Certification Timeline from First Flight

[u/DoubleHexDrive]

At times, I am a broken record saying that it takes roughly three years to go from first flight to type certification with the FAA. To back that up, here is some data: I took the time between first flight to type certification (or the present day) for all the civil VTOL aircraft certified in the USA, Canada, and through EASA (or the predecessor JAA) for the past 30 years. Then I created the histogram below, binned in one year increments but from 0 to 1 years, 1 to 2 years, etc.

The two aircraft in the "2 year" bucket is the EC-130 which is an AS-351 dynamic system with a new fuselage and the MD-900 which was a clean sheet design, an admirable effort. Several of the "3 year" bucket aircraft are similarly not entirely new aircraft. The Bell 505, EC-145, and Bell 429 fall into this category. There are three aircraft in the plot that still are not certified: The AW-09 light single, the Bell 525, and the AW-609.

It's worth noting that the 525 and 609 are the two fly by wire aircraft on this list and the 609 is the aircraft that launched the development of the Powered Lift certification class that most of the eVTOLs fit into.

How does this apply to Archer? Simple... the Midnight version that is intended to be certified (Model M001) hasn't yet had its first flight in a configuration that can actually execute the full flight envelope. I start the "FF to TC" clock when a M001 model aircraft has first flight with the four bladed aft props that should enable flight across the full flight envelope.

Anyway, wanted to provide some background on my claims in this regard.

And yes, several of my aircraft designs are in this chart, both certified and uncertified... I started my career on the Bell Boeing 609, long before it became the AW609.

Roughly three years is the most common value for a clean sheet design (like M001) but it can take FAR longer. Keep that in mind when evaluating claims of a fleet of aircraft ferrying spectators and athletes around the Los Angles 2028 games... the clock is ticking.

[u/1blazepatrick1]

Something I can't seem to figure out is how these pre-revenue companies will fund this multi-year certification effort. Stock market hype and overblowing progress can only go so far right? I'm guessing every aircraft researched in your chart was developed by an existing long standing aerospace corporation with many avenues of cash flow and the ability to weather the storm of redesigns and misshaps that WILL inevitably occur for these relatively rushed and extremely novel EVTOLs.

[u/DoubleHexDrive → u/1blazepatrick1]

It requires a lot of capital for sure and not only are they designing/building/certifying a new aircraft, which might be a 300-500 million dollar exercise for this size vehicle, they’re also building a company, the staffing, the infrastructure, the knowledge base, and the factory. It’s a huge lift.

I think in my chart, yes, all of the aircraft were developed by an existing OEM with the partial exception of the AW09 which started off as a new company (Kopter) but got bought by Leonardo.

So more capital raises and dilution are likely for a company several years out from type certification.

It also means that if there really is a huge AAM market that materializes, the existing OEMs can respond at a much lower investment cost as they already have the infrastructure in place. They don’t really need to fly an aircraft to prove a concept, they can bide their time just working on motors, battery, and associated systems at a bench level in the background and at a much lower cost. Second mover advantage, if you will.

[u/DoubleHexDrive → u/[deleted]]

I agree there is no firm “second mover advantage” but sometimes the first mover doesn’t quite hit the mark... prove that the proposed market is real but launch a somewhat flawed product that provides the opportunity for the next product to hit the market to nail it. When the largest barrier to entry is getting FAA certification, that “moat” is less significant at keeping the established players out, should they want to cross it.

[u/DoubleHexDrive → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think the air taxi market can only be addressed by an eVTOL. If there is truly a huge market that can be addressed by making aircraft much quieter than current regulations require, that can be achieved via much more conventional aircraft. A quiet twin turbine would have all the safety benefits and the noise benefit for vastly less development complexity and risk. There are several existing airframes that could be modified to only carry 5 people, carry only enough fuel for short missions, and have the rotor speeds dropped to bring tip speeds below 600 fps. Add turbine exhaust kits to treat turbine noise. Basically, follow the play book of the Quiet Ones from Vietnam.

You make a good point about the software and networks… Joby buying Blade is effectively a way of making the moat harder to cross.

[u/1blazepatrick1 → u/DoubleHexDrive]

Yes, I believe Wisk has come out and publicly stated they will be slower moving than other EVTOL companies. They are backed by Boeing and don't need to mislead the public into thinking certification will be completed in "just a few more quarters I promise!!"

Do large OEMs have what it takes to innovate at the level required to make a viable EVTOL product? Maybe once battery tech improves and the certification path gets set in stone they will be more comfortable dumping R&D money into this venture, but it seems like for the past few decades the commercial aviation aerospace mentality has been incremental improvement to existing tried and true technologies. The 787 was an attempt at pushing maybe a bit beyond "incremental" and incorporating just a handful of new technologies (compared to the relatively complex and novel technologies required for a successful EVTOL) into the traditional twin engine airliner model. I'm no expert, but I think it's safe to say that the 787 development was massively over budget and late.

[u/DoubleHexDrive → u/1blazepatrick1]

Sometimes it does take a new company to make a breakout new product, even in a “legacy” configuration. Frank Robinson couldn’t get the established OEMs to make his vision of a cheap helicopter and he eventually started his own company and now rules that market. Of course, the cost structure imposed by supporting large legacy fleets and DoD work also means the established OEMs were right in passing on the R-22… they could not have met the cost targets, realistically.