Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

I can't remember who said it or on which podcast, but they basically said that VTOL is the real game changer, not autonomous driving. Sure autonomous driving might be able to shave some time off of your commute, but you are still in a car and still driving on roads. VTOL is what really allows you to experience what the ultra wealthy with access to private jets and helicopters have experienced. Getting out of the city to a 'vacation' spot in no time at all.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#5

Post by ordinaryradical » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

This to me is a true moonshot and venture-worthy idea. Some of these concepts may be technically or economically infeasible—it's a major risk—but the pay-off for human wellbeing is phenomenal. I wish we celebrated more companies like these, but it seems like most of them are met with (well-earned) skepticism rather than genuine curiosity.

The world of atoms is harder than software, but it's awaiting disruptions like these.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#6

Post by k__ » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

What would make a "flying car" worthwhile for under 20km flights?

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#7

Post by dheera » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

> Or maybe you want to escape to Lake Tahoe for a long weekend? That would be less than an hour on a Lilium Jet, at a cost of around $250 at launch and less in the near future.

Therein lies the problem with public transportation in the US. What do you do after you get to Tahoe, Santa Cruz, or wherever? Most of these places are devoid of functional public transportation, and rental car companies have long lines and routinely screw people over and overbook.

And will the FAA allow you with your tent stakes, hiking poles, bear spray, and camping stove with fuel on the Lilium Jet? (What else are you supposed to do in Tahoe?)

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#8

Post by radicaldreamer » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #6

What would make a "flying car" worthwhile for under 20km flights?

For regions where the geography makes the roads dangerous or extremely slow or border regions where road traffic delays due to customs or immigration checks are common.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#9

Post by errantspark » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

rvnx wrote: post #3

Small planes and helicopters are so unstable that I wouldn't enjoy riding this vehicle at all. High-speed train is so much more comfortable. Most people taking the plane everyday hate it. It's a so-so idea.

I this is a solvable problem and moving from current propulsion methods to a whole bunch of very small individually controllable BLDC motors with one moving part and low inertia is definitely a step in the right direction toward increasing the stability of low mass aircraft.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#10

Post by bananabreakfast » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 8:02 PM UTC

It's all well and good to talk about how great it would be to launch and land right from San Francisco, but they conveniently step around mentioning that it is currently explicitly illegal. The challenge isn't to come up with a great idea, but rather to get San Francisco to change its laws.

There are helipads all over the city and none of them can be used with the specific exception of flight-for-life helicopters landing in Mission Bay.