Kitty Hawk Cora Air Taxi

I was just watching this. Looks pretty cool, but once they started touting "pollution-free" they lost all credibility. Moller had the right idea, he was just ahead of his time.
 
I wonder what the range is? It is amazing to me that we have the tech to make electric vehicles of this sort. Would I want one? Probably not. But it's still quite an accomplishment even in the prototype phase.
 
One interesting thing I noticed is that the blades all seem to automatically angle forward when they stopped which likely minimizes drag a decent amount.
 
Challenged said:
One interesting thing I noticed is that the blades all seem to automatically angle forward when they stopped which likely minimizes drag a decent amount.
Click to expand...

Modern motors and controllers allow that sort of thing.
 
50 miles and then you get to recharge? Which takes how long? At the price point this thing is going to hit (lots of carbon fibre, electric motors, computers...$$$) you could probably buy a fleet of taxis.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I hate it when dipshits build something like this and call it emissions free. It’s absurd and insulting.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but factually correct. Not polluting is a bit much, since it uses power generated by fossil fuels and the like, and the high tech construction uses lots of paleontological resources. But the thing does not emit while operating.

I suppose the nice thing about an electric is that it can use power generated from renewables just as easily as from fossil fuels. I've never thought the electric technology had reached a critical level to be truly useful for aviation, and I've yet to see anything to change my mind.
 
Taxpayer funded toys. No practical use.
 
Amusingly, I remember the following from a Dyson press release:
"Being brushless, X020 has no polluting carbon emissions"

But yeah, no brushes=no arcing=no ozone.
 
GeorgeC said:
Amusingly, I remember the following from a Dyson press release:
"Being brushless, X020 has no polluting carbon emissions"

But yeah, no brushes=no arcing=no ozone.
Click to expand...
Ozone would not be a carbon emission
 
steingar said:
Perhaps, but factually correct. Not polluting is a bit much, since it uses power generated by fossil fuels and the like, and the high tech construction uses lots of paleontological resources. But the thing does not emit while operating.

I suppose the nice thing about an electric is that it can use power generated from renewables just as easily as from fossil fuels. I've never thought the electric technology had reached a critical level to be truly useful for aviation, and I've yet to see anything to change my mind.
Click to expand...
It may be factually correct but it is an intentional misrepresentation of the whole truth. That makes it a lie to me.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
It may be factually correct but it is an intentional misrepresentation of the whole truth. That makes it a lie to me.
Click to expand...
I feel it does not quite meet the bar to be intentionally misleading, since what they say is indeed true. Moreover, the fossil fuels burned in making the darn thing would be burned making any kind of aircraft, since all are energy intensive. It take a lot to make the materials and bonding agents of modern materials, and more to smelt aluminum out of bauxite ore.
 
steingar said:
I feel it does not quite meet the bar to be intentionally misleading, since what they say is indeed true. Moreover, the fossil fuels burned in making the darn thing would be burned making any kind of aircraft, since all are energy intensive. It take a lot to make the materials and bonding agents of modern materials, and more to smelt aluminum out of bauxite ore.
Click to expand...
Your position has merit I just can’t quite give the folks we are talking about that much credit.
 
Best part about this idea is you don't have to worry about C.G. shift from fuel consumption.Take off at max gross, land at max gross. Yippee!
 
So to be polution free,wouldn’t it have to be re charged by a solar generator,and not fossil fueled electric power.
 
fields of solar panels and windmills are so much more natural and use the land so much more efficiently
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Our current reactors are 1960’s tech. If you really want affordable clean energy it’s nuclear.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any new tech that eliminates the requirement to store spent rods for decades if not centuries.
 
Hmmmm, a giant drone. Just when we thought the small ones were going to be a problem!
 
Cool aircraft. It's only lacking a good source of storing electrical power, just like every other electrical vehicle.

Put them together with this guy and you can put an air taxi service at every major airport and a lot of little ones. You just block out 100' vertical out of the bottom of the bravos and let them do their thing. There is no practical upper limit to how many you can run together.


Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
 
steingar said:
An electric vehicle can use energy from renewable sources.
Click to expand...

Dug up and assembled by non-renewable sources and insanely inefficient. As far as I know, nobody’s claimed a renewable that’s energy neutral yet from raw materials to production.
 
denverpilot said:
Dug up and assembled by non-renewable sources and insanely inefficient. As far as I know, nobody’s claimed a renewable that’s energy neutral yet from raw materials to production.
Click to expand...
Certainly nuclear. Possibly wind, depending on how long the windmills last.
 
steingar said:
Certainly nuclear. Possibly wind, depending on how long the windmills last.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is not a renewable. You said renewables.

Windmills haven’t paid for themselves from start to end yet, energy wise, including The energy to make them and probably won’t. Nobody’s shown any numbers where they do. Which is why I always chuckle when someone says they’re a renewable. They’re still a negative energy source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top