Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video] • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by pc86 » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 10:37 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #243

pc86 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not commercial aviation, this is general aviation (even if it's commercial in nature). GA is more dangerous than driving, roughly comparable to riding a motorcycle, and that's being optimistic.

There is no such thing as "commercial general aviation". Once you're accepting fee-for-service you are a commercial carrier with all the regulations that go along with that.

Just because you're getting a paycheck doesn't make your Skyhawk magically as safe as a 787. This is decidedly in the GA category in terms of safety.

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

#282

Post by godelski » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #280

godelski wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cherokee 180/181 checking in! $4.09 would be great, $5.12 at my base this morning. $0.35 club discount helps though.

I fly in the south and as long as I'm not at a major airport (in class G) I can get gas pretty cheap. Poking around on some maps I can even find it cheaper.

Really all depends where you fly.

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

#283

Post by godelski » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #278

godelski wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a pilot and engineer, I think there are good reasons to be skeptical. Here's some of my questions. 1) Can it autorotate? Or in an emergency does it have to glide? 1.5) What's its glide distance? Cruising altitude? There's a lot of drag from those propellers so I imagine its best glide speed isn't great. 2) How are you going to get it in a city? Seems like you're going to have to go to the local GA airport (which a…

FAA struck down google's first prototype, that's why they test in NZ

That would really give me concern.

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

#284

Post by TylerE » Wed, Mar 14, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #281

TylerE wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as "commercial general aviation". Once you're accepting fee-for-service you are a commercial carrier with all the regulations that go along with that.

Just because you're getting a paycheck doesn't make your Skyhawk magically as safe as a 787. This is decidedly in the GA category in terms of safety.

No it doesn't.

But someone flying commercially, even in a Cessna is going to have quite a bit more training than Joe Pilot who flys 10 hours a year. A commercial and IFR certificate at the very least, and will also have to pass more stringent and more frequent medical exams.

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

#285

Post by fastball » Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 12:28 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #235

fastball wrote: post #169

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…

Any large street could probably work well?

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

#286

Post by tripzilch » Fri, Mar 16, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

danielvf wrote: post #124

cowsandmilk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

We do seem to have different value systems. I believe applying energy to make human lives better is a great thing! Electricity usage in the western world is getting greener fast. Total usage is going down, not up. This isn't going to reverse either of those trends. There's a popular perception that all aircraft burn energy like an oil refinery on fire. The reality is that small piston aircraft are approximately as fu…

> We do seem to have different value systems. I believe applying energy to make human lives better is a great thing!

Your conclusion that we must have different value systems only shows where you stopped thinking.

We differ in the timescale on which we consider the betterment of human lives.

And we differ in the subset of human lives we consider the betterment of.

If you remain convinced we have different value systems, then it's not about energy or the betterment of human lives (or straw lives), but about placing a low value on short-sightedness and egotism.