Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

m.youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 286 posts

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#91

Post by 908087 »

jp555 wrote: post #39
coldcode wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't fear flying cars. I fear flying car crashes. Instead of a fender bender they "land" in your bedroom.

Ever heard of a ballistic parachute? Not a 100% solution of course, but then again zero customers died in all passenger aircraft flights last year. That’s saying a lot when every single day, there are times when there are over a million people simultaneously sitting in chairs in the sky

> but then again zero customers died in all passenger aircraft flights last year.

This isn't even remotely accurate.

Also, even when a BRS deployment goes well, there's a good chance that the aircraft is coming through someone's roof if flying over a populated area.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#92

Post by endless1234 »

mrybczyn wrote: post #84
akerro wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure this is a literal "Not In My Back Yard" comment. I'm okay with it. Yes it will be for the 1% for a long time, but so were trains and cars and airlines...

But how does this system scale? Thousands of these simultaneously in the air above cities? The noise must be quite something.

I think it's a novel helicopter replacement idea, but not really anything for mass transportation.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#93

Post by annerajb »

astrobase_go wrote: post #22
Quanttek wrote: post #17

I 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 agree with your opposition to this development with respect to people moved per unit of energy consumed. I think development funds are much better spent on improving the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of mass transit systems for large and crowded urban areas. However, that's not really fodder for sexy startup material. Additionally, if these are widely adopted, I can imagine a highly-crowded Class G (or D, i…

The way it will work on the US based on what Uber and others are talking about. Is a special corridor where only autonomous traffic is allowed. This planes allowed on this corridor will have digital air traffic controllers and only be allowed if they have certain amount of capacity similar to ADS-B mandate in the future.

This allows the plane to all fly and not hit each other and pilots won't be allowed in that corridor.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#94

Post by danielvf »

ethagknight wrote: post #71
danielvf wrote: post #47

Contrary 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 effic…

Agree with most of what you say, but two open questions- debt alone on $500k amounts to $180/day (10yr am, 6%). Then there’s cost of energy, dead time during recharge, dead leg trips to the next customer, dead let to charge port, maintenance will be rigorous even if the plane doesn’t need it because FAA. Landing fees while be high for urban landing points, plus ground crew at some locations. “Max $100/hr” is way low,…

I'd love a link to that Uber cost number - I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a car costing more than $100/hr to operate. Even a New York City cab, rented to a driver from a profit making cab company and including the cost of the medallion was $120 for twelve hours of driving.

A chunk of a GA aircraft's operational cost is annual maintenance. By flying more per year, the operational cost of an aircraft goes down. I think you can get the operational of a Cirrus down to $100/hr if you fly it 500 hours per year.

However, operating this aircraft at scale would seem to have some real maintenance advantages beyond what you would typically see for General Aviation:

- There's only one moving part in an electric motor, vs all the complexity of a [edit: 6 cylinder] piston aircraft engine.

- You can specialize your people, procedures, and facility around a single aircraft type.

- You can swap out engines and avionics and work on them while the aircraft returns to flying.

And yes, this won't be as aerodynamic as a Cirrus, but it should be similar to a GA single engine aircraft, rather than either a quadcopter or a helicopter.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#95

Post by ameister14 »

raducu wrote: post #60
danielvf wrote: post #47

Contrary 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 effic…

Imagine being able to live 90 miles from a town and commuting in 30 minutes regadless of peak hours. As for the noise, if it can land vertically, I can immagine it making a steep descent on top of a tall building, unloading passengers and then autonomously taking off to pick somone else some other place.

It won't be 30 minutes. It'd be a few hours. First because they said it could go faster than 150kph, which means it tops out at roughly 90 miles an hour. Second, the range of the thing is about 60 miles, so you'd have to charge it partway.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#96

Post by [deleted] »

raducu wrote: post #60
danielvf wrote: post #47

Contrary 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 effic…

Imagine being able to live 90 miles from a town and commuting in 30 minutes regadless of peak hours. As for the noise, if it can land vertically, I can immagine it making a steep descent on top of a tall building, unloading passengers and then autonomously taking off to pick somone else some other place.

[deleted]

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#97

Post by Bizarro »

clon wrote: post #24
Quanttek wrote: post #17

I 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 agree. People talking about flying cars sound a lot like people demanding faster horses. Or flying horses. I do not think the American dream of a private car scales too well to the future, be it with rubber wheels or tiny propellers. Especially given the population growth. Instead, a brief visit to Singapore, for example, will convince anyone what the future of transportation looks like. A public transport system,…

Instead, a brief visit to Singapore, for example, will convince anyone what the future of transportation looks like

It might have convinced you, but it won't "convince anyone", or the majority of people.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#98

Post by Bizarro »

akerro wrote: post #28
Quanttek wrote: post #17

I 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.

Although autonomous doesn't solve the failure problem, it does (for the most) part solve the crazy/incompetent problem of the past, future visions of flying cars for everybody.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#99

Post by michrassena »

jp555 wrote: post #39
coldcode wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't fear flying cars. I fear flying car crashes. Instead of a fender bender they "land" in your bedroom.

Ever heard of a ballistic parachute? Not a 100% solution of course, but then again zero customers died in all passenger aircraft flights last year. That’s saying a lot when every single day, there are times when there are over a million people simultaneously sitting in chairs in the sky

I believe it was zero deaths on commercial jets last year, but when comparing that safety record to these smaller craft, it's a category error. Light planes are generally less safe than commercial jets per miles traveled.

Re: Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video]

#100

Post by jpmoyn »

peterchau wrote: post #31

I 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.

Are you aware of how inefficient our current solar panels are?
Post reply on HN