[yingw787]

I'm less comparing the helicopter approach with airplanes, and more comparing them to multirotors, where I think a lot of the autonomous flight hype is coming from, and where the use cases substitute rather than complement each other. In that sense, the fixed costs are less "baked-in" to the product. You can swap out helicopter blades for better composites, and add in a glass cockpit, but the fundamental control system still holds. You can't really change the number of motors in a multicopter without a full-scale overhaul of the avionics suite. And I sure hope the FAA wouldn't let a multicopter with some number of failed motors take off just because it doesn't immediately fall out of the sky.

I would agree with you operating a helicopter will always be expensive. I don't anticipate autonomous helicopters to be price competitive with something like cars. People pay the premium for vertical flight to gain the benefits of vertical flight. In addition, I'm pretty sure that given the high fixed price, that market would rather pay more to get a premium product rather than accept an inferior product (e.g. insufficient range, speed, flight time, safety, etc). I was more saying making helicopter flights marginally cheaper will make said flights marginally more available to more people.

There might be game changers down the line. For example, Sikorsky has a lot of experience with experimental control systems like hybrid helicopters that may reduce operational expenses, and if they can prove SARA/derivatives are as reliable or better than a human pilot and convince the general public/unions to fly without a pilot, they might design helicopters that are more maintenance-oriented. But as with all things, it's more important to make sure new innovations are deliverable and provably progressive.