That was musk's strategy with his hyperloop nonsense; invest just enough to give the appearance you're working on an alternative, but once it kills any competing public transit initiative abandon...
That was musk's strategy with his hyperloop nonsense; invest just enough to give the appearance you're working on an alternative, but once it kills any competing public transit initiative abandon the project.
I've read this theory before and I don't find it very compelling. Why can't hyperloop and tesla coexist? I understand there will be some cannibalism but these two modes of transit only have a...
I've read this theory before and I don't find it very compelling. Why can't hyperloop and tesla coexist? I understand there will be some cannibalism but these two modes of transit only have a small overlap, right?
The goal is to not fund public transportation by funding Hyperloop, then ditching Hyperloop. Thus people still need their cars (including Teslas). If you were to fund PT, car demand would lower
The goal is to not fund public transportation by funding Hyperloop, then ditching Hyperloop. Thus people still need their cars (including Teslas).
I'm not following. Is the correct interpretation of your post that a very sizeable portion of public transit budget was allocated to hyperloop then rug pulled? I don't have the numbers but id...
I'm not following. Is the correct interpretation of your post that a very sizeable portion of public transit budget was allocated to hyperloop then rug pulled? I don't have the numbers but id wager a small portion of total PT budget was allocated to HL. Seems wildly risky to do anything otherwise. So I get the idea, I'm skeptical of the tangible impact to the loss of PT
It's not so much that public transit budget was allocated to hyperloop, but that hyperloop pulled public and government interest away from real things, delaying the funding and approval of those...
It's not so much that public transit budget was allocated to hyperloop, but that hyperloop pulled public and government interest away from real things, delaying the funding and approval of those real things.
But, it also DID divert public money from competent public transit in Las Vegas. They could have decided to build a subway system, but instead they have a tube that Teslas get stuck in.
This was my initial gut reaction as well. To me this is clearly another "driverless car" boondoggle, the sole intent of which is to funnel public dollars to the governor's grifter friends.
This was my initial gut reaction as well. To me this is clearly another "driverless car" boondoggle, the sole intent of which is to funnel public dollars to the governor's grifter friends.
Yes they did their first flight in North Carolina but they were born in Ohio and spent a large chunk of their lives there. The headline says "home of the Wright Brothers".
Yes they did their first flight in North Carolina but they were born in Ohio and spent a large chunk of their lives there. The headline says "home of the Wright Brothers".
The first sentence says: "The same Ohio river valley where the Wright brothers pioneered human flight..." I'll grant you I was being a tad snarky, but they did sidestep Kitty Hawk there. Just Ohio...
The first sentence says:
"The same Ohio river valley where the Wright brothers pioneered human flight..."
I'll grant you I was being a tad snarky, but they did sidestep Kitty Hawk there. Just Ohio marketing.
This battle will rage on forever! Ohio does all the hard work, and all NC bring to the table is some high sustained wind speeds. Well done ;) It would a similar situation if Boeing researches,...
This battle will rage on forever! Ohio does all the hard work, and all NC bring to the table is some high sustained wind speeds. Well done ;)
It would a similar situation if Boeing researches, designs, and builds a new aircraft in WA, but then some other state gets all excited and takes credit for their contributions because it landed at one of their airports first.
Ahh that's what you were referring to. I believe they had done some of the testing and design in Ohio, so maybe the state is trying to ride on those coat tails. They certainly are by just...
Ahh that's what you were referring to. I believe they had done some of the testing and design in Ohio, so maybe the state is trying to ride on those coat tails. They certainly are by just name-dropping them.
Ohioans hate North Carolina because we took the slogan "first in flight" because the first flight took place here. The plane was built in Ohio but assembled and flown in NC. I used to be defensive...
Ohioans hate North Carolina because we took the slogan "first in flight" because the first flight took place here. The plane was built in Ohio but assembled and flown in NC.
I used to be defensive of it but honestly these days I just let them have it, Ohio doesn't really have much going for it, they can have the birthplace of flight
The Wright Brothers had their testing range near Kitty Hawk (technically in Kill Devil Hills). They chose that based on meteorological data, terrain, proximity to Dayton, and isolation (from...
The Wright Brothers had their testing range near Kitty Hawk (technically in Kill Devil Hills). They chose that based on meteorological data, terrain, proximity to Dayton, and isolation (from distractions, particularly reporters). Dayton had their shop, and later their first factory. I seem to recall reading that they did consider Dayton their home.
Pretty much all the research, design, and testing work on powered flight was done in the Wright Brothers' home town of Dayton, OH. Once well under way, they wrote to weather stations all around...
Pretty much all the research, design, and testing work on powered flight was done in the Wright Brothers' home town of Dayton, OH. Once well under way, they wrote to weather stations all around the country looking for the locations with highest consistent wind speed (to lower the necessary ground speed for flight), and Kitty Hawk NC was one of the top locations, so that's where they ended up for flight testing.
I do wonder if there's a niche for this. The idea of helicopters that can carry passengers pad to pad has some useage, but the issue has always been the cost. Even if you're very well off it's...
I do wonder if there's a niche for this.
The idea of helicopters that can carry passengers pad to pad has some useage, but the issue has always been the cost. Even if you're very well off it's INSANELY expensive to charter a copter from A to B, and usually A and B aren't where you want to be anyways.
If this is somehow cheaper it might have legs, but it's still hellishly inefficient travel, and really opens up the question of when and where you'd want to use it. Supplanted with proper mass transit infrastructure maybe this helps out, but i'm struggling to think of who the user case is that can afford whatever this is going to cost, and MUST be across town in 30 min instead of 2 hours (thinking LA traffic worst case scenario).
The issue isn't just the cost, but also the inherent fragility of a flying machine, the danger if it breaks mid-flight (even if just hovering), and the inherent noise of flying. And if it's used...
The issue isn't just the cost, but also the inherent fragility of a flying machine, the danger if it breaks mid-flight (even if just hovering), and the inherent noise of flying. And if it's used in cities, the fact that cities aren't designed for flying around inside the city, so you might have tight squeezes in places.
That said, these are basically just helicopters and helicopters already have various niches - like news reporting.
Besides cost, I'd be worried about safety. I'm just thinking of all the helicopter crashes over the years, which are common enough to convince me to never fly in one unless necessary. From my...
Besides cost, I'd be worried about safety. I'm just thinking of all the helicopter crashes over the years, which are common enough to convince me to never fly in one unless necessary. From my understanding, it rises from a mixture of bad weather, lack of training, maintenance issues, and mechanical issues. Same as planes, but they just feel more risky.
With the case of a "flying taxi" service, my concerns lie in how companies try to cut costs in places they absolutely shouldn't to maximize profits. I'd be worried about whether the pilots would have adequate training, and if they'd push pilots to fly in bad weather conditions to hold to some schedule. Add in the fact these flights would be in a city, and I'm even more wary of the damages from any crash.
There are issues on both sides, actually. Yes, you're right, air travel is, and most likely will always be very expensive. There are just too many safety requirements that need to be met for it to...
There are issues on both sides, actually.
Yes, you're right, air travel is, and most likely will always be very expensive. There are just too many safety requirements that need to be met for it to ever be a casual form of transportation.
If somehow, miraculously, air travel is no longer very expensive, it will no longer be very useful.
The whole reason cars suck so much is because there's so many of them. Traffic, the ridiculous amount of parking required, the roads that need to be built everywhere are the reason they suck. If air taxis somehow get affordable, they'll be widespread and have all of the exact same issues cars do. You can't just have 1,000,000 aircraft flying around a city willy nilly, it needs to be somehow controlled, which means it's no longer fast or convenient. Flying cars were always doomed to be a terrible idea, in any form they take.
One of the constraints on cars, though, is where they can travel - only on roads. The theoretical ability to go from A to B in a straight line instead of 20 turns would make it go much faster....
One of the constraints on cars, though, is where they can travel - only on roads. The theoretical ability to go from A to B in a straight line instead of 20 turns would make it go much faster. You're also not constrained to a 2D space.
I say theoretically because you likely need more space between planes compared to cars, and you still need some kind of traffic management system.
And that line is theoretical because of land ownership issues. The taxis likely wouldn't fly high enough to get over air rights in cities and you bet your ass I'd claim that flying taxis buzzing...
The theoretical ability to go from A to B in a straight line instead of 20 turns would make it go much faster. You're also not constrained to a 2D space.
And that line is theoretical because of land ownership issues. The taxis likely wouldn't fly high enough to get over air rights in cities and you bet your ass I'd claim that flying taxis buzzing my house would interfere with my enjoyment and open them up to lawsuits... also because I don't want their crap taxi falling on my lawn.
If I legally can't fly a two pound drone without certification you'd better believe these will be regulated out of reach for anything better than being another rich man's ride to the party.
I'm interested to know what kind of laws cities actually have around this. A quick google search seems to give a consensus that you would typically only own about 500 ft in airspace above your...
And that line is theoretical because of land ownership issues.
I'm interested to know what kind of laws cities actually have around this. A quick google search seems to give a consensus that you would typically only own about 500 ft in airspace above your property. I doubt air taxies would be flying that low, since helicopters aren't allowed to travel less than that altitude.
These things would indeed need to have pretty strict regulations. I doubt they'll be attainable for the average person, but it's still nice to think about a concept of new methods of short-distance transport that are actually faster than personal vehicles or public transportation.
I think this is actually a downside as opposed to a plus in terms of actual practical implementation, precisely because of what you mention -- you still need some kind of traffic management...
One of the constraints on cars, though, is where they can travel - only on roads.
I think this is actually a downside as opposed to a plus in terms of actual practical implementation, precisely because of what you mention -- you still need some kind of traffic management system, and it's a lot harder to actually make a traffic management system when you don't even have things like road markings and barriers.
I think there is decent potential, if not with this company, than one of them. Notice the form factor they are adapting. Virtually all of them are fixed quadcopters or greater. Ever think about...
I think there is decent potential, if not with this company, than one of them. Notice the form factor they are adapting. Virtually all of them are fixed quadcopters or greater. Ever think about how model/RC airplanes were always a niche hobby? It’s hard for novices to figure out how to fly a small plane remotely. But the quadcopters changed that: they were easy to fly, thus encouraging adoption, thus encouraging manufacturing and driving down costs. I believe the same will apply, at least for the vehicle side. The real test will come with the FAA. Will they allow full autonomous flight? Will they create a special pilots license that is simpler to obtain? If neither is done, then it won’t have a high chance of success.
Quadcopters are only easier to fly because of all the automated stuff they're doing. Without all those aids I dont believe they would be much easier to fly than a helicopter... minus getting rid...
Quadcopters are only easier to fly because of all the automated stuff they're doing. Without all those aids I dont believe they would be much easier to fly than a helicopter... minus getting rid if the having to counteract rotation.
Ill also add that the physical skill of flying is only part of what makes a pilot a pilot. I'd also argue that its the easy part.
There are a number of startups and established companies working to develop this idea. I'm not sure how they plan to work around three dimensional chaos and possible collisions if this becomes at...
There are a number of startups and established companies working to develop this idea. I'm not sure how they plan to work around three dimensional chaos and possible collisions if this becomes at all common, but there are smart engineers and big finance money backing the idea. Also if I understand correctly, many plan to have no pilot on board.
I always imagine something like the opening clip from the Jetsons cartoon.
There’s a lot of big names and money in this space. The major players (Boeing and the like) are also involved so it’s not just a niche idea. When (not if) they do come to fruition the idea of...
There’s a lot of big names and money in this space. The major players (Boeing and the like) are also involved so it’s not just a niche idea. When (not if) they do come to fruition the idea of taking a pilotless air taxi across town and avoiding traffic will be a no brainer if it can save you an hour or more a day in traffic. It’s just a matter of seeing how the safety records shape up. Right now there are pilot programs across the world to gather real data. It’s a fascinating space to watch.
Julie Carr Smyth Related - Lean green flying machines take wing in Paris, heralding transport revolution by John Leicester
Julie Carr Smyth
The same Ohio river valley where the Wright brothers pioneered human flight will soon be manufacturing cutting-edge electric planes that take off and land vertically, under an agreement announced Monday between the state and Joby Aviation Inc.
“When you’re talking about air taxis, that’s the future,” Republican Gov. Mike DeWine told The Associated Press. “We find this very, very exciting — not only for the direct jobs and indirect jobs it’s going to create, but like Intel, it’s a signal to people that Ohio is looking to the future. This is a big deal for us.”
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.
Just a dot on the horizon at first, the bug-like and surprisingly quiet electrically-powered craft buzzes over Paris and its traffic snarls, treating its doubtless awestruck passenger to privileged vistas of the Eiffel Tower and the city’s signature zinc-grey rooftops before landing him or her with a gentle downward hover. And thus, if all goes to plan, could a new page in aviation history be written.
After years of dreamy and not always credible talk of skies filled with flying, nonpolluting electric taxis, the aviation industry is preparing to deliver a future that it says is now just around the corner.
Capitalizing on its moment in the global spotlight, the Paris region is planning for a small fleet of electric flying taxis to operate on multiple routes when it hosts the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games next summer. Unless aviation regulators in China beat Paris to the punch by greenlighting a pilotless taxi for two passengers under development there, the French capital’s prospective operator — Volocopter of Germany — could be the first to fly taxis commercially if European regulators give their OK.
This is such a painfully obvious grift, even more obvious than the cryptocurrency issue that happened to Plattsburgh NY. I really hope this doesn't leave Dayton in a position where it's left...
This is such a painfully obvious grift, even more obvious than the cryptocurrency issue that happened to Plattsburgh NY.
I really hope this doesn't leave Dayton in a position where it's left "holding the bag," since it seems to have been doing well clawing it's way out of the hole that many cities in the rust belt found themselves in. But I'm not feeling confident...
So I'm in the San Francisco Bay area. I have definitely seen startups where the goal was to extract cash from the initial public offering and then fail. However, my impression of this development...
So I'm in the San Francisco Bay area. I have definitely seen startups where the goal was to extract cash from the initial public offering and then fail.
However, my impression of this development is that the engineers at least are super excited about the technology. Also United airlines, Boeing and Toyota are among the large companies investing in these flying quadcopters to be used as taxis. Elon Musk is also getting into this game and Black Rock.
Just interested, why do you think this? They have real hardware in the air, and have been around for ~14 years. It seems like there is a real market they could serve, as you can see in this video...
This is such a painfully obvious grift
Just interested, why do you think this? They have real hardware in the air, and have been around for ~14 years. It seems like there is a real market they could serve, as you can see in this video about a helicopter service.
So, technology has changed a lot since the 1960's, but I'm basing a large part of my opinion on what happened with New York Airways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways Running aircraft...
So, technology has changed a lot since the 1960's, but I'm basing a large part of my opinion on what happened with New York Airways.
Running aircraft of any kind will be more expensive in comparison to other vehicles, save for maybe railway maintenance. The materials and airframe for these flying taxis will certainly be more advanced, but the companies will still operate the same, and I can't trust anyone who's still trying to appeal to the public's nostalgia for retro-futurism (flying cars, in this case) to not be in some sort of grift, and they will absolutely cut corners to maximize profit.
I also doubt that these things will ever be as quiet as a car. Drones carrying (quality) cameras can get pretty loud, something similar carrying a human-sized payload will probably sound like a train running through the neighborhood.
From my (limited) perspective, to me this just looks like another band-aid solution to the problem of an under-development of dedicated mass-public transit. We need to be investing money into bringing back dedicated tram lines, train lines, bus lines, bike paths, walking paths that are worth a damn, not trying to (re?)create the future that never was. It will be incredibly expensive up-front, but that's simply because we've been kicking that can down the road for far too long.
The lengths U.S. politicians will go to in order to avoid investing in a robust network of trains and buses...
That was musk's strategy with his hyperloop nonsense; invest just enough to give the appearance you're working on an alternative, but once it kills any competing public transit initiative abandon the project.
I've read this theory before and I don't find it very compelling. Why can't hyperloop and tesla coexist? I understand there will be some cannibalism but these two modes of transit only have a small overlap, right?
The goal is to not fund public transportation by funding Hyperloop, then ditching Hyperloop. Thus people still need their cars (including Teslas).
If you were to fund PT, car demand would lower
I'm not following. Is the correct interpretation of your post that a very sizeable portion of public transit budget was allocated to hyperloop then rug pulled? I don't have the numbers but id wager a small portion of total PT budget was allocated to HL. Seems wildly risky to do anything otherwise. So I get the idea, I'm skeptical of the tangible impact to the loss of PT
It's not so much that public transit budget was allocated to hyperloop, but that hyperloop pulled public and government interest away from real things, delaying the funding and approval of those real things.
But, it also DID divert public money from competent public transit in Las Vegas. They could have decided to build a subway system, but instead they have a tube that Teslas get stuck in.
This was my initial gut reaction as well. To me this is clearly another "driverless car" boondoggle, the sole intent of which is to funnel public dollars to the governor's grifter friends.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joby_Aviation
Their track record doesn’t look particularly promising so far, but who knows?
My education appears to be lacking as I learned the Wright Brothers pioneered their first flight in Kitty Hawk, NC.
or I'm a victim of marketing.
Yes they did their first flight in North Carolina but they were born in Ohio and spent a large chunk of their lives there. The headline says "home of the Wright Brothers".
The first sentence says:
"The same Ohio river valley where the Wright brothers pioneered human flight..."
I'll grant you I was being a tad snarky, but they did sidestep Kitty Hawk there. Just Ohio marketing.
This battle will rage on forever! Ohio does all the hard work, and all NC bring to the table is some high sustained wind speeds. Well done ;)
It would a similar situation if Boeing researches, designs, and builds a new aircraft in WA, but then some other state gets all excited and takes credit for their contributions because it landed at one of their airports first.
Ahh that's what you were referring to. I believe they had done some of the testing and design in Ohio, so maybe the state is trying to ride on those coat tails. They certainly are by just name-dropping them.
Ohioans hate North Carolina because we took the slogan "first in flight" because the first flight took place here. The plane was built in Ohio but assembled and flown in NC.
I used to be defensive of it but honestly these days I just let them have it, Ohio doesn't really have much going for it, they can have the birthplace of flight
You've got Cedar Point and King's Island. What more can you want, honestly?
Ohio decided to decided to enter the fight with a new license plate design a couple years ago, and depicted the Wright Flyer backwards: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1048991822/ohio-reverses-course-after-its-new-license-plates-showed-the-wright-flyer-backwa
The Wright Brothers had their testing range near Kitty Hawk (technically in Kill Devil Hills). They chose that based on meteorological data, terrain, proximity to Dayton, and isolation (from distractions, particularly reporters). Dayton had their shop, and later their first factory. I seem to recall reading that they did consider Dayton their home.
Pretty much all the research, design, and testing work on powered flight was done in the Wright Brothers' home town of Dayton, OH. Once well under way, they wrote to weather stations all around the country looking for the locations with highest consistent wind speed (to lower the necessary ground speed for flight), and Kitty Hawk NC was one of the top locations, so that's where they ended up for flight testing.
look, NC has beautiful beaches. Dayton, Ohio doesn't have much else going for them. Let them have this.
I do wonder if there's a niche for this.
The idea of helicopters that can carry passengers pad to pad has some useage, but the issue has always been the cost. Even if you're very well off it's INSANELY expensive to charter a copter from A to B, and usually A and B aren't where you want to be anyways.
If this is somehow cheaper it might have legs, but it's still hellishly inefficient travel, and really opens up the question of when and where you'd want to use it. Supplanted with proper mass transit infrastructure maybe this helps out, but i'm struggling to think of who the user case is that can afford whatever this is going to cost, and MUST be across town in 30 min instead of 2 hours (thinking LA traffic worst case scenario).
The issue isn't just the cost, but also the inherent fragility of a flying machine, the danger if it breaks mid-flight (even if just hovering), and the inherent noise of flying. And if it's used in cities, the fact that cities aren't designed for flying around inside the city, so you might have tight squeezes in places.
That said, these are basically just helicopters and helicopters already have various niches - like news reporting.
Besides cost, I'd be worried about safety. I'm just thinking of all the helicopter crashes over the years, which are common enough to convince me to never fly in one unless necessary. From my understanding, it rises from a mixture of bad weather, lack of training, maintenance issues, and mechanical issues. Same as planes, but they just feel more risky.
With the case of a "flying taxi" service, my concerns lie in how companies try to cut costs in places they absolutely shouldn't to maximize profits. I'd be worried about whether the pilots would have adequate training, and if they'd push pilots to fly in bad weather conditions to hold to some schedule. Add in the fact these flights would be in a city, and I'm even more wary of the damages from any crash.
There are issues on both sides, actually.
Yes, you're right, air travel is, and most likely will always be very expensive. There are just too many safety requirements that need to be met for it to ever be a casual form of transportation.
If somehow, miraculously, air travel is no longer very expensive, it will no longer be very useful.
The whole reason cars suck so much is because there's so many of them. Traffic, the ridiculous amount of parking required, the roads that need to be built everywhere are the reason they suck. If air taxis somehow get affordable, they'll be widespread and have all of the exact same issues cars do. You can't just have 1,000,000 aircraft flying around a city willy nilly, it needs to be somehow controlled, which means it's no longer fast or convenient. Flying cars were always doomed to be a terrible idea, in any form they take.
One of the constraints on cars, though, is where they can travel - only on roads. The theoretical ability to go from A to B in a straight line instead of 20 turns would make it go much faster. You're also not constrained to a 2D space.
I say theoretically because you likely need more space between planes compared to cars, and you still need some kind of traffic management system.
And that line is theoretical because of land ownership issues. The taxis likely wouldn't fly high enough to get over air rights in cities and you bet your ass I'd claim that flying taxis buzzing my house would interfere with my enjoyment and open them up to lawsuits... also because I don't want their crap taxi falling on my lawn.
If I legally can't fly a two pound drone without certification you'd better believe these will be regulated out of reach for anything better than being another rich man's ride to the party.
I'm interested to know what kind of laws cities actually have around this. A quick google search seems to give a consensus that you would typically only own about 500 ft in airspace above your property. I doubt air taxies would be flying that low, since helicopters aren't allowed to travel less than that altitude.
These things would indeed need to have pretty strict regulations. I doubt they'll be attainable for the average person, but it's still nice to think about a concept of new methods of short-distance transport that are actually faster than personal vehicles or public transportation.
I think this is actually a downside as opposed to a plus in terms of actual practical implementation, precisely because of what you mention -- you still need some kind of traffic management system, and it's a lot harder to actually make a traffic management system when you don't even have things like road markings and barriers.
I think there is decent potential, if not with this company, than one of them. Notice the form factor they are adapting. Virtually all of them are fixed quadcopters or greater. Ever think about how model/RC airplanes were always a niche hobby? It’s hard for novices to figure out how to fly a small plane remotely. But the quadcopters changed that: they were easy to fly, thus encouraging adoption, thus encouraging manufacturing and driving down costs. I believe the same will apply, at least for the vehicle side. The real test will come with the FAA. Will they allow full autonomous flight? Will they create a special pilots license that is simpler to obtain? If neither is done, then it won’t have a high chance of success.
Quadcopters are only easier to fly because of all the automated stuff they're doing. Without all those aids I dont believe they would be much easier to fly than a helicopter... minus getting rid if the having to counteract rotation.
Ill also add that the physical skill of flying is only part of what makes a pilot a pilot. I'd also argue that its the easy part.
There are a number of startups and established companies working to develop this idea. I'm not sure how they plan to work around three dimensional chaos and possible collisions if this becomes at all common, but there are smart engineers and big finance money backing the idea. Also if I understand correctly, many plan to have no pilot on board.
I always imagine something like the opening clip from the Jetsons cartoon.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/7-urban-air-mobility-companies-watch
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/the-next-normal/air-taxis
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/24/your-electric-flying-taxi-is-just-around-the-corner
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/business/air-taxi-faa.html
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/When-will-we-see-electric-air-taxis
https://ig.ft.com/flying-taxis/
https://brandessenceresearch.com/blog/Top-5-Electric-Air-Taxi-Market
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/05/stellantis-archer-aviation-flying-taxis
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-01-11/here-s-how-the-top-flying-car-companies-compare
https://www.phocuswire.com/electric-air-taxis-forge-ahead
There’s a lot of big names and money in this space. The major players (Boeing and the like) are also involved so it’s not just a niche idea. When (not if) they do come to fruition the idea of taking a pilotless air taxi across town and avoiding traffic will be a no brainer if it can save you an hour or more a day in traffic. It’s just a matter of seeing how the safety records shape up. Right now there are pilot programs across the world to gather real data. It’s a fascinating space to watch.
Julie Carr Smyth
Related - Lean green flying machines take wing in Paris, heralding transport revolution by John Leicester
Nobody noticed? Julie Carr Smyth writing about flying "cars".
This is such a painfully obvious grift, even more obvious than the cryptocurrency issue that happened to Plattsburgh NY.
I really hope this doesn't leave Dayton in a position where it's left "holding the bag," since it seems to have been doing well clawing it's way out of the hole that many cities in the rust belt found themselves in. But I'm not feeling confident...
So I'm in the San Francisco Bay area. I have definitely seen startups where the goal was to extract cash from the initial public offering and then fail.
However, my impression of this development is that the engineers at least are super excited about the technology. Also United airlines, Boeing and Toyota are among the large companies investing in these flying quadcopters to be used as taxis. Elon Musk is also getting into this game and Black Rock.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/technology/2023/07/12/flying-cars-investors-delta-airlines-uber-spacex-blackrock/70400888007/
Just interested, why do you think this? They have real hardware in the air, and have been around for ~14 years. It seems like there is a real market they could serve, as you can see in this video about a helicopter service.
So, technology has changed a lot since the 1960's, but I'm basing a large part of my opinion on what happened with New York Airways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways
Running aircraft of any kind will be more expensive in comparison to other vehicles, save for maybe railway maintenance. The materials and airframe for these flying taxis will certainly be more advanced, but the companies will still operate the same, and I can't trust anyone who's still trying to appeal to the public's nostalgia for retro-futurism (flying cars, in this case) to not be in some sort of grift, and they will absolutely cut corners to maximize profit.
I also doubt that these things will ever be as quiet as a car. Drones carrying (quality) cameras can get pretty loud, something similar carrying a human-sized payload will probably sound like a train running through the neighborhood.
From my (limited) perspective, to me this just looks like another band-aid solution to the problem of an under-development of dedicated mass-public transit. We need to be investing money into bringing back dedicated tram lines, train lines, bus lines, bike paths, walking paths that are worth a damn, not trying to (re?)create the future that never was. It will be incredibly expensive up-front, but that's simply because we've been kicking that can down the road for far too long.