can we just please get some normal, boring, safe, efficient trains that actually function instead of this gizmo bullshit?
Right? I’d love some decent trainage in the US.
But when I inevitably win the lottery and become a billionaire overnight I won’t want to share a filthy train car with other people, I’ll want flying taxis that charge $100 a kilometer.
That is why first class wagons exist
Thatsthejoke.gif
Joby’s production aircraft is designed to transport a pilot and four passengers at speeds of up to 200 miles (321.87 kilometers) per hour, with a maximum range of 100 miles (160.93 kilometers). I
Back in my day we called these contraptions “helicopters”
And those were considered for use as “flying taxis” and they failed for the same reason these will: Flying and landing in cities is dangerous, which is why airports are built very far away.
It’s also expensive as fuck.
Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.
Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.
Even if you have electric flying helicopters, the rotary component makes them very expensive to maintain as blades and components need to be replaced sometimes every 500 hours or less and require constant safety checks and inspections.
Great data, now what’s the equivalent for small scale electric motor based helicopters? Considering you’re essentially talking about the maintenance requirements of chemical powerplants and rotor wings lifting 10+ times the weight. That’s like saying because you have to do pre-operational checks on semi trucks during your trip that it’s too expensive to drive cars.
Imagine how many taxi cabs have a malfunction of some sort every year. Now imagine that taxi cab crashing into a building or crowded street if it had a malfunction instead of just cruising to a halt on the side of the road.
Do you not realize we already have thousands of aircraft flying that this could already happen to? It’s really strange to have you guys cherry picking this as a thing to be concerned about when aircraft that could fall out of the sky are already over your head right now.
Redundancy is the name of the game, if you have more than the amount of engines you require, then you can have a couple fail and still remain airborne. It’s also why VTOL designs are safer as they have some lift potential even with a dead-stick scenario.
Here you are accusing people of cherry picking when you’re doing the same thing, or just assuming that we can rely on technology that hasn’t even been invented yet, cannot be manufactured at scale, or is far too expensive for anyone but the most wealthy people on the planet to use. 
You’ve made several comments throughout this post that are absurd, reductive, and so out of touch with reality as to be ridiculous and/or hilarious. None of them make any rational sense. 
You’ve made several comments throughout this post that are absurd, reductive, and so out of touch with reality as to be ridiculous and/or hilarious. None of them make any rational sense.
Yeah, unless you know literally anything about aircraft. Which im sure you don’t. Or do you have more years in Aircraft maintenance than me?
Lmao, the this is a joke, right?
Being a mechanic doesn’t make you a pilot or give you any special knowledge about flight systems.
Thanks for the strawman, it does however give me an idea of the kind of maintenance he’s talking about and why it’s required on larger platforms but not on smaller electric motors like what eVTOL prototypes use.
People are in here claiming that because larger helicopters need a 30 day inspection that electric motors are going to have the same level of maintenance and servicing requirements. In reality we would probably adapt by creating something in between a private pilots license and whatever certifications ultralight and paramotors enjoy to get off the ground. That would no doubt include training and certification on basic operational maintenance.
All the airports I can think of have people living near them. Several are inside major cities.
Airports are quite large though.
Any of those airports have skyscrapers next to them like in big cities?
At least one. Hong Kong.
Helicopters aren’t failures, people still use them to get from the city to an airport and back. However, they are very expensive.
The vehicles in this article have the same use case, but they are intended to be cheaper.
These drone cars won’t be cheap either.
Because it costs a lot more energy to keep something in the air and move it forward, than it is to move it forward on the road.
They are not meant to replace cars, they are meant to replace helicopters. And they will very likely be cheaper than helicopters.
It was mostly a noise/airspace crowding concern, helicopters fly in cities all the time and plenty of roofs have active helipads.
That and seven people died when a helicopter tipped over over on top of a building
2 minutes, 21 seconds after touch down, at approximately 5:35 p.m., the right main landing gear of the helicopter failed and the S-61 rolled over to the right. All main rotor blades struck the concrete helipad. Four passengers who were waiting to board were struck by the blades and killed. One of the blades, 28 feet, 10 inches (8.787 meters) long and weighing 209.3 pounds (94.9 kilograms) flew out over the building’s railing and fell alongside the building before crashing through an office window on the 36th floor. The main rotor blade broke into two segments, one of which fell to the street below, striking a pedestrian and killing him.
The airline had two more accidents because helicopters are just an oil leak surrounded by a million parts that want to fly apart
That was in 1977. Reaching that far back to find a horror story just goes to show how safe commercial aviation is.
The reason I had to go so far back is because after that and a subsequent deadly accident nobody has tried doing a commuter airline with helicopters. Because it’s significantly more dangerous than flying a normal plane to a normal airport.
No, there are still commuter helicopter flights between Manhattan and JFK. As well as EWR.
You can get a seat for $195: https://www.blade.com/jfk
7 people probably died in car accidents in the last hour, I guess cars are too dangerous to drive too.
Yes, but also yes.
Don’t forget about bicycles, there are 2-3 cyclist fatalities in the US every day.
We’re not talking about bicycles here. Try to pay attention to the conversation.
That’s a pretty good argument for why flying cars is a pretty stupid idea.  all the dangers of a regular car accident plus the several hundred or several thousand feet crash to the ground, and then all of the bloody, fiery horror of a second collision at that time. 
Please explain to me how this type of aircraft is any more vulnerable to crashing or pilot error than any other.
There would be many more of them in a small area and it’s a completely new type of flight system with which zero people have any type of flight experience. Not to mention the total lack of an air traffic control system and the fact that the risk of a crash is already pretty high.
That’s plenty right there.
Get outta here with all your common sense making, hater.
deleted by creator
I’ll never understand the eternal hype around “flying cars”. Fuckers out here can hardly drive on a 2d road. Now you want to introduce a third axis on them?
I guarantee that if the general public gets their hands on a real “flying car”, it’ll take about 2 weeks before some drunk idiot commits a mini 9/11.
The only way flying cars should ever get implemented is if they are 100% automatic.
-
Create automatic taxi (impossible)
-
Create flying taxi (impossible)
Okay, new plan!
- Create automatic flying taxi (should be possible in the next 5-15 years)
Not saying it’s a good idea, but a lot of the complexity surrounding automated driving is actually because you are confined to a 2D space and have to follow roads/road signs. When you can just lift off and adjust verticality to avoid objects all you really need is a way to detect and avoid obstacles and some navigation logic. Landing is probably the most difficult part to automate.
Not super easy but it is actually easier than self-driving cars (which is why almost all of a commercial flight is running on autopilot)
When you can just lift off and adjust verticality to avoid objects
You need to navigate between objects on an additional access. Also, manage speed and trajectory with a changing mass, as you exhaust fuel.
Not rocket science, but its close.
it is actually easier than self-driving cars (which is why almost all of a commercial flight is running on autopilot)
Commercial flight follows lanes of traffic with regular well-regulated flight paths.
One thing that gets helicopters and small engine aircraft pilots in trouble is that they don’t have any of that.
-
The FAA mandates extensive training for anyone who wants to fly, regardless of the form of the aircraft. And even more training for commercial pilots (i.e. paying passengers).
Nothing in this article suggests that pilots of this vehicle would have less training than pilots of other aircraft.
I worry a lot more about drunk drivers than drunk pilots.
The FAA mandates extensive training for anyone who wants to fly, regardless of the form of the aircraft.
Apparently not if the mass and maximum speed are both low enough. The Jetson One (which has been taking preorders for at least a couple of years but still isn’t shipping) says it won’t require a license in the US.
It looks pretty impractical, produces an obnoxious amount of wind during landing and takeoff, and has a range of only 30km, but, still… it or things like it probably will actually be a reality for some rich people pretty soon.
The FAA regulates all vehicles in US airspace. You need an FAA certificate even to fly many handheld drones.
So either the FAA is going to catch up to them, or there is something in the fine print…
the model was intended to spend most of its time hovering between 5 and 20 feet off the ground
… found it.
EDIT:
Actually, this vehicle is classed as an ultralight, which (TIL) do not require a pilot’s certificate.
That doesn’t make flying any less dangerous in general, and it’s already pretty dangerous as it is. Add to that a bunch of tiny little flying vehicles buzzing around, and it the odds of more mid-air collisions (and their result and ground crashes) rises significantly.
I don’t see why this should be of more concern than someone designing an inexpensive new private fixed wing aircraft or small helo. Which happens all the time.
Also, flying is far less dangerous than pretty much any other form of travel. Would you also be concerned about a city that encouraged bicycles to “buzz around” the streets? Bicycle crashes are less dramatic than aircraft crashes, but they end up killing far more people.
Flying is less dangerous per capita because fewer people fly than drive and are required to have more training to fly commercially. But the is t true for these sorts of craft, and small engine aircraft are far more dangerous with a far higher rate of crashes. So are helicopters. And increasing the number of those aircraft and flights would only raise those numbers further.
Flying is safer, period.
In the US, there are only about ten fatalities per year on commercial aircraft. You are more likely to die of a lightning strike.
And if you only consider major airlines, in the last twenty years there has been exactly one passenger fatality in the US.
Large commercial aircraft with 2 trained pilots, air traffic control, a full flight crew, autopilot, and millions of dollars of advanced avionics.
These are not the same type of aircraft, nor are they the same caliber of pilots that will be flying them with 10,000+ hours of experience flying those types of craft. And there won’t be air traffic control to back them up, either. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Edit: I suppose there will be ATC? But that opens a different can of worms and adds a huge burden to an already overtaxed system.
Major airlines have two pilots and expensive avionics. But “commercial aircraft” refers to all aircraft with paying passengers, including Cessnas with a single pilot that take a few passengers sightseeing. As I said, fatalities are extremely rare in any of these flights.
And all pilots are guided by air traffic control, from major airliners to solo private pilots. Air traffic control is meant to prevent mid-air collisions, an air traffic control system that ignored small aircraft would be pointless.
Per capita means per unit of people. So by definition the group size does not matter.
You just explained how group size does matter
Drink idiots hit things in cars all the time.
Make the test to acquire your license actually difficult to the skill level required instead of the “you can take two left turns and park shitty, here’s your license” level of difficulty that most states use for road vehicles.
Dog if you make one mistake you can kill so many more people than in a crash. This is a horrible idea.
So require more training and certification for use?
Are you guys all seriously hung up on the word “car” here and trying to imply that eVTOLs can’t just come with its own infrastructure and pilot requirements independent of what we currently have?
It doesn’t have to be like cars, where the skill level of the driver can be non existent and still pass licensing.
I just can’t believe I’m in the tech community of a supposedly leftist website having to argue for a technology that beyond small local airstrips (literally a grass field with charging stations and basic rest stop equipment) needs no additional ground infrastructure.
The opposition? Begin large scale rail projects that will require we carve through a lot of natural resources as well as acquire the resources to build it with.
I just have to double check to make sure I didn’t fall into the wrong internet rabbit hole.
I just can’t believe I’m in the tech community of a supposedly leftist website having to argue for a technology that beyond small local airstrips (literally a grass field with charging stations and basic rest stop equipment) needs no additional ground infrastructure.
The opposition? Begin large scale rail projects that will require we carve through a lot of natural resources as well as acquire the resources to build it with.
🤣
Im saying that it doesnt matter if the requirements are super high, it’s still dangerous and I don’t really see how the use cases are justifiable. It also doesn’t scale well with a lot of people. You could easily just build rail or use a bus and make a bus lane.
I got my driver’s license when I was 18, after studying for the test and practicing for several months on a learner’s permit.
Now I’m 40. I’ve never been retested. I have completely forgotten what’s on the exam. I’ve developed a whole bunch of bad driving habits, particularly with the advent of smart phones. And nobody is going to challenge my license renewal so long as I can pass an eye exam every 10 years.
Trains and Trams please and thank you
No. Only the promise of a single-person direct-to-destination fee-for-service that ends up being a giant scam.
We will never build mass transit in this country. You can’t make us.
You forgot your /s
Where America is going to come unstuck is with the electric car.
Either you guys are going to have to build up more electrical infrastructure which you don’t want to do, or you’re going to have to develop public transit options, would you also don’t seem to want to do.
Then the GOP will somehow try and turn it into a political issue (because they are lunatics) and nothing will get done, and then no one will be able to go anywhere because they will be stuck living in a country that is designed for a mode of transit that no longer exists, and no one has bothered to update it in any way. And then your kids are going to overthrow the government because they won’t be able to understand why everyone in Europe can go wherever they want.
A few major metro areas with big finance and tech sectors will get a bunch of pilot programs that cost way too much and never get fully implemented.
Then we’ll get told that the tech is too expensive and we can’t do it.
Meanwhile, China will be building a BRI that moves people at 600 mph from Beijing to Rabat.
Fuck that just built trams and trains
there are literally rails behind my house why is there not a tram on it to go across town idk. Cargobonly passes once every hour lmao
Do you have any idea how much time and resources it would take to construct high speed rail across the US compared to small local airstrips for VTOLs?
Do you have a idea how much more efficient it would be?
Yeah and think of how many more people a single five-person helicopter can move per hour! An obvious choice
An order of magnitude less than carrying the same cargo via VTOLs.
Jesus Christ I don’t even know why I bother arguing with people who will constantly move the goal posts. We aren’t talking about cargo, we are talking about transporting people, fucks sake.
This place really did take the dumbest of reddit.
Jesus fuck. It’s just like some auto execs to pull shit like this. Completely fuck up transportation infrastructure on the ground to your own benefit and everyone else’s detriment, then use your winnings to build taxis that can fly over the carnage you’ve wrought. We are living the Cyberpunk future.
Fucking waste of resources.
Let me just look up how many times the Wright brothers crashed before they succeeded…
[googles]
Oh, my…
You’re right, failure is possible so we should never try anything, ever.
lol, I definitely didn’t say that 
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Around the world, electric vertical takeoff and landing, or eVTOL aircraft are entering the mainstream, though questions remain about noise levels and charging demands.
Still, developers say the planes are nearing the day when they will provide a wide-scale alternative to shuttle individual people or small groups from rooftops and parking garages to their destinations, while avoiding the congested thoroughfares below.
Joby’s decision to locate its first scaled manufacturing facility at a 140-acre (57-hectar) site at Dayton International Airport delivers on two decades of groundwork laid by the state’s leaders, Republican Lt. Gov.
Its financial package wasn’t the largest, but the chance to bring the operation to the birthplace of aviation — with a workforce experienced in the field — sealed the deal, he said.
Bevirt said operations and hiring will begin immediately from existing buildings near the development site, contingent upon clearing the standard legal and regulatory hurdles.
Toyota, a long-term investor, worked with Joby in 2019 to design and to successfully launch its pilot production line in Marina, California.
The original article contains 862 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
We already have “flying cars”. They’re called helicopters, and you need training and a license to fly them. Just like you’ll need for this thing and just like you need for a normal road-going car.
Ohio is also the state which has the highest per-capita production of astronauts, with only New York and California producing more in terms of raw numbers.
I wonder, what is it about Ohio that encourages people to flee the planet with such zeal?
You’ve clearly never been to Cleveland.
Considering it has a scatological sexual act named after it, do I really want to?
Wasn’t there some controversy with who had the first flying machine? There was supposedly some guy in CT that flew an aircraft before the brothers?
EDIT - found this article Three states bicker over ‘first in flight’ claim
Go to India and they will tell you that Right Brothers stole an Indian genius sketch and killed him
I’m making this claim based on the Wright Bros exhibit at the Smithsonian Air and space museum…
One of the genius things that they did was invent scaled testing (I’m not 100% sure I can make this claim, but I’d be happy to learn it I was wrong). Rather than building the device and testing it, which killed a lot of people through history, they built miniature components and tested them individually to prove concepts, and THEN built their production version in iterations.
Like, to test airfoil designs, they built a table top sized wind tunnel, put a miniature airfoil in, and evaluated its performance, and made determinations for the final product. This SIGNIFICANTLY lowered design costs and prototyping at the time.
This also happened to result in an airplane.
Probably helped lower some risk, too.
So, we’re just gonna burn more fuel. Wtf. We need legislative change to prevent shit like this.
