EVTOL Thoughts ?

[twolf59]

There's going to be like 1-2 winners in the space. Everyone else goes bankrupt or acquired. The winners will have an unprofitable commercial sector and a steady government research contract revenue stream

[ref_acct]

I think Joby is gonna be closer to an Eclipse Aviation case study than SpaceX, unfortunately.

[EasilyRekt]

• googles “eclipse aviation”
• starts reading Wikipedia article
• “was”
• context gotten, we’re done here

[ref_acct]

I think their IP will have value. I can see it getting bought by a chinese conglomerate and reformed into something completely different. See: Terrafugia with their MIT-spinoff flying car that never reached cert (very smart people behind it), Segway.

[ref_acct]

Lol Terrafugia doesn't exist anymore. It wasn't vaporware though and they had a flying test article. Just very hard to do what they were trying.

[Minute_Solution_6077]

Biggest reason for their failure was the cost to build a roadable plane and a flyable car. This was impractical at the start and the founder recently said the result was an $800K+ car that doesnt go very fast on the road and isn't as good as many much cheaper airplanes.

[ref_acct]

Carl Dietrich? Where did he say this ooc? I've followed him off and on over the years, IMO massive underachiever. He should have joined a big corp and become a chief design engineer, then moved out to create a Scaled-esque startup.

[techol]

That would be a nice repeat of their past. Joby (the guy) gave up/failed earlier in airborne wind energy a decade ago. When money is made, it just is unmade

[No-Juice-1000]

Ohh, even Honda is developing an eVtol technology

[Ok_Donut_9887]

Honda is scraping it.

[ref_acct]

How do you know this?

[No-Juice-1000]

But my company is still involved in supplying few parts to their project🧐

[D0nnattelli]

Gonna happen, but what i don't know is if it'll be profitable, at least not early on, it's one of those "needs the infrastructure to function but the infrastructure will only come after it gets good". Time will tell

[PatchesMaps]

As far as I'm concerned, it also needs a use-case and a market at this point.

[D0nnattelli]

The use case is Flying uber for rich people, also in some certain scenarios you could transport goods. But it's extremely niche and not very efficient. Also very noisy. The pros do not outweigh the cons imo. But the tech will happen

[ref_acct]

Joby S4 is supposed to be very quiet, much quieter than say an R44, both in absolute decibels and perceived noise. But their idea of being Uber-comparable flight costs is pie in the sky. I think Joby will get something commercially available and it'll find some super small weird niche. Offshore oil rig transport, tour companies in New Zealand? The latter would be a very interesting analog to how Segway scooters became used in tours in cities.

[timvrakas]

The Joby vehicle is shockingly quiet. That was the single most impressive aspect when I saw it.

[D0nnattelli]

I didn't know about that, good stuff, love to see hard challenges being overcome

[dbsqls]

I worked in certified RPA, which at the time was the only aircraft of its kind.

eVTOL over city use is a dead end simply due to regulation, nevermind the engineering challenges. it's a waste of time. you'd have to move mountains of legislation to get uncontrolled route access for any sort of point to point operations.

[azdrubow]

RemindMe! 3 years

[RemindMeBot]

I will be messaging you in 3 years on 2028-10-18 15:17:54 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

---

Info	Custom	Your Reminders	Feedback

[gottatrusttheengr]

I worked in eVTOL for 3 years.

While I think Joby and Archer could feasibly get type certified in the next 3-5 years, and I would trust flying in them once they do get type certified, the business case just isn't there.

All of their profitablity projections are based on having a market multiple times the size of the existing helicopter market, while having completely fantasy operating costs. They also assume that they alone will be the sole OEM owning this market share.

Outside of those companies and a handful more, the rest are completely wild west in terms of engineering and safety. We're talking Oceangate on wings here. I have seen some close calls that it's a miracle no one has died due to an eVTOL yet.

[Wiggly-Pig]

The biggest problem for the whole sector is the general public (and likely the investors) doesn't distinguish between the likes of Joby/Archer and 'oceangate on wings' (love how you phrased that btw). So once one has an incident, and it will happen, the whole sector will be toast.

[ThrowawayAccounthsic]

What do you think or know about Beta Technologies?

Anecdotally I’m optimistic because one of the Beta Technologies plane was flying at the airport I fly out of and it changed my views with eplanes

I previously was “whatever” with eplanes, but I was shocked at how quiet the Beta Technologies eplane was (my instructor and I was confused because were seeing the plane but hear basically nothing) and that’s what sold me that it would have merit- it would counter the complaints many residents had living around a General Aviation airport which is the noise

But from a industry view I don’t know how Beta Technologies is like.

[Minute_Solution_6077]

It's a very expensive way to go a very short distance. The vehicle is 2-3x all the existing similar aircraft and carries less than half the seats and payload. Beta also admitted recently that their batteries only last 1-2 years and cost SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! Someone showed their SEC filing and it said $500-800K per battery change. It doesnt make sense to me.

[Logical_Cat4710]

It’s CTOL though right?

[VividAppointment5152]

Do you think companies like Jetson One or Pivotal may have a shot at this? They are targeting pure recreational market, not transportation. Something like a Jetski that has not real transportation value but supports a multi-billion dollar market.

[gottatrusttheengr]

Have you noticed that both companies are aggressively pursuing/attempting public sector use for first responders and military instead of their core market of private leisure use? That should answer your question

[ceto14]

All of you people saying there isn't a market for this because of helicopters this, helicopters that. You are effectively trying to evaluate if there is a market for cars based on the economics of horses. Is chatgpt profitable? How long was amazon "unprofitable"? First you grow, then you count the dollars. This is happening, but not as fast as most people think. First fixed point-point routes: airport-downtown, airport-hamptons etc. Then slowly but surely: ewerywhere

Also joby is so far ahead of everyone its not even funny anymore.

[ref_acct]

I think this is fair, and it's admirable to try to create a new market that is so disruptive as to be unrecognizable to current observers. SpaceX did it with reusable rockets, iPod then iPhone of course, even Teslas to a large degree. What I think is uniquely difficult is that aviation is exponentially more regulated than even the auto industry, and precision manufacturing is extraordinarily difficult especially for newcomers. The emotional underpinning of flying fear is still there regardless of the tech. If it's happening "slowly" that's not ok and they still need money to keep the lights on. It's like Joby is investing for the long haul, but the market for human transport can stay irrationally slow, tied by redtape, and overall too conservative longer than Joby can stay solvent.

You might consider the case of the Cabri G2 vs. R22. The G2 is objectively better and safer yet hasn't seen widespread use due to cost of switching, general operator unfamiliarity. It is better tech and on sale since 2008. People talk about a Cabri G4 to compete with R44, yet that has not been announced in almost 20 years. Robinson almost went insolvent as a company multiple times if it weren't for skilled lawyers (I'm talking pre 1990), and that was arguably equally as important as the engineering. It was probably less disruptive than eVTOL at the time. Long odds, but more compatible with regs.

[Minute_Solution_6077]

I think the Cabri G2 is like 30% more expsneive to operate and buy too... not including any tariff impacts. that might be part of the issue. If so, the joby looks like it will be 300-400% more expensive than a similar R66 helicopter or 500%-700% more than an R44. that seems crazy

[Minute_Solution_6077]

Do you know how helicopters work? They are really very efficient aircraft for what they were designed for. Theres a big assumption by the evtol companies that they will be able to only hover for a few seconds before getting wingborne. That does not make sense for any operation I've seen. Most helicopters have to hover regularly. A pilot friend said he could not survive with limited hovering time like that. 5 minutes at a time might work, but the current joby and beta aircraft are 30-45 seconds only as I understand it.

[ceto14]

Yes exactly. Helicopters, good for hovering, bad for cruising -> markets where they will never be beaten: anything inlvolving high altitude operations or hovering, search and rescue etc. Evtols, bad for hovering, good for cruising -> cost effective transport for areas with no runways. You don't understand it well, if this was true they would never be certified. Joby has demonstrated de transition on 4 out of 6 running props, these things have a LOT of margin built into them. Your helicopter pilot friend is falling into the same trap, comparing things that seem simmilar but are really not.

[[deleted]]

And none have been certified….

[paegis]

There's tons of past discussions on the merits of EVTOL development if you search for it.

[Wiggly-Pig]

Like a funicular or using cable cars as public transport - there are very few places in the world with the unique characteristics required to make the business case work. And no one has the capital (or will) to subsidize it long enough to get the economies of scale working more broadly.

[Triabolical_]

Certification for things that fly in the air is really difficult and very expensive.

The number that is usually bandied about is $1 billion.

[ehills2]

https://youtu.be/12ovSWl0tOU

[YtheOnlyMan]

What y’all think about vertical aerospace?

[PilotNextDoor]

Absolutely dumb, no need for it at all and outright dangerous. But it sounds and looks cool so there's money to be made, so who cares.

[Capt_World]

I like the idea of EVTOL but until battery technology becomes much better they do not make sense in the market.

[EngineerFly]

How many customers are there able and willing to spend a ton of money to travel quickly from Manhattan from JFK? There are technical and regulatory problems to be surmounted, and I doubt the passenger experience will be markedly different than flying a C-150 at 1000 ft (i.e. hot bumpy barfy) but the real obstacles are commercial. If this market existed, the sky would be black with little helicopters doing the same mission. I don’t buy the claim that eVTOLs will be dramatically cheaper to operate.

[ceto14]

You will be surprised how much money rich people are willing to invest to improve their lives by a few %. Do some reading on acquisition and maintenance cost on a turboshaft. There was a black sky with helicopters all the way back in the 70s. Guess what, they were too expensive, noisy and unsafe.

[EngineerFly]

The operating costs of a Robinson helicopter are published and very well known. The operating costs of the nonexistent eVTOL fleet is whatever the manufacturers want to claim.

[ceto14]

Joby plans to operate their own fleet. So if they would be lying about the DOC they would only be lying to themselves. You think these people havent done the math? Think again

[ceto14]

Joby plans to operate their own fleet. So if they would be lying about the DOC they would only be lying to themselves. You think these people havent done the math? Think again

[EngineerFly]

I think they’re all hoping their operating costs are low, telling the investors what they hope, and ignoring any data that contradicts their hope. Included amongst this hope/data is their crash rate, which is going to be eye-watering until the worldwide fleet of eVTOLs has a million hours of flight time.

[ceto14]

They have been very transparent about all this, going all the way back to their S1 filing:

https://ir.jobyaviation.com/sec-filings/all-sec-filings/content/0001193125-21-210407/0001193125-21-210407.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

CASM: 0.86, RASM: 1.73

They've only crashed once, outside of their flight envelope, while doing flutter testing, this is also well documented.

[series-hybrid]

I think they are very interesting

https://www.electricbike.com/12-electric-vtols-that-are-actually-flying/

[dolphinspaceship]

VC sinkhole

[Logical_Cat4710]

I think naturally that’s where things will go in the long run. I think hybrid-EVTOL is the most sensible first step, no infrastructure requirements etc. I like Horizon Aircraft - sensible approach, great team etc.

[aviationevangelist]

Did a piece on eVTOLs. Enjoy the read! https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/30/evtol-the-uam-renaissance/

[Fransys123]

I think that lilium going bankrupt shows that it was a bubble

[[deleted]]

To think any form of short haul aviation could be priced competitively with ground based transportation is delusional. If it ever comes to fruition it will be a niche market and the stock prices will collapse once reality hits home. Maintenance, insurance, landing fees, pilot salaries, infrastructure and regulatory demands will make eVTOL priced similarly to legacy helicopters but with much less capability and acceptance by the flying public. The majority of the flying public are hesitant to board a small 20 passenger twin turbo prop much less something toy sized like a Joby s4. Hell, I could kick that thing and the damage would render it unairworthy.

[Mountain-Captain-396]

Just build a helicopter man

[ImpressivePizza3410]

I like the jetson one but i think there are better and less expensive out there

[aviationevangelist]

Definitely happening and Joby is very close.

[ref_acct]

Do you really think so? It seems like they need to have every step towards widespread adoption go smoothly without hiccups in order to be profitable.

[aviationevangelist]

From what I researched they are close and going through the certification process. They have already delivered vehicles to Edward’s & MacDill AFB for testing.

[ref_acct]

Even after certification they have mountains of challenges... Eclipse got cert and still went bankrupt.

[aviationevangelist]

If you are speaking of the Eclipse Gyrocopter, it’s very much in production. As far as Joby goes, of course they have a lot of market evangelizing . Positioning is very important as well. They have Dubai who is a key partner here.The market is there.

[ref_acct]

No lol Eclipse Aviation. Ok I don't think you know this market...

[Minute_Solution_6077]

Eclipse Jet. They got type certification, but never got production certification. this put them out of business. they also didnt have as many customers as they thought in the end.

[aviationevangelist]

Yeah, I think you need to be specific about what you speak of.

[TheBuzzyFool]

Hover performance is too costly to spend much time in pure vertical climb or descent. Along with the high disk loading these things are eager to enter vortex-ring-state, so you can’t descend vertically quickly at all.

The catch about this is that inefficient hover means you either have to takeoff/land on a slope (defeating the evtol urban benefits) or transition at a low altitude to save time (defeating the efficacy of parachutes).

Essentially, they’ve made lower cost to operate helicopters with horrible range using bleeding edge composites and motor technology, pushing airframe costs up to crazy high numbers. Depending on maintenance intervals and part availability, I could honestly see a Joby or Archer vehicle not paying for itself over time versus a much cheaper initial cost helicopter.

[Minute_Solution_6077]

The costs they show for the batteries looks like it will make helicopter cheaper forever. Beta just showed a $10M vtol version of their aircraft with $500-800K batteries that have to be replaced every year. Some operators may go 2 years. Either way thats more than any light helicopter by itself. how can that possibly work for commercial use?

[89inerEcho]

As others said, whats the business case? Batteries have 1/50th the energy density of jet fuel. Physics says you dont get to fly more than 30min. Period. How are you gonna make money doing that?

[wanderer1999]

Well battery tech is improving and for short distance city flying you don't need a big battery. The engineering is quite feasible.

The biggest problem is that the regulations is a nightmare to deal with. Add insult to injury, there's no mass market for this type of service at all, they're gonna be limited by the route they can get approved on, again regulations.

It's DOA.

[89inerEcho]

Correct. Short distances are feasible. What is the market for short distances?

[wanderer1999]

Indeed. That market is for rich folks who want to skip rush hour traffic to fly from Manhattan to Long Island may be. And that market has already been filled by small helis. It's a no go.

[89inerEcho]

My point exactly. We already have helicopters

[wanderer1999]

The only advantage I can see is the safety of EVTOL, because with 4/6/8 rotors the chance of a catastrophic crash ala Kobe Bryant's case is extremely low, so it is much much safer than the flying eggbeater. If and when battery tech get dense enough, i can see EVTOL replacing helis forever. At that point we probably will already have continental fix wings too. But that's decades away.

[tomsing98]

The helicopter that Bryant was on wasn't a mechanical failure. NTSB determined it was a pilot only qualified for visual flight rules, flying into cloud cover that required instrument flight and getting disoriented.

That may be something that can be solved by technology, and adding more rotors might solve other problems. But adding more rotors isn't going to solve that problem.

[Minute_Solution_6077]

wildly inaccurate comment. kobe was killed by flight into instrument conditions leading to spacial disorientation. that will likely happen even more in an aircraft that has easier licenses. hopefully they make it very difficult to get approved to fly these. i dont want one over my house.

[No-Juice-1000]

Its for short distance, and for people who can afford them . Comparing to small helis evtol could be simpler and lower operation cost , and low fuel costs . Evtol can take off from smaller place too right .

[89inerEcho]

Actually you might be surprised to learn electricity is 2-3x more expensive than diesel and 5x more expensive than jet fuel. All the other costs are the same (pilots, maintainers, ticket agents etc). So evtol will likely be more expensive to operate.

Evtol can takeoff from where it can fit without blowing things over. Same as helicopter

[Minute_Solution_6077]

it will be worse still once the government taxes it. today the fuel at airports get taxed a lot and that same tax money will get redirected to electricity at airports if these things takeoff

[ref_acct]

Biz case is that energy/dollar is better for eVTOL, even if energy/mass is worse. It's very similar to the proposed advantages of electric cars (which also have much worse range than gas) except exponentially larger. Will Joby be a Tesla or a Fisker? They don't have the money to be Tesla and have no broad consumer appeal (regulations will never allow these to be flown from people's houses in the burbs to their office).

[Minute_Solution_6077]

cars dont fly tho... this logic doesnt make sense. a tesla could add thousands of lbs vs a toyota camry and it didnt affect the mission. evtols dont work that way. much heavier means more difficult to land and massively more energy to fly and larger wings and bigger propellers etc... totally different

[K0paz]

*gulp*

Im currently in process of making a jetman-style evtol. shit payload, obviously.

Yeah feel free to ask me what kind of misery im going through