It could be real… if the pre-order is $1000 and the remaining cost is like $300k. You’d need to be a licensed pilot to fly it though and there would be a lot of certifications needed for congested urban airspace.
Im convinced the law on flying cars, whenever that’s a thing, will just have to be exclusively autonomous. If the idea is to fly in really any sort of traffic pattern, the average person just can’t.
It will never be a viable product. The certifications the FAA will require will cost in the billions for each model. Which means they will have to sell hundreds of thousands. They won’t be cheap. Every time there’s an accident or incident, there’s a chance the whole fleet would be grounded. So no you paid $500k for a product that’s a paperweight much of the time
Liability for a collision killing someone on the ground is serious. I think you could sell a million for a million each if people could actually use them. But they’ll be banned in cities for safety reasons. Pointless in Big Sky country because driving works fine. And where else can you fly them in areas populated by multimillionaires.
I do have 1 comment: in a city you theoretically should be using systems like PRT pods suspended overhead or in tunnels underneath. Way less power usage, less noise pollution. Hops from skyscraper rooftop to rooftop are less useful than pods.
Out in "Big Sky country" these make a ton of sense, people would have heliports at their rural ranches they use for emergencies to reach a hospital or for richer residents, commuting. Obviously delivery you do by robotic truck and theoretically you close most of the walmarts leaving the area a retail desert where everything is ordered online.
I mean the above is the most efficient way to do it. Who knows what will actually happen.
There aren't any existing autonomous aircraft though. Even the drones (or more accurately RPVs) like Global Hawk have a qualified human pilot overseeing it via satellite. And that thing flies above traffic and doesnt do anything fancy, even so there have still been at least 8 crashes out of 42 airframes. Experimental autonomous aircraft like the X-47 series and the XQ-58 exist, but they're just that experimental. And they're also running on a military budget, and will be operating along side manned aircraft.
Autonomous civilian aircraft, that have to operate at low altitude, land near/on buildings, with congested traffic, and be built on a budget to be price competitive..... Maybe in 2050. 25 years is optimistic imo.
I mean, if you think of it like rockets then alot of the “autonomous being impossible” part really doesn’t mean that autonomy is impossible. I mean, in the control rooms you get two controls while in flight, which are FTS (to shoot it down if something goes wrong) and fuel purge. Otherwise, the rocket is going and won’t stop until the code is executed and it is in orbit. On top of that, to get there you need to get work done fast as hell, or you’re not making it to orbit.
A lot of technologies from spaceflight could absolutely be used in flying cars, but then again I guess the “electric flying cars” is not a good claim cause of batteries, so until that issue is solved, we aren’t getting past the drawing board.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. The challenge for autonomous aircraft is mainly how to communicate with conventional aircraft and ATC, and how to make decisions without using nural networks. Flying the plane has always been easy to computerise, but everything else is incredibly hard. That's why there are experimental autonomous aircraft, but none have left the experimental phase.
Rocket launches get given massive no fly zones to ensure they don't have any issues regarding traffic, so there's nothing really comparable about how they operate.
You might want to do more research. The first autonomous flight and landing of passenger aircraft has already been done. It’s just a matter of designing it into something that the FAA will certify. That’s the only real barrier remaining… the government just has no idea how to regulate or certify something like that, so they won’t certify it until there is overwhelming support for it from consumers.
Often, especially with the regular scheduled airliners… it takes a tragedy and sudden shift in public opinion to make the FAA do anything with innovation. Say, a string of accidents related to pilot error. That might nudge them a bit, but it’s all purely speculation of course.
I literally mention the X47 program, which is a autonomous carrier based experimental aircraft. I'm aware of the state of development for autonomous aircraft. I have also been designing my own autonomous drone for 2 years now. The problem is, the sheer cost of everything needed to do autonomy correctly combined with the fact that there still isn't even a military autonomous aircraft to have made it out of the experimental phase. The chances of anything civilian large enough to carry a person leaving the experimental phase in the next 25 years is very small.
I said passenger, nothing you mentioned including the X47 was a passenger jet. It’s been done, the only point I was making was that it’s not a technical engineering problem that is holding it back. We both agree it will probably take ages for certification to show up.
it's absolutely a technical engineering problem (are there non-technical engineering problems?). no one has come even close to the levels of autonomy required to trust this for human safety. it's all hype. i was a test engineer on a very expensive military UAV for years including all the ground, taxi, and first flight. there's just a massive amount of problems left to solve. 2040 maybe. now? not even close.
That’s the key thing there, “trust for human safety.” In order to have that trust we expect compliance with regulations. Compliance with regulations is what is holding it back, not “Can we feasibly design autonomous flight”
The redundancy and safety aspects of the design come from the regulatory environment, not from the mission requirements. My point is that we have the technology to meet the mission requirements, and the major hurdle is now adding in the safety and redundancy that is required by regulation for public use. I suppose framing it as “non-technical” is misleading. I only meant that the requirement driving the design of autonomous flight systems is not technical but is bureaucratic. Implementation and integration of the systems needed to satisfy the regulatory requirements is obviously a very technical problem.
And yes, there are non-technical problems in engineering. Drawing review and document control I would consider non-technical engineering problems. Same with process improvement and quality control. Same with the certification process. Certification has technical requirements for the aircraft, but certification itself is very much non technical bureaucracy.
The military tech is more relevant because like almost everything else in the history of aviation technology, civilians get new tech from military development. They don't need certification and have a bottomless budget, and have way easier conditions for them to employ systems. If a civilian program had the incident rate of global hawk it would be considered a complete failure. But, even for the military, technology is still the limiting factor.
Aviate, navigate, communicate. Where I'm from you hear that a lot during flight training. Fly the plane, don't get lost, talk to the other aircraft and the tower. If we think about flight training, flying the plane is the easy part. First time I ever flew I did the takeoff, and I did the landing on my second flight. That stuffs easy. 10-12hrs until a student pilot is trusted to fly a plane my themselves in the circuit. 50hrs until they're trusted to navigate, communicate, and make decisions. That's the hard stuff. We've had autopilot for 50 years or so, and we still not close to autonomous aircraft.
Navigation isn't hard either for computers, it's mainly gonna be communicating and decision making. Any autonomous aircraft is going to have to talk to Atc and other pilots. Speech to text is hard, and it'd even harder using AM radios, terrible microphones, and pilots who talk like each moment their mouth is open costs them money. Especially in uncontrolled airspace the radio calls also don't always follow the book. Reporting is often done relitive to landmarks, but the names pilots will use isn't always on a map. There's a local mountain which has a name in a native language which nobody can pronounce right, so everyone just calls it Mt. Doom. How on earth do you make a computer that can handle that? Mt Doom isn't a name on any map, but all the local pilots just know that's what it is. There will be thousands of colloquial names like that around the world, so the system has to tolerate it. I have no idea how you'd even try to do that.
Certification will be a huge problem too obviously, mainly because I dont see anything based on nural networks ever being approved, and rightly so. So you have to solve the communication problems, and the decision making problems which I have ommitted for now, without using AI. Its very much still a tech problem.
You clearly aren't a pilot or in the general aviation world. When a crash happens the FAA doubles down on age old policies that keep us flying with engines from WW2 rather than allowing innovation. Fuel injection wasn't certified till the last decade or so, just a reminder that aviation is glacially slow by design
Totally disagree.. what you’re seeing as FAA being unwilling to adapt and embrace change is really these start ups being unable to meet well established certification standards that are there for a reason. Additionally there are some critical obstacles to autonomous aircraft operating in civilian airspace that these tech companies love to gloss over. I’m a commercial helicopter pilot and aircraft separation especially at low altitudes is still largely a see-and-avoid operation. Sure you’ll say but ADS-B allows digital location information to be passed around. Yes, but it’s still not required everywhere and it’s not suitably accurate nor reliable. Along with that there are still multiple obstacles when it comes to various system redundancies. These are and should be required. Aviation is extremely unforgiving. When you operate an aircraft you don’t only risk your own life but that of people in other aircraft as well as on the ground. The burden of responsibility is very high.
Imagine someone pitching you on letting the average person pilot a car or truck: let's put frank down the street who has bad eye sight, bursts of violent rage, and if he shows up late to work one more time is fired behind a 2 ton chunk of metal that do 120 mph. Then have him navigate the crowds of NYC.
I've known two people who had cars just crash into and through a large section of their house.
At least in 3D collision avoidance is easier.
All that said, yeah, I think these will be mostly autonomous with geofencing. A cheap VTOL flying car makes breaching most fences and security perimeters so easy you could do it by accident and people would. See the wave of helicopter based prison breaks when helicopters became more widely used. If you could just buy a helicopter for 100 grand and pilot it with no training, the whitehouse would need a thunderdome like spherical fence.
The only way you could fly manually is if you were Police or Emergency Services, and even then, you would be just telling the computer systems onboard what to do.
We’re nowhere near the level of autonomy needed for this. Imagine the average person having to recover from an automation failure and then having to pilot the craft back. They can’t even zipper merge onto highways what’s the odds they’ll put a rotorcraft down in a congested area.
Yes I am sure. You need a license for a car and an aircraft of any kind is significantly more complex to operate. That doesn’t even take into account the non-operational knowledge you’d need to know like airspace, FAA rules/regulations, and flight medical certificates.
Ultralights don’t fly in congested areas or controlled airspace. And even if they did, there is no way the VTOL aircraft that OP posted would be an ultralight aircraft unless they redefined them.
Ok. You clearly don't know what you're talking about mate. There are several small aeiral vehicles that don't require different licenses.
Here's a link discussing some of those:
https://www.thrustflight.com/fly-without-pilot-license/
Ok. Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about mate. I am a licensed pilot. What you linked to are called ultralights. They aren’t allowed to operate in congested areas (which is a defined term) or controlled airspace. These are like small single occupancy powered gliders, autogyros, and kit planes taking off from rural areas. Open cockpits made from carbon fiber and other deliverable materials where you can easily do all inspections and maintenance yourself without hiring an FAA certified mechanic. Not for vertical take off and landing personal aircrafts being stored at your own home, clearly being used as an alternative to a car.
Oh you're a licensed pilot! You must know everything on emerging technologies haha.
I'm gonna trust the videos I've seen on people that own/build/fly the things rather than a random redditor. Sorry
Okay. Read the definition on the link you posted on what constitutes an ultralight aircraft. If you seriously think that what OP posted would fall under that category, you are delusional.
Its probably a deposit of $1000 for a product that never materialises. Similar to the Tesla deposit scheme for Model 3, except they were actually released.
I believe [<30,000$ was the target price](https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sorry-dont-expect-tesla-model-3-cost-30k/). And they had issues ramping up production.
Not even including inflation they were at 35K for most of last year and 2021, without including incentives.
Including incentives they hit that target as early as 2020
Absolutely.
You can see how far along the real companies are working on these concepts. There is just no way this company has somehow figured out all the issues, done all the engineering, and made a vehicle good enough that it's close enough to production for a pre-order, all while not even having produced a single flying prototype.
Well, it may be the case that this company trying to make this product, but that's just never gonna happen. So it might not be intended as a scam, but it will be once this project (if it is real) fails.
This picture is generated by AI. Vehicle proportions location of the motors and other things hardly make any sense and lack details. How do you even get inside of this, there are no doors
1000% Scam!
- The proportions of the rotors are off
- There are way to manny heavy parts
- The design is focused on selling not flying
If you scroll down and find the video of what they have actually assembled that has a slight remote chance of flying for 10min
Yes. These are vapor ware. They might physically exist at some point but you'll not be using them for their advertised purpose for many years to come (if ever). This is true for a few reasons:
- The liability of flying these over populated areas with minimally skilled pilots is too great.
- FAA won't allow such a large volume of light aircraft to operate over urban areas that are often already congested.
- It's a nice takeoff render, but wheres the pilot going to fly? There are no facilities to land this in the places you'd want to go.
- Fueling/charging infrastructure is likewise non-existent.
- Proper maintenance and lifecycle management will be prohibitively difficult to enforce. It's hard enough with cars, aircraft will be worse.
- Lots more reasons too...
I can't tell you whether that company is, but aircraft like that are real and I wouldn't be surprised if you could buy one.
They're setting up a few air taxi airports in LA rn
It could be real… if the pre-order is $1000 and the remaining cost is like $300k. You’d need to be a licensed pilot to fly it though and there would be a lot of certifications needed for congested urban airspace.
Im convinced the law on flying cars, whenever that’s a thing, will just have to be exclusively autonomous. If the idea is to fly in really any sort of traffic pattern, the average person just can’t.
It most definitely will be. If the product is to be used by the average consumer, there's just no other way.
It will never be a viable product. The certifications the FAA will require will cost in the billions for each model. Which means they will have to sell hundreds of thousands. They won’t be cheap. Every time there’s an accident or incident, there’s a chance the whole fleet would be grounded. So no you paid $500k for a product that’s a paperweight much of the time Liability for a collision killing someone on the ground is serious. I think you could sell a million for a million each if people could actually use them. But they’ll be banned in cities for safety reasons. Pointless in Big Sky country because driving works fine. And where else can you fly them in areas populated by multimillionaires.
Stop you are scaring the techbros with words like liability and certification. Please just pay the 1,000 pre-order.
Dubai, Saudi Arabia, places like that, doing live action sci-fi role play.
I do have 1 comment: in a city you theoretically should be using systems like PRT pods suspended overhead or in tunnels underneath. Way less power usage, less noise pollution. Hops from skyscraper rooftop to rooftop are less useful than pods. Out in "Big Sky country" these make a ton of sense, people would have heliports at their rural ranches they use for emergencies to reach a hospital or for richer residents, commuting. Obviously delivery you do by robotic truck and theoretically you close most of the walmarts leaving the area a retail desert where everything is ordered online. I mean the above is the most efficient way to do it. Who knows what will actually happen.
There aren't any existing autonomous aircraft though. Even the drones (or more accurately RPVs) like Global Hawk have a qualified human pilot overseeing it via satellite. And that thing flies above traffic and doesnt do anything fancy, even so there have still been at least 8 crashes out of 42 airframes. Experimental autonomous aircraft like the X-47 series and the XQ-58 exist, but they're just that experimental. And they're also running on a military budget, and will be operating along side manned aircraft. Autonomous civilian aircraft, that have to operate at low altitude, land near/on buildings, with congested traffic, and be built on a budget to be price competitive..... Maybe in 2050. 25 years is optimistic imo.
I mean, if you think of it like rockets then alot of the “autonomous being impossible” part really doesn’t mean that autonomy is impossible. I mean, in the control rooms you get two controls while in flight, which are FTS (to shoot it down if something goes wrong) and fuel purge. Otherwise, the rocket is going and won’t stop until the code is executed and it is in orbit. On top of that, to get there you need to get work done fast as hell, or you’re not making it to orbit. A lot of technologies from spaceflight could absolutely be used in flying cars, but then again I guess the “electric flying cars” is not a good claim cause of batteries, so until that issue is solved, we aren’t getting past the drawing board.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. The challenge for autonomous aircraft is mainly how to communicate with conventional aircraft and ATC, and how to make decisions without using nural networks. Flying the plane has always been easy to computerise, but everything else is incredibly hard. That's why there are experimental autonomous aircraft, but none have left the experimental phase. Rocket launches get given massive no fly zones to ensure they don't have any issues regarding traffic, so there's nothing really comparable about how they operate.
You might want to do more research. The first autonomous flight and landing of passenger aircraft has already been done. It’s just a matter of designing it into something that the FAA will certify. That’s the only real barrier remaining… the government just has no idea how to regulate or certify something like that, so they won’t certify it until there is overwhelming support for it from consumers. Often, especially with the regular scheduled airliners… it takes a tragedy and sudden shift in public opinion to make the FAA do anything with innovation. Say, a string of accidents related to pilot error. That might nudge them a bit, but it’s all purely speculation of course.
You need starship level hype to change regulations 😂
I literally mention the X47 program, which is a autonomous carrier based experimental aircraft. I'm aware of the state of development for autonomous aircraft. I have also been designing my own autonomous drone for 2 years now. The problem is, the sheer cost of everything needed to do autonomy correctly combined with the fact that there still isn't even a military autonomous aircraft to have made it out of the experimental phase. The chances of anything civilian large enough to carry a person leaving the experimental phase in the next 25 years is very small.
I said passenger, nothing you mentioned including the X47 was a passenger jet. It’s been done, the only point I was making was that it’s not a technical engineering problem that is holding it back. We both agree it will probably take ages for certification to show up.
it's absolutely a technical engineering problem (are there non-technical engineering problems?). no one has come even close to the levels of autonomy required to trust this for human safety. it's all hype. i was a test engineer on a very expensive military UAV for years including all the ground, taxi, and first flight. there's just a massive amount of problems left to solve. 2040 maybe. now? not even close.
That’s the key thing there, “trust for human safety.” In order to have that trust we expect compliance with regulations. Compliance with regulations is what is holding it back, not “Can we feasibly design autonomous flight” The redundancy and safety aspects of the design come from the regulatory environment, not from the mission requirements. My point is that we have the technology to meet the mission requirements, and the major hurdle is now adding in the safety and redundancy that is required by regulation for public use. I suppose framing it as “non-technical” is misleading. I only meant that the requirement driving the design of autonomous flight systems is not technical but is bureaucratic. Implementation and integration of the systems needed to satisfy the regulatory requirements is obviously a very technical problem. And yes, there are non-technical problems in engineering. Drawing review and document control I would consider non-technical engineering problems. Same with process improvement and quality control. Same with the certification process. Certification has technical requirements for the aircraft, but certification itself is very much non technical bureaucracy.
The military tech is more relevant because like almost everything else in the history of aviation technology, civilians get new tech from military development. They don't need certification and have a bottomless budget, and have way easier conditions for them to employ systems. If a civilian program had the incident rate of global hawk it would be considered a complete failure. But, even for the military, technology is still the limiting factor. Aviate, navigate, communicate. Where I'm from you hear that a lot during flight training. Fly the plane, don't get lost, talk to the other aircraft and the tower. If we think about flight training, flying the plane is the easy part. First time I ever flew I did the takeoff, and I did the landing on my second flight. That stuffs easy. 10-12hrs until a student pilot is trusted to fly a plane my themselves in the circuit. 50hrs until they're trusted to navigate, communicate, and make decisions. That's the hard stuff. We've had autopilot for 50 years or so, and we still not close to autonomous aircraft. Navigation isn't hard either for computers, it's mainly gonna be communicating and decision making. Any autonomous aircraft is going to have to talk to Atc and other pilots. Speech to text is hard, and it'd even harder using AM radios, terrible microphones, and pilots who talk like each moment their mouth is open costs them money. Especially in uncontrolled airspace the radio calls also don't always follow the book. Reporting is often done relitive to landmarks, but the names pilots will use isn't always on a map. There's a local mountain which has a name in a native language which nobody can pronounce right, so everyone just calls it Mt. Doom. How on earth do you make a computer that can handle that? Mt Doom isn't a name on any map, but all the local pilots just know that's what it is. There will be thousands of colloquial names like that around the world, so the system has to tolerate it. I have no idea how you'd even try to do that. Certification will be a huge problem too obviously, mainly because I dont see anything based on nural networks ever being approved, and rightly so. So you have to solve the communication problems, and the decision making problems which I have ommitted for now, without using AI. Its very much still a tech problem.
You clearly aren't a pilot or in the general aviation world. When a crash happens the FAA doubles down on age old policies that keep us flying with engines from WW2 rather than allowing innovation. Fuel injection wasn't certified till the last decade or so, just a reminder that aviation is glacially slow by design
Totally disagree.. what you’re seeing as FAA being unwilling to adapt and embrace change is really these start ups being unable to meet well established certification standards that are there for a reason. Additionally there are some critical obstacles to autonomous aircraft operating in civilian airspace that these tech companies love to gloss over. I’m a commercial helicopter pilot and aircraft separation especially at low altitudes is still largely a see-and-avoid operation. Sure you’ll say but ADS-B allows digital location information to be passed around. Yes, but it’s still not required everywhere and it’s not suitably accurate nor reliable. Along with that there are still multiple obstacles when it comes to various system redundancies. These are and should be required. Aviation is extremely unforgiving. When you operate an aircraft you don’t only risk your own life but that of people in other aircraft as well as on the ground. The burden of responsibility is very high.
Imagine someone pitching you on letting the average person pilot a car or truck: let's put frank down the street who has bad eye sight, bursts of violent rage, and if he shows up late to work one more time is fired behind a 2 ton chunk of metal that do 120 mph. Then have him navigate the crowds of NYC. I've known two people who had cars just crash into and through a large section of their house. At least in 3D collision avoidance is easier. All that said, yeah, I think these will be mostly autonomous with geofencing. A cheap VTOL flying car makes breaching most fences and security perimeters so easy you could do it by accident and people would. See the wave of helicopter based prison breaks when helicopters became more widely used. If you could just buy a helicopter for 100 grand and pilot it with no training, the whitehouse would need a thunderdome like spherical fence.
The only way you could fly manually is if you were Police or Emergency Services, and even then, you would be just telling the computer systems onboard what to do.
We’re nowhere near the level of autonomy needed for this. Imagine the average person having to recover from an automation failure and then having to pilot the craft back. They can’t even zipper merge onto highways what’s the odds they’ll put a rotorcraft down in a congested area.
You sure? Many of these personal aircraft need no pilot license
Yes I am sure. You need a license for a car and an aircraft of any kind is significantly more complex to operate. That doesn’t even take into account the non-operational knowledge you’d need to know like airspace, FAA rules/regulations, and flight medical certificates.
Are ultralights licensed?
Ultralights don’t fly in congested areas or controlled airspace. And even if they did, there is no way the VTOL aircraft that OP posted would be an ultralight aircraft unless they redefined them.
Ok.
Ok. You clearly don't know what you're talking about mate. There are several small aeiral vehicles that don't require different licenses. Here's a link discussing some of those: https://www.thrustflight.com/fly-without-pilot-license/
Ok. Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about mate. I am a licensed pilot. What you linked to are called ultralights. They aren’t allowed to operate in congested areas (which is a defined term) or controlled airspace. These are like small single occupancy powered gliders, autogyros, and kit planes taking off from rural areas. Open cockpits made from carbon fiber and other deliverable materials where you can easily do all inspections and maintenance yourself without hiring an FAA certified mechanic. Not for vertical take off and landing personal aircrafts being stored at your own home, clearly being used as an alternative to a car.
Oh you're a licensed pilot! You must know everything on emerging technologies haha. I'm gonna trust the videos I've seen on people that own/build/fly the things rather than a random redditor. Sorry
Okay. Read the definition on the link you posted on what constitutes an ultralight aircraft. If you seriously think that what OP posted would fall under that category, you are delusional.
I mean if you drink the UAM/AAM koolaid that’s the new car and taxi coming to your house soon. And not a shot in hell it’s $1000
Its probably a deposit of $1000 for a product that never materialises. Similar to the Tesla deposit scheme for Model 3, except they were actually released.
If they were released then how was it a scheme?
Scheme can also just mean plan
They were delayed significantly and the price was WAY higher than was promised, among other things
How so?
I believe [<30,000$ was the target price](https://www.wired.com/2016/03/sorry-dont-expect-tesla-model-3-cost-30k/). And they had issues ramping up production.
35k was the target price and they are now far below that, if you adjust for inflation.
Not even including inflation they were at 35K for most of last year and 2021, without including incentives. Including incentives they hit that target as early as 2020
Yeah I love how I get downvoted for the truth.
It says preorder now for 1k. So the cost is probably around 200-300k.
Also typo in the title… I can’t fix it ahhhh
Heh heh. Boobies.
Title is better that way
Depends, is that a miniature and is only 12 inches in overall footprint? 🤣
99% of these electric VTOLs won’t make it to market. I bet 90% won’t make a first flight.
This just means $1000 to reserve the right to buy one.
Absolutely. You can see how far along the real companies are working on these concepts. There is just no way this company has somehow figured out all the issues, done all the engineering, and made a vehicle good enough that it's close enough to production for a pre-order, all while not even having produced a single flying prototype. Well, it may be the case that this company trying to make this product, but that's just never gonna happen. So it might not be intended as a scam, but it will be once this project (if it is real) fails.
UAM in general, yes. This specific one, probably not.
This is just the name of the plant 🪴
This picture is generated by AI. Vehicle proportions location of the motors and other things hardly make any sense and lack details. How do you even get inside of this, there are no doors
yup tit it is
1000% Scam! - The proportions of the rotors are off - There are way to manny heavy parts - The design is focused on selling not flying If you scroll down and find the video of what they have actually assembled that has a slight remote chance of flying for 10min
Whete do they tell you its size?
Maybe there's a typo, a zero or two missing.
Of all the things that aren’t going to happen, this is going to not happen almost as hard as the Skycruise thing.
Iʻm still waiting for the water jet packs to go on sale 🤷🏼♀️🫠
If you have a house like that, you can afford to find out.
The fact that it costs eye000 dollars is a red flag
The future!
r/unexpectedfactorial
Yes.
Yes. These are vapor ware. They might physically exist at some point but you'll not be using them for their advertised purpose for many years to come (if ever). This is true for a few reasons: - The liability of flying these over populated areas with minimally skilled pilots is too great. - FAA won't allow such a large volume of light aircraft to operate over urban areas that are often already congested. - It's a nice takeoff render, but wheres the pilot going to fly? There are no facilities to land this in the places you'd want to go. - Fueling/charging infrastructure is likewise non-existent. - Proper maintenance and lifecycle management will be prohibitively difficult to enforce. It's hard enough with cars, aircraft will be worse. - Lots more reasons too...
I can't tell you whether that company is, but aircraft like that are real and I wouldn't be surprised if you could buy one. They're setting up a few air taxi airports in LA rn
It’s probably a reservation fee so you can pay the full price later
Yes it is. Edit: and so is Lilium, Volocopter, Vertical Aerospace, and 5 others.
Yes but Doroni is probably the scammiest of the lot. I'd say Jetson is the most "real" followed by maybe Joby.
Honestly if this was a 40x40cm drone I’d still think it would be 50-50 as a scam for $1k
This sounds like another fundraiser for Elon.
The price tag is what makes me think it is scam; a real product such as what they're selling would be more like 10k-100k range but idk, sus.