
Uber’s Flying Taxi - trevoragilbert
https://noviceanalysis.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/ubers-flying-taxi/
======
ukulele
> Use that expertise to build a tilt-rotor commercial plane.

They have, it's called the AW609. And like its predecessor V-22, it has
crashed and killed the occupants early on and is nowhere near commercial
readiness.

Uber's estimates of commercial VTOL flight on an untested airframe by 2023 is
total garbage, and they have to know it. The US military has sunk $50
_Billion_ dollars into this problem over the last 30 years and still aren't
there.

My guess is that Uber simply wants to maintain some hope of future growth,
particularly with their autonomous car program in shambles.

PS I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

~~~
melkiaur
> My guess is that Uber simply wants to maintain some hope of future growth,
> particularly with their autonomous car program in shambles.

They also benefit from future free advertising. Everytime you'll see a bit of
news talking about autonomous drones, flying taxis, or the like, you can bet
that the writer will mention Uber, thus giving them free Brand recognition.
The same happened with Amazon's delivery drones, or Uber self driving cabs.

~~~
paulific
I missread that as "self driving crabs" and now I want to see that. :-)

~~~
ben_w
You jest, but cybernetic implants to remote control cockroaches and flying
beetles is a thing, and even normal people can buy the former (RoboRoach
Bundle is about US$160), so I wouldn’t be very surprised if someone makes a
crab-based delivery cyborg.

~~~
stefanpl
Wow. That's actually mind blowing... I never would have thought that neural
interfacing could be so cheap and affordable

~~~
opencl
Neural interfacing is not that complicated. It's just a microcontroller with
two of the GPIO pins connected to antenna nerves, at most $5 worth of
hardware.

~~~
TeMPOraL
In similar fashion, you can "mind control" a cat with a laser pointer.

------
sschueller
The V-22 also known as the "elevator of death" [1]

[1] [https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-periodic-reminder-
that...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-periodic-reminder-that-
the-v-22-is-a-piece-of-junk-db72a8a23ccf)

~~~
robkop
Worth noting that after the initial problems the V-22 turned into the safest
rotorcraft that the marines have to offer.

[1] [http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/v-22-is-the-safest-most-
su...](http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/v-22-is-the-safest-most-survivable-
rotorcraft-the-marines-have/)

~~~
nickspacek
Also worth noting is that a bit of searching found this connection between
Boeing and Lexington Institute:

[https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/lexington-
institutes-w...](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/lexington-institutes-
weak-defense-boeings-bank-veronique-de-rugy/)

"The Lexington Institute, in fact, is the one receiving money from a narrow
corporate interest — Boeing."

EDIT: The only reason I looked for this connection was beacause the GP article
was nicely written, long, and detailed, while the Lexington Institute seemed
fluffy.

------
akavel
_" [Uber's] electrically powered [concept aircraft] with two rotors for
vertical flight and one for horizontal flight [...] is reminiscent of the V-22
Osprey tilt-rotor, where the propellers transition from vertical flight to
horizontal – the difference being Uber’s rotors are fixed."_

 _Whut_ the _funk_??!? How is this in any way similar??? Uh, correct me if I
don't see something, but to me this is like saying something like: _" Tesla
Model 3 is similar to the Caterpillar CS-533E drum roller [1] — the difference
being Tesla has 4 wheels"..._

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_CS-533E](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_CS-533E)

I'm in no way an aircraft person, but if I were to try to look for
similarities to something, the following are more like what I'd think of:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrodyne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrodyne)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro)

~~~
evgen
I think the main difference here is that in the Autogyro and Gyrodyne the
rotor is basically acting as a wing (either through autorotation for the
Autogyro or the application of limited power for the Gyrodyne) while
everything I have seen of the Uber fantasy and similar drone scale-ups uses
powered rotors for most of the vertical lift.

------
reaperducer
Will this thing try to navigate as well as Uber's car-based navigation that
occasionally tells its drivers in Las Vegas that the best route from the
airport to The Bellagio is through the lobby of the MGM?

------
Mashimo
> A private pilot’s license takes a minimum of 40 hours of flying time

Wow, you can get a pilot's license that quick? In Germany you need 30h of
driving just to get a regular car license. No large trailer or truck.

~~~
lejar
You still need to spend a lot of time in theory, and especially in Germany you
need your radio certificates in English and German (which themselves take a
long time).

After that, you can only fly a very limited subset of aircraft during the day
under a certain altitude (and possibly certain weather conditions?). If you
want to fly at night you need to get a certification for instrument flying.

~~~
gbacon
In the U.S., a private pilot may fly at night with no additional training or
rating.

------
joshuaheard
Why not a full-size multi-rotor automated drone that can carry 4 people and
luggage?

~~~
dsr_
The answer to questions like these is almost always "power density and
safety".

------
god_bless_texas
oh hell no.

What's the glideslope of a multirotor vehicle?

~~~
jdgilbert21
That's a running joke in the aviation industry - Zero.

~~~
evgen
They do not fly so much as... plummet...

------
theothermkn
The article reads like machine- or cocaine-generated slop. There doesn't seem
to be a single credible assertion in it. It has literally no point, as the
author openly admits near the end of the article ("just my thoughts"), just
before he closes by asking us to read his profound insights into why flying
things shouldn't be heavy. This prose would receive a failing grade in a _high
school_ composition class.

I'm trying to resist the "Why is this on HN?" question, but can't. This is
appalling dreck and doesn't belong here.

------
hndamien
My guess is that there would be no pilots. Given they are attempting to get
rid of drivers, getting rid of pilots in VTOL seems like an easier proposition
with a large added weight advantage.

~~~
jdgilbert21
I think fully autonomous flight is a solution, but I also think it's further
away than people imagine. For airplanes at least, the trickiest segments of
flight are takeoffs and landings and even with today's advanced avionics
suites, pilots are still in control for those portions of flight.

The other big factor is the passengers. Even if technology for fully
autonomous passenger flight is available in the next 10 years, I don't think
people will trust planes flying themselves.

~~~
taneq
DJI drones have been able to navigate back to their takeoff point and land
automatically for a while now. Landing's much easier for a multicopter than
for a fixed wing aircraft.

~~~
tartuffe78
Ours went haywire and crashed into a pond onetime when we used the Return to
Home feature. YMMV

~~~
taneq
I didn't say I'd ride on one personally. :P Just that the basics are solved,
and reliability is a Simple Matter Of Engineering.

