Air taxis — eVTOLs — UAVs — UASs — UAMs. I like “multicopters,” but the name game continues.
Maybe these new-fangled flying contraptions have numerous (indecipherable) names because they’re still deciding which way they’re headed?
I believe aircraft like these are nearly inevitable and I not only don’t resist, I’m rather enthusiastic about them. I’d love to get picked up from my driveway and whisked by air to an appointment across town in minutes, free of clogged roads. C’mon, UberAir!
However, that dream may be years in the future. Oh, the technology is nearly ready now. It hasn’t been proven to be in-the-field robust yet but engineers know today most of what they need to make air taxis viable. Their much bigger challenge? Gaining public acceptance and winning regulatory approval. That could take a long time. Meanwhile…
What’s Here TODAY?!
Air taxis may be fuzzy in the distance but another class of these machines is nearly ready for market. I like “recreational multicopters.”
Jetson lands in America. The Swedish machine will work toward Part 103 confirmation (as have Lift’s Hexa and Opener’s Blackfly).
I refer to those multicopters with a single seat and which can qualify for FAA’s Part 103 rule. Do you doubt that’s possible? I can understand.
These machines are so different they were not even remotely envisioned by those who wrote Part 103 41 years ago. Nonetheless, two of these machines have already proven they can meet the definitions and now comes a third (with a fourth recently hinted to me).
It’s time for the George Jetson-mobile — Actually I think this modern (and real-life) Jetson 103 is cooler because it isn’t a passenger sedan like Cartoon George had. In use, it’s closer to a motorcycle of the air. I don’t know about you, but I think this thing looks mighty fun …you know, once that flight-control software is super-robust.
Stéphan D’haene, new CEO of Jetson.
Recently an individual who’s been in the LSA industry for a number of years took over as CEO at Jetson, the Stockholm, Sweden-based creator of Jetson One.
Jetson announced the appointment of Stéphan D’haene as its new CEO. “Stéphan brings extensive industry experience and a proven track record of driving growth and innovation in the aviation industry,” wrote Jetson’s Head of Communications.
Before joining Jetson, Stéphan worked for Icon Aircraft, where he served as COO since 2021. Stéphan and I knew one another from his days working for two well-regarded European manufacturers of LSA-type aircraft. He worked for two speed-driven companies: BlackWing in Sweden and Porto Aviation Group in Italy, producer of the Risen. With 10 years before that at BRP-Powertrain (Rotax), Stéphan has accumulated experience that can now be applied to Jetson.
“Seeing Jetson for the first time about a year and half ago, I was extremely excited about their flying concept vehicle,” said Stéphan. He believes that the team led by Tomasz Patan and Peter Ternström had “cracked the code” to make flying more accessible than ever. Jetson was founded by Tomasz and Peter in 2017.
Jetson recently increased the price from $92,000 to $98,000. Their order book has 252 orders that paid $8,000 until delivery.
“The dream of flying has never been more accessible with the paradigm shifting Jetson One, powered by an environmentally-sustainable electric drivetrain. Together, we will push the boundaries of what is possible in the eVTOL industry and deliver game-changing solutions that will have a positive impact on the environment and society as a whole,” finished Stéphan.
“We are confident that Stéphan’s expertise and leadership will help us achieve our goals and take the future of transport to a new level,” said a company statement.
Pricing and Availability — The Company started modestly with a reported 14 units in 2022, followed by 186 booked for this year. All those slots are sold out.
In 2024, another 52 order slots are filled, perhaps filling the books through March, although the company may choose to increase production if all is going well.
Jetson is asking for an $8,000 deposit against a current price of $98,000.
About Jetson One
Company Statements — “Jetson One is constructed of a race car-inspired lightweight aluminum space frame and Carbon-Kevlar composite body. Thanks to the intuitive joystick controls and a flight computer which keeps it stable in the air, everyone can learn how to fly it in just a matter of minutes.
Well-known futurist and the man behind the X-Prize, Peter Diamandis has joined Jetson as a Senior Advisor.
“Jetson One is powered by eight electric motors, has a flight time of 20 minutes, reaching a top speed of 63 miles per hour. It runs on a high discharge lithium-ion battery and can carry a pilot’s weight of 210 pounds.
With enough skill and great software, you can land about anywhere in a Jetson.
“Jetson is an eVTOL company with a mission to change the way we travel. We aim to make the skies available for everyone with our safe personal electric aerial vehicle. The Jetson One, is a commercially available personal electric aerial vehicle that you can own and fly. We intend to make everyone a pilot.”
ARTICLE LINKS:
- Jetson Aero, company website
- Jetson, coverage on this website, including specifications, more images, and video
- All content on similar vehicles to Jetson, on this website
Jetson rests on an elevation overlooking Rome, Italy.
Dan, I get your point. 2 pages of ultralight regulation. Which means a new similar eVTOL regulation should be implemented; and sooner rather than later; because of the beyond huge traffic jams in all metro areas. I have experienced these traffic jams personally in over a dozen US cities; just disgusting; and have been told it is this way in every metro area in the US and on Earth. And also because of the beyond huge cost of building new highways and freeways. Getting licensed drivers into the air may not solve the traffic jam problem. But it should alleviate the traffic jam problem everywhere. Holding back commerce and ignoring the bill of rights is not lawful government activity. Just how much study is needed? Should not be much with all of the beyond immense traffic jams occurring in all metro areas. The current ultra light eVTOLs I have followed: the Jetson 1 and the Pivotal Helix formerly the Blackfly; have triple and cross checking software, LIDAR in addition to the operators eyes for seeing obstacles. I have flown the Blackfly simulator at Oshkosh; nothing complicated. So a brief FAA review, dept by dept, 7 days max, should get airspace from 0 to 200 feet agl set aside for eVTOLS plus the new ultralight eVTOL category max empty weight set at 800 pounds. Two new rules to open aviation to millions of auto drivers and to get rid of very large unnecessary road and freeway additions. Having been involved in aviation as a side line all of my life; I do not know where the problem(s) would be; and have given this situation much, much thought. I do not believe any problems exist having had plenty of time to examine the numerous possible alternatives. Just getting the FAA to get it done is what is needed. You and your readership help would go a long way.
I’m fine with a new regulation and hope all your ideas get a hearing. Let’s leave Part 103 alone; it’s precious as it is.
Wait for the used eVTOLS to show up. They will because these elementary first versions will be sold by the multi millionaires as soon as a better one is available. If you are mechanically inclined; you can probably change a 1st version to a 2nd or 3rd version whenever the possibility exists. When ever the FAA and EASA change their rules to allow empty weights of ultralights up to 800 pounds and light sport aircraft up to 1600 pounds and dedicate airspace from 0 to 200 feet AGL to street legal eVTOLS. When these rule changes occur, commerce will continue. Commerce with street legal eVTOLS will likely stagnate until these rule changes are made. Or with these rules changes lots of batteries will be possible with endurances hopefully up to 3.5 hours. And two place street legal eVTOLS should be possible also. So how long will the FAA and EASA study this situation will decide when the next generation of street legal eVTOLS are available. The best hope appears to be the US DOT to tell the FAA to save the government very huge amounts of funds by making these rule changes sooner rather than later. By the end of this year should be doable if the US DOT has issued these change orders to the FAA. Have they? We will likely not know until the FAA actually implements the US DOT request. Why later this year? Is fast by bureaucratic standards.
Specifications of the Jetson 1 are well hidden. And showing where the batteries are located does not appear to exist either; and how many? And the size and capacity of the batteries does not appear to be available. I am waiting until I can fly a Jetson 1 and examine it up close. Then maybe. The thought of an aluminum frame is scary because salt water air eats aluminum within 5 to 10 years. On other aircraft, I believe the aluminum is allodyned as a corrossion preventative. I suggested to Jetson.aero they need a formal communication system with their purchasers to get feedback from them on flying the Jetson 1. Other aircraft manufacturers issue bulletins on any and all non standard events of the aircraft; for others to know. And if a safety issue; the FAA issues airworthiness directives ADs, to prevent or reduce accidents. Maybe as a part 103 aircraft, none of this is required. But should be done anyway to provide the safest possible environment for flying the Jetson 1.
I Like it !!!!!
In the US, the National Advanced Air Mobility Center of Excellence (NAAMCE) is under construction in Springfield Ohio. As the Vice Chair of the Ohio House Aviation and Aerospace Committee, I invite Jetson to visit and discuss how we can support manufacturing right here in the research, development and testing hub. We have the BLOS airspace and approvals and all of the infrastructure that you need. Let me know!
This looks like a blast. Is there any traction with a 2 seat version of an eVTOL.
Yes, some are in development. However, then a manufacturer enters into an entirely different regulatory environment.
Dan, two place ultralight trainers have been built. And no reason exists that a two place trainer for the Jetson 1 can not be built under FAA part 103. I have not yet found the rules for a two place ultralight; but I know they exist with a higher allowable gross weight. It appears only the Jetson 1 copy cats will make headway. Everything else that has shown up is either too complicated or just too messy or both. Like rotating wings! They must be kidding. How many military people have died in crashes of the Osprey? Seems to me the Osprey has been grounded until they figure out what is going wrong. It appears the maintenance is not intensive enough. Even rotating engines is substantially outrageous. Like helicopters, anything large that rotates is normally a problem. Since cost will always be a consideration; even for the military; complexity must go away except maybe in avionics. If the radio or transponder fails, you can still get to your destination and find someone to fix the problem; normally, unless you are IFR; which does not apply to ultralights. Or, all bases are covered for the Jetson 1 it appears and their copy cats. No mention of patents at the Jetson website and why copy cats will likely be around.
I regret to disagree but no, a two-place trainer Jetson cannot be built under Part 103, which specifies a single seat. A two-seat Jetson would have to advance to LSA. It’s a mighty cool single seater, though, and with modern technology, learning to fly one with computer assist should be achievable with sufficiently-robust software.
Dan, I do not understand how you can disagree. You know there are at least several ultralight trainers available. Not enough info from you to know. I do value your opinion; being on several ultra light committees. So which committee is telling you a 2 place ultra-light trainer is not possible? Especially when at least several exist. Can you offer any more information; specifics why an ultralight trainer is not possible? Safety says to me an ultralight trainer must be. Non pilots in particular, can get themselves into bad situations; without trying. Why Jetson Aeros claim any novice can fly a Jetson with training is very hard to swallow. If they pull it off without anyone getting hurt or killed; I will be amazed.
My reply addresses what is permitted by regulation, not the availability of an aircraft suitable for flight training. Part 103 ultralight vehicles are assuredly limited to single place. Any aircraft that can be used for compensated instruction must be an LSA or Part 23.
Thanks Dan. I have been looking for a copy of the MOSAIC proposed rule changes; but have not found them. Do you have a copy that you could provide on your forum? Or can you provide an internet pathway to the MOSAIC rule changes? The 60 day comment period is over. So the proposed rule changes should be available somewhere? The FAA said somewhere they would not be implementing the new rules until the end of 2024? Suggesting more is going on than meets the eye? In the past I believe the FAA has instituted new rules immediately after the 60 comment period or after they have made changes based on outside inputs. Taking a whole year to make changes to MOSAIC rule changes sounds excessive. In this instance, the rule changes appear beneficial to aircraft owners; at least partially. My presumption is the committees responsible for the rule changes take the amount of time they need. And the FAA only reports on what the rule change committees say. Is this true?
First, it was a 90-day window and while that one has closed, I reported that it has been extended another 90 days.
It also appears you’ve missed several of the articles I’ve written about Mosaic because I’ve addressed some of the things you brought up in your comments. I’m not blowing you off; just saying that I’ve already discussed these points. I’d love for you to go read those articles.
Yes, you are correct. I have missed at least some of what you have written, to my regret. I will go look for your articles. Thanks.
I assume they are at this website, just in the past; making it easy to find them.
All content can be found various ways and all of it is made available free of charge. One of the most powerful tools is Advanced Search.
Thanks. As commented to the FAA: At Table 10 at Summary, Item 6. Significant Alternatives Considered. E. Paperwork Reduction Act; Control No. 2120-0018 FAA Form 8130-6; Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certification. • Update the “LIGHT–SPORT” field to accommodate any aircraft class. No mention of part 103 appears anywhere that I have found. And since the LIGHT-SPORT aircraft appears to have been expanded; it should include part 103. Specifically, since at least 2 electrical vertical takeoff and (eVTOL) landing craft are being offered to the public, part 103 is inadequate for these street legal aircraft. Part 103 and Light Sport should include any eVTOL that is street legal by width, less than 14 feet wide or less should be allowed to use any public road or driveway anywhere in the US where space is available to land and depart. The Jetson 1 has a width of around 8 feet and is collapsed to around 4 foot width for storage. With 8 motors and propellers, operator or pilot care will be needed to not create any safety concerns. The current Jetson 1 has only a 20 minute endurance. Or is not a commute aircraft except very short commutes. It is expected more and lighter batteries will allow flying endurances up to 2.5 hours or more. Making the Jetson 1 a commute aircraft. With virtually all metro areas having traffic jams at least in the mornings and evenings everywhere in the US, an imperative exists for Jetson 1 or equal aircraft to alleviate this traffic jam problem. My assumption is a transponder, radio, and radar with a range of 2500 feet to identify wires, trees, and other aircraft are a necessity for commute aircraft to use airspace classes C; D; E; & G. Airspace A is not applicable and airspace B is generally too busy for numerous small commute aircraft. The above inclusions are requested in this proposed rule to help alleviate the traffic jam problem everywhere in the metro US. And to not get in the way of eVTOL aircraft that help alleviate these traffic jam problems. Also, the 63 mph per hour max velocity of part 103 aircraft needs to go away for eVTOL aircraft.
As I have noted many times, any change to Part 103 will likely result in a much longer, much more restrictive regulation. Virtually all present-day users of Part 103 privileges will fight vigorously to leave Part 103 alone.
Thanks for the reply. I know you are probably correct. Except the FAA and the ASTM committees usually look at the big picture. And in this instance, not being able to land and take off in a populated area is restraining commerce. Something no government agency can do if they are caught. And since the multi millionaires are buying the first 300 or so Jetson 1s; you can bet their attorneys will be right their to challenge the FAA and the ASTM committees if they ignore this huge problem. And since nearly any healthy person holding a driver license can fly a jetson 1 or equal, the market size for jetson 1 or equal is 10 to 100 times larger than the non eVTOL ultrallight market. If 100 times larger, the eVTOL market will win. You can take that to the bank. With the traffic jams in every major metro area in the US; a mandate exists to alleviate this traffic problem. And the Jetson 1 or equal is the answer and one one hundreth or less the cost of building new roads and freeways. Your help with this is requested. I have emailed Congressman Graves, the DOT House ranking committee member on this as above. I have not received a response yet, but expect a response.
I also expect the FAA to dedicate all airspace 0 to 200 feet agl to eVTOL aircraft except at runway ends to not interfere with fixed wing traffic; especially in all airport traffic areas. So with enough endurance, an eVTOL will be able to go anywhere except will need to temporarily settle into traffic at the ends of airport runways. This must be done or the attorneys will blame the FAA for obstructing commerce! And they will win in court, if forced to go there. And having to use attorneys is always last choice. And why the FAA will yield to not blocking commerce.
Dan, I do not want to see the FAA change part 103 or for light sport aircraft either. Which suggests a new FAA part for eVTOL aircraft is a necessity because applying the current rules in part 103 is unlawful or does not work for eVTOLs. Principally, not being able to fly in a populated area is unlawful discrimination and obstruction of commerce for an eVTOL. Where ever an auto can go, a street legal eVTOL can go and the government should have nothing to say about it except to fix their rules to accomodate eVTOL aircraft on all roads, streets, driveways where space is available to land and take off. This needs to happen or the government will be in violation of the commerce clause of US Constitution and unlawfully discriminating against eVTOL street legal aircraft. A letter of deviation authorization (LODA) may work for street legal eVTOLs to fly in populated areas with a street legal eVTOL.
I agree the capabilities are so different, they should probably be handled separately. Indeed, that’s what happened in the Mosaic regulatory proposal where “multicopters” were taken out. Of course, the company formally known as Opener will start out selling a Part 103 Aircraft so they are not part of Mosaic… yet.
I sent the FAA a request to increase the empty weight of ultralights to 800 pounds and light sport aircraft to 1600 pounds and to reserve airspace from 0 to 200 feet AGL to street legal eVTOLs. And possibly requiring a transponder code for all street legal evtols so when they are in the air ATC know where and how high on their computer screens. Street Legal eVTOL defined as an eVTOL width less than 14 feet. I also sent it to EASA since the Jetson 1 is manufactured in Italy; and to the US DOT so they can direct the FAA to make these changes to save maybe trillions of dollars to not have to build much less freeways and highways. Nearly everyone under 50 who holds a drivers license would likely be thrilled to stay out of rush hour traffic by commuting in a street legal eVTOL. How many millions of people would that be? Maybe 50% of the US population; off the roads and reducing traffic jams. Does it get any more wonderful than that?
While I respect all requests and everyone’s right to speak out, I must say I hope your request for FAA to change the weight of ultralight is declined (as I expect it will be). Part 103 is presently expressed on the front and back of a single sheet of paper. After any change, Part 103 could easily run past 100 pages under the present federal process, with noise evaluation and many other requirements demanded. ▫️ I cannot predict how FAA may react to your “Street Legal eVTOL” requests.
Have a look at http://www.skyfly.aeor
*www.skyfly.aero sorry
I love the concept, the videos are great, orders are good, etc. How many are in owners hands and flying?
If the answer is zero, call me a skeptic. 🙁
I wonder how feasible it would be to add a small gas engine & alternator to charge the batteries in flight to extend your flight time?
That price is ridiculous. How about making something for us poor folk?
Wait for the used eVTOLS to show up. They will because these elementary first versions will be sold by the multi millionaires as soon as a better one is available. If you are mechanically inclined; you can probably change a 1st version to a 2nd or 3rd version whenever the possibility exists. When ever the FAA and EASA change their rules to allow empty weights of ultralights up to 800 pounds and light sport aircraft up to 1600 pounds and dedicate airspace from 0 to 200 feet AGL to street legal eVTOLS. When these rule changes occur, commerce will continue. Commerce with street legal eVTOLS will likely stagnate until these rule changes are made. Or with these rules changes lots of batteries will be possible with endurances hopefully up to 3.5 hours. And two place street legal eVTOLS should be possible also. So how long will the FAA and EASA study this situation will decide when the next generation of street legal eVTOLS are available. The best hope appears to be the US DOT to tell the FAA to save the government very huge amounts of funds by making these rule changes sooner rather than later. By the end of this year should be doable if the US DOT has issued these change orders to the FAA. Have they? We will likely not know until the FAA actually implements the US DOT request. Why later this year? Is fast by bureaucratic standards.