Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Electric planes

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

We have submitted data to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) – the World Air Sports Federation who control and certify world aeronautical and astronautical records – that at 15:45 (GMT) on 16 November 2021, the aircraft reached a top speed of 555.9 km/h (345.4 mph) over 3 kilometres, smashing the existing record by 213.04 km/h (132mph). In further runs at the UK Ministry of Defence’s Boscombe Down experimental aircraft testing site, the aircraft achieved 532.1km/h (330 mph) over 15 kilometres – 292.8km/h (182mph) faster than the previous record – and broke the fastest time to climb to 3000 metres by 60 seconds with a time of 202 seconds, according to our data.
 
Not sure when they will finally come. I think these news with Joby pretty much signaling eVTOL will be here this decade. My guess starting the later half of the decade
 
I think Boring Company Tunnels should handle city trips, some short-haul trips; possibly Starship long haul (though mildly terrifying prospect, I'd like to understand the forces on a person).

It's medium haul across seas that interests me most (initially cargo, later passengers). Take off is where the power is used, cruising at high altitude (low air pressure, air resistance, no worries about getting enough oxygen for engines), so medium haul, probably a small frontal area, long body or bullet shaped form rather than wide bodied should be a sweet spot.

I don't see much work being done on this area. Any info I've missed? I'm guessing it's just too capital intensive, too much R&D. I can't see current airliner makers investing until forced (Elon?). Certainly NOT Boeing. Maybe China?

Maybe the best one I've seen is Home | Wright Electric who plan to fly converted BAE 146 with Aluminium Air Battery/Fuel Cell in 2026, maybe for EasyJet (promo material/wikipedia not clear). Aluminium has to recycled at a smelter - so a cartridge system (maybe pellets) would be used.

Aluminium Air Chemisty | metalectrique people have got to 1350 Wh/kg (maybe more now), Wright expect to get to 2000 Wh/kg.

I've no idea of economics but this does seem like an avenue to pursue. Any more info appreciated.
 
I think Boring Company Tunnels should handle city trips, some short-haul trips; possibly Starship long haul (though mildly terrifying prospect, I'd like to understand the forces on a person).

It's medium haul across seas that interests me most (initially cargo, later passengers). Take off is where the power is used, cruising at high altitude (low air pressure, air resistance, no worries about getting enough oxygen for engines), so medium haul, probably a small frontal area, long body or bullet shaped form rather than wide bodied should be a sweet spot.

I don't see much work being done on this area. Any info I've missed? I'm guessing it's just too capital intensive, too much R&D. I can't see current airliner makers investing until forced (Elon?). Certainly NOT Boeing. Maybe China?

Maybe the best one I've seen is Home | Wright Electric who plan to fly converted BAE 146 with Aluminium Air Battery/Fuel Cell in 2026, maybe for EasyJet (promo material/wikipedia not clear). Aluminium has to recycled at a smelter - so a cartridge system (maybe pellets) would be used.

Aluminium Air Chemisty | metalectrique people have got to 1350 Wh/kg (maybe more now), Wright expect to get to 2000 Wh/kg.

I've no idea of economics but this does seem like an avenue to pursue. Any more info appreciated.
I can recommend starter texts in economics and in aerodynamics, probably aero first.

There's a reason widebodies exist. In fact Starship is quite, er, chubby.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Brando
I can recommend starter texts in economics and in aerodynamics, probably aero first.

There's a reason widebodies exist. In fact Starship is quite, er, chubby.
I think Boring Company Tunnels should handle city trips, some short-haul trips; possibly Starship long haul (though mildly terrifying prospect, I'd like to understand the forces on a person).

It's medium haul across seas that interests me most (initially cargo, later passengers). Take off is where the power is used, cruising at high altitude (low air pressure, air resistance, no worries about getting enough oxygen for engines), so medium haul, probably a small frontal area, long body or bullet shaped form rather than wide bodied should be a sweet spot.

I don't see much work being done on this area. Any info I've missed? I'm guessing it's just too capital intensive, too much R&D. I can't see current airliner makers investing until forced (Elon?). Certainly NOT Boeing. Maybe China?

Maybe the best one I've seen is Home | Wright Electric who plan to fly converted BAE 146 with Aluminium Air Battery/Fuel Cell in 2026, maybe for EasyJet (promo material/wikipedia not clear). Aluminium has to recycled at a smelter - so a cartridge system (maybe pellets) would be used.

Aluminium Air Chemisty | metalectrique people have got to 1350 Wh/kg (maybe more now), Wright expect to get to 2000 Wh/kg.

I've no idea of economics but this does seem like an avenue to pursue. Any more info appreciated.
R&D do takes a long time. But the certification process would probably take just as much. They will have to go thru the certification process for every country. I assume that certification process would take at least 2 years for the company that is most advanced in the process. Then there is the manufacturing process. At least this will bring it to the mid decade before we see a limited offering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petit_bateau
Not sure when they will finally come. I think these news with Joby pretty much signaling eVTOL will be here this decade. My guess starting the later half of the decade

"Ride sharing" implies private vehicle owners operating as de facto taxis. The first article uses the term "ride-sharing" but describes what would surely be an air taxi service, not a ride-sharing service. The real question is "Can the Joby eVTOL compete with commercial helicopter service?" You can charter a helicopter today. If Joby is more expensive, it will fail.

Some of us (me included) would take a ride in this thing just for the experience. If the price is reasonable. But the larger transportation market won't care that it's electric. Electric motors are simpler and more reliable than combustion engines. But batteries are much more expensive and much heavier than fuel tanks. Which will turn out to be more important I will not venture to guess. I hope electric wins. But it has big hurdles to overcome.
 
"Ride sharing" implies private vehicle owners operating as de facto taxis. The first article uses the term "ride-sharing" but describes what would surely be an air taxi service, not a ride-sharing service. The real question is "Can the Joby eVTOL compete with commercial helicopter service?" You can charter a helicopter today. If Joby is more expensive, it will fail.

Some of us (me included) would take a ride in this thing just for the experience. If the price is reasonable. But the larger transportation market won't care that it's electric. Electric motors are simpler and more reliable than combustion engines. But batteries are much more expensive and much heavier than fuel tanks. Which will turn out to be more important I will not venture to guess. I hope electric wins. But it has big hurdles to overcome.
eVTOL is designed to be quieter and safer than helicopters. In a way, helicopters design are dated and a replacement is due. The air industry are betting on eVTOL to be its replacements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brando
"Ride sharing" implies private vehicle owners operating as de facto taxis. The first article uses the term "ride-sharing" but describes what would surely be an air taxi service, not a ride-sharing service. The real question is "Can the Joby eVTOL compete with commercial helicopter service?" You can charter a helicopter today. If Joby is more expensive, it will fail.

Some of us (me included) would take a ride in this thing just for the experience. If the price is reasonable. But the larger transportation market won't care that it's electric. Electric motors are simpler and more reliable than combustion engines. But batteries are much more expensive and much heavier than fuel tanks. Which will turn out to be more important I will not venture to guess. I hope electric wins. But it has big hurdles to overcome.

To me ride-sharing implies people sharing a taxi. That is, it comes from "taxi ride" rather than "my ride".
To me, car pooling is sharing of a private car.

The "sharing economy" and autonomy together blur the lines in a positive way that I think would destroy large parts of the private vehicle market in a way that mass transit, taxis, car pooling and rental never could.

The required combination of improvements to batteries necessary for aviation is likely to happen without researchers and engineers targeting aviation.
It'll take a number of years until it starts breaking into niche applications, and then nibble away from there.

I think the eVTOL idea could have a fundamental problem with noise. Their success implies wider success for electric transportation that is likely to lower noise in cities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyFloyd
To me ride-sharing implies people sharing a taxi. That is, it comes from "taxi ride" rather than "my ride".
To me, car pooling is sharing of a private car.

The "sharing economy" and autonomy together blur the lines in a positive way that I think would destroy large parts of the private vehicle market in a way that mass transit, taxis, car pooling and rental never could.

The required combination of improvements to batteries necessary for aviation is likely to happen without researchers and engineers targeting aviation.
It'll take a number of years until it starts breaking into niche applications, and then nibble away from there.

I think the eVTOL idea could have a fundamental problem with noise. Their success implies wider success for electric transportation that is likely to lower noise in cities.

I agree that "ride sharing" sounds like it should mean car-pooling or sharing a taxi, but Uber and Lyft use the term "ride sharing" to mean a type of taxi service where private car owners operate unlicensed taxis and are treated as customers of the platform rather than as employees. Thus "ride sharing" has come to mean what Lyft and Uber do. "Car pooling" is used to refer to people who get together to ride in one car to a common destination, as opposed to someone paid to drive others where they want to go.

Don't forget that VTOL exists today and is a healthy and thriving market. From the point of view of the market the only novelty of eVTOL will be if it can operate more cheaply, and possibly quieter.

Also, airspace is far more complicated to navigate than surface transportation. Cars have roads with traffic signs and easy-to-understand rules. Cars do not need a coordinated service to prevent crashes. They just need drivers who are not idiots and will obey the signs and rules. There is far less capacity for air traffic than for ground traffic, and far greater need for safety regulation. If a car dies, it just sits there. If an aircraft dies, it falls out of the sky, and if it's normally operating in cities it likely falls on somebody's house.

Bottom line: We'll never have the same market volume of aircraft as we have for cars.

I expect that eVTOLs will come. I do not think they'll make a big difference in transportation for most people.
 
I agree that "ride sharing" sounds like it should mean car-pooling or sharing a taxi, but Uber and Lyft use the term "ride sharing" to mean a type of taxi service where private car owners operate unlicensed taxis and are treated as customers of the platform rather than as employees. Thus "ride sharing" has come to mean what Lyft and Uber do. "Car pooling" is used to refer to people who get together to ride in one car to a common destination, as opposed to someone paid to drive others where they want to go.

Don't forget that VTOL exists today and is a healthy and thriving market. From the point of view of the market the only novelty of eVTOL will be if it can operate more cheaply, and possibly quieter.

Also, airspace is far more complicated to navigate than surface transportation. Cars have roads with traffic signs and easy-to-understand rules. Cars do not need a coordinated service to prevent crashes. They just need drivers who are not idiots and will obey the signs and rules. There is far less capacity for air traffic than for ground traffic, and far greater need for safety regulation. If a car dies, it just sits there. If an aircraft dies, it falls out of the sky, and if it's normally operating in cities it likely falls on somebody's house.

Bottom line: We'll never have the same market volume of aircraft as we have for cars.

I expect that eVTOLs will come. I do not think they'll make a big difference in transportation for most people.
I agree eVTOL will not have the volume as much as surface transportation or tunnel transportation in urban settings. Even if made cheap and operate cheap enough, it will be highly tax so that it will be limited for the rich. Air space regulations will be pretty much limit its usage.
 
I agree eVTOL will not have the volume as much as surface transportation or tunnel transportation in urban settings. Even if made cheap and operate cheap enough, it will be highly tax so that it will be limited for the rich. Air space regulations will be pretty much limit its usage.

I don't think it will be taxed any more than any other commercial activity. Again, the analogy is helicopters. They are expensive, not because of taxes, but because they cost a lot to build and maintain. And there are (for very good reasons!) regulations around operation and maintenance. Very rich people use helicopters, and businesses operate helicopters for tourism, access to hard-to-reach locations, and medivac. They're also use for firefighting.

eVTOLs will compete in the same space. If they are cheaper to build and operate than helicopters they'll succeed. If not they'll just be a novelty. Regulations will limit where and now they can be used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petit_bateau
P.S. Multi-copters might be easier to fly than helicopters, and that could open the door to hobbyists, but would not change the economics, and could actually make them more dangerous, as pilots undergo very rigorous training which includes safety. Hobbyists, if they're permitted to operate aircraft, will probably be more reckless, endangering themselves and others. In the U.S. and many (most? all?) other countries, competence is not among the requirements to get a driver's license. If it becomes as easy to get an eVTOL license as it is to get a driver's license, we'll all have to reinforce the roofs of our homes with steel girders.

I'll vote against allowing them to operate in my city.
 
P.S. Multi-copters might be easier to fly than helicopters, and that could open the door to hobbyists, but would not change the economics, and could actually make them more dangerous, as pilots undergo very rigorous training which includes safety. Hobbyists, if they're permitted to operate aircraft, will probably be more reckless, endangering themselves and others. In the U.S. and many (most? all?) other countries, competence is not among the requirements to get a driver's license. If it becomes as easy to get an eVTOL license as it is to get a driver's license, we'll all have to reinforce the roofs of our homes with steel girders.

I'll vote against allowing them to operate in my city.
Given the rules and tests you need to pass in order fly a drone, I don't see this as being a particular problem.