Originally Posted by
wrench1
I think you'll find the VTOL and the eVTOL industries are two distinct and separate markets especially on the civilian side. I watched the civil VTOL market evaporate from the anticipated 1000 projected units to basically none. On the other hand, the eVTOL market has exploded and is projected to be a $30B market by 2030. Plus it has the high end money behind it.
As to the eVTOL certification side, I believe the EASA has elected to create a new regulatory part for eVTOLs that will be much leaner than the conventional aircraft rules and use more consensus standards. I don't follow the EASA side much but the FAA has decided the same for a new part after trying to fit eVTOLs into the Part 23 structure. Haven't seen any details as yet, but several of the leading eVTOL manufacturers are progressing through the certification requirements on both sides of the pond as they are written. From what I've seen and read in a limited capability, I think we'll see certified Part 135 eVTOLs pax ops before you know it provided they don't start falling out the air and killing people.
While the designs and mechanics of conventional VTOLs are very interesting and which I've followed since the XV-15 days, I think outside of the military and a few AW609 customers the eVTOL industry will be the common player. How the 4-6 pax eVTOL will fit into the big regulatory picture with conventional VTOLs, rotorcraft, and other hybrid aircraft will be the most interesting development.
eVTOL got "high end money" back when interest rates were near zero. A cash crunch is coming soon and most of the players won't survive their cash burn rates as certification is delayed. The FAA cert basis documents for Joby and Archer are out and they both reference a requirement to be able to perform an "controlled emergency power off landing equivalent to a glide or autorotation". Joby's aircraft MIGHT be able to autorotate as its props are fairly large for the multi rotor industry. Jaunt Journey can autorotate. None of the others can, they simply lack enough inertia, even if they had the control authority/range to perform the required maneuvers to enter a stabilized auto. So that rule alone, which IS a good rule, complicates certification for most of these aircraft. The industry is also settling on a configuration with high part count, lots of blades and bearings to inspect, low yaw authority in VTOL ops, and one that doesn't scale in size, limiting the utility of the aircraft concept.
I think it's largely a capital and brainpower bonfire.
They may claim to be different markets but we all fight the same laws of physics and economics. Few of these companies will survive to 2030 much less be in commercial operation by 2030 in a 30 billion dollar market.