Certification is not some sort of guarantee of com 14:47 mercial success as seems to be implied. The list of failed certified aircraft is legion , as is the list (or 'wheel' of misfortune ) of VTOL failures . The combination of extremely low energy density 'fuel' in batteries with the most power hungry flight mode (vtol) is about the worst possible. Even 'solving' the inherent diificulties of this poor design choice is not the real problem. Perhaps the best way to highlight the real achilles heel of all these efforts is to return to the originating Uber Elevate presentations (summits) and refer to the operational rates in movements per minute per vertiport that were required and projected to even break even let alone make any measurable effect on traffic (or the ludicrous stated aim of 'saving one billion people one hòur per day' voiced by Joe Bievert ) The fact that all these aircraft are FIXED geometry that do not fold in any fashion means that the ground , or elevated, operational infrastructure must be HUGE and vastly expensive to get any significant rate of operations or even a chance of profitability. The Uber Elevate conflabs revealed for the first time just how big and sophisticated any useful V 'pad' or 'port,' must actually be - including the landing pads, and passenger boarding, deplaning and baggage transfer, plus ground taxi ranks ,escalators etc etc but also showing aircraft elevators to move the aircraft from the flight deck to clear it for mote arrivals or departures and load/unload pax and recharge . The nearest analogy is to an aircraft carrier but with aircraft that have to stop and start mid air rather than rapidly 'arriving' and being shot off in second but more salently that doNOT fold up to get out of the way either aside or below deck . Yet the projected rate of operations to get near viability must be MUCH higher than an aircraft carrier at full blast and with these fixed wing 'bloated' designs the machinery,lifts etc to get to useful operational rates, and allow pax to get in an out without exposure to galefotce downwash blast or rain etc simply cannot be done at any scale. Rooftop 'helipad' ops are only suitable for occasional medevac or executive type use but are shown as part of this evtol scenario
@rossnolan7283Күн бұрын
Had to rush outside to rescue my ATOL model from a sudden rainshower (winter in AustralIa) and rushed my comment. The characteristic "lethargy" of vtol vehicles in general is a result of high mass due to the needed high power together with only small EXCESS power hence low acceleration rates which forever damn 14:47 14:47 this type of aircraft to slow turnaround times and tie up the landing pads for inordinate amounts of time. Having to start and stop from stationary yet airborne flight imposes a loss of landing pad capacity as compared to roll on roll off (the Metro hop website includes an animation of their rapid turnaround estol system for a comparison , the Berlin airlift was a historical example of a highly efficient ,delay free operation but still way short of the Uber projections. Focussing on one thing to distract attention from the real trick is the essence of the magician, or deceptionist's art. Watch the other hand...
@EaglesProdz2102 күн бұрын
I love how "EVTOL Research" won't talk about Joby's lack of progress and inability to transition their production prototype plane after a year of "testing." In my opinion, Archer has made more progress than Joby in the last 12 months. If you dedicate some mindshare to the Joby issue, you'll realize they have a serious payload issue that they struggle to overcome. At a >$3bn market cap, this is where the real malfeasance lies.
@MrJesse14793 күн бұрын
Dude. All this page does is sh!t on this company. Total one sided garbage.
@EVTOLresearch3 күн бұрын
Archer tells stakeholders that it has a very good product, the design is very "mature" it is really quiet and it is ramping up the cadence of its test flight program and it is flying hundreds of times, up to 15 flights per day so as to gain experience on what commercial operations will be. If that is true, then Archer has lots of internal data to back it up. Everything in that data set can be shared without jeopardising Archer's intellectual property. So we would say: share the calibrated noise data, share the actual mileage and flight hours flown, share video's of flights including sound, share pictures of the actual assembly of the first three planes. None of that is forthcoming. To put it differently: would you buy a car from a seller who tells you that he is totally confident that his car has 500 miles of range, accelerates to 100 mph in 6 seconds and top speed of 200 mph because that is what he is doing all the time, but who doesn't wan't to show you any material to back up those claims, much less lets you test drive? Meanwhile Archer is selling hundreds of millions of dollars of shares to institutional investors at an attractive discount and is then trying to convince retail investors to buy them without the discount in the public markets. Our goal is to make sure that retail investors have a complete picture. We are not arguing that Archer doesn't have a path to certification and commercialisation because we don't have a definitive opinion on that. What we are trying to do is make sure that stakeholder who invest their money in Archer or stake their reputation on entering into a MOU for some future collaboration have a full picture of the state of play. They deserve that.
@MrJesse14792 күн бұрын
They've come further than any evtol company so far in my opinion. I'm invested in several and the others are coming along at different speeds. This industry may be huge soon.
@livingroomguitarist73 күн бұрын
So Archer literally painted the original Midnight to make it appear to the unsuspecting that this is the aircraft Archer recently built.
@livingroomguitarist73 күн бұрын
@sphudson I don't think N302AX is a tail number. I think it is a model number. When Archer first made the claims of delivering an aircraft to the U.S.A.F and I Google compared (what I thought would be a 2nd aircraft) I noticed both had the same tail number, but found it was a model number, so it I thought that possibly Archer has now 2 Midnight aircraft. From the looks of this video, my skepticism was right and Archer just painted their only Midnight and passed it off as - some newly built aircraft. The white Midnight earlier in the vid has to be the same aircraft and was just in between paint schemes.
@livingroomguitarist73 күн бұрын
@@sphudson as far as being legal, I'm not sure.
@BlueEyed8883 күн бұрын
Why reduce the sound? Isn’t that important to hear? Is there a problem?
@gravitationalvelocity19053 күн бұрын
Wow. Too loud!
@gravitationalvelocity19054 күн бұрын
My take is Joby makes a quieter plane, and the EVTOL winner will have a product that can be used in suburban markets. So i am investing in Joby, but would like to hear contrary views.
@louisliu64888 күн бұрын
航空项目按时完成率低于10%非常普遍 On-Time Completion Percentage (OTCP) lower than 10% are common in aviation projects.
@sageakporherhe7838 күн бұрын
Joby clearly wins the quiet round.
@MrJesse147910 күн бұрын
You guys are funny. This sector is in its infancy. Any company in this space with a stock price between .75 and $5 or so is a bargain. Wish I got Tesla or Uber at those prices.
@livingroomguitarist718 күн бұрын
Forgive my ignorance, even with the delays in transition, I thought the current aircraft Midnight was piloted. Learning that the current Midnight isn't piloted aircraft and can't be flown with a pilot, there is ZERO chance the military is going to purchase an EVTOL aircraft to test of this type that isn't able to be flown with a pilot. The fact that they are still building their first aircraft that can be piloted tells you how far behind they are in their timeline, they're not even close to market.
@BlueEyed88818 күн бұрын
So many years behind JOBY.....so quickly running out of cash. Very sad.
@bijangh935 күн бұрын
They just delivered to Air Force, read before you speak
@rossnolan728320 күн бұрын
The 'conformance to timelines' is not so important in itself with almost every aircraft or transport infratructure or other projects routinely going way over budget and schedule - Tesla is another case of slippage . More significant should be failure to meet functional criteria (eg the 10 to the minus 9 safety goal) and as you have shown the noise in vtol mode. The FAA has revised it's special conditions to require full control after total power loss (thr worst case of course could be assymetric partial loss or even overspeed on one side - which was a case with the CL 84 Dynavert from prop govenor failure. Certification should involve 'off design' or worst case testing ,eg shooting duck carcasses into running jet engines in anticipation of l ikely scenarios, similarly these types should show survivability after blade shedding from whatever cause. With such extreme prop pylons and wing coupling it would seem unlikely that Archer could pass such a test.(it has the worst case here with the other near clones like Supernal,Wisk, Eve, Vertical, Yuri et al all being far less prone, yet even Joby has had total loss from blade failure as well as Vertical. Whether their coding can account for the scores of failure permutations to instantly compensate is very doubtful. I was working on the F 18 centre barrel fatigue program amidst the F18 'tail shake' test rig to investigate vortex shedding excitation (DSTO Australia) for which they cut several of the attach straps to simulate cracks and see how sensitive it was to small defects or incipient failure likely after some service. Certification has to include similar foreseeable cases and hope that unforseen ones are not critical (like the DeHavilland Comet pressurization fatigue catastrophy that was due to introduction of novel technology, as is evtol - delays are to be expected but obvious design weaknesses should not be overlooked. It was telling that Muntz referred to the DoD funding as helping Archer eg disguised govrrnment support along the lines of the long running Airbus vs Boeing trade dispute. ( and the Wisk lawsuits ) Timing alone may not be most important even if tied to legal or contractual issues.
@zhihenglou20 күн бұрын
I wanted to add a few comments to the other side of the debate. Archer has missed their deadlines, but this is common for aircraft development programs. Of course, this is not an excuse, but it is a reflection of how things seem to work in the industry. I think if you pitch far-away timelines, investors will be less interested, and the workforce will be less motivated (for example, a company proposes the commercialization of an electric aircraft by 2040. Does that sound interesting to private investors, and does that sound motivating to the workforce?). If you look at what Archer has delivered so far, as shown by their recent flight testing videos, I would say that they are doing better than many other eVTOL companies. A potential risk is that they may be under so much time pressure that they do not address their design problems from the root. This will be a crucial decision for their leadership: how much will they extend their timelines?
@BabyBoomersDoomer18 күн бұрын
The investors are probably holding deadweight stock.
@EVTOLresearch18 күн бұрын
Thanks for your engagement. We are not aircraft engineers like yourself and we defer to people like you on who is doing relatively well in terms of delivery of technology. We do have experience in capital markets. In our view the problem is the following: the value of all the EVTOL players together is too low relative to the plausible size of the market opportunity. All of the EVTOL players taken together are worth currently perhaps something like US 10 billion. Joby is 3.5bn, Archer is 1.4bn, Vertical is 0.2bn, Lilium is 0.5bn and then you have privately held players like Wisk (maybe 0.5bn) and Beta (guestimate 2bn). That US$ 10 billion is too small a number relative to the size of the market that investors could buy into. Let's say that by 2030 there could be a market for 20.000 EVTOLs per year. That would mean a market size of US$ 60 billion (using 3m per plane) by 2030, not a crazy number either relative to the current size of the global helicopter market of ~ US 50 billion. There are going to be investors that believe the US$ 60 billion number. Why are they not bidding up the prices of the EVTOL companies, in other words why are valuations so low? We believe it has a lot to do with EVTOL players not providing a balanced view on both good news but also on challenges to overcome. Investors don't mind risk, it just gets factored into the discount rate they use for the valuation of a company. What they don't like is risk that they can't wrap their head around. So the endless stream of communicated 'achievements' and MOU's and 'milestones' that all on further inspection don't add up to a hill of beans are making investors wary. They know there are lots of risks, but most of the companies in the sector do a poor job in explaining what they are, how likely they are too occur and what their impact and remediation would be. Hence we believe the industry would be better off if all players would provide that balanced view rather than the endless 'good news shows' that are being put on display despite the obvious challenges and set backs that companies run into. So in absolute valuation terms the EVTOL players would be helped by more transparency as to what is really going on. We at EVTOL research are trying to fill some of that missing information gap. In addition, we want markets to function properly and allocate their investment dollars to the companies most deserving of the next capital injection. In order for markets to function properly more information about at least the state of the development of the product should be forthcoming. Take note of SpaceX as an example. It is attracting a lot of stakeholder interest and would obtain an enormous amount of investment if it were to come to a public market. It doesn't put on a good news show, actually it makes stakeholders participants in understanding how incremental progress is made in a process of two steps forward and one step back. By the same token, we are arguing for more transparency from the EVTOL industry. Self evidently Archer is running into significant delays. Stakeholders should not be left in the dark as to what is causing them. There may well be a good explanation that explains incremental and important progress is being made but that certain items are bottlenecks which the company is working to overcome. If on the other hand there are insurmountable problems, then the market should know about them, lest it sends good money after bad.
@livingroomguitarist718 күн бұрын
@@EVTOLresearch there is also skepticism about evtols and what many call "The Flying Car market" here in the U.S. Most people have limited understanding of what an evtol market can bring to an economy and the $$$ it can unlock. Some airlines understand it and have invested appropriately with other evtol companies. What we do have for the first time is the convergence of technologies that will absolutely support evtol and services where in decades past we didn't. So it's not a matter of if anymore, but now WHEN. When it does come to market investors will be rewarded. I appreciate your updates on Archer, I haven't been a fan of management's claims, nor their strategy. Wasting money on development of Maker, and now a pilotless Midnight, they should have gone straight to a pilot capable Midnight aircraft.
@zhihenglou20 күн бұрын
Great questions, thanks for sharing!
@hnguye2221 күн бұрын
Archer has planned out to the Southwest region. They stroke a deal SW airline and plan mass production their fleet in the state of Georgia.
@MarcOppelt23 күн бұрын
Thanks for this. Archer's plane is quieter...but sounds like an aircraft. Identifiable. The flight at 12:00 is downright noisy. Joby's plane sounds like the wind. A much more viable choice for an urban air taxi. Thanks for the video. Selling my Archer stock to buy more Joby.
@user-ux6jv7qf2kАй бұрын
Whilst not a perfect comparison, this is the best noise demo i've seen on YT. Thanks a lot.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Note "4" (FOUR)Comments yet only 3(THREE) appear - what has become of the missing fourth ??? (it might show 5 comments after this one now but only display 4 including this....) Taking the opportunity to probe into Wisk further ,have they flown their "Archer config" at any scale, yet? --VFS register shows a wing delivered to them from subcontractors but not hearing anything about flight test (not including Cora in NZ... ) interestingly a replica of the 1903 Pearse Monoplane flown by him in May 1903 has just been placed in a museum there (after IT was flown also) and Pearse's roadable, 'convertiplane' of circa 1920s was also amongst ,if not the first, VTOL and convert -to -wingborne- flight aircraft ever built (but was technically deficient in a number of ways, but the concept lives again, now . The book "The riddle of Richard Pearce" details the extensive research into his pre Wright aircraft R&D to actual flight . Wonder why Wisk is carrying out flight test in far off New Zealand ?
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Crossouts are unintentional.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Seems one of my comments has disappeared.... is there reason for this ? (Specifically )
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
I hear crickets....
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
It is unclear what Wisk is protecting with patents taken out on it's much different Cora still flying in New Zealand with non tilting lift props and only sized for two seats (the airframe is very close to the German FS 28 from 1972 and non patentable in any case) ,not much of the software could be carried ovrr to tilt prop version nor could much of the Vahana tanden tilt wing be of much value so the "poached" ex staff from both probably added relatively little directly applicable know how (and how much actual flying has the tilt prop Wisk done? ) Thr comparison to two bald men fighting ovrr a comb that i once posted seems even more apt now... the legal stoush masks the deficiencies in their tech and both of them are much inferior by every measure to a Cessna 172 from the 1950s except for the "v" bit and that is the cause of their shortcomings, not the solution, ATOL is the viable approach to avoid the wastefulness,danger,noise and cost of both the aircraft and the extremely costly infrastructure, as shown on Uber elevate depictions with multi story V ports having aircraft carrier style lifts etc etc. Investors ought to research the threat from far more efficient competitor technology to ANY evtol before throwing more billions at the Beta equivalent vs VHS - let alone Bluray and beyond .....
@alexharman8403Ай бұрын
Well done! Not perfect of course, but it is far better comparative video than anything else out there. Thank you. Those must have been long days waiting for action.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Perfect would be both companies subjecting themselves to a standardised test. Joby of course has extensively published data and video material about their sound profile. Archer hasn't yet done so. We believe that the only online material with sound is the very first test flight of Maker in December 2021.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
AMWAY famously stated "we don't sell soap, we sell hope" - in the evtol "market" it could be revised to ..... "we sell hype" ( I once had an employee who got sucked into Amway, tried to sell me on it, so it got my attention and I looked into the structure as a Ponzi scheme (pyramid selling- con, the product was irrelevant the duping of the gullible was not) See the same forces at work now , the pilching of competitor's staff complete with stolen IP and training is indicative of the level of ethics involved ( but '200 years of experience' might be followed by 'at complete failure to deliver one viable product' - both from Wisk (Cora , Boeing's own abandoned crashed evtol, the Airbus Vahana and others ) . The airbrushing out of the co founder Bret Adcock with acrimonious jibes deprived us of the 'Rocky and Bullwinkel/ Laurel and Hardy double act amidst their spectacular 'reveal' presentation with Taiko drummers, violin solo and enormous projector screen visuals all at a mind boggling expense (but without the video star Maker even turning a rotor...) all the hype and self promotion but little substance and based on theft (not that Boeing has clean hands in that respect either having just been found guilty of stealing technology from Zunum , also in the battery airplane start up hype field with an $81 million judgement against them in yet another lawsuit;- small beer in comparison to the 737 matters but also involving thr overall loss of corporate integrity now being revealed. Surely the evidence of greed driven stupidity in the 1000 plus suddenly emergent 'experts' in evtol on the Vertical Flight Society register must give some pause to investors and call for some due diligence on both the engineering side ,the economics and the principles of those flogging this bubble. Massive 'investment' should come after a first generation of working prototypes and proof of concept trials have succeeded not only from banker's ill informed speculation (eg Morgan Stanley's trillions of dollars of profits founded on other unfounded beat up by Mark Moore via Uber to inflate the whole bloody shebang out of vapourware. Computer generated images and projections that are not based on reality have fuelled an unprecedented orgy of financial recklessness (if you discount the south Sea scam or tulipmania but restrict it to aviation
@gkkkk7507Ай бұрын
Lilium ❤️💕🚀🚀🚀
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Thanks for your engagement. We are actually thinking of heading to Spain to capture a Lilium flight.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Just on transition per se, if everything goes right the aircraft will remain in trim throughout the 'handover' of the "anti gravity" function from proprotors (powered) to the wing AND tail , it is important to appreciate that the tail's primary function is to trim the whole airplane ie keep it balanced and slso to allow for control in pitch and yaw. There does not appear to be any movement of the tail surfaces at all as must be required during and after a transition , it may be that they have to have lift from the aft props for equilibrium ( ie not transitioned ) and showing the aircraft to be tail heavy. With Joby both the tail and wing are blown by slipstream and there is huge ruddervator deflection as well , the two blade props shown are fixed pitch that would be slower to respond and build up thrust differently to those forward (more 'fixes' in the control software at a minimum if not actually sufficient trim available, the original Uber animations had fixed rear props also as does the VX4 , no way could the Uber elevate depictions trim in pitch with multiple props on the rear tail boom so that was artistic licence only. There is a legitimate question as to viability here and cruise flight would demand tail control surfaces ( not just fixed as might be the case)
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Back in Columbo mode, i have scanned many of their videos and still failed to see any actual control surfaces on either the wing or tail(s) - am i missing something? ( or are they?) Normally a pilot, even on RC wiggles the stick and looks out just to see if the controls are working, i hsve not seen any movement at all and cannot see any hinge lines even surely they are not planning on just using differential prop thrust even when (if 😅) fully wingborne? As crazy as this sounds I cannot dismiss it on the evidence so far. It would be beyond ridiculous to only have fixed tail surfaces not even within the slipstreams (propwash) when in hover and with winds trying to upset it and weathervane the whole show. Someone tell me this cannot be true....
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Corporate maschinations aside, i am more concerned with the engineering shortcomings inherent in their overall design concept and the possible failure modes and inabilities to rectify the outcomes in time. For example , power loss near ground - the " dead man's zone" for helicopters exists where there is not enough height to transition to autogyro mode but above the height at which kinetic energy stored in the rotor can be used to arrest sink (and the reaction time is very small, any error in pulling collective in either case can be carastrophic, I once burst proofed six sets of Hughes 300 tanks with Kevlar wrapping (got an STC equiv ) for training use including autorotation and arrived at the hangar to find the chopper with tail boom severed two neat holes in the canopy above the pilots and the tanks torn off but undamaged - pulled collective either too early or two late doing power loss training. Glide angle is abysmal at best with rotorcraft , also spoke to medivac pilots with Afghanistan experience about Osprey accidents and emergency helo landings - both far more benign than these evtols with unknown behaviour with partial tilting on wing and tail flows but likely vortex ring issues. So far no demonstration of emergency procedures or even robust handling - just lethargic slow motion blundering around (Bidening perhaps?) - this is chsracteristic of all vtols where you have high mass but little excess power left over to manouver or climb, having so much weight out in the wings makes it so much worse ,(the Vertiia, not a typo) is the worst of all with the batteries at the wingtips don 't even think of spinning these things or even rapid rolling. Instantaneous reflexes would be essential to have any chance, running out of charge in flight will happen and it better be that they all shut down together at the least. Flight in high winds with gustiness thrown in is going to be interesting because unlike helos they cannot store energy and do a jump start after pitch input , the "no man's land" between sitting tight and lift equalling weight ie the hovercraft state ,is highly vulnerable in most of these designs including archer and Joby . Surely they could release some footage of remote control sub scale models flying in bad conditions not just the smooth wind tunnel static testing (curiously done in Europe)
@user-jq2rf4nf3oАй бұрын
Drones on like a C 130... Are that at full gross of empty?
@nate5eplayer574Ай бұрын
Video speed and quality improvements are nice. Keep up the good work.
@setonfire104Ай бұрын
Archer has a very inefficient design. Joby will destroy them
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Thanks for your engagement. We hear other people expressing the same view. We would be keen to hear what your arguments are. Weight? Disc Loading? Efficiency of the motors? Complexity of the combination of tilting fore propellers and fixed lift propellers? Grateful in advance for your viewpoints. If you are an aircraft engineer, so much the better!
@nate5eplayer574Ай бұрын
@@setonfire104 Like Pepsi vs Coke. Both will exist together just fine. People who think there will only be one success and the other will be destroyed.. are out of touch from reality. I invest in ACHR because they are the (safest). Their design can glide to safety with zero power.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Based on the expressed desire of this website to best inform viewers and potential investors in this field (urban/advanced air mobility it is presumed) of far better and more viable alternatives 'in the wings' as it were. Investing in piston aircraft engines in 1950 as if unaware of the coming jet engine could be likened to the current state of the art in battery powered evtol; the alternative in this field is ATOL which avoids the huge power requirement of vtol with associated massive battery weight and cost, bloated airframes and noise, downblast and so on and is failsafe unlike vtol. In this context almost nothing in terms of infrastructure is needed and,unlike noisy vtol, can be installed in the midst of residential, suburban areas (in your street in fact) giving a real "Jetson's" type experience rather than the same hassles of airport/airline system which evtol reproduces on a smaller scale and is limited by the same constraints as are airports (each landing place needing carparks and waiting rooms etc just as for the hub and spoke airlines and excluding private owner use even if autonomous. For a small idea of how LITTLE physical infrastructure is really needed for aircraft of this size to operate out of built up areas viewers could google 'Brodie launch system' or similar to see a cable based airplane launch and landing apparatus needing no real estate and being energy efficient as compared to brute force vtol ( and ONLY showing how to avoid the need for any runway at all or for high power but in ALL other respects being quite unlike the current technology being developed in ATOL and for Atol compatible flying vehicles. Just for the record I have no affiliation to this website or any evtol company, investment or other business , i do have a background in the aircraft industty and aircraft design and as a pilot but no stake in the financial affairs of any of the 1000 plus evtol promoters on the Vertical Flight Society list ; lest any wrong infrrences be drawn.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Recovering the fantastic amounts of money spent on developing these crazily inefficient vehicles from airfares will be made even more impossible when the overhead costs of "Taj Mahal" style futuristic "vertiports" is added to the downside of the ledger. Economically doomed.
@TheBagOfHoldingАй бұрын
Do you think the 10minute demo milestone flight to secure the stellantis funding was in a craft that was stripped of all the equipment needed for human safety and comfort and was just a shell with extra battery that it wouldn't normally be able to lift with seats and passangers and didn't have any juice left when it landed? I have a feeling a flight like that will not be repeated in over a year.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
We don't know. That would be speculation. Nothing wrong with that, but we prefer to stick to facts, at least on our channel. That is why we show so much recordings of the key individuals and we quote the original documents. In addition, we are making our own observations at the test sites. None of that is speculation. Thanks for your engagement!
@TheBagOfHoldingАй бұрын
@@EVTOLresearch we? Are you borg?
@TheBagOfHoldingАй бұрын
@EVTOLresearch can you speculate on if the craft was was in the condition to support passangers even if they didn't have the weight of passangers they would at least shown it up close and give a tour of the interior. basically make good videos and sell their buisness. It seems they are hiding things.
@Daniel-os9tbАй бұрын
Did you see the map of poop. That’s what happened to frisco.
@TheBagOfHoldingАй бұрын
Did they ever say on earth? Maybe they were talking about a planet with less gravity and a denser atmosphere.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
There is continual confusion created by using the name Maker for the four passenger aircraft (now called Midnight)and the overhyped rhetoric that glosses over the extremely poor claimed range (which is twice the more pertinent radius of action given that recharging may only be available at very few locations and the charging delay will exceed the discharge (flight) time . These type of evtol configurations are prone to propeller whirl flutter (which has already downed two similar designs in the Joby and Vertical VX4 ) with out any external cause like birds trike or icing,erosion etc to cause imbalance and in the transition from hover in edgewise mode the propellers are subject to high assymetrical loading, like helicopters but seemingly without cyclic pitch to even out blade forces and with, in Archer Midnight's case extraordinarily long cantilevered prop pylons, the propensity for interference from adjacent props in crosswind or sides lip and vortex ring state or exciting flutter has been noted. (The Lockheed Electra suffered catastrophic failures from whirl flutter in much more benign flight modes - both the other evtols disintegrated ) . Without any economic or business law background the proprietary ethicality of the "merger" schemes is outside my field of expertise but the parallels to the historical " south Sea bubble" based on exactly the same financial/investor duping is clear and the whole stampede into battery powered vtol designs in a formerly unfailingly unsuccessful segment of aircraft design despite the use of MUCH more efficient energy sources and ultra light weight gas turbine engines and not having to be remotely economic for military use. Pre selling hundreds of aircraft that do not exist and building giant factories before even one passenger has been carried or any convincing, well documented proof of operational feasibility (technical or economic) is unprecedented and extremely hubristic ( with investor's money being played with like monopoly ) - some earlier white elephants in aviation of a similar kind worth a look were the gigantic Princess flying boats built in the late 40s in England or the contemporaneous Bristol Brabazon, Hughes flying boat or other follies in a grand scale. Abbott Aerospace has posted some sobering professional engineering and other evaluations of several highly promoted evtols which are well worth taking a look at. The whole "explosion" of runaway 'investment' and unfettered 'enthusiasm' in the evtol field merits a critical dispassionate assessment not only for potential fraud but from poor engineering right from the conceptual stage on up, wisdom and ethics seem to have been lost in the pursuit of avarice. Maybe corporate regulators (and hopefully the FAA ) will take a harder look , the fundamental requirement for controllability and survivability after total power failure in any flight mode appears to be alone a show stopper for configurations of this kind, much more could,and should, be said.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Thanks for your engagement and very useful input.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
What are you intending to do next? Is there any intention to join the legal action as amicus curae (friend of the court) for instance? I have a very real stake in this whole show having been working (on my own dollar) for many years (40+) to solve the same issue but taking a vastly different approach to the 1000 plus evtolemmings ,namely ATOL ,of which I have posted extensively and warned of the threat of damage to the entire field from battery powered ill conceived contraptions flogged by hucksters and/or the ignorant or self deluded which have suddenly been deluged in enormous sums of money and computer assisted deception (including pretty CGI and animations and calculating power that brings to mind the Disney tale of the sorcerer's apprentice, such power in the hands of UNexperienced engineering graduates let loose without mature oversight is fraught (the Lilium example is most germane here with competent outside analysis and warnings going unheeded whilst the protaginists continue to milk the public penchant for flying cars and blight of everyday jammed traffic, bleak lives etc and dangle the carrot of magical freedom from it all in front of the huddled masses (OK, a bit florid but the technique being used is at least putting the cart before the horse if not the carrot - selling aircraft that don't exist or never became available in satisfactory form ,eg the BD5 et al created a big backlash some time ago and led to reforms in aviation advertising and promotion (and industry bodies intended to protect the buying public) Nothing on the present scale but of the same kind has existed before and received so little critical technical examination, Theranos and Enron perhaps being worth noting. It would be nice if you could state your motives or objectives in posting and eliciting comment and from what position you come. The 'nuance' is important since some evtol opponents are merely of the "if God meant us to fly he would have given us tickets" kind rather than having deeper insight . Anyway nice work in bringing this stuff to light, the internecine hatred and allegations between Wisk and Archer dwarfed the possible finance market irregularities that seem to be involved here (and, no they did not transition to cruise mode lest it not be clear😊 )
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Another thing,(channelling Columbo here...) both Archer, with Maker 2 seat and Wisk with Cora 2 seat have made huge investments into what they now seem to relegate to just "test" aircraft but which were touted as products for public use initially (the very concept of taxi denotes on demand individual service rather than multi seat minibus type use but not allowing for scheduled flights under the regs pt 135 etc - if they have given up on autonomy and realised the need for a pilot and hence to amortise the increased cost over more heads they should have said so (recall the couple deposited in some desert landscape whilst the Maker departs leaving them to their tryst...) The 'visions' of serene operations not even mussing the hair of the female executive type depicted in the Uber elevate promos whereas the reality of tornado level downwashes on those vertipads would be more like the opening segment of MASH , the whole concept of thousands of daily movements per facility is unrealistic on several levels but crucial to the viability if their model 'conops' . When does misrepresentation become wilful deceit in these matters?
@livingroomguitarist7Ай бұрын
More like Archers "Faker" aircraft. Seems Archer might be employing the "Fake it till you Make it" approach to it's evtol business strategy. They might be the Nikola of the evtol space.
@alanmcmillan6969Ай бұрын
Both are quiet, both are impressive. Props are always going to produce noiçe
@jinx6947Ай бұрын
Videos made by this channel are so great and inspiring! Hope to connect with you and discuss evtol worldwide.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Thanks for the compliment! We are confident that over time the opportunity to connect will present itself.
@Fey418Ай бұрын
That 2 aligned blades propellers to reduce drag argument sounds like baloney to me. You already have six rotors creating flow twist, turbulence being created at the trailing edge of the wing, plus a boom wing interference contaminating the airflow, having the rear rotor blades "aligned to the flow" at that point doesn´t seem to make much of difference in drag. This thing is not a fighter jet either, it is flying at low subsonic speeds - let us remember a Cessna 172 has a strut under a much less optimized wing and it flies fine! It is also worth noting that on the original design, while the front propeller blades have pitch control, the rear two blades are an integral piece, with locked pitch shape. This could be a problem in two aspects: 1- There is a higher chance of rotor axis unbalance because you have propeller mass inertia being spread in one direction only. Helicopters cope this problem with rotor blade balance mechanism, which consists of dummy masses installed in other directions and pitch and yaw control for each blade. 2- It can be inefficient because you might be heavier in some trips but your rotor lift output is constrained by the fixed pitch propeller. Changing to four or three blades stabilizes better the rotor axis, and if they made them pitch variable, they can improve lift performance at a cost of a bit more complexity and weight.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Wonderful comments. Clearly you have domain experience!
@electricaviationchannelvid7863Ай бұрын
At 90 knots IAS the wings should be producing enough lift already...the slowdown transition is the more tricky phase... These tests are very far from the full flight envelope tests...the company seems to be more focused on stock market/shares than engineering... Lilium and Beta Techn. are the more mature in this respect... Stellantis is not in a good shape anyway...
@niio111Ай бұрын
I don't think you can say that the inside props were turning slower. A different speed for sure. The video may look like that but it could be an artifact of the camera frame rate and the inner props are blurry. Wings generate more lift inboard than outboard, which means more downwash behind the wing inboard, which would mean those props turning faster. I'm not sure it makes any difference to the success of the flight. Four bladed props behind the wing are a problem when you want low drag in flight. They will always have a blade hanging out in the wind creating drag. This is due to small diameter needed since there are twelve of them and this seems a design flaw. Eight larger diameter props would still provide redundancy and be more efficient. Two small blades likely couldn't generate the necessary lift nor could three, so they wound up with four. Update: Looking at a single frame the inside props are turning faster as the blur at the tip is longer than that on the outside blades, hence higher speed.
@MrNi3333NiАй бұрын
So they did achieve it in your opinion?
@helifanodobezanozi7689Ай бұрын
The EVTOL Research Channel...... yet EVERY VIDEO IS ABOUT ARCHER AVIATION! ......hmmm.... Either this channel is being funded by a short seller, or perhaps a fired ex-employee!!!😂
@EaglesProdz210Ай бұрын
Short-seller with minimal aviation and engineering experience. That said, I love any content-KZfaq or otherwise-that helps drive the short interest high. Continued execution by Archer will eventually disprove these stupid assertions. For example, Stallantis' investment announced today allegedly confirms a full transition.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Thanks for your engagement. We have disclosed our short position as a matter of courtesy. We are not offering investment advice. Our goal is to make the relevant factual information available to as many stakeholders as possible.
@livingroomguitarist7Ай бұрын
@helifanodobezanozi7689 as a revolutionary tech with a TON of skepticism, there should be transparency, yet Archer has been misleading in their statements with Maker, and timelines.
@helifanodobezanozi7689Ай бұрын
@@livingroomguitarist7 Misleading..... you mean like naming this channel "EVTOL Research" in an attempt to portray your opinions as being unbiased information? LOL! This isn't about truth, it's ALL about improving someone's short position!!! 😂
@livingroomguitarist7Ай бұрын
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 not really. The short position was disclosed after evtol covered the class action suite against Archer. The more I look into Archer, the less legit it looks. I would love to see the aircraft be successful, but statements from their CEOs are suspect and their timeline for Archers commercialization is very very unrealistic.
@niio111Ай бұрын
Joby's six larger props are much quieter than Archer's twelve smaller props. Same takeoff measured noise level at half the distance is a big deal. The 100db low level Archer overflight is not indicative of how it would be experienced in operation I don't think, but it does show that the configuration is not inherently quiet and needs altitude before overflying anything sensitive. There was no such Joby overflight so impossible to compare. They have both achieved a lot in the world of aviation, though I remain skeptical of battery storage viability. I wouldn't be surprised if they both wound up hybrids with twice the payload/range.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Very interesting viewpoint. How much of the battery in your view is dedicated to reserve and how heavy would a combustion engine with fuel be ? Would that be a good trade off?
@niio111Ай бұрын
@@EVTOLresearch Battery electric powertrains are 40x heavier than turbine jet fuel powertrains for equivalent range. Big difference. VTOL is twice as power hungry as CTOL. Another big difference. Twelve small props are much less efficient than one big helo rotor. Third big difference. This is why every evtol aims at 50 mile trips when a similarly sized airplane would go 1000 miles.
@livingroomguitarist7Ай бұрын
It's possible Archer kept the outside rotors spinning because at speeds of 100kts, Midnights' wing may not provide sufficient lift. I always thought Midnights wing is a rather odd wing design, especially as you go outboard. With the downward wingtip, it could be efficient for climb during vtol but could reduce the lift needed for forward flight at lower speeds. Time will tell as Archer continues to test and increases their forward cruising speed to see if the rear blades count is reduced to 2 blades per motor.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Interesting viewpoint. Thanks. We will see whether Midnight goes back to 2 blade aft propellers. Maker clearly has not gone back from 3 blades to 2 blades that is for sure.
@livingroomguitarist7Ай бұрын
@EVTOLresearch IMO at this point, Maker is a waste of funds. Archer should focus all efforts into Midnight as that will be their main revenue stream.
@rossnolan7283Ай бұрын
Thanks for your perceptive independent research, I was not aware of the clause in the 'agreement' with Stellantis specifying full transition until now (also notable is the "exhibit" naming , is this indicative of some (more) legal issues ? Bearing in mind the sordid lawsuit with Kittyhawk/Paige/Google over theft of IP and copying of the basic design from Wisk (Munz et al having downloaded thousands of pages of in house data etc as well, the whole "origin story" is worrying as was the departure of the co founder etc etc etc - all being warning signs about their business ethics. As you had already noted (and i did 12 months ago on YT) the aircraft shown in the videos does not conform to the design concept or 'visuals' irrespective of whether IT transitioned. The aft props induced downwash behind the wing and so add to lift (the Dornier Do 29 used this concept 60 years ago) whereas the front props REDUCE lift during conversion by inducing negative angle of attack and create high pitching moments from propeller normal force (the Curtiss Wright X19 vtol employed this force as 'radial lift force' , it could be that the ridiculous offset of the front propellers and the normal force Require the rear props to cancel it out ( even when fully tilted to horizontal the wing upwash field creates a normal force moment . I had to go into this subject in some depth with my Opal tail pusher in the late 70s as control inputs deflect the inflow field and the propeller is far from the CG. With billions of dollars floating around and "sales' of hundreds of non existent aircraft being touted a little more truth in advertising and engineering would be nice. Good work.
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
Interesting, clearly you are in the aircraft engineering business. Keen to hear more as we publish more videos. Thanks for your engagement!
@patrickmckowen2999Ай бұрын
👍
@patrickmckowen2999Ай бұрын
Everyone is assuming these tests are being done unloaded, do we know?
@EVTOLresearchАй бұрын
You are probably right. As far as we know as yet no EVTOL company has flown fully loaded. From what we hear, it will meaningfully increase noise.
@BlueEyed888Ай бұрын
Archer Midnight will never be allowed to fly into urban vertiports with that level of noise. So glad i don’t own any ACHR.
@nikobelic4251Ай бұрын
I think right now the plan is to have them fly from Major city downtowns (like Manhattan where ambient sound is already really high) to airports, where ambient sound is already really high as well.