Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2021/09/Airbus-reveals-the-next-generation-of-CityAirbus.html

by tsar_nikolai • 5 years ago

74 65 5 years ago

airbus.com

mzs• 5 years ago

"65 dB(A) during fly-over and below 70 dB(A) during landing."

So like a vacuum cleaner, yikes!

cyberge99• 5 years ago

Yes, except it will be on top of a building (most likely) and fly hundreds of feet above.

Lawnmowers are significantly louder.

burkaman• 5 years ago

I think a helicopter is a better comparison here, and they seem to be 80-100 dBA.

datameta2• 5 years ago

I often see (without hearing) helicopters in the downtown brooklyn area. If this aircraft flies above ~600 feet, noise should be little to no concern.

blunte3• 5 years ago

If you live anywhere where people love Harleys and Dodge Ram trucks with aftermarket exhausts, then 65 is luxury levels of quietness.

Also, whether in my small village or in a fancy suburb, there seems to always be someone with a 2 cycle, muffler-free piece of lawn equipment running. Leaf blowers are the worst, but weed trimmers and now even leaf vaccuums are common.

Or, if you live in an urban area, especially in NYC, there's rarely a moment that you don't hear an emergency vehicle siren echoing throughout the neighborhood.

Unfortunately, it's just a noisy world. At least this aircraft is electric and has some goal of keeping noise as low as possible.

morsch• 5 years ago

They don't say how/where they measured, so the figures are basically worthless. 65-70 dB(A) seems on the low end of consumer unmanned quadcopters[1], e.g. "Maximum sound pressure level for fast flyover at 15 m height: 62 dB(A)" for a DJI Phantom 2 weighing less than 2kg.

If they managed to get into that range for a vehicle that must weigh many hundreds of times more, I guess that'd be very impressive.

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5940

KuiN• 5 years ago

Significantly quieter than car traffic noise. Struggling to see the issue here.

jazzyjackson2• 5 years ago

i’m struggling to see how it’s physically possible. the most vapory of vaporware.

pupdogg• 5 years ago

50 miles on 1 charge seems fairly inefficient to me. Especially when compared to land based electric vehicles.

newshorts• 5 years ago

Not really a fair comparison to make considering the energy required to constantly fight gravity is significantly higher with one than the other.

Additionally, one has to consider the flight path would ideally be more straight, allowing for less overall mileage per trip than a land vehicle.

rsynnott2• 5 years ago

I assume that explains the "for metropolitan use" bit.

icyfox• 5 years ago

As much as I want to live in a world with the Jetsons, what's the business case here? Presumably it's going to have to launch vertically from the top of buildings, which means that you can go from skyscraper landing pad to skyscraper landing pad. How many taxi users are trying to travel within a financial district? I imagine much more commonly they're trying to go from high-density to low-density (like FiDi to West Village) which this operating model could only support if you build a serious amount of elevated architecture.

Not to mention having to pay for insurance premiums of a miniaturized airplane that is zipping around a heavily inhabited urban area.

rsynnott2• 5 years ago

You can imagine them being used to get people from train stations or similar to tall buildings, I suppose.

blunte3• 5 years ago

There are probably enough people of financial means who are willing to pay for expensive and much faster taxi service, especially if they can go to the roof of the building they're currently in to depart.

There are lots of reasons why this won't work, but it could work... and it could be quite useful in the right scenario.

Lots of useful long distance flights leave early in the morning, meaning to get to the airport for those flights you have to leave VERY early. But with an air taxi like this, it might allow you to save a couple of hours and a lot of headache.

It's not really mass-marketable though, and I doubt we could expect to see a constant stream of little air taxis buzzing around.

nradov2• 5 years ago

Chances are the roof of the building they're currently in will never have a heliport. Most buildings weren't designed to support the extra weight of a helipad (including equipment) plus aircraft, and the roofs are already covered with antennas and HVAC equipment.

In the foreseeable future there will only be a handful of heliports per city center. Most passengers will have to take ground transport to reach one.

namlem• 5 years ago

Could make sense in some major cities in China, and maybe a handful of other places.

awillen• 5 years ago

The best case I've heard is helping to reduce traffic to places that expect a large influx of folks at the same time.

Concerts, for example - if you have a lot of these flying taxis, you can have people park in auxiliary lots that are 20 minutes away by car, then get shuttled over via air taxi. Depending on how many taxis and how fast the turnaround is, you could eliminate a non-negligible amount of traffic into/out of parking lots. Same with sporting events, etc.

And then on a similar note, airports - I believe something like this was proposed for LAX. In the same way that people park at off-site parking lots and take shuttle buses, they could park off-site and take air taxis.

These scenarios work relatively well because they put the air taxis in nonstop use for some period of time, and they have the space/infrastructure to set up spaces for them to land and load/unload folks.

mannykannot• 5 years ago

At four people per vehicle, I doubt that you could achieve anything like a satisfactory throughput in this scenario, given reasonable traffic separation. Unloading will be one bottleneck, as each vehicle will need as much space as several buses, when you take into account sufficient separation to avoid unsafe aerodynamic interaction.

shafyy2• 5 years ago

Or - and hear me out here - the US could invest in their public transportation infrastructure. But sure, let's do flying taxis.

hedberg10• 5 years ago

There was a regular helicopter service on top of skyscrapers, like a bus. There isn't anymore, because things that go up, must come down.

"Urban" and "flying" will never happen.

I'm regularly astonished that we trust people with shopping carts, given how well they use them. Nobody is going to trust any density flying over our heads. Not even with auto pilot. Sorry Fifth Element fans.

azinman2• 5 years ago

You’ve hit the nail on the head. You need a big clearance for landing and take off, with dedicated space and easy ways for people to get to it. This is crazy expensive real estate, doesn’t scale usually beyond 1 target (unlike a parking structure), is scarce, and is ultimately the biggest constraint here that cannot be overcome by technology.

adamqureshi• 5 years ago

There is a business use case here in NYC. NYC to the Hamptons or out east long Island. The locals in the Hamptons are complaining about noise pollution from helicopters making trips to the Hamptons from NYC. If this makes little or no noise the current helicopter service companies will use them and people will pay $800 ( off-peak) - $2,500 ( peak) one way trip from the west side of manhattan / Chelsea area to east Hampton / Montauk . If you got the money that is :-)

coldcode• 5 years ago

I can see it replacing helo service, presuming it can take off anywhere. As a general replacement for cars, no.

ryanlol• 5 years ago

Perhaps the more interesting question is whether or not it can extend helo service.

neom• 5 years ago

Good short clip that discusses the history of helicopter transit in NYC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nbz5VFilxY

ramesh31• 5 years ago

The VTOL concept for air taxis is silly; this is just a 3d rendering for a press release, and battery energy density just isn't there yet for them to be useful.

But electric flight is without a doubt going to revolutionize commuter airlines. With an electric powertrain, you get rid of the vast majority of costs associated with flying which are the intensive maintenance and overhaul schedules required for turboprop/turbofan engines. You can then economically fly small traditional aircraft with electric powertrains carrying ~10 passengers up to 250 miles at 200mph with current battery tech, and takeoff/land from tiny municipal airports with no need for TSA. At that point flying becomes like hopping on a bus, and just as cheap. Living within 250 miles of a metro area and commuting every day will be a nonissue. Something like the Eviation Alice [0] is far more likely to be the future than any of these VTOL concepts.

[0] https://www.eviation.co/

hef198983• 5 years ago

The predecessor had its First Flight in 2019:

https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/urban-air-mo...

me_me_me3• 5 years ago

electric flight might be an empty promise.

The weight of the tanks never drops, so you are flying always full tank plane, the energy density of batteries is much lower -> heavier tanks

And you'd better hope there is no battery fire. Those are vicious.

ivanvanderbyl• 5 years ago

I wonder how much of this is in response to what Archer Aviation are doing with their Maker aircraft? It looks very similar in specs.

https://www.archer.com/maker

hef198983• 5 years ago

If memory serves well, Airbus' programms, they have two competing ones, are quite old (around 2018 or so when it officially started, so the idea is most likely older).

jjj123• 5 years ago

I’m really surprised by the noise levels. They say 65db flyover and 70db landing which is quieter than just about every (personal) drone [1].

I wonder how they’re getting those numbers. Like at what distance are they measuring from?

I find it hard to believe they’re able to make a flying vehicle quieter than a drone 1/100th of its size.

Edited for clarity

[1] https://www.airbornedrones.co/drone-noise-levels/

hef198983• 5 years ago

I would have to look up the details, but there are EASA certification standards covering noise level measurement. Looking at the pictures, I think they achieve low noise levels by having e-motors and mid sized props (multiple). That avoids engine noise, reduces individual prop noise and having something between rotors and turbines should be quieter than a conventional helicopter on the one side and something like jet on the other hand.

LargoLasskhyfv4• 5 years ago

The medevac helos where I live are some (meanwhile old?) Eurocopter 135/145.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC135

They are really surprisingly not loud. Not silent either, but not annoyingly, or disturbingly loud. Not comparable to the much, much older Bell UH-1 which we called 'Teppichklopfer' (carpet banger?). So it seems they know something about making helos less noisy.

I say this from the experience of having seen them come down maybe 200 times in the last 15 years? Sometimes just practicing it seems, with inner city, suburban, or park and field background noise floor.

ojosilva• 5 years ago

In related news, Brazilian GOL Airlines just pre-ordered 250 eVTOL from Vertical Aerospaces for a 2025 delivery. So I think the market is heated-up right now.

https://worldairlinenews.com/2021/09/21/gol-to-launch-a-netw...

Brazil, and specially São Paulo, is a huge market for helicopters and air-taxi services in general, not to speak of regional air services, for which the VA-X4 aircraft is somewhat constrained with a mere 160km range.

twobitshifter• 5 years ago

Ups is buying 10 evtol from a company in vermont https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/07/ups-to-buy-evtol-aircraft-to...

liminal• 5 years ago

Surprised the rotors are exposed. Seems likely to chop heads off.

me_me_me3• 5 years ago

Can I have 30? I need to get to my hyperloop pod faster.

Those modern transportation 'solutions' are a sign of local maxima of current city design. A bad design that cannot scale any further.

So maybe instead we start on fixing cities?

atoav2• 5 years ago

Those modern transportation 'solutions' are a sign of local maxima of current city design. A bad design that cannot scale any further.

Exactly. And for some reason the "solutions" always have the nice feature that they get those using them out of the sight of the rest of the lowly peasants living in those cities.

As if it hasn't been demonstrated how public transport can do wonders for highly populated if done right (e.g. look at japan).

5423542342352• 5 years ago

And with driverless cars around the corner, now is the time to integrate them correctly. The idea should not be to get in your Tesla at home and cruise on the highway and into the city to park at your office. They idea should be picked up at your house by an Auto that drops you at the lightrail station just in time to catch the next train into downtown, where you can hop in a 10 person driverless shuttle that drops you at the office after a couple other stops.

I mean, the real solution is to stop subsidizing suburbs, that are bleeding cities dry with the massive costs of infrastructure requirements and maintenance.

“The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates the cost at $5 trillion — but that's just for major infrastructure, not the minor streets, curbs, walks, and pipes that serve our homes. The reason we have this gap is because the public yield from the suburban development pattern — the amount of tax revenue obtained per increment of liability assumed — is ridiculously low. Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability. The engineering profession will argue, as ASCE does, that we're simply not making the investments necessary to maintain this infrastructure. This is nonsense. We've simply built in a way that is not financially productive. We've done this because, as with any Ponzi scheme, new growth provides the illusion of prosperity. In the near term, revenue grows, while the corresponding maintenance obligations — which are not counted on the public balance sheet — are a generation away.” [1]

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

mdorazio• 5 years ago

I see comments like this quite often without any suggestions for how it would happen practically. Let's talk Los Angeles, for example - where would you put light rail lines to sufficiently cover the low-density 400+ square miles of city sufficiently well to be better than cars? How would you acquire the requisite property & rights of way to run the lines? How would you fight the guaranteed NIMBY protests from local voters? Where would you get the tens of billions of dollars it would take?

"Fixing" a city is hard. And I haven't seen too many examples of it actually done, in comparison to cities that were built with public transit in mind from the beginning.

throwaway210222• 5 years ago

in comparison to cities that were built with public transit in mind from the beginning.

Tokyo and Paris were built with electrified, public transport in mind from the beginning?

Really?

me_me_me3• 5 years ago

https://theconversation.com/superblocks-barcelonas-car-free-...

He is an example.

pasabagi3• 5 years ago

Rethink taxation so people living in suburbs pay proportionately to the cost of running services to them, and you'd very quickly see a denser city. Dense habitation is just way more efficient, more ecologically friendly, and more cost effective. If this was reflected in the law, you'd very quickly get a situation like you have in Germany, where you basically go from multi-storey apartments to farmland with no suburbs in between.

jazzyjackson2• 5 years ago

ironically LA was built with public transit in mind from the beginning. many housing developments were sold with light rail to downtown as an amenity to sell the houses. once the houses were sold, the rails were dismantled for being unprofitable.

dagw• 5 years ago

Lots of US cities used to have great public transit. They were all later 'fixed' to remove public transit and make life easier for cars.

julbook• 5 years ago

Now this one looks like a giant drone. And to have its propeller exposed, it seems quite dangerous to travel in a public place.

darth_avocado• 5 years ago

Zero emission flights

The same lies that are peddled to us about pretty much everything. The emissions are just moved downstream, and could even be worse in certain places, as compared to other transportation systems. I am curious to see how they fare in energy usage as compared to an electric car, electric bikes and electric trains.

kitsunesoba• 5 years ago

Lie may be a bit strong. True zero emissions from resource extraction to delivery is nigh impossible, but there's still sizable benefit to be had from electrification.

Most notably, even if the craft is charged with electricity generated by a coal-fired plant, overall efficiency is still improved simply because power plants are much more efficient than any kind of internal combustion engine. And of course, the vehicle will only become more clean as fossil fuel plants are phased out, where fossil fuel vehicles will only ever be fossil fueled, barring the unusual electric conversion.

That said, the ideal solution is electric mass transit like the train systems seen frequently in east Asia. Unfortunately, those are unlikely to appear in North American cities any time soon due to the thick jungle created by corrupt local politicians, NIBMYs determined to freeze-frame their neighborhoods at any cost, and price gouging underperforming construction contractors.

Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

Related Stories