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

Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 632 posts

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#101

Post by n_ermosh »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #76
n_ermosh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this guy. trains solve all the worlds problems :) His discussion is focused a bit more on europe which I think is a very different environment than the US. We don't have trains and want to go larger distances more regularly. We also have a much larger airport infrastructure and a complex airspace system that handles the issue of flying over populated areas and flying approaches safely quite well. So as long as…

>We don't have trains If you take optimizing transportation options as a holistic problem, rather than focusing on any individual user who needs to travel those 50-500 km distances, more trains is a far more straightforward and efficient investment than flying cars, no? >We also have a much larger airport infrastructure and a complex airspace system that handles the issue of flying over populated areas and flying app…

> If you take optimizing transportation options as a holistic problem, rather than focusing on any individual user who needs to travel those 50-500 km distances, more trains is a far more straightforward and efficient investment than flying cars, no?

maybe. But people are still tied to the trains schedule and don't have the "get in a go" freedom that they do with a car. I don't know the details of what it actually takes to build a train network but my intuition is telling that it's fundamentally more investment because of the land requirements.

> You need to build an entirely different traffic control system for that

probably true. but I think it'll take some time to get there and that gives us the opportunity to invest in that. The more modernized airplanes we have, the more opportunity we have to start creating a more automated ATC system that uses digital communication between the airplane and ATC, rather than the voice system we use today.

> But it is a problem that increases with the number of vehicles in the air.

We (as an industry) have gotten pretty good at knowing how to build an airplane so that parts don't fall off (this is a facetious example, I'm really referring to general system reliability) that revolves around rigorous production standard, and those we definitely must continue to follow.

> Building good passenger rail (no need for actual HSR) is a solved problem with proven solutions

True, but even those solutions are starting to become outdated. Rail also has a very high safety bar because of the consequence of failure, so developing a new rail network is really hard too.

> How many decades will it take to actually develop a "production-ready"...

We expect that we will 10x the number of vehicles flying over the next 10 years, so N is ~10k, and M is 500km. In the US, we already have that infrastructure, and I suspect (based on not much but my own intuition) is that it'll take another 10 years to get that infrastructure updated to support every 3x (sqrt(10)) increase in N

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#102

Post by CalRobert »

stetrain wrote: post #27

> In the US, trips that are 50-300 miles are almost all done by car because that distance is too short for commercial airlines and too far for public transportation. A bit off-topic but this is a political problem, not a technical one. Trips of 50-300 miles are certainly within the operating range of fast and efficient rail travel as demonstrated in multiple places around the world outside of the US.

Interestingly I'm hosting my dad near Amsterdam for the week and to get from Sacramento to SFO (from where he flew to AMS) he... flew. Which I guess is logical, but seems insane to me when he lives close to Sacramento Amtrak which actually HAS good, regular service to SFO (via Bart, connecting at Richmond).

Even if you build the train some people won't give it a try, sadly. A lot of carbon was spewed in to the air to fly him and his suitcase over the capitol corridor tracks.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#103

Post by n_ermosh »

Onavo wrote: post #100
n_ermosh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks! Yes, it's that entire helmet-fire that makes flying hard and often dangerous. But what the accident data shows is that these kinds of problems that you mention occur, and then the pilot loses control of the plane. If we give them the ability to relax, think through their situation, and make a good decision because at least the airplane will continue to descend safely towards the runway, we make safer pilots.

I just want to say I love what you are doing, you are solving a problem close to my heart. This is the sort of hard tech company that YC (and SV) should invest more in, not silly SaaS and ChatGPT wrappers. That being said, after fly by wire, would you be interested in tackling the GA engine economics problem? They are closely linked. If you solve that, the TAM for your product expands massively, and your exit opportu…

Yes, lowering all operating expenses by moving to more efficient engines and greener propulsion systems is on our roadmap as "the next problem"

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#104

Post by CalRobert »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #50
stetrain wrote: post #27

> In the US, trips that are 50-300 miles are almost all done by car because that distance is too short for commercial airlines and too far for public transportation. A bit off-topic but this is a political problem, not a technical one. Trips of 50-300 miles are certainly within the operating range of fast and efficient rail travel as demonstrated in multiple places around the world outside of the US.

It's not just a political problem. It's also a legal one due to the property rights involved.

Somehow we don't seem to face this problem when it comes to building roads.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#105

Post by shafyy »

n_ermosh wrote: post #71
purplerhino wrote: post #69

What are the environmental implications of transitioning people traveling by car/train to small planes? In addition to being louder and dispersing pollutants over a wider area, don't small planes generate significantly more GHG emissions than cars over the same number of miles? Also, given that planes are not nearly as easy to electrify as cars and trains (energy density is significantly lower in batteries than liqui…

Today, airplanes are not great when it comes to their environmental impacts. If we are successful in our bet that we can grow the GA market, we'll have the resources to invest into greener propulsion technology. That space is currently evolving quickly, with hybrid-electric, hydrogen, full electric and others all being explored. So it's in our plans to address that as well.

Don't try to weasel your way out of this. Just be honest and say you like working on cool plane tech stuff and admit it's not great for the environment when more people will fly. No shame in that. Or maybe there is shame, but that's up to you.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#106

Post by n_ermosh »

mattmaroon wrote: post #98

I was shocked when learning to fly how much GA tech was stuck in some weird pre-World War II era state. Everything seems so needlessly complicated. Even small aircraft cost so much that I couldn’t imagine a computer controlled system and fly by wire would be cost prohibitive. Even a new C172 is close to $400k at the low end, and anything you’d actually want to fly is much more. A few grand in electronics seems worth…

> It feels like the real problem in this industry is lack of competition. There’s a chicken and egg problem: planes are expensive because so few people buy them, but so few people buy them because they’re expensive.

100%. We're here to try to break that cycle.

We definitely think aviation needs this too and I'm excited to connect with all the people out there who agree!

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#107

Post by shafyy »

stetrain wrote: post #27

> In the US, trips that are 50-300 miles are almost all done by car because that distance is too short for commercial airlines and too far for public transportation. A bit off-topic but this is a political problem, not a technical one. Trips of 50-300 miles are certainly within the operating range of fast and efficient rail travel as demonstrated in multiple places around the world outside of the US.

A million times this. Modern and efficient train networks are the best way to travel, even for longer distances of a few thousand kilometers (night trains). Sure, there are still use cases for flying, but the dismissiveness of people who have never experienced great train travel against it just shocks me.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#108

Post by sethkim »

n_ermosh wrote: post #95
sethkim wrote: post #83

Instrument-rated pilot (and engineer) here. First - congrats on the launch! I think you're working on an interesting set of components that will prove useful to GA aircraft technology. Bringing fly-by-wire, and lowering the cost of maintenance/manufacturing are both great efforts. That being said, my personal view is that stick-and-rudder control is one of the less critical components to improving GA safety. Everythi…

thanks! Yes, it's that entire helmet-fire that makes flying hard and often dangerous. But what the accident data shows is that these kinds of problems that you mention occur, and then the pilot loses control of the plane. If we give them the ability to relax, think through their situation, and make a good decision because at least the airplane will continue to descend safely towards the runway, we make safer pilots.

In single pilot IFR, an autopilot is often your best friend. It's exactly like you say - when you're busy with everything else you want the plane to fly itself. Isn't that problem already somewhat solved in a sense? Or are you referring to Garmin Autoland (or similar) in emergencies?

By the way - I can totally see how a great GA fly-by-wire system is an improvement to maintain positive control of an aircraft at all times. I'd personally love to give it a try and see how it reduces pilot effort while flying.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#109

Post by n_ermosh »

chinathrow wrote: post #99
dotancohen wrote: post #63

> Flying a small airplane is complicated, mentally taxing, and dangerous—about 28x more dangerous than driving a car. > Our system makes it impossible to lose control of the airplane, potentially solving 80% of today’s fatal accidents in general aviation. So this system is still at least five times as dangerous as driving a car? Is that considered safe enough for you to take liability in case of an accident, as e.g.…

> Our system makes it impossible to lose control of the airplane Thing in aviation is, that there are a couple of outside factors which might leed to a loss of control: bird strike and mid-air collision come to mind.

True--but those are quite rare compared to other sources of fatal accidents. And if it does happen, we have the full airplane parachute to bring the airplane safely to the ground

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#110

Post by n_ermosh »

shafyy wrote: post #105
n_ermosh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today, airplanes are not great when it comes to their environmental impacts. If we are successful in our bet that we can grow the GA market, we'll have the resources to invest into greener propulsion technology. That space is currently evolving quickly, with hybrid-electric, hydrogen, full electric and others all being explored. So it's in our plans to address that as well.

Don't try to weasel your way out of this. Just be honest and say you like working on cool plane tech stuff and admit it's not great for the environment when more people will fly. No shame in that. Or maybe there is shame, but that's up to you.

maybe I wasn't clear but I completely agree that airplanes are not good for the environment. That absolutely needs to be fixed. But to fix it requires capital and public demand. We are hoping to generate both by getting more people flying so that it's not just a niche people who fly planes and care about the environment working asking for it and spending money in the industry
Post reply on HN