Time will tell if it is a ten year moat (free of competitors) or a ten year drought (free of ROI).A ten year moat is pretty sweet to investors.
There's still just so much money out there with no where else to go. Maybe if we see 8% interest rates some of it will dry up, but for now it's still a great time to lock in midsized investors for an extended runway.Having dough tied up for a long time earning zilch is gonna sting if inflation stays high.
But, perhaps all will go well. Any realistic estimates of the Kw expenditure of this plane in climb and cruise?
I was recently at an expo involving electric flight. These people don't even understand how airplanes work. One company in particular was trying to replace the Cessna Caravan. The thing had 7K lbs of batteries. No ability to trade fuel for cargo, and no range. Recharging takes overnight. Forget a quick turn. They are afraid to charge it at a fast rate because it might catch on fire. To make matters worse they were planning a vtol version. Moller was a piker. I don't think Cessna is worried....Apparently, there is a massive shortage of calculators.
And if batteries don't improve much, an awful lot of money has gone down the drain. These guys aren't the Wright Brothers, who didn't solicit investor funds to build their airplane.Everyone involved knows that today's batteries don't satisfy the mission. They acknowledge it in the interview quoted earlier. That's not the point. Batteries will improve over time, in which case the mission becomes possible; or they won't, in which case no one else will succeed either.
Yes, when that photo first appeared I posted in several places "This is what happens when you let graphic designers configure airplanes." To my eye, the biggest problem here is that the MAC location clearly makes it statically unstable unless the batteries are all located right in the nose. Of course, that problem had strong competition from the tip motors, taildragger configuration, FOD-prone props, and all the other issues.And if batteries don't improve much, an awful lot of money has gone down the drain. These guys aren't the Wright Brothers, who didn't solicit investor funds to build their airplane.
I was skeptical about Eviation after I saw their first attempt. A taildragger? In a bizjet? Really? And with motors and props at the wingtips? How are crosswind landings and takeoffs supposed to happen? And another prop at the tail right behind the tailwheel where it will get chewed up by FOD thrown up by the tailwheel? The whole thing looked like it was designed by non-aviation people...
This is a small startup, every investor involved knows exactly what risks are involved, and most of them have board representation. If they have a 1% chance of success... well, it's a better chance of ending up with something than buying 4% bonds with 8% inflation.And if batteries don't improve much, an awful lot of money has gone down the drain.
This is a small startup, every investor involved knows exactly what risks are involved, and most of them have board representation. If they have a 1% chance of success... well, it's a better chance of ending up with something than buying 4% bonds with 8% inflation.
Uhhh....I'm intimately involved in startups. There is a lot of dumb money, and most of it seems to find it's way into the aviation space for some reason. Aviation is where capital goes to die. Including mine.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: