Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Uber Air

Old 8th Jul 2019, 05:50
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,518
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
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.

Last edited by A Squared; 8th Jul 2019 at 06:11.
A Squared is online now  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 06:05
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 443
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!
machtuk is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 08:26
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by A Squared View Post
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.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 09:44
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,184
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.

Last edited by 27/09; 8th Jul 2019 at 10:09.
27/09 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 09:50
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,314
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?
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 10:06
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,184
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
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.
27/09 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 10:11
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
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.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 10:28
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,184
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
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.
27/09 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 10:32
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 398
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?
Dark Knight is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 10:52
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,184
Originally Posted by Dark Knight View Post
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.
27/09 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 13:53
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,703
Re read! - the transport systems will be sold/leased and regulators dissolved and changed.
What will cause this momentous event? Where is the precedent?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2019, 15:21
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,518
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
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.

Last edited by A Squared; 9th Jul 2019 at 05:24.
A Squared is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 01:40
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,314
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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 02:47
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,703
A Squared, you have managed to succinctly put my myriad thoughts about this into one post. Good work.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 03:18
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by A Squared View Post
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!:-)
machtuk is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 06:00
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 634
A Squared - nailed it!
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 06:03
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 1,545
It is all about sucking IPO money from gullible investors.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 06:46
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 55
Posts: 1,518
Originally Posted by Tankengine View Post
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.
A Squared is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 14:07
  #159 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 997
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.
601 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 09:10
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 178
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
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).
Bend alot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.