Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Re: I thought they were going to sell surefly
They have to. But they need a buyer that will produce cash proceeds > $20M first. What's worth $20M on the Bill of Sale from last year's filings? The aircraft does not have (and has never had) the hybrid energy system described in PR's, and it doesn't exist on a test stand, either.
Also the airplane has gotten really chubby, with planned MGTOW rising several hundred pounds. The result is a massive power requirement that can't be met by any existing practical piston engine, so an expensive gas turbine will be needed. Cost to build will exceed $200k, so it's toast.
BTW, the CRADA doesn't mean anything to the value. No funding to commercial entities is allowable under CRADA agreements. See...
https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=14
Finally, who is the US DoD signatory to the CRADA? There is no such thing as "the Military" as a signer, as stated vaguely in the PR. Which branch/agency is the counterparty?
Figger it out, guys. It's over.
Can this aircraft & company actually do what the article stated:
"The company has already begun developing the Elroy 2.0, which should be introduced to the market in the next 6-9 months."
They can't in the US for sure because
(1) it's too heavy for Ultarlight / FAR Part 103 cert (limited to 254 kg / ~115kg max)
(2) there's no provision for any rotorcraft (only winged, parasail, or gyrocopter) under Light Sport Aircraft / 14 CFR 21.190
(3) there are no certification categories extant yet for electrically-powered multrotors at all; prolly won't be for 2-3 yrs at least.
They MIGHT be able to in Canada because Ultralight classification under Transport Canada rules allows up to 544kg / 1200 lb.
BUT there's a pesky requirement for Mininimum Useful Load:
For a two place aeroplane:
MU = 160 + 0.3P, in kg; where P is the rated engine(s) power in kW;
MU = 350 + 0.5P, in lb; where P is the rated engine(s) power in bhp)
Current Elroy can't do that. We don't know what the 2.0 will do, but they're a LONG was from batteries that get to that.
I guess the real question is: do any of the pumpers care or are they just seeking a greater fool?
So... what's the new floor now?
Looks like it did this summer. Maybe something new?
Shameless pumpers are shameless.
You guys do realize that exclamation points are a finite resource, right?
Refining my practicality assessment for the Astro Elroy…
Based on a prop diameter of 1.5m, the Astro has a total swept rotor area of a little over 14m^2. With a 360kg MGTOW (that includes the 120kg “payload” of people & stuff, which is the number it must be certified to), disc loading is about 25kg/m^2 (actually pretty good).
Assuming a hover lift efficiency as good as a small helicopter (not really because of fixed-pitch, tip losses etc. but let’s be optimistic because of the contrarotation feature), we arrive at ~4.7kg/kW. That means at 360kg the total rotor shaft power input is about 75kW. Assuming a combined inverter and motor efficiency of 85%, the battery output needs to be 88kW to hover at MGTOW out of ground effect with 120kg of pilot/pax/baggage.
If you assume the “25-30 minute” range is variable based on load, and only 15-20 minutes of operation is possible with full load at rated speed of 70km/h, we have a rational and fair case. Let’s call 15-20 minutes at 88kW about 25kWh total energy requirement.
Pretty reasonable of me.
With 10% of capacity unused (charge to 95%, discharge to 5%) the total battery rating will be about 27.5kWh. It will be discharging at a rate of just over 3C. If we assume cells with the best available specific energy of 300Wh/kg could discharge continuously at 3C (which they can’t), Elroy needs a little over 90kg of CELLS ALONE. Improve this at a rate of 5%/year (based on history this is rational and commensurate with the best performance by the auto industry); by 2024 you could say perhaps 30% weight improvement or 63kg. With high-discharge rate Li batteries there needs to be significant management (cell discharge monitoring and control plus a cooling system, rated at about 5% of max discharge rate, or 5kW) as well as crash-land shock and lightning protection and fire suppression. 15kg is wildly optimistic. The total weight MIGHT come in as low as 75kg.
Then add 16 propulsion units at continuous rating of 4.7kW each at about 4200 rpm (keep tip speed below sonic).
Motor + inverter: best case using IEEE projections with exotic PM motors and SiC-based inverters is 0.75kW/kg, so 6.25kg each or 100kg. Note that this is based on 24krpm high-speed motors, and no compliance with lightning strike requirement but OK. Don’t forget that at these power levels even with SiC there needs to be about 4-5kW of cooling capacity as well, probably a pumped glycol loop, that I hven't included.
Props: 2kg each for 1.5m two-blade, fixed pitch, or 32kg. Nothing like this available right now, BTW, but let’s be positive.
So we’re up to (75+100+32)kg, or 207kg. That leaves only 33 kg for all the avionics, associated cooling, high-voltage shielded conductors, structure and seats AFTER we have made hugely charitable efficiency and weight concessions for the must-haves in a world 5 years hence.
I know, I know: but it’s already flown.
Yes, it has: empty for <5 minutes at a time, and when loaded with one person it never left ground effect. While their flight was stable and encouraging there is nothng here that hasn't been accomplished even by amateurs.
This is ~10years from reality and certificability in an OECD regulatory environment, if at all. Any NPV evaluation factoring in all the development cost, revenue timing and risk says 0.25/share might make sense.
BTW: can anybody name the technical talent on the team?
Paul Beard has now been officially named, but...
...it's an odd announcement. Here's the entire body of the 8k:
Item 5.02. Election of Directors
On April 30, 2018, Paul F. Beard was elected as a director of the registrant. There are no arrangements or understandings between Mr. Beard and any other person pursuant to which he was selected as a director. There are no committees to which Mr. Beard is expected to be named. There have been no transactions between Mr. Beard and any related party. There are no material plans, contracts or arrangements to which Mr. Beard is a party.
This is odd to me. Mr. Beard still hasn't changed his Linkedin CV even though he's had the "job" almost 5 months. And the description of the relationship from this filing is that basically Bent wants Beard's presumed gravitas as announced in the 30 Apr PR ("Along with this acquisition, Astro is pleased to announce the addition of leading drone expert, Paul Beard, CEO of Uavionix (www.uavionix.com), to its board.") Aside from the implied bona fides he brings to ASDN, he has no function, at least not yet.
But the appointment HAS been announced.
@autovaton
BTW, if you are interested in this market may I suggest you bookmark this on-line publication: evtol.news (for some reason I can't get the link to work)
@autovaton
Thanks. TRULY: I mean that. When I post countervailing views here I'm not fighting with you and I appreciate your clarity and honesty.
I DO think you're being sold a bill of goods, and with all sincerity I'm not stating that with any animosity toward you.
As best I can tell Infly was being run out of Sofia (Bulgaria). I have been able to find a couple of skilled people (a technician and a CAD/CAM designer) by name from Sofia, but no more. The business trademarked the "Passenger Drone" logo in Canada and registered as a business but that's all I know for now. "Confida" is presently a big zero, but Confida is also a name for a Eastern European commercial real estate holdings company that also has some involvement in airport properties, so perhaps they had an investment interest of some kind. Ultimately the "Passenger Drone" identity was connected to Switzerland in the press, although as best as I can dertermine there was never an actual physical entity there.
My point is that a few smart people made a nice machine that works well, but
(1) It isn't anything truly unique or especially advanced in the wingless arena, where dozens of ventures are operating
(2) it suffers from the challenges of wingless eVTOL, namely high power and energy demand for mission
(3) the path to certfication is very long and uncertain
(4) the reality of 16 motors, props and power electronics assemblies, a certificable control architecture and a currently unavailable battery technology is no different from an E-Hang to an "Elroy". There is no cost advantage to the Astro solution.
Thanks again. Be careful. Even if Bent is a nice guy share price is inexplicably high already IMO.
re: "...their cost of production is low enough that when/if the vehicles become available, they will be very affordable--much less than the competition."
How and why?
Do they build their own motors, power electronics, flight control electronics/displays, or battery packs and thus have potential for higher margin? How can they if they have NO EMPLOYEES AND NO PHYSICAL FACILITIES?
And which "competition" of the dozens of wingless eVTOL aircraft being touted?
I'm sure the CEO has told key investors all this stuff but it isn't supportable.
Thanks! I appreciate that. I have not personally e-mailed him but a personal friend who has been researching the company has emailed Bent repeatedly and received no replies, even for questions as simple as "can you tell me more about the parent company".
Perhaps he can tell you where Astro Aerospace actually is, other than that they have tested at an Ontario airport. They do not exist as an entity except in a registry in Nevada under this license #: NV20071472400. Search this and find only one employee: Bruce Bent.
The filings list no key employees, no property or location (save the Mathews building in Lewisville)... really nothing except connections to older Passenger Drone press releases.
Who were the Confida and Infly companies with which ASDN negotiated, and what was the source of >$6M in impairments on the income statement? Why a writedown ~8x the total asset value of ASDN?
The total R&D for Q3 was ~$270k, or the equivalent of $50k of outside service charges + 7 or 8 FTE aero engineering salaries + fringe/tax.
This company is valued at >$100M. It doesn't smell right. Again: if it collapses to a quarter a share Bent is doing great.
For the committed wingless multirotor believer:
Raed this document
[url][/url]https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf
or if you can't be bothered to spend the time Page 4 Market Feasibility Barriers and Pages 35-42 "Vehicle Performance". Well-established engineering principles prove that transitional lift of helicopter rotors is inefficient; it's worse for multirotors at medium speed and almost nonexistent at high speed. Uber Elevate's advisory team (a well-educated group) agrees with physics.
This is not going to be a very widely used solution, if at all.
Finances aside… an all-battery, wingless eVTOL is silly.
(1) Too much power: At 360kg MGTOW, the Astro will require around 65-70kW total shaft power for hover, even more for maximum forward speed. But because I’m a nice guy I’ll assent to 60kW. At the battery output, assuming 97% efficient control and 95% efficient motor (not really possible, but OK let’s use it): 65kW. That’s the same battery output to move a 2200kg Tesla Model X SUV with four people at >130km/hr, a wasteful and absurd power commitment to move 120kg of pax+payload at 70km/hr. Is it apparent now why the piloted test maintained flight well within Ground Effect, where hover power is much lower?
(2) No battery available: The best available Li ion cell today is the Panasonic/Tesla 21700, with as much as 300Wh/kg on a cell level at discharge rates of <0.5C in a narrow ambient temperature range. This figure does not include conductors, thermal management, BMS or containment. For 25 minutes of flight (Astro’s advertised number), the 65kW/25min energy need is 27kWh with no reserve (charge to 100%, discharge to 0%). A marginal reserve (95% to 5%, very detrimental to battery life) requires 30kWh, and we’re assuming that it can do this at a discharge rate of just over 2C (which Tesla cannot do). That’s 30kWh=30,000Wh, so the aircraft needs 100kg of the most capable cells available today. Even with only 10kg of thermal, control and structural hardware to support the energy source (impossible), at 110kg that’s 45% of the empty weight of the aircraft. That’s impossible. Even at 5%/year improvements in energy density between now and 2023 the battery weight is OPTMISTICALLY close to 90kg at best. We haven’t even started looking at modest challenges of fault tolerance requirements, low/high temp soak, etc.
The remaining 150kg of structure, propulsion equipment, etc just isn't in the realm of practicality. But people will believe anything.
If this 10% were 10% ANNUAL rate componded monthly, you're correct. But that's not what the filing says.
The Promissory Note has an interest charge of 10%, compounded monthly.
10% compounded monthly. COMPOUNDED MONTHLY.
They will owe WAY more than $29k on this note. Read again:
"Interest accrues on the principal amount or portion thereof which remains unpaid from time to time as well as any interest outstanding, from the date the principal amount is advanced until and including the date upon which the principal amount and all interest due under this promissory note shall be fully paid."
None of this is illegal and I wouldn't imply that it is. But this is NOT a case of Bruce Bent taking big risks in the market. Net of all the CPSM transactions the total net from him/MAAB is perhaps $5M. With ~60M shares owned by MAAB, a buyout at 0.25/share puts him $10M up, and we haven't even talked about the $6M+ impairment taken in Q2 as a tax benefit. Nor the remit of interest owed on notes.
A "buyout" of this company today would cost someone roughly $100M. Do you think there is $100M of value here, with no special technology other than a flight control software suite that seems to control about as well as the EHang? I won't say nobody will spend that much -- Uber spent $100M for Jump, which was equivalently insane. But more than $100M is nonsensical, and at half or even 1/4 the current share price Bruce Bent does very well.
From the latest 10Q, p 17
NOTE 11 – PROMISSORY NOTE FROM PARENT
On March 14, 2018, MAAB Global Limited, the parent of Astro, issued a Promissory Note for monetary advances to the Company of up to $750,000. The Promissory Note matures on February 28, 2021. The Promissory Note has an interest charge of 10%, compounded monthly. Interest accrues on the principal amount or portion thereof which remains unpaid from time to time as well as any interest outstanding, from the date the principal amount is advanced until and including the date upon which the principal amount and all interest due under this promissory note shall be fully paid. The principal amount advanced under the Promissory Note is $280,659 through June 30, 2018. The Company has accrued interest expense of $6,642 at June 30, 2018.
MAAB Capital Limited, for which Bruce Bent has acted as Chief Executive Officer and Director from September 18, 2017 to present, and whose address is also 320 West Main Street Lewisville, TX (same as Astro Aerospace and Bent's employer Matthews Southwest), is the sole funding source for ASDN, and at usurious rates.
MAAB owns 79% of the shares. These are, in turn, mostly owned in some form by Bruce Bent.
"Astro Aerospace is the first company to have a working vehicle that is in an affordable price range."
What does that even mean? In the US, Canada, EU and Japan there are no governing standards under which it could be certified for flight with people aboard. Those standards haven't been developed yet. Only if the aircraft were light enough (which at 360kg MGTOW it is not even close) it would qualify under Ultralight standards in the US (similar standards in other countries.) It could fit under FAA LSA by wieght, but rotorcraft and vertical lift aircraft are not permitted in LSA class. The aircraft can't be sold. Even if it could be certified someday, presently none of the systems have been subjected to anything like typical FAA/JAA requirements.
"They are working on a second improved version of the vehicle that is currently slated to be ready around December."
Ready for what? More testing as an unmanned experimental aircraft?
"They have short-term funding, but they are currently seeking long-term funding."
(1) Who are 'they'? Not a single technical employee name is available, even on LinkedIn. As best we know 'Passenger Drone' was a Swiss company using mostly Bulgarian talent, but none of this is verifiable. Who was Confida Aerospace Ltd, from whom the business was purchased?
(2) Their 'short-term' funding comes from MAAB Global Limted, which is a Bruce Bent company, in the form of promissory notes at an interest rate of 10% compounded monthly. <<MONTHLY>> MAAB is the major shareholder with 79% of shares. MAAB is headquarted in the same Lewisville TX office as all the other Bent schemes. All this is in the filings.
Where is "new" board member Paul Beard who was named to the Board months ago?
This company can drop to about 0.20/share and Bent makes money. You won't; it's a scam.
Re: was this a reverse merger...
See page 7 here...
[url][/url][tag]https://m2compliance.com/hosting/company/ASDN/link_files/2018/03-29-2018/Form10-K_(03-29-2018)/Form10-K.pdf
Re: Looks like old management jumped around a lot
Looks like Bruce Bent was able to take control of the Pool&Spa business and use proceeds to buy a broke Confidia and then sell shares to unwary investors. There are ZERO key technical employees listed in any filings.
Who is MAAB Global Limited?
They are listed as the Parent Company. Is the "M" Matthews and the "B" Bruce Bent? Note that "On March 14, 2018, MAAB Global Limited, the parent of Astro, issued a Promissory Note for monetary advances to the Company of up to $750,000. The Promissory Note matures on February 28, 2021. The Promissory Note has an interest charge of 10%, compounded monthly."
Why is there no mention of Paul Beard of uAvionix as a Board Mmber in any filings? They has a PR that announced his participation but he's not in any sworn filings. Also Beard does not list this on his LinkedIn data.
How many employees does the company have? The company shows only $270k of R&D in Q2, which is woefully insufficient to certify an aircraft for manned flight at any level other than US FAR 103 (ultralight).
Doesn't smell right to me.
True. The cash situation at the end of Q3 was a HUGE warning, and issuing a $5M Note on the 26th of December was obviously just mortgaging SureFly. There was never going to be a beneficial spinoff with shares.
Since then the the filings have told all you need to know while people still talk of a hero riding to the rescue.
Burns has no choice but to spend remaining change from under couch cushions to put lipsick on the SureFly pig and pray he finds someone rich and stupid enough to pay $20M before Jan31. They can't have another raise for 2 months and Arosa have Liens on E V E R Y T H I N G.
>$1 today is evidence of nothing but USPS hopefuls. WKHS at a 4-yr low and on the ropes. Adios, MoFos, it's been real.
"You've got to know when to hold 'em..."
FWIW, I would not only fold 'em, I would RUN away in a zigzag pattern, looking back frequently over my shoulder, while carrying my unholstered Colt Peacemaker at the ready.
The company is on the edge of failure.
Management is very concerned about share price. The problem is that the company is constantly on the edge of running out of cash. Even the big influx of funds from the raise + overallotment isn't enough to take them past early Q4 if they expect to have any working capital for UPS NGens and the W-15 test vehicles. Even then the co. will be a gnat's posterior away from potential insolvency proceesdings by angry suppliers who were owed over $5M at the end of June, most of which was very delinquent.
Also don't forget that they must get the SureFly sold for at least $20M by the end of January. If that doesn't happen Arosa can hold them to the default terms of the Loan. Since the aircraft has flown less than an hour as of July, has no engine (see interviews with pilot John Graber), and is still not allowed/able to fly at any meaningful altitude (over 5 feet), WKHS must spend a great deal of engineering to make the vehicle marketable in a very short time.
Remember they cannot take any loans. All of their property is secured by the Loan from Arosa. And, by the terms of their agreement with underwriter NSC, they are still about 2 months away from being able to do an "at the market" raise. Of course everything is negotiable, but since NCS bought the overallotment at $1.07 I'm almost certin they would exact a penalty.
Workhorse is in very dire straits.
Got that wrong; closer to 40% dilution based on ongoing price collapse.
It's a death spiral. Angry calls to SEC won't help. All this has been visible in filings for months. If you haven't sold it's time to jump, based on big blocks selling off-exchange.
Calculate minimum equity raise (more than required by Arosa)
$10M to meet Loan Covenant
$1.85M to pay off Spring Bank Mortgage on Loveland building as required by Amendment 1 to Loan
$12.5M total
Now, remember that the compny needs enough raw material + parts to deliver $9M of backlog. They hope to get to positive gross margins on material at 2000 trucks/year, so at $9M worth of trucks in the initial run they will probably need $10M at least. Also they have $5M+ of accounts payable that are very delinquent, and the Loan Covenants will hold WKHS in default for any inability to pay.
So actually they need $15M to take care of suppliers alone.
The Selling General and Administrative costs in Q2 had risen to $3M and Research and Development were only $1.8M which must rise to recover some of the schedule slip in all their projects. Even with best-case incoming cash (~$3M) there is a additional spend that even the $15M raise can't meet.
At least $20M just to get into the latter half of Q4 at best. And they are still under Arosa's thumb.
Approx $20M is about a 30% dilution.
Nest stop barring presumed great news is $1.
Horrifying 10Q. Liabilities rocketing up as payables increase and Loan Amendment extends additional 1.7M, w/ "repayment" as OBLIGATION to retire 1.85M Loveland mortagage + interest. No working capital of any amount, SGA spend ramping up with cash vaporizing. Great short at >1.50.
With SF clearly busted USPS remains as sole possibility.
Nobody knew that aircraft ser. 0001 is only a concept demo, has no internal combustion engine and cannot fly under normal conditions. They've been selling this as a hybrid system and ready to certify and sell to the public in 18 months. Truly a deceptive tale and they might not survive the backlash, IMO. Only a grand story from USPS can save their bacon, and it'd better happen soon.
When it was $3 and up the CEO had a confident story about 10000 trucks delivered next year and avoidance of any equity raises. All that has fallen apart. It should probably never have had a market cap over $100M, but now that reality is out there something well under $60M makes sense.
Easy to blame manipulation when you don't like the situation. I would claim manipulation was the only reason it ever traded above $4 but neither of us can prove anything.
Fairly brutal situation. WKHS must have a big equity raise (although $10M satisfies Terms it's not enough). Also there will be no SFI shares to WKHS shareholders. $20M for SFI by next Jan is a very, very long shot.
Arosa doesn't want WKHS to fail because they would surely love to exercise $2 warrants and make a ton of money on them. But there will still be an upside on $6.1M loan amount if Burns & crew default.
Why would you not sell today?
Some of these sales likely to be sold by suppliers who were paid in shares.
What do you suspect causes it?
Ouch. Tough news in the 8k today. Almost out of cash.
Might hit new intraday low today. The company is really a scam, TBH and everyone here claiming to have "done research" / "DD" should have seen it.
Maybe you can explain the "company idea". It proposes no engineering spend, and has no technically-capable people on staff. It has no design, integration or manufacturing capability. What do they do other than be sales agents, and why is that worth $100M on a $4M book of potential business?
Question asked today at Yahoo Message Board for WKHS. The poster is very frequent Bear, asking what is the engine source for W15 Pickup truck. Is it the BMW engine from their little e3 EV? I am an old BMW fan so just wondering. I still have a 2002tii from 1973 non-running for now, so curious...
10 dollars? if the letters of intent all translated to orders there would be 300M of sales over a couple of years. 10 dollars means the company would be worth over 400 million rght now. I dont think this is right but maybe you have another way of seeing it.
But are they really preorders? I preordered an Android phone last model release and I made a deposit and there were terms and conditions for all kinds of things. The workhorse w15 truck interest are letters of intent. Plus the company isn't showing any cash for deposits. So are they really preorders?