168
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
168 points (87.8% liked)
Technology
58133 readers
4357 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
The airline had two more accidents because helicopters are just an oil leak surrounded by a million parts that want to fly apart
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.
7 people probably died in car accidents in the last hour, I guess cars are too dangerous to drive too.
Yes, but also yes.
Please explain to me how this type of aircraft is any more vulnerable to crashing or pilot error than any other.
Are we talking about eVTOL aviation technology in general or this specific airframe and idea? I'm not claiming this specific design is good or the use case is where we should be spending our R&D time on this tech.
What I am saying is that 90% of the responses in here amount to "this is dumb because rich people will use it, build trains." If that's the best we can't expect from the dedicated technology community on this website it's going to go nowhere fast.
Get outta here with all your common sense making, hater.