safer by what metric?

Thanks for your engagement. We have transparently disclosed we are short. But we are in the business of providing retail investors and other stakeholders who don't get to 'kick the tyres' with relevant information that will help them in decision making.

Had to rush outside to rescue my ATOL model from a sudden rainshower (winter in AustralIa) and rushed my comment. The characteristic "lethargy" of vtol vehicles in general is a result of high mass due to the needed high power together with only small EXCESS power hence low acceleration rates which forever damn 14:47 14:47 this type of aircraft to slow turnaround times and tie up the landing pads for inordinate amounts of time. Having to start and stop from stationary yet airborne flight imposes a loss of landing pad capacity as compared to roll on roll off (the Metro hop website includes an animation of their rapid turnaround estol system for a comparison , the Berlin airlift was a historical example of a highly efficient ,delay free operation but still way short of the Uber projections. Focussing on one thing to distract attention from the real trick is the essence of the magician, or deceptionist's art. Watch the other hand...

Archer tells stakeholders that it has a very good product, the design is very "mature" it is really quiet and it is ramping up the cadence of its test flight program and it is flying hundreds of times, up to 15 flights per day so as to gain experience on what commercial operations will be. If that is true, then Archer has lots of internal data to back it up. Everything in that data set can be shared without jeopardising Archer's intellectual property. So we would say: share the calibrated noise data, share the actual mileage and flight hours flown, share video's of flights including sound, share pictures of the actual assembly of the first three planes. None of that is forthcoming. To put it differently: would you buy a car from a seller who tells you that he is totally confident that his car has 500 miles of range, accelerates to 100 mph in 6 seconds and top speed of 200 mph because that is what he is doing all the time, but who doesn't wan't to show you any material to back up those claims, much less lets you test drive? Meanwhile Archer is selling hundreds of millions of dollars of shares to institutional investors at an attractive discount and is then trying to convince retail investors to buy them without the discount in the public markets. Our goal is to make sure that retail investors have a complete picture. We are not arguing that Archer doesn't have a path to certification and commercialisation because we don't have a definitive opinion on that. What we are trying to do is make sure that stakeholder who invest their money in Archer or stake their reputation on entering into a MOU for some future collaboration have a full picture of the state of play. They deserve that.

They've come further than any evtol company so far in my opinion. I'm invested in several and the others are coming along at different speeds. This industry may be huge soon.

​@sphudson I don't think N302AX is a tail number. I think it is a model number. When Archer first made the claims of delivering an aircraft to the U.S.A.F and I Google compared (what I thought would be a 2nd aircraft) I noticed both had the same tail number, but found it was a model number, so it I thought that possibly Archer has now 2 Midnight aircraft. From the looks of this video, my skepticism was right and Archer just painted their only Midnight and passed it off as - some newly built aircraft. The white Midnight earlier in the vid has to be the same aircraft and was just in between paint schemes.

@@sphudson as far as being legal, I'm not sure.

Same dudes are gonna be like 🤬 😭eLON sAid AGI in 2025 !!?! 😤

The investors are probably holding deadweight stock.

Thanks for your engagement. We are not aircraft engineers like yourself and we defer to people like you on who is doing relatively well in terms of delivery of technology. We do have experience in capital markets. In our view the problem is the following: the value of all the EVTOL players together is too low relative to the plausible size of the market opportunity. All of the EVTOL players taken together are worth currently perhaps something like US 10 billion. Joby is 3.5bn, Archer is 1.4bn, Vertical is 0.2bn, Lilium is 0.5bn and then you have privately held players like Wisk (maybe 0.5bn) and Beta (guestimate 2bn). That US$ 10 billion is too small a number relative to the size of the market that investors could buy into. Let's say that by 2030 there could be a market for 20.000 EVTOLs per year. That would mean a market size of US$ 60 billion (using 3m per plane) by 2030, not a crazy number either relative to the current size of the global helicopter market of ~ US 50 billion. There are going to be investors that believe the US$ 60 billion number. Why are they not bidding up the prices of the EVTOL companies, in other words why are valuations so low? We believe it has a lot to do with EVTOL players not providing a balanced view on both good news but also on challenges to overcome. Investors don't mind risk, it just gets factored into the discount rate they use for the valuation of a company. What they don't like is risk that they can't wrap their head around. So the endless stream of communicated 'achievements' and MOU's and 'milestones' that all on further inspection don't add up to a hill of beans are making investors wary. They know there are lots of risks, but most of the companies in the sector do a poor job in explaining what they are, how likely they are too occur and what their impact and remediation would be. Hence we believe the industry would be better off if all players would provide that balanced view rather than the endless 'good news shows' that are being put on display despite the obvious challenges and set backs that companies run into. So in absolute valuation terms the EVTOL players would be helped by more transparency as to what is really going on. We at EVTOL research are trying to fill some of that missing information gap. In addition, we want markets to function properly and allocate their investment dollars to the companies most deserving of the next capital injection. In order for markets to function properly more information about at least the state of the development of the product should be forthcoming. Take note of SpaceX as an example. It is attracting a lot of stakeholder interest and would obtain an enormous amount of investment if it were to come to a public market. It doesn't put on a good news show, actually it makes stakeholders participants in understanding how incremental progress is made in a process of two steps forward and one step back. By the same token, we are arguing for more transparency from the EVTOL industry. Self evidently Archer is running into significant delays. Stakeholders should not be left in the dark as to what is causing them. There may well be a good explanation that explains incremental and important progress is being made but that certain items are bottlenecks which the company is working to overcome. If on the other hand there are insurmountable problems, then the market should know about them, lest it sends good money after bad.

​@@EVTOLresearch there is also skepticism about evtols and what many call "The Flying Car market" here in the U.S. Most people have limited understanding of what an evtol market can bring to an economy and the $$$ it can unlock. Some airlines understand it and have invested appropriately with other evtol companies. What we do have for the first time is the convergence of technologies that will absolutely support evtol and services where in decades past we didn't. So it's not a matter of if anymore, but now WHEN. When it does come to market investors will be rewarded. I appreciate your updates on Archer, I haven't been a fan of management's claims, nor their strategy. Wasting money on development of Maker, and now a pilotless Midnight, they should have gone straight to a pilot capable Midnight aircraft.

How do you get that Archer is quieter? They are over 20 db louder, which is huge. Joby briefly peaks at 72.2 db (1:00), measured at 40 meters. Archer goes above 86 db (12:20) multiple times during takeoff hover, measured at 85 meters. Since Joby was measured at less than half the distance, they take a 6.5 db penalty. (You can google sound distance attenuation calculator and check yourself.) If Joby had been measured at 85 meters, they would have had a maximum sound level of 65.7 db! More than 20 db less than Archer. You are correct that the quality of Joby's sound is much better!

Crossouts are unintentional.

Perfect would be both companies subjecting themselves to a standardised test. Joby of course has extensively published data and video material about their sound profile. Archer hasn't yet done so. We believe that the only online material with sound is the very first test flight of Maker in December 2021.

Makes it's own dustorm when about 200 feet high - unacceptable on all counts.

Thanks for your engagement. We are actually thinking of heading to Spain to capture a Lilium flight.

Thanks for your engagement. We hear other people expressing the same view. We would be keen to hear what your arguments are. Weight? Disc Loading? Efficiency of the motors? Complexity of the combination of tilting fore propellers and fixed lift propellers? Grateful in advance for your viewpoints. If you are an aircraft engineer, so much the better!

@@setonfire104 Like Pepsi vs Coke. Both will exist together just fine. People who think there will only be one success and the other will be destroyed.. are out of touch from reality. I invest in ACHR because they are the (safest). Their design can glide to safety with zero power.

We don't know. That would be speculation. Nothing wrong with that, but we prefer to stick to facts, at least on our channel. That is why we show so much recordings of the key individuals and we quote the original documents. In addition, we are making our own observations at the test sites. None of that is speculation. Thanks for your engagement!

@@EVTOLresearch we? Are you borg?

@EVTOLresearch can you speculate on if the craft was was in the condition to support passangers even if they didn't have the weight of passangers they would at least shown it up close and give a tour of the interior. basically make good videos and sell their buisness. It seems they are hiding things.

Thanks for your engagement and very useful input.

What are you intending to do next? Is there any intention to join the legal action as amicus curae (friend of the court) for instance? I have a very real stake in this whole show having been working (on my own dollar) for many years (40+) to solve the same issue but taking a vastly different approach to the 1000 plus evtolemmings ,namely ATOL ,of which I have posted extensively and warned of the threat of damage to the entire field from battery powered ill conceived contraptions flogged by hucksters and/or the ignorant or self deluded which have suddenly been deluged in enormous sums of money and computer assisted deception (including pretty CGI and animations and calculating power that brings to mind the Disney tale of the sorcerer's apprentice, such power in the hands of UNexperienced engineering graduates let loose without mature oversight is fraught (the Lilium example is most germane here with competent outside analysis and warnings going unheeded whilst the protaginists continue to milk the public penchant for flying cars and blight of everyday jammed traffic, bleak lives etc and dangle the carrot of magical freedom from it all in front of the huddled masses (OK, a bit florid but the technique being used is at least putting the cart before the horse if not the carrot - selling aircraft that don't exist or never became available in satisfactory form ,eg the BD5 et al created a big backlash some time ago and led to reforms in aviation advertising and promotion (and industry bodies intended to protect the buying public) Nothing on the present scale but of the same kind has existed before and received so little critical technical examination, Theranos and Enron perhaps being worth noting. It would be nice if you could state your motives or objectives in posting and eliciting comment and from what position you come. The 'nuance' is important since some evtol opponents are merely of the "if God meant us to fly he would have given us tickets" kind rather than having deeper insight . Anyway nice work in bringing this stuff to light, the internecine hatred and allegations between Wisk and Archer dwarfed the possible finance market irregularities that seem to be involved here (and, no they did not transition to cruise mode lest it not be clear😊 )

Another thing,(channelling Columbo here...) both Archer, with Maker 2 seat and Wisk with Cora 2 seat have made huge investments into what they now seem to relegate to just "test" aircraft but which were touted as products for public use initially (the very concept of taxi denotes on demand individual service rather than multi seat minibus type use but not allowing for scheduled flights under the regs pt 135 etc - if they have given up on autonomy and realised the need for a pilot and hence to amortise the increased cost over more heads they should have said so (recall the couple deposited in some desert landscape whilst the Maker departs leaving them to their tryst...) The 'visions' of serene operations not even mussing the hair of the female executive type depicted in the Uber elevate promos whereas the reality of tornado level downwashes on those vertipads would be more like the opening segment of MASH , the whole concept of thousands of daily movements per facility is unrealistic on several levels but crucial to the viability if their model 'conops' . When does misrepresentation become wilful deceit in these matters?

Thanks for the compliment! We are confident that over time the opportunity to connect will present itself.

Wonderful comments. Clearly you have domain experience!