Uber Air

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Coming in 2023 and by some miracle there will be a flawless autonomous vehicle system.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/11199466

[PoppaJo]

Remember Ryan Air Coin Operated Toilets anyone?

[Rated De]

All this from a company yet to make a profit.

Right up there with a 'Terminal' and now 'transformed' Qantas and the other showman Elon Musk colonising Mars in less than a year.
If only the car didn't keep crashing.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-12/uber-may-never-make-a-profit-ipo-documents-reveal/10996390

[GA Driver]

They clearly haven't met our regulator yet have they?

[machtuk]

They clearly haven't met our regulator yet have they?

Clearly that could be the case!:-)

I can see it now, trial flights next year with CASA right behind them helping them with all their powers as they are that kind of guys!:-)
When the first one crashes or goes wayward & it will some day then that will be that!
I have the popcorn ready for this adventure:-):-)

[Virtualcaptain431]

We’re getting there with autonomous cars... how hard can a flying one be, right? I think there’s movies about flying cars and the like. This is the future! But 2023?

[Oriana]

This CEO can't even read a bloody script, and she's gonna be able to run an autonomous air transport system.

Cheezus Christos, talk about delusional.

[KARNAK66]

What? Pilotless A/C Next on some fools agenda.?

[No Idea Either]

For the last 10 years they have been sprouting that fully autonomous cars would be here in another 5 years. I predict autonomous cars will be everywhere in about another 20 years. As for autonomous air taxis....that’ll be another 20 years on top of that. Fully autonomous vehicles, be they cars or air taxis are miles off. We need another computing leap before any of that will happen. Hopefully I will be so decrepit when the air taxis come I won’t be tempted to have a ride in one. If they operate backwards and forwards between the Melbourne CBD and the airport, they better stay outta my way......did someone say wake turbulence.............

[neville_nobody]

Good luck Uber getting all this past CASA:

. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) told ABC Radio Melbourne the authority would work with the company to ensure the service was safe before it started operating.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the list of challenges for Uber was a long one:

The company would have to get a safety certification for the new battery-operated aircraft — which does not exist yet
The airspace they would use would have to be managed by authorities
The people operating the aircraft would need specialised training
Infrastructure for the mini-airports does not yet exist

The regional general manager of Uber Eats, Jodie Auster, conceded the days of pilotless flight were a long way off.

"There's a lot of work to do. An urban ridesharing network in the sky does not happen overnight. It's going to take some time," she said.

[George Glass]

The bigger question is why nobody in the media calls this BS out. Like Musk going to Mars. Since the passing of the late great Ben Sandilands nobody in the Australian aviation media has a clue what their talking about.

[logansi]

At least Musk has the rockets and the crew module for mars under development the same can't be said for this - do uber actual have a builder for it - no....

[cooperplace]

The bigger question is why nobody in the media calls this BS out. Like Musk going to Mars. Since the passing of the late great Ben Sandilands nobody in the Australian aviation media has a clue what their talking about.

agreed; why is it no-one in the media can see what rubbish these claims are

[Tankengine]

Do they have MCAS? ;)

[Rated De]

" And in other news, Tesla, Qantas err Uber announce a fanciful plan, which, in early trade, has lifted the share price from yesterday's lows"

[tio540]

It must be a late April Fools joke.

So, Uber will fly you to Tullamarine, with a $400,000+ drone, plus pilot, airways charges, parking charges, for roughly the same price as a $23,000 Uber Toyota Corolla can.

Then wait for 12 hours to charge the battery for the return leg.

Some business model.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/06/melbourne-uber-air-to-get-flying-ubers-next-year-and-they-wont-cost-a-kidney/

[sms777]

But there is more......Uber Space...wait for it. between Elon Musk and NASA and their $50,000 per night stay in space, I am sure there will be fight between Yellow Cabs and Uber.....now...where did I put my popcorns?......

[airdualbleedfault]

I can only see all that taking a decade or 2 and a million or 2 Nev :}

[hoss]

CASA, glad they weren’t around when Magellan and Columbus were ‘doing there thing’. We’d still be stuck in the old world, imagine PPRuNe by carrier pigeon!

[Rated De]

The dearth of investigative journalism is a problem for all. Not only corrupt officials and government malfeasance not discovered and exposed, it allows corporations to say anything without effective scrutiny.

For those interested, many of the trading patterns that the automated systems look for are actually driven by words and phrasing.
With a great amount of stock trading now being driven by algorithms, nonsense like this is 'scanned' and assessed for upside potential and trading often takes place very quickly.

The fact that such a plan is fanciful, fraught with practical and regulatory uncertainty will be conveniently excluded from the 'news' (release) and traded accordingly.

Airlines use precisely this technique.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I’m told CASA are already involved, it’s in the lap of the RPAS side of things. Drones with humans on board .

[tail wheel]

"640 k ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981, despite the TRS-80 (1977), various models of the Apple II (first introduced in 1977) and the Atari 400/800 (1979) setting home sales records.

2023 is four years away. A day is a long time in politics.

Uber Air will be a political decision, more than a regulatory decision, in the same way Uber Rideshare was a political decision, not a regulatory decision.

Only Clairvoyants can predict the future and even then, incorrectly.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I’m no clairvoyant, but I can accurately say that my future does not include a ride in an oversized drone. I will be walking, preferably not under the flightpath 😉

[Rated De]

I’m no clairvoyant, but I can accurately say that my future does not include a ride in an oversized drone. I will be walking, preferably not under the flightpath ��


Let us see if Elon Musk has us on Mars next year, before this PR rubbish actually flies.

[Lantern10]

Uber Air set to take off in Australia with flying taxi trial in Melbourne

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-12/uber-elevate-set-to-take-off-in-australia/11199466

[Dark Knight]

Just enjoy lucid educated commentary, similar to reading the Australian commentariat.

This may be much more advanced that indicated here: a little research may assist?

Karem (https://www.karemaircraft.com/)

Another manufacturer
Aurora (https://www.aurora.aero/)

Perhaps the most advanced and most likely to succeed
Bell (https://www.bellflight.com/)

[Wizofoz]

Not one of the plethora of "Air Taxi" drones proposed has actually made a meaningful flight with a person on board- all the videos are of un-manned tests- basically RC models. And there's going to be a commercial operation in 4 years time?

[Wizofoz]

Perhaps the most advanced and most likely to succeed
Bell (https://www.bellflight.com/)

Maybe- but then Bell has been trying to develop a commercial tilt-rotor for 20 years.

[Pearly White]

Good luck Uber getting all this past CASA:Quote:
. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) told ABC Radio Melbourne the authority would work with the company to ensure the service was safe before it started operating.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the list of challenges for Uber was a long one:

The company would have to get a safety certification for the new battery-operated aircraft — which does not exist yet
The airspace they would use would have to be managed by authorities
The people operating the aircraft would need specialised training
Infrastructure for the mini-airports does not yet exist

The regional general manager of Uber Eats, Jodie Auster, conceded the days of pilotless flight were a long way off.

"There's a lot of work to do. An urban ridesharing network in the sky does not happen overnight. It's going to take some time," she said
That quote from CASA sounds like bureaucratese for "If anyone thinks we are going to be approving this hare-brained scheme inside the next twenty years, they had better have another think."
BTW did anyone notice the head of Uber's pizza delivery department has the surname Auster? Perhaps that's her venerable connection with aviation right there?

[machtuk]

What about the INSURANCE angle to all this?
Okay so lets say they get CAA's approval, so they get a commercially viable machine to operate beyond the comic book ideas, so they can have the safety procedures put in place along with the associated redundancies needed to save the day, so they can keep the price down to affordable, so they can get the routes to work & be viable from a commercial aspect...…………….again the insurance will be an interesting pursuit, for Uber & and customers private insurance? A LOT of so's there:-)

I've ordered a truck load of popcorn, doubt that will be enough as we watch this flying circus idea become reality:-):-)

[On Track]

It won't happen in my lifetime and I reckon I should be good for at least 15 more years.

[777Nine]

I'm sure that going back through history, everyone laughed when they said 'one day we will have these flying metal tubes taking us from one country to another'.

I'm all for the advancement of technology, and glad that people are out there pushing the boundaries of technology to further advance us.

[TempoTCu]

Will they need ASIC cards?

[Atlas Shrugged]

Two years ago when I first heard of this nonsense, I though it was a dumb idea.............. I don't think I was wrong.

I would most likely be running in the other direction....

[27/09]

Just had a quick look at the Karem link.

Could someone explain to this dumb pilot how an engine failure on take off/landing would be managed, or how easily the asymmetric thrust would be countered in the cruise. The thrust lines are a long way from the longitudinal axis.

[Rated De]

Just had a quick look at the Karem link.

Could someone explain to this dumb pilot how an engine failure on take off/landing would be managed, or how easily the asymmetric thrust would be countered in the cruise. The thrust lines are a long way from the longitudinal axis.


Such small details.
More important is did the stock price pop after this 'factual announcement'?

[rattman]

Just had a quick look at the Karem link.

Could someone explain to this dumb pilot how an engine failure on take off/landing would be managed, or how easily the asymmetric thrust would be countered in the cruise. The thrust lines are a long way from the longitudinal axis.

The V22, newer tilt rotors have it sorted already, honestly nothing new in that design, afik the V22 has a shaft that will drive both prop/rotors in case of an single engine failure. But all that said flying taxi's are pie in the sky atm, the only even close to flying yet is the boeing PAV and thats only done unmanned hover tests

[LeadSled]

Just had a quick look at the Karem link.

Could someone explain to this dumb pilot how an engine failure on take off/landing would be managed, or how easily the asymmetric thrust would be countered in the cruise. The thrust lines are a long way from the longitudinal axis.
Folks,
Just, for a moment, forget all the Uber uberhype, and the abysmal ignorance of the media in general, one thing is true.

There are some quite remarkable devices now flying --- distributed power with small electric motors has some fascinating aerodynamic/design possibilities ---- and with each "prop" powered by a "double engine" , and " you name it" number of props, how good is your imagination. The engine failure risk metrics look really good.

Think --- it is not even necessarily a "battery" thing, but can be a hybrid, with a (just say) a hydrogen (ammonia fuel cell -- think UNSW/CIRO) powered motor driving one or more generators plus just battery reserve---- that is what distributed power, in this instance, means.


In my lifetime --- who knows, but I hope so, some of the way out prototypes are flying, right now.

Even Boeing has postulated a distributed power "turboprop", with the "turbo" part buried in the fuselage running generators.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I do have to be careful that a particularly powerful permanent magnet motor, that I have (~ 0.5 HP, weighs ~ 500gms) , with the magnet made of quite exotic material --- doesn't get too close to my pacemaker.

[Rated De]

Folks,
Just, for a moment, forget all the Uber uberhype, and the abysmal ignorance of the media in general, one thing is true.

There are some quite remarkable devices now flying --- distributed power with small electric motors has some fascinating aerodynamic/design possibilities ---- and with each "prop" powered by a "double engine" , and " you name it" number of props, how good is your imagination. The engine failure risk metrics look really good.

Think --- it is not even necessarily a "battery" thing, but can be a hybrid, with a (just say) a hydrogen (ammonia fuel cell -- think UNSW/CIRO) powered motor driving one or more generators plus just battery reserve---- that is what distributed power, in this instance, means.


In my lifetime --- who knows, but I hope so, some of the way out prototypes are flying, right now.

Even Boeing has postulated a distributed power "turboprop", with the "turbo" part buried in the fuselage running generators.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I do have to be careful that a particularly powerful permanent magnet motor, that I have (~ 0.5 HP, weighs ~ 500gms) , with the magnet made of quite exotic material --- doesn't get too close to my pacemaker.

All true Lead.
Technically feasible and all that, but what is proposed is fanciful.
It won't be built, certified, tested and deemed operational anytime soon.

Rather like airline BS on bio-fuel, all technically feasible, but a long long way before anything like commercial scale is achieved. Ignoring of course all the demonstrated practical problems growing enough of it to satisfy demand and feed ourselves at the same time!

[George Glass]

V22??? Have a look at its accident record. It could only ever be certified as a military aircraft. They are a nightmare when things go pear-shaped. Enthusiasm for this idiot idea is in inverse proportion to actual aviation experience.

[cattletruck]

DUMP - Designed Using Marketing Principles.

Completing an engineering degree is hard, completing a marketing degree is considerably easier. We now have a glut of marketeers who need to be given jobs. So what do they do? They steal the design function from the engineers and churn out this kind of cr@p over and over again.

CASA won't have to intervene, the laws of physics will take care of that.

Meanwhile expect to see more of this until the public wise up to it and the money for it dries out.

[Andre Meyer]

What about the INSURANCE angle to all this?
Okay so lets say they get CAA's approval, so they get a commercially viable machine to operate beyond the comic book ideas, so they can have the safety procedures put in place along with the associated redundancies needed to save the day, so they can keep the price down to affordable, so they can get the routes to work & be viable from a commercial aspect...…………….again the insurance will be an interesting pursuit, for Uber & and customers private insurance? A LOT of so's there:-)

I've ordered a truck load of popcorn, doubt that will be enough as we watch this flying circus idea become reality:-):-)

I’m sure Youi can sort them out 👍

[rattman]

V22??? Have a look at its accident record. It could only ever be certified as a military aircraft. They are a nightmare when things go pear-shaped. Enthusiasm for this idiot idea is in inverse proportion to actual aviation experience.



Agusta Westland is currently flight testing the AW609 for the civilian market expected to start certification in 2020

Bell is also expected to release a civilian version of the a V-280. But it only just started flight testing so will be a few years away from certifiction for civ usage

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Neither of those look like cheap pilotless drones.

[rattman]

Neither of those look like cheap pilotless drones.

Why dont you acutally read the thread,

Someone linked the karem as building a tilt rotor "airtaxi"

someone asked how the karem which is a tilt rotor concept airtaxi handles engine failure,

I commented that the V22 and all tilt rotors have a shaft connecting both engine nacels so one engine can power both rotor/props

Then someone else said well the V22 isn't certified for civilian use

I then linked something that is being built for civ use

[lamax]

Can't see how any 4 seat aeroplane of any design charging $80 a head regardless of distance travelled can possibly make money. When last I looked there were not many Bentley Continentals in the Melbourne Airport cab rank.

[plainmaker]

For those of you who are reliant on CASA's oversight to ensure it is safe, just remember how UBER works. Compliance to current regulation / legislation is not a consideration. That is how they established a foothold in Oz. And when the regulators tried to curtail their activity, UBER developed software to 'isolate' the inspectors / enforcers. Then they decided to sue the ATO over the GST - that has to be very brave - but Big Brother won out there. Then Uber decided to do a deal to transport ATO staff around! What I want to see is a framework that is not only innovative, but also returns the economic benefit back into the community - not to some tax haven in a far away place. Having stirred up the ATO, they have now joined forces with the USA, UK Holland and Belgium to start tracking the money.

I can think of a new name for the enterprise (if it ever gets off he ground). The JETson's shuttle (with apologies to the original TV show. But then again any one who flies in a 'JET' branded aircraft in Oz probably could not afford the taxi fare anyway.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As tailwheel and others have alluded, the UBER business model is to ignore the rules --- in bsb speak, a "disruptive" model.
I am looking forward to the day they decide to ignore CASA, Airservices et al as mere impediments to their "business model" and unilaterally decide to introduce a "system" UBER have pronounced as "safe"..
That's what happened with UBER cars. Very few places did not eventually allow the operation.
Tootle pip!!

[27/09]

Folks,
As tailwheel and others have alluded, the UBER business model is to ignore the rules --- in bsb speak, a "disruptive" model.
I am looking forward to the day they decide to ignore CASA, Airservices et al as mere impediments to their "business model" and unilaterally decide to introduce a "system" UBER have pronounced as "safe"..
That's what happened with UBER cars. Very few places did not eventually allow the operation.
Tootle pip!!

Uber can ignore all the rules it likes but it takes money to develop this technology.

Uber has never made a profit. Where is all the money going to come from? The foray into the taxi business didn't require any new bleeding edge technology, just a rather slick app with some background IT. There's a major quantum step to running Uber air taxis using electric VTOL aircraft.

Also integration into the airspace system is another major step up compared to driving on public roads.

[Rated De]

Uber can ignore all the rules it likes but it takes money to develop this technology.

Uber has never made a profit. Where is all the money going to come from? The foray into the taxi business didn't require any new bleeding edge technology, just a rather slick app with some background IT. There's a major quantum step to running Uber air taxis using electric VTOL aircraft.

Also integration into the airspace system is another major step up compared to driving on public roads.


Just suspend belief in the facts, demonstrated technology and indeed their history and this idea really flies. Ought be good for a 10% share price pop.

Rather like that other misunderstood genius Elon. Despite its last capital raising falling short, the last investor conference call denied any cash-flow issues. Demand to the moon, yet strangely their quarterly deliveries fall short.
A few days later, Elon issues a cash warning stating all expenditures over USD $1 million requires CFO approval..

Don't worry you will be living on Mars next year in a Tesla venture.

[tail wheel]

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the list of challenges for Uber was a long one:

The company would have to get a safety certification for the new battery-operated aircraft — which does not exist yet
The airspace they would use would have to be managed by authorities
The people operating the aircraft would need specialised training
Infrastructure for the mini-airports does not yet exist
Gibson won't be a consideration if Uber Air becomes a political decision.

Looking at some of the passenger carrying Drone film footage on the Internet, it certainly appears the basic technical hurdles have certainly been overcome.

Despite our advancing age, I suspect LeadSled and I will still be around to see the first passenger carrying Drones go into service.

And only this morning I read Britain Norman are working on an electrically powered Islander for short range commuting. Just imagine, an Islander where ear muffs aren't compulsory!

[flying-spike]

Given that catching an Uber or Taxi is often a cross-cultural experience, can we anticipate the drivers of the manned version will require serious turbin time?

[Stationair8]

Flying-spike, turbin time will be mandatory!

So how will it really work, Tullamarine is broken 300'/5km visibilty and then we have the Uber operating into and out of the car park area-interesting to see how it will all work!

[Turnleft080]

In the 70s Reg Ansett use to run his chopper Bell 206 VH-AND from the Yarra heli pad
(down by the river side, Morley Ford theme) to Gate 2 when he wasn't flying in it.
From memory 7min trip at $8 each. Pax met gate checkin staff on the tarmac and directed
straight to there aircraft.

[27/09]

Let's forget the regulatory (AOC etc) and ATC issues for a moment. The technology being spruiked by the likes of Uber may well eventually be mature enough to attain certification for use in carrying fare paying passengers.

However there is a major difference between Uber Air and the Uber "taxi" service being offered with motor vehicles. When it came to the original Uber service there was already an well established demand for this type of service at a price the man in the street was willing to pay and an existing certified product - the motor car - for delivering the service. There is pretty well no current equivalent to the proposed Uber Air. Not only do they have to perfect the technology they wish to use, they also have to create a market or a demand for the service.

There is currently technology available (helicopters) that can provide an Uber style air taxi service but there is no service. Why? No one is willing to pay what it costs.

Uber and friends think they can develop new technology that will will reduce the cost to a price the masses can afford. I say they are dreaming. Unless they can find a way to make the costs affordable to the masses they are wasting their time.

[Mk 1]

Just had a quick look at the Karem link.

Could someone explain to this dumb pilot how an engine failure on take off/landing would be managed, or how easily the asymmetric thrust would be countered in the cruise. The thrust lines are a long way from the longitudinal axis.
The same way it is on the V22? A crossshaft meaning one engine can power both proprotors?

[Mk 1]

It must be a late April Fools joke.

So, Uber will fly you to Tullamarine, with a $400,000+ drone, plus pilot, airways charges, parking charges, for roughly the same price as a $23,000 Uber Toyota Corolla can.

Then wait for 12 hours to charge the battery for the return leg.

Some business model.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/06/melbourne-uber-air-to-get-flying-ubers-next-year-and-they-wont-cost-a-kidney/


Latest electric cars can get an 80% charge in as little as 23 mins. You really should keep up.

[Mk 1]

V22??? Have a look at its accident record. It could only ever be certified as a military aircraft. They are a nightmare when things go pear-shaped. Enthusiasm for this idiot idea is in inverse proportion to actual aviation experience.

Actually have one of the better safety records of the chopper fleet in US service, but do go on.

[cattletruck]

All they have built so far is a glossy brochure (known as a fluff piece).

I find it quite odd some people here are defending their capabilities based on uninformed things they have seen in the (mostly toy) aviation world and extrapolating that to their own belief system inside their imaginations. If this scam was truly feasible then it would require no marketing, would sell itself, and put a lot of companies out of business, but where it stands at this very moment is that it's just a fluff piece with absolutely nothing practical to demonstrate to any of their doubters.

If only these marketeers had an inkling of knowledge about the laws of physics.

[601]

Agusta Westland is currently flight testing the AW609 for the civilian market expected to start certification in 2020

On 6 December 2002, the first ground tests of the BA609 prototype began. So 18 years to get to start certification. How long will certification take for the first civilian tilt-rotor?????
Uber don't even have a mockup of a concept vehicle yet.
I think way too many people think that if you develop an App, the problem is solved.

[nonsense]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/uber-s-air-taxi-vision-isn-t-amazing-it-s-dystopian-20190612-p51wze.html

"Uber's air taxi vision isn't amazing, it's dystopian"

"There is no reason to believe that Uber’s move into aviation would be any different to how it has operated its other business ventures. The sad distinction is there are no second chances when things go wrong thousands of metres up in the air."

[machtuk]

Ya gotta admit guys this is very entertaining at least:-)
The thought of CASA allowing these contraptions to ply the skies (even if it was feasible) in & out of buildings or even to major airports over densely populated area's is amazing in it's own right, it's pie in the sky stuff I believe:-).
Uber should bring out a comic book with the same story line, be more credible:-):-)

[airdualbleedfault]

Cattletruck, I think you'll find the ones that defend it or believe for one second that it's credible are the MS sim brigade :ok:

[Bend alot]

Timeline goals - got to have them!

Development is somewhat proportional to $'s and that can assist in reaching goals or getting closer to the goal.

I think or CAsA will be out played by the likes of a company like Uber, I think Uber would actually love a good public but kicking of a world regulator or two. I expect they have already made a number of moves to have the regulators on the back foot in the court room/s.

Picking the airports as a launch pad for drone public transport is logical, but obviously they have a bigger goal in mind. Something like city transport travel modes monopoly, leased to service providers that offer a monthly travel plan to the public. This on a world scale that would have various plan options.

So Uber (in this case) would end up with the travel rights (pay governments) and own the operating system for all travel within that jurisdiction, Service providers will supply the hardware (Drones, trains, busses and cars/scooters) and offer these modes of transport to the public on a service plan - it is a pick up/drop off service and you buy the plan on your transport needs.

The big hurdle is the air transport sector for a number of reason many listed in this thread, but owning the worlds travel rights would be bigger than Microsoft, Netflix's and all the telco companies combined, so well worth a bit of investment in drone development and political donations.

[Icarus2001]

Something like city transport travel modes monopoly, leased to service providers that offer a monthly travel plan to the public. This on a world scale that would have various plan options.
I just keep coming back to the reality of, what, two or three passengers dropped on the roof of a privately owned CBD "helipad". Now they have a lift ride and walk to their office. How many such pads exist in Australian capital cities? Where do they get picked up in the suburbs? Local city councils are not going to let them mix with park recreational areas unless they fence off an area as a landing site.
As I have said before, helicopters can already do this but they are hardly ubiquitous.

How does all this fit with the low level "drone" delivery corridors that have been discussed?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-09/google-drone-delivery-in-canberra-given-green-light/10983684

[Bend alot]

I just keep coming back to the reality of, what, two or three passengers dropped on the roof of a privately owned CBD "helipad". Now they have a lift ride and walk to their office. How many such pads exist in Australian capital cities? Where do they get picked up in the suburbs? Local city councils are not going to let them mix with park recreational areas unless they fence off an area as a landing site.
As I have said before, helicopters can already do this but they are hardly ubiquitous.

How does all this fit with the low level "drone" delivery corridors that have been discussed?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-09/google-drone-delivery-in-canberra-given-green-light/10983684
You are missing the point - privately owned will not exist.

I can see that there will be "terminal areas" access to these areas will be by some thing like a driver-less car to something like a driver-less point to point/s train (Singapore airport terminals) then on to a drone to landing areas on many buildings and other properties. These landing areas will be on some current and many new buildings and be an income revenue for building owners (think shopping centres, sports complex's and other places that need to supply parking).

Giving out a small landing fee per person makes big $'s on volume for building owner (but Uber will control the amount you get or use your neighbour that will do it cheaper), taking over governments transport infrastructure and maintenance costs will be easy sell (bribe).

On several fronts the "big companies" are infiltrating air transport without passengers, this airport shuttle is just another angle but with passengers.

I expect if enough money is thrown at this dream, we could see some experimental flights in drones from a handful of locations near the selected airports inc Melbourne, via a non populated path without passengers in the given time frame. I expect it would be a very expensive flight each time and then take many more expensive flights over several more years to get certification, all tax deductible development costs.

But to own the worlds transport rights including commercial airspace of all(most) countries is a very powerful position to have.

The insurance issue would be assisted by the ICAO limit in many cases so self insurance would be the norm in most countries.

Use of current helicopters in city commute is very different to electric drone type craft in the commute of inner city - An R44 even after the fuel tank mods has many risk assessment issues, such as 1 tail rotor, 1 main rotor, 1 engine and a on-board pilot.

[Tankengine]

Bend alot:
I presume you will put all your money into Uber shares. ;)

[Bend alot]

Bend alot:
I presume you will put all your money into Uber shares. ;)

Given the recent event from the FWO decision I read 5 mins ago regarding Uber - could be a good idea!

Court Case won when Foodora ran! But please note this decision may not apply to any other company in the GIG economy doing similar(same) thing!!

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/uber-drivers-are-not-employees-rules-fair-work-ombudsman/

[Icarus2001]

You are missing the point - privately owned will not exist. Maybe I am, isn't Uber "private"?

Giving out a small landing fee per person makes big $'s on volume for building owner

So how many pax per hour compared to say a terrestial bus carrying 70 people or a train carrying hundreds? If the "volume" is really that high, say a movement every two minutes, think of the noise and traffic management issues.

But to own the worlds transport rights including commercial airspace of all(most) countries But the airspcace is currently owned, by each nation state? How and why would that change? Are you suggesting the commonwealth will sell airspace to say Westfield?

Perhaps I am missing something but for a company that has yet to make a profit how will they fund even the vehicle development cost?

[KRUSTY 34]

How many here have waited in the cue to get airborne from a Capital city airport?

Going to make the projected 5-10 minute trip look a little optimistic.

[Bend alot]

Maybe I am, isn't Uber "private"?



So how many pax per hour compared to say a terrestial bus carrying 70 people or a train carrying hundreds? If the "volume" is really that high, say a movement every two minutes, think of the noise and traffic management issues.

But the airspcace is currently owned, by each nation state? How and why would that change? Are you suggesting the commonwealth will sell airspace to say Westfield?

Perhaps I am missing something but for a company that has yet to make a profit how will they fund even the vehicle development cost?

It will not be actual pax based, but more based on the user based and the subscription and/or status they have. If I have a high level it could be say $500 a month or you a low at $100 a month then that is what the "terminals" will be fighting for. Then terminals supply the best to gain service at a ratio of you and me or one or the other. For Australia I would expect subscriptions to be mostly much higher per month for all travel - I expect a basic plan to be a minimum of $200 per adult and $100 per child per week at current cost if dream is complete.

They sold the bank, the telco, the airports, the electricity and most the rest - so yes the commonwealth have that history.

But not Westfield, that is a bricks and mortar type company, it most likely will be a multi national platform company (that pays tax in a country that it will own)

[Tankengine]

Let us all revive this thread in 10 and 20 years. (If Bendy can still afford internet fees with his Uber shares);)

[sms777]

Anyways, like old mate said....."Tell him he is dreaming"....

[clark y]

Any one have Elon's phone number?

Better option would be his hyper/vacuum tunnel thingy. Terminal straight to centre of CBD. Probably safer, better capacity, less environmental issues, cheaper for users, probably a lot cheaper than the proposed rail link in Melbourne, quick and I'd bet it could be built in a quicker time frame.
We could do a deal like South Australia's big battery.

[Icarus2001]

It will not be actual pax based, but more based on the user based and the subscription and/or status they have. If I have a high level it could be say $500 a month or you a low at $100] Can you explain that in English.

These craft are small, they are not volume driven given their nature. Landing and take off sites are unknown.

CASA regs define them as an aircraft so the current regs apply, along with all that means.

[Bend alot]

Can you explain that in English.

These craft are small, they are not volume driven given their nature. Landing and take off sites are unknown.

CASA regs define them as an aircraft so the current regs apply, along with all that means.
What? a train small??

You are missing the big picture it is not a 4 man drone, but a transport network that includes drones (that need development) and all other transport modes.

CAsA will be a by product of international development and if they make waves will be dissolved for the betterment of the government of the day (for a few $'s) as the world wide trend will show.

Transport responsibilities will be outsourced at some stage.

[cattletruck]

Bend alot, your thinking is quite ahead and possibly valid, after all, most buildings in the CBD are privately owned and quite open to pandering to the needs of a multinational with loads of $$$. However, in the new modern world of real security threats, should an Uber anything be deliberately made to explode killing innocent people in the name of an imaginary friend, or even the thought of that being possible, then you can rest assured the government regulators will take back full control to ensure such a thing is never possible. This is bad news for Uber.

[Bend alot]

Bend alot, your thinking is quite ahead and possibly valid, after all, most buildings in the CBD are privately owned and quite open to pandering to the needs of a multinational with loads of $$$. However, in the new modern world of real security threats, should an Uber anything be deliberately made to explode killing innocent people in the name of an imaginary friend, or even the thought of that being possible, then you can rest assured the government regulators will take back full control to ensure such a thing is never possible. This is bad news for Uber.
No doubt a few sacrifices will be called progress, but it will be a sale of rights from governments - try buy back Telsra, CBA or the airports will never happen WE SOLD THEM.

Yes my thinking is far ahead, but the seeds have and are being sowed and the security of a country is controlled by the media in paces like Australia or Somalia.
I dislike Uber and similar companies but they certainly are making big impacts for companies that do not make profits!

At least cattletruck can see outside the box and the bigger picture that maybe the goal.

[Icarus2001]

try buy back Telsra, CBA or the airports will never happen WE SOLD THEM.

Err, no we did not. The airports are LEASED by the federal government to private companies.


https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airport/index.aspx

[VH DSJ]

Looks like Embraer is seriously involved in this project. Check out their Flight Plan 2030 white paper.

https://embraerx.embraer.com/global/en/flightplan-2030

A new generation of aircraft, called electric vertical take-off and landing vehicles (eVTOLs, pronounced ee-vee-tols) will soon enable us to redefine the urban mobility experience. Although some eVTOLs may look similar to a helicopter, they will be powered by batteries, hybrid engines, or other new technologies that will make them much quieter than the helicopters of today. Advanced avionics will enable eVTOLs to navigate with high precision, exchange information digitally, and respond to changes in flight conditions autonomously. At initial launch, many eVTOLs will have pilots on board. With time, however, these aircraft will mature to a stage where they will operate autonomously.

The introduction of eVTOLs will challenge our assumptions about urban air mobility. Urban flights will become more affordable, in part, because eVTOLs will use less or no aviation fuel. With no runways required, passengers and goods will depart from “skyports” or “vertiports” (i.e., areas with take-off and landing [TOL] pads) positioned at different locations across the city. From there, they will traverse over an urban area to another skyport in mere minutes. To date, more than 70 companies have already invested over US$1B in the development of eVTOL concept vehicles (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2018). By 2035, forecasters estimate that 23,000 eVTOLs will be serving a global market worth US$74B (Porsche Consulting, 2019).

[Bend alot]

Err, no we did not. The airports are LEASED by the federal government to private companies.


https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airport/index.aspx
While yes they have been leased, they have also been privatised and the leases sold for basically 99 years similar to Darwin port - they are no longer public assets.

The same will be the way of the rest of the transport networks, they will be sold for 99 years - that number just so people can say "we did not SELL them" just leased them.

Leasing has great tax benefits!

[Dark Knight]

This may be much closer than previously considered.

A U.S. startup is preparing to fly a full-scale, five-seat electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing (eVTOL) aircraft that is powered not by batteries or hybrid-electric propulsion, but by hydrogen fuel cells. The result is a vehicle the developers say can fly for 4 hr.up to 400 mi. between cities and not the short hops envisioned for urban air taxis.

FAA (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=31159) certification of the Skai has been underway for 10 months, says Brian Morrison, president and co-founder of Massachusetts-based Alaka’i Technologies. Founded in 2015, the startup is aiming for FAA Part 21.17b certification in 2020 and is funded through to production by a single investor, he says
Skai (https://skai.co/)

Vertical Flight

[Gear in transit]

Great idea! Until the first hydrogen cell pops....

[27/09]

FAA certification MAY BE 10 months down the track BUT there's no evidence they've even built a prototype.

That video seems to be more aimed at sucking in investors, even though apparently it is already fully funded.

Words like:
"Take off and land just about anywhere", - I wonder what the neighbours will think about that?
"Accessible to everyone", - I doubt it will be cheap, therefore unlikely to be accessible to everyone.
"A radically simple solution that reduces complexity" Simpler, less complex than a helicopter? - There's six rotors, motors and their controllers to start with.
"Hydrogen provides 10 X the energy of current technologies and leaves nothing behind but pure water." - They don't mention the cost of producing hydrogen.
Allows us to ride in the third dimension and turning our daily commute into a fascinating experience" - Selling the impractical dream.
"It's here today." - So where are videos of it flying passengers?

Basically a slick promotion from someone with a lot of money pursuing an expensive folly.

[Icarus2001]

The same will be the way of the rest of the transport networks, they will be sold for 99 years - that number just so people can say "we did not SELL them" just leased them. Sorry I completely disagree with your prediction. Australian governments already feel the heat when they plan for a toll road. Some states do not even have toll roads. So the idea of selling off a whole transport network is far fetched.

Basically a slick promotion from someone with a lot of money pursuing an expensive folly. Totally agree. Now if that video showed even the rotors turning or the machine hovering six inches off the ground I may be more enthusiastic.

[Dark Knight]

Skai (https://skai.co/)
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1707x1280/skai_c7f0ad6699b66b3233cab9406479ac2148019c46.jpg

2709: very negative thinking similar to a certain group of indigenous peoples who really never got much past inventing a stick however, if one goes to the company link, read all including the links to other authorities and information there is much to be learned.

Hydrogen production is much greater than previously thought accompanied by a rapidly reducing cost.
There are a number of other companies working along the same concept some equally advanced.

FLYING CAR STARTUP ALAKA'I BETS HYDROGEN CAN OUTDO BATTERIESNew aviation startup Alaka’i says its Skai aircraft will be able to fly for up to four hours and cover 400 miles on a single load of fuel, which can be replenished in 10 minutes at a hydrogen fueling station.ALAKA'I TECHNOLOGIES
HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS have had a hard time making inroads as power sources for ground-based electric vehicles, but things are starting to look up for the zero-emission propulsion tech. A new air taxi startup, Alaka’i Technologies, this week unveiled a liquid-hydrogen-powered (https://www.wired.com/tag/hydrogen/), five-passenger electric (https://www.wired.com/tag/electric-vehicles/) aircraft (https://www.wired.com/tag/aviation) that it claims will be more efficient and powerful than the battery-powered aircraft its many, many competitors are developing.

The Massachusetts-based “flying car (https://www.wired.com/tag/flying-cars/)” company, led by veterans of NASA, Raytheon, Airbus, Boeing, and the Department of Defense, unveiled a mock-up of the six-rotor aircraft, called Skai, in Los Angeles at the offices of BMW Designworks, with which it partnered on the aircraft’s design. Alaka’i says the final product will be able to fly for up to four hours and cover 400 miles on a single load of fuel, which can be replenished in 10 minutes at a hydrogen fueling station. It has built a functional, full-scale prototype that will make its first flight “imminently,” a spokesperson says.

It won't be the first fuel-cell-powered plane; Boeing made that happen in 2008 (https://www.wired.com/2008/04/in-an-aviation/). But it would be the first of its kind. Skai’s boxy configuration doesn’t have the aerodynamic look of prototypes from the likes of Lilium (https://www.wired.com/story/lilium-electric-aircraft-prototype-first-flight-jet/), Bell (https://www.wired.com/story/bell-nexus-air-taxi-flying-car/), and, yes, Boeing (https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-air-taxi-uber/). It tops out at just 118 mph, while other eVTOL (that’s electric, vertical-takeoff and -landing) concepts promise speeds of over 150 mph (https://www.wired.com/story/beta-ava-flying-car-aviation/). The Skai is designed, rather, for efficiency, which matters more than top speed if it’s going to make dozens of short hops daily. “Our goal was to keep it simple, and we focused on accommodating a certain mission profile that’s repeatable over an entire day,” says NASA veteran engineer Bruce Holmes, who serves on Alaka’i’s board of directors.

Read more:
The Future.... (https://www.wired.com/story/alakai-flying-car-air-taxi-evtol-hydrogen/)

[Dark Knight]

Hydrogen

Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements in the universe. But more than just being abundant, it has properties that means it can power a number of different types of transportation.

Vehicles fitted with hydrogen fuel-cells convert compressed hydrogen from their fuel tanks into electricity that powers the electric motor of a vehicle, providing a similar range to vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. And the best part? Whilst driving, hydrogen-powered vehicles only emit heat and water vapour.

In the US, Shell has a network of 35 refueling stations in California and is set to increase it to 100 in the next two years, making it an increasingly viable fuel for even more
types of vehicles – something Team Omega discovered on the first leg of their journey out of the Golden State.

At present, 64 hydrogen refuelling stations are in operation in Germany and the aim is for 100 to be open by the end of 2019. This clearly puts Germany ahead of Australia which only has one hydrogen refuelling station at Hyundai in Macquarie Park in Sydney, with a second one announced for the old Toyota manufacturing plant at Altona in Victoria.

[Icarus2001]

if one goes to the company link, read all including the links to other authorities and information there is much to be learned.
Really. I went to their website and did not learn any concrete facts, only read marketing spin. Would have preferred to see a rotor spin.

Even their own link to "technical details" showed a page with the CV of key staff and promises about what it will do.

No one was actually doubting Hydrogen fuel, just this product.

Once they can turn a rotor and put it on their website it will be more than a "glossy brochure."

Here is a link to REAL hydrogen fuel stations in Europe.

https://www.netinform.net/h2/h2stations/h2stations.aspx

https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/feel/environment/better-air/fuel-cell-vehicle

[27/09]

Dark Knight.

I know and understand the advantages of hydrogen power. My point was the cost of making it. It takes more energy to make hydrogen than you get back when you use it as a source of energy. It isn't energy efficient from that point of view and therefore hydrogen is always going to be comparatively more costly than some other forms of energy. Sure there will be technology advances which will balance things out and hydrogen may well have attributes that makes the greater cost worthwhile.

The storage and distribution is not without it's challenges either. No doubt you've read about the explosion a couple of weeks ago in Norway. https://interestingengineering.com/hydrogen-fueling-station-explosion-halts-fuel-cell-car-sales-by-toyota-hyundai

However my main issue is with the concept of the every day use of the "flying machine" for the average man and woman in the street to use it for the daily commute to and from work. This is where I think they're dreaming. I have no doubt they can make it fly and have it certified to carry passengers, with or eventually without a pilot. It will do nothing more than a helicopter does now and the average man and woman isn't using helicopters for the daily commute. Can you explain to me how something like the Skai is going to make this happen?

[Icarus2001]

It will do nothing more than a helicopter does now and the average man and woman isn't using helicopters for the daily commute. I keep coming back to this conclusion as well, same airspace, same regulator but the proponents expect a different result.

Even one of these?

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x675/mosquito_xe_single_seat_28953_fd59c7759d5c04f91e1ff66b70868d fefa8da9ca.jpg

[Andre Meyer]

Have any of these marketing folk take into account / done research about how long these materials will last until structure fatigue sets in?

Sure enough good job in inventing more efficient ways in powering the thing but there is no point if it’s not built to last...

Even going small size - Cessna 150s built in the 70s are still cruising along in the air. Will these things have that longevity?

You want to make it accessible for everyone? You will cut costs somewhere. Might not be power / energy so it has to be structure.

No point in saving cost in fuel efficiencies but those savings are just used in re-production or maintenance.

[josephfeatherweight]

I've yet to see any of the latest ideas for "air taxis" actually in the air and moving a bunch of people anywhere. This isn't going to happen in the short term...

[Reggy Stirred Yuza]

I think I must be missing something. Won't there be a need for weight and balance to be considered for these aircraft? Pax would need to be checked in and any baggage weighed and manifested wouldn't they? I would also expect security screening will need to take place. If so, these things will have to be done by professionals at fixed terminals (and at a cost).
Who would load the cargo? Not the pax surely? Or perhaps these things will only carry pax who carry nothing more than a phone or tablet?
You could not have these aircraft simply landing outside your front door at home and taking you directly to your office. It would not be safe or practical. Flights would have to be to and from fixed and secure terminals. That means travel from home to a terminal and then travel from the next terminal to the final destination (in the congestion that you were trying to avoid in the first place).
Either I'm missing the point or if this does happen, it will be an expensive gimmick. Please feel free to set me straight on these points.

[Lantern10]

DUMP - Designed Using Marketing Principles.
Meanwhile expect to see more of this until the public wise up to it and the money for it dries out.

Don't forget there will be another mob of gullible folk around in about twenty years, so it can all start again.

[Bend alot]

Sorry I completely disagree with your prediction. Australian governments already feel the heat when they plan for a toll road. Some states do not even have toll roads. So the idea of selling off a whole transport network is far fetched.


In fact, this has been the model in other countries for some time. NavCanada has been a private nonprofit corporation responsible for air traffic control in Canada since the Canadian Government sold it in 1996; it receives no public funding. In 1992, the U.K. made the strategic decision to separate its air traffic control operations from regulation – this was followed by full privatization in 2000. In the U.S. a privatized system similar to what exists in Canada or Great Britain could protect the nation’s air traffic control system from the vagaries of congressional budget battles and sequesters. But more importantly it could also provide greater efficiency without compromising safety.

Put on a bit of hospitals and pensions spin and reduced traffic congestion and bank a few big billions for this "nonprofit privatisation".

[27/09]

However my main issue is with the concept of the every day use of the "flying machine" for the average man and woman in the street to use it for the daily commute to and from work. This is where I think they're dreaming. I have no doubt they can make it fly and have it certified to carry passengers, with or eventually without a pilot. It will do nothing more than a helicopter does now and the average man and woman isn't using helicopters for the daily commute.

Can you explain to me how something like the Skai is going to make this happen?

I asked this question a couple of days ago.

I see none of the supporters of these oversized drones has bothered to even attempt to answer it. Am I to assume then, they might agree with my sentiment that these "flying machines" are the product of someone with a lot of money pursuing an expensive folly?

I have to wonder that it's just some rich person or a slick salesman trying to live their boyhood dreams from watching the Jetsons zipping about the skies.

[Bend alot]

I asked this question a couple of days ago.

I see none of the supporters of these oversized drones has bothered to even attempt to answer it. Am I to assume then, they might agree with my sentiment that these "flying machines" are the product of someone with a lot of money pursuing an expensive folly?

I have to wonder that it's just some rich person or a slick salesman trying to live their boyhood dreams from watching the Jetsons zipping about the skies.
You would need to change the way you are thinking.

Firstly it will not be something you buy - that is important to understand.
Secondly you would not park it in your garage - it would likely collect you at a zone (maybe corner blocks).
Thirdly it will be very primitive and restrictive in the early years - somewhat like the Commodore 32 or 64 was.
Also it would not be like the current transport systems we have but part of a single network - there would be no CAsA or RTA's.

* Note, I do not think the example you listed above is the Jetson Zipper of the future. I would expect that you would actually enter a quick release pod than an actual flying machine. I also do not see Australia having the political will for some time, for such required changes.

[Dark Knight]

It is difficult top overcome a large size of negative thinking; instead of becoming involved in the endless debate about negatives some would rather focus on the positives making it happen.
All the aforementioned problems can be conquered.

When President John F Kennedy said to the American People "We will go to the Moon" the American people did not throw up endless objections, negativities, they said "Yep, we can do this" and they did.regardless there was not really the technology do it at the time..

They invented the technology much of which leads to the technology and means we have today..

“A Dream is the visualization of goals and the motivation for the soul,”

A dream as “a statement of the greater good you want to create in the world.”

A dream moves and inspire; It awakens the passion, it fills one with hope and pumps life with purpose and meaning.

[neville_nobody]

It is difficult top overcome a large size of negative thinking; instead of becoming involved in the endless debate about negatives some would rather focus on the positives making it happen. All the aforementioned problems can be conquered.

Its not negative thinking it's just the denial of reality by the protagonists of these type of schemes. You don't just get a regulatory free pass just because you are a hip and cool silicon valley startup.

[Bend alot]

Its not negative thinking it's just the denial of reality by the protagonists of these type of schemes. You don't just get a regulatory free pass just because you are a hip and cool silicon valley startup.
You must have missed the "regulatory free pass" Uber got over the taxi industry, and not just in Australia.

[Bend alot]

I would imagine this to be a more likely type of design for a starter craft. But as I said with detachable passenger pods that could also hold extra battery/power capacity. But certainly not piloted within.


https://newatlas.com/lift-aircraft-manned-multirotor-drone-experience/57605/

[Icarus2001]

the batteries will last around 10-15 minutes per flight, and as soon as Hexa lands, ground staff can unclip them, switch them over with charged batteries, and prepare the aircraft for its next flight.

As the Hexa will be flying under the powered ultralight classification (meaning it requires no certification or pilot's license), you'll be limited to flying under 700 feet, or 1200 feet in some locations, and not over any populated areas. Maximum speed for ultralights is 55 knots, or about 63 mph/101 km/h in terms of ground speed,

The aircraft should be fine for any pilot over 18, under around 250 lbs (113 kg) and shorter than around 6 foot 7 (200 cm).

I realise that this is an early version but even so. The above quotes are from the article. My bolding.

You must have missed the "regulatory free pass" Uber got over the taxi industry, and not just in Australia. You are quite correct. It was amazing to watch them ignore the rules, initially. Now their drivers are encumbered by all the same rules as a taxi driver, transport category drivers licence, commercial registration for vehicle, passenger carrying insurance.

Uber were banned form London but then appealed and had a win. More to follow.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uber-london-ban-wins-court-appeal-overturn-tfl-revoke-licence-a8418106.html

[propnut]

an electric car can have a battery fail and pull up on the side of the road and call for help. An UBER drone/whatever can't safely pull up on the side of the road.

BIG difference.

[Bend alot]

an electric car can have a battery fail and pull up on the side of the road and call for help. An UBER drone/whatever can't safely pull up on the side of the road.

BIG difference.
Read my link- re battery fail.

Never seen an Uber with a commercial plate in Australia.

[Icarus2001]

Read what I said.....commercial registration...

https://www.uber.com/en-AU/drive/melbourne/vehicle-requirements/

[Bend alot]

Read what I said.....commercial registration...

https://www.uber.com/en-AU/drive/melbourne/vehicle-requirements/
I live in Australia not Victoria.

[George Glass]

Dark Knight. Rather unfortunate allusion you make to the space program. There is a reason that we haven’t been back to the moon since then. The program consumed 5% of US GDP, was extremely dangerous, produced only minor scientific data even allowing for its uniqueness, had no lasting economic benefit and would never have happened without the Cold War competition with the USSR. It was a glorious irrelevance. Oh, wait a minute.........

[LeadSled]

Read what I said.....commercial registration...

https://www.uber.com/en-AU/drive/melbourne/vehicle-requirements/

I did have a quick read ---- I don't see anything like the requirements that apply to a taxi or it's driver.
"Commercial" registration does not imply (at least in NSW) a visually identifying plate, (like a taxi plate) only that you pay the extra registration charge.
Tootle pip!!

[27/09]

You would need to change the way you are thinking.

Firstly it will not be something you buy - that is important to understand.
Secondly you would not park it in your garage - it would likely collect you at a zone (maybe corner blocks).
Thirdly it will be very primitive and restrictive in the early years - somewhat like the Commodore 32 or 64 was.
Also it would not be like the current transport systems we have but part of a single network - there would be no CAsA or RTA's.

* Note, I do not think the example you listed above is the Jetson Zipper of the future. I would expect that you would actually enter a quick release pod than an actual flying machine. I also do not see Australia having the political will for some time, for such required changes.

Yep, I get that it's not something you're going to buy or park in your garage.

My comment still stands. No one is doing this now with the current technology. Why? Practicality and cost. Even if you strip out the regulatory cost I still don't see how these machines will make it affordable. I don't see how these will be practical, where will they operate from, can't see the neighbours being happy with the noise and down draft etc. That will mean having some form of drone port which means you will have to travel between there and your home significantly negating any benefits. So far no one has been able to explain how the machines will significantly reduce costs or overcome the practicality issues.

So far as there being no CASA etc. I think you've under estimated the influence the established players will have. They won't be happy seeing one part of the aviation industry having no or very little regulatory over sight while they have to comply.

[Icarus2001]

"Commercial" registration does not imply (at least in NSW) a visually identifying plate, (like a taxi plate) only that you pay the extra registration charge

Thanks Leadsled but where did I even mention "the plate"? I said commercial registration.

We are pulling the wings off flys here anyway.

[Bend alot]

Thanks Leadsled but where did I even mention "the plate"? I said commercial registration.

We are pulling the wings off flys here anyway.
No actually we are re inventing the wheel.

I expect it will be a small country or a country like Norway that makes the first change.

Yes noise is an issue - but roads are real-estate, imagine needing one eighth of the current road area in a city like Sydney rather than needing on eighth more in 5 years.

That alone is thousands of houses/units that can be on current roads.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Here's a bit of a tangential thought ---- until late 1960s, DCA had provision for Ornithopter (flapping wing aircraft) pilots licenses in ANO 40, ---- so who says "the authority" is without a bit of flexibility?? Even forward thinking?? ---- or is it backwards??
Tootle pip!!.

PS: Icarus, you should take particular note??

[Icarus2001]

imagine needing one eighth of the current road area in a city like Sydney rather than needing on eighth more in 5 years.
Imagine all those people that were in their cars now in the sky in "drones", say up to five seats. That is a lot of air traffic.

[Bend alot]

Imagine all those people that were in their cars now in the sky in "drones", say up to five seats. That is a lot of air traffic.
Yes $ billions and all 5 seats will be full mostly - not like the cars of today.

[josephfeatherweight]

I agree with everything 27/09 said in his last post. Anyone care to make a bet that there will be an "Uber-style" airborne passenger transport (as being discussed here) in Australia in the next 5 years? I bet you a pint that there won't...

[Bend alot]

I agree with everything 27/09 said in his last post. Anyone care to make a bet that there will be an "Uber-style" airborne passenger transport (as being discussed here) in Australia in the next 5 years? I bet you a pint that there won't...
In Australia - ZERO chance.

[27/09]

No actually we are re inventing the wheel.

I expect it will be a small country or a country like Norway that makes the first change.

Yes noise is an issue - but roads are real-estate, imagine needing one eighth of the current road area in a city like Sydney rather than needing on eighth more in 5 years.

That alone is thousands of houses/units that can be on current roads.
Your argument about reducing the real estate used by roads in a city like Sydney to an eighth of what it is now doesn't stack up, unless all terrestrial transport is removed.

Reducing the traffic to an eighth doesn't correspond to needing an eighth of the roading structure. Particularly in suburban areas, for example you need the same road for 500 cars an hour as you do for 50 cars an hour.

[Tankengine]

and all 5 seats will be full mostly - not like the cars of today.
Why?...................

[Ascend Charlie]

And how will the produce be delivered to the supermarket? Uber semi-trailers? Fourteen thousand little drones, with one package each?

The whole thing is mental masturbation. never happen. Ever.

[bankrunner]

CASA's opposition will be neutered by its political masters, if it's convenient for them to do so.

Uber have form for this kind of thing, with what they did to the taxi industry and its regulatory regime.

A bit of lobbying here and some promises of "jobs and growth" there, combined a couple of substantial donations to political parties is all it takes.

[Ascend Charlie]

Uber's cars were still conventional, as were the drivers. All they did was change the way the cars were booked.

Aerial taxis is a totally different system, and if we made the Pollies be the first to use the system, we will either never get a system (whew!) or get rid of the Pollies. Either way is a win.

[Bend alot]

A little will and a little money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1WX0CATyn8

Just more money and you could land successfully on a comet.

It is the will that lacks and some existing players that do not want change.

[Dark Knight]

The imagination of Man is purely limited by the boundless limitations of his brain!

[27/09]

The imagination of Man is purely limited by the boundless limitations of his brain!

How true. However I'm yet to be shown where imagination has over come the laws of physics.

[sms777]

The imagination of Man is purely limited by the boundless limitations of his brain!

The reason for the development of drugs.

[601]

The imagination of Man is purely limited by the boundless limitations of his brain!

I thought that we would all be flying around in personal flight packs by now.
This is a backward step if we have to share.

[A Squared]

Hydrogen

Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements in the universe. But more than just being abundant, it has properties that means it can power a number of different types of transportation.

While nominally true, it is misleading at best. There is a lot of Hydrogen on the planet. Most of it exists as part of a water molecule. Most folks understand that water has exactly zero value as a fuel. To liberate the hydrogen from the water so that it can be used as fuel requires the input of energy. To the point, it requires the input of more energy than can be recovered by burning (or otherwise utilizing) that fuel. In other words, a net loss of energy. When someone says, in the context of fuel; "Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements in the universe" they either don't understand chemistry well enough to understand that the statement is pretty much meaningless, or they do, and are being intentionally deceitful.

[27/09]

While nominally true, it is misleading at best. There is a lot of Hydrogen on the planet. Most of it exists as part of a water molecule. Most folks understand that water has exactly zero value as a fuel. To liberate the hydrogen from the water so that it can be used as fuel requires the input of energy, more to the point it requires the input of more energy than can be recovered by burning (or otherwise utilizing) that fuel. In other words, a net loss of energy. When someone says, in the context of fuel; "Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements in the universe" they either don't understand chemistry well enough to understand that the statement is pretty much meaningless, or they do, and are being intentionally deceitful.

Mere details. Don't use facts to destroy the dream.

[LeadSled]

Mere details. Don't use facts to destroy the dream.
Folks,
Don't be so pessimistic ---- but the $$$$ of hydogen as a fuel is always assumes to depend on cheap renewable power --- also somewhat illusory, so far.
BUT --- the work done by (among others in Australia) UNSW on hydrogen carried and handled as ammonia, and the hydrogen released from ammonia by their (patented) fuel cell is looking very promising.
Even the Cth Public Service have been forced out of their slumbers by the pollies on this one.
Here's hoping, because the theory and pilot practice is really looking good --- another "WiFi", maybe.
Tootle pip!!

[Icarus2001]

My issue is not with the power source or the viability of the craft, time and money will overcome the issues.
The Uber air machine still needs to land and take off on something around the size of two tennis courts or thereabouts. Where in the suburbs is this place? Where in the CBD can it land that does not involve a long walk to anywhere?
As we keep saying, a helicopter can already do these things but no one is using them regularly, including the super rich.

[A Squared]

As we keep saying, a helicopter can already do these things but no one is using them regularly, including the super rich.


Yes. This. Isn't it odd that everyone suddenly starts talking about something else when this is brought up. Innovations and future technology be damned, we have right now, today, devices which in broad strokes already are capable of doing what these future technological innovations are predicted to be able to do .... and nobody is flying around the cities in them in significant quantities.

[Bend alot]

Yes. This. Isn't it odd that everyone suddenly starts talking about something else when this is brought up. Innovations and future technology be damned, we have right now, today, devices which in broad strokes already are capable of doing what these future technological innovations are predicted to be able to do .... and nobody is flying around the cities in them in significant quantities.
I posted why but the post is gone.

The current system was not designed for Suburbia helicopter flights - how long to take off in my R66 to say the casino for lunch if I say lets go now?

Same as turbines are no good on 10 minute sectors requiring engine shut down.

[clark y]

Some rough numbers. Just back of the napkin calculations.
Route Melbourne/Yarra heliport to Airport would possibly the main route. Flight time10 mins. Turnaround-5 mins.
Someone said 5 pax per trip. If 500 pax each way between 6am and 6 pm. That's 100 flights each way over 12 hours.
So including if you include the return flights, that would be more than one drone over your house if you live along the flight path every 4 minutes between 6am and 6 pm. These things will not be quiet. That's a busy air corridor. No idea on the number of drones required to achieve 200 flights a day. Are my figures reasonable?

The sort of clientele that would use this service would be from Asia with big suitcases going to the Casino to gamble.

[Bend alot]

Some rough numbers. Just back of the napkin calculations.
Route Melbourne/Yarra heliport to Airport would possibly the main route. Flight time10 mins. Turnaround-5 mins.
Someone said 5 pax per trip. If 500 pax each way between 6am and 6 pm. That's 100 flights each way over 12 hours.
So including if you include the return flights, that would be more than one drone over your house if you live along the flight path every 4 minutes between 6am and 6 pm. These things will not be quiet. That's a busy air corridor. No idea on the number of drones required to achieve 200 flights a day. Are my figures reasonable?

The sort of clientele that would use this service would be from Asia with big suitcases going to the Casino to gamble.



If it were happening in Melbourne city there would be more than 200 landing/take-off points and on various flight path grids (not a square grid) - pretty much every street corner could be a elevated take-off/ landing point + many roof tops.

Will skip your racist remark as I have seen many non-Asians with big suitcases and much larger bodies travel on all modes of transport. Europe excels with size of bags other countries with body bulk and arrogance.

Was Packers "I will toss you for it" comment in a casino true?

[clark y]

Bend a lot, it was not intended as a racist remark, just an observation of the demographic of patrons at the Casino and I know they used to (and assume it's still happening) fly wealthy people down to have a gamble.

As for the many landing pads above intersections, we haven't even got rid of level railway crossings yet and that system is used by many thousands of people per day. If this is to occur it would have to be sponsored by someone with a lot of cash.
Taxpayer? Hope not..

This sort of reminds me of the idea of everyone zooming around on a Segway.

[Bend alot]

Bend a lot, it was not intended as a racist remark, just an observation of the demographic of patrons at the Casino and I know they used to (and assume it's still happening) fly wealthy people down to have a gamble.

As for the many landing pads above intersections, we haven't even got rid of level railway crossings yet and that system is used by many thousands of people per day. If this is to occur it would have to be sponsored by someone with a lot of cash.
Taxpayer? Hope not..

This sort of reminds me of the idea of everyone zooming around on a Segway.
You missed my post that - the transport system becomes private - yes they have lots of cash and it not need be immediately profitable.

And also unlikely it will start (or trial) in Australia.

[Ascend Charlie]

Was Packers "I will toss you for it" comment in a casino true?

Embellished a little over the years, but, yes.

Suitcases and helicopters / flying cars are not really compatible. Look at the CGI models of these things, a bare shell with 5 people in them, laughing as they play with their iPads. No space for the battery pack or retractable gear, much less a suitcase full of casino chips.

[Nohiddenagenda]

Most technology advances over time have evolved from so called dumb ideas, someone always paves the way. The uber air taxi we are focused on here is probably the tip of the iceberg. The rate technology advances nowadays i think i will keep an open mind

[Dark Knight]

XTI Aircraft
XTI Aircraft (http://www.xtiaircraft.com/)

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x512/xti_fc332a241c0e3e2bf1e42b7a17b34199d6fae4e3.jpg

US start-up XTI Aircraft has launched the next round of funding for its TriFan 600 ducted-fan, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) business aircraft, as it prepares to fly a 60% scale model of the six-seat type in October.

Around $4 million in finance has been drawn to date from XTI founder and chairman David Brody, private equity investors and crowd-funding stakeholders.

“We are now hoping to raise about $25 million to fund development of a full-scale prototype and to procure parts and materials for the second aircraft,” says XTI chief executive Robert LaBelle.

The Denver, Colorado-based company is now in talks with private investors and undisclosed “large aerospace companies” that are interested in establishing strategic partnerships in the programme.

“We hope to close this funding round by year-end, and fly the initial full-scale TriFan in the second half of 2020,” says LaBelle. Two more funding rounds are planned in 2020 and 2021, which should raise sufficient capital to complete development and bring the TriFan to market in 2022.

LaBelle describes the aircraft’s progress as “extraordinary”. XTI completed the TriFan’s preliminary design review in June, seven months after its launch, and the company is now poised to fly the scale model. “We have demonstrated to our investors that we can execute on an aggressive schedule,” says LaBelle.

The 60% scale model has been built in an undisclosed location, where initial testing will also be performed. “We will do hover checks in October, and then move the aircraft in November to an authorised testing site for unmanned vehicles,” says LaBelle.

Here it will undergo aerodynamic testing and demonstrate transitions from vertical to horizontal flight. The data from these evaluations will be incorporated into the design of the full-scale prototype.

LaBelle points out that the scale model will be electrically driven, as the hybrid-electric system – which is being developed in partnership with Bye Aerospace – is still in its critical design phase. “We plan to freeze this design in around six months,” he says.

The TriFan 600’s propulsion system uses three ducted fans, each driven by two battery-powered electric motors. The entire system is powered by a single Honeywell HTS900 turboshaft.

This aircraft is designed to be extremely cost-efficient, says LaBelle. With a projected range of around 1,200nm (2,220km) it can perform long-range missions, “not just urban transport, which many of the eVTOL programmes currently in development are focused on”.

XTI has secured 64 orders for the TriFan to date from customers in Australia, Brazil, Europe, India, Japan, the UAE and the USA. Another sale will be announced later this month, says LaBelle. “We need to get the TriFan out there as we have customers waiting.”

XTI

[A Squared]

Cool, more slick CGI rendering of something that hasn't even been built yet, let alone flown. Reminiscent of the Moller Sky Car. Production was always just around the corner (for 5 decades) there was an impressive list of performance specs (Better than King Air Speed altitude, range) but it never was able to do anything but hover in ground effect. Yet still, Moller spent a lifetime living off of investors while never producing anything. There is indeed one born every minute.

[A Squared]

I posted why but the post is gone.

The current system was not designed for Suburbia helicopter flights - how long to take off in my R66 to say the casino for lunch if I say lets go now?

Same as turbines are no good on 10 minute sectors requiring engine shut down.

The current system wasn't designed for person carrying quad-copters either. There was a lot of time and effort put into trying to establish commercial helicopter service in the 1970's. It went nowhere and died because there were a lot of reasons it's not a practical, economically viable business. A lot of those reasons transfer directly to other iterations of commercial intra-urban VTOL air service ... like quad-copters.

[machtuk]

Look the technology is improving all the time for this automatous EP power personnel transport in all it's forms, it's whether it's viable, cost effective, legal & doable that's the zillion dollar question, at the moment? Nope not a chance!

[Bend alot]

The current system wasn't designed for person carrying quad-copters either. There was a lot of time and effort put into trying to establish commercial helicopter service in the 1970's. It went nowhere and died because there were a lot of reasons it's not a practical, economically viable business. A lot of those reasons transfer directly to other iterations of commercial intra-urban VTOL air service ... like quad-copters.

It will not use the current system, and they will not use helicopters (can people get this - they will not use helicopters! so stop the comparison) - I will give a comparison to the helicopter and the new craft in differences. Telephone in a public phone bow vs mobile/cell phone, one works takes lots of coins but is not very practical - the other is convenient does other stuff and I do not even pay for most of the calls.

[27/09]

Dark Knight

You left out some vital "statistics". Like 300 knot cruise, Max altitude 29,000 feet and 11 minutes to max altitude, all on an engine producing 907 SHP max continuous @ ISA @ SL reducing to about 670 SHP at 4000 feet. Seems all too good to be true. Do the numbers on 11 minutes to 29,000 feet.

That aircraft, if the promotional specs can be believed puts it almost in Cessna Mustang territory for speed, range and pax seating. In the helicopter stakes it is similar to the Bell 407 for seating capacity and uses an engine of similar horsepower.

If the 300 knot max cruise is anything close to accurate, and it may well be, I'm guessing no more than 270 KTAS will be a typical cruise burning about 150 kg per hour. I calculate it takes a 300 kg hit on MTOW for a VTOL departure compared to a runway departure, that limits it's usefulness.

I expect MTOW to be at least 2600 Kg with a maximum payload of about 800 kg.

Based on the claimed rate of climb figures I expect the other performance specs to be just as exaggerated.

Based on the sales price (USD$6.5 million) I'd expect their popularity (assuming they meet their performance figures) to be no more than for aircraft like the Mustang and Bell 407 combined, about 110 per year. So hardly the sort of numbers that would make an Uber style service work.

I think we'll be saying "Dude where's my flying car ?" for a while yet.

[neville_nobody]

It will not use the current system,

Defined as what exactly?

How many times have they tried to put one heliport in the Sydney CBD and failed? Yet somehow you believe that just because it's a quad copter they will be allowed to build one every block. Why??
If you can't do it now why will it change for Uber?

[27/09]

It will not use the current system, and they will not use helicopters (can people get this - they will not use helicopters! so stop the comparison) - I will give a comparison to the helicopter and the new craft in differences. Telephone in a public phone bow vs mobile/cell phone, one works takes lots of coins but is not very practical - the other is convenient does other stuff and I do not even pay for most of the calls.

I get that they will not use helicopters. Your phone comparison is flawed. There is a significant technological difference between a coin phone and a mobile phone.

However no one so far has said what significant technological changes are going to be employed to make these new flying machines work in a practical sense and work at an affordable price.

Simple physics tells use it take X energy to lift Y weight. The same amount of air has to be shifted no matter whether you use electric motors or any other motive force. Once you start to combine all the systems needed to support the safe and reliable operation of such a machine you start to accumulate a significant cost. We haven't even started talking about the issues surrounding where these machines will take off and land. Think noise, down draft, safety of people on the ground etc.

I have no doubt it is possible to make such a device that is certified to carry passengers, but it won't be at a price the man in the street can afford nor will it be a practical transport solution for most people. It will be an unsustainable business model.

I use the helicopter as a current example of why I don't think this Uber style flying machine will work because the helicopter is something that is available, ready to use right now that most closely reflects the device Uber wish to use. There is no demand now. What significant change are these new machines going to bring about that will create the demand for their use?

I'd love to be educated as to how you think this is all going to work.

[Bend alot]

Defined as what exactly?

How many times have they tried to put one heliport in the Sydney CBD and failed? Yet somehow you believe that just because it's a quad copter they will be allowed to build one every block. Why??
If you can't do it now why will it change for Uber?
Re read! - the transport systems will be sold/leased and regulators dissolved and changed.

But please reread - and who said heliport they are for helicopters and not part of this discussion?

It may not be Uber.

Steve Jobs never had such a very narrow mind and made quantum leaps - but the smart phone was there more than a decade before, he made some modifications and it went viral.

Simon Personal Communicator - not the same ring as smart phone.

[27/09]

Re read! - the transport systems will be sold/leased and regulators dissolved and changed.

But please reread - and who said heliport they are for helicopters and not part of this discussion?

It may not be Uber.



It doesn't matter how it's owned, the service has to be priced to cover the costs of operation/ownership. For it to be successful this price has to be affordable to the masses.

Are you saying there will be no compliance/certification costs? If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you. I've never seen compliance get rolled back.

Whether you call them heliports or any other name you fancy, these machines have to operate from somewhere.

True it may not be Uber.

[Dark Knight]

However no one so far has said what significant technological changes are going to be employed to make these new flying machines work in a practical sense and work at an affordable price

Didn't someone say something similar about those Wright Brothers and their flying machine?

[27/09]

Didn't someone say something similar about those Wright Brothers and their flying machine?
None of the machines you keep providing links to have any earth shattering or ground breaking technology that puts them quantum steps ahead of any technology currently in use. What makes you think they are going to work economically or practically? Please explain.

Yes, it's quite possible there will be a major breakthrough but so far there's no sign of it. Perhaps we'll all learn how to levitate or someone will invent a teleporter.

[Icarus2001]

Re read! - the transport systems will be sold/leased and regulators dissolved and changed. What will cause this momentous event? Where is the precedent?

[A Squared]

It will not use the current system, and they will not use helicopters (can people get this - they will not use helicopters! so stop the comparison) -

I get that you REALLY, REALLY don't like the obvious and valid comparison to helicopters, and you DESPERATELY want to make it go away, because it neatly illustrates the idiocy of this boondoggle. But the helicopter comparison will not go away, because it is apropos. The authors of this boondoggle haven't (and aren't) inventing some magic teleportation device whcih makes all the practical aspects of helicopters go away. For all the innovation they are claiming (but not demonstrating) there will still be a lot of the same physical realities of helicopters: They will be vertical TO/landing devices of approximately the same size. They *will* blow all kinds of crap around when taking off and landing (unless uber suddenly invents reaction-less lift, which is a low probability event) They *will* need operations areas which will look suspiciously like heliports, with clearways for approach and departure and security zones around them to keep people a safe distance from the operations and blowing debris. They *will* pose a significant risk to persons over which they are flying at low altitudes, and they *will* be noisy as hell. Perhaps not as noisy as a helicopter, but objectionably noisy, nonetheless, and they *will* be expensive. Orders of magnitude more expensive than an automobile. All of those things are true, and they don't magically go away because you stamp your little foot and INSIST that people stop talking about them.

I will give a comparison to the helicopter and the new craft in differences. Telephone in a public phone bow vs mobile/cell phone, one works takes lots of coins but is not very practical - the other is convenient does other stuff and I do not even pay for most of the calls.

Kind of an inane comparison on numerous levels, but I'll address the most obvious and fundamental flaw. The Cell phone was not just a refinement of telephone service. If was a fundamental change in the basic technology of the system. It went from communicating over copper wires strung around the city, to communicating by radio waves. That's a profound technology shift. There is no profound technology shift being proposed here. Yeah, they are planning on electric power instead of internal combustion. That's really about the only real difference in the aircraft. It will still require the same amount of thrust to keep them airborne. They still will fly by displacing air (lots of air) downward at a high rate of speed. They still need to displace about the same amount of air at about the same delta V. They will still require approximately the same amount of power to fly, They will still have approximately the same limitations as far as performance, and they will still be capable of crashing on top of a bunch of pedestrians and killing a significant number with spinning rotors, flying parts, and simply crushing them. The is no technological breakthrough scheduled whcih will make those realities vanish. These devices may be an improvement over helicopters, but in the context of the aspects which limit it's practicality, this is not a revolutionary change from helicopters being proposed.

[neville_nobody]

Re read! - the transport systems will be sold/leased and regulators dissolved and changed.


That is not going to happen. No regulator is going to surrender power. It is the nature of bureaucracy to do quite the opposite.

For major cities you are not going to be able to remove the current transport systems. Trains carry large amounts of people and can't just be replace by 6 seat quadcopters, it's a complete fantasy.

[Icarus2001]

A Squared, you have managed to succinctly put my myriad thoughts about this into one post. Good work.

[machtuk]

I get that you REALLY, REALLY don't like the obvious and valid comparison to helicopters, and you DESPERATELY want to make it go away, because it neatly illustrates the idiocy of this boondoggle. But the helicopter comparison will not go away, because it is apropos. The authors of this boondoggle haven't (and aren't) inventing some magic teleportation device whcih makes all the practical aspects of helicopters go away. For all the innovation they are claiming (but not demonstrating) there will still be a lot of the same physical realities of helicopters: The will be vertical TO/landing devices of approximately the same size. They *will* blow all kinds of crap around when taking off and landing (unless uber suddenly invents reaction-less lift, which is a low probability event) They *will* need operations areas which will look suspiciously like heliports, with clearways for approach and departure and security zones around them to keep people a safe distance from the operations and blowing debris. They *will* pose a significant risk to persons over which they are flying at low altitudes, and they *will* be noisy as hell. Perhaps not as noisy as a helicopter, but objectionably noisy, nonetheless, and they *will* be expensive. Orders of magnitude more expensive than an automobile. All of those things are true, and they don't magically go away because you stamp your little foot and INSIST that people stop talking about them.



Kind of an inane comparison on numerous levels, but I'll address the most obvious and fundamental flaw. The Cell phone was not just a refinement of telephone service. If was a fundamental change in the basic technology of the system. It went from communicating over copper wires strung around the city, to communicating by radio waves. That's a profound technology shift. There is no profound technology shift being proposed here. Yeah, they are planning on electric power instead of internal combustion. That's really about the only real difference in the aircraft. It will still require the same amount of thrust to keep them airborne. They still will fly by displacing air (lots of air) downward at a high rate of speed. They still need to displace about the same amount of air at about the same delta V. They will still require approximately the same amount of power to fly, They will still have approximately the same limitations as far as performance, and they will still be capable of crashing on top of a bunch of pedestrians and killing a significant number with spinning rotors, flying parts, and simply crushing them. The is no technological breakthrough scheduled whcih will make those realities vanish. These devices may be an improvement over helicopters, but in the context of the aspects which limit it's practicality, this is not a revolutionary change from helicopters being proposed.

That about sums up the fairytale Jules Verne adventure we are dreaming about here:-)
At least these fairytales do keep us amused in a world full of crazy idea's!:-)

[josephfeatherweight]

A Squared - nailed it!

[Tankengine]

It is all about sucking IPO money from gullible investors. ;)

[A Squared]

It is all about sucking IPO money from gullible investors. ;)

Hey, don't knock it. Paul Moller made a living off of flashy artist's concepts and unrealized performance claims for most of half a century.

[601]

Crazy part about it is that the iThingy generation reckons that this is the bees knees.
Along with charging through tunnels in a six pack at near supersonic speeds.
I wonder what the accelerate and stoping distance is for these tunnel gophers.

[Bend alot]

That is not going to happen. No regulator is going to surrender power. It is the nature of bureaucracy to do quite the opposite.

For major cities you are not going to be able to remove the current transport systems. Trains carry large amounts of people and can't just be replace by 6 seat quadcopters, it's a complete fantasy.
Trains, Busses, Drones, Planes, Cars & Motorbike/scooters are what would be a "transport system".

Governments "own" the very expensive regulators. They will be selling a cost to make a profit (outsource the cost).

[601]

Who needs Uber air or any other such transport model we can have one of these.
FlyBoard (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49225001)