Mercedes-backed Volocopter Files for Bankruptcy
- Reference: 0175790447
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/12/30/1555238/mercedes-backed-volocopter-files-for-bankruptcy
- Source link:
> Volocopter is one of the more well-funded electric air taxi startups, having raised hundreds of millions of dollars over nearly a decade with backing from major automakers like Germany's Mercedes-Benz and China's Geely.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/30/mercedes-backed-volocopter-files-for-bankruptcy/
The hardest part of going into business (Score:2)
is the concept and building the business. It is fun and easy to spend other peoples money playing @ being entrepreneurs and business executives.
But Hey! they had 10 years of fun and play time spending other peoples money on their pretend business.
Re:The hardest part of going into business (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is one area regs are pretty important. Having multi-ton objects dropping out of the sky unexpectedly would ruin your day. Archer and Joby I believe have both passed cert's now and are on their way to production. I did not follow Volo so not sure how far they got thru the certs.
Re:The hardest part of going into business (Score:4, Informative)
From what I can find, the FAA published [1]the criteria which they plan to apply to Joby's eVTOL aircraft, [flightglobal.com] but as far as I can find, they haven't actually certified the aircraft as airworthy. (That is, as far as I can tell the FAA finally settled on the requirements they intend to apply, but they haven't actually certified the aircraft as complying with those requirements.)
And from what I understand, the path from prototype to an airworthiness certificate is from 3 to 10 years. (It can go faster if the design is well known or an improvement of an existing design--the Cirrus SR22 took less than a year, but it was largely based on the Cirrus SR20 which took 7 years to achieve. And the SR20's design is not far off from various gas-fueled single-engine fix-wing aircraft like the older Piper Archer. The designs being proposed by Joby and Archer are pretty radically different from what you usually see flying.
And from what I can tell the same thing happened with [2]Archer Aviation: [aerotime.aero] they finally received the final airworthiness criteria they need to meet--but they haven't actually achieved type certification.
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for them to get their type certification. And if they do, one thing I'm curious about is if they decide to sell the aircraft separately, tapping the GA market--or if the plan is that their taxi business is the only consumers of those aircraft.
[1] https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/faa-releases-final-guidelines-for-type-certification-of-jobys-air-taxi/157266.article
[2] https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/archer-aviation-faa-airworthiness-criteria
Re: (Score:2)
Correct you are. I saw a finance report that I can't find anymore. I think the report I read misrepresented what they had accomplished. They have certified pieces I guess. [1]https://www.flyingmag.com/news... [flyingmag.com]
[1] https://www.flyingmag.com/news/joby-starts-testing-electric-air-taxi-structures-with-faa/
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get suspicious when companies appear to 'stretch' the truth of where they are with certification. The FAA simply said 'we expect these aircraft to uphold these standards under Part 23', not '... and yea, the airplanes being made by Joby and Archer meet those requirements.' (On the other hand, this is a step forward, because up until about 2022 the FAA wasn't even going to consider eVTOL aircraft for certification at all, so it's definitely a step forward. Not "and we'll be flying people in and out o
So many shirts will be lost (Score:5, Insightful)
So many investors are going to lose their shirts in the AAM (advanced air mobility) marketplace because we have idiots promising to deliver solutions that simply can't be created given the current state of battery technology. I predicted the failure of these companies and now we're seeing reality bite.
The fact is that we've had this form of transport for decades -- it's called a helicopter yet even though the capability has existed, we don't see much demand for point to point VTOL transport in the formof "air taxis" do we?
So here's the stupid plan on which these ventures are based:
1. let's reinvent the helicopter, even though clearly there's not much demand for an air-taxi service
2. let's use electric power so the range, payload and turn-around capability is significantly worse than a helicopter
3. let's use tiny propellors so there is no failsafe (autorotation) capability in the event of power system failure
4. let's remove the pilot and rely on GPS -- which could go out or be jammed at any moment.
In short -- create a really bad solution for a problem that really doesn't exist.
Watch for more stupid investors who don't do their due dilligence and got an F in science at school to lose their shirts before this fiasco is over.
Yes, AAM may become a viable business but it is *decades* away from that right now and those who try to make it a commercial reality will die on the bleeding edge.
Re: (Score:2)
We are combining Sterling Engines and the Peltier Effect with Wave Motion.
When do we get a demonstration of the wave motion gun?
That's a little too dire... (Score:1)
The fact is that we've had this form of transport for decades -- it's called a helicopter
This is not really true for a few reasons:
1) A helicopter implies the need to get significant quantities of fuel to a helicopter. Lots easier.to get substantial power leads to a recharging platform on a building which already has massive power consumption anyway.
2) You simply cannot compare the space needed for a helicopter pad to a compact drone taxi pad. A drone taxi could easily fit into a bus sized parking space a
Re: (Score:2)
> 2) You simply cannot compare the space needed for a helicopter pad to a compact drone taxi pad. A drone taxi could easily fit into a bus sized parking space and not disturb cars around it. A helicopter has a much more massive wash
The downwash is exactly proportional to the mass lifted. There's no particular reason that labeling it an "air taxi" would decrease the downwash.
The big problem with helicopters is that they are famously very difficult to fly. The advances in drone technology have pretty much made the difficulty of flying modern multi-rotor craft zero.
Smaller mass as well (Score:1)
The downwash is exactly proportional to the mass lifted.
Because an aero taxi has much smaller motors and rotors, the overall mass should be much less than a helicopter (even with batteries, fuel is heavy too).
So, less downwash.
The big problem with helicopters is that they are famously very difficult to fly.
Yes also true, much safer to have glorified drones flying over everything than a helicopter, and cities allow helicopters flying over them pretty often.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel is not as heavy as batteries. They only solve that problem by reducing the flight duration.
But really, there's not a significant difference. The downwash from an "air taxi" will pretty much be identical to that of a helicopter of similar payload capacity, it's a glitzy new word, but operates on the same physics.
Oh come on (Score:2)
If you can't build what is basically a person-capable drone after wasting 10 years and spending hundreds of millions of dollars , then you were a hopeless bunch of clowns to begin with. This sounds more like a glitzy grift than a genuine intended business.
FFS, give me 10 million dollars and 2 years and I'll have person-capable drones that can fly safely from point A to point B without all the fanfare and paid-media hype.
They just found out what "regulations" are (Score:2)
Look at how expensive it is to own and operate a helicopter. Everything expires. Everything is inspected. You know why? Cause it's really bad if they fall out of the sky. Now look at all the shitbox cars on the side of the highway. Taxis are not exactly the pinnacle of car maintenance schedules either. They do not go together. Now add 500 lbs of batteries and clueless Silicon Valley wannabes. Good luck getting that one off the ground (figuratively and literally).
Demand for Air Taxi (Score:2)
Technology and safety aside, it's a
super-niche money-losing proposition.
These companies are advertising "Air Taxi",
but none of them are going to or from arbitrary
locations. It's going to only be from a heliport
to the big airport. These heliports can be a bit
smaller than a regular one, maybe. The size of
the rotors (compared to a regular helicopter)
is not the only thing that determines that, though.
The service is for rich people who don't want to
drive all the way to the airport. Instead, they will
drive from t
Is Archer doing better? (Score:2)
Their stock has skyrocketed recently.
Re: (Score:2)
> Their stock has skyrocketed recently.
Archer was awesome until they started doing the alternate reality timelines. They needed to pull him out of that coma about three seasons earlier, but the damage has been done. They Disney Marvel Multiversed themselves into irrelevance.
Oh, is that not the Archer you were talking about?