[deleted]
Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
11–20 of 89 posts
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#12There are a lot of companies working on "flying taxis". All of those seem to have a large footprint with lots of rotors, meaning they will need dedicated landing/take off zones. This seems to limit their usability a lot, turning them more into a short range point to point helicopter service. Not to mention the noise pollution. Those things are all loud. Combine that with limited speed and range, and I just don't see…
From what I gather most companies in the space plan to land and take off from rooftops. That leaves a lot more options for stations and edges connecting them leading to a denser network than something like a subterranean train which requires dedicated stations with tunnels in between them
Except those rooftops are very expensive real estate, that often already have other stuff on them. So to rent one, you need to pay a bunch of money, which increases price per ride and decreases total rides... that combo means this isn’t that realistic for wide spread adoption.
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I gather most companies in the space plan to land and take off from rooftops. That leaves a lot more options for stations and edges connecting them leading to a denser network than something like a subterranean train which requires dedicated stations with tunnels in between them
In that case, what makes them more useful than helicopters?
They aim to be much cheaper to run. Helicopters are mechanically complex so require a lot of maintenance, and have multiple single points of failure so you can’t skip the maintenance, and are demanding to learn to fly. The hourly rate of a helicopter is high.
Electric motors are simple and reliable and all these companies use multiples so have some redundancy. Multi-rotors require computer control for stability. With that done the piloting is easy.
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#14One only see a few helicopters at time in typical city skyline. I wonder what happen if there are just 100 of them on the air at the same time.
[deleted]
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case, what makes them more useful than helicopters?
They aim to be much cheaper to run. Helicopters are mechanically complex so require a lot of maintenance, and have multiple single points of failure so you can’t skip the maintenance, and are demanding to learn to fly. The hourly rate of a helicopter is high. Electric motors are simple and reliable and all these companies use multiples so have some redundancy. Multi-rotors require computer control for stability. With…
Sure, they're trying to make it cheaper. But all of the eVTOL designs I've seen can't autorotate, making them much less safe (contrary to your implication about redundancy).
Everything I've seen about this space is people with big checks trying to cut corners to enter a new market, and it seems ripe to fail much like the 737-MAX.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/01/insid...
And that's ignoring all of the problems with the market itself, not to mention regulations, as well as logistical headaches of transporting between rooftops (which by the way, many cannot safely support landing pads - so now you also have to retrofit skyscrapers with incredibly expensive infrastructure).
To be fair you answered my question and I'm just being belligerent, so thank you for the response.
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aim to be much cheaper to run. Helicopters are mechanically complex so require a lot of maintenance, and have multiple single points of failure so you can’t skip the maintenance, and are demanding to learn to fly. The hourly rate of a helicopter is high. Electric motors are simple and reliable and all these companies use multiples so have some redundancy. Multi-rotors require computer control for stability. With…
Sure, they're trying to make it cheaper. But all of the eVTOL designs I've seen can't autorotate, making them much less safe (contrary to your implication about redundancy). Everything I've seen about this space is people with big checks trying to cut corners to enter a new market, and it seems ripe to fail much like the 737-MAX. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/01/insid... And that's ignoring all…
The argument is that you don’t need to autorotate if you can land under control on 2/3 of your 16 motors and the failure rate of each is epsilon.
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aim to be much cheaper to run. Helicopters are mechanically complex so require a lot of maintenance, and have multiple single points of failure so you can’t skip the maintenance, and are demanding to learn to fly. The hourly rate of a helicopter is high. Electric motors are simple and reliable and all these companies use multiples so have some redundancy. Multi-rotors require computer control for stability. With…
Sure, they're trying to make it cheaper. But all of the eVTOL designs I've seen can't autorotate, making them much less safe (contrary to your implication about redundancy). Everything I've seen about this space is people with big checks trying to cut corners to enter a new market, and it seems ripe to fail much like the 737-MAX. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/01/insid... And that's ignoring all…
The likelihood of failure is much lower with an eVTOL than a conventional helicopter. Additionally a BRS chute could work with eVTOLs in a way it couldn't with a normal heli.
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#18This makes a lot of sense for Toyota. Their hydrogen fuel cells probably make a lot more sense in this context.
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#19There are a lot of companies working on "flying taxis". All of those seem to have a large footprint with lots of rotors, meaning they will need dedicated landing/take off zones. This seems to limit their usability a lot, turning them more into a short range point to point helicopter service. Not to mention the noise pollution. Those things are all loud. Combine that with limited speed and range, and I just don't see…
Wheels are really awesome at fighting gravity when the engine dies so I’m not sure I ever see a time people are flying around in personal aircraft en masse. I’ve seen enough try to drive on the ground.
Re: Toyota invests $394m in Joby Aviation's flying taxis
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's actually examples of this in the world now. In São Paulo, the rich take helicopters between buildings [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/20/brazil
Even so there are only 469 (in 2008 according to the article) in all of São Paulo and that’s the metro area with the most helicopters in the world. I doubt the likes of Hyundai are looking to sell their things “in the hundreds to thousands” range. It’d a a big change in air traffic and noise pollution.
You'd be surprised how far 469 heliports go. That's one more than the number of stations the NY Metro has, which is the metro with the most number of stations in the world. Now imagine you could travel as the crow flies between any station in NYC. That's awesome efficiency, and if you still need you can grab an Uber at street level if you're still not close enough.
You're also not limited to just those 469 heliports. The vertices of the convex hull they produce can all serve as jumping off points to go about a 100 miles further to heliports one may have in ones own home.
For the rich in São Paulo, that may be homes in places like Angra do Reis and Laranjeiras. Even places like those two (which sit between Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, can serve as connection points to jump from São Paulo to Rio de Janeiro with only one or two stops in between the two cities.
When you eliminate the time in traffic traffic to get to Congonhas or Guarulhos and the time spent in airport security, it makes a ton of sense for those with the means. Eventually as the tech progresses and becomes cheaper it will become accessible to more than just the very very rich.