Archer's Take on the FAA's Powered-Lift SFAR

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 26

  • @nate5eplayer574
    @nate5eplayer574 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +23

    Excited for the future. 25,000 shares and growing. 👍

    • @marcusgarvey8668
      @marcusgarvey8668 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      You will be rich rich rich, in a few years.

    • @Analytical_Visionary
      @Analytical_Visionary 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Gratz man! Whats your average

    • @jacobrinker8238
      @jacobrinker8238 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      yikes should have chose joby 🫠

    • @rossgeorgiou8491
      @rossgeorgiou8491 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      25k shares is crazy. Well done mate.

  • @mashedpotato9628
    @mashedpotato9628 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Good to see videos like this! Keep em coming!

  • @HungryAlienWorms
    @HungryAlienWorms 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Great job! I love how the Midnight looked! Keep up the good work!

  • @the_dude111
    @the_dude111 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Goooooooo Archer!!!👍

  • @GeneralMerchandiser-r7v
    @GeneralMerchandiser-r7v 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Hope no one misses this potential multi-bagger company. The next Tesla of the aviation sector.

  • @chrisbailey5055
    @chrisbailey5055 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I think the camera person forgot to turn on the stabilization.

  • @az6408
    @az6408 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    GREAT TECHNOLOGY , ARCHER WILL BE $20 BY MARCH

  • @georgewashington1621
    @georgewashington1621 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    I'm not against the new category but just out of curiosity, why couldnt such aircraft just operate under the same legal framework that helicopters operate? Also, i wonder, if any helicopter manufacturer would implement the same level of automation in its helicopter that we often see in this new category of these electric multirotor VTOL aircraft, is the legal framework for it already in place?

    • @pandagold4722
      @pandagold4722 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The 2 types of aircraft are very different. For starters, one is all electric and the other is turbine. FAA is actually the most competent and outstanding of all federal agencies. There is a good reason for everything they do.

    • @TripHawk777
      @TripHawk777 24 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Zero reason. The aircraft can’t perform as well as a helicopter so it must try to change the rules to gain any semblance of a future.
      These things carry weight. Passengers or cargo. Carrying 90% of its operating weight in vehicle itself leaves little to work with for mission weight. Helicopters for instance used Jet-A. They typically can carry about 50% more than gross weight with full fuel. As fuel is burned off and endurance decreases, the amount of weight increases. This can fill many roles as heavy lift with limited range to long range/endurance platforms. When you must carry the weight of the battery no matter the energy capacity, you do neither mission well. This is a solution looking for a problem. Without massive battery technology such as graphene, it’s a lost cause.
      Last point - Maybe there is a reason the rest of the world isn’t throwing good money after this “problem.”

  • @dissaid
    @dissaid 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    ☕️🇺🇲

  • @topofthegreen
    @topofthegreen 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    pilotless vehicles are here.

  • @hanshart314
    @hanshart314 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I sold once but back in. LILM went bankrupt.

  • @bearospaceinsider5250
    @bearospaceinsider5250 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    The US hampering of innovation by the government is criminal. I’m glad there’s finally some progress

    • @TheBagOfHolding
      @TheBagOfHolding 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Nobody is stopping them from proving what they want to do is possible. The red tape is helping them grift and gives them an excuse.

  • @TripHawk777
    @TripHawk777 24 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    It’s vaporware. Battery technology is not ready for passenger or cargo missions. Way too heavy and energy density terrible compared to Jet-A. It’s about 10-15% the capability of a typical helicopter. Archer will burn through cash and die within 18 months (Mid 2026).

  • @aaa5442
    @aaa5442 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Get rid of Goldstein .. problem solved

    • @MrJesse1479
      @MrJesse1479 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Why?

    • @Vengeances.
      @Vengeances. 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      He's the whole reason we're this far and doing this well. I trust in his work and if you don't then don't be here

    • @aaa5442
      @aaa5442 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @ that’s your opinion. Was here during acic cringe interview. The guys has little to no aerospace knowledge. CEO wise, very little experience. It shows. He works too much on his looks. Transparency is garbage. That whole “Maker” presentation was embarrassing… no CEO would present like that.. holding hands with co- CEO, pretending they are going on a flight. So cringe.

    • @StockDylan11
      @StockDylan11 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      What about Billy Nolen. Do you like him On the team?