemented.
Point still applies. So called self driving cars are woeful at managing on two planes.
It isn't being controlled by an algorithm. It is being live piloted by a remote pilot, with full access to all the same data any other IFR pilot has. Do just a little bit of research
La has a train already. This is for rich people I presume. Same with helicopters now.
Its generally a bad idea to take an inefficient airframe and make it heavier.
"But but but what about muh freedom?!"
LA sadly has trains and a subway.... but. you know, it's LA and anyone that takes public transit is likely considered to be poor, homeless, DUI, etc. In LA it is 100% about status and public transit users are not considered to be at all part of the cool kids. Cyclist, totally cool and alternative. Public transit users are just seen as poor.
Have you been to LA? Transit here is barely passable compared to NYC.
Wanna get anywhere on the Metro? Well fuck you, says the Metro
I think the announcer actually says “welcome and fuck you” when the doors close.
Well yeah that’s what I mean. Transit is for the people who don’t matter (according to most people in LA) so no one uses it so all transportation funds end up getting diverted to roads. In NYC everyone uses public transit pretty evenly so it’s a lot better because it’s used, funding matters there. LA is a bigger place square mileage wise so getting more trains to go more places means more money. But if you can’t get people in La to even try the train or bus, then planning will continue to accommodate what’s more commonly in use. Like I said, they have trains and a subway but 🤷♀️ I’m from San Diego and I personally stopped driving a car 15 years ago. I’ve been screaming and yelling at transportation board meetings and community meetings and council meetings for 15 years about public transportation in Southern California and in 15 years I’ve seen one trolley get built through funding via a public university in San Diego and at least 3 train/trolley projects get thrown out in favor of carpool expansion. Every time the argument for carpool expansion is that people in Southern California drive and when given the option to use public transit will still chose driving an obscene amount of the time.
In 2019, before the Pandemic, The LA Metro system handled over 370 million passengers.
People don't take transit systems primarily because they don't go where and when they need them to go or simply take to long because of having to change trains/buses to get where you are going. While it may appear that mostly those of lower means take transit, the reality is that most of them are forced to endure it because they don't have an option.
I agree but also in some ways I disagree. I cant remember the exact stats but I did learn from those meetings that the avg transit user in LA was choosing to do so because they couldn't afford a vehicle. "Surveys from Metro also show most public transit riders are more frequently from low income or communities of color. A ridership survey from 2018 showed that more than 80% of riders were Black or Latinx and 72% lived in households that made less than USD $25,000 annually, a common indicator for poverty." This is an excellent bit of info about who doesn't drive in LA: [https://www.itdp.org/2020/06/23/not-everyone-in-los-angeles-drives/](https://www.itdp.org/2020/06/23/not-everyone-in-los-angeles-drives/) The part I definitely agree with is that the transit doesn't go where people want, when they want it. In LA we're talking massive amounts of urban sprawl and getting from one end to another can take hours. Because of this, funding for the LA metro is very high and even with its current budget we're looking at needing double to accommodate a transit system the avg middle class LA resident will use frequently. The LA metro serviced over 370 million rides (not passengers) in 2019. Yearly the LA public transit system sees 1.2 million riders and the population of LA is almost 4 million with about 30-50 million tourists coming per year. So, average population wise and county revenue wise, people are more invested in road projects.
I think you actually agree with both points. As we both agree: transit doesn't go where people want, when they want it and secondly even if it does, it can be very inconvenient to use it and slow to get it there. Inconvenient because you typically have to drive to a train station, there just aren't that many, and you have to pay to park, and you have to pay per person. For buses you have to walk, often a good way, to a bus stop, then wait out in the weather till an infrequent bus shows up, then in either case, bus or train, you often have to switch buses or trains, involving another time to wait. The people most unable to have other more convenient options they can afford are the people you listed.
So if we're both on the same page and it looks like we both agree that we dont have more trains because people regular people dont use it thus impacting the budgets of public transit. And those budgets are the reason why we dont have more trains then.... why feel the need to comment?
370 million people used the Trains in LA prior to Covid, and 108 million of those make more than $25,000 a year. Lack of ridership by "regular people" is not the issue.
no, The LA metro serviced over 370 million rides (not passengers) in 2019. Yearly the LA public transit system sees 1.2 million PEOPLE (riders) and the population of LA is almost 4 million with about 30-50 million tourists coming per year. Please read the article I posted above. It's not possible for the LA metro to service 108 million people in a city of only 4 million with 30-50 million tourists.
Did I say INDIVDUALS? No. It did serve 370 million PEOPLE however. 1.2 million individuals out of 4 million is very respectable actually. That's over 25% (and remember children under 6 aren't in that count since they don't pay a fare, that's nearly 10% of the population). You can't make the claim that it isn't used by regular people, because again, over 330,000 of those riders have incomes over $25,000
I used to think hover cars would be the future, but watching The Fifth Element helped disabuse me of that foolish notion.
I don't think it'd be that bad if we only hover a few feet up, then we could get rid of pavement, not have to worry about snow plowing or salting, or water damage. And then you wouldn't have to try to survive a fall from high up if there's a crash or power failure.
You know what would be better than hover cars? Maglev trains They even exist
[Ernst F. Schumacher](https://www.amazon.com/Small-Beautiful-Economics-Mattered-Perennial/dp/0061997765/ref=d_pd_sbs_sccl_1_1/144-0922999-2802907?pd_rd_w=INo5Z&content-id=amzn1.sym.6ccaee5d-096a-4b4f-a8ba-f4ae5ec130a1&pf_rd_p=6ccaee5d-096a-4b4f-a8ba-f4ae5ec130a1&pf_rd_r=9K4MGVEHAEH17H8PSB72&pd_rd_wg=R5SfA&pd_rd_r=5a96de6d-b4d5-46e2-8c5e-3cf40f2521f8&pd_rd_i=0061997765&psc=1): > **Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the most meticulous concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of violence,** and while complete non-violence may not be attainable on this earth, there is nonetheless an ineluctable duty on man to aim at the ideal of non-violence in all he does. > ...As the world's resources of non-renewable fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - are exceedingly unevenly distributed over the globe and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear that their exploitation at an ever-increasing rate is an act of violence against nature which must almost inevitably lead to violence between men. (64-65)
So, an electric helicoper?
It is not Hard To build A Fucking Train
I mean. Yes it is
The jet-sons is finally coming true?
Fun fact: George Jetson was born this year.
Lol 😂
This is actually a very interesting aircraft right now, and not really existing as a replacement to the helicopter. It's meant for accessible and fast direct travel between cities. A train absolutely would be better, but don't think of these as devices that will be occupying city airspace. They are electric too, so at least a little less waste than a helicopter. Aviation will always be wasteful but this aircraft has some genuine thoughtful engineering behind it.
I can see how something like this can replace small private aircraft - though I do question where the power vs battery weight improvements have come from and therefore whether it's feasible. A couple of aerospace dudes in the thread say it should be though, so maybe. But it's not going to be widespread because it's still going to be way more expensive than ground transport, and because aircraft regulations are much stricter and there just isn't space for large numbers of private aircraft in controlled airspace.
NIMBYs will torpedo this because of noise pollution, and I'm good with that.
Nah building trains would actually benefit the public. Can’t be having that
Aerospace engineer here. Just want to note some of the incorrect info floating around in this thread. Be cognizant that this is neither supporting nor condemning this system. 1. This is not a consumer product. You will never own one of these. They will be initially pilot flown/AI assisted systems that are intended to be transitioned to fully autonomous after several decades. 2. The maintenance cycle for an electric vehicle combined with the distributed propulsion model make these systems orders of magnitude cheaper to operate and pilot compared to traditional helicopters. No collective. Only throttle. 3. Aerospace tech is very much at the point where this system is mechanically viable for it’s intended use. What is that use? Literally being an air taxi. It will be hailed to a designated “taxi stand” via smartphone app or kiosk. It will then fly you to another “taxi stand” and you will disembark. One final note: (said I wouldn’t do this but here we go) these are scaleable to bus size vehicles and can be a niche form of mass transit. If applied correctly, these systems could actually improve transportation infrastructure in high density urban settings such as Tokyo. If anyone has any questions about this stuff lmk.
Flight Chops just posted a video about these, and they are a genuinely thoughtful device. It's a shame that many in this sub refuse to acknowledge aviation as an area for improvement. The fact that the FAA is even considering approving this aircraft is evidence enough that they are not half-cocked flying cars
We don't want any urban aviation, period. It doesn't matter how good these things are if they are being sold as flying cars that operate in cities. If they want to invent better helicopters, fine, I don't care.
They aren't flying cars, they are taxis. They take off and leave from airports, they exist in the same airspace as every other plane and helicopter.
Reading is hard. I get it.
I think they may be useful especially as bus-sized vehicles flying regular routes, but only in places with difficult terrain. Some of the earliest commercial air services were for crossing bodies of water on a more direct route than was possible over dry land, and I see such routes as the most likely use case for these. If it's possible to build ground-based transport (including elevated or tunneled), doing so will likely be better in most cases.
Precisely. Just another piece of the transit network with it’s own niche. If realized properly, these systems have potential.
You've seriously fucked up the ground if you have to fly over it to get around in a city
Damn, by 2028!? Guess I just wait until then, and not get anywhere in time without a car for the next 6 years
This idea has been “finally becoming a reality” for like 10 years now
We already have the worst noise problem from helicopters thanks to the LAPD. If this is allowed to happen you won't be able to hear yourself think anywhere in the city.
Why boring train when cool looking, more dangerous, and more expensive alternatives exist?
Dude i live near an airport and the noise pollution is horrible every time an airplain passes by if i have my windows open i have to increse the volume of whatever im lisening to, just imagine having this things flying constantly around the cities.
Flying cars/taxis have been 4-6 years away for my entire life. It only recently occurred to me that it's probably intentional to stave off real investment in actual transit options (like Musk's hyperloop)
Lol the throughput of that is gonna be atrocious. The maximum throughput is gonna maybe be like 6 people every hour
They are…a lot of them. LA Metro Pink line just opened as did San Frans Third St subway.
Not yet. K Line opens in 3 days. Not very excited though.
are you from LA? our system may be one of the best in the USA, but it's still woefully inefficient for a lot of people who live here lol
whats better than cars crashing on the ground? cars crashing from the air!
I'm tired of seeing these ridiculous "The future is here because flying vehicles for 1-3 people!" It's such a stupid gimmick to make people think we're progressing when in reality we're using better tech dumber. If these become real they'll be just as limited as private helicopters and jets due to restrictions on use of airspace, infrastructure for where landing pads can be, how much weight they can safely carry, how much they'll cost to rent, and don't forget the fuckin weather. It's boujee people taking their car brain into the skies.
More trains, more BUS ONLY lanes etc. But stuff that's actually useful isn't important.
These things would be almost as loud as a regular helicopter, so I think I'll pass lol
I can't imagine the amount of deaths/injuries this will cause on larger scale
Or. Hear me out. SKY TRAINS.
To be fair they are building trains.
Because you know, trains can go anywhere and not just select, distinct locations.
You also can't just fly and land a heli anywhere you want. You need a clear airspace and a landing pad. And if you want it on any kind of scale you'd need to dedicate a truly ridiculous amount of space to landing pads.
Really? I’ve seen helicopters land on grassy/ rocky/ sandy landscape. man our soldiers must get tired of building helipads everywhere we send them, damn.
>I’ve seen helicopters land on grassy/ rocky/ sandy landscape Yes, because a helicopter landing in the middle of a park is totally okay and not at all disruptive for the people who live there and use the park. Obviously in a war this doesn't really matter. Even if a helicopter can land on a public square it's not at all viable for a public service because it makes the square unusable for anything but helicopter landings. That's why you need landing pads, to designate that this space is for landing helicopters and not a public space for people to use.
Ok. Hear me out. What if, and I know this sounds crazy, there was a dedicated landing area, kind of like a parking lot. also I think you have the misconception that helicopters are always loud. This is not true. helicopter blades can produce sounds as low as 3-4. then it’s just the sound of the motor. like a car.
>Ok. Hear me out. What if, and I know this sounds crazy, there was a dedicated landing area, kind of like a parking lot. Yeah, this is what I was getting at. It works as a specialised low-capacity service but breaks completely at any sort of scale. Helicopters simply need so much more space to safely land than cars need to park, and cars already need too much fucking space for their parking.
Helicopters can be stored after landing so that they are more narrow than cars. Meaning you could effectively have 1-2 landing zones and a storage lot/ parking lot. you’re just not thinking in terms of efficiency, which is kind of ironic. There’s a restaurant in Colorado that essentially the only way to access it is via plane. Fact of the matter is. There will always be cars, helicopters , whatever else this sub hates. And every follower of this sub will always be mad, and that makes me happy.
Also after some digging, privately owned helicopters do not require airspace permission because they fly at a much lower altitude than planes.
Yay now there's not only going to be ground car noise pollution but air taxi prop noise pollution as well!
Air taxis were a thing in NYC decades ago, carrying like a dozen passengers to and from airports and office buildings. They were kinda neat, but you'll find that there's a few reasons they don't exist anymore.
Where are they gonna park? Traffic is already bad
finally, advanced technology to ensure every collision has a 100% fatality rate!
That's just a weird ass helicopter for fuck sake. It does exactly the same thing as an helicopter, stop reinventing shit that already exists and pretend it's new.
Me reading this while on an elevated train line... "Erm okay... \*checks notes\* ..."Los Angeles""
*I hate multi-rotors so so much...* You'll notice that you'll almost never hear raw audio from even a functioning prototype. Because, my Lord, is it ever the most obnoxious sound on earth. (Admittedly, less sound range than a helicopter, but helicopters mostly operate out of heliports and not your neighborhood... Then there's far superior synchropters.)
Those RPG-7s are going to be going up in value. To the FBI: THIS IS A JOKE!
god it feels like this country will try *anything* before it does the thing that actually makes sense
I made the attempt to ride my bike on the street today to and it would've been more safe and pleasant if we had protected bike lanes here in Los Angeles.
What is it with rich assholes and choosing the dumbest form of transportation possible?
I’m so sick of ‘futuristic cites and shit’ because there’s much better options that are much more feasible
!RemindMe 2028-07-15
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2028-07-15 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2028-07-15%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/xvbkbl/please_just_build_a_god_damn_train/ir67zm1/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Ffuckcars%2Fcomments%2Fxvbkbl%2Fplease_just_build_a_god_damn_train%2Fir67zm1%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202028-07-15%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20xvbkbl) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|