251–260 of 286 posts
Finally the 21st century gives us flying cars, and all that happens is people complain about it . HackerNews indeed.
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…
> 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. Sure, let's take the most energy efficient aircraft and compare it to the least energy efficient passenger vehicles??? I mean, how can one even pretend that is a fair comparison. More generally for energy efficiency, it is well known that the most efficient trip is a sho…
Solar is becoming so cheap that an excessive amount of generation will be installed, so adequate generation will be available in morning or evening, or with clouds. During peak sun, excess power will be basically free, so any battery can be charged during these periods at little cost. Wait and see if skeptical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He specified "general aviation aircraft not designed in the 1950's." The Cessna 172 was first flown in 1955: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 Also, it may be worth taking into account that airplanes travel in straighter lines.
I'm talking about overall miles traveled so I'm not sure the straight line thing matters. Yes for the same trip you will travel a shorter distance in a plane. The plane will also be running for 20-30 minutes prior to takeoff and 5-10 minutes after landing. If you exclude GA aircraft not designed in the mid-20th century, you exclude 90% of GA aircraft and 99% of certified GA aircraft. We can make that distinction if y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to ameister14's point, OP was also pointing out that you can glide to land on little to no power, where as a helicopter can't do that.
Glide where? This aircraft seems to be targeted toward moving people relatively short distances around dense areas. If you're in a city, look around. How many suitable emergency landing sites do you see with a large, flat, open area without nearby buildings, overhead power lines, or trees? If it loses power at low altitude it's not going to be gliding very far no matter what. And as others have pointed out, helicopte…
Well, there's beaches near some coastal cities that afford survivable landings, but may be risky for others.
Last year there was a tragic case near Lisbon where two people on the ground died. It was a flight lesson with an experienced instructor, who followed protocol and landed on sand at the water's edge. (My understanding of the discussion at the time was that hitting water with fixed landing gear is an almost certain death sentence for the plane passengers, because it flips over instantly.)
Unfortunately, without power, the pilot missed a more deserted stretch and ended up in a section of the beach with quite a few people enjoying the summer at the seaside.
One of the reports in the Portuguese press: http://observador.pt/2017/08/02/avioneta-despenha-se-na-prai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He specified "general aviation aircraft not designed in the 1950's." The Cessna 172 was first flown in 1955: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 Also, it may be worth taking into account that airplanes travel in straighter lines.
Planes are updated, just an FYI. And most GA aircraft are older. That's how most people fly, by buying an aircraft that is the price of a car ( I fly a Cherokee 140. One of the most common aircraft, as with the Skyhawk. My fuel consumption is 8.4gal/hr at 75% mixture and 5.6gal/hr at 50%. Assuming I'm doing an average ground track of 100mph (for easy math), that's 12-18mpg (not counting that I'm 100% rich at TO and L…
For those who are not aware, the kittyhawk is the place where wright brothers tested and developed their plane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised almost nobody's talking about the relative change in safety yet. Transportation accidents are the leading cause of "unintentional injury" deaths (i.e., not disease, suicide, or homicide) [1]. Although the absolute rates are somewhat low (7.28 fatalities per billion miles for cars and light trucks), you are approximately 100 times more likely to die while driving than flying (table 2 in [1]). [1]: http:/…
These "driving related" injuries and deaths stats are almost always skewed because they include fatalities/injuries for drunk driving and night time driving. Someone only driving to work and back is at an absolutely minuscule risk of injury/death from driving.
But just because you aren't doing those things, doesn't make you any less at risk from other people doing those things. You are still on the road, surrounded by, in some areas, hundreds or thousands of deadly machines operated by people who are generally almost capable of handling them.
I just finished an excellent book on this, "A Deadly Wandering", which examines distracted driving specifically but also touches on a few other related subjects. In the primary case that the book follows, and in the few others it mentions, distracted drivers walked away from wrecks where they had killed innocent other passengers or motorists.
Being in a car (or bike, or motorcycle) on the road is one of the most dangerous things the average person does on a regular basis.
Small planes have had parachutes for quite some time [1] now and have saved many lives. Why on earth would this company put people up into the air unmanned without one? [Personally, if a parachute was onboard I wouldn't mind jumping into one.] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQyrPVIIQdE
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…
The operating costs for my SR20 with all things taken into account: Oil, Hangar Costs, annual inspection and averaged annual repairs, engine overhaul allowance are close to being conservative $160/hr fuel included vs. about $70 about it being fuel alone. From my calculations, if I went with a NA SR22, I'd be closer to $200/hr for a non-turbo, and about $260 for a SR22T.
Keep in mind, those hourly costs don't take into account the capital costs, depreciation and other training expenses required to operate the vehicle.
It's hard to compare costs of a vehicle to an aircraft. To drive to the airport, pre-flight the plane.. file a flight plan and deal with being re-routed the terminal area trying to get into a busy airport often undermine the time savings of just driving, unless i'm flying out of the state. I don't fly because it's convenient or faster. I do it because the feeling of watching the earth drift away from you when the plane is leaving the runway never gets old. I love flying. :)