This week, the innovative Slovenian company Pipistrel Vertical Solutions announced a new autonomous eVTOL aircraft, which it hopes to have in revenue service by 2023. AVweb’s Paul Bertorelli interviewed Tine Tomazic about the new aircraft.


    • That’s NOT true when the points of departure and/or destination are not serviced by traditional transportation infrastructure. You know – things like roads.

      • Yea, but people who chose to live by themselves in the woods are doing so without clearing land for runways. 😉

          • Yea, about that. You need an oversize concrete pad. Otherwise even a loose stone or a short twig can get bounced up and disable eVTOL. No way will they send these to unimproved areas.

    • There is always a nay-sayer. And then, there are those pushing the envelope to find a way to make the “impossible and illogical” happen. If it weren’t for them, Wilbur and Orville would have stayed with bicycles.

  1. Yars,

    You forgot waterways!

    A low-flying seaplane (flying in ground effect) with this type of restricted vertical capacity would solve a lot of problems for handling in big sea states, when landing on, or taking off from, water is not really feasible.

    • You’re quite right – I didn’t even consider water landings.

      But now that I have, I’m left wondering about loading/unloading cargo while wearing high-water waders. I would think that the vehicle would need to have a top-loader configuration. A flying canoe? Interesting…..

  2. And the OIG is worried about tracking drivers licenses; but the sky is going to be filled with autonomous drones programmed by the same type of engineers that can’t keep the Internet secure.

  3. They’re definitely on the right track with wing lift. The concepts that depend on powered lift for the entire flight are not efficient, as the disc loading is much higher than that of helicopters. One concern though, is that on the latest design the propellers are very close to the ground. The slipstream can kick up dirt, sand, or whatever else is on the takeoff and landing surface, even if it is a hard surface. Their earlier design shown near the beginning of the video looks better from that standpoint. With the props higher the slipstream velocity has more distance to slow down. At least reingestion of debris isn’t a big concern, as the motors don’t need to breathe air.

  4. “Arthur F. September 8, 2020 at 3:43 pm
    Yea, about that. You need an oversize concrete pad. Otherwise even a loose stone or a short twig can get bounced up and disable eVTOL. No way will they send these to unimproved areas.”

    Now this guy is just making up any feeble excuse he can to try to cover up his non-sensical comment.

    • The problem are lots of whirling composition propellors just inches off the ground. Each one throws rocks and debris up into the adjacent prop. Think about it.

  5. FAA cannot control birds or terrain as a threat to manned aviation, but drones are being pushed, particularly by those coming from outside aviation community. They are a completely legislateable flight hazard to manned aviation, but the FAA is in danger of being run around like a wheelbarrow by whiz kid programmers and VC startups with no understanding or care about the rest of aviation. People in the low altitude airspace WILL be killed by these things, it’s only a matter of time. Ag aircraft, rotorcraft, gliders, balloon, parachute/paragliders…. they talk of programming in and avoiding all airports, but all the land/water is a potential landing area/landout site…ignores unpowered/non-electrical system aircraft. In addition, the idea of travel overhead above people and homes expected the operator to be ABOARD the aircraft for legal reasons as a PIC, AND to have REAL skin in the game. first it was small ultralight drones within line-of-sight, now they’re talking cargo drones… see a future where liability will be watered down by having corporation rather than a person being responsible, with the usual “mistakes were made” response to inevitable midairs and crashes into occupied areas…

  6. These things are nothing but a hazard and should legislated out of the sky. They are drones, nothing more, and should be restricted to the same altitude and airspace restrictions as all other drones.

    • Be careful what you ask for, Ted.
      The typical American voter thinks that personal airplanes should be legislated out of the sky.

      A Chicago mayor tried to do exactly that.

      It’s a big sky.