That's in "aviation dollars" as in what you tell your spouse vs what it actually costs.

Thanks for a well-researched, well-thought out, level headed look at this. Neither an impossibility, nor an inevitable slam-dunk. The Segway was over-hyped when it was under development. It didn't live up to that hype, but you can buy one today so it didn't completely go away, and there are tons of related products like the One Wheel that derived from the underlying tech of the Segway. So it didn't revolutionize the world, but it also didn't die and disappear.

I always appreciate your impartial approach to this sector. As a fellow trade journalist (dietary supplements in my case) I check in on your channel not only because of my interest in aviation but also to be reminded of how to cover an industry right. You want to foster the industry's success (otherwise, what's the point of your work?) but at the same time make sure that those cases of overpromising and under delivering are brought to light. Thanks for the excellent work.

Joby wants to build a new technology that's fast, cheap, reliable, safe, built at enormous scale, being all (most) weather capable, and adhering to regs, while also likely trying to rework ATC systems to allow this type of thing. Oh, and make a profit. I suppose nothing is impossible, but that's a hell of a tall order.

IDK if it's literally just you or if you have a team helping you but either way ... This is absolutely incredible content. You hit a ton of salient points and it's clear you've done a ton of research. Thanks so much for putting this together!

It's the greatest thing since the Rotodyne! It's an ELECTRIC OSPREY being build by A RIDE SHARING COMPANY!!! What could possibly go wrong!

I admire these companies for 1) their incredible marketing and 2) their ability to make these claims with a straight face.

Great explanation, and as electrical engineer of many years with experience in lithium batteries, 3-phase inverters and similar high power electrical equipment, these adds for electric planes make me laugh. If anyone thinks a practical electric plane capable of carrying passengers and payloads will become a reality within the next 30 or so years, all I can say is keep on dreaming because we have a long long way to go before battery technology gets even close to the energy provided by 1 litre of kerosene ! I'm sure it will happen one day in the.............. distant future.

You really set the golden standard of journalism with these AVweb editorials, Paul. I love that you take such a level-headed and rational approach to a topic that can (and should) be thought about rationally.

That was fantastic. No hyperbole (negative or positive), just sober factual analysis. Loved it.

Great work Paul. Simple, rational. Not closed minded, but not a sucker for investment dollars either.

The public can now view this aircraft flying at Marina Airport just south of Santa Cruz on clear mornings. In flight it is extremely quiet and barely noticeable, and it became completely inaudible against other aircraft that were flying around the area. It appears that there is no pilot inside and is controlled remotely. Very exciting aircraft and I hope you make an updated video as more information comes out.

I love that you can deliver an intelligent, nuanced commentary mixed with "driving across the country looking up the assholes of horses."

Vertical takeoff seems a strange place to start for an endurance-limited aircraft.

His dry delivery is great. "If the entirety of civilization thought this way, we'd still be driving across the country looking up the assholes of horses." Hilarious!

Hands down the best analysis of this emerging industry,. Excellent graphics and the annotations are much appreciated. Paul is the Aviation Guru pilot presenter!!

Simply the best, most rational, objective and fact based summary I have seen. Fantastic video, thank you and well done.

All Joby has to do it announce they're gluing on some Tamarack Active Winglets and Paul will change his tune. 😉

Paul, Happy New Year. Keep the content coming for 2022. Best aviation presenter period! Cheers.

Thanks for this excellent presentation. As a longtime software architect/engineer, I've learned to apply various logical reasonings (that don't always seem obvious to me, at least) to seemingly cool ideas (that, not coincidentally, seem like fun projects). One of my favorite reasonings, or "razors" I suppose, I call the "but-if": When proposing a huge leap in tech (X) to solve a problem (P), and that leap requires numerous innovations (V1, V2, ...) that are of questionable achievability, ask yourself "But if we could do any combination of (V1, V2, ...), how might that impact our ability to incrementally mitigate (P), such that (X) would become less necessary?". In some sense, "but-if" is the opposite of another of my favorites, "synergy", which has often inspired me to do supposedly "impossible" things with great payoffs (in my little world, anyway), but also caused me to pursue dead-ends at substantial expense. Here, (X) is EVTOL, (P) is a combination of excessive traffic on limited networks of drivable roads, and you've hit on the innovations necessary. One (Vn) in particular is autonomy (pilotless craft): if "we" can achieve that, with the necessary combination of on-craft tech, autonomous monitoring, ATC changes, and so on, how could similar innovations be made in our automobiles and on our roads, such that traffic problems, especially accidents, might be greatly reduced? Another (Vn) is improved battery performance, which would likely translate well into automobiles, making them much more efficient and capable of long-range trips without requiring such long recharge times. At some point, if one doesn't assume that only the EVTOL industry will be "permitted" to enjoy the innovations it drives (and why would it, considering how widespread the industries have been that benefited from innovations driven by space flight, such as Apollo), it's worth considering that the proposal of a 30-minute EVTOL flight, in lieu of a 60-minute drive, might in fact end up being in lieu of, say, a 40-minute drive. Would saving 10 minutes be worth the additional cost and risk, when many of us are debating whether saving 30 minutes (on the same trip) would be worth it? Many of us love the so-called "Hail Mary pass" (I know I do). Like the Grand Slam in baseball, it's typically cherished as a last-gasp attempt to overcome what seems to be certain defeat with very little time left. But the best teams do not typically rely on "Hail Mary's" (or Grand Slams) throughout their games, instead focusing primarily on making incremental improvements. And the Apollo missions were most definitely more in the "Hail Mary" category, seemingly necessary due to the Cold War, in which demonstrating superiority in technology (as well as in basketball, figure skating, and ballet, among others) somehow became of paramount importance. The "but-if" rule has also significantly mellowed my fascination with space flight and Interstellar-style colonization of space (being, in contrast to Star Trek, driven by seeming necessity): if mankind could truly achieve all the (Vn) necessary to achieve the (X) of usefully colonizing a distant planet for millenia of occupation, in order to escape the (P) of a dying Earth, why couldn't it apply some combination of (Vn) to "fix" Earth to extend our ability to live here? The "Hail-Mary" logic, of escaping hordes of "problematic" humans (without just wiping them out here), is (to me) one of the best arguments in favor of (X) here, assuming it was truly necessary (and it likely wouldn't be, considering how much of (Vn) would have to include advanced psychological and medical care to flourish in space and on a distant planet); otherwise, it's hard to believe we, or really any species, could master interstellar travel and yet not figure out how to address resource and other issues on their planet (by, say, mining nearby asteroids, if not their own planet's interior, among other things).

This is really educational Paul - thanks for shining your clear light on this whole business. No-one does it like you do.

100% true. Modern aviation has turned its spirit upside down. Everybody said, as you observed, "If man was meant to fly, he would have given the Wrights wings" or something like that. You are correct, the challenges of electric flight are monumental. We are back to the same old power for flight problem. The big thing the Wrights did was to develop a power plant just barely able to lift the Flyer. It was internal combustion, and it was developed into something useful in something like 15 to 20 years. The big developer was the military, the money bags. Energy density is a big limiting factor, but the performance of the electric motors, in some respects has been ignored, in terms of efficiency and heat. The rotation of the armature gets power from the field of the windings. But the field also creates drag which results in heat and big losses of total power and electric power consumption. Just the things that are of the biggest concern to aviation. There are ways to reduce this field drag which have largely been ignored. Let's get back to the "Spirit of the Wrights", be aware of the problems, but don't let them stop you. It seems like the American attitude has become "No, we can't". Let's see if we can turn that around.

This channel has the best organized an impartial information on aviation, and out of all topic specific channels on youtube, this one is the best. I wish there was an AVweb for all of my interests.

Time spent watching your videos is always useful and enlightening!

Mom was an engineering aid at Boeing starting about 1960, plotting out wind tunnel results by hand. She had the neatest fine tip pens I've ever seen. I got to do a walk through of Boeing's SST mockup, and browsed some of the Dyna Soar materiel she brought home. So I've been an outside observer of aviation news all my life. I've never experienced anyone making the information so approachable to an outsider in as entertaining way as Paul does.

If the FAA existed in 1903, airplanes would have never existed. Just a thought.

Seriously impressed by the quality & depth of these vids, thanks!

This is a classic Paul B. video. Superb writing, reporting, graphs, comparisons, even the smidge of skepticism is relatable by the viewer. I met you at Deland, come see a proper Vashon Ranger wrap at SnF 22'.

ANOTHER great Paul Bertorelli video. Good writing. Good production values. Excellent message. Go, Paul!

Thanks for a thoughtful and seemingly balanced presentation on this important topic. Though I live and work in the Northern Plains of the US and will likely not see these in service in any of my markets in my lifetime, I want to see this technology succeed. My sense is that the battery weight issue -- kwh/kg -- is the big uncertainty that will be the difference between whether these will be practical or not. The rest of the technologies are just extensions of what is already in service (VTOL airplanes exist, multi-rotor small aircraft exist, composite constructed airframes exist, etc). But light enough batteries? Not quite sure they exist yet. New tech probably needed and we're clearly running up against the laws of physics as we understand them. It will be very interesting to keep an eye on this sector and particularly on Joby as they are powerfully motivated to succeed in this brave new world.

when I clicked this video, never did i think I would hear paul say "looking up the assholes of horses" 😂

I know no one will ever read this - I have been following you for years & years. I appreciate your work. Lots of these "in the works" - Like with Dr. Paul Moller (SKY CAR) - since '80's ("ish") are not going to be practical - Which is why I became a Pilot - until battery technology grows by leaps & bounds - it simply is not going to work. Always watch, but don't always reply / comment. Keep up the GREAT work....

I live in the beautiful country side of Switzerland where public transport is almost everywhere. From my home, it takes me a 10 minute walk to the nearest train station, another 20 minutes to the next station where I can hop on an intercity train, and then onto the 300 km/h european high speed train network. Why spend billions inventing flying taxis, if the technology for efficient transport exists outside the US? Just implement a solid public rail system... no batteries required. I liked your analysis- but I think investors should put their money getting things rolling, and not flying, as it is more energy efficient.

If the flight profiles will deliberately avoid climbing as much as possible, why not power the climb with a belly umbilical cord?

I was thinking about that earlier! The sphere of things that are possible is much larger than the sphere of things that are impossible. More you learn about nature the more apparent this becomes. Always good content on AVWeb.

Paul such a well written point of view. I love how you point out that under the surface things are more complicated than what they seem.

Thanks Paul. Very interesting and refreshingly open and honest. We are in the business - developing UAM, UAV, and find the timelines (hence budgets) to be total fiction, stated only to show a light at the end of the tunnel. Unbelievable that investors swallow the BS coming from many of these companies.

Great research and presentation, as usual. I learned a lot. Thanks.

Well done as always Paul. This is true journalism.

Well researched and well presented topic. A nice change in a world with hype coming after hype. Keep it that way, because it is a delight to watch it.

Paul, good video, solid data. In some ways 6 motors is way more complex, but in other ways, it's much simpler. From a software perspective, it's really not that hard. In the camera drone world, they are extremely stable and reliable able to track a target through trees. Scaling this tech to a simpler point to point system at full scale isn't that hard. Here is the rub: The combination of automation and humans. Most airline accidents these days are because humans don't manage the automation correctly, or the automation is designed to help humans not replace them but does a poor job. This handoff is the complex part along with the idea that we have human backup. If there is no handoff, and if we know that a human can never fix it, then the appropriate level of redundancy is built in, validation and testing is performed, and the accident level becomes a function of actual accidents (things you can't control) and the reliability of software. Look no further than space-x to see what full automation in a well designed system can get you.

Remember Segways? There was a presentation of "soldiers" advancing on segways with their guns up - they looked like they were taking a dump while unsuccessfully trying to shoot something. Classical case of "When the only tool you have is a hammer, just about anything looks like a nail to you" Same thing with multicopter drones, once the control units were working reasonably well. Now everybody and their grandmother is suddenly supposed to have to go places in drones, and only in drones.

Excellent video. I think you hit all of the key points.

Awesome video. Well thought out!👍🏼

I remember reading an article about some prototype electric plane, doing the math with its range relative to an average gas-powered plan in its weight class, and calculating that we'll need roughly a 5x improvement in battery energy density to let electric planes get up to parity.

I just want an electric self-launching sailplane, with the motor in the front.

Very well done and very informative. Educated me on something I was not very well schooled on yet. Thanks Paul.

Really great video! And I love the "dry" humour!

A reasonable and open minded analysis of electric aircraft and specially of this specific section of eVTOL urban mobility. Good job. You didn't touch on how the autonomous version will behave with traffic control but that I think can be figured out and depends on standardization to an extent. The main problem still is energy density and battery technology. So many disadvantages there in aviation that are so hard to overcome and this technology has no direct relation to aviation. Its an energy density problem with batteries and the solution if any will come from elsewhere where numbers and volume are huge compared to aviation

I wish I could give this video nine more thumbs up. Paul has a way of knocking the starry-eyed attitude out of those who would profess they have a miracle coming, and this video is no exception. My take on the whole electric airplane concept is that battery technology, good as it has become over the last 15 years, still must make a quantum leap in the energy density and longevity (including time to discharge and recharge time, as well as lifespan) realms before becoming a viable power source for aircraft. Even if it proves itself in the energy density, the longevity and cost of replacement at end-of-life has so far shown itself to be short and expensive in the grand scheme of its automotive use. A ten-year old Prius isn't worth what the cost of its battery replacement is, and look at the guy who just blew up his Tesla, rather than pay 2/3 the cost of the car (a 2013 model) to replace his batteries. I'm convinced I'll never see or experience electric flight in my lifetime. Of course, I'm almost 70, but I'll stick to internal combustion until my wings have feathers and I'm wearing a halo and toting a harp..

Just to add, Harriers have near unified flight controls, but zero fly by wire assistance. The throttle has a nozzle position lever just to the right of it, which is typically set into the full vertical position (82 degrees due to aircraft balance) and left there for most VTOL operations (things change when STOL is thrown into the mix), aside from that it flies extremely similarly in terms of control inputs as long as you remain inside the envelope. Pitch roll and yaw all work as you would expect them to, but are a lot more sluggish and significantly less stable, you add power to climb and reduce it to descend and use pitch to adjust speed, exactly as you would in a regular landing controlling for AoA.

I've laughed my ass off (I have been entertained with your righteously mildly-sarcastic style), while having been professionally informed ! Great video! Thanks, Paul ! Rocker

Thank you Paul for sharing your views. Complex innovation always happens when everyone looks the other way. Let them surprise us all and open a new market of air-transportation.

You also have to cool the motors (something rarely mentioned). The resistance in the motors goes up with heat, and to overcome that resistance you must: 1) cool the motors (which takes energy itself), 2) increase the voltage to keep the power output up, 3) or overdesign the motors (adding weight) so that the power lost due to resistive heating doesn't kill the power (resistance X current *squared* ).

As a 73yr old curmudgeonly geezer, I have seen many the 'pie' go by in the sky with VERY-VERY few of these concepts making it to final production and market success. Your report has quite clearly shown us the pros and cons of this type aircraft. Most everyone agrees that the battery remains the weakest of the links in this e-power chain, both on the ground and in the air. Thank you for an unbiased and information packed study.

Very good information. Thank you for doing the research.

Excellent review of the facts. I'd love to see this happen but realistically it's not going to be before 2050.

Really well done. The eventual use of electric airplanes will find its sweet spot, but until batteries become better. I believe it is limited for now. Let's not pooh-pooh them for going forward. It is an admirable endeavor and exciting possibility for the future. Thanks to Paul for all his research and humor. I always enjoy watching his videos.

Took me forever to finish watching this, but thank you for the in-depth coverage on it.

I've always enjoyed Paul's research videos. As a CFI that worked in automotive manufacturing industry, and currently working in an airline/MRO, I'd like to point out some discrepancies regarding the manufacturing portion. Automation, as how Paul used the sense of the phrase, means Lean Manufacturing. The goal is to reduce human variation on quality by replacing some or all human with machines. Automation is not the end, rather an means to an end. Meaningful endeavors of auto industries trial to reduce human variation did not start until after the B-24s that were made in Willowrun dropped their bombs on Japan's homeland, ie, the Toyota Production System, born out of the ruins of bombed out Japan. With a large investment from Toyota, and their experience in automotive manufacturing, I'm quite excited to see how Toyota and Joby can improve quality and reduce cost on aviation manufacturing as well.

Paul hit the sweet spot..energy per KG! Batteries do nut cut it as a power source. Electric motors are EXCELLENT conduits to deliver power. We just have to find the most weight and power effective way to feed them.

An excellent summary. Thanks Paul.

Another great video, Paul.

“Just the Facts” love the presentation. Thanks for your grounded thoughts.

That glass of reality may not be tasty to some, but it's much needed with all the claims and promises we keep hearing about the Electric revolution. I would love to see it happen, but will it with current battery Tech?

It's been said in aviation, you can go out and try a new powerplant. Or you can go out and try a new airframe. Both are already fraught with expensive and consequential risk. But you can't do both. These EVTOL companies are trying to add a third component- a new fuel source - and do all three. Ummm... We've all seen aviation companies come and go trying to revolutionize one, but now all three at the same time? We got one of these EVTOL startups at my local regional airport- $1B+ in investor money - and they're going for it with a different target market- you can see how they're spending the cash - big BIG fleet of fixed and rotorcraft for everyone in the company to fly - a very Silcon valley approach. The deck is stacked well against them for sure.

Thanks for sharing this with us....

Well done analysis, Thank you

Even leaving the fundamentals of energy density aside for now, one thing the pandemic has demonstrated is that telepresence technologies make the actual transportation of (at least) a hundred and something pounds of flesh and blood, somewhat unnecessary. The demand for people to actually be there in person for many kinds of business activity is much less than it was two years ago. We need to question the assumptions about the market for business travel in particular. For things like air ambulances in congested cities there could be a real benefit, but then it only has to be cheaper than a fully kitted EC135. How are Harbour Air getting along with electrifying their Beavers?

19:35 - oof, that chart is damming. $90 to cut a one hour trip down to 30 minutes? Even if their aircraft is extremely safe and works exactly as promised (and every day is a beautiful VFR day), that's a hard sell. It's hard to see where Joby's eVTOL air taxi service from station to station manages to beat old fashioned public transit -- aside from luxury markets who can afford $180/day for a round trip ticket. Then again, I don't really know how much public transit costs, but a quick google search suggests that if you want to build a new subway tunnel, it will cost in excess of $350 million per mile --- but subway tickets are still a hell of a lot cheaper than personal air taxi tickets, and trains are still far more fuel efficient per kg/mile than air transport.

Fantastic channel. Thank you.

Great piece Paul…enjoyed it

Unless and until there is a revolution in battery technology the ice is here to stay. Flying an electric trainer for an hour with no reserve is not a viable option.

Paul, kudos for your thoughtful and detailed presentation... I think the concept has merit and admire the engineering and creativity, but IMO the power technology is perhaps as much as an order of magnitude short of commercial success. Additionally, in operations the challenges I wonder about are 1) the logistics and infrastructure to support a robust air taxi operation in the various city locations. 2) the viability of e-VTOLs in IMC conditions - "fuel" for diversions to alternate airports f'rinstance? A "hybrid" air and ground transport system ala the 1930s cross country trips? 3) the turnaround time - the current lithium battery charging cycle is far too long, meaning swapping out a 2000lb battery instead of charging? Assuming a 2 hour round trip block time and flying 7 hours a day, how many batteries would be required to support each aircraft, plus spares? It's a capital expenditure, but represents significant chunk of change, given the lifespan of the batteries.

Brilliant in-depth analysis as always, Paul. I notice Garmin is heavily involved.

In case the motors get stuck in the forward position, it would ALWAYS need to be within range of an airport. Yet another issue to be solved. I for one would love this. It would force cities to keep their airports open.

Great commentary Paul! As someone who inherited a love of all things mechanical, I will never turn my back on the ICE. But I love fresh air, clean water, and silent evenings even more. The future was imagined to be quite different in 1950 than it has progressed to be. Our love of cheap gas and horsepower and joy riding all over America has cost us our imagination. We have a lot of catching up to do.

The motors are great it’s the batteries I have an issue with…with cars and planes…

What people don’t realize about batteries and energy density is that a battery, any battery, consists of an anode, a cathode, the electrolyte, an insulating layer, and a case. Energy is only stored in the electrolyte, the rest of the components are needed to make the battery work but they don’t store any energy. 20 liters of avgas requires a container of some sort but the rest of the volume is pure chemical energy. So batteries are never going to approach the energy density levels of hydrocarbon fuels.

Really excellent review. Very well researched and thought out. The density of romantics in aviation is second to none. Amazing technology.... Very iffy business plan. They fully comprehend what they are up against. Just try hanging on to a pilot after he gets trained.

Thank you Paul, that is a very balance and fair video on the subject. Before the flames come, I will preface this commentary that I work in this space and have a strong bias for electrification (and hybrid) in aviation. As far as the USA (FAA), I have often stated that Beta Technologies is much overlooked and have done amazing work, practical approach, more comprehensive with an entire eco system from charging to sensible markets to start, as well as some really good reporting from Eric Adams. I hope AV Web will explore more into their programme and more of the naysayers actually have a look before forming opinions. Geographical perspective is very important too. China (like EVs) is much overlooked and frankly running away with the AAM or eVTOL much like they have with EVs in automotive (and to some degree more broadly with electric aviation). Ehang has completed 20,000 autonomous flights, many manned, in several countries. Now Xpeng and Autoflight have full scale prototypes up and running. Also, China funded Pipistrel 5 years ago with €390m funding. The CAA have plans for certification and well as a well defined roadmap for these type vehicles as early as 2022 which will put China as least 2 years ahead of Europe and 3 years ahead of the USA (which is a shame considering the historical spirit of innovation in aviation in the US) That is a big advantage with the enabling technologies to make electric flight work. The FAA needs to pull their fingers out if they want the US to be competitive in this space. eVTOLS are just a segment (though some 200 plus ongoing projects) of electric and electric/hybrid aviation. There are projects ranging from eparamotors, gyroplanes, ultralights, bushplanes (eSTOL Zenith with a solar canopy in the UK) to small commuters that make up electric aviation. Regionally mobility, or commuter space, is also overlooked with companies like Eviation, Heart Aeropace, Tecnan, ZeroAvia, Pyka, Harbour Air, all working on this… There are 2B airline tickets sold for 250nm and under trips - not a very good use of a 737 to just go up and down when it was built for longer distances. Electric propulsion can address this market with lower operating costs. Electron Aviation in the UK have a proof of concept flying prototype at 7.5 kWh per hour. That is pretty efficient. Think of the possible addressable market on the African continent and Latin American market where road access is difficult and the automotive EV (Teslas of the world) have largely ignored. And finally, there has to be more nuance in the discussion around electric flight with separating out electric propulsion from energy storage - they are two separate technologies. Electric motors have made some amazing progress lately, especially around axial flux architectures. Just have a look at Rolls Royce Spirit of Innovation flying at 350mph on batteries. Thanks to automotive, battery technologies are getting funding and making progress on more traditional chemistries like Lithium Iron Phosphate to emerging chemistries like Li-Suflur, Li-Metal, and solid state all starting to make it out of labs and into commercial production. In the past, there was very little financial incentive, now there is… Hydrogen, micro gas turbine generators, and synthetic fuels are also making progress. You have to keep in mind, the Pipistrel electric trainer has old battery cells due to the EASA certification process. EASA and FAA would do everyone a favour by getting experts in these industries and run parallel R&D so they are not always playing catch up. Again, putting into geographical context, China is leading the way on battery tech & production. In automotive, China accounts for 60% of EVs made and sold, have several cars now 1000km range and they will be the largest market for electric aviation. GA has to get out of the 1960s and start taking a page from automotive. If we had GA tech in a car, very few people would be driving - imagine paying $30,000 for a 125bhp engine, having to manage fuel mixtures and rpms whilst driving your car. The reliability of an electric powerplant will go a long way to improving GA safety.

As always great vid. I've flown RC planes since the 70's, and electric was, at one time, something only the hard core wanted to do. you would take a typical "40" sized model that would have been 6lbs with a glow engine, and then swap it out for an under powered electric system with NiMH cells, and it now flew at 12lbs, for half the time, with poor performance. But now at my flying club, it's hard to find a glow model flying. LiPo batteries and brushless motors have changed things. But the charge issue is still real. I could take 2 min to refuel a glow model, and fly again... but takes at least a hour to charge the electric. (LiPo doesn't really like to be charged more than 1c) But there is no magic with electricity. To charge that monster pack in an hour would require power wires as thick as my arm to carry enough current, since they can't have high voltage. (most likely) And how is this going to effect the power grids that are already a problem? So, I'm like you... I think there will be a roll at some level, but not where Joby thinks it will be. On the side of the batteries... from personal use... We know the truth about LiPo's. They won't hold up, and they will degrade. I've talked to a couple Tesla techs, and I've been told that the batteries that are supposed to last 8 years DON'T !! They are known to swap sections of the pack when cars come in for service, and they don't tell the owners because they are under warranty. I'm happy to see this new section of flight... but I don't think we are there yet.

Thanks Paul, Great stuff

A very insightful and fair perspective.

If distributed power, electric thrust, fly-by-wire does actually have a future why don't these companies go for a hybrid power supply whilst waiting for battery technology to catch up? A small gas turbine/electric generator could plug the gap allowing certification of the rest of the systems. The answer is probably they don't believe their own hype and are just milking investors.

Might be useful even if not revolutionary, but calling it "green" and implying it will help "save" us from otherwise inevitable self destruction is where I draw the line.

Great video thanks

Great video, Paul. If only more American media outlets presented factual, unbiased reporting at such a high quality level. I think the biggest thing going against Joby and others like it will be the FAA and the expectations of airline safety levels. They're going to have to certify stability algorithms that can handle engine out scenarios and other failure modes, as well as handle all the electrification certification challenges. But then there's the airspace regulations--how long will it take to do what needs to be done to handle flying taxis of any serious volume?

What I worry about is how this will interact with ATC, most the cities they plan on serving are under class-B airspace

Electric motors are amazingly efficient; about 85 to 90% compared to ICE that are usually under 30% efficient. They are lightweight as well, and have lots of torque and can rev high. Perfect for airplanes. Jet engines are more efficient than ICE, but as you pointed out in this video, the main problem for electric airplanes is obviously the batteries. While avgas has an energy density of about 10 kWh per kg, batteries are usually between 150 to 300 Wh per kg. We need a battery revolution.

Thank you for the video.

Great video. I've worked in commercial aviation maintenance for over 30 years now so I can only imagine that the high cycles and short turn time usage Joby envisions is going to wear out these ultra-lightweight composite aircraft and their electrical/electronic components in a predictably short duration in ways they have not yet imagined. The first few that break up in flight or careen into a building are going to run up against the ever present smart phone video cameras of the urban environment to give the public a close up view of the carnage.

If EV aircraft are gonna work at all, they will need to move to a system of battery replacement instead of charging. Charging would be done slowly at the hangar while the aircraft simply changes batteries between flights, because there is no way charging would be accomplished as fast as fueling up with gas. Not to mention the toll it takes on battery life, as you explained very well.

The existing aircraft owner population isn’t just skeptical, they are motivated by freedom, money, and status. They perceive a decline in all three if the new technology works out. More restrictions on their flying their planes. Their planes could lose value or be grounded, and their status could suffer as well unless they adopt the new tech (for most of us in our old age). This would all be unimportant except that history shows that the grumbling does seem to have an adverse affect on advancements and adoption. Combine that with FAA intransigence on anything, and Joby and friends need to overcome a lot more than just physics.

Excellent analysis, thanks!

Very nicely done!

I am excited for electric aviation not for the sustainability aspect, but for the simplicity and in flight reliability. This means safer and seemingly cheaper flying.

Great review... So much is Unknow and that may take quite a lot of technology and future battery density, with the amount of quality, endurance, cost, and lifetime usefulness.

A realistic and objective summary.

The 1st step in economically viable electric flight is 2 hours endurance in a trainer. Just my 2 cents.