13:39 "I'm talking to folks who built an airplane from scratch". No, they stole the design from Wisk. Now some of them may feel that they "took their design with them", but it wasn't their dime. Wisk / Boeing's theft of trade secrets lawsuit against Archer starts Jan 2023.

You totally did not hide your maker intuition of death standing in the path of that propeller. Lol I thought it too before you cleared your throat. Kinda cool to see engineering instinct in subucneious body language. Also THANK YOU FOR DOING EVERYTHING YOU DO!

I’m of the same gen as Adam, we were, quite literally, promised flying cars “by the turn of the century”. All I got for Y2K was a night of sitting in a data center, waiting for the world to end. They didn’t even give me that.

I want a modern day model T..., Something simple and affordable.

@@timothywalsh1001 What you're looking for is a bus pass

@@timothywalsh1001 yes but after T’s saturated the market, it lost out to cars with headlights, heaters, windshield wipers, more power. . . .

@@gearandalthefirst7027 What I'm ACTUALLY DESIGNING ... is a platform for commercial use. For everything & everyone. For daily commute, for work, for families, for business and trades. ... Btw... I'm 59, and wrote a thesis about oil 42yrs AGO !! I retired from the liquefied gasses field before I was 50. Few of the college classes I took were ecology, meteorology, geology WHEN I WAS 10 !! ... Why is there always some jerk, who knows nothing speaking out ? I'm tired of being polite... whilst "know-nothings" spew BS. ... -"the Gadget" ... most ppl don't even know my real name.

Now now, trains would just make too much sense.

Envisioning it as a viable alternative is the issue, thats not to say there isn’t ventures to provide mass market as well.

Capitalism wants you to throw money at a problem instead of thinking about how to actually solve it.

We don't need a you tube channel named: Idiots in flying cars....

I don't know who they think they're kidding. Adam goffed at it too.

You are correct. While we are focusing on urban air mobility, the applications for eVTOL technology expand far beyond the scope of UAM. It's going to be an exciting future for our industry!

You could get your groceries from somewhere 50km away in 15 min, not bad. Visiting my parents would be just about in range and cut the time from 1h to 25 minutes.

While in the urban environment such an apparatus would land on fixed locations, in a countryside the choice of landing spot is a non trivial task and is hardly doable by autonomous vehicle or person without proper qualification. That is one thing that makes it less likely to happen in a near future. The range is another problem. Urban areas tend to be quite compact. Shorter flights make electric vehicles less atrociously inefficient in that regard. I am sure that kind of aircraft can be adapted to winter conditions. But deicing adds quite a bit of complexity and risks. California in a summer is kinda hothouse conditions. Canada and Alaska are totally different place.

That will almost certainly never happen. If there was enough demand for rural transport to make operating a fleet of these bad boys commercially viable, a bus operator could come in and undercut you by 50%. Operating any kind of aircraft is always going to be massively more expensive than operating a six-seater minibus or similar. You can already "call for a flight instead" - helicopters exist. You don't do that because of the cost, not because a solution doesn't exist.

@@ChrisBLong While I mostly agree with your arguments, I would disagree with a statement. They say that people have being stating that automobile would never be main rural transport, because a horse wagon operator could come and undercut you by 50% :) At the moment autonomous electric aircraft transport service seems to be not commercially feasible. But there are already areas where aircraft are important means of private transportation and main emergency transport. Bush plane is one example. Alpine helicopter ambulance is another. That electric VTOL is potentially more convenient and even economical replacement for road vehicles in any place the road is not short and straight. People value time over money. Due to physics an aircraft will be always more expensive than a road vehicle, at least if you don't count the road upkeep. But as the energy storage technology improves and energy itself is getting cheaper, at some point you won't care for energy cost. Not today. Not tomorrow. But I would definitely not say never.

The idea here isn't (as far as I understand it) for people to own these individually. It's for them to be used in a rideshare-like system, where people call for one when they need a ride. It's more like a helicopter air-taxi, but with far far lower op costs.

I don't know if that's true because since we drive on a linear roadway you can't like make your own ways. That's not the case here. So there would be no congestion in the vehicles would fly on their own. That's why we're making self-driving technology and that's why there's so many satellites in the sky

@@EndLess1UP there's still going to be congestion even in the sky. Look at big airports, you often can't land or take off immediately and have to wait in line and that's with huge planes carrying tons of people let alone a small VTOL carrying 1-4 people. As op said the solution to congestion is mass low cost public transit, not new forms of personal transit. The aircraft is still fascinating and I hope it gets into use for niche cases but I don't think your average person is going to be taking air taxies on a regular basis.

The goal here is for you to pay about the same as an Uber black for a trip from Manhatten to Newark airport. The market will start out small, but depending on the social acceptance, the EVtol companies in this space are betting on it growing into a business the could be as large as Uber is now for these types of distances / durations of trips. As far as maintenance goes. These electric vehicles lack expensive engines that need constant maintenenace. No fuel pumps, oils, or other items, so the cost of ownership is a lot lower than other verhicles. (compare an Electric car to an ICE Car and it already demonstrates the difference, except no tire rotation ;) )

Also a pilot. A lot of people that love technology and have a familiarity with drones assume this technology will scale. Unfortunately, that has not proven the case in GA. Most of these aircraft that are large enough to be viable for transportation have absolutely laughable ranges, and huge shortfalls. They're selling you on this magnificent innovation, but don't bother to tell you it has a hilarious 100 mile range. While this is nearly triple the range of most electric aircraft, when it comes to general aviation this is a clown shoe. This is primarily due to the weight and energy density of Lithium batteries when compared to AV Gas. To put this in focus, A Cessna 172, the defacto staple of GA, has a ~700 mile range. At the current technology, an electric aircraft will have roughly 10% of the range, and cost 5-10x as much. You're decades away from a product that has any chance of selling a couple units. As far as short distance commuting, a Robinson R22 would cost probably 10x less, exists right now, and has exponentially more range. Also, it's legal. These electric VTOLs (to my knowledge) have no operational certificate and only exist in KZfaq videos on private land. I don't want to crush a lot of the dreamers out there that see this as how you're going to get to work in 10 years. This is merely the first step. Don't expect to see this anytime soon, and possibly not in your lifetime.

@@BrotherChad it originates from Stanger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. I may have to reread, its been a while

I have grown up with what many would consider a good public transportation(large city in sweden). It's probably not the best in the world, but it's many many steps ahead of say usa's model. And in all honesty all it does it makes it bearable, not likeable. The only real reason it works its because using a car is worse in the city centers. So it kind of sustains itself on other methods being worse, not by being a likeable alternative on its own.

Those more practical transport solutions aren't shiny and seductive enough to attract stupid, new money.

This will be an amazing, futuristic piece of technology that will make a very small amount of people very happy.

100% Agree. If they make this in a 20 or 40 passenger version (more flying bus than air taxi) to go from suburban 'verti-ports' to the hubs, then that is a winner idea that might actually make it. But 2 to 6 passenger 'private' service, nope. Thats just futurist hype that looks sexy and doesn't work. Moving the horrible traffic from the ground to the air doesn't make it better. But moving mass transit to the air does make traffic on the ground better first by getting mass transit of the streets, and second by getting people out of their cars because in this example air would typically be faster. But, if its private and you need 10 planes to move the same number of people that a 40 person version could haul, now its just creating insane air traffic and noise that nobody wants.

Well said. The entire video I was torn in two because this is cool tech and I like cool tech, but as an actual product this seems very flawed for all the reasons already stated in this comment thread and probably more that I can't think of. I do also agree though that a "bus" version of this might actually have a net benefit, but even then it's depending on how well it works and how it's implemented. If I have to go through airport-like security theater to board on of these for example, then I can't see people use it in day-to-day. Or at all except for very specific situations (shuttle service to and from airports is pretty much the only one I can think of).

Yes, and he's one of us! :)

Need strong, smart, good people in the public sector.

indeed, Hopes spring is eternal.

I dount think it is ,12 small Engines are definitely louder than one big engines . I bet a modern Helicopter is more quiet then this thing.

@@timmetimme1360 it’s quiet, we heard it in the video. A helicopter would be excessively louder. Not to mention the motors are electric and the blades small and designed to be quiet.

@@alakazaam4292 The sound in the video is turned down very much. In the video its more quietly then a small drone its imposible to make it so mutch biger and add another 8 engines to it while making it more quietly The smaller the rotor (blades) the more rpm it needs and it gets louder .

@@timmetimme1360 Watch the video again. They specifically explain the benefits of smaller vs larger engines on noise, when done correctly.

@@Yutani_Crayven Na i dount need to . I know better ! The blade Design comes from Airbus they juse it for a long time now not only on Aircraft but also on Helikopters . I know this thing is Louder then a modern Helikopter 100% ! If you guys wont to belive in this then do so . I m sure it will go nowhere like every "flyingcar" bevor.

I suspect autorotation for emergency situations isn't a possibility due to the low inertia of the lightwieght propellers and lack of thrust reversal. At low speeds, "deadstick" might be a good descriptor

@@jonathangehman4005 That's a decent sized wing it's got. I would imagine that in horizontal flight above what their future Pilots Operating handbook describes as "minimum stall speed in level flight, with propellors in forward position," it would glide pretty well, certainly better than any helicopter. And since the props can feather, they may actually help in an autorotation given how many there are, though you're right about a lack of rotational energy. Perhaps they would be better feathered, then unfeathered just before touchdown to lower the landing speed. Or not. Below that speed, or in a hover, or a combination of altitude/speed/propellor angle, I bet it has a parachute rescue system, probably with a pin that will jam-stop the propellors to prevent fouling.

@@tomkam9783 Good call on the parachute. I reckon you're right about that. Makes the most sense, although you gotta wonder what would happen if the thing is only 100' off the ground and the props stop spinning before it gets into forward mode. Kinda doubt the parachute would work at that low height, although I'm no expert.

@@davewestner If you're in a hover in any craft at 100' and lose all lift you're pretty equally screwed, at that point you need a good force absorbing chair and some fortunate luck or an ejection seat.

Given the small mass of these props, there really is no autorotation option. It will have some glide slope in horizontal flight, so if it is high enough, it will have some options like a typical aircraft to find a landing site. But it seems that the objective is sufficient redundancy to never need that. With twelve props, it is likely that it can at least make a controlled descent vertical landing on half of them. It would almost certainly be an uncomfortable landing, possibly with irreparable air-frame damage, but not cause injuries. And if it loses two, it would probably be able to either continue to its destination or return to the launch site, so not need to find an emergency landing spot on the way.

Then it'll be better to have three dimensions to course-correct than two, I'd say.

That's why they won't let just anyone operate one of these, and it will more than likely be all automated.

Tbf, their envisioning autonomous taxi’s

Our aircraft will operate as an aerial ridesharing service and be flown by professional pilots just like any other airline.

Exactly, more points for autonomous vehicles.

it's not like that, this guy just talks weird 😂

I've been noticing this more and more for quite awhile. Here in So. Calif. it seems to have started with young folks living in the "Valley" , San Fernando Valley. It was called Valley Speak. Has always annoyed me. The other thing is the wild over use of waving the arms and hands. Drives me nuts when watching some of the amature UTuber / Pod casters. Go back to the 60s thru the 80 s and watch professional news presenters. No waving of the hands or the Valley speak. Just good clear well paced and pronounced language. Still to be found in professional news casters and media journalists.

really hard to listen to this guy when he answers every question from adam with that upseak

It's a certain-parts-of-the-west-coast thing.

Y'know?

you have the most boring companies in one of the most exciting fields. i have no doubt itll end up in bankruptcy. i weep for what could have been.

You took an existing technology and turned it into a toy for very very rich people. Ok cool I guess, but don't pretend this does anything for the environment or average joe, flying is a long way from being an energy efficient way to travel. Want to get people out of cars, invest effort in public transportation. But that's never sexy enough for these silicon valley types.

Your Fired!

You paid them, of course they came.

There are a lot of small towns without easy access to the larger cities around them. I live in one and something like this could be amazing for taking to the airport to get on a plane for longer flights, or evac someone to a better suited hospital. I think these are some avenues your company should look into

As most of the flight regime is wing-borne, it's not a helicopter.

@@UncleKennysPlace It is a small aircraft that can take off vertical, it can play the same role as a helicopter.

Just like the original Waymo autonomous car concept, you will simply sit in and tell it where you want to go, the thing will solve it by itself.

lmfao, literally nothing you said is remotely true. In fact, multi-rotors are far more prone to imbalance and have a much higher cost of operation.

This is not a scalable eVTOL. Lilium is the leader in this field. Adam is next to incompetent for not recognizing it

We look forward to you flying with us in 2025 and beyond!

Indeed, but it sounds unfortunate the name they chose, as one nickname the Ospreys had was Widow MAKER until they ironed out the problems...

😎😎

Thanks, Shane! We're excited for the future we're helping build. You can learn more about our commercialization strategy here if you're interested: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b59obLubrbDOhmw.html

Safety is our top priority which is why we've designed our aircraft to such high standards with so much redundancy built into our systems. We look forward to having you fly with us!

Pretty sure that planes fail much more often than one in a billion flight hours.

we have helicopters

@@vossli1074 It’s called redundancy.

@@ultrajd No it's called impractical and stupid. Just think of all the people who will die while this thing charges. Rescue copters are highly developed, reliable, perfect for the job and refuel in minutes. They can run all day with crew changes if needed. This thing...is a very small plane that can take off vertically and when brand new fly 100 miles under optimal payload, temperature, and wind conditions, with one takeoff and one landing(or maybe 2). A few years later and that drops to 80 miles. And nobody even slightly familiar with battery tech is predicting DOUBLING of capacity "in a few years". Start adding everything needed to save lives and it's out of the running instantly. One problem with electric aviation is a discharged battery weighs the same as a charged one, thus becoming more and more dead weight as it flies..A real plane or helicopter starts getting lighter as soon as the engine starts. That and the energy density of batteries vs fuel makes batteries a joke. Even with the weight savings of the electric powertrain batteries will never equal actual fuel.

It seems a bit slow for emergency response.

@@slabriprock5329 We already have all electric fire trucks.

Big dollars bring big enthusiasm!

Adam is one of those rare stars who is even cooler in person than he is on TV.

@@SansNeural Not for Adam Savage, certain he'd be just as enthusiastic for something worth 'nothing' as he was for this :)

A one wheel with a bar stool screwed on!🤣

let's be honest, this thing will cost 6 figures. it's not for the general public

@@particle_wave7614 Busses are 6 figures too. Sometimes even around half a million dollars a pop. A train can easily be five million dollars. Expensive doesn't mean it won't be for the general public. But this won't be for the general public, even as a general taxi cab service. It'll be for business class level passengers.

@@MrMartinSchou Busses can fit a couple more people than this.

@@datonkallandor8687 I never claimed otherwise. My point was that you cannot simply rule stuff out for general public use by cost. And this being a prototype, we also cannot rule out that there will be 20-seater versions of this type of vehicle. I doubt that will happen, but we cannot rule it out.

@@particle_wave76146 figures is optimistic lol. Closer to 8. A traditional, mass produced, carbureted 4 seater trainer plane is routinely over 400k. Closer to 500k with fancy avionics. That’s for the most common mass produced models that have the advantage of economy of scale. A common turbo props can exceed 5 million. Something this wildly complex could easily exceed twice that.

It's a wild experience to see it in person for this exact reason. Incredibly smooth and stable flight, so much so that it almost doesn't look real even when you're standing there watching it in real life.

@@ArcherAviation You should send a clip to Corridor Crew and ask them to evaluate whether or not the CGI is any good. 😄

Yeah, I'm too desensitized to hearing about human caused vehicle accidents, hearing about self piloted vehicles crashing would shake me up more. Even though I know that that's illogical.

Do you fly in comercial airplanes? You DO know that they are 99% flown by the autopilot these days right? It's only regulations that stop them from letting the autopilot take-off and land.

@@RicardoMorenoAlmeida Yes. I’m well aware of that. I’m also aware that computers aren’t good with unexpected failure. US Airways 1549 would very likely have been catastrophically different with a computer flying. As I said, I’m sure they will improve but they are terrible at improvising.

@@SinisterMD I know we can never actually answer this, but I think that if autopilots could have been active in a lot of the accidents that are caused by human error (there are more of them than freak accidents where ingenuity can help), they could have prevented more lives than have been saved by heroic pilots under unforeseen circumstances, which would, probably have been lost. And I know that is a very utilitarian thing to say, but I think that whatever saves more lives should be our goal and IF removing or diminishing human interaction is the answer I'd want to go in that direction. 🤷‍♂

@@RicardoMorenoAlmeida Autopilot lands the airplane in many cases. There just needs to be a human being there while it happens.

It mostly removes human error. Just take a drive during rush hour, too many morons out there.

We hear you. Our production aircraft, Midnight, will be flown by professional pilots and not be autonomous.

@@ArcherAviation I feel the opposite: No crazy maniacs that could suddenly kamikaze into a building or perhaps not their fault just getting a heart stroke or something. Like mentioned in the video, it may be a generational thing. If it is like i think it is, the human will only be monitoring on board until people can get over the fact the thing has been running by itself all this time. Various transport systems like monorails no longer carry an operator on board.

@@freeculture As Tom said in the video, we're bringing a piloted aircraft to market because it's nearly impossible to certify an autonomous aircraft with the FAA right now. Autonomy is certainly an option as the industry matures over the next many years and paths for certification on the autonomy front open up.

@@freeculture a monorail can just stop at any point with no extra anything, just power cutoff.

Archer are definitely pushing hard on the marketing side. I wonder if Adam was aware of the controversy (and lawsuit) around Archer hiring away a bunch of engineering staff from Wisk, then a month later announcing an eVTOL that is strikingly similar to Wisk's. Wisk / Boeing's lawsuit also cites their soon-to-be-former engineering manager downloading several gigs of engineering files from Wisk to his home shortly after interviewing with Archer. Trial is set to start next month. I'll keep my e-plane investment dollars in my pocket.

@@SansNeural I wasn't aware of the controversy, this paints this video in an even darker brush

While it's taken a while, that future is now closer than many realize 😎

Neil deGrasse Tyson on a Joe Rogan podcast just said that recently. You beat me to it, I literally was about to post if anyone else didnt say this.

A helicopter is the equivalent of having to light a wood fire and then balance your bread on a stick to get toast compared to an electric pop-up toaster that costs $14 and requires putting bread in and pushing a lever. Both accomplish the same thing, massive differences in accessibility and convenience that mean they are essentially not at all the same thing.

@@seanhogan6209 never seen a guy more fond of hearing his own voice on topics he's not educated in that NdGT, not exactly an authority figure to pay much attention to, same as Joe Rogan and just about everyone of his guests, really...

As @msytdc said, eVTOL aircraft offer a superior alternative to helicopters for short range urban air mobility by offering a far safer ride, lower operational costs and lower noise. Helicopter replacement is certainly a part of our plan. You can learn more about our commercialization strategy here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b59obLubrbDOhmw.html

very different. helicopters run on piston and / or turbine engines. Engine fails and you're done. VTOL EV aircraft run on multiple electric engines. Much much more quiet and much more safe.

Thanks for the support, Simon! You can learn more about our collaborative relationship with the FAA and progress by watching our recent presentation on certification here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r7eIf7Cbx6ishWw.html

I'll put my money on Wisk / Boeing, from whom Archer seems to have stolen their technology.

You do realize most people actually still have to work in person, right?

​@@jamesengland7461 James you do realize that this company is presenting not just a flying car, but an ELECTRIC one? Do you have a scenario where average folks fly to work everyday? ( The Area 51 express from Las Vegas excluded of course.).

stood out to me too, but 'right' is more grating than umm.. in the sense that it's inviting the other to affirm what you're saying.

It can still be useful for other things/places.

The airspace is so much more regulated, they wont let the everyday fool fly around.

That's like expecting everyone to be able to drive around in and maintain a Bugatti

Because those systems are built on proprietary high-end radar and radio networks from satellite to ground at multi-billion dollar facilities that still get remote operation. It's kinda funny when a tech-bro tries to think they can do the same with an oversized DJI, lmfao.

Exactly where my mind went. While air ambulances do amazing service already, I think this could radically improve both their availability and flexibility.

@@dbadilotti Especially if you can call it from an app, uber like. Would be nice if more buildings had Heli pads too...

We need a strong and healthy public sector. You are right.

Exactly. Now that idiot who texts and drives crashes into your house instead of just being a hazard on the road.

No people can function in two dimensions. None.

>Kevin McCarthy I listened to an interview with Elon Musk just yesterday and he said almost the exact same thing you just did when asked if he would be inclined to make flying cars for the public to buy besides his Tesla cars. Like you, he does not relish the flying car market at all as the solution to traffic congestion. He favors the tunnel idea for cars. I agree with you both about functionality of the masses to be dubious at best.

This. I’ve been saying this for 20 years. Flying cars are a terrible idea.

That’s what I’m talking about!

What if they are mainly automated?

@@himarei Piloted or automated, imagine the sky over your nieghborhood full of these machines 20 hours a day for the rest of your life. The experience from inside the cockpit is going to be a riot, dut for everyone else it's just going to be a drag

Also, if you do some ballpark calculations, you will quickly find out how extremely inefficient it is. Mostly talking about weight to energy consumption ratio. Not talking about absolute headache scenarios when it comes down to safety and reliability. As well as the practicality. Which is very unfortunate I must say. I also really like the idea of it, but alas.

Buckle up, it's going to be a lot of fun 😎

its an investment scam

These will never fill that role, sorry.

I would bet that half of them spin the other way, but they must have to account for the effect in the case of a motor failure.

@@wagglebutt I think you're correct... I think there is a shot near the beginning that shows this. This would also avoid torque issues that affect yaw when changing the power setting.

Still an investor scam. Shame.