Joby operational demo flights

[Bella Gerbert]

I really don't care if the business numbers work yet. At some point they will. I'm happy to see the FAA removing regulatory obstacles and state governments making efforts to address infrastructure. Also happy to see several manufacturers with serious investors competing to put certified platforms in the air.

There will doubtless be crashes, business failures, and technical dead ends. It was at least 20 years between Kitty Hawk and viable commercial aviation. Jets and helicopters followed similar development timelines. It will happen when it happens.

I do know this. Last year I saw a single passenger eVTOL multi-copter in flight. It was cool. This year or next year I expect to see a multi-pax eVTOL in flight. And it will be even cooler.

View attachment 150902

I really don't care if the business numbers work yet. At some point they will. I'm happy to see the FAA removing regulatory obstacles and state governments making efforts to address infrastructure. Also happy to see several manufacturers with serious investors competing to put certified platforms in the air.

There will doubtless be crashes, business failures, and technical dead ends. It was at least 20 years between Kitty Hawk and viable commercial aviation. Jets and helicopters followed similar development timelines. It will happen when it happens.

I do know this. Last year I saw a single passenger eVTOL multi-copter in flight. It was cool. This year or next year I expect to see a multi-pax eVTOL in flight. And it will be even cooler.

View attachment 150902

This is precisely the evolutionary trajectory that every major transformation in aviation history has followed. We are currently witnessing, in real time, a modern-day reenactment of the "Kitty Hawk to DC-3" developmental journey. Along the way, crashes, corporate failures, and technological dead ends are inevitable—yet these constitute the normal, necessary price of progress, rather than a signal that eVTOLs are doomed to fail. Indeed, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is actively mapping out certification pathways, and substantial capital is flowing into multiple technological platforms—powerful indicators that eVTOLs are far from being mere empty hype. Once commercial operations of multi-seat eVTOLs begin to scale up, how will the associated pilot training, airspace integration, and maintenance standards evolve in tandem? Today, the mere sight of a single-seat aircraft gliding through the sky is enough to inspire awe; but the day we witness multi-seat eVTOLs conducting routine commercial flights within airport traffic patterns or on approach paths will undoubtedly mark a truly monumental milestone.

 

[Bell206]

Looking at it from basic principles of physics, this doesn't make sense.

Except the principles used by the people who are behind the UAM concept view it from a population aspect and not physics. There have been numerous references on this topic in the public domain for years that provide more details. So the viewpoint needs to be from what’s driving the eVTOL development and not from the aviation side. What you are seeing now is only the beginning actions and not the end actions.

Again, we are not allowed to operate conventional aircraft in these low altitude airspace due to safety regulations. What do eVTOLs do differently that make it suddenly ok to operate a commercial passenger carrying aircraft at "street level" or in these special routes and corridors.

And again, these are not conventional aircraft. New safety regulations apply which not a single conventional aircraft could pass. And the difference is the 1996 NASA UAM test provided the baseline for how a new aircraft must perform to operate safely in an urban environment and at street-level. And if any of those baseline requirements were not met, there would be no UAM or eVTOL today. Simple.

this looks like another way to erode true mass-transit....

Not at all. The UAM concept is driven by the same people who plan for mass-transit via subways, buses, taxis, etc. The problem they were facing was either lack of public transport expansion space or skyrocketing expansion costs or both for an ever-increasing urban population. Throw in the increasing subsidy costs to keep fares to the public low, and they were slowly running out of options not to exceed transport capacity. For example, in NYC it costs around $3 Billion per mile for a new subway route and the subsidy is about $5 on a $3 fare. So for comparison, a single ten-mile subway project will cost $30 Billion which at today's pre-production price could buy you 30,000 eVTOLs. And if you removed the fare subsidy you're looking at Uber rates. This is the angle people miss on whats driving this and which has been driving this since the late-60s when helicopters became more mainstream and able. Its really an interesting history. Interesting times.

 

[Lindberg]

I want to know why aircraft carrying less than ten people per flight are expected to reduce congestion. Doesn't seem like mass-transit. At best, this will be a party-trick for those than can afford to 'fly over the great un-washed.'

The same way that mostly empty buses driving the speed limit on the highway reduce rush-hour traffic.

 

[UngaWunga]

Not at all. The UAM concept is driven by the same people who plan for mass-transit via subways, buses, taxis, etc. The problem they were facing was either lack of public transport expansion space or skyrocketing expansion costs or both for an ever-increasing urban population. Throw in the increasing subsidy costs to keep fares to the public low, and they were slowly running out of options not to exceed transport capacity. For example, in NYC it costs around $3 Billion per mile for a new subway route and the subsidy is about $5 on a $3 fare. So for comparison, a single ten-mile subway project will cost $30 Billion which at today's pre-production price could buy you 30,000 eVTOLs. And if you removed the fare subsidy you're looking at Uber rates. This is the angle people miss on whats driving this and which has been driving this since the late-60s when helicopters became more mainstream and able. Its really an interesting history. Interesting times.

The difference is that mass transit doesn't need to make a profit to exist. Electric flying air taxis do.

 

[midwestpa24]

And again, these are not conventional aircraft. New safety regulations apply which not a single conventional aircraft could pass. And the difference is the 1996 NASA UAM test provided the baseline for how a new aircraft must perform to operate safely in an urban environment and at street-level. And if any of those baseline requirements were not met, there would be no UAM or eVTOL today. Simple.

You continue to evade my question. What makes the new UAM any safer than conventional aircraft, enough so that we want large autonomous aircraft buzzing over our highways, houses, and heads at low altitude? At those altitudes, I bet they are no quieter than a Piper or Cirrus at 1,000 feet. Even tbe auto delivery drones are attracting noise complaints from their buzzing.

And again, I cant wait to see how the economics work. NOTHING in aviation comes cheap.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

You continue to evade my question. What makes the new UAM any safer than conventional aircraft, enough so that we want large autonomous aircraft buzzing over our highways, houses, and heads at low altitude? At those altitudes, I bet they are no quieter than a Piper or Cirrus at 1,000 feet. Even tbe auto delivery drones are attracting noise complaints from their buzzing.

And again, I cant wait to see how the economics work. NOTHING in aviation comes cheap.

For safer- they have multiple engines and rotors. Look at the pictures of the different types of air mobility vehicles. They are over-designed so that a motor failure won't bring the vehicle down- other motors will pick up the load. These aren't a hobbyist's DJI with only 4 motors/props. I'll grant you that software is a failure point- not long ago, an Amazon drone flew into a crane or something.

The picture below is from a trip to China last year- I was at Huangshan (Yellow Mountain). The drone was about 9 to 12 feet across. Each arm has 2 motors each with a propellor. If one motor failed, there is another motor on the same arm.

As for noise, it is noticeable on a large drone, but much quieter than a plane. It sounded like a full-size helicopter that was far away and not objectionable at all. I thought it would buzz, but it really sounded like a regular helicopter. I only noticed it because it was a different and unusual noise. I've no idea what it was carrying. It was quieter than a Cirrus or Piper.

As for economics, I've not enough knowledge to answer that. Joby and the others think they will make money

Someone may have mentioned this already, but these won't be all-weather devices like ground vehicles. Thunderstorms, high winds, and icing will ground these things, as opposed to getting someplace slower in a car

 

[StraightnLevel]

Except the principles used by the people who are behind the UAM concept view it from a population aspect and not physics. There have been numerous references on this topic in the public domain for years that provide more details. So the viewpoint needs to be from what’s driving the eVTOL development and not from the aviation side. What you are seeing now is only the beginning actions and not the end actions.

It’s basic physics. I’m not talking about the press releases or proposed business model. I’m referring to the amount of energy required to execute these physical movements of mass. Energy costs money, no matter how it is generated or stored.

It’s not an emotional, political, nor industry issue. It’s pure science, and Newton’s laws aren’t going to change just because someone is selling shares of a new start-up company.

 

[Bell206]

The difference is that mass transit doesn't need to make a profit to exist. Electric flying air taxis do.

And that is the point you continue to miss from my posts. Those “electric flying air taxis” operations will be subsidized at the local and state levels. Initially, it will be public/private partnership to get things going and as it matures, it will end up being a public service. Which as you note does not need a profit to exist.

You continue to evade my question. What makes the new UAM any safer than conventional aircraft,

My bad. I thought I was answering your questions in the context of how they were asked? If looking for specifics, eVTOL powerplants must be redundant or meet the top FAA failure probability condition. Most elected for redundancy so each electric motor is double-wound with each winding connected to a separate power source. With redundancy the failure probability is lowered.

So what conventional helicopter has a redundant engine for each engine installed and meets the same failure probability condition? There are other differences but this one removes every helicopter I know of from the equation.

enough so that we want large autonomous aircraft buzzing over our highways, houses, and heads at low altitude?

The FAA and EASA do not permit autonomous eVTOL ops. So I don’t know where you got that from. And the flight corridors they will use have no houses to fly over with minimal exposure to pedestrians however they will be flying over roads in the initial operations.

At those altitudes, I bet they are no quieter than a Piper or Cirrus at 1,000 feet. Even tbe auto delivery drones are attracting noise complaints from their buzzing.

NASA has performed a number of real-world noise surveys that compare eVTOLs to conventional aircraft like single and twin Pipers plus a variety of helicopters with all operated at the same altitude and conditions. The eVTOLs came in at the lowest levels at 65 dB which is lower than the NYC ambient noise signature of 70 to 85 dBs. If it didn't pass this noise test... there would be no eVTOLs. Plus to state again, eVTOLs are not drones.

It’s basic physics. I’m not talking about the press releases or proposed business model.

Well, they're flying the missions they were designed for now and will start the final leg of FAA certification this year. So calculate all you want as it is happening as we speak. And when the hybrid powered versions start flying in the near future it will change your equation even more.

 

[midwestpa24]

And that is the point you continue to miss from my posts. Those “electric flying air taxis” operations will be subsidized at the local and state levels. Initially, it will be public/private partnership to get things going and as it matures, it will end up being a public service. Which as you note does not need a profit to exist.

So now we can discuss the economics. UAM will require public subsidy to survive. Where will thay funding come from. What programs will we cut or replace with UAM. The Federal government is so far in the red we may never recover. State and local governments around the country are all trying to do more with less. Is public subsidy the only thing that will make UAM survive?

Think of all the hundreds of millions of public and private investment already made in UAM and it has not generated one penny yet. What is the acquistion and operational cost going to be? What is the cost per seat mile versus ground transportation and conventional aviation? I fully believe UAM is full of dreamers and entrepreneurs that are only good at raising and spending others money without knowing how to provide a viable product. I think I'd rather invest in Peter and the Raptor aircraft than any of these UAM businesses. There will be no return on investment.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Well, they're flying the missions they were designed for now and will start the final leg of FAA certification this year. So calculate all you want as it is happening as we speak. And when the hybrid powered versions start flying in the near future it will change your equation even more.

No, it won’t. The relationship between energy and flight doesn’t change. Not now, not ever. Energy costs money, and it takes 10x as much to fly a 200 lb load somewhere as it takes to drive the same load in a car, or 20x as much as it would to put that load on a train or bus. The fact that the eVTOL can fly doesn’t change the energy relationship between flight and ground transportation.

You are arguing against basic physical science - facts that are indisputable.

All that being said, there are some really cool new approaches being developed here that will change all future helicopter designs. Lower noise, higher reliability, and higher efficiency are all positive developments. The facts remain, though, that this approach will NEVER be cost-effective vs. trains or buses. It’s just not physically possible.

 

[Ed Haywood]

No, it won’t. The relationship between energy and flight doesn’t change. Not now, not ever. Energy costs money, and it takes 10x as much to fly a 200 lb load somewhere as it takes to drive the same load in a car, or 20x as much as it would to put that load on a train or bus. The fact that the eVTOL can fly doesn’t change the energy relationship between flight and ground transportation.

You are arguing against basic physical science - facts that are indisputable.

All that being said, there are some really cool new approaches being developed here that will change all future helicopter designs. Lower noise, higher reliability, and higher efficiency are all positive developments. The facts remain, though, that this approach will NEVER be lower cost than trains or buses. It’s just not physically possible.

Substitute "airplane" for "eVTOL" and nothing changes. Yet airplanes still exist and thrive.

 

[JVerb]

And that is the point you continue to miss from my posts. Those “electric flying air taxis” operations will be subsidized at the local and state levels. Initially, it will be public/private partnership to get things going and as it matures, it will end up being a public service. Which as you note does not need a profit to exist.

Zero chance evtol air taxis will be subsidized at the local and state levels, because they don't remove anywhere near the volume of vehicle traffic they would be intended to replace. Not even close.

Where it will be subsidized are by airlines and other large events that want to be able to offer an exclusive / VIP package to move their customers quickly from their house or place of business, to the event/location. That is why United has made a large investment into it; because if they can offer a premium way to get to the airport from the outskirts of a major metro area, then they have captive customers that pay top dollar for the entire trip. It's why first class exists. In metro areas like Houston, where it's 80 miles wide, having a direct route to the airport that takes 15 minutes or so from anywhere in the city would be a premium the ultra rich would pay for; it will be priced out for most humans. It's a luxery item; it is not and very likely will not ever be more than that. It's not mass transit, nor a replacement for mass transit; that has never been its intent.

That being said, I still like exotic sports cars, even though they're extremely rare. Everytime my neighbor down the street leaves his garage open and I see his 2 Lamborghinis, I think it's pretty freaking cool. I'm glad there's business cases for exotic/luxery things, as it pushes the technology envelope. But I'm not going to pretend one day everyone will drive a McLaren or that my government tax dollars are going to subsidize it. That's just plain silly.

 

[JVerb]

Put everything you have into Joby stock. I’m calling it.

If you're betting on the big payday, probably Archer is the way to go since they have Government contracts. Archer & Joby created drastically different business models for future profitability; honestly, I'm not sure why Joby went the Uber-Air type route and not the military route. One of those options tends to spend money with virtually zero care.

 

[Bella Gerbert]

Put everything you have into Joby stock. I’m calling it.

In that case, it might take a while to achieve financial freedom lol

 

[StraightnLevel]

Substitute "airplane" for "eVTOL" and nothing changes. Yet airplanes still exist and thrive.

Correct. Same with helicopters.

How many helicopters are in use today for mass transit? Why?

 

[Bell206]

So now we can discuss the economics.

Not really. They've been crunching those numbers for years. All public transportation is subsidized in some fashion, however, never stated eVTOLs will "need" it to survive. Its just the nature of how it is done in that sector. As to the money you're better off asking your elected officials as more than half the states have at least one eVTOL/UAM/AAM project planned or in progress. And from the federal side you have the a number of programs like the eIPP which brings together public and private funds for these projects.

Energy costs money, and it takes 10x as much to fly a 200 lb load somewhere as it takes to drive the same load in a car, or 20x as much as it would to put that load on a train or bus.

Except your equation is only valid if there is room for your 200lb load in that car, train, or bus. So once those vehicles are at 100% capacity, your 200lb load doesnt use up any energy as it sits there waiting for space. Capacity is the issue which in most cases usually doesnt have many cost-efficient options to correct.

Zero chance evtol air taxis will be subsidized at the local and state levels

They're subsidised now. For example, NYC is in the process of upgrading one of the city-owned heliports and has plans to upgrade around another 6 city-owned sites to accomodate eVTOL operations. Add in the public projects I mentioned above and there are probably around 75 cities using state and local monies to subsidize the building of their eVTOL infrastructure.

If you're betting on the big payday, probably Archer is the way to go since they have Government contracts.

FYI: Joby has had an aircraft at Edwards Air Force base on a multi-million dollar military development contract since 2023. But if military contracts are your preference, then go with the Electra eSTOL, as they have the most and are working with the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

How many helicopters are in use today for mass transit? Why?

Mainly noise with some performance and safety issues. But bring down their noise signature to eVTOL levels and there would be 20x the helicopters flying around NYC as there is today and increasing every year. They tried for 30 years to make helicopters work for UAM, but in the end it was their noise levels that couldnt be designed out.

 

[Hang 4]

Mainly noise with some performance and safety issues. But bring down their noise signature to eVTOL levels and there would be 20x the helicopters flying around NYC as there is today and increasing every year. They tried for 30 years to make helicopters work for UAM, but in the end it was their noise levels that couldnt be designed out.

One thing to add to this is flying the eVTOL's is much easier than flying a helicopter. Pilot supply would be higher and cost would be lower. Still think it's a pretty narrow niche market though.

 

[UngaWunga]

And that is the point you continue to miss from my posts. Those “electric flying air taxis” operations will be subsidized at the local and state levels. Initially, it will be public/private partnership to get things going and as it matures, it will end up being a public service. Which as you note does not need a profit to exist.

Public subsidies of this is a horrible idea. But I also think public funding of privately owned sport stadiums is also a horrible idea.

 

[Bell206]

One thing to add to this is flying the eVTOL's is much easier than flying a helicopter. Pilot supply would be higher and cost would be lower. Still think it's a pretty narrow niche market though.

I think the skill set for eVTOL pilots will be different which in turn will be reflected on the regulatory side as this sector becomes more established. Plus the FAA now has added "simplified flight controls" to the mix when it comes to pilots skill requirements. Regardless, while this may still appear to be a niche market for now and into the next decade, we're still 20-25 years out from realizing its intended purpose with some estimates out to 2060. It is this long-term plan that brought out all the investment by top global companies to include those top non-aviation companies like Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, and similar.

 

[Salty]

Mainly noise with some performance and safety issues.

That's nonsense. Noise levels and safety factor of traditional helicopters are *not* the reasons the average person does not use them.

 

[Bell206]

That's nonsense. Noise levels and safety factor of traditional helicopters are *not* the reasons the average person does not use them.

In the context of the thread and the urban "mass transit" comment it does.

 

[X3 Skier]

Very true. But, there's a lot more equipment in an ambulance that's substantially better than an AED. Even with that, CPR success rates are extremely low in the grand scheme. Shockingly low honestly. ~10% outside a hospital, and still only ~20% inside a hospital.

(My wife is a paramedic; it's sad how bad technology really is for medical emergencies)

Glad I was in the 10% back in 2014.

 

[X3 Skier]

I think the skill set for eVTOL pilots will be different which in turn will be reflected on the regulatory side as this sector becomes more established. Plus the FAA now has added "simplified flight controls" to the mix when it comes to pilots skill requirements.

Our EAA Chapter visited both Joby and Beta At SGH a couple of years ago where they have full scale Simulators. A few of us got to fly some approaches and transitions. Wasn't hard at all to adapt to the controls. Of course they were just Simulators but with 270 Degree screen and actual full scale cockpits. I did have a close call with a building in Downtown Manhattan.

 

[StraightnLevel]

How many helicopters are in use today for mass transit? Why?

Mainly noise with some performance and safety issues. But bring down their noise signature to eVTOL levels and there would be 20x the helicopters flying around NYC as there is today and increasing every year. They tried for 30 years to make helicopters work for UAM, but in the end it was their noise levels that couldnt be designed out.

Nonsense. The issue is COST.

The only people who can afford to use flight for short-distance commuting are the uber-wealthy and very high-profile celebrities/VIPs.

Ignoring the cost factor is just...well...I'd get banned for saying it.

 

[JVerb]

Substitute "airplane" for "eVTOL" and nothing changes. Yet airplanes still exist and thrive

They're subsidised now. For example, NYC is in the process of upgrading one of the city-owned heliports and has plans to upgrade around another 6 city-owned sites to accomodate eVTOL operations. Add in the public projects I mentioned above and there are probably around 75 cities using state and local monies to subsidize the building of their eVTOL infrastructure.

I don't think you understand what subsidizing means. Let's tell the truth on here instead of embellishing.

The NYC project I'm very familiar with; ultimately we no-go'd it and didn't bid as they wanted O&M as well to it and we don't do that. There was a financial component to it and payback to NYC for the O&M portion. It's not subsidized; they asked for a specific company to come in and take it all over, including an upgrade of a barge, and as part of that, they expect $$ payments for its operation. In short, it's a concessionaire agreement, with some investment for up front infrastructure improvements that will be paid for over time, not unlike when you lease a commercial property, the owner builds the improvements, and you include the amortized payback for said improvements in your monthly lease payment. In this particular case, there was a federal maritime grant to cover a portion of the cost. I'll let you go look that grant up to see what stipulations were included and where the funding comes from; maritime grants are not my specialty. Notice, though, Proposals must include "Fee offer for each year over the term, including renewal options. The fee offer should state the highest sum each Respondent is prepared to pay as a concession fee, expressed as a combination of a minimum annual guaranty plus a percentage of gross receipts above the minimum annual guarnaty, over the term, including renewal options." Now, does that sound like a "subsidy" or a concession/investment just like, say, concessions at Madison Square Gardens or any other publicy owned investment? Hmm...

Additionally, it will absolutely have to operate for profit in or the government will cancel their contract and put out another RFP for a company in that can make a profit. It is not public transportation; it's a for-profit enterprise, initially started by the government. Those are most certainly not subsidies.

NYC publishes RFP seeking operator to update Manhattan helipad for eVTOL aircraft use

NYC publishes RFP seeking operator to update Manhattan helipad for eVTOL aircraft use

www.smartcitiesdive.com

https://stopthechopnynj.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/DMH-RFP-Fall-2023_1.pdf

Are there public funds involved? Yes, like every big infrastructure project. Is that a subsidy? No. A subsidy is a payment to the evtol operators to continue operating. Building infrastructure from user fees and research grants is not a subsidy; it's an investment with an expectation it will be profitable and increased rent and/or taxes will pay it back in multiples.

 

[JVerb]

Nonsense. The issue is COST.

The only people who can afford to use flight for short-distance commuting are the uber-wealthy and very high-profile celebrities/VIPs.

Ignoring the cost factor is just...well...I'd get banned for saying it.

Exactly. Ignoring the cost factor, and ignoring the reality that this is NOT mass transportation, completely removes it from reality. Reality is, these are for-profit businesses, expecting to make a profit, with a product that very likely will never be able to make a profit. As such, the majority will fail, and whomever is left will be very similar to the current day helicopter market: uber wealthy, niche form of transportation that looks really cool and is made out of unobtanium for 99%+ of the population.

 

[Bell206]

The only people who can afford to use flight for short-distance commuting are the uber-wealthy and very high-profile celebrities/VIPs.

Not quite. For example, Blade currently offers helicopter shuttles from Manhattan to JFK for the same cost as a similar executive SUV service which the last I looked was about $190 for both. Hardly exclusive to the rich or VIP. However, since their flight operations are severely restricted due to the current NYC laws on helicopter ops, they have limited to no ability to expand their operations which would further reduce that price. Basic economics.

So, as I stated above, if noise was not a determining factor there would be literally 1000s of helicopter air taxi ops around NYC and along the I-95 corridor at reasonable rates, affordable to a great many people. And if you want to see what it might look like, just search for New York Airways in the late 1960s when they flew 20 passenger helicopters on a daily scheduled service between all the airports and various other locations around NYC. So its already been done.

In short, it's a concessionaire agreement, with some investment for up front infrastructure improvements that will be paid for over time,

Interesting. It was my understanding the NYCEDC was to offer property incentives across all the selected eVTOL city-owned sites by prorating or waiving contracted lease rates depending on the level of development or improvement needed to the property with any permanent improvements becoming city property at the end of the term. It was the city property incentive I was referring to which is considered a subsidy.

ignoring the reality that this is NOT mass transportation, completely removes it from reality.

The reality is the "mass transit" component is still 25 years out as you cannot build that type of capacity overnight. And my posts have stated the same plus a number of other documents out there. Regardless, I merely share my actual experiences with this topic, both past and recent, and can confidently state, eVTOLs are here to stay and will continuously grow in use well beyond what most think here and at a cost structure most here think is impossible because its "aviation" related. It is what it is.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

The, "If it can't solve every problem, it can't solve any problem," argument is always heard loudly in these threads.

I guess it's less interesting to talk about how cool it is that these things are actually hitting milestones.

That’s because there are a lot of smart and nerdy people on this board.

Depending on the topic of discussion we all take turns being the “wow that’s cool” nerd overwhelmed by the cool factor or the “WTF?” Smart guy that managed to just barely keep the excited nerd at bay.

Enjoy your little electric flying car, nerd.

Don’t worry about what anyone says.

 

[StraightnLevel]

and at a cost structure most here think is impossible because its "aviation" related. It is what it is.

You continue to mis-represent what has been said here by others, including myself.

The cost issue isn’t because it is “aviation-related”. It is because of the laws of physics. The energy equations dictate the energy costs.

This is outside of and completely unrelated to the out-sized costs of dealing with the FAA bureaucracy and other industry-related costs. Bureaucracy can be changed. The laws of physics cannot be changed.

 

[Lindberg]

Are there public funds involved? Yes, like every big infrastructure project. Is that a subsidy?

Yes.

The use of city property is a form of subsidy. As is the use of city funding (cheaper than commercial). As are better-than-market terms. Tax abatements, etc. Many city functions and partnerships make a "profit" or are self-sustaining Using that as the only criteria to argue they're not subsidized is ignorant.

 

[Lindberg]

That’s because there are a lot of smart and nerdy people on this board.

Depending on the topic of discussion we all take turns being the “wow that’s cool” nerd overwhelmed by the cool factor or the “WTF?” Smart guy that managed to just barely keep the excited nerd at bay.

You forgot those "smart people" who are certain, just from reading the thread title, that they've thought of insurmountable obstacles that the smart and nerdy people who've actually been solving the problems for decades haven't thought of.

 

[Bell206]

You continue to mis-represent what has been said here by others, including myself.

Not at all. From your POV, you believe that your “energy <=> cost” calculation shows that eVTOLs can only be operated at a user cost only the “uber-wealthy and very high-profile celebrities/VIPs” can afford. Am I correct so far?

And for clarity, at what user cost level do you consider is exclusive to only the uber-wealthy?

 

[StraightnLevel]

Not at all. From your POV, you believe that your “energy <=> cost” calculation shows that eVTOLs can only be operated at a user cost only the “uber-wealthy and very high-profile celebrities/VIPs” can afford. Am I correct so far?

And for clarity, at what user cost level do you consider is exclusive to only the uber-wealthy?

Any multiple that makes it significantly more expensive that ground transport. It's the relative cost that matters, and air transport will always cost a multiple of ground transport due to the enerhy requirement.

Again, basic physics.

 

[Salty]

Any multiple that makes it significantly more expensive that ground transport. It's the relative cost that matters, and air transport will always cost a multiple of ground transport due to the enerhy requirement.

Again, basic physics.

<Insert appeal to authority argument here>
<alternate with luddite name calling>

 

[Tarheelpilot]

You forgot those "smart people" who are certain, just from reading the thread title, that they've thought of insurmountable obstacles that the smart and nerdy people who've actually been solving the problems for decades haven't thought of.

I don’t spend enough time analyzing to recognize that feature of POA.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Any multiple that makes it significantly more expensive that ground transport. It's the relative cost that matters, and air transport will always cost a multiple of ground transport due to the enerhy requirement.

Again, basic physics.

Which is why air transport does not exist and none of us can afford private planes. Because physics!

 

[JVerb]

You forgot those "smart people" who are certain, just from reading the thread title, that they've thought of insurmountable obstacles that the smart and nerdy people who've actually been solving the problems for decades haven't thought of.

You're making an assumption some of talking aren't those same nerdy people that have been working on it for decades and have come to certain conclusions because of it. For better and for worse. Some of us might even have been on the conference circuit, presenting on AAM, and are industry experts on it in our day job. You never know who you may be talking to on a random message board.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Which is why air transport does not exist and none of us can afford private planes. Because physics!

How many people use planes or helicopters as daily commute tranportation?

 

[Ed Haywood]

How many people use planes or helicopters as daily commute tranportation?

Show me any post by anyone here claiming UAM will be daily commute transportation.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Show me any post by anyone here claiming UAM will be daily commute transportation.

The UAM concept is driven by the same people who plan for mass-transit via subways, buses, taxis, etc. The problem they were facing was either lack of public transport expansion space or skyrocketing expansion costs or both for an ever-increasing urban population. Throw in the increasing subsidy costs to keep fares to the public low, and they were slowly running out of options not to exceed transport capacity. For example, in NYC it costs around $3 Billion per mile for a new subway route and the subsidy is about $5 on a $3 fare. So for comparison, a single ten-mile subway project will cost $30 Billion which at today's pre-production price could buy you 30,000 eVTOLs. And if you removed the fare subsidy you're looking at Uber rates. This is the angle people miss on whats driving this and which has been driving this

Those “electric flying air taxis” operations will be subsidized at the local and state levels. Initially, it will be public/private partnership to get things going and as it matures, it will end up being a public service. Which as you note does not need a profit to exist.

Add in the public projects I mentioned above and there are probably around 75 cities using state and local monies to subsidize the building of their eVTOL infrastructure.