Great work Pamir Sevincel! As discussed, slight points to make on strategy/investment:
"The opportunity lies in providing solutions to the AAM ecosystem. These could be batteries, operations software, computer vision, advanced manufacturing, reliable comms, & many more."
- Actually, as stated in my previous update with IONA, the marginal cost and complexity of integrating "enablers" are often very low so I wouldn't recommend an investment (talking about software solutions only here e.g. telecoms, etc.). There are some expectations of course, but an investment is about Finance so "risk assessment" with the risk/reward ratio. (1) the "reward" is less because you can sell short term to AAM but there is a glass ceiling with lower defensibility and well-funded competitors, so you'll be acquired for a "$10-30M" if you're lucky, and (2) the market is smaller because you capture less of the value added and - again in the case of most software - you can't expand with a vertical integration to capture more of the value over time.
If I make a start-up investment, I need to see a moonshot otherwise I'll bear the risks without the potential reward. This is why many VCs are not making any money. Strategy is everything.
"That being said, eSTOL definitely has challenges with precision landing in such tight urban configurations, which may prompt the FAA for closer scrutiny on top of this."
I agree with most of what you say on eSTOL, technically, but again I don't see it as a good market opportunity. (1) What is the use case? If I have a soccer field to take off and need to lift a lot, I can just drive a truck to the local airport/airfield and it will be much cheaper and energy-efficient. Either I want to use a super-efficient aircraft, CTOL, or I need a VTOL capability. A company doing an eSTOL would be in between, missing a lot of potential from both the CTOL and VTOL markets, yet bearing (again) the high risks of infrastructure adaptation, regulations etc. (2) there is often an overlook of "alternatives" when people consider these strategies: you're not competing with the AAM here, but with every other vehicle (road/maritime or airships) that may perform what you want to do with an eSTOL or eVTOL. This is also why I wouldn't invest in most Passenger eVTOL start-ups, and even less in an eSTOL one: the market is getting smaller and smaller as you consider all the autonomous mobility and future of mobility alternatives, and yet the valuations were high (despite down rounds now) so this is also not an investment I would make.
NB: I'm not that sure about the ease to certify an eSTOL by the way, as the interest would be to take off from suburban/urban areas where their incapacity to hover/requirement to generate lift should become a problem to demonstrate redundancy/safety.
Great work Pamir Sevincel! As discussed, slight points to make on strategy/investment:
"The opportunity lies in providing solutions to the AAM ecosystem. These could be batteries, operations software, computer vision, advanced manufacturing, reliable comms, & many more."
- Actually, as stated in my previous update with IONA, the marginal cost and complexity of integrating "enablers" are often very low so I wouldn't recommend an investment (talking about software solutions only here e.g. telecoms, etc.). There are some expectations of course, but an investment is about Finance so "risk assessment" with the risk/reward ratio. (1) the "reward" is less because you can sell short term to AAM but there is a glass ceiling with lower defensibility and well-funded competitors, so you'll be acquired for a "$10-30M" if you're lucky, and (2) the market is smaller because you capture less of the value added and - again in the case of most software - you can't expand with a vertical integration to capture more of the value over time.
If I make a start-up investment, I need to see a moonshot otherwise I'll bear the risks without the potential reward. This is why many VCs are not making any money. Strategy is everything.
"That being said, eSTOL definitely has challenges with precision landing in such tight urban configurations, which may prompt the FAA for closer scrutiny on top of this."
I agree with most of what you say on eSTOL, technically, but again I don't see it as a good market opportunity. (1) What is the use case? If I have a soccer field to take off and need to lift a lot, I can just drive a truck to the local airport/airfield and it will be much cheaper and energy-efficient. Either I want to use a super-efficient aircraft, CTOL, or I need a VTOL capability. A company doing an eSTOL would be in between, missing a lot of potential from both the CTOL and VTOL markets, yet bearing (again) the high risks of infrastructure adaptation, regulations etc. (2) there is often an overlook of "alternatives" when people consider these strategies: you're not competing with the AAM here, but with every other vehicle (road/maritime or airships) that may perform what you want to do with an eSTOL or eVTOL. This is also why I wouldn't invest in most Passenger eVTOL start-ups, and even less in an eSTOL one: the market is getting smaller and smaller as you consider all the autonomous mobility and future of mobility alternatives, and yet the valuations were high (despite down rounds now) so this is also not an investment I would make.
NB: I'm not that sure about the ease to certify an eSTOL by the way, as the interest would be to take off from suburban/urban areas where their incapacity to hover/requirement to generate lift should become a problem to demonstrate redundancy/safety.