The Army and NASA has shown interest, and have supported in the ultimate stealth flying machine!

They could have cut the engine on chase aircraft.

Practically geniuses. This should've been implemented before or during hand drones were offered. Those fear of evtol days, are over.

@@rolflandale2565the Public fear still exists, for example if you read comments on other sites, people go off on every negative possible. The pessimistic say JOBY will be too dangerous, we already have Helicopters, we don't need eVTOL's, high wind will cause crashes, first crash with injury or death will end this dream, will be too expensive to fly, I'll never fly in one or a pilotless one, where will they land, FAA won't allow, too much competition, won't every happen, and on and on. I disagree with all the pessimism, I am a big JOBY fan. My brother is an expert pilot, he was skeptical at first, then realized, buy buy buy stock or regret at these levels. He admitted he started to buy into a position, a duh moment. We only get a few chances in life to hit a stock large, and this is one, could be a huge success, if you have patience.

@M C Helicopters lack the counter redundancy of multi-engine support. When you compare the dangers of a car and the cruise methods of aircraft, both have a chance of survival with initiative actions. If a classic mono-engine helicopter malfunctions, it will plunge like a rock. The helicopter casualties have a very high death ratio. From famous celebrities to most practical pilots with absolute manual navigation. Jobby has a lot of bureaucracy in structure rendering, but the price is to apply safety.

@@MC-yb5le You should know that, the FAA never allows aircrafts to run until almost a decade test is done, some are lucky its sooner than that.

@@rolflandale2565 FAA will fast track the certification of Joby and Archer --- they know these aircraft are safe because of redundancy

yes, if it is possible to fly with 2/6 damaged or more and they are all independent then it would be pretty safe

@@martinuso7446 I doubt that would ever happen though.

with multiple electric motors, all of which can be controlled independently, if a motor is not performing correctly it can be shutdown & remaining motors receive more power to compensate. Having wing like structures also allows for added lift/glide as opposed to "auto rotating" (aka crashing - falling like a rock) in a traditional helicopter. With six motors as long as if four remain operational this should allow for a controlled landing.

Let's try to remember that battery packs can also be redundant --- so in order for a catastrophic failure and crash, this aircraft would need more than two rotors to fail as well as multiple battery packs --- literally close to zero chance!

This is something we need to see. Investors are bright enough to know that the minute one of these things drops out of the sky carrying passengers, their investment could easily go to zero.

Glad it was helpful!

What a waste of time and energy! Just imagine the skies plugged with this stuff ; all beteen 50 and150 feet elevation!!!? What a train wreck waiting to happen! Probably another Federal Funded project! A crony capitalist funded project !😆😡

@@paulratzlaff2935 All personal opinions welcomed! Thank you!

Thousands of us own JOBY stock, not a con man, reel deal. Don't miss out.

Closer to an Osprey military plane.

Yes ! Exactly my first thought, thanks for pointing it out. I believe the Robinson R-22 would be a little smaller when I look at the wingspan (+ fans), and from my experience in drones (quad), losing one engine is quite dramatic (immediate loss of control due to assymetry), nowhere near the "chill" you feel when you have power loss on an R-22, you maintain level and you can autorotate if you're high enough.

Very little in common wirh a conventional helicopter nearer to a large rc model aircraft/drone.

They are always helicopters with extra steps

Yes it does it has three wheels like a Robin Reliant 😂

What does that thing cost ?

Argh, not another pod gadgetbahn company that wants to build something like a train but not as good as a train.

That thing is amazing!! Hopefully battery tech will take the leap and and put an end to 100LL finally

Anything is quiet if you recorded it 300ft away...

It’s an osprey

@@Helloverlord they showed different sound signature of various aircraft’s at the same distance and mentioned that this thing is below 70dB at lift off

What is the sound power at take off compared to helicopters or planes ? How does it match the WHO requirements in the envrironment (55 dB Lden) ? The 65 dB commented in the video does not mean anything : is it pressure ? Where with respect to the source ? Envisioning this kind of things closer to densely populated area than current aircraft will certainly come with noise pollution issue and sorry but the only comparison is in fly by for which you are comparing to non noise regulated aircraft - being « quieter » than unregulated source does not mean anything (apart from the fact that there is indeed a huge noise issue with those objects)

Two terrific minds in harness.

Thank you! I agree that my husband definitely has a more in-depth knowledge of most topics than I (he really does love reading about nearly any topic). Thank you for your comments on the editing. It's very labor intensive so appreciate when people notice.

Totally agree!

A remote quad drone less than a kilogram is subject to a bunch of regulations most people aren't aware of. People are hyped by the positive potential exclusively, they always forget about the 80% other important things : safety, qualifications, infrastructure, regulation of shared space, maintainance and spare parts/qualified vendors and contractors, tested and validated overall systems, operation and management........ At the end of the day (or the decade), it always all come down to what people didn't expect : the operational constraints doesn't meet lambda people expectations in terms of costs or complications, only a few elite will have access to the privilege or service, sometiles via costy dérogation or because you're a billionaire authorities may have trouble challenging. I don't even have a licence to fly an ultralight on my own from an airfield (we steal the flying time of a qualified pilot) and I have a thousand times the knowledge a lambda anyont have in terms of flying and rules/regulation, I know how sensible of a qualification it is, I cannot trust putting any of that very advanced tech vehicles in the hands of the first _"oh gosh it's so dope, I also want a flying car"_ dude : that's a recipe for disaster and drama. If people are regularly going down the road to change the chips of a drone toy to exceed the built-in altitude limitation by regulation, what kind of stupid rules breaking they would intentionally or inadvertently do with a "flying car"? Sharing airspace with people and properties below is the opposite of "having fun", you do care about at all times and abide by the rules, there is NO WAY you decide where you go, just like medevac ops today, you wait for instructions (air traffic control) and you strictly follows virtually already defined limited set of flight routes. We don't want that thing flying over schools or other areas with dense flocks of people walking, there must be regular suitable emergency crash land sites along the routes, like a stadium, highways, corn fields... The only "your fancy extraordinary personal car" that may find birth in a city is the one that meets all those conditions, like Tesla autopilot where a connected centralized service decides how to drive the car. For a flying car, it will be the same : you're not the one to have command, you just input a destination, then the company owning the service flies you there on through defined standardized flight paths and standardized connected "other fellow air travellers in nearby vehicles". That way, we get lambda people out of the equation in terms of training/qualification, and we get all vehicles standardized in terms of regulations, flight rules and behavior. Or else, no personal car, you go to a flying taxi port and you rent the service with a fully qualified trained pilot that will do his best to get you to another port/other places with special derogatory privileges, but he/she remains who has the last word. Hope this helps you have a better window displaying what will slowly take place in the future, so you don't build the wrong expectations from the start..

@@StephenKarl_Integral woah, well explained sir

I can’t wait until we rapidly surpass electric motors and get into plasma propulsion

If i could choose, i woud take the cure for cancer and solution to the hunger problem over any electric car.

Indeed!

​@@xargs0095 as long as their battery and other material production and disposal are safe

@@jareknowak8712 that one seems harder, if you feed people they reproduce more and then there are 2x, 3x,.. the amount of people with hunger

sooooo an Osprey?

It will be a fraction of the cost to run, and quiet, win win.

_"it needs to seat 5-7 people..."_ I'm not an engineer, but I'm aware the huge problem of electric flying things is _"not having enough battery to maintain that thing flying for hours _*_the heavier it gets"_* Unlike fossil energy that packs a lot of punch for a small drop of toxic fuel, electricity is like blowing a sheet of paper to maintain it airborne, so, how many people lungs and mouth do you need to maintain a book airborne ? The answer for electric aircraft is... just like airplanes : if you want to lift heavier mass, forget about V/STOL, you need a runway and trade time+distance for potential energy to be converted to lift via wings.

I cant wait to pay 250$ to fly 4 min away!!!

Hahaha, obviously you rarely visit or live in a congested city, for example: LA, NY, Dallas, Washington DC, Mexico City, Tokyo, South Korea and 100's of other congested cities across the world, each city named has a never ending growth with gridlock traffic. Joby will work in all types of scenarios. Delta airlines/JOBY are working together in the future to bring customers directly to the airport, then fly wherever. Delta realizes JOBY is changing the game, save more time for fun/work vs wasting time driving in gridlock traffic. I agree, JOBY will be a great addition to Tourists, moving tourists or workers between islands for example:Belize, Hawaii, Vancouver island, Indonesia to name a few of the 1000's of tourists spots in the world where JOBY can be a vital transportation and learning tool.

You've missed out, PBS showed a documentary on The Future of Electric flight 3 years ago. I've followed JOBY since, actually i buy every time the stock goes under $4, no regrets.

However, the real fun is only starting, how to build 25, 50, and 100 JOBY's a year will be a monumental task. Main reason Toyota partnered early to help and refine the JOBY building process. Joby will need to build 1000's to crush the competition, who is late to the party, and/or years behind.

@@MC-yb5le do not doubt the power of scaled manufacturing with Toyota's expertise --- Joby definitely found the right partner

I imagine it is really louder in person?

Our pleasure!

People ridicule when I say this is about to explode. Maybe they majored in physics or whatever but I'm telling you they are going to make this thing explode. They have tech you never heard of and this is obviously the plan.

😄

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b9mTmbp_m8e8kYk.html

Jane, get me outa this crazy thing!

I mean, this thing come easily just pull out of your garage and go.

I mean this thing could easily just pull out of your garage and go... 🙄

Bad comparison with the HF reference. Surprised you didn’t bring up John Denver too :(

@@blueman5924 Don't know him, but he does fit better as a comparison opon a quick look. I'll admit I want one of these too. But just because I want something doesn't mean I should have it, and a low barrier to entry flying machine is one of them. At least paragliders won't cause as much damage as a small plane.

They are planning for it to become autonomous at some point in the future to make it cheaper and more accessible without causing those problems. Autonomous flight with predefined paths and landing points would probably be easier to develop than autonomous driving, since the sky is much more spacious than streets, there aren't any level cross-roads or t-junctions in the sky, and cyclists/pedestrians won't appear out of nowhere. Still won't be anywhere comparable to today's wide spread of actual cars, just more common than today's helicopters and small planes.

How about self driven planes? Oh, yeah!

@@Chedring Low barrier? This thing is not cheap. Cutting edge technology rarely is. And remember that this is a plane and planes have a ton of paper work attached to them. It isn't like throwing together a Tesla car.

From what I see, seems that's not (yet) part of the design.

We cant trust people to drive cars in a considered way. 6 Exremely dangerous rotors and extreme speed added to the mix? There is no way this will be normalised before we all die, and even then it will be all AI driven for the super rich.

Never gonna happen. Imagine every drunk, aggressive, distracted, and road rager that's on the ground now... up in the air. 46,000 auto deaths per year, and that's for cars that don't fly, or accidents that didn't kill for a ground vehicle but would most certainly kill in the air. It doesn't matter if the tech makes it possible; it's the people aspect that will always prevent flying cars on a large scale.

Never gonna happen. Basically, that's a large scale not remote (but possibly) controlled drone that can lift one or more people, which technically _is_ an aircraft, *not a car !* And we talk about airspace : did you knew above the quarter of a kilogram, you must register your remote controlled drone ? Regulation ! Drones are only allowed to fly in limited airspace. Regulation ! To fly, especially be able to fly over populated areas, even if it's just one person per square kilometer, you need a license. Regulation ! Many billionaires have attempted to put helipad everywhere, started assembling the platform, then dismanteled it, because, you just don't build them where you want the way that suits your needs when you have the means : those things must comply with very precise and restrictive (for safety) conditions, by regulation ! ..... Regulations, regulations, regulations.... and again, regulations, blah blah blah. And regulation is there for one single reason : people *died* when they did not exist, and sure enough, the billionnaire living in the top room of a fancy building don't want trouble or die if some dardevil stupid teenager decided to borrow the "flying car of his dad" to impress his slut by crashing there while violating a couple dozens regulations (yes, it happenned, was not a car but a Cessna, but you get the point : billionnaires don't want dumb people to mess around and they have the means to enforce regulations). Even with regulation, people happily violate them everyday, not everyone can be as disciplined as a pilot, even some pilots aren't that disciplined. The only large scale technology transport that could/would take off and land in your backyard is one that is NOT controlled by YOU, but by some company that has proven it has the expertise to safely move people in the air, ground or over water, and take responsibility is something goes horribly wrong. That's what Tesla is attempting to do, that's what Google is attempting to solve and master at IA level. Til then, there is no way around : airport to airport (not your backyard), valid licenses, submitted and validated flight route, and a bunch of other people giving you instructions you must follow along your entire flight. Yes, the helipad on the rooftop of the hospital _is_ an airport. The helipad behind the White House is an airport. Some highways in Poland/Finland/etc. become "airports", precisely "temporary military strips" in special (crisis) situations. Backyards has to comply with strict conditions to become "private airfields/airports" - regulations again - if you want an airport that close : safety, noise, pollution, airspace integration and conflicts, traffic control, terrain and wheather, aircraft types............... hope you have the means to validate all conditions, but it's pretty clear the _"flying car in the backyard of lambda citizens"_ *is a lie.* Don't dream that much, but I understand how you got there : those people in those documentaries are trying to sell that dream to you and you bought it. None of them is explaining to you you CAN'T have that type of equipment at home, and the trends tells the future will even be tighter in terms of regulations when more people will have access to jet engines and other kind of propellers as they become cheaper.

It will happen but it will be automated flight and there won't be ways for these to crash into each other. You will enter your destination and you will be placed into a highly sophisticated network that will perform ALL functions of the aircraft. I would imagine it would probably be 1500 feet or less and major aircraft would still be doing it's normal thing.

@@StephenKarl_Integral slut? Really? How about pig.

Perhaps, the fuel cells will be created for larger planes, larger JOBY'S and/or large boats/trains. The battery is sufficient for 150 mile flight. This is just the beginning journey for JOBY, stock is cheap too.

In vertical/transit mode, with 4 fans, you immediately shut or feather the opposite fan. Same thing with 6 rotors, but you must be trained to manage the failure and that would take at least 50 hours on that matter, it's not a plane which is much less subject to loss of control/getting out of an uncontrolled spin. Here you add the quirks of unpredictable aerodynamics interactions with that much lift/thrust components. The solution : training. A welcome help is augmented flight, where computers will deal with asymmetry issues right away before any abrupt loss of control (less likely in cruise mode) and inform you. But since electricity will get depleted at one point, trained qualified pilot is still mandatory. For the tilt motion in itself (mechanical failure or computer glitch), it's the same : training/fast recovery and redundancy : you can make the mechanism redundant, and make the software have a default fallback basic mode, plus redundant integrity checks to detect malfunctions (either via sensors/switches or software data mismatch). That should prevent mechanism desync. Then, when the computers support get overwhelmed, it entirely gives up and let the qualified pilot override everything : fly the damn thing (manually configure tilt, then recover), find where you are and decide where you go, then inform everybody else of the situation. If you can't recover, better be high enough, have a fast breaking system in the rotors (emergency shutdown) and a two sequence high spin high velocity chute. As I said elsewhere, based on the fans position and the tilt motion, best chute position would be in the tail, not above the fuselage, but that also means you land on the nose, hopefully slow enough to not get hurt and potentially repair the vehicle.

If The Propellers Stop Working The Question Is Can It "Auto Rotate" Which Is Basically Letting The Propeller In A Helicopters Case Keep Rotating When The Engine Fails Making It Much Safer By A Controlled Crash Than Just Having It Drop Like A Rock Out Of The Sky .

@@Gcanno Not a chance! It won't look too cool. Notice they couldn't find anybody willing to trust getting in it?

They can’t get insurance for a pilot. No one will insure humans without bankrupting the company. Will this thing glide, if they lose power? All commercial jets glide if they have enough altitude. Overall: amazing.

The good news is that electric motors are incredibly reliable. The bad news is that a full failure, which would only happen if it lost power, would make it fall like a rock. In balance, its ok, the failures can be managed. There isn't going to be a glide ratio or a parachute. It flies too low to the ground, and even if it could glide, it would have to land so fast that having it glide would be mostly worthless.

@@scottfranco1962 minimum altitude over even a residential area is like 400ft. in a city with 1000ft tall buildings, its obviously higher! I would rather glide from 1500ft vs fall no matter how useless you think it might be!

If. it is we're going to need a LOT bigger parking lots.

@Miraak Imagine trying to get that thing into multi-level parking!

Regen = Drag

1. No answers yet : those cannot be defined before the mandatory modifications to comply with *regulations,* safety-wise, like the need to have realistic solutions in case of emergency, like a flock of birds strike and loss of control : will the presence of a chute mandatory on that type of vehicle ? That's just one example among hundreds. Til then, there is no reliable payload weight information. 2. Commercial debut will take place when the vehicle, manufacturer, various public management organizations (...) are ready, with the proper qualifications/licenses/authorities, means and tools : How we do, together, for that thing in the hand of anyone doesn't kill anyone or do property damages. 3. Yes : because they tilt to allow V/STOL, having the props near the ground is a bad design : you have less bank/pitch guard, not good on take off/landing. When spinning, those fans are invisible, so pretty sure some ignorant will walk right through. You have the fan under the engine, on a multi parts design, you have to unmount the fan first, then unmount the engine to change it; better have the fans above the engines so you have direct access to the engine during maintainance. Pushers doesn't provide any advantage over pullers unless the design constraints directly favors it, like a better vision, shorter fuel pipes that also makes them lighter, eventually, a center of gravity requirement driven by the type of wing. Also, for sustainable V/STOL manoevers, fans way above the CG is more stable and less subject to complex computer assisted systems to compensate. That's only a few reasons, there are many more...

@@StephenKarl_Integral one pilot and four passengers and luggage per JOBY. I never read anything about weight limits yet, I'll need to ask JOBY at next investor conference. The goal is Autonomous, then no need for expensive pilot by 2030. JOBY is one of the few Evtol's who has a pilot first, then autonooumous by 2030 per the experts/FAA. . Most other comp is going ONLY autonomous by 2030, thus left behind JOBY.

@@MC-yb5le That's what I answered to someone who wrote something like _"I need one, my personal flying car, haha"._ There is no such thing as maneuvering something weighting more than 10 kilograms above people (children) and infrastructures, and you, the pilot has no license or special authorization/qualification. If you fly over populated areas, you must be trained and some authority assessed your ability to CARE about others below and in the air, to not injure or kill anyone or do damage to properties. You must be qualified to manage emergencies, follow directive, have health discipline... So, EITHER the thing goes the road of COSTY licensed pilots, OR the vehicle is UNMANNED, and piloting is realtime computer/AI driven, centralized in some company, like Tesla. If someone dream of manning that vehicle someday, he/she has to be a pilot then, with all what that responsibility requires including having passed all the trainings and tests for the licenses : that's not free or it gets included/diluted in the (rather high) price of the vehicle. Also, how about preflight maintainance check? With 6 engines. You do it aswell (more qualification required) or you pay guys to come to your home before each flight? I'm the _"have some realism/common sense"_ type. I'm not impressed by how many people it boards or how quiet it is, I'm interested to assess how practical and cost effective it can eventually get, as an owner, how much it would cost me, how much trouble or effort I have to swallow to be able/allowed to operate it..? As the manufacturer, what business model is realistic? Should I license pilots or get rid of the concern by getting "pilot" out of the equation, ie, go AI ? As a citizen in residential area below a traffic path of those vehicles, what "peace of mind" am I ready to concede to allow other people to use that vehicle over my house? That's the kind of concern regulation authorities have, because when a crash happens (and it WILL happen), I will be in charge of judging if that vehicle is dangerous or not, and if it is, technically, I'll kill companies, services, people will lose money and their jobs, other people will lose their dream... BEFORE all that happens, I must closely assist the manufacturers and come up with a list of road map and compromises...... The certification process is based on historical occurrence of dramas, and it gets tighter over the decades, not the other way around. Realism is to take it seriously.

Actually, you're close to the real deal : Let's assume I'm 50 years old with no flying skill but I have 2 millions $ to get that toy. Can you trust me flying that thing alone ? Now take the 17 year old spoiled brat that want to impress his crush and decided to borrow the "flying car" of his dad... (this happens hundred times a day in the world, but the car is not a flyable one.. yet) Just think of it : either you can't but have to centralized those vehicles somewhere, that would be an airport, and only qualified licenced pilots with X000 hours of experience are allowed to fly them, not you or me, or, if people are willing to pay the price to fly to and from their backyard, well, the actual pilot, it being human or AI must be centralized in the servers of a company that has the expertise to fly those, not you or me... So, yeah, like today airplanes (believe it or not), _they will use satellites aswell, and have fly to destination and avoidance of other flying objects too,_ meaning, unless having passed the courses, trainings and tests, with the proper licences and the clearances, neither you or me would be able to "manually fly" the thing, we are just passengers...

No. Vehicles using multiple rotors are highly subject to loss of control in case of a single engine/fan failure (assymetric lift/trust). Ever lost a fan on a drone ? I did, it was ugly, was only able to salvage the remote control. Those vehicles are not known to include redundancy on that matter. Your way out is to fly high enough, shut down all engines *and have a chute.* You must be trained to identify the nature and the extent of the failure in a matter of seconds, if it's a collision with a foreign object (bird) that may disrupt stability due to a change in aerdynamic and/or power profile, or a more concerning situation like the loss of one or multiple fans. In any case, trouble with lift/power/stability means you land *immediately.* Helicopters is a mastered technology for so long (you glide via autorotation), drone-like vehicles is fairly new and having multiple engines instead of one (or two, with the torque on Helicopters), means more training to have the qualification to handle emergencies. Also, I don't think vehicles that light would survive moderate hail storm, or severe rain. Drones as they are today are not that water proof. That's why safer vehicles able to lift humans are a lot much heavier (and therefore requires runways), they are designed with the strength to face adverse weather or light impacts (birds) and ability to glide and land roughly okay even if losing power (if a suitable land site available, like a corn field). I don't see any way to achieve that with such a small/light vehicle.

That’s the reason our president will not fly in an Osprey 🎉

Actually, what you suggest is the very rare case the concept seems viable, economically and in terms of realism, as a quieter successor to helicopters. We need the practicallity of helicopters, but going electric drones-like crafts comes at a risk yet to be solved : assymetric lift => total loss of control. If they are reliable enough (statistics) or we come up with some sort of compromise (like trade payload for redundancy or safety equipment), then having qualified pilots manning them is acceptable (not the lambda anyone casually flying and encoutering a flock of birds, not trained enough to react on the spot).

I'm not so sure this is for us.

Experimental vehicle at the moment, no clear plan for private certification (the "expected" role). Acually, it's not clearly even a finalized prototype, more in the "test stage of various challenges", the challenge here being having a vehicle that is electric, quiet, combines both vertical take off and flight with a decent cruising speed. They aren't facing yet the extremely difficult and costy step of certifying the vehicle, to pass all safety tests like failures, structural stress, adverse weather conditions, fire, procedures, standards of qualification and crew certification... Then, the operational and industrial management : where you get what that vehicle needs and how you maintain it airworthy, you would require a well dispatched set of services, representatives and vendors. So, payload isn't yet the priority. Yes, can lift a few people but actually should already able to lift at least 12 people. That would be great but why not make the numbers public? Because a LOT of that theorical payload will get converted to safety systems, like a chute in case of emergency, stronger structure and equipments (better shielding) for inflight impact (birds) and weather (rain/hail/lightening).... The more you add safety by regulation, the more you redesign the whole thing, so, quite early to ask for the final numbers. This also affects the range BTW, and adding batteries will further limit the payload... This is NOT to bash on the company or the vehicle or what they attempt to do. This is not to demote. This is to teach how it works and how it may fail so less people would fail or get disappointed. Sometimes, dedicated engineers give up because the PUBLIC expect the IMPOSSIBLE. I realistically see here the future of medical emergencies where the quietness is a huge plus, and should potentially open more opportunities of quick/fast airlift with QUALIFIED pilots (not the lambda "I want my personal flying car") Also, could be a great aerotaxi with dedicated taxi ports between nearby cities or resorts (tourism), as it does not require the investment in a runway, a large open space will do.

Just wait, this JOBY 1.0, If lighter and more powerful if solid state batteries work out, the SSB could change short hall flights forever. if JOBY could fly 200, or 300 miles with SSB,, airlines could suffer greatly. Why Delta bought into JOBY, Delta can see the future.

If you think this thing looks like anything from the Jetsons, you might have dementia.

@@Christophercles seriously dude? lighten up!

@@Britbabe53 so does any bubble canopy helicopter! And they have been around longer than the jetsons! I think you may be missing the one amazing part of the jetson mobile... its a damn breifcase!!