Joby Aviation eVTOL test hop at Marina Municipal Airport, California, Sept 14 2022

Подписаться 120

Просмотров 27 тыс.

50% 1

This is video of a Joby Aviation S4 eVTOL prototype (N542BJ) test hop taken at Marina Municipal Airport (OAR), in Marina, California, on Sept 14, 2022. The test hop was a few minutes after the conclusion of a full test flight just north of the airport. The full test flight flew a repeated circular pattern, accompanied by a small single-engine Van's RV-8 chase plane (N228GM). This hop was louder than I expected, but still quieter than a similarly-sized helicopter.
I zoomed out briefly early in the video to illustrate the actual distance to the Joby, which was approximately 440 ft (134 m).
The timing between the rotational speed of the rotors and the FPS of the video resulted in an interesting slo-mo effect.
This second-gen 2.0 prototype was registered as N542BJ in March 2021, with model JAS4-2 and serial number JAS4-202 ("Joby Aircraft S4, Generation 2, Aircraft 2").
Recommended reading:
evtol.news/joby-s4
Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joby_Av...
FAA registration page:
registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...
Joby eVTOL ADSB tracking link:
globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=...
Chase plane tracking link:
globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=...

Наука

Опубликовано:

14 сен 2022

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 85

@hnlkitup Год назад

This is so impressive. I imagine that they are doing some real world testing to see how well the aircraft stays stationary while yawing around. It should stay at the same altitude and position as much as possible. Seems to do a pretty good job, though I'm sure they'll strive for even better. As for the noise, considering it is so close to the ground I really don't feel it is too loud.

@cliffhammer7953 8 месяцев назад

Thanks for sharing this!

@abvmoose87 Год назад

Awesome! Thank you so much for uploading this. As I imagined, it doesnt sound quite as quiet as they make it out to be in their own footage but still good, very interesting.

@bigsidable Год назад

I live 5 miles or less from our airport. I will never hear this. But I hear all kinds of planes,jets,and helicopters daily.

@CraigCholar Год назад

I live two miles from the Marina airport. When I position myself at the airport itself to make these videos, the Joby is barely audible when it's flying test circuits at 1300 ft over the fields just north of the runway. I hope to make more videos of it in flight over the coming weeks. Using Google Maps I see there is a seemingly-public unpaved road that passes directly under the usual flight path. I will try to get another angle from that location soon.

@bigsidable Год назад

@@CraigCholar Awesome. Thank you. That’s so cool. Your watching history being made. When it come to this tech. The Sky the limit. 😅😅

@bigsidable Год назад

@@CraigCholar Now I wish I stuck with my Air Craft MAINTENANCE education I started in 2005. Had to stop due to lack of funding.

@paulcummings55 Год назад

There are a couple of previous videos out there with the Joby, and notably in one, the CEO continues to talk at room loudness with no effort to hear him even after the Joby fires up behind him. Others have commented on this lack of loudness as well. As noise is a very large concern of all these eVtol manufacturers, I would wait for a more public demonstration with a production-ready model before making any judgements on the noise levels. Regardless, I doubt there will be many instances of the landing pads being in the middle of residential neighborhood- most will be at airport, the tops of buildings, and in larger plots of land between or outside of residential areas.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

Thereby losing the prime advantage of VTOL . Check out the company video with JoBen 'holding' his suit lapels against his body using his elbows (looks strange) clearly the wind is in his face --even with the expected outflow behind him -so the noise maker is downwind . Something is up with the voice over audio and the background --and little observable disturbance of the foliage -- the Craig Cholar video/audio seems to be genuine.

@allansan2 Год назад

Thanks for the video and info on the JAS4. Has a pilot ever flown it from inside the cockpit? Have all its test flights been done remotely?

@CraigCholar Год назад

I have no idea how many flights have been piloted vs. remotely operated.

@abvmoose87 Год назад

I belive none have been manned as of yet so it’s what were all waiting for.

@user-yr1gs3jf9r Год назад

这是我见过最漂亮的飞机了。

@jaejungkwon7116 Год назад

I can't imagine the actual distance from your camera to the JOBY. Can you tell me how far away you were?

@CraigCholar Год назад

Using Google Maps I estimate the distance was about 440 ft (134 m), which I just added to the video description. Thanks for the feedback.

@thanhkieu123dtdd2 Год назад

Chiec nay co bsn khong

@TheBagOfHolding 9 месяцев назад

Is that the max duration?

@XPLAlN Год назад

Much louder than they would have us believe.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

It would be nice to know how much payload (if any) this test aircraft was carrying - and also to hear it out of ground effect AND during climb (ALL these cases require more power and hence more noise but HOW MUCH more ? - helicopters hovering produce enough noise but they suddenly get a LOT noisier when power is increased to climb . Having lived next to a sports oval used as a place for helicopter medical patient transfer to the local hospital I can vouch for the difference --only EXCESS power does any good in lifting mass out of hover .

@tommy3989 Год назад

Partially true. Hovering actually takes a lot of power. If your doing a max continuous climb, your statement is true. But Helicopters don't need to pull max power to gain altitude or airspeed. They just have to transition into forward flight. You can hold a hover, without touching the collective, push over, go through ETL and transition into forward flight with positive climb without ever adding anymore power. That'll be the difference that these evtols will never achieve. All power, all the time while taking no advantage of airfoil lift.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

@@tommy3989 Possibly you can transition without extra power if in a wind --the mass flow is greater than in still air hover . With winged evtols the wing is a complete liability in hover being just dead weight and in fact impeding downwash to create virtual weight -- tilting the engine pods will create a negative angle of attack on the wings and tail meaning maybe increased download (and tilting the whole aircraft is even worse if nose down like a helicopter) I understand the conundrums inherent in trying to get a converting aircraft design to work but don't believe that any of the current deluge of evtol hopefuls are satisfactory for practical use (the first really gusty day will sort a lot of the men from the boys - at least by having blown tail surfaces the Joby is less susceptible to weathercocking than the wisk or archer et al . They have all expended huge amounts of capital and effort in what I fear may turn out to be a misconceived 'market' --certainly it won't be commuters or have any measurable effect on road traffic (you will need four extra ubers or taxis for each daily commute to get you to and from your friendly local vertiport if nothing else --to 'replace' one self driven car. "Distributed' propulsion is another way of saying that any powerplant/prop combination you do lose will NOT be on the centreline so that extra shutdown and rapid assymettry countering, if possible , will be critical --Burt Rutan calls this the 'pinwheel' effect. The cost of hovering is more than just power and hovering is not a neccesary function for a transport vehicle --what is wanted is to avoid any GROUND ROLL or airport dependence -they are two different things .

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

Note -the 'cross out' is unintentional and due to some computer glitch.

@ChrisFu7 Год назад

Blade loading noise is certainly minimal on all these flights as they are all performed at min gross weight with basically zero payload. By flying at these light gross weights they minimize acoustics as well as the inherent aeroelastic vibration issues of using large rigid rotors. Once they fly at something approaching a *practical* gross weight, things will change immensely.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

@@ChrisFu7 AFAIK they don't say what all up weight they are flying at -- it is possible that they are carrying extra batteries as 'payload' and might even have achieved their 'long' range by such a means . I agree that the blade loading is crucial to noise , you would think that they could put some actual people in it for a hover demonstration (not too far to fall if....) just like the old Bell 47 pictures with a bunch of people hanging off the outside,on the skids etc .

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

"Hmmp" indeed !

@sitoudien9816 Год назад

What problem does this solve?

@vanlifeveteran3376 Год назад

Traffic

@mlehky Год назад

Much loader than i anticipated

@user-ig9tu9cl6c Год назад

Is he zero emissions?

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

I guess the simplest question is " would you like this outside your bedroom window multiple times every night ?" --dB meters etc aside,- that is what it boils down to .

@abvmoose87 Год назад

I don’t think that’s what theyre aiming for, I dont think it will be sold to private customers and theyre taking the the taxi service route. So most likley it wouldnt be located just anywhere but at locations where it makes sense. A few well placed strategic locations over a city where theres likley to allready be some noise pollution, the idea being that the db levels this produces are the same as other sources and will blend in with environment. But yea, most people prob wouldnt want it near them. But I would think they have planned and put alot of thought into this with the project being so far along and ao much money being invested I figure they got to be quite confident that they will be able to place deaignated landing pads through out ghe cities where they want and that they are within the linits of whats acceptable noise.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

@@abvmoose87 His stated criteria is to pick up and deliver people AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to their destination or from their home (starting point ) "saving one billion people one hour every day" was another .-- How many people do you know who get a taxi to and from their work and home, or school and home etc ? For short distances the 'flagfall' (minimum charge ) is the greatest part of the charge and taxi drivers prefer longer more economical trips - to make any MEASURABLE let alone significant dent in the road traffic issue for a city of millions of people you will need THOUSANDS of take off and landing places (airports are functionally the same as car parks --somewhere to pull off the movement path and exit or enter the vehicle . How many parking spaces are there in los Angeles for comparison . The characteristic graphs of traffic flow versus density and traffic speed versus density show just how non linear they are -- nearing 'gridlock' (misnomer -traffic jam or congestion ) it only takes a small increase in cars to 'freeze' the flow - and the reverse is true --for already 'crawling' traffic a reduction of around 5% will restore maybe 90% of the free flowing capacity . Ergo the people who will benefit most from flying vehicles never leave the ground. (the reverse is true of buses and trams/trolleybuses that compete for road space) UBERELEVATE , now Joby was predicated on MASS use in order to get any possible economy -- 'the masses' are unlikely to afford this sort of brute force approach and the huge amount of energy and turmoil from VTOL are hardly environmentally 'clean' either . Where does it 'make sense'? I would say that a motorcar unable to go to or from a few dozen or less places and always far away from habitation in a metropolis would be useless -- and a car industry just making taxis would be unviable --ditto for flying vehicles . The infrastructure needed for the TAXI role and "e" VTOL is very substantial and expensive --the change over from an Uber needing steet level parking and transfer ,waiting rooms, charging, stabling etc -- helicopter air taxis -even if sited in non noise sensitive places have never caught on , why will battery powered 'heli'craft be any different ? You can judge just how much 'thought' they have put in by looking at their previous, stillborn, solutions (S1 S2 S3 ) and just how hopeless they were --or look at the now defunct Kitty Hawk - after 10 years, $100 million ,25000 'successfull' flights they canned it -- spending money or hiring hundreds of people are not hallmarks of competency. You don't need to surmise -thanks to Craig Cholar you can listen and make up your own mind. Then consider what a competing vehicle that IS able to land or take off 'next door' and NOT disturb you --that is available within short walking distance if used as a passenger or in your own driveway/street etc - that uses only 1/8 or less of the horsepower (feeding bills for all those horses ...) has five times the range etc etc - will do to the eVTOL house of cards . Comparison to the WORST 'competitors' -either in noise levels or otherwise is a bad way to design something for the future or for high volume use ( if something theoretically achievable is far better than yours you can only hope for a short life and small market -- just 'improving' the helicopter ,slightly if at all, will not result in a revolution --

@williamstock3007 Год назад

It is incredibly quiet, that's what most of their development has gone into. If you do a bit of research you'll probably come across them comparing db levels to other air transport and its super quiet

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

@@williamstock3007 Maybe you should unmute your computer .

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

@@williamstock3007 Comparing noise in overflight at 1000 ft or higher isn't the 'worst case' scenario -- the Kitty Hawk heaviside was a fair bit quieter (65dB plus - partially stalled blades account for that plus higher RPM to create take off thrust . the Joby set up places the two inboard props and the tail props IN line and substantially overlapping (in level flight) which should be a high noise configuration - all the chopped up air going into the two rear props. In hover this does not apply but recirculation and any wind could result in turbulence into the props hence noise. I do not know if the props can feather (or even change pitch ) -pulling off power in cruise would result in a drastic instant drag brake effect from 30 huge blades at 90 degrees -- if only one of them stopped the assymetric drag and thrust would be a real problem , two on one side even more so. The special certification conditions are going to have to address such things - the failure mode analysis will be complicated .

@ab-rd4xt Год назад

Spooky

@shj1061 Год назад

Noise

@bigsidable Год назад

Well Delta Airlines just invested in JOBY. As did American did to ARCHER. $60,000,000.00 from Delta. I can take a ride from Santa Rosa to either Oakland Air Port or San Francisco. 50 to 60 miles. Beats taking the AIR PORTER.

@Earther94 Год назад

Can you track some more down? Lol

@howardpratt7962 Год назад

Sounds pretty loud

@Dragoon01 Год назад

Watch a helicopter take off at this distance, the noise is deafening

@PelicanIslandLabs Год назад

Noisy! Just like I thought it would be.

@Realroyrogers Год назад

6 engines in conventional aircraft would be a safety asset because you could still fly with multiple engine failures. With 6 motors all of which are required to stay airborne it would seem to be a liability

@abvmoose87 Год назад

What are you talking about? all 6 motors aren't required at all for it to stay airborne. It can adjust and stay airborne for at least 1-2 engine failures. Theres plenty of multi rotor prototypes and drones who can do this. I thought this would be common knowledge by now. Where have you been for the last 20 years??

@samsung-ok4ki Год назад

@@abvmoose87 You say it can adjust and stay airborne for at least 1-2 engine failures. ?? is it 1 OR 2? I haven't seen any specification that it can operate with any motor failures especially at loaded takeoff weight , if you have links that would be appreciated

@tommy3989 Год назад

Forget singular motor failures. A single electrical failure would be catastrophic. Although this airframe does have airfoils, I'm curious about it's ability to glide and what that ratio looks like.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

@@samsung-ok4ki If the two (2) at the back (on the v tails ) fail you MUST shut down the two (2) in FRONT (ahead of the wings, inboard )for pitch balance -ergo you lose FOUR (4) out of six and no longer have pitch or yaw control . If ONE (1) at the back (on V tail) fails in transition or cruise you PROBABLY have to shut down or throttle down the other side of the V tail -- Vee tails work by cancelling the lift vector on one side to get pure yaw or together to get pure pitch --with high speed air over just one (1) side you get 'non control' --neither pitch nor yaw . I designed the control system for the V tail HP18 sailplane almost 50 years ago and test flew it's predeccesor (RS 15) after it was inadvertently launched on aerotow with one(1) ruddervator disconnected -like having one side in the slipstream and one not. Things then DO NOT cancell out --you are screwed the wake of the stopped or windmilling 'dead' prop will itself degrade that 1/2 tail's lift as well as the much higher lift from the 'active' side . The FAA will know about such things and this will be found out in certification --let's see flight in wild gustiness and with actual shutdowns (unmanned for safety's sake ) by having the rear and front 'inboard' propellers in line, the wake of the front props will interfere with the rear ones for more noise (think cessna 337 ) and non linearities with all sorts of thrust variations - the failure modes and assymetries are going to be legion. Any icing detachment would be worrisome (not so much in California ...)

@abvmoose87 Год назад

@@samsung-ok4ki I’m not aware of any detailed specifications but if you check out any vids of joby im fairly certain theyve mentioned it several times, other than that it’s mentioned in the FAQ on their site. And it’s not some groundbreaking concept, multicopter/drone being able to compensate for 1 rotor not working, as I said, I thought that would be common knowledge now. If I had to guess i’d say it stays flyable with one rotor disabled. 2 rotor failures makes it possible to land in a controlled manner. Each rotor is driven by 2 separate engines.

@thesep1967 Год назад

And what's the remaining capacity of the battery after these 3 minutes? Fraud might be morally reprehensible, but then so many suckers are just asking to be shafted! Popular Mechanics 1954 edition revisited.

@CraigCholar Год назад

This brief hop was immediately after a long test flight, with no battery recharging involved. I didn't get video of the long test flight because I arrived at the airport just as the long flight was ending. I thought I wasn't going to video it in flight at all, but I got lucky by being in the right place to catch the test hop.

@deildegast Год назад

"And what's the remaining capacity of the battery after these 3 minutes?" Probably way higher than you would ever expect, but since you think its a fraud without even having the information, I guess its the same to you anyway.

@thesep1967 Год назад

@@deildegast "Probably" is rather not a usual category in the aviation industry ... And 'the information' could be common knowledge about energy density of current batteries and some basic math. With those tools even you would understand that this thing will not fly for long.

@deildegast Год назад

@@thesep1967 "aviation industry" If you work in that industry, in any meaningful engineering position, then I probably own a small country somewhere. Apparently flying 155 miles in one battery charge with a flight time of over an hour isn't possible according to you (or "not long"), funny enough they did that already.

@thesep1967 Год назад

@@deildegast So 'over an hour' is 'long' for you?? OMG, I get an idea what you think 8 inches look like ... But as to the 'one battery charge', hey, no problem, they can surely recharge in flight.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

The noise @ 440 feet from the microphone is WAY too high for any operation anywhere near where people live (and sleep ) --this will include ALL of suburbia as well as any inner city residential towers --additionally this is in ground effect (air cushion close to ground ) that lowers the power requirement and hence LESS noise than when it must lift out of ground effect and accelerate for forward flight -- TRANSITION is the most critical and high energy situation with potential blade stall and more noise . The salient question is simply "Will it wake people up ,or prevent getting to sleep within the normal building spacing radius ? That is - we do not find 880 foot diameter 'empty spaces' in either suburbia or in city centres -- even that unrealistic 'noise mitigation zone' is inadequate ,maybe 1000 or 1200 foot diameter would be in the 'tolerable' range but not guarantee not attracting a curfew during at least overnight and 'residential' hours during daylight . The problem of how to integrate the benefits of air mobility into the very places that people live and not destroy their amenity in the process IS soluble but definitley NOT by VTOL of any kind ( I have lived ON airports for a total of over five years --and next to an emergency use helipad (a dual use sports oval) with large (Dauphine/ Bell 212 etc ) helicopters coming over the roof at well under 100feet both landing and taking off --much lower disc loading than these VTOLs but still 'earth shattering' up close and underneath ) The solution is ATOL - Assisted Take Off and Landing -- just like the Wright brothers used and allowed them to get airborne at all on trivial power - or sailplanes that SILENTLY climb at 45 degree angles and 2000 feet a minute -- not the sluggish 'slow motion' behaviour of ALL VTOLS - with big mass but little EXCESS power -- no speedy turnaround is possible . Another example is the aircraft carrier ATOL -- seconds only to get flying or get down (but not as gentle as winch launching gliders--or flying a kite, same principle -keep the high launch power on the ground . The minimal 'infrastructure' to come and go from suburbia has been shown 80 years ago ,in vestgial form but valid principle, by Lt Brodie in WW2 --or even earlier by Bleriot and Curtiss --both using suspended cable systems although all these are NOT viable in their original form --only the CONCEPT is valid for personal air mobility and the 'real estate' to locate them is FREE being above existing ,minor, roads --neither interfering or endangering existing road traffic but allowing the other ESSENTIAL for viable personal mobility - roadability. I fear that the ill conceived eVTOL stampede --with Kitty Hawk just pulling out of it - will turn from a boom straight into a king size bust ,discreditting the vision of economic,ecological air travel on par with the automobile (Jetsons style ) not least because of dishonest hyping and too much hot money being thrown around at immature unrealistic and poorly engineered attempts. Until these hometruths are undeniable to the sponsors of this batch of hopefuls the real path to successful realization of 'the dream' will not be taken and may be ignored in the collapse -- the baby with the bathwater thing... The matter of impossible economics is already being pointed out by others -- the inherent inefficiency of VTOL with lethargic movement times and need for expensive infrastructure (and change over to road cars/taxis/Uber with parking and waiting rooms, charging and elevators to clear the pads etc ) works against any economy of scale or productivity , the Uber elevate figures required a ten X 'Berlin airlift" tempo using the least suitable air vehicles (the 'nippiness' of hand held quadcopters is totally unlike the scaled up copies - just as an elephant cannot move like a mouse - the inescapable square cube law at work. . I only hope that SOME good in air traffic management, perhaps some battery or motor technology and a few other spin offs might be of value if applied to a viable operational concept and design formula --having watched the NASA PAV, and Boeing sponsored GoFly fiascos, the EU "PPlane", SATS, and numerous others fizzle out ,as predicted, I hope that this current ill advised bandwagon does not crush the only real hope for success in it's inevitable roll over the cliffedge. At least I tried to stop or steer it away.

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

Apologies for the 'crossing out' - it is not intentional,cannot find out why it happens - using very second hand equipment on a shoestring budget ....

@deildegast Год назад

@@rossnolan7283 That happens when you -use minus signs- directly before and after -text-

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

@@deildegast Thanks for the clue , I'll check it out . for example - this should cause it - let's see ........

@deildegast Год назад

@@rossnolan7283 the minus signs have to touch the text, -like- this, not - like - this

@rossnolan7283 Год назад

Hmmm, didn't work that time - maybe it needs a longer run of text such as this - it is intermittent in any case and doesn't seem predictable , I use 'dashes' to indicate a break of thought or an aside before recommencing the sentence (less than a bracketed piece that might seek to elucidate an idea perhaps not clear ,like this...) - In any case does anyone consider that the actual noise of the Joby in hover (in ground effect) is in fact quite high ? Too high for allowing in suburban or residential areas ,sleep disturbance etc -. in practice 'vertiports' will need 'blow through' open mesh grids to prevent extreme downwash and horizontal outflow 'disturbing' passengers and other eVTOLS which will INCREASE the power,and noise, levels from loss of ground effect. (the power reduction effect when close to ground or any solid plane ) The aircraft is 'top heavy' and prone to blow over/tipping from the narrow landing gear already and relatively large wing and tail surfaces can 'catch the wind' when there is no aerodynamic control (differential thrust is of course available but just before lift off these devices are more like hovercraft with no 'weight' and susceptible to gusts ) BTW Deilde - how did you 'create' the strike outs in your post ? I put some 'minuses' in here to double test the thesis- see if it happens now....

@joereyes8835 Год назад

Nothing new here same old, same old just an helicopter with more blades and lots of noise.

@languso13 Год назад

ughh aesthetics suck, loud, unstable. I think im buying puts on this...

@neutrino78x Год назад

noise is airport noise. The aircraft is really quiet, only about 50 dB at 300 feet, quieter than a normal conversation. Look at their other videos :)

@williamstock3007 Год назад

It is probably the quietest aircraft out there, especially for a vertical take off vehicle

@neutrino78x Год назад

@@williamstock3007 indeed, on 60 Minutes, they did a story on eVTOL and Anderson Cooper saw the Joby takeoff and he said "that's it? That's really quiet." 🙂

@sthefreak2094 10 месяцев назад

@@neutrino78x agreed. people don't understand that iphone microphones scale with noise. if it's the only noise being picked up, it will overemphasize the noise.