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

YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 313 posts

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#211

Post by rplnt »

mpweiher wrote: post #201
Animats wrote: post #153

Where are they getting the engine? You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2] But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water, or tethered. People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engi…

> [small jet engines, price, piston engines for GA] Another important reason is fuel consumption. Jet engines in general are extremely thirsty, AFAIK the only reason they became (unexpectedly!) competitive with piston engines is that they allow the planes to fly so much higher where the air is thinner. In addition, small turbines are even less efficient than big ones.

And all GA jet engines now are turbofans with high bypass ratios. Not something you can do at small scale. Would have guessed the relative speed they operate at also plays a role. And wouldn't this require quick changes in thrust? Not sure that heavy big diameter fans could do that.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#213

Post by estsauver »

Firadeoclus wrote: post #198
estsauver wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah, it might also be different connotations on moonshot. If you believe a moonshot has to be something new + unlikely/hard then it's definitely not a moonshot. If you think a moonshot is something that's just incredibly unlikely but potentially super valuable, it definitely is. Empirically, at least two investors who had put money into successful early-stage driverless cars and one who put money early into Planet La…

To me one implication of a moonshot is that you're aiming to hit a small target, and a miss is a miss no matter how close you get. You made "end[ing] human hunger for a few hundred million people" your goal, but it isn't the case that anything short of that equals complete failure. Even if you only got a fraction of the way that'd be a massive success in my view.

Totally, and it that sense not sure if we would count. There probably isn't much of a sustainable space in below a few hundred k though.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#214

Post by usrusr »

Powered flight is a matter of boring straight lines, at least outside the Star Wars universe. If all the technical details are solved, we might discover that the toy appeal just isn't as big as expected. Or are there many motorcyclists that prefer straight roads? Doing curves withhold reason (like on a big flat open surface) would be much exciting either.

For SAR applications, another interesting application of the control advances from the drone market might be a powered rescue winch harness: use the line for power delivery from the helicopter mothership and as a safety fallback, but gain hugely increased agility and precision from using a local set of fans for lift instead of swinging under the helicopter as a passive pendulum load. It would make helicopter rescue from steep slopes much less risky and open up vertical walls (or even overhangs) for helicopter access.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#215

Post by krapp »

tomcam wrote: post #176
glutamate wrote: post #120

Please stop. We don't need to kill the planet with another self-indulgent carbon belcher. Use public transportation. Your time is not that precious.

On the surface I can’t help but partially agree with you. But one of the truly amazing innovations of western culture is emergency medicine. The time this could save in trips to the hospital could literally mean tens of thousands of lives being saved.

Ambulance helicopters already exist for that purpose, and a flying motorcycle wouldn't make a great ambulance to begin with. And if they did, motorcycles with wheels would still be more efficient and less dangerous to everyone involved.

Assuming this even pans out (still waiting for the Moller Skycar...) it's going to be a luxury item for rich kids who want to pretend they live in Star Wars or something.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#216

Post by tim333 »

Animats wrote: post #153

Where are they getting the engine? You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2] But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water, or tethered. People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engi…

Those Jetcat engines are listed for sale here http://www.zedjet.com/jetcat-turbines.html with prices from £1700 to £5000 which doesn't seem so crazy expensive. Not sure about the reliability.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#217

Post by morganvachon »

ehnto wrote: post #74
npunt wrote: post #42

These don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because humans will be piloting them over major population centers. Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below. I'd fe…

That's why I don't think we would ever have flying cars either. We can barely handle driving on flat surfaces and I suspect most people on the road only get by idly emulating simple line following machines rather than actually engaging the whole situation. It takes a third party to orchestrate busy sections of our current flying vehicles, planes, so I can't see any alternative to full automation of a mass of flying c…

I'm of the same mind. There's a reason pilots have to have hundreds of hours of training before they are allowed to fly solo. Adding a third dimension to piloting a small personal vehicle takes every bit of concentration and awareness a human can handle. I definitely don't want to see the average driver next to me every morning and afternoon -- the one making all kinds of bad decisions like running red lights and not looking before merging -- behind the wheel/stick of a flying craft.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#219

Post by nmca »

briandear wrote: post #79
npunt wrote: post #42

These don't look safe, even assuming perfect mechanical reliability, because humans will be piloting them over major population centers. Humans are generally dumb and inattentive, and this particular vehicle looks like it would attract especially dumb humans who'd use them to try dumb things. Since they won't need any piloting certification, this is basically offloading risk onto everyone on the streets below. I'd fe…

> then the only real issue is the noise pollution I live on Moffett Field next to the 101 -- the vehicles from the 101 are far more annoying than the airplanes. Just listen to traffic noise pretty much in any urban or suburban environment. The Caltrain sounds like -- well, a freight train. My point is that if we cared about noise pollution, we'd be paying more attention to the everyday noise all around us and develop…

The Caltrain horns are so loud I have decided I believe in a conspiracy theory - the volume was mandated in the name of "safety" by a lobbying group secretly working for the auto industry.

Nowhere else I've been are trains so obnoxiously loud.

Re: YC's latest moonshot bet is a startup building a $380K “flying motorcycle”

#220

Post by mannykannot »

Animats wrote: post #153

Where are they getting the engine? You can get model aircraft jet engines with enough power for this.[1] Various human-carrying craft have been built that way, such as the Zapata Flyboard.[2] But the engines have a lifespan measured in hours and not enough reliability for carrying humans. That's why all the demo videos of these things are over water, or tethered. People have been trying to build small, cheap jet engi…

The sound, I think, is coming from a large headset like the ones prominently worn by the ground crew. I don't think it's the pilot's headset, as it does diminish a bit at the greatest range, and I would expect some radio talk between the pilot and the crew. I suspect they are noise-canceling headsets, as there is something about how it sounds that reminds me of vacuuming with a noise-canceling headset on.

Small has been done and cheaper is always possible, but significantly reducing the noise of jetpacks would require an amendment to the laws of fluid dynamics.

As for visible effects of the jet: at liftoff, the tether, that was detached by one of the crew just before, blows around a bit. I am trying to decide if you can see the jet as a distortion of the background, or whether that is an artifact of video decompression. The best opportunity for seeing it appears to be just after liftoff, when the right engine nozzle is seen with the cruise ship behind it, but there doesn't seem to be much of an effect there. As he approaches for landing, the netting around the pad appears to be blown around.

Post reply on HN