CASA says air taxis within 5 years

[mullokintyre]

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said he had seen proposals for low-altitude air taxi services that would fly people between locations such as an airport and the central business district of a large city and believed the companies behind the proposals were serious about them.

"There are companies, and I'm talking about big multinational companies, investing big dollars," Mr Gibson said.

"We are talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions."Uber Air taxis to launch in US
The comments follow the announcement this year that Uber was considering including Melbourne or Sydney among the launch cities for its Elevate project.

The project involves an electric aircraft able to take people between specific points within a city.

The service was already slated to fly in Dallas and Los Angeles in the United States and the company is considering nine cities, including Sydney and Melbourne, outside the US to trial the project in.

Mr Gibson said Uber had already approached CASA to discuss regulatory issues around the use of air taxis, and he said there were few barriers to what the company was proposing because the regulatory framework to allow it was already there.

From the ABC NEWS (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-29/flying-taxis-could-be-in-australia-in-five-years/10672380)

Never get off the ground.
CASA will put so many regulatory hurdles in place it will uneconomic except for the UBER rich. In which case they will just take a chopper.

Mick

[thunderbird five]

But Mick, you have it all wrong, surely?
Mr Gibson said Uber was not the only company looking to Australia because of its easier regulatory environment.
Google's parent company, Alphabet, was preparing to trial drones that made home deliveries in Canberra ahead of trials in the US, partly because he Australian system was more flexible.

Does he actually believe his own BS? Easier regulatory environment than USA? Get off the christmas sauce man.

[Sunfish]

CASA senses that big $$$$ can be extracted from Uber, lots more staff and management positions created too. That is their motivation.

To put it another way, since when has CASA done anything to promote the growth of any aviation related business in Australia???? They seem far more interested in destroying what little is left.

[Horatio Leafblower]

"There are companies, and I'm talking about big multinational companies, investing big dollars," Mr Gibson said.

Just as well they're big companies investing billions of dollars because god knows small business can't afford CASA's regulatory structures.

[Ascend Charlie]

Mr Gibson said Uber had already approached CASA to discuss regulatory issues around the use of air taxis, and he said there were few barriers to what the company was proposing because the regulatory framework to allow it was already there.

There might be a few barriers, but those that ARE there are f***ing monsters. Never happen. The Labor electorates killed any real helicopters from landing within a bull's roar of anywhere. Electric choppers won't fare any better.

[neville_nobody]

It will be interesting to watch how companies that are stanchly anti-regulator as a principle deal with CASA. Personally I reckon given the size of the companies involved CASA are going to be told what to do rather than the other way round. There will be many coventional AOC holders left scratching their heads looking at the regulations wondering what just happened.

[aroa]

Poor Mr Gobsome, havent seen much of him in late 2018 but he seems keen to be a TV media tart over the Xmas period spruiking on a couple of issues.
One thing you can be sure of from the 'Corporate Spinmeister' some of it is 'fake news' ie BS.

[machtuk]

This will really be worth following, reckon it will be a clusterTruck and "if" they ever get off the ground the first multiple deaths by drone failure will attract a LOT of attention, the whole lot will come tumbling down, so to speak! There's just so many things that can go wrong here, weather being one of them!
still am up for intense reading of opinions both sides:)

[cattletruck]

Honestly, I think CASA are wasting their time and should instead be drafting legislation for the new up and coming teleporter machine.

Who can remember all that gyrocopter spin about city/airport taxis back in the 90's? I still have a brochure about it and marvel at the clever marketing used.

If there was any real merit to these fickle "air-taxi" contraptions then the military would already have a sizeable share of it but they don't, instead it's just these multi-billion dollar corporations getting sucked into believing their own B.S. vortex and taking gullible executives and media with them for the ride. The end result being a lot of foolish people part with their money as that 90's fairytale repeats itself over and over again.

[navajoe]

You guys may have this all wrong, Whether their proposals work remains to be seen, if someone with enough clout comes in and bashes CASA over the head a few times maybe something might just change.

[Squawk7700]

As someone has said above, it’s simply about cost and regulation. The technology is there and assuming it’s reliable and priced appropriately, it will surely take off, pardon the pun.

Melbourne CBD for example to a pad at Tulla, absolutely, why not, every 10 minutes or whatever?

There was a mob trying it a while back with a couple of flash Bell’s but from memory it was a little pricey and didn’t go right to the airport.

[LeadSled]

Honestly, I think CASA are wasting their time and should instead be drafting legislation for the new up and coming teleporter machine.
.
Folks,
There is a precedent, those of you who have been around long enough, think back to the ANOs ---- there was a reserve section for pilot licensing for ornithopters. Flapping wing aeroplane, for those of you not up with the latest technology.
As for CASA and Gibson, it is the Silly Season, after all!!
Tootle pip!!

[George Glass]

Anybody got Mr. Gibson's contact details?
I've got a bridge in Sydney he might be interested in.

[Pinky the pilot]

Anybody got Mr. Gibson's contact details?
I've got a bridge in Sydney he might be interested in.

Hang on George;:= I have an Opera House for sale that I'm sure he'd consider first!!:hmm:

[27/09]

Funny thing, I had someone from CAANZ telling me this sort of thing was going to happen in the near future. There are a couple of companies already trialling these machines in New Zealand. I told him it wouldn't be in either of our life times.

I don't see these machines being much cheaper if any to buy and operate than a helicopter of similar load carrying capacity. If there was a business case for this there'd be a number of businesses already doing something very similar using helicopters. There isn't, so I don't see these Air Taxis as the next big thing.

Further I don't see the general population being all that enthusiastic about all these thing whizzing around overhead, they won't exactly be quiet.

[Andy_RR]

I think it's instructional to compare the popularity of conventional model helicopters - available but experience to operate, difficult to maintain and requiring lots of skill and practice to pilot - with the current quadcopter craze to illustrate why conventional helicopters as air taxis are not a great business analog. That is leaving aside the required 100kg meat-based flight controller that diminishes payload capacity.

[601]

They will try to do what they did with share-riding.
Come in and start flying, stuff the Regs, get the Millennial crowd on board and cry "anti-startup" on social media when they get grounded

[davionics]

It’s going to happen, it’s only a matter of time, and also a lot of work. Weekly sat in traffic for many hours just to drive a few kilometers (like hundreds of thousands of other fellow commuters)... but you know that feeling when you lift off and fly over the traffic and see the mazes of red lights below. If these companies follow through with their Billions, it’s not an if, it’s just a matter of when. No new technology pushing the envelope has ever been immune from risk, If adequate processes and technologies are in place to manage them - it will be revolutionary.

[BluSdUp]

Flying cars, all the rage in the 50s,
Anyway
A direct link to the airport in a modern way, SAS did a 89 pax Hovercraft from from Malmø to Købenahavn CPH airport.
All the rage from 1984 to 1994!
Then replaced by Norwegian speedboats made on my island ( Oma Baatbyggeri As).
Then a wopping big bridge/ tunnel that we all can admire when operating to CPH.
Now a train leaves Malmø several times per hr and use 20 odd minutes to CPH terminal!
Yea
That old bridge is doomed once the UberDoober Air gets going.
Standing by for multiple TAs on approach.
Or not!

[machtuk]

Flying cars, all the rage in the 50s,
Anyway
A direct link to the airport in a modern way, SAS did a 89 pax Hovercraft from from Malmø to Købenahavn CPH airport.
All the rage from 1984 to 1994!
Then replaced by Norwegian speedboats made on my island ( Oma Baatbyggeri As).
Then a wopping big bridge/ tunnel that we all can admire when operating to CPH.
Now a train leaves Malmø several times per hr and use 20 odd minutes to CPH terminal!
Yea
That old bridge is doomed once the UberDoober Air gets going.
Standing by for multiple TAs on approach.
Or not!

spot on....this will never happen commercially in our lifetime, still will enjoy the debacle that will ensue along the way -:)

[lucille]

Maglev train.
Shanghai has a commercial, working, proof of concept wersion. From memory, it does the 30 odd km trip in 8 minutes. It’s losing money at a furious rate just like any other air taxi would. The difference from the passenger perspective is that it’s smooth, quiet and you can bring all your luggage.

[Ascend Charlie]

try to find a building rooftop in Oz that has the following properties:

1. Flat
2. Unobstructed by phone antennas, microwave relays, aircon unit
3. Big enough to terminate a Flying Car, and has a re-charge facility for said car
4. Has elevator access to roof
5. Has secure elevator that takes passengers only from lobby to roof
6. Has occupants of building willing to have this stuff happening on their roof, elevators, parking lot and lobby

OK, you have found 2 buildings in Melbourne that satisfy this requirement. Now find passengers who want to travel between these 2 buildings. Good luck.

Quadcopters with variable RPM/fixed-pitch rotors cannot be scaled up to the size needed to carry 4 or 6 pax. But CGI can do it, and make it look good.
People seem to think these things will be quiet - piddly little multiple rotors screaming their heads off, there might not be the turbine noise, but the blade noise will be considerable. Moving large amounts of air slowly is far more efficient than small amounts of air moving quickly.

Even Nostradamus had something to say about it in verse 4 Para 1: "and it shall come to pass amongst much wailing and gnashing of teeth that mankind is destined not to have a personal flying chariot, for the horses cannot be made that small."

[BluSdUp]

Oh Oh Oh Machtuk
SUPERSONIC FLIGHT, it will be here anytime now.
Thank God for progress.
Geesss ,they make me fly Cost Index 6 .
M.75 , booooriiing!

[Squawk7700]

They will try to do what they did with share-riding.
Come in and start flying, stuff the Regs, get the Millennial crowd on board and cry "anti-startup" on social media when they get grounded

The government didn’t stop Uber. If someone with enough cash comes along, CASA can try and fight them as hard as they want and possibly not stop them flying...

[Sunfish]

I seem to recall variants of the four rotor flying taxi circa 1959 “popular mechanics”.

[Ascend Charlie]

If someone with enough cash comes along, CASA can try and fight them as hard as they want and possibly not stop them flying...

How does cash get around the rules? Are you saying they bribe CA$A people?

[27/09]

I think it's instructional to compare the popularity of conventional model helicopters - available but experience to operate, difficult to maintain and requiring lots of skill and practice to pilot - with the current quadcopter craze to illustrate why conventional helicopters as air taxis are not a great business analog. That is leaving aside the required 100kg meat-based flight controller that diminishes payload capacity.

How will these fancy new quadcopters that will be capable of lifting human beings plus their luggage and meet the relevant design rules and still be any cheaper than a helicopter? Radio control helicopters are pretty cheap too, comparable to the current crop of quadcopter drones.

Yep, they will do away with the on board pilot which will help with payload. There still needs to be some control system which in the short to medium term will be more expensive than an on board pilot.

No doubt someone will stump up the tremendous amounts of moolah to design and build such a system. For it to be successful it needs to be able to attract enough custom at a price that pays back the costs of development and operation. Let's assume someone does develop a usable system, it's my guess they will lose their shirts on it. Someone will pick up the left overs at a bargain basement price and not be saddled with recovering the development costs. They will still need to make enough money to pay the ongoing costs.

The disrupter models like Uber have been aimed at the masses and have challenged current pricing models, i.e. under cut the incumbents. How much do they need to undercut the incumbents in point to point air travel to make their offering affordable to the masses? In other words how much would you be prepared or be able to afford to pay for point to point air travel to get to work etc?

The other issue I see is this type of service is seen as a way to bypass gridlock on the ground. If such a service attracted enough custom to make it pay I think we would see the gridlock on the ground replaced by gridlock in the air.

I don't see the general operating noise and the downwash from the take off and landing being acceptable to allow real point to point travel for the masses. They will still need to operate from designated take off and landing areas which will cause aerial congestion at these points and the need to use these designated areas will significantly reduce the benefits of such a system. Imagine the rigmarole in getting consents for these landing/take off areas

Such a service is technologically possible but it my contention is it is logistically impractical and therefore unlikely to succeed no matter how user friendly the local aviation authorities are.

[machtuk]

How will these fancy new quadcopters that will be capable of lifting human beings plus their luggage and meet the relevant design rules and still be any cheaper than a helicopter? Radio control helicopters are pretty cheap too, comparable to the current crop of quadcopter drones.

Yep, they will do away with the on board pilot which will help with payload. There still needs to be some control system which in the short to medium term will be more expensive than an on board pilot.

No doubt someone will stump up the tremendous amounts of moolah to design and build such a system. For it to be successful it needs to be able to attract enough custom at a price that pays back the costs of development and operation. Let's assume someone does develop a usable system, it's my guess they will lose their shirts on it. Someone will pick up the left overs at a bargain basement price and not be saddled with recovering the development costs. They will still need to make enough money to pay the ongoing costs.

The disrupter models like Uber have been aimed at the masses and have challenged current pricing models, i.e. under cut the incumbents. How much do they need to undercut the incumbents in point to point air travel to make their offering affordable to the masses? In other words how much would you be prepared or be able to afford to pay for point to point air travel to get to work etc?

The other issue I see is this type of service is seen as a way to bypass gridlock on the ground. If such a service attracted enough custom to make it pay I think we would see the gridlock on the ground replaced by gridlock in the air.

I don't see the general operating noise and the downwash from the take off and landing being acceptable to allow real point to point travel for the masses. They will still need to operate from designated take off and landing areas which will cause aerial congestion at these points and the need to use these designated areas will significantly reduce the benefits of such a system. Imagine the rigmarole in getting consents for these landing/take off areas

Such a service is technologically possible but it my contention is it is logistically impractical and therefore unlikely to succeed no matter how user friendly the local aviation authorities are.

Excellent realistic post:-) There would be a multitude of considerations to make this work. Take aside the fact that the technology is there albeit in only short duration abilities at great cost there's the logistics of where are these machines going to t/off & land from? Tops of buildings? yeah right! There would be parking considerations for the users at these locations/terminals, just like public transport IE trains people still need to use their cars to get to the stations, that alone is a hassle & adds to the traffic already. The cost would be expensive for sure, remember flying? It was mostly for the wealthy then came along LCC's for the masses & now we have crowded skies at peak times, the same thing would have to happen for this idea, large numbers would need to use the service to make it viable.....I don't think so! There's nothing like this autonomous transportation ever been considered in modern day times & that's for good reasons, it's pie in the sky stuff!

[thorn bird]

"How does cash get around the rules? Are you saying they bribe CA$A people?"
Oh dear,
sorry AC, CAsA have no need for anything that crass. Simple "Donation" to the requisite
politicians re-election fund and Bob's your uncle, that's how the development sharks do it
and to some extent the airlines, think "Chairmans lounge".

One has to remember CAsA is a self serving government Corporation. Their focus will always
be "what's in it for us?". They are well versed in the timeless Bureaucratic game of thrones
manipulation of politicians in CAsA's case, using the "mystic of safety" as suits. How else over the past thirty years or so
have they got away with squandering a half billion or so of the taxpayers money on regulatory reform, all
in the name of safety, which they haven't improved by any measurable amount to produce the worlds
largest, most complex set of rules, instead of a few million and a year or so, as New Zealand did,
and copy the safest US rule set.

The political animal is always prone to policy thought bubbles, largely to attempt to outdo their opponents
thought bubbles. Some of these bubbles seem like a good idea at the time, and some are. The problem comes with
implementing them. Thats NOT the job of politicians, its the job of bureaucrats and how inept they have shown themselves
to be. Think Airport Privatisation, Pink Batts, Building the education revolution, Early learning day care for children, the NDIS etc etc.

All turned into tins of worms, not from the Pollywaffles thought bubbles but from poor implementation and management.

[neville_nobody]

One issue for CASA is that the governments have already folded once before over regulations in commercial vehicle operations to Uber. My guess is that there will be enormous political pressure coming onto CASA to get this through. A repeat of what the government did to the taxi/private hire car industry could be repeated in aviation where the government regulated everyone into oblivion then turned around and said that the regulation wasn't actually necessary, hanging law abiding companies out to dry and making a complete fool of itself and its laws in the process.

[601]

people still need to use their cars to get to the stations

What stations/ autonomous transport port. Isn't the whole idea to do away with "hubs" so you can go from point to point.
People point to the disrupters as a model for this form of transport.
But all the disrupters have done so far is develop an App and use a proven transport system - cars, bikes and now scooters. The only difference between a taxi and these disrupters is the use of an app to allow people to access private vehicles and undercut what was a tightly controlled transport model in the case of taxis.

They have not introduces a "new" transport system. Just an app that can organise a driver and a vehicle for you. Taxis have had that system in place for years. They just used an older technology (phones - remember them) but have now developed their own apps which work well.

Now with this autonomous transport system using a flying vehicle of some description, not only do they have to develop the app for organising the ride, but the mode of transport and the underlying system to support it. Landing and takeoff sites, navigation system, battery charging systems, maintenance systems, noise abatement, autonomous control or pilot control are some of the hurdles to overcome.

A previous post mentioned a sea of red lights on the highways. Just imagine a swarm of large noisy electric vehicles converging on Sydney Harbour for the New Years fireworks and then all trying to get home. Where will they park for a couple of hours?

I remember sitting on the grass outside a unit in Kirribilli watching the boat traffic after the 2000 fireworks. The boat traffic was that crowded you could have walked from Kirribilli to the Opera House across the Harbour by hopping from one boat to the next.

Just imagine cruising at 500 feet over the Sydney CBD while tweeting your latest thoughts to all your followers only to hear or see "Lost satellite reception" come up on the app that is communicating with your autonomous transport system.
The mind boggles!!

One issue for CASA is that the governments have already folded once before over regulations in commercial vehicle operations to Uber.

Uber did not introduce a whole new transport system, just an app to organise private vehicles and drivers. Same with these scooters that have resulted in a fivefold increase in admissions to the ER departments for injuries.

[machtuk]

What stations/ autonomous transport port. Isn't the whole idea to do away with "hubs" so you can go from point to point.
People point to the disrupters as a model for this form of transport.
But all the disrupters have done so far is develop an App and use a proven transport system - cars, bikes and now scooters. The only difference between a taxi and these disrupters is the use of an app to allow people to access private vehicles and undercut what was a tightly controlled transport model in the case of taxis.

They have not introduces a "new" transport system. Just an app that can organise a driver and a vehicle for you. Taxis have had that system in place for years. They just used an older technology (phones - remember them) but have now developed their own apps which work well.

Now with this autonomous transport system using a flying vehicle of some description, not only do they have to develop the app for organising the ride, but the mode of transport and the underlying system to support it. Landing and takeoff sites, navigation system, battery charging systems, maintenance systems, noise abatement, autonomous control or pilot control are some of the hurdles to overcome.

A previous post mentioned a sea of red lights on the highways. Just imagine a swarm of large noisy electric vehicles converging on Sydney Harbour for the New Years fireworks and then all trying to get home. Where will they park for a couple of hours?

I remember sitting on the grass outside a unit in Kirribilli watching the boat traffic after the 2000 fireworks. The boat traffic was that crowded you could have walked from Kirribilli to the Opera House across the Harbour by hopping from one boat to the next.

Just imagine cruising at 500 feet over the Sydney CBD while tweeting your latest thoughts to all your followers only to hear or see "Lost satellite reception" come up on the app that is communicating with your autonomous transport system.
The mind boggles!!

.

Uber did not introduce a whole new transport system, just an app to organise private vehicles and drivers. Same with these scooters that have resulted in a fivefold increase in admissions to the ER departments for injuries.


another excellent post -:)wrong time of year to be talking about fairy tales, should be April 1st -:)

[cattletruck]

It's already been done... sort of.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/320x270/ballooncycle_273035fa42196d933775ed2ea247db6ff1099d74.jpg

I'm told the bloke at the front is a fully qualified ATPL and earning better wages that QF pilots. What he doesn't know is that he and his EBA will soon be replaced with a Raspberry Pi allowing profits to double.

[Icarus2001]

How does cash get around the rules? Are you saying they bribe CA$A people? Uber knowingly broke the transport rules and forced governments around the world to change rules to suit their model. They have done it once so they know they can do it again. So do observing businesses. "Ride sharing" for goodness sake, what does that mean? The whole purpose of the journey is because the passenger booked to travel, nothing is being "shared".

Although I see Uber failed in their bid in the UK to have their drivers not deemed employees, which means holiday pay, sick leave etc. Uber plan to appeal again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/30/uber-challenges-ruling-on-drivers-rights-at-court-of-appeal-london

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-20/uber-drivers-worker-rights-lawsuit-loss-uk-industrial-law/10637316 (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/30/uber-challenges-ruling-on-drivers-rights-at-court-of-appeal-london)

[Tankengine]

Uber drive normal cars you morons.
lets just wait and see how New York etc deal with this crap before we even discuss it.
If you wish to put money down PM me! ;)

[Icarus2001]

Calling everyone on the thread a moron seems a little ridiculous since it appears that it is you who have missed the point.

Uber to launch e-VTOL air taxis - Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/04/uber-to-launch-e-vtol-air-taxis/)

https://www.uber.com/us/en/elevate/

https://www.cnet.com/au/news/uber-air-wants-to-bring-flying-cars-to-australia/

[Ascend Charlie]

“If we can provide ubiquity and low cost, people will actually dispense with their privately owned vehicle,” said Holden at the Uber Elevate Summit in Dallas, Texas on April 26.

But the CGI movie shows them only travelling between one massive rooftop to another, in a CBD.

How will that replace my trip from quiet suburban home to the supermarket on a Sunday morning to buy breakfast?

Uber claims Uber Air could cut the travel time between Manly and the Sydney CBD from 110 minutes down to just 8 minutes.

Yeah, yeah, the ferry carries 300 people there in 35 mins, but Ooooober can carry 4 people in 8 mins. If they could find somewhere to land that aerial bus that takes the space of one bus lengthwise and 3 buses widthwise. And then find somewhere in Manly to land.

Take your dreaming hands off it!

[machtuk]

Calling everyone on the thread a moron seems a little ridiculous since it appears that it is you who have missed the point.

Uber to launch e-VTOL air taxis - Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/04/uber-to-launch-e-vtol-air-taxis/)

https://www.uber.com/us/en/elevate/

https://www.cnet.com/au/news/uber-air-wants-to-bring-flying-cars-to-australia/


whilst calling people in here here morons is unhelpful and not nesesary I do understand where 'tank' is coming from.
i believe his ref is the actual machine, unlike cars there's nothing else like this concept. Uber is indeed using normal cars as in current proven technology, the drone concept is an entirely different matter and still in its infancy. In fact the real debate here can be categorised into two distinct categories, one the legal and safe side of the concept and the actual machines capabilities, which are very limited at this point in time and being the bigger issue at the moment, the legal and safety side of things could be gotten around with enough funds and determination!
Jetsons style transport is a looooong way off in my mind!

[machtuk]

But the CGI movie shows them only travelling between one massive rooftop to another, in a CBD.

How will that replace my trip from quiet suburban home to the supermarket on a Sunday morning to buy breakfast?



Yeah, yeah, the ferry carries 300 people there in 35 mins, but Ooooober can carry 4 people in 8 mins. If they could find somewhere to land that aerial bus that takes the space of one bus lengthwise and 3 buses widthwise. And then find somewhere in Manly to land.

Take your dreaming hands off it!

Agree but you must admit the whole fairy idea is entertaining here!

[Icarus2001]

Jetsons style transport is a looooong way off in my mind!] I completely agree. We already have point to point VTOL aircraft available. They are called helicopters. Now how many of those are buzzing around each day? Not that many really, only for the very rich, SAR and media ops.

Uber are looking at listing so this is all about share price building in my opinion. Hey what would I know, I am a moron.

https://www.thenational.ae/business/markets/uber-is-preparing-for-public-listing-next-year-ceo-says-1.767505

https://www.ft.com/content/906ffd78-c1e2-11e8-95b1-d36dfef1b89a

[neville_nobody]

Uber's proposal is for electric tilt rotor in an urban environment:ooh:
No wonder they are regulator shopping, who will want to sign off that kind of operation? One only has to look at the history of tiltrotor alone to realise as a public transport concept it is very risky, let along throwing it into busy cities with 1000's of people to kill on the ground.

I love to know what the contingency is for an engine failure in transition, or for a stuck rotor in transition.

CASA would be crazy to even entertain this proposal as it stands right now.

[Andy_RR]

It's kind of ironic in a "that'll never fly Mr Wright" kind of way that once you (presumably) issue someone with a pilots licence, they are immediately endowed with the understanding as to why something will never fly...

[27/09]

It's kind of ironic in a "that'll never fly Mr Wright" kind of way that once you (presumably) issue someone with a pilots licence, they are immediately endowed with the understanding as to why something will never fly...
Andy,

The laws of physics can show why Mr Wright et al were not pursuing a folly.

Right now logic says this concept will not fly, current laws of physics, economics and logistics can show what this will likely not work. True, never say never, but tell me how you think this might work.

[neville_nobody]

It's kind of ironic in a "that'll never fly Mr Wright" kind of way that once you (presumably) issue someone with a pilots licence, they are immediately endowed with the understanding as to why something will never fly...

Go have a look at the 80 odd year history of tiltrotor operation and tell me what Uber knows that everybody else doesn't. If Boeing have trouble with the concept why on earth are a IT company going to solve it? Unless someone has a technological breakthrough this is going to be a nonstarter. That's before you even start thinking about battery powered aircraft.

[Icarus2001]

Forget about the technology of the machine, assume the boffins will solve the technical issues and produce a "driverless" drone capable of carrying 180-250kg payload.

Where is the market? Think about your own travel habits. Work to home. Home to work. Home to shops. Shops to home. Home to restaurant or entertainment area and back. Now, how many suburbs could accommodate a craft landing within walking distance of your house? Sure, your local Westfield can give up a hundred car bays and fence off a 60m by 60m landing pad but as said above what about the CBD?

The front runners in this should be parcel delivery by autonomous drone, are they near? Not really. When they solve the parcel delivery issues then the air taxi may be closer to reality.

Probably more like this Neville, not tilt rotor...

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1430x805/echang_20184_d2a36d955fa9a64fe3f3a96ad9efbdb36287324c.jpg

[cattletruck]

If Boeing have trouble with the concept why on earth are a IT company going to solve it?

Big IT companies have quite an established history at operating inefficiently and charging way too much, so while their senior executives play with toy drones in the board room and market the future possibilities of "air taxis" regardless of how ill informed they are, their share stock gets the kind of attention of a forming bubble.

Yes, it's all just bull dust, actually it's more like a mashup - first you clump together a bunch of crap, then you polish it, then you roll it in glitter.

[Ixixly]

Not to be a conspiracy nut here, I know we all reckon this will be drawn out so much by CAsA that it'll never happen, it'll be decided to be un-economical because of the barriers, but what if the exact opposite is true? CAsA have always wanted GA out of the Air, they've made that perfectly clear on many occasions, now imagine someone comes up to them offering to do something with a Modern Fleet, that can be held accountable to stringent Maintenance requirements, that operate according to fixed rules due to being coded in and take a whole bunch of GA Aircraft and Pilots out of the air in our crazy old wacky flying machines? What if they view this as an opportunity to further then agenda of eliminating GA as we currently know it with something that is far easier for them to regulate? No more pesky Pilots to worry about, no more Piston engines, less flying schools required and certainly a lot less GA AOCs out there?

[neville_nobody]

Probably more like this Neville, not tilt rotor...

Uber's White Paper points toward tiltrotor as the cruise efficiency of fixed rotor are not good enough.

[Slezy9]

I’ve personally got no idea if the technology is currently feasible, however, who’s going to be operating these flying cars? God help us if it’s the average driver! The only way this could work is it for to be autonomous and controlled from a central station that handled all deconfliction.

[Sunfish]

Noise alone will kill this idea, then there is the issue of weather. I for one would not want to be watching from the air as a buster or cold front rolls towards me.

[Ascend Charlie]

Congestion at the landing point will also be an issue - some high-rollers want to Uber in to the footy field for the finals - only 2 landing spots available, there are 20 of them in a holding pattern, batteries getting low...

[machtuk]

Not to be a conspiracy nut here, I know we all reckon this will be drawn out so much by CAsA that it'll never happen, it'll be decided to be un-economical because of the barriers, but what if the exact opposite is true? CAsA have always wanted GA out of the Air, they've made that perfectly clear on many occasions, now imagine someone comes up to them offering to do something with a Modern Fleet, that can be held accountable to stringent Maintenance requirements, that operate according to fixed rules due to being coded in and take a whole bunch of GA Aircraft and Pilots out of the air in our crazy old wacky flying machines? What if they view this as an opportunity to further then agenda of eliminating GA as we currently know it with something that is far easier for them to regulate? No more pesky Pilots to worry about, no more Piston engines, less flying schools required and certainly a lot less GA AOCs out there?

....as they say..........."Too many what if's in that sentence"!:-):-)

CASA need the GA industry to keep their justification for lunacy!:-)

This would have to be the most entertaining thread on Prooooon, we should have a fictional section where crazy ideas get air time without ever having to leave the ground:-):-)

[Andy_RR]

Andy,

The laws of physics can show why Mr Wright et al were not pursuing a folly.

Right now logic says this concept will not fly, current laws of physics, economics and logistics can show what this will likely not work. True, never say never, but tell me how you think this might work.


Go have a look at the 80 odd year history of tiltrotor operation and tell me what Uber knows that everybody else doesn't. If Boeing have trouble with the concept why on earth are a IT company going to solve it? Unless someone has a technological breakthrough this is going to be a nonstarter. That's before you even start thinking about battery powered aircraft.


Whilst I agree with you that a tilt wing/rotor is a desirable, perhaps necessary aspect of a viable eVTOL solution, I think to suggest that Boeing "having trouble with the concept" as a bar to all others being successful is painting with a broad brush indeed! Sure there's been some issues since the XV15 days and the V22 isn't without issues but that hasn't stopped the roll-out of the V280 nor the AW609. All of these craft are monsters compared with what I think is necessary for an Über air taxi business model They also offer good lessons in what actually works in real life.

Having said that, I believe the air taxi idea, whilst one way of attracting funds to aid development, is a step too far too quickly. Sure, it may come eventually but I think a personally-owned eVTOL, perhaps starting in the experimental category - possibly even as an E-AB makes more sense, at least initially It's undoubtedly a huge new area of possibility with lots to explore and many lessons to learn. The technology will be developed. The real question is where and who will own the rights to it...

As far as it being a viable possibility, I believe it already is now with current tech. I haven't seen any proposals made public that to me look aerodynamically viable but I have been doing my own design calcs on a single-seater concept and at 650-ish kg MTOW yields a 135kt/250km/h cruise speed for a 100km/54nm range with a VTOL each end. That's about 25-30kWh worth of energy, I think. One key question remaining is what reserves are likely to be required for electric aircraft since demanding 30mins when the maximum range flight time is only 25mins seems a bit extreme and would kill the idea dead at this point in technology.

As far as Über et al being IT companies and not aerospace companies, I don't see the issue here since it isn't skills or expertise they offer but rather financial muscle and backing. The real expertise needed is usually readily available if you have money to spend.

No, I don't believe we'll have viable air taxis in the time frame predicted here but we sure as hell should be playing about in this sandpit well before five years has elapsed.

[cattletruck]

I wouldn't compare Uber's abilities to overcome legislative issues within the motor car taxi industry to a similar ability to overcome legislative issues within the aviation industry. For one, the motor car taxi industry had deteriorated to the point where license holders were earning tens of thousands of dollars for doing sweet FA while the drivers of their taxis worked on a 50% cut of the fare and were struggling to make ends meet. If you look closely at that industry you will also find many of these license holders own multiple licences - the system is well and truly broken and I wouldn't be surprised if the government was actually in favour of Uber helping break up that industry. There is a bloke down my street who was a taxi driver all his working life, then settled to become just a license holder of 2 licenses letting others to do his work - he managed to acquire 15 houses in his work life. When the price of taxi licences dropped because of Uber both he and his family began protesting very vocally on being compensated.

I just don't see the same similarities between the motor car taxi industry and the aviation taxi industry as there is much less fat in the latter.

[The Wawa Zone]

If this actually happens, then it will be because the foreign based entrepreneurs behind it persuade the Fed government at Cabinet level to approve it as a part of some larger deal in which they and the government are parties. CASA will not play any part of it, nor will they have any interest in playing with something over which they have no control, instead it would be rubber stamped by some agency called something like the Advanced Transport Authority (etc).
And it might even work !

[mullokintyre]

Those who suggest that the Big multinationals will flout the law anyway may be right.
unauthjorised sattelite launch (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-03/swarm-technologies-satellite-launch-sparks-warning-about-nasa/10678328)

A US tech start-up has been slapped with a historic fine for launching unauthorised satellites, prompting warnings about "runaway cowboy-like behaviour" from private companies joining the space race.Key points:

Start-up denied permission over concerns about tracking satellites
Low-Earth orbit still the "wild west" with little regulation, expert warns
Concern over NASA stoking commercial interest in space exploration



Swarm Technologies was fined $US900,000 ($1.28 million) for launching four mini satellites in January 2018 after explicitly being denied permission by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over concerns about the ability to track them.

An investigation found Swarm used an unaffiliated launch company in India to get around the restrictions, but was caught out when the satellites transmitted signals back to a station in Georgia in the US.

"We will aggressively enforce the FCC's requirements that companies seek FCC authorisation prior to deploying and operating communications satellites and Earth stations," FCC Enforcement Bureau chief Rosemary Harold said.



Obvious solution is to domicle the company in BVA, or some other Tax haven.
Mick

[thorn bird]

Jeez,
I use a SAT phone a lot, does that mean I have to get FCC approval to receive transmitted signals from space?

[neville_nobody]

Whilst I agree with you that a tilt wing/rotor is a desirable, perhaps necessary aspect of a viable eVTOL solution, I think to suggest that Boeing "having trouble with the concept" as a bar to all others being successful is painting with a broad brush indeed! Sure there's been some issues since the XV15 days and the V22 isn't without issues but that hasn't stopped the roll-out of the V280 nor the AW609. All of these craft are monsters compared with what I think is necessary for an Über air taxi business model They also offer good lessons in what actually works in real life.

However neither of those types are certified. My point is that for such a radical design, if aerospace companies are having problems over a 20 year design phase then why do Uber think they are going to get this up and running with electric motors in 5 years??? Why not just stick to a fixed rotor? It's not like you need speed to fly around a 60-100NM radius which is what most cities would be.

In regard to fixed reserves or battery power available, they are already pushing for FAA waivers.

As mentioned previously this is just a PR exercise and by going to the regulators they are gaining free publicity and credibility.

You can read all about it here: Elevate Whitepaper (https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf)

[Ascend Charlie]

Forget about the technology of the machine, assume the boffins will solve the technical issues and produce a "driverless" drone capable of carrying 180-250kg payload.

Where is the market? Think about your own travel habits. Work to home. Home to work. Home to shops. Shops to home. Home to restaurant or entertainment area and back. Now, how many suburbs could accommodate a craft landing within walking distance of your house? Sure, your local Westfield can give up a hundred car bays and fence off a 60m by 60m landing pad but as said above what about the CBD?

The front runners in this should be parcel delivery by autonomous drone, are they near? Not really. When they solve the parcel delivery issues then the air taxi may be closer to reality.

Probably more like this Neville, not tilt rotor...

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1430x805/echang_20184_d2a36d955fa9a64fe3f3a96ad9efbdb36287324c.jpg
Can anybody see the potential for shredded people here? One of these things lands for the first time, the news crew rushes in to get a scoop, and they actually NEED a scoop to retrieve the reporter.

[Andy_RR]

However neither of those types are certified. My point is that for such a radical design, if aerospace companies are having problems over a 20 year design phase then why do Uber think they are going to get this up and running with electric motors in 5 years??? Why not just stick to a fixed rotor? It's not like you need speed to fly around a 60-100NM radius which is what most cities would be.
(https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf)

I agree that the 5 year timeframe is somewhere on the optimistic side of realistic but I don't think that precludes the use of tiltrotor concepts. The energy efficiency required for electric flight will, I think, pretty much preclude the use of conventional rotorcraft although some are trying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-05wY41ht1s
As you can hear on this video, the noise profile of the R44 isn't much changed by deleting the Lycoming. Noise will be another one of the huge hurdles to overcome and rotorcraft aren't the ideal thing in this regard

[cattletruck]

Interesting video and very commendable for being honest enough to post the performance figures.

I saw figures of of the electric R44 pulling 250Nm in the hover (the Lycoming IO-540 is rated at 168Kw or roughly 168Nm) and this electric version was using 30% more torque when single pilot.
I also saw figures of 250 Amps being used, the latest Tesla P100D is rated at 100 Amps and if used at once then a cooling period is required, if done regularly then a new set of batteries are in order.
Finally, the flight test was done in 2016, over 2 years ago. If this electric caper was really viable I would guess we would be seeing more recent videos and better performance figures, but alas, we are well and truly stuck with the same problem that has plagued this technology since the times of the ancient Egyptians - the battery.

[Andy_RR]

IO540 in the R44 is rated at 245hp which is 646Nm at 2700. Electric motors are probably geared differently.

The OP quotes power figures in the comments of the video. 105kW in cruise. 140kW IGE hover, 160kW OGE. 700V 70-odd kWh battery from memory.

I think a Tesla model S pulls waaay more than 100A (edit: 1600A apparently for ludicrous mode capable battery packs)

[Dark Knight]

Bell Air Taxi
At CES 2019
Bell Air Taxi (https://www.bellflight.com/company/innovation/air-taxi)

[machtuk]

Bell Air Taxi
At CES 2019
Bell Air Taxi (https://www.bellflight.com/company/innovation/air-taxi)

Very flash commercial, fanciful stuff though:-) Notice the subjects used in that propaganda? Well healed & of normal size. Fat Yanks & fat Aussies are gunna be out of the question and the idea of someone that fat flying overhead whilst eating Mackers just doesn't seem to fit the fairytale that Bell are putting out there:-)

I look Fwd to the skies filled with these things, maybe in the next life, maybe:-)

[George Glass]

Anyone passing through Darwin Airport should make sure you look out the window toward the south-eastern end of the runway. If you get lucky you will see one of the U.S. Marines V-22 that rotate through Darwin on a regular basis. Watching one of these frightening contraptions taxi and transition to flight will disabuse any rational observer of the idea that anything like that is going to be a realistic option for public transport any time soon. How Bell and Boeing have got them to work at all is miraculous.

[Sunfish]

In the IT industry, that video is classified as “smoke and mirrors”. A marketing concept vehicle that will be nothing like the sad reality.

[Icarus2001]

Exactly right Sunfish. The funny thing is that a helicopter can already do that type of transport, the fact that they do not (regularly) shows that it is not a market that works.

[Andy_RR]

I dunno George. I think they're amazing, but at least also an order of magnitude larger than what's needed for any possible air-taxi operation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vglHpvcK-Jk

As far as helicopters being a present-day analog, I'll repeat what I said earlier - they're expensive to operate in terms of power, maintenance complexity and skill level. That's a lot of stuff to be paid for before you get to the payload bit...

[Dark Knight]

Innovation is far from dead catching up with us fast.

250 remote controlled air Taxis anyone? (https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-soars-above-las-vegas-with-bellagio-drone-light-show-ces-2018/)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Question -

In the event of the battery pack 'shorting out' / Lithium exploding - or whatever - what do youse think is the likelihood of a successful 'auto rotate' back to the surface of the Earth,
or whatever is directly underneath you at the time, hoping that it won't be a busy freeway / high-rise / high tension power lines / train track in peak hour.....etc you get the drift.
Cheers

Just curious is all......

[Squawk7700]

Looks like Bell are jumping right into it...

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Bell-Unveils-eVTOL-Design-232092-1.html

[27/09]

As far as helicopters being a present-day analog, I'll repeat what I said earlier - they're expensive to operate in terms of power, maintenance complexity and skill level. That's a lot of stuff to be paid for before you get to the payload bit...

Can you explain how these will be any less expensive to operate in terms of power maintenance and complexity? I'll concede the skill level might the lower, but won't reduce the overall cost significantly.

[Ascend Charlie]

Still gonna need approximately the same power to lift the airframe, pax, battery pack and a load of electrons. Stored chemical energy is a lot quicker to refill than a flat battery. Need round electrons to roll through the wires, then a round-to-flat converter to allow the flat electrons to be packed into the battery. Then there is the supply of coloured electrons to put in the glass screens.

The world is made of protons, neutrons, electrons, and morons.

[Squawk7700]

Can you explain how these will be any less expensive to operate in terms of power maintenance and complexity? I'll concede the skill level might the lower, but won't reduce the overall cost significantly.

Maintenance required on the electric motors will be far less than a turbine, that’s for sure!

There is already an electric LSA model operating successfully in multiple flying schools world-wide. There are no regulator maintenance items on the motor and the TBO is 2,000 hours!

[27/09]

Maintenance required on the electric motors will be far less than a turbine, that’s for sure!

There is already an electric LSA model operating successfully in multiple flying schools world-wide. There are no regulator maintenance items on the motor and the TBO is 2,000 hours!


Granted the electric motors will be cheaper to maintain, but no one has mentioned the battery technology. There are six monthly capacity check requirements now for the batteries in your ICE powered aircraft though I suspect many owners aren't complying with these requirements. Just have a look at the requirements for the likes of the Concorde batteries currently in use. I'd imagine there will be even a higher level of capacity testing when a battery is the motive source.

Also your comparison is for a non certified aircraft, these Air Taxis will need to be certified with the attendant costs that come with certification.

[machtuk]

Granted the electric motors will be cheaper to maintain, but no one has mentioned the battery technology. There are six monthly capacity check requirements now for the batteries in your ICE powered aircraft though I suspect many owners aren't complying with these requirements. Just have a look at the requirements for the likes of the Concorde batteries currently in use. I'd imagine there will be even a higher level of capacity testing when a battery is the motive source.

Also your comparison is for a non certified aircraft, these Air Taxis will need to be certified with the attendant costs that come with certification.


battery technology is the main thing that has limited the advancement of any EP machine and will continue to be so for a very long time yet! Weight, storage capacity, cost and replenishment time will always be what holds back this fanciful idea on a large commercial scale.

[Andy_RR]

I'm imagining that once you have battery management systems, motor controllers and flight control systems then maintenance will become more like a continuous condition monitoring process by electronic means along with almost all preflight tasks. At least some of the high end UAVs are doing this at least partially and most of the big jet turbines are likewise under continuous surveillance.

Battery capacity will be determined every discharge-charge cycle.

[Sorry Dog]

What stations/ autonomous transport port. Isn't the whole idea to do away with "hubs" so you can go from point to point.
People point to the disrupters as a model for this form of transport.
But all the disrupters have done so far is develop an App and use a proven transport system - cars, bikes and now scooters. The only difference between a taxi and these disrupters is the use of an app to allow people to access private vehicles and undercut what was a tightly controlled transport model in the case of taxis.

They have not introduces a "new" transport system. Just an app that can organise a driver and a vehicle for you. Taxis have had that system in place for years. They just used an older technology (phones - remember them) but have now developed their own apps which work well.

Now with this autonomous transport system using a flying vehicle of some description, not only do they have to develop the app for organising the ride, but the mode of transport and the underlying system to support it. Landing and takeoff sites, navigation system, battery charging systems, maintenance systems, noise abatement, autonomous control or pilot control are some of the hurdles to overcome.

A previous post mentioned a sea of red lights on the highways. Just imagine a swarm of large noisy electric vehicles converging on Sydney Harbour for the New Years fireworks and then all trying to get home. Where will they park for a couple of hours?

I remember sitting on the grass outside a unit in Kirribilli watching the boat traffic after the 2000 fireworks. The boat traffic was that crowded you could have walked from Kirribilli to the Opera House across the Harbour by hopping from one boat to the next.

Just imagine cruising at 500 feet over the Sydney CBD while tweeting your latest thoughts to all your followers only to hear or see "Lost satellite reception" come up on the app that is communicating with your autonomous transport system.
The mind boggles!!

.

Uber did not introduce a whole new transport system, just an app to organise private vehicles and drivers. Same with these scooters that have resulted in a fivefold increase in admissions to the ER departments for injuries.

It's worse than that. By using private vehicles, offloaded a lot of capital risks onto the operator "contractor" and at the same time skirted traditional employment contributions and safety regulations. Some of the "savings" were passed on to the consumer...they kept the rest.

Quite often the driver "contractors" make minimum wage or less...and that's before vehicle depreciation is taken into account. To me a lot of the disruption is figuring out a way to semi legally exploit workers to work for less than what's advertised.

[Sunfish]

Andy:I'm imagining that once you have battery management systems, motor controllers and flight control systems then maintenance will become more like a continuous condition monitoring process by electronic means along with almost all preflight tasks. At least some of the high end UAVs are doing this at least partially and most of the big jet turbines are likewise under continuous surveillance.

Battery capacity will be determined every discharge-charge cycle.

..........That would be logical, so, based on experience to date, CASA will introduce Australia specific unique test and inspection requirements on top of anything the FAA specifies. These requirements will then triple the cost of deployment in Australia compared to the USA.

Yes, I know I’m cynical.

[LeadSled]

Andy:

..........That would be logical, so, based on experience to date, CASA will introduce Australia specific unique test and inspection requirements on top of anything the FAA specifies. These requirements will then triple the cost of deployment in Australia compared to the USA.

Yes, I know I’m cynical.


Sunfish,
Born of long experience of the Australian approach to bureaucratic obfuscation and interference, no doubt not limited to aviation ---- where "safety" (whatever that means) is the unrestrained multiplier.
Tootle pip!!
PS: As many people are now just starting to find out ----- the "economy" of their Prius or Tesla did not include the cost of replacement batteries, nor the real cost of disposal of the exhausted batteries. One supportable analysis (meaning reasonably neutral or unbiased numbers) shows that the only state where an electric car would be "more green" in Australia would be Tasmania, because the recharge source is mostly hydro power.

[Squawk7700]

Sunfish,

PS: As many people are now just starting to find out ----- the "economy" of their Prius or Tesla did not include the cost of replacement batteries, nor the real cost of disposal of the exhausted batteries

Does PS mean BS?

How many Tesla owners do you know that need new batteries LeadSled? Tesla batteries hold 90% after over 200,000 kms and will likely last for 600,000 kms or more! Nobody buys a Tesla for the “economy,” you should know that. They are a performance car.

[601]

Prius or Tesla
= coal fired cars.

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1334x750/15464f91_227d_4ebb_9d5d_d05f19d99ae5_1b10889a5bb681a13adb6ed 0469ec29eef47fc73.png
Sunfish,
One supportable analysis (meaning reasonably neutral or unbiased numbers) shows that the only state where an electric car would be "more green" in Australia would be Tasmania, because the recharge source is mostly hydro power.

Mostly?

Did you realise that when the 240v power / life line broke from the mainland a couple of years back, that some hundred large generators were shipped to Tasmania to generate enough power for them to survive? One site alone had more than 25 shipping container sized generators.

This in turn created a diesel shortage in Tasmania and in response the government brought over a ship full of diesel and parked it off Hobart for months. One site alone in the hills near Hobart used some 3 B-Doubles of diesel fuel every day!

Not very green eh?

Don’t believe everything you hear or read!!!

[LeadSled]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1334x750/15464f91_227d_4ebb_9d5d_d05f19d99ae5_1b10889a5bb681a13adb6ed 0469ec29eef47fc73.png


Mostly?

Did you realise that when the 240v power / life line broke from the mainland a couple of years back, that some hundred large generators were shipped to Tasmania to generate enough power for them to survive? One site alone had more than 25 shipping container sized generators.

This in turn created a diesel shortage in Tasmania and in response the government brought over a ship full of diesel and parked it off Hobart for months. One site alone in the hills near Hobart used some 3 B-Doubles of diesel fuel every day!
Not very green eh?
Don’t believe everything you hear or read!!!

SQ7700,
No, of course I k now nothing about that, or anything else, for that matter, in your view.

Why don't you grow up, and read what is written, in the spirit it is written, rather than looking fro something, with which to disagree. A hopefully one-off problem with the Tasmania to the big island inter connector did not invalidate the premise of the study --- which showed that, for a long time in the future, the source of power for overnight charging of electric car batteries will be from coal, so only shifting the "pollution" somewhere else, compared to petrol/diesel vehicles.

My original post was about the real cost of some "green" technology --- and how inconvenient facts are often omitted ---- it is known as "proponent bias".

As to Prius batteries, two close friends have both had problems with the battery pack, their dealer has said that their "problems" are not "problems", and seem as much age related as distance traveled, about five years. In each case the common usage has been short distance commuting, not country travel, so the batteries get worked. Neither is a proponent of "global warming" caused by "CO2 pollution", that is not why they bought the cars, they bought them in expectation of very low costs per km. for a daily commute. They have been disappointed.

I gather that a number of taxi operators in Sydney have had similar experiences.

So, does a Tesla add to or subtract from transport's contribution to "global warming".

Tootle pip!!

PS: Most of those diesel generators, and many more, are now in SA, the "green" state.

[Squawk7700]

Ok, so you’re now changing your earlier statement to exclude Tesla batteries as being no good / uneconomical.

If you don’t like being flagged as talking BS LS, then refrain from the use of motherhood statements about something you clearly know little about!

I have no issue with you or your alleged knowledge or your opinion, except for when seeeping motherhood statements are made when they are clearly incorrect.

[cattletruck]

How long would the batteries last on a Prius or Tesla if every journey they made, both long and short, was at near max continuous power? Not long at all.

I'm not sure if a drone can do translational lift, especially the ducted fan variety. On the other hand, a teleporter can do translational lift quite well.
Then there's the dreaded vortex-ring-state - the nerds designing this thing should be very afraid of VRS and any attributions made by forum posters.

[Andy_RR]

I'm sure the nerds designing these things are fully aware of all the issues raised by random internet users...

[George Glass]

Yeah, right Andy. I'll believe it when one of the nerds is happy to wave "Bon Voyage" to his family on the short hop to the airport in the sparkly new Uber unmanned electric drone.

[27/09]

I'm sure the nerds designing these things are fully aware of all the issues raised by random internet users...

I think the nerds designing these things most likely think they are designing an up scaled toy drone. I rather suspect they are not familiar with FAR 23 nor the finer points of operations into and out of confined spaces and or high aviation traffic areas.

[Andy_RR]

I think they know a f%$&-load more than the nay-sayers on this thread about designing aircraft and VTOLs and FAR23 and all that stuff and more. Not only that, they know enough about finding the financial backing to do something which is the stumbling block here in Australia before CASA ever is!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
For something really interesting, look up BlackFly, by Opener Inc., on YouTube.
And it is real, not a bunch of gunnah's.
VTOL for the novice.
With the pace of modern development, never say never.
Tootle pip!!

PS: 601 ---- Coal fired cars ---- love it, and correct for the foreseeable future in AU.

[Ascend Charlie]

Yeah Blackfly, more like Blowfly, ridiculous hover attitude, rounded bottom (no landing gear) single seat, and each prop makes an amazing amount of noise.

"Never be a success in Oz".

[George Glass]

Well, Andy turns out I've had interesting discussions with people such as engineers at Ausnet and others who are VERY sceptical about the current infatuation with lithium batteries. They are a mature technology and are about at their theoretical limits already. Large scale batteries for dispatchable power are especially problematic. Huge cost for tiny amounts of energy. Look up the specs. for Musks battery in S.A. A joke.
Oh, and best not to make too many assumptions about the people you are talking to. Some of us have qualifications outside aviation. Sometimes "nay-saying" is just a touch of realism. Why dont you put your money where your mouth is and stump up some cash for one of these miraculous endeavours and see how you go?

[LeadSled]

Yeah Blackfly, more like Blowfly, ridiculous hover attitude, rounded bottom (no landing gear) single seat, and each prop makes an amazing amount of noise.

"Never be a success in Oz".

A Charlie,
Of course, I understand completely, what you saw was the one, the only, without any prospect of development, change, improvement, etc.
Let's face it, the Wright Flyer was just an impractical toy, clearly as a starting point for something called "aviation" it was a dead end with no future.
"A Charlie" --- how appropriate.
Tootle pip!!

PS: If I had the spare change, I would buy a BlackFly V3 just for the shear fun of it.

[Andy_RR]

Well, Andy ...

Why dont you put your money where your mouth is and stump up some cash for one of these miraculous endeavours and see how you go?

I am putting my own money into my own (possibly) miraculous endeavour. I'll see how I go. Unlike some commenters, I am also following what's happening with a spreadsheet of calcs to guestimate what people are doing in terms of range, payload, hover power, etc because it helps in my quest to establish the envelope of the possible. From my work, I don't think you need huge batteries to be useful - certainly a fraction of what a Telsa is carrying about. I think 40kWh tops for something that is useful. Obviously not for the Über model of carting five people about but as a single-seater for useful short cross-country work.

[Andy_RR]

Just in case you think that Li-ion battery technology isn't going anywhere, have a look at this: (I don't think you need any translation from the Czech to figure out what he's on about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe4FJBDfhOM

https://www.he3da.com/

[machtuk]

Just in case you think that Li-ion battery technology isn't going anywhere, have a look at this: (I don't think you need any translation from the Czech to figure out what he's on about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe4FJBDfhOM

https://www.he3da.com/
Andy they should make you CEO of a future Co specialising in these contraptions as your about the only one who is a believer...lololol

[cattletruck]

In the motor vehicle industry we are now getting traditional V8 power out of small 4-pot internal combustion engines, and all it took was some tightening of the emission regs. There is a lot of energy stored in liquid based fuels, and the technology to convert every last Joule from that fuel into useful power is expanding rapidly. I'm sure similar efficiencies can be had with turbine engines. It's just a matter of where you apply the best talent to the most realistic outcomes. If you set them playing with toys then that's all they'll ever produce.

[Sunfish]

Cattle truck, that is a wrong reading of the automotive world. The GM and Ford engineers told me in 1985 when I was consulting, that their response to fuel prices would be to use little engines and turbo the hell out of them. The technology has been around for a long time, it’s just that the market didn’t want to pay for it at the time.

If we have a battery chemistry breakthrough then drones. Otherwise forget them as people movers.

[machtuk]

Cattle truck, that is a wrong reading of the automotive world. The GM and Ford engineers told me in 1985 when I was consulting, that their response to fuel prices would be to use little engines and turbo the hell out of them. The technology has been around for a long time, it’s just that the market didn’t want to pay for it at the time.

If we have a battery chemistry breakthrough then drones. Otherwise forget them as people movers.

I'm with you sunny, efficiency has come from turbos, gearing and fine tuning the current technology. I am of the belief that we have pretty much reached the limits on the OTTO cycle design and the turbine reaction design, only minor increases In Specific FF will be gained due 'fiddling' but nothing of significance, it's over. Motor/Battery technology at the moment is akin to an old clunkerV8 form back in the side valve days, we have a LONG way to go to get the duration out of the stored energy devices needed to power these fanciful contraptions👍
The future is exciting but we are nowhere near it yet!🙂

[Andy_RR]

There's definitely more to be had in ICEs especially combined with hybrid transmission systems however the perpetual issue is that even expensive fuel is very cheap compared to the capital cost of trying to save it. Currently ICEs are being asked to span too large an envelope to be really as efficient as they could be. Also the current trend in highly boosted engines is less Otto cycle and more combined cycle where multi-stage compressio and expansion is used to improve overall cycle efficiency in the same manner as gas turbines do.

Electric and hybrid-electric aircraft are not really about being green as much as they are about opening up new design opportunities, particularly in the VTOL space. This comes largely from the ability to precisely control motor power electronically as well as the chance to have high power density motors in aerodynamically convenient places. This is new territory though and no one really knows what an optimal configuration actually looks like yet so you're going to see some weird contraptions proposed until we learn enough to know where the advantages lie. All of the electric motor technology is already highly developed and more-or-less on the shelf waiting to be adopted

As far as batteries go, sure there are likely gains to be had out there in the future but useful things can be done with current technology as Tesla has demonstrated in the automotive sector. Whether you like the results or not is irrelevant. The product is as compelling as a phat S-class Benz ever was and as justifiable. Forget the green tripe and look at it purely as a luxury car buying option.

Like any design problem there is no one solution and its all about pushing the compromises around until you get something that works well (or not). Over time designs will converge on perhaps one or two configurations and the real effort becomes fine-tuning the details

[Andy_RR]

New kid on the VTOL block (https://www.wired.com/story/beta-ava-flying-car-aviation/)

[Sunfish]

These contraptions look to me like solutions looking for problems. As for VTOL, I barely trust helicopters let alone ducted fans.

[Andy_RR]

...says he who bent his unducted non-VTOL contraption trying to get it on the ground

[Sunfish]

Too many jesus bolts in VTOL.

[Andy_RR]

Jesus might help you in your hour of need though, Sunny...

[LeadSled]

Folks,
For something really interesting, look up BlackFly, by Opener Inc., on YouTube.
And it is real, not a bunch of gunnah's.
VTOL for the novice.
With the pace of modern development, never say never.
Tootle pip!!

PS: 601 ---- Coal fired cars ---- love it, and correct for the foreseeable future in AU.

Folks,
An interesting thought --- a version powered by a battery+a motor/generator hydrogen powered, with the hydrogen source based on the recent UNSW patents for converting liquid ammonia back to hydrogen.
Never say never.
Tootle pip!!

[Ascend Charlie]

...and the hydrogen could be carried in a giant balloon, which will help keep it in the sky when the batteries fail...

[machtuk]

...and the hydrogen could be carried in a giant balloon, which will help keep it in the sky when the batteries fail...


hahaha, I luv this thread, it's like reading a modern day Alice in Wonderland😂😉

[LeadSled]

...and the hydrogen could be carried in a giant balloon, which will help keep it in the sky when the batteries fail...
Folks,
What "A Charlie".
The whole thrust of the ammonia/hydrogen development recently patented is an efficient method of producing hydrogen from ammonia (which was produced from hydrogen in the first place)--- or, put another way, using this practical conversion method means the "fuel" is ammonia handled as a liquid.
And as for those of you who have all the answers of why "it" won't work, are you aware that acknowledged technological failures like Mercedes and BMW already (and have for some time) produce their vehicles adapted to hydrogen --- and the delivery points for hydrogen in Germany are multiplying rapidly.
But--- the UNSW patent gets around all the problems of handling liquid hydrogen, and you have a reasonably harmless liquid at normal temperatures fuel --- ammonia.
And, I suppose you all understand that Australia is set to become a big exporter of liquid hydrogen. Or the Japanese and Korean are really dumb signing such big forward supply contracts for hydrogen.
Tootle pip!!

PS: A Charlie, do you have to work at your posts, or does it all come naturally??

[Sunfish]

One word: weight. Ammonia, by the way, is not harmless.

[Ascend Charlie]

DeadSled: There is such a thing called humour, though you appear to lack that gene. Toodle-oo! Pip! Pip!

[Capn Bloggs]

Yeh come on leaddie enough of the hydrogen balloons already. They went up in smoke years ago. :}

[A Squared]

and you have a reasonably harmless liquid at normal temperatures fuel --- ammonia.

In addition to it not being harmless as pointed out by Sunfish, neither is it liquid at normal temperatures, unless you consider -33 to be normal. That's a lot of fiction packed into a very few words. I admire your efficiency.

[A Squared]

Ammonia, by the way, is not harmless.

Well, it is toxic, corrosive, and flammable. Other than that it's pretty benign.

[Icarus2001]

https://h2.live/en

https://www.tuev-sued.de/company/press/press-archive/germany-had-the-highest-increase-of-hydrogen-refuelling-stations-worldwide-in-2017

German fuel stations for Hydrogen. Thanks I learnt something. As well as being entertained.

Still not as impressive as the CEPS fuel pipeline...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe_Pipeline_System

[machtuk]

https://h2.live/en

https://www.tuev-sued.de/company/press/press-archive/germany-had-the-highest-increase-of-hydrogen-refuelling-stations-worldwide-in-2017

German fuel stations for Hydrogen. Thanks I learnt something. As well as being entertained.

Still not as impressive as the CEPS fuel pipeline...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe_Pipeline_System

It's all good & well pointing us all in the direction of a future that's possible but we all do live in Australia, a land of inept leaders Inc our aviation authority & corruption that takes us nowhere other than dreams & wishes & I haven't yet met a dream or a wish that gets me off the ground!:-) Dream n Australia, we will only ever follow not lead!

[LeadSled]

In addition to it not being harmless as pointed out by Sunfish, neither is it liquid at normal temperatures, unless you consider -33 to be normal. That's a lot of fiction packed into a very few words. I admire your efficiency.

Quite so, but by the same standards petrol is not entirely benign, either, nor LPG (also stored under pressure)
For all the knockers, why not spend a few minutes looking at the U.of NSW public data on the subject, particularly the process for turning the ammonia (in whatever liquid form it might be) back to usable hydrogen and completely non-noxious "other".
Then use your imagination to see how existing distribution and delivery systems could be adapted, rather than dealing with compressed hydrogen, a la Germany, no more difficult than LPG.
Unless, of course, you firmly believe the U.of NSW published data/press releases/industrial scale pilot plant is just "fake news" --- as seems to be the case with more than one of you, not limited to Bloggsie.
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

It's all good & well pointing us all in the direction of a future that's possible but we all do live in Australia, a land of inept leaders Inc our aviation authority & corruption that takes us nowhere other than dreams & wishes & I haven't yet met a dream or a wish that gets me off the ground!:-) Dream n Australia, we will only ever follow not lead!

Machtuk,
Sadly, a bit too close to the truth.
For those of you who are able, cast your minds back to late 1960s, with the intention of converting the greater part of the Australian vehicle fleet to LPG, and greatly reducing our reliance on imported fuel ( which was less, percentage-wise, than now!!) --- then stupid changes to excise tax policy cut the feet out from under the economics of local LPG, for other than fleet use ---- (and remember it was Labor, whose Shorten tax and spend policies after May will make Whitlam look like a beginner) , so we are now more dependent than ever on imported fuels.
Read Donald Horne's "The Lucky Country".
Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

It's all good & well pointing us all in the direction of a future that's possible but we all do live in Australia, a land of inept leaders Inc our aviation authority & corruption that takes us nowhere other than dreams & wishes & I haven't yet met a dream or a wish that gets me off the ground!:-) Dream n Australia, we will only ever follow not lead!

Folks,
For those of you who are Google challenged, a few hopefully helpful references:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon
https://www.evolving-science.com/environment/ammonia-renewable-fuels-00729
https://marketbusinessnews.com/australia-pushing-ahead-with-ammonia-as-carbonless-fuel/182909/
And all of the above without consideration of the recent development to "easily" turn ammonia back into hydrogen and nitrogen.
And that is just the Australian scene.
Tootle pip!!

[Ascend Charlie]

Leadie, the reason I reckon "Autonomous Air Taxis" will never happen in Oz is much the same as your above comments. The Labor heartland is Balmain, with Sandra Nori, the worst anti-helicopter person in their arsenal. Labor is basically BANANA - Ban Aviation Anywhere Near Almost Anything. They killed the Darling Harbour heliport, they caused the rotary industry such grief that the ONLY place to land a helicopter in Sydney, apart from KSA and Bankstown, is the Parramatta Heliport, which in itself was resisted fiercely by the Labor constituents in the area. If Shorten Curly gets in, aviation is doomed.

So, the chance of any air taxi landing anywhere is zilch. Zot. Nada. Nil. Nuffink. But the CGI dudes get paid to dream up the Jetson stuff, and some others will be tempted to invest in it. Good for them. It might work in Dubai, where the prince will TELL people to land anywhere. But not here.

Not against hydrogen. Not against ammonia. Just realistic.

[Andy_RR]

I might agree with you, AC, that autonomous air taxis have a lot of hurdles and remain an unlikelihood, however eVTOL will happen and it will be largely electronically flown (stabilized and guided) to the point of being at least semi-autonomous. I think the personal ownership model (along with emergency service use etc) is a more likely early scenario.

I'm almost with the ALP on helicopters though. In all objective honesty they are pretty obnoxious things from a noise perspective when flown over suburbia and they don't seem to have a quiet/stealth mode to mitigate this..

[Ascend Charlie]

So, Andy RR, where exactly is your personal eVTOL going to take you? Being an e-vehicle won't stop the ALP from preventing any landing anywhere. And being electric doesn't stop the fan noise, especially when the vehicle is using teensy little fixed-pitch rotors spinning at howling-mad-murdoch revs.

[LeadSled]

Leadie, the reason I reckon "Autonomous Air Taxis" will never happen in Oz is much the same as your above comments. The Labor heartland is Balmain, with Sandra Nori, the worst anti-helicopter person in their arsenal. Labor is basically BANANA - Ban Aviation Anywhere Near Almost Anything. They killed the Darling Harbour heliport, they caused the rotary industry such grief that the ONLY place to land a helicopter in Sydney, apart from KSA and Bankstown, is the Parramatta Heliport, which in itself was resisted fiercely by the Labor constituents in the area. If Shorten Curly gets in, aviation is doomed.

So, the chance of any air taxi landing anywhere is zilch. Zot. Nada. Nil. Nuffink. But the CGI dudes get paid to dream up the Jetson stuff, and some others will be tempted to invest in it. Good for them. It might work in Dubai, where the prince will TELL people to land anywhere. But not here.

Not against hydrogen. Not against ammonia. Just realistic.

A Charlie,
For once I agree with you.
Tootle pip!!