Modern airline jets are flown by Computers. A simple PC checks in with a main frame computer in a flight tower, in the city for a flight plan ... push the button
Inherently less safe because if it malfunctions, you lose the vehicle, the passenger, and cause damage to whatever it falls on. I can see private firms using these to for execs to go between major hubs and factories, but the Average Joe isn't going to be using them. One person in the video quotes a usage fee comparable to UBER. Not happening - UBER uses conventional vehicles that have a whole infrastructure and cities build around using them = easy access & operation. In no multi-verse will a totally new vehicle show up and be just as cheap in the same space. It might find a niche, but that's not the same.
I get where you are coming from, BUT as an aerospace engineer with a pilots license and qualifications in engineering safety I'd like to see these companies be a lot more realistic and STOP blowing smoke up peoples butts. Just stop and consider how stupid most people are with cars including taxi drivers and then imagine those same people flying overhead at 150mph. Do I want to see new technology that benefits humanity? *ABSOLUTELY YES,* but this stuff isn't what we need right now. Sure there's some novel stuff, but we don't need flying cars and we don't need fantasy garbage like another Theranos. We actually need a lot of other things before this stuff starting with clean energy production. Way too many people think batteries are an answer an they aren't. They are just part Way too many people think electric vehicles will save the planet, while at the same time totally ignoring where the energy comes from. Even if they do think about that they dismiss the concerns with solar and wind but they just don't have the capacity for what modern society needs. In stead they get a feelgood from fantasy technologies like these. *From an engineering standpoint the attitude of society in general is infuriating.*
@@teenytinytoons Agreed! One day (and hopefully in the 21st century), pilotless aircraft safely carrying passengers will be as commonplace as manned aircraft carrying passengers today.
@@BillAnt smart future investment idea, if I were joby I'd start off small you know just to make sure passenger transportation is spot on safe for men, women, kids, idiots and crazy people not to mention the weight of the customers.
Multiple independent blade systems, with their own motors and power sources, are the biggest improvement on historic helicopter designs, without which eVOTLs could never possibly be safe enough. The new designs bring redundancy and eliminate single points of failure. The 18-blade design, for example, should be able to safely land after losing one or even a few engines. If the blade systems are indeed independent, there should never be more than one blade ever going out before a safe "emergency" landing is undertaken expeditiously as a matter of protocol. Not needing a runway or an airport, just a small patch of land, is a big help in always having a safe place to land underneath and close by.
I’m a helicopter pilot.. 20 years.. i have more trust in the autonomous version of these aircraft, then the piloted. You don’t have to trust me… but the autonomous version is the way to go, imo. At the expense of my own career and future aspirational pilots.. autonomy will save many lives. Not saying no accidents will happen and no one will die. But the autonomous version will be a substantial improvement in safety, assuming it’s built well and to a set standard from the FAA. I’ve seen how good autonomous drones already are.. and I know exactly how good human pilots can be. The consistency of an autonomous piloted aircraft, is more necessary than the adaptive and creative capabilities of a human pilot in 99% of situations. My 2 cents
@@dominiccooper2753 only allow certain companies to operate them similar to taxis. I don’t think allowing the general public to buy these would ever be a good idea! 90% of the public is mentally challenged.
Back then it was just talk. Now we have the vehicles. They are 95% ready. I was excited about this back in the 60s! Looks like I might have a chance to at least get a ride on one before I die.
Not sure why working from home is still such a unattractive idea to people. The market for this is going to dip and surge in demand, forcing these companies to invest much more than what they thought it would take to get a steady income to come in. There will be high demand at the start then the roads will get much better in traffic then people will just drive again and the cycle will continue until the ageing infrastructure literally collapses and then the only why to get any place is to fly. It's already been proven that the infrastructure bill won't pass so this is basically the solution to charge the masses to travel.
That limited endurance for LIFT, is a factor of the certification to keep the weight down and classified as an ultralight. The platform is likely capable of longer endurance meaning more and heavier battery, different class of aircraft but longer flight time. Energy density will need to improved in batteries, but it will happen.
@@BlueEyed888 We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
@@Angry.General1461 LOL. A helicopter is a lot more complicated and expensive to maintain, than an oversized electric drone. That's why all those copters we left in Afghanistan were practically useless, the Afghans don't have the $$ and experience maintaining and fixing them.
I was about to post the same thing. 15 min its not enough. To make a reliable commute you need at least 40 minutes with some reserve. Otherwise too risky and on top of that this things are going to cost way too much money.
The problem is that someone starts with an inefficient and ineffective design and every wannabe Engineer copies it. But hey, let's not tell them that a ducted fan is more efficient than an open design and of course, also less of a safety hazard.
A mini vertical zepplin on top could increase bat. range and safety . Also a big parachute that opens automatic can be usefull just in case of engine fail.
Solar skinned, multiple wind turbine "alternator's" with option of helium/zeppelin/hot air balloon "free float"...🤔...indefinite flight to length of battery life
The batteries last 15 minutes - and this is why electric motorcycles, electric cars and electric evtols still need a lot of research and development. I’m 58 years old. I still don’t expect flying cars in my lifetime.
av gas has 40x the fuel density of current lithium ion batteries so you're right. eventually it might be viable as training aircraft with 30-60 min flight times and super low cost
Not just a lot more research development, we need a lot more digging in the ground too! And it's probably not going to happen in places with environmental and social protections, it will occur and continue to grow in areas where people are impoverished and have little to no rights and protections for the environment are practically non-existent
6 months ago I was working for a car dealership and was selling a car to this old eccentric gentleman, who told me that he used to be working for the FAA and NASA and other stuff. He told me that autonomous cars were very difficult to come by due to the nature of the transportation but autonomous flight was way easier to achieve since in cars you are operating in 2d while flight in 3d thus you have more room to manorver. I wish all these companies the best of luck, it would be cool to take one of these for a flight and go straight to the airport, especially if you got a backyard.
There are MULTIPLE reasons why autonomous piloting is easier than an autonomous car. 3D is only one of at least a dozen that come to mind. And the autonomous version of these machines is the smarter way to go, versus the human pilot.. again, for multiple reasons
It’s so funny how people stick with the solutions of the past when there are so many better exciting solutions looming around the corner. Cheaper, safer, faster, lower carbon. Open your mind!
So chutes would add additional weight, and we still need better batteries that can be rapidly charged or easily swapped out and have longer range per kWh, so I don’t see people manually flying these crafts, that kinda flying would be an option where some rich guy who wants to go flying around using a manual joystick like we’re seeing here, but practically, manual flying is probably not something that would be recommended, as most people wouldn’t have navigation, and piloting skills! Cheers!
That's the best answer he could have given. He won't give a date because it's when the FAA decides. He made his legal team reallllll happy with that one haha. Great episode!
What some cities need is a sky pedestrian way. Lots of pedestrian bridges that are interconnected to common landmarks, buildings and etc. Bike and skates friendly too. With automotive walkways.
Sounds precarious! Structures would have to be heavy to hold humans way up in the air, which means a lot of materials go into them, which means pricey. What kind of return do you think cities will earn on that investment?
@@CharlesVanNoland well i think its more cheap than building more roads. Its not necessary mean your are up really high, just above the roads will do or whatever is esthetically pleasing. It makes the city more walkable and bike friendly. The returns will be for health and the cleanliness of the city.
NOPE. Denver, Colorado is one city that tried to get this going, with a number of pedestrian walkways between tall buildings. Useless. No one wants to go up two, three, or four stories to walk across a bridge and then come down again - especially when they can jaywalk in 15 seconds. Also - Las Vegas tried to do this with the Monorail that ran behind the MGM Grand to Ballys and over to the LV Convention Center. People hated it. The worst part is that you had to wind your way through an enormous casino/hotel to get to the monorail station and then wait 20-30 minutes for it to show up. Super inconvenient. So...they tried again with the light rail from Excalibur to Luxor to Mandalay Bay. It's right near the street, so you don't have to walk so far to get to it. And the route is much shorter, so trams came by a lot quicker. Not bad.
My friend Alex built a homemade type flying rotor chopper ...he flew right into a high voltage power line ! Fried him completely ! No insurance either.
@@g.o.a.t9276 I dream of a world with more trees, less highways..... more stuff on rails (in tunnels) and in the air flown by robots..... owning a car will be obsolete since public transport is way cheaper than owning a robot car....
There's no Future money in that all these inventions that improve transportation and quality of living still have the primary investment ingredient future profits
This would be wonderful for rich people who live in large cities. They could get from their Manhattan apartment to Wall Street to within minutes and avoid ever having to lay eyes on the riffraff.
Don't you realize that the mid to upper-middle class, and even the regular poor peasants of the world, want what the rich have? That's why we Uber (our personal drivers), First Class (Our private jet experience), Mercedes and Tesla (our Lambo), etc... Joby is building our version of private helicopter flight that we can't afford.... This is another reason why it will succeed..
imagine the soundscape of hundreds or thousands of these in a city .. can already imagine the enthusiasm of the residents next to a port where a drone takes off every 15min
These will be used by Amazon to make deliveries With a battery pack that weighs 150 pounds it will be able to fly for 90 minutes It will be loaded with dozens of deliveries, for instance from Allentown PA it will fly south, into the wealthy areas within 30 miles, drop off a dozen deliveries or more and return to the warehouse. You will pay a premium fee to have this delivery, but let's say you need a two-way radio or piece of expensive electronics, a switch or router or computer, and you are spending 1000 dollars and you get 2 hour air delivery for 20 or 25 dollars A lot of rich people will spend the premium fee
True, but the batteries are the biggest restriction. They don't have the capacity yet. It's not like a car where velocity helps to aid economy. The further you want to go... the bigger a battery you need; but that adds significant weight; a circular problem. I think someone will figure it out in the next 15 years where it's viable though.
If you think about it the graph of technological progress has resembled a hockey stick since World War II. The invention of the transistor was the basis and if you look at the chunky device first produced by Bell Labs and then think in our computers are transistors down to the nanometer size. Smaller, faster and more efficient is the name of the game.
Biggest barriers to flying cars are logistics and safety. Many aircraft in a limited space is difficult to manage. Then there's bad weather to contend with. Many crashes are inevitable. Sometimes killing people on the ground too. The negative press will be intense. Short flights are very energy inefficient compared to other modes of travel, including driving. Then there is the terrorism issue. Security in 3-dimensions is very challenging. Maybe EV air taxis will become practical and common, but have my doubts.
Congrats for being sensible. As an aerospace engineer with a pilots license and qualifications in engineering safety I'd like to see these companies be a lot more realistic and STOP blowing smoke up peoples butts. Just stop and consider how stupid most people are with cars including taxi drivers and then imagine those same people flying overhead at 150mph. Do I want to see new technology that benefits humanity? *ABSOLUTELY YES,* but this stuff isn't what we need right now. Sure there's some novel stuff, but we don't need flying cars and we don't need fantasy garbage like another Theranos. We actually need a lot of other things before this stuff starting with clean energy production. Way too many people think batteries are an answer an they aren't. They are just part Way too many people think electric vehicles will save the planet, while at the same time totally ignoring where the energy comes from. Even if they do think about that they dismiss the concerns with solar and wind but they just don't have the capacity for what modern society needs. In stead they get a feelgood from fantasy technologies like these. *From an engineering standpoint the attitude of society in general is infuriating.*
Noise is another major one. Remember the Concorde couldn't fly overland because of noise and these things are super noisy if they'll fly over residential areas specifically at night. The video is completely masking the noise.
@@tonywilson4713 We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
Battery technology needs to improve four or five fold to even begin to call this EVTOL practical. What no one ever talks about is the charging downtime and the vehicles dead heading back to base after each fare. Fun, yes but tunnels are all weather and a far safer mode of mass transit.
Battery swap could eliminate downtime. Probably faster than refueling and could easily be automated too. And clearly battery tech doesn’t need to improve if there are functional prototypes that can fly 100s of miles.
my brother paid "LYFT" for introductory fights for both him and myself. its been a few years now. no contact, no updates, nothing. at $250 per person, i wonder how many people have been ignored?
That's what the guy from the FAA was just explaining in this video, they approve the companies with their commercial patents but is now coming up with safe, reliable flight paths for these vehicles also think about the weather while flying in these.
Imagine the noise of hundreds or thousands of these in the sky. There is no way that that amount of sound pollution will be tolerated. Comparing one evTOLs noise to the total background noise in a city is a ridiculous measurement.
You are not taking into account how we structure society. This is likely a mode of transportation that the wealthiest 1% would use regularly. In case you haven’t noticed, they also write the laws and they don’t care about our opinions on how loud they are.
@@classwarhooligan923 not true if you live in a western country. Look up on why supersonic flights were banned to fly over land in many countries as an example of this.
@@erikjunesjo Yep. Heard of that. The bourgeois/corporate owned government have already been -bribed- -I mean lobbied. “Ask and you shall receive” for the wealthy. As always, I’ll back my claim up with evidence. Here’s a quick excerpt from the first article I found: “Today marks a significant milestone in the development of civil supersonic flight,” Aerion CEO, Tom Vice, told Avionics in an emailed statement. “We are encouraged that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration issued a final rule that streamlines and clarifies procedures to obtain FAA approval for supersonic flight testing in the United States. As we approach production and flight testing of the AS2, this rule provides our company the ability to test the AS2 aircraft over land in addition to overwater testing currently planned.” Boom. Sonic f***in’ boom.
When u have a mechanical failure, or run out of battery juice, will they fall down onto middle of highway/interstate? Needs a whole new set of "traffic lanes"
I wonder if, like modern consumer drones, the motors on these things are independent of each other so failure of one motor won't compromise the flight or its safety. .
@@kamuelalee Yeah the Joby crashed as they said in the video. I cant see a million of these things flying above roads. Accident or failure would be catastrophic. I think these would be great, just not flying over me, en mass, while Im on the road
@@kamuelalee Until the computer fails or power inexplicably cuts out, then down it goes. That's already an issue with consumer drones. Not overly common, but happens. In theory, the wing design may allow for glide, but not sure if it's stable. Even if it is, separate emergency backup power will be essential to better maintain control and to land. I believe these issues can be worked out, but likely won't until after many crashes and deaths. Hope it doesn't play out that way.
The major problem is how noisy these things are... How mad would you be if you ended up spending "mega bucks" for some penthouse apartment and then you have to end up dealing with the fact that every other 10mins you hear what sounds like a cloud of 50million bees swarming past your windows.
Just picture all the cars up in the air flying wherever they want going all crossed directions. Remember no roads also no way to police or regulate, no air traffic control. You have to be nuts to think there won't be tons of serious accidents. And oh yes they are up in the air so will come crashing down hundreds of feet on top of people, our homes etc etc
If I can get into an autonomous car, autonomous rail, even a ''rollercoaster'', a day will come when I'll fly in one of these new inventions. It is a matter of safety first. The stakes would be better compared to flying in ordinary jets. Wish them best. BTW, took a long-term CALL position in JOBY today because its backing by Toyota and other funds. The CALLs are really cheap...whow knows...
Two possible problems, 1 weather, either high winds or fog could ground the air taxi. 2, congestion, the only way forward is for designated traffic channels eg say in bound 1000 feet, out bound 2000 feet. And this would require all traffic to be networked. Imagine if cruise control worked like this in a car, and you were kept a safe distance and at the same speed as other vehicles. Would require clunkers off the road however. Air taxis might also be best to follow roads, so as not flying so much over people's homes.
The US doesn’t really have the right infrastructure for flying cars right now. Like we have huge parking lots which in theory would work… but only if they were empty or at limited capacity.
I've noticed that the flying car and evtol industry is being steadily bought-out by big corporate interests. More than one company began designing a vehicle that they planned to market to individuals, but when they're then bought out by a large corporation, their designs get changed into just commuter and airport taxi services, with specific statements on their websites that these vehicles will not be marketed to individuals.
That's the entire intent of these scams. Everybody knows that there will never be flying cars or personal helicopter/drone service. It's just a way to scam investors and launder money.
The problem with non-individual ownership is that you will have to commute to the eVTOL ports. This could cancel out the time gains these vehicles are looking to provide a solution to
My helicycle, a single seat turbine engine helicopter weighs about 515 pounds empty, and flies at about 875 pounds gross. 26' long total including forward main rotor reach and aft tail rotor reach, it has VTOL capability, cruise speed of 100 mph, and a fuel endurance of about 1.8 hours. I fly it from my backyard heliport. It is an FAA Part 61 licensed and registered Experimental Category helicopter. The greatest altitude to which I've taken it is 3500' msl, which isn't significant. A similar model has been test flown to 17,950' msl at a density altitude of 20,972'.
The 2 catch words are license and fuel. Right now most Electric VTOL are being developed under FFA ultralight specifications. No license required, which is what most people are getting excited over. However as you elude, people don't realize they cannot use the current EVTOL being developed for commuting, landing at an airport, or using over any populated areas. They are all just expensive toys for amusing the wildlife. A whole lot of FFA regulations will need to be written before anyone uses one to go anywhere but across the acres on a 7.5 minute trip to milk a cow that ran away. If they want to save enough power to get home again that is. 😁
Technology is impressive without a doubt, but I wonder how effective it would at solving the solution it was built for. A subway would be magnitudes more efficient in terms of transportation; especially a high speed rail. Japan has them. Its like these guys are imagining people are going to be lining up to pay in range of ~250 for a short trip. I don't see how they intend to make back the money. I would think maintenance of these things would be expensive. Financially, I can't make the numbers work. But as it always happens with technology, it always ends up being used in ways most can't imagine. Love the technology, but efficiency of transportation still in question.
@@frankthefkintank We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
He didn’t answer Anderson’s question @ 9:29 properly on if a car picking you up and taking you to an eVTOL point won’t add to more congestion on the roads; he simply spoke about something else on moving the traffic to less used roads. If I am on the road to the airport, that is actually the road I want to use, why will I try and use an unused road just because I want to make sure I can book a car to take me to an eVTOL point?
Something with quadcopters is that the larger the prop, the more efficient it is. You get longer flight times and the motors spin slower. So I'm wondering why these are using small props with many motors when they can build a self flying helicopter and it will probably be more efficient.
Look up NASA’s DEP “Distributed Electric Propulsion” work by Mark Moore on this. Surprisingly, it’s more efficient to have many small rotors than one big one.
I guess the safety factor is not necessarily true with a Quadra copter. You could only lose one (or two depending on which ones you lose) and still fly, but with six or more props, your safety improves
@@charlesnichols8738 That may be true. I guess I was only thinking about a quadcopter with 5 inch props compared to a quadcopter with 7 inch props. I wasn't thinking about the more motors and that more motors with smaller props can be smaller motors.
The FAA approves these passenger vehicles but what the guy was explaining is the safety protocols they want the independent companies to both comply and understand also at the same time the FAA and other around the world have to make flight paths for these vehicles to fly in a safe & neutral manner. Both companies shown in this video has done a beautiful presentation with their vehicles giving people a taste of what's to come. Both vehicles look pretty safe to me, takeoff is crisp+might be a different takeoff experience but short of nothing different from regular commercial takeoffs in real time. I feel like there's gonna be a movie based on these 2 companies fighting for top position for a new generation for Aero Flight
They don't want to mention because it would put our own technology and ambitions to shame. At 3:56 where they mention "air taxis" is the most advanced aerial automation technology from EHang in China where they are currently awaiting government certification for commercial use.
Impressive as a single flight with a single plane, but how do you control 10,000 in the air over a city? You can have impressive technology, but you need a lot of boring administration for it to work!
Can you imagine being in a city with thousands of these overhead? The din would be maddening. This is a dystopian dream. We would do much better to organize our cities in a way that did not require people to move around in two tons of metal and plastic.
We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
Autonomous vehicles like these may not gain traction with older adults, but will with the younger generations, who are more willing to accept it as normal. This is the same as older people being wary of computers and smartphones because they weren't raised on it. Children who were born after the smartphone was invented never knew what life was like before, and this type of transportation is going to be the same way.
This wont be viable until there is an advancement in propulsion systems and power sources. We went from propellers to jet engines. We need something beyond both those things.
Modern airline jets are flown by Computers. No propellers, use Jet engines, A simple PC on board checks in with a main flight tower in the city for a flight plan ... push the button
Joby’s aircraft is intended to be for short range trips up to 150 miles. You are not going to fly from LA to New York with an air taxi. It can be charged at every passenger pick up location, so it can fly all day long. No problem with batteries at Joby.
There’s no way the faa lets people just fly these things in cities there’s gotta be a registered pilots
Modern airline jets are flown by Computers. A simple PC checks in with a main frame computer in a flight tower, in the city for a flight plan ... push the button
No thanks. I want a computer. On the ground, automated is tough but in the air there are no pedestrians or dogs or potholes.
@@donemigholzjr.7344 if it’s automated sure but there’s a joystick in there like there’s no shot for the foreseeable future that the faa allows this
Only for the rich
Inherently less safe because if it malfunctions, you lose the vehicle, the passenger, and cause damage to whatever it falls on. I can see private firms using these to for execs to go between major hubs and factories, but the Average Joe isn't going to be using them. One person in the video quotes a usage fee comparable to UBER. Not happening - UBER uses conventional vehicles that have a whole infrastructure and cities build around using them = easy access & operation. In no multi-verse will a totally new vehicle show up and be just as cheap in the same space. It might find a niche, but that's not the same.
This is exciting stuff, wish these companies all the best of luck.
행운이 있을겁니다
감사합니다!
I get where you are coming from, BUT as an aerospace engineer with a pilots license and qualifications in engineering safety I'd like to see these companies be a lot more realistic and STOP blowing smoke up peoples butts. Just stop and consider how stupid most people are with cars including taxi drivers and then imagine those same people flying overhead at 150mph.
Do I want to see new technology that benefits humanity? *ABSOLUTELY YES,* but this stuff isn't what we need right now. Sure there's some novel stuff, but we don't need flying cars and we don't need fantasy garbage like another Theranos. We actually need a lot of other things before this stuff starting with clean energy production. Way too many people think batteries are an answer an they aren't. They are just part
Way too many people think electric vehicles will save the planet, while at the same time totally ignoring where the energy comes from. Even if they do think about that they dismiss the concerns with solar and wind but they just don't have the capacity for what modern society needs. In stead they get a feelgood from fantasy technologies like these. *From an engineering standpoint the attitude of society in general is infuriating.*
It’s definitely possible but totalitarian government won’t let us have this freedom.
@@tonywilson4713 only way this works is if it's autonomous.
@@teenytinytoons Agreed! One day (and hopefully in the 21st century), pilotless aircraft safely carrying passengers will be as commonplace as manned aircraft carrying passengers today.
I see the market being good for tourist rides into noise sensitive areas. The Joby and Wisk appear the most viable.
maybe they can team up and share resources and what they have collectively learned.
@@stant7122 I wonder how much that partnership would cost☕😶📰
Didn't you hear the Joby crashed and was totalled. That will push their time frame back.
...maybe a sight-seeing trip into a wild area with unique jurrasic-era animals frolicking about....nothing could possibly go wrong there
I love how he thinks he's flying it, as the camera cuts to the ground crew and the dude with the remote control transmitter who is actually flying it.
You could even see him put in the yaw input lol
Joby seems pretty solid and confident in comparison to other projects. Best of luck to all of them.
That's why I bought some of their stocks which is still relatively cheap. Hopefully they make it big. ;)
@@BillAnt smart future investment idea, if I were joby I'd start off small you know just to make sure passenger transportation is spot on safe for men, women, kids, idiots and crazy people not to mention the weight of the customers.
Multiple independent blade systems, with their own motors and power sources, are the biggest improvement on historic helicopter designs, without which eVOTLs could never possibly be safe enough.
The new designs bring redundancy and eliminate single points of failure. The 18-blade design, for example, should be able to safely land after losing one or even a few engines.
If the blade systems are indeed independent, there should never be more than one blade ever going out before a safe "emergency" landing is undertaken expeditiously as a matter of protocol. Not needing a runway or an airport, just a small patch of land, is a big help in always having a safe place to land underneath and close by.
yet Joby still manage to destroy their only test vehicle
Ehang actually have a video where they simulate one(a few) of their 16 blades failure and still fly amd land safely. Saw this on youtube.
Sorta like having a tire blow out on the highway. Calmly pulling over is the safest way to handle it.
I would still like a parachute available, just in case. Lol.
this is questionable.... one prototype was totaled already... lets wait and see
I’m a helicopter pilot.. 20 years.. i have more trust in the autonomous version of these aircraft, then the piloted. You don’t have to trust me… but the autonomous version is the way to go, imo. At the expense of my own career and future aspirational pilots.. autonomy will save many lives. Not saying no accidents will happen and no one will die. But the autonomous version will be a substantial improvement in safety, assuming it’s built well and to a set standard from the FAA. I’ve seen how good autonomous drones already are.. and I know exactly how good human pilots can be. The consistency of an autonomous piloted aircraft, is more necessary than the adaptive and creative capabilities of a human pilot in 99% of situations. My 2 cents
the pilots could be used as people who check that nothing is wrong and take control if anything does. Sooo air taxi only imo
faa type certification? Air traffic regulations? Pilots or Not, integrated with TFA's and NOTAM's ?
@@vrygon0 real-time video links are limited to a few hundred feet?
A lot of confidence in this video… reminds me of big short scene: wow a lot of people seem motivated in this neighborhood
We already have $hitty drivers cause traffic and pile ups. The last thing we need is to have to watch out for idiots in the air!
So what do you expect us to do genius??????
@@dominiccooper2753 only allow certain companies to operate them similar to taxis. I don’t think allowing the general public to buy these would ever be a good idea! 90% of the public is mentally challenged.
It is going to be autonomous. Look up Ehang, they are on the market already.
@@dominiccooper2753 Everybody is looking for something epic, when bio-fuels are right in front of us.
aero-idiots will fall like apples from the trees..many of them for sure :)
It's not the the fall it's the sudden stop that kills ya
Max G's reached to total destruction
I grew up in the sixties. Back then flying cars was just around the corner , too
Back then it was just talk. Now we have the vehicles. They are 95% ready. I was excited about this back in the 60s! Looks like I might have a chance to at least get a ride on one before I die.
George Jetson would be appalled at your scorn
uh, no dude. this is coming and coming soon.
May come, but not anytime soon. It will be years before FAA can approve that find of aircraft in urban areas.
@@jenspn00 about two years. Is that a long time to you?
RIP Kobe.
Not sure why working from home is still such a unattractive idea to people.
The market for this is going to dip and surge in demand, forcing these companies to invest much more than what they thought it would take to get a steady income to come in. There will be high demand at the start then the roads will get much better in traffic then people will just drive again and the cycle will continue until the ageing infrastructure literally collapses and then the only why to get any place is to fly.
It's already been proven that the infrastructure bill won't pass so this is basically the solution to charge the masses to travel.
10:30 I've never seen Anderson Cooper without glasses
There should’ve been subway trains that allows people to travel from one city to multiple cities. Forget about air taxi
What happen cities do not have subway???? You will be a dinosaur soon.
China built that in a day
finally something good to watch. thank you 60 mins and youtube
Only 15 minutes of flight time? That's totally unsafe.
lol. the Wright Brothers' first flight was 12 seconds.
That thing is a toy. The JOBY is the real thing to watch. Also the only stock that opened green today!
That limited endurance for LIFT, is a factor of the certification to keep the weight down and classified as an ultralight. The platform is likely capable of longer endurance meaning more and heavier battery, different class of aircraft but longer flight time. Energy density will need to improved in batteries, but it will happen.
@@BlueEyed888 We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
@@Angry.General1461 LOL. A helicopter is a lot more complicated and expensive to maintain, than an oversized electric drone.
That's why all those copters we left in Afghanistan were practically useless, the Afghans don't have the $$ and experience maintaining and fixing them.
Two out of the three founders were wearing black Patagonia puffy vests.
I like how he said battery last Up to 15 minutes, instead of Only 15 minutes.
How far could you possibly go with safety buffer?
That's a scary thought also
15 minutes. Dangerous
I was about to post the same thing. 15 min its not enough. To make a reliable commute you need at least 40 minutes with some reserve. Otherwise too risky and on top of that this things are going to cost way too much money.
Ya, this is CNN after all.
whoever created the jetsons cartoon, probably knew something about the future.
Or Star Trek
There definitely aren't any potential problems with large spinning blades in a crowded city environment...
With people who eat tide pods operating them, I don’t see a issue😆
The problem is that someone starts with an inefficient
and ineffective design and every wannabe Engineer copies it.
But hey, let's not tell them that a ducted fan is more efficient
than an open design and of course, also less of a safety hazard.
@@fglatzel Ducted fans are not more efficient than open propellers.
@@jaffacalling53
OH yes. They are at least twice as efficient.
If I had the money I'd build one for sure.
It’s all fun and games until a family of 5 having a picnic gets decapitated.
15 minutes !!!! Wow great for 2022 !!!!!!!!!!! Great job guys !!!!!!!
I want the eVTOL that The Jetsons flew in!
that's the next level for Aptera!
If you can live until the 22nd or 23rd centuries then it’s all yours
A mini vertical zepplin on top could increase bat. range and safety . Also a big parachute that opens automatic can be usefull just in case of engine fail.
Solar skinned, multiple wind turbine "alternator's" with option of helium/zeppelin/hot air balloon "free float"...🤔...indefinite flight to length of battery life
The Joby aircraft looks well thought out and I'd definitely want a human piloting the thing and in control.
The batteries last 15 minutes - and this is why electric motorcycles, electric cars and electric evtols still need a lot of research and development. I’m 58 years old. I still don’t expect flying cars in my lifetime.
Hmmm maybe
You still have a long way to go my friend.
This is technically a flying car isn't it? It's just very impractical
av gas has 40x the fuel density of current lithium ion batteries so you're right. eventually it might be viable as training aircraft with 30-60 min flight times and super low cost
Flying car… the biggest bs ever. You can either use a car or a helicopter :D
Not just a lot more research development, we need a lot more digging in the ground too! And it's probably not going to happen in places with environmental and social protections, it will occur and continue to grow in areas where people are impoverished and have little to no rights and protections for the environment are practically non-existent
6 months ago I was working for a car dealership and was selling a car to this old eccentric gentleman, who told me that he used to be working for the FAA and NASA and other stuff. He told me that autonomous cars were very difficult to come by due to the nature of the transportation but autonomous flight was way easier to achieve since in cars you are operating in 2d while flight in 3d thus you have more room to manorver. I wish all these companies the best of luck, it would be cool to take one of these for a flight and go straight to the airport, especially if you got a backyard.
Yes, ànd hardly any traffic in the sky...at least in the city center at low altitude where these air taxi fly.
There are MULTIPLE reasons why autonomous piloting is easier than an autonomous car. 3D is only one of at least a dozen that come to mind. And the autonomous version of these machines is the smarter way to go, versus the human pilot.. again, for multiple reasons
Not only easier im theory, they are already in operation for years. Light show flying drones, yes the ones that are replacing fireworks.
Could we please just get reliable, well funded public transit?
It’s so funny how people stick with the solutions of the past when there are so many better exciting solutions looming around the corner. Cheaper, safer, faster, lower carbon. Open your mind!
I've never seen Anderson Cooper smile. This must've been awesome
He was actually laughing a little. It must have been a blast.
Yeah that is the first I seen cooper smile now that’s revolutionary!
Me: * *slaps $3.50 down on the table* * "I want the Bentley one"
Exciting to be alive to see these stuff come to market
you'll never ride one. Only for the rich when it does come out.
"I wanna take off with it"
That's probably a bad impulse considering the battery time.
These can be used in the tourism industry for sightseeing adventures. They can be marketed to them.
great. thanks
Fascinating....why I love this show so much
About damn time!
These aircraft should have parachute installed to deploy in case of trouble. They do to deploy tanks to combat zones. Should work.
heck yes!
Adding a mini airship(zeppelin) can also help by reducing the weight of the batteries .
So chutes would add additional weight, and we still need better batteries that can be rapidly charged or easily swapped out and have longer range per kWh, so I don’t see people manually flying these crafts, that kinda flying would be an option where some rich guy who wants to go flying around using a manual joystick like we’re seeing here, but practically, manual flying is probably not something that would be recommended, as most people wouldn’t have navigation, and piloting skills! Cheers!
its beyond ballistic parachutes....they help yes but in not all conditions
Imagine this on a mega windy and rainy day.
For safety, there should be a parachute just like the parachute for space x dragon returning to earth if in case the engine fails.
its more than that...but they help for sure
That's the best answer he could have given. He won't give a date because it's when the FAA decides. He made his legal team reallllll happy with that one haha. Great episode!
What some cities need is a sky pedestrian way. Lots of pedestrian bridges that are interconnected to common landmarks, buildings and etc. Bike and skates friendly too. With automotive walkways.
Sounds like a great way for rich people to avoid the unwashed masses
@@hackattack713 huh? Why is that?
Sounds precarious! Structures would have to be heavy to hold humans way up in the air, which means a lot of materials go into them, which means pricey. What kind of return do you think cities will earn on that investment?
@@CharlesVanNoland well i think its more cheap than building more roads. Its not necessary mean your are up really high, just above the roads will do or whatever is esthetically pleasing.
It makes the city more walkable and bike friendly. The returns will be for health and the cleanliness of the city.
NOPE. Denver, Colorado is one city that tried to get this going, with a number of pedestrian walkways between tall buildings. Useless. No one wants to go up two, three, or four stories to walk across a bridge and then come down again - especially when they can jaywalk in 15 seconds.
Also - Las Vegas tried to do this with the Monorail that ran behind the MGM Grand to Ballys and over to the LV Convention Center. People hated it. The worst part is that you had to wind your way through an enormous casino/hotel to get to the monorail station and then wait 20-30 minutes for it to show up. Super inconvenient.
So...they tried again with the light rail from Excalibur to Luxor to Mandalay Bay. It's right near the street, so you don't have to walk so far to get to it. And the route is much shorter, so trams came by a lot quicker. Not bad.
Yes
I would love to use this, I travel 200 miles every few weeks
Remind me of the Jetson Cartoon where the family just fly off from their sky condo back in 1960 and a new version in 1986-87.
My friend Alex built a homemade type flying rotor chopper ...he flew right into a high voltage power line ! Fried him completely ! No insurance either.
Good candidate for a Darwin award.
Dead End !
That’s electric bro 😎
why not just make tunnels for transport, flood water distribution and housing?? it would save lots of trees and raw materials and even AC power!!
Good QUESTION
@@g.o.a.t9276 I dream of a world with more trees, less highways..... more stuff on rails (in tunnels) and in the air flown by robots..... owning a car will be obsolete since public transport is way cheaper than owning a robot car....
Tunnels are much more expensive to make than transporting the same stuff on land
Their is no money in it. These guys are in it for the money.. This is not a government project
There's no Future money in that all these inventions that improve transportation and quality of living still have the primary investment ingredient future profits
A real rail system in the states.( microphone drop)
I'm 43. I would love to see what this world going to look like in 50 plus years from now.
lo veras los humanos ahora vivimos mas tiempo
These things will only become practical when full flying automation is achieved and they can be mass produced via automation.
What about air traffic control?
This would be wonderful for rich people who live in large cities. They could get from their Manhattan apartment to Wall Street to within minutes and avoid ever having to lay eyes on the riffraff.
More capitalist horrors beyond my comprehension.
Don't you realize that the mid to upper-middle class, and even the regular poor peasants of the world, want what the rich have? That's why we Uber (our personal drivers), First Class (Our private jet experience), Mercedes and Tesla (our Lambo), etc... Joby is building our version of private helicopter flight that we can't afford.... This is another reason why it will succeed..
imagine the soundscape of hundreds or thousands of these in a city .. can already imagine the enthusiasm of the residents next to a port where a drone takes off every 15min
These will be used by Amazon to make deliveries
With a battery pack that weighs 150 pounds it will be able to fly for 90 minutes
It will be loaded with dozens of deliveries, for instance from Allentown PA it will fly south, into the wealthy areas within 30 miles, drop off a dozen deliveries or more and return to the warehouse.
You will pay a premium fee to have this delivery, but let's say you need a two-way radio or piece of expensive electronics, a switch or router or computer, and you are spending 1000 dollars and you get 2 hour air delivery for 20 or 25 dollars
A lot of rich people will spend the premium fee
True, but the batteries are the biggest restriction. They don't have the capacity yet. It's not like a car where velocity helps to aid economy. The further you want to go... the bigger a battery you need; but that adds significant weight; a circular problem. I think someone will figure it out in the next 15 years where it's viable though.
If you think about it the graph of technological progress has resembled a hockey stick since World War II. The invention of the transistor was the basis and if you look at the chunky device first produced by Bell Labs and then think in our computers are transistors down to the nanometer size. Smaller, faster and more efficient is the name of the game.
Biggest barriers to flying cars are logistics and safety. Many aircraft in a limited space is difficult to manage. Then there's bad weather to contend with. Many crashes are inevitable. Sometimes killing people on the ground too. The negative press will be intense. Short flights are very energy inefficient compared to other modes of travel, including driving. Then there is the terrorism issue. Security in 3-dimensions is very challenging. Maybe EV air taxis will become practical and common, but have my doubts.
Congrats for being sensible.
As an aerospace engineer with a pilots license and qualifications in engineering safety I'd like to see these companies be a lot more realistic and STOP blowing smoke up peoples butts. Just stop and consider how stupid most people are with cars including taxi drivers and then imagine those same people flying overhead at 150mph.
Do I want to see new technology that benefits humanity? *ABSOLUTELY YES,* but this stuff isn't what we need right now. Sure there's some novel stuff, but we don't need flying cars and we don't need fantasy garbage like another Theranos. We actually need a lot of other things before this stuff starting with clean energy production. Way too many people think batteries are an answer an they aren't. They are just part
Way too many people think electric vehicles will save the planet, while at the same time totally ignoring where the energy comes from. Even if they do think about that they dismiss the concerns with solar and wind but they just don't have the capacity for what modern society needs. In stead they get a feelgood from fantasy technologies like these. *From an engineering standpoint the attitude of society in general is infuriating.*
Every time I see a story on these I think, “and they do what that a helicopter can’t do better?”
monorail, monorail.
Noise is another major one. Remember the Concorde couldn't fly overland because of noise and these things are super noisy if they'll fly over residential areas specifically at night. The video is completely masking the noise.
@@tonywilson4713 We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
Anything but using public transportation or just walking or biking.
The problem comes when everyone wants their own aircraft. Just imagine what that will be like.
Modern airline jets are flown by Computers. A simple PC checks in with a main flight tower in the city for a flight plan ... push the button
Cant happen until it's autonomous only. It'll be pure chaos, death, and destruction if people are allowed to pilot these things.
Not a problem because there are three dimensions so there will be no crowding and flights will be controlled by computers.
That won't happen what makes u think that ppl will own anything after 2030
What will be the take home salary for most people by then, for this to be a reality, is the real question
Outstanding shipmates. Press on. USS Kitty Hawk CV-63. Jan 1980 to July 1983. aviator for life.
As a professional pilot with over 2 hours in the cockpit I can say this will replace all cars by 2025.
definition of facetious? 🥴
2hrs and calling yourself a professional? Yikes…And I guarantee you they won’t.
Do you mean in one of these cockpits?
whoosh
@@DrJohnnyJ no total
Does the legs have solar panels to partially recharge the batteries? Or is plug to charge?
Battery technology needs to improve four or five fold to even begin to call this EVTOL practical. What no one ever talks about is the charging downtime and the vehicles dead heading back to base after each fare. Fun, yes but tunnels are all weather and a far safer mode of mass transit.
Battery swap could eliminate downtime. Probably faster than refueling and could easily be automated too. And clearly battery tech doesn’t need to improve if there are functional prototypes that can fly 100s of miles.
@@DannyReed I believe many of the range claims are optimistic and that some are without passengers or test loads. "Hundreds of miles" Nope.
Infrastructure investment requirements for tunnels are not low.
@@Shtofman Thousands of aircraft aren't inexpensive to purchase or maintain.
Battery technology will probably improve with time.
my brother paid "LYFT" for introductory fights for both him and myself. its been a few years now. no contact, no updates, nothing. at $250 per person, i wonder how many people have been ignored?
The only way this would be acceptable for intracity transport is if a central computer is controlling them all.
That's what the guy from the FAA was just explaining in this video, they approve the companies with their commercial patents but is now coming up with safe, reliable flight paths for these vehicles also think about the weather while flying in these.
seeing them all and bringing adjustments....interesting
the batteries last "up to" 15 minutes - enough said.
as a private pilot with 600 hours i can say this WILL NEVER BE mass transit.
Having preset routs for scenic tours would be awesome. Rip helicopter tours
Imagine the noise of hundreds or thousands of these in the sky. There is no way that that amount of sound pollution will be tolerated. Comparing one evTOLs noise to the total background noise in a city is a ridiculous measurement.
You are not taking into account how we structure society. This is likely a mode of transportation that the wealthiest 1% would use regularly. In case you haven’t noticed, they also write the laws and they don’t care about our opinions on how loud they are.
@@classwarhooligan923 not true if you live in a western country. Look up on why supersonic flights were banned to fly over land in many countries as an example of this.
@@erikjunesjo Yep. Heard of that. The bourgeois/corporate owned government have already been -bribed- -I mean lobbied. “Ask and you shall receive” for the wealthy. As always, I’ll back my claim up with evidence. Here’s a quick excerpt from the first article I found:
“Today marks a significant milestone in the development of civil supersonic flight,” Aerion CEO, Tom Vice, told Avionics in an emailed statement. “We are encouraged that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration issued a final rule that streamlines and clarifies procedures to obtain FAA approval for supersonic flight testing in the United States. As we approach production and flight testing of the AS2, this rule provides our company the ability to test the AS2 aircraft over land in addition to overwater testing currently planned.”
Boom. Sonic f***in’ boom.
When u have a mechanical failure, or run out of battery juice, will they fall down onto middle of highway/interstate? Needs a whole new set of "traffic lanes"
I wonder if, like modern consumer drones, the motors on these things are independent of each other so failure of one motor won't compromise the flight or its safety. .
@@kamuelalee Yeah the Joby crashed as they said in the video. I cant see a million of these things flying above roads. Accident or failure would be catastrophic. I think these would be great, just not flying over me, en mass, while Im on the road
@@kamuelalee Have you seen this one?
th-cam.com/video/FzhREYOK0oo/w-d-xo.html
@@kamuelalee Until the computer fails or power inexplicably cuts out, then down it goes. That's already an issue with consumer drones. Not overly common, but happens. In theory, the wing design may allow for glide, but not sure if it's stable. Even if it is, separate emergency backup power will be essential to better maintain control and to land. I believe these issues can be worked out, but likely won't until after many crashes and deaths. Hope it doesn't play out that way.
@@AxxinTheSupernova Well, as they said in the video, they're flying these over unpopulated areas. It will take time but eVTOL will happen eventually.
The major problem is how noisy these things are... How mad would you be if you ended up spending "mega bucks" for some penthouse apartment and then you have to end up dealing with the fact that every other 10mins you hear what sounds like a cloud of 50million bees swarming past your windows.
That sounds funny but yeah it would suck...I'm tired of technology already...I wish we could go back to life in the 90s.
Without watching the video… how loud these will be? Like really…
Just picture all the cars up in the air flying wherever they want going all crossed directions. Remember no roads also no way to police or regulate, no air traffic control. You have to be nuts to think there won't be tons of serious accidents. And oh yes they are up in the air so will come crashing down hundreds of feet on top of people, our homes etc etc
People can't even drive properly on the ground no less the air, you are totally right.
and then someone came and flew a kite for fun and then the whole thing was on the floor...
If I can get into an autonomous car, autonomous rail, even a ''rollercoaster'', a day will come when I'll fly in one of these new inventions. It is a matter of safety first. The stakes would be better compared to flying in ordinary jets. Wish them best. BTW, took a long-term CALL position in JOBY today because its backing by Toyota and other funds. The CALLs are really cheap...whow knows...
The wing one I like 👍
Two possible problems, 1 weather, either high winds or fog could ground the air taxi. 2, congestion, the only way forward is for designated traffic channels eg say in bound 1000 feet, out bound 2000 feet. And this would require all traffic to be networked. Imagine if cruise control worked like this in a car, and you were kept a safe distance and at the same speed as other vehicles. Would require clunkers off the road however. Air taxis might also be best to follow roads, so as not flying so much over people's homes.
drone traffic signals too.
You’ve obviously never flown a drone.
@@nohandlehere55 sky rage…
The US doesn’t really have the right infrastructure for flying cars right now. Like we have huge parking lots which in theory would work… but only if they were empty or at limited capacity.
@@nohandlehere55 Like the first automobiles were for the wealthy...
I've noticed that the flying car and evtol industry is being steadily bought-out by big corporate interests. More than one company began designing a vehicle that they planned to market to individuals, but when they're then bought out by a large corporation, their designs get changed into just commuter and airport taxi services, with specific statements on their websites that these vehicles will not be marketed to individuals.
That's the entire intent of these scams. Everybody knows that there will never be flying cars or personal helicopter/drone service. It's just a way to scam investors and launder money.
yea, just invest in trains and other forms of pre-existing transport for better efficiency.
The Joby is viable.
maybe a driver is a good idea. I mean, youve seen people drive, can you imagine them flying? Most people can't even get airspace correct with a drone.
My favorite is Boston based Terrafugia which was bought by Chinese car company Geely. They all are very cool.
The problem with non-individual ownership is that you will have to commute to the eVTOL ports. This could cancel out the time gains these vehicles are looking to provide a solution to
The Robotaxi cars , come to wherever you are
This is going work like Segways were supposed to " fix" walking.
My helicycle, a single seat turbine engine helicopter weighs about 515 pounds empty, and flies at about 875 pounds gross. 26' long total including forward main rotor reach and aft tail rotor reach, it has VTOL capability, cruise speed of 100 mph, and a fuel endurance of about 1.8 hours. I fly it from my backyard heliport. It is an FAA Part 61 licensed and registered Experimental Category helicopter. The greatest altitude to which I've taken it is 3500' msl, which isn't significant. A similar model has been test flown to 17,950' msl at a density altitude of 20,972'.
The 2 catch words are license and fuel. Right now most Electric VTOL are being developed under FFA ultralight specifications. No license required, which is what most people are getting excited over. However as you elude, people don't realize they cannot use the current EVTOL being developed for commuting, landing at an airport, or using over any populated areas. They are all just expensive toys for amusing the wildlife. A whole lot of FFA regulations will need to be written before anyone uses one to go anywhere but across the acres on a 7.5 minute trip to milk a cow that ran away. If they want to save enough power to get home again that is. 😁
lower air density is not a real advantage for these aero toys :) lower air density is good for capable wing / rocket speeds
Get the plan together and get it done let’s do it and get the cost down
Looks like a waist of time and money. traffic on the ground is hard enough to deal with....could you imagine the chaos?
The congestion isn't going to be on the ground or in the air, it's gonna be at the take off and landing points.
Technology is impressive without a doubt, but I wonder how effective it would at solving the solution it was built for. A subway would be magnitudes more efficient in terms of transportation; especially a high speed rail. Japan has them.
Its like these guys are imagining people are going to be lining up to pay in range of ~250 for a short trip. I don't see how they intend to make back the money. I would think maintenance of these things would be expensive. Financially, I can't make the numbers work. But as it always happens with technology, it always ends up being used in ways most can't imagine.
Love the technology, but efficiency of transportation still in question.
Answer: rich people
@@nicholasn.2883 Exactly.
I mean to be fair that's what they said about air travel in the early days of airplanes, too.
The rich would pay upfront but eventually more people will have access just like air travel.
@@frankthefkintank We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
He didn’t answer Anderson’s question @ 9:29 properly on if a car picking you up and taking you to an eVTOL point won’t add to more congestion on the roads; he simply spoke about something else on moving the traffic to less used roads.
If I am on the road to the airport, that is actually the road I want to use, why will I try and use an unused road just because I want to make sure I can book a car to take me to an eVTOL point?
Something with quadcopters is that the larger the prop, the more efficient it is. You get longer flight times and the motors spin slower. So I'm wondering why these are using small props with many motors when they can build a self flying helicopter and it will probably be more efficient.
Safety. You can lose several props or motors and still fly. I think the efficiency factors are changing as well with AI assisted design.
Look up NASA’s DEP “Distributed Electric Propulsion” work by Mark Moore on this. Surprisingly, it’s more efficient to have many small rotors than one big one.
I guess the safety factor is not necessarily true with a Quadra copter. You could only lose one (or two depending on which ones you lose) and still fly, but with six or more props, your safety improves
@@charlesnichols8738 That may be true. I guess I was only thinking about a quadcopter with 5 inch props compared to a quadcopter with 7 inch props. I wasn't thinking about the more motors and that more motors with smaller props can be smaller motors.
Could a parachute that is deployed in case of emergency be mounted outside of any of these vehicles?
they exist and are pretty capable...still they work well under certain circumstances look for "ballistic parachutes"
The FAA approves these passenger vehicles but what the guy was explaining is the safety protocols they want the independent companies to both comply and understand also at the same time the FAA and other around the world have to make flight paths for these vehicles to fly in a safe & neutral manner. Both companies shown in this video has done a beautiful presentation with their vehicles giving people a taste of what's to come. Both vehicles look pretty safe to me, takeoff is crisp+might be a different takeoff experience but short of nothing different from regular commercial takeoffs in real time.
I feel like there's gonna be a movie based on these 2 companies fighting for top position for a new generation for Aero Flight
They don't want to mention because it would put our own technology and ambitions to shame. At 3:56 where they mention "air taxis" is the most advanced aerial automation technology from EHang in China where they are currently awaiting government certification for commercial use.
Truly impressive technology!
no
@@V0YAG3R so VOYAGER wasn't impressive technology either? Time waits for no man, and time will tell.
Impressive as a single flight with a single plane, but how do you control 10,000 in the air over a city? You can have impressive technology, but you need a lot of boring administration for it to work!
Where do i invest?
Can you imagine being in a city with thousands of these overhead? The din would be maddening. This is a dystopian dream. We would do much better to organize our cities in a way that did not require people to move around in two tons of metal and plastic.
I hope they all fail. I will curse the day these fill the skies.
We already have flying vehicles. They're called helicopters. They just have a more simple design instead of a bunch of extra propellers and moving parts.
@@Angry.General1461 are you talking to me? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said.
@@pandamonium7996 if you don't like what I said go watch something else you immature troll!
Autonomous vehicles like these may not gain traction with older adults, but will with the younger generations, who are more willing to accept it as normal. This is the same as older people being wary of computers and smartphones because they weren't raised on it. Children who were born after the smartphone was invented never knew what life was like before, and this type of transportation is going to be the same way.
Old people INVENTED computers and smartphones
This wont be viable until there is an advancement in propulsion systems and power sources. We went from propellers to jet engines. We need something beyond both those things.
Modern airline jets are flown by Computers. No propellers, use Jet engines, A simple PC on board checks in with a main flight tower in the city for a flight plan ... push the button
Joby’s aircraft is intended to be for short range trips up to 150 miles. You are not going to fly from LA to New York with an air taxi. It can be charged at every passenger pick up location, so it can fly all day long. No problem with batteries at Joby.
yep...
How much energy and petroleum does it take to make