Finally the 21st century gives us flying cars, and all that happens is people complain about it.
HackerNews indeed.
Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
41–50 of 286 posts
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#42I love it. Can’t wait to see the first batch of production reviews from customers. Also on energy usage: Why does it matter how much electrical energy it uses? We know how to harness a near infinite amount.
Care to share this infinite energy idea?
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#43I love it. Can’t wait to see the first batch of production reviews from customers. Also on energy usage: Why does it matter how much electrical energy it uses? We know how to harness a near infinite amount.
> Why does it matter how much electrical energy it uses? We know how to harness a near infinite amount. This is a silly thing to say while there's still quite so much CO2 being emitted from electricity production.
I suspect the OP means solar and wind. It’s a fair point given that these have batteries, and could easily swap them out for precharged ones.
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#44> No traffic lights ? only as long as there are just a few flying around. Once there are some with crossing routes you will need air traffic city rules as well. I am really interested to see how that would pan out.
Surely you've seen footage of swarms of autonomous drones flying around. They definitely will not need traffic lights.
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#45> No traffic lights ? only as long as there are just a few flying around. Once there are some with crossing routes you will need air traffic city rules as well. I am really interested to see how that would pan out.
You don't need traffic lights on a 3D space. Air traffic rules are very different.
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#46Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#47Contrary to almost every comment here so far, this is both innovative and energy efficient.
Let's talk energy efficiency first. Once it's up in the air, it's has a similar profile to a normal single engine airplane. A Cirrus SR22 can go 1,200 miles on 80 gallons of gas. That's roughly speaking 15 miles per gallon - better than many pickup trucks or large SUVs. And that's while going 180 mph. Slower is more fuel efficient.
This aircraft is definitely going to make noise on takeoff and landing, but it's not going to make much noise while cruising.
The Dodecacopter/regular aircraft hybrid solves a lot of problems. Once it is in cruise mode, it is as safe as a regular small aircraft. Importantly, unlike a quadcopter, it does not crash immediately on loss of engine power - it can glide to a landing somewhere, or use a parachute, or land with its Dodecacopter rotors.
Unlike a rotor craft, this aircraft is very energy efficient while cruising.
The Dodecacopter side lets it take off and land in even more places than a helicopter. It looks like it has redundancy for any two rotors/motors to go out. If this happens on takeoff, you fly to an airport to land. If this happens on landing, you leave the aircraft on the ground until someone comes and fixes you. You skip all the transmission and cyclic complexity of a helicopter. This is going to cost a whole lot less to maintain than a helicopter.
In short, this has potential to be way better than either a helicopter or a small airplane. Even ignoring the air-taxi business, there's a market for this aircraft.
So let's flip to the business side. An easy target for making these at scale would be $500,000 per aircraft. (Might be able to half that, but lets be conservative). Operating costs at scale, max $100/hr, could be one quarter that.
On the revenue side, this would replace a two hour trip across a city in traffic with a fifteen minute flight. Unless you've flow small aircraft before it's hard to appreciate just how much faster it is not to use roads. There's definitely going to be some market for this - that's worth money.
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#48I must say I'm against this development. First of all, even if electric, this is certainly a very inefficient way of transportation that will 'waste' a lot of energy to transport maybe 4 people. The resulting price of this technology will result in the 99% stuck on the ground while the only te 1% can afford the fare. And even if it becomes a regular mode of transportation, do you really want these planes to fly over…
I'm personally against it because I don't want anything to fall down into my garden or on my head in case of a failure.
Do planes often fall on your head?
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#49I must say I'm against this development. First of all, even if electric, this is certainly a very inefficient way of transportation that will 'waste' a lot of energy to transport maybe 4 people. The resulting price of this technology will result in the 99% stuck on the ground while the only te 1% can afford the fare. And even if it becomes a regular mode of transportation, do you really want these planes to fly over…
It's true that they should not be adopted en masse, but in some cases, it is very useful: * transportation across mountainous terrain - it will actually increase safety * a few tightly controlled shuttles in gridlocked megalopolises like those in Asia with nightmarish traffic Basically, taking over the role of the helicopters, but safer and more affordable. I would, however, prefer fewer smaller bus-sized vehicles.
These would work great in Fiji flying tourists from the international airport on the main island to the dozen or so little resort islands nearby.
And since a significant proportion of our electricity is generated by hydro power, could be almost carbon neutral travel.
Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]
#50I must say I'm against this development. First of all, even if electric, this is certainly a very inefficient way of transportation that will 'waste' a lot of energy to transport maybe 4 people. The resulting price of this technology will result in the 99% stuck on the ground while the only te 1% can afford the fare. And even if it becomes a regular mode of transportation, do you really want these planes to fly over…
I'm personally against it because I don't want anything to fall down into my garden or on my head in case of a failure.
Can't you say the same about helicopters and airplanes?