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).

think swarm robotics incorporated into AI driverless features.

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 !!!!

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

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.

Thanks for your feedback z!

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...

Thanks fellow! 👍

@@FrankStephensondesign thank you for helping me stay excited about the future

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.

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 !

Wow! It’s a pleasure TamTran! 👍

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.

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.

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 🤔

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!

Cheers Ben! 👍

Very much in agreement Gary.

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.

Vielen dank Thilo! 👍

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

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.

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.

AutoFlight.

Parachutes as well as gliding ability are integrated as part of added safety applications Zoe.

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

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.

Not really Federico. The noise levels cannot exceed 65dB and air traffic control will keep them sufficiently dispersed.

Then we’d be talking about solid state battery tech Harry.

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.

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.

yeah

Vertical takeoff and landing has hugely beneficial applications Cloxx.

Why Luis?

65dBA.

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.

Patience Adrian, eVTOL transportation must precede teleportation.

95% Ovaculos. I need you to go collect the rest on Friday.

@@FrankStephensondesign Message received... Good day.

The ONLY eVTOL? You sure? Why?

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.

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".

😂

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.

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.

Your area of expertise Sara?

@@FrankStephensondesign I am an Electrical Engineer, with a minor in physics, so YES. Cmon, you can't see the flaws in this design? I feel bad for you if you can't. There is virtually zero area for lift where the lift is supposed to come from. THAT'S a flaw. A damn big one at that.

All I can say is welcome to the advanced world of aviation Sara. We (AutoFlight) are already flying far, long and fast as per our targets and EASA/FAA certification is happening in ‘24. Bespoke vertiports around the globe are under construction.