• Semi-Hemi-Demigod
    link
    fedilink
    251 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

      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.

      • R0cket_M00se
        link
        English
        -81 year ago

        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.

          • R0cket_M00se
            link
            English
            -31 year ago

            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?

              • R0cket_M00se
                link
                English
                -3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

    • @Alexstarfire
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      All the airports I can think of have people living near them. Several are inside major cities.

      Airports are quite large though.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        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.

    • R0cket_M00se
      link
      English
      -31 year ago

      It was mostly a noise/airspace crowding concern, helicopters fly in cities all the time and plenty of roofs have active helipads.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        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

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            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.

        • R0cket_M00se
          link
          English
          -21 year ago

          7 people probably died in car accidents in the last hour, I guess cars are too dangerous to drive too.

            • R0cket_M00se
              link
              English
              -21 year ago

              Please explain to me how this type of aircraft is any more vulnerable to crashing or pilot error than any other.

                • R0cket_M00se
                  link
                  English
                  -11 year ago

                  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.