eVTOLs & Why So Many Automakers Want In - AAH 702 

@@technologyandsociety21C The tailpipe emissions citation is on new cars 🚗 todayZ. According to some studies, they are 99.7% cleaner than anything available just 50 years ago. Someone to do themselves and with the car running in a garage based on K’Orean monoxide, better pack a couple of lunches. It will take a while. In fact, they would never succumb based on new car vehicle emissions..

My 1997 Nissan Quest has zero CO when warmed up. But all ICE engines put out, 2.5ppm particles which can cause cancer and heart disease, asthma etc.

That's a great example of how misinformed the public is (and politicians, the media too). People don't have a clue how clean modern cars are, what incredible progress has been done since let's say 1970. Basically no emissions which affect human beings. I have with me a graph, which I can't post on this platform as it doesn't allow links, in which a German research paper showed how ICE cars don't only clean polluted city air as they have done for decades, but nowadays they further clean air which is already labeled 'clean' by scientists. (Not necessarily directly applicable to US cars because in the US gasoline cars aren't mandated to have particle filters like they are in Europe). Air pollution doesn't come from modern cars, it comes from heavy vehicles (trucks, busses), industry, shipping, power plants and heating, fires, and a small amount comes from very old cars. Some also comes from friction between car tires and the road surface, which is much higher on EVs.

I don't believe that non-sense and want to see this guy try it

Yes, Lilium Jet is an excellent concept (pre-production really) eVTOL. I have a chapter in the book on Lilium. And Lilium is one I cited as being in Top Ten Most Likely to Succeed. I think Lilium.

@@timjackson9106Is your book available online ?

Thanks for watching. Your points are good, of course. The eVTOLs used for Urban Air Mobility and taking people to the airport, they will be taking the place of Ubers, Lyfts, Taxis and buses in getting people to the airport. They will NOT be like a 787, 777, A330 or A350. They are so much smaller they cannot be compared with long haul flights. And this is a long term change. The immediate change is them being available all. I still want one of my own (or 5) and also want to take the flying taxi to the airport.

@@timjackson9106 Yep, they would probably take off from designates sights around a city. My only concern is noise pollution, a small drone is loud enough I can only image how much louder one large enough to carry several humans and their cargo would be. There would definitely need to be designated "skyways" and hours of operation.

We could actually take that negative aspect / conflict and turn it into a positive thing, make it a sport: People on the ground can 'shoot' at eVTOLs with safe low-power-laser devices approved for that function, and if they score a 'hit' registered by the eVTOL's sensors or the shooting device's system then the eVTOL must go around the shooter's property. Possibly also a 'hit' gives them a score, which over time can award them a small prize. People who just want to avoid having them fly over can install an automated device which sends a signal prohibiting overflight, or actually cities/counties would probably arrange for maps which set up data on which spots they're not allowed to fly over at low altitude. (But at high altitude of course they're allowed to fly just like all other aircraft)

You are more at risk of a yahoo with a car or pick up truck crashing into your house

@@StewartMidwinter I’m more concerned about noise than an accident.

@@MichaelAllen-td1uu ​​⁠ thanks for explaining, that's a valid concern. I don't want to live near a noisy street, either. I've gone and looked up what the noise level is, and the best answer is one from the company themselves with actual audio recordings of several types of aircraft, including their own, flying overhead. Spoiler alert, theirs is the quietest of all. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-itP8-3j2UZI.html

I suspect they'll be subject to the same regulations as helicopters...

Just got back to this WiltonLiveTV. I just arrived in Europe for a fam trip here. Spent about 10 minutes in the cockpit of the 787 Dreamliner before takeoff. We were talking about the airlines, aircraft maker and automaker investments in eVTOLs. Both the captain and first officer were impressed that the Wisk VTOL (wholly owned by Boeing) is being built without pilot controls, the Captain made comment, 'computers fly this machine everywhere we take it.' ..... I agree with you that it sounds like an oversimplification, though most commercial jets nearly fly themselves. Can say that even as scary as it sounds.

If it's Boeing, I'm not going!

No, he's right. Carbon monoxide emissions have been reduced to the point that you may get a headache in a closed garage with a car engine running, but you will not die.

@@AutolineDetroit what about diseasel?

@@TheRosebudzI have both a Mercedes diesel and a newer Subaru gasoline car. I back both cars into my garage. With the diesel I sense no exhaust whatsoever. With the Subaru I can’t wait to get out of there. I suspect other interests killed the diesel. My diesel is quiet (no one thinks it’s a diesel) smooth and powerful. It’s delightful to drive. I also own a Hyundai Ioniq 5 N!

Mark: Truth! Toyota is a valuable and heavily invested partner with Joby Aviation and its new eVTOL aircraft.

I'm more optimistic than that. It sounds more viable and sensible than robotaxi fleets. But I take your point. I was bit disappointed in not hearing more about how it will work in practice. Obviously there needs to be designated flight paths and a lot of support monitoring. I'm still skeptical of the safety with weather events and any kind of debris flying around. If they were to do this in any volume I would also think there needs to be some infrastructure support for landing and passengers coming and going.

eVTOLs are not intended to replace long-haul commercial passenger jets. If that impression came though it was certainly not intended. In fact, one primary reason that airlines are investing in eVTOLs is to enhance commercial jet service. They seek to make passenger travel more convenient. if they can help channel passenger transportation to and from the airport from major urban centers, they may be able to retain those passengers as customers whe high speed rail or other forms of commuting to and from urban center airports. Thanks for comment and the opportunity to clarify my comment.

@@RonnieLeeDuck Indeed. Agreed.

Battery weight and density is an issue for eVTOLs just as it with electric cars. Since this show was recorded, Joby Aviation (one of most successful eVTOL companies) tested their VTOL on hydrogen fuel cell technology and the test flight netted a 500 percent increase en range over the battery electric power.

Hi Dan Harold. Joby has partners inside government helping them. One is NASA. The other is Air Force. You are correct that Joby has a limited number of units for testing, They are working to get more units built. Their factory planned for Dayton, OH, is hoped to be built soon so they can increase count if units.

@danharold3087 Both NASA and US Air Force is helping Joby Aviation

Global EV sales were 18% in 2023 and for this year EVs are up to 22% of total sales. There are about 170,000 ICEV fires per year in the US. About 465 per day. Just a bonus fun fact.

I think energy-wise they're closer to catapults: they gather lots of energy from a point on the ground (where they *_must_* be at exactly) to then propel a load briefly over a 'short' distance to a pre-determined or 'aimed' target. Hence they could be called self-catapults.

eVTOLs are real and flying. Jetson one is a single person craft. ALL UP WEIGHT 86 kg FLIGHT TIME 20 min TOP SPEED 102 km/h. Joby has a larger tilt rotor craft for pilot and 4 passengers that the military is now testing.

First, did you discount the inefficiency of a fueled engine? Second, do you understand that the first generation of VTOLs will be short hops with charging at both landings?

Yep. We clearly do not allow fuel powered aircraft to take off and land vertically. There's no way we're going to allow much quieter, safer, and less expensive aircraft to take off and land using helo pads.

They'll be regulated to existing small airfields. Landing in your yard? Hell no!

@@stickynorth You don't have a helipad at your house? Time to think about upgrading....