it is a bit fuzzy... that's the point: selling options (with the right of cancelling the purchase options) is not selling and delivering aircrafts that fulfil the promised specs... At the moment these companies put a great effort in PR, hoping to improve battery technology, certification issues and safety problems.

Yes fuzzy is what it takes to sell well even as it is fairly good looking. It is the claims like "100 times safer" that are flat out over the top absurd. Why is battery power even one time safer when dying ten times quicker than fuel? And also how many props can stop working in VTOL before it becomes a very fast drop descent where the height writes the autopsy.

A standard aircraft only has its take-off time of a few minutes in maximum danger having scant places to land and with less than optimum glide speed in a thrust failure. The VTOL benefit may over rule the added danger in market demand, but claiming 100 times safer is very bogus.

Another toy for the wealthy as the rest of life is left to die.

@ Nelson: You sadly got the point. eVTOLs could only become toys for the wealthy. the rest will not benefit. we shall develop affordable, simple and safe technology for the many of us: it makes more sense, using a proven technology and make it greener, than spending hundreds of millions in toys... As an example: the Solarimpuls project cost ca.120 million for one flight around the world. and a big team traveled many times by plane around the globe giving the necessary support and maintenance. it was a great technical achievement, with excellent PR and media coverage, but had nothing to do with ecology. Planting trees for just one million would have done much more for our planet... I love R&D in aerospace, but we need to be clear and distinguish what we do for the planet and what we do for our ego/business. We are lucky, if we can combine it.

@Nelson Hyde Chick - You seem to have the same thing to say about every article you read.

It is hard to understand such a great interest for such a short distance flight. Only up to160 km heliport to heliport for 4 passengers and probably quite costly should be compared to door-to-door, economic, safe shared rides for 6 passengers in an electric Robotaxi like CabiBUS. I think that the range should be at least 250-300 km for a wide acceptance and that may be possible in not too distant future.

@ CEO Stephen Fitzpatrick: very convincing what you said in the video: But to believe you and the eVTOL-indutstry: How much energy does your concept use (in kW for vertical flight phase and so in cruise mode), then what "battery" can deliver that and what is left for the payload etc.??? I could tell you that "my invention can fly around the world twice without refuelling", but if I do not publish and guarantee any numbers, you are right not to believe my fantasies. You would not waste your money, right?

@Aermaco
Not it's not absurd, have you ever seen a plane crashlanding and spontaniously combust turning it's
occupants instantly into a crisp ? I have and so have millions of others ;)
Fueled aircraft are not only dangerous, they are merely a coffin with wings waiting for something to go wrong, which often does,
the list of FAA links i can post here of horrific accidents are endless.

Stop for a moment and use your head, a pilot who is dumb enough to fly an electric craft until the battery is fully depleted, does not deserve the title of a being a paddle boat pilot let alone being an aircraft pilot !
The EVTOL will land long before it's power is depleted ;)

Props don't stop on EVTOL's they are electric i suggest taking an engineering course in electrical motors.
However i can give you endless of instances where various ICE powered planes dropped like stones where the height did write the autopsy.

So it is safer period, if you compare the mechanical wear of an ICE engine vs AN Electric motor over time the electrical motor WILL absolutely always win !

@NelsonHyde
Another thoughtless comment where you still don't even realize EVTOLS is 20 time cheaper than an inexpensive helicopter. There are plenty of helicopters/planes out there, and ONLY the rich can afford them.

@ dan
You sadly seem to be just as misguided as Nelson, if you cannot even do a search on the cost of a helicopter and it's expenses it clearly shows your lack of knowledge on anything aviastion related.

@AngryPenguin
I've seen the same drivel posted on climate change threads Nelson possibly dan as well shows individuals usually connected to far right politics, not caring about any technological advancements.

It is absolutely not hard to understand at all that 160km is enough as this is exactly the type of flying needed in congested cities and in and around major city travel thus far only affordable for the elite with helicopters.

EVTOL's is an absolutely unstoppable revolution to come.

There are more eVTOL projects than you can shake a stick at. Most have a "death zone" within 150' of the ground if power fails,too low for a ballistic recovery parachute to be effective. At least one startup has a better way,the Jaunt Rosa gyrodyne,which is in auto rotation throughout flight. Also,autogyros already have an FAA approved type classification,unlike the other eVTOL types: https://newatlas.com/aircraft/jaunt-air-mobility-evtol-gyrodyne-air-taxi/