# Advanced Air Mobility: Opportunities and Challenges Deploying eVTOLs for Air Ambulance Service
## 4 Analysis and Findings  
A preliminary analysis found that the total transport time for ground transportation was faster for distances less than 32 to 40 km (km) (20 to 25 miles) than eVTOLs as shown in Figure 4. Based on current technological and economic assumptions, the study finds that eVTOLs are not likely to compete with ground ambulances for medical transportation less than 40 km (25 miles). However, the study finds that hybrids could compete for market share with ground ambulances for distances between 24 and 32 km (15 to 20 miles). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Propulsion** & **Classification** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Min Cruise** \\ **Speed (mph)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Max Cruise** \\ **Speed (mph)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Min Range** \\ **(miles)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Max Range** \\ **(miles)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Electric} & Multi Rotor & 40 & 60 & 30 & 50 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Tilt Rotor & 110 & 190 & 90 & 150 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Lift and Cruise & 110 & 190 & 50 & 80 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Tilt Wing & 110 & 190 & 170 & 290 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Tilt Duct & 110 & 190 & 110 & 180 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Compound Helicopter & 110 & 190 & 90 & 150 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hybrid} & Multi Rotor & 40 & 60 & 50 & 80 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Tilt Rotor & 200 & 300 & Same as Helicopter \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Commercial} & Multi Rotor & 40 & 60 & 70 & 110 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Helicopter & 80 & 130 & 330 & 550 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Aircraft/Rotorcraft performance assumptions. Figure 3: Supply economic model for an air ambulance. The authors also compared hybrid and eVTOL aircraft to fixed wing aircraft as shown in Figure 5. Due to differences in range between hybrid and eVTOL aircraft versus fixed wing aircraft, the study finds that hybrids and eVTOLs are not likely to compete with the fixed-wing market without improvements in range. While the study finds that hybrids may be suitable for specialty care transport, given that this service represents less than one percent of ambulance trips and requires a larger aircraft with more crew, the study concludes that eVTOL and hybrids will only compete with helicopters in the near-term. Figure 4: Transportation times as a function of distance for different types of ambulances. Figure 5: Typical range requirements based on CMS Service Level. Monte Carlo was performed on all the operating assumptions highlighted in Table 3, aircraft-related assumptions in Table 4, and additional simulation assumptions in Table 5. For example, some of the additional assumptions applied included parameters on operations, costs, and other factors that could influence the business model such as personnel costs, energy costs, and profit margins. After performing 10,000 iterations of the Monte Carlo simulation, it was observed that the median cost of operating an eVTOL air ambulance is approximately 9000 USD per medical transport. The median cost of operating a hybrid air ambulance is 9800 USD per medical transport compared to 10,000 USD per transport for a rotary-wing helicopter [5] (Figure 6). In comparison, a medical transport using a ground ambulance costs approximately 500 USD per a transport. However, a high degree of uncertainty was observed primarily due to the assumptions associated with pay-roll and number of transports. In summary, eVTOLs and hybrid aircraft are not necessarily the more cost-effective option for aeromedical use cases when operated similarly to air ambulances using helicopters. Figure 7 summarizes the categorical fixed and operational costs for eVTOL, hybrid, and rotary-wing aircraft. Fixed costs account for approximately 80% of the overall cost of transport. As such, improvements in aircraft efficiency do not notably improve the cost per  
Figure 6: Monte Carlo analysis of total cost per aeromedical transport.