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

Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

lilium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 334 posts

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#121

Post by machello13 »

technofiend wrote: post #65
mangecoeur wrote: post #51

Can an American please explain how a 3h41 minute car journey to Tahoe turns into an 8h49(!) train journey? Are your trains pulled by horses or something?

We don't have separate high speed rail tracks like Europe does; we have a single rail system used for slow cargo trains that take priority over passenger trains. Imagine driving everywhere with giant cargo trucks driving 80 km / hr in every lane with no way to pass them and you'll get the picture.

> slow cargo trains that take priority over passenger trains.

This is only half true. Legally, Amtrak has priority, and railroads are required to cede right-of-way to passenger trains. In practice, the railroads don't cede priority nearly as much as they should. This is an ongoing fight. Amtrak has a whole site about it here: https://www.amtrak.com/on-time-performance

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#122

Post by yread »

Alupis wrote: post #33
errantspark wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I this is a solvable problem and moving from current propulsion methods to a whole bunch of very small individually controllable BLDC motors with one moving part and low inertia is definitely a step in the right direction toward increasing the stability of low mass aircraft.

Most of the "uncomfotrable-ness" of smaller aircraft is how easily they are blown around in the wind, which is not insignificant at safe operating altitudes. This aircraft proposal will not be able to negate the effect. Think small boat on a lake - even with azimuth thrusters, still bobs up and down back and forth with the waves. Larger boats don't experience the effect as much, due to mass - same with large airliner…

Couldn't you come up with some smart way of changing the throttle of the engines to keep you stable. Bit like these fins

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rCWnI8r_EQ

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#123

Post by phkahler »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #59
looping__lui wrote: post #40

I love innovation and stuff. Radical ideas. But the aviation market is one of the most heavily regulated - bureaucracy beyond comprehension. Did you ever wonder why Piper or Cessna airplanes look EXACTLY what they did 50 years ago? And why the engines used in these planes (e.g., Lycoming) are referred to as “Lycosaurus”!? If you go for a sightseeing flight with a local aeroclub - you will find the pilot spending 30mi…

Totally agree about the certification. It's so annoying having to do stuff like managing the mixture. There is absolutely no chance I'm going to be better at that than even the most basic FADEC system. Every car since the early 90s has done away with the choke, but for some reason in a 2020-built C172 I still have to do this... :X I would argue that this insistence on safety certification makes actual flights less sa…

I did hear about one accident due to mixture. They forgot to lean it out on a long flight and ran out of gas over a heavily treed area because they hadn't planned to run rich the whole way. If I recall correctly they survived.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#124

Post by cameldrv »

looping__lui wrote: post #75
mattigames wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they should just use some of that VC money into pocketing (AKA lobbying) politicians to relax rules for these specific kind of airplanes, it has worked pretty well for the health industry in the US.

I mean, they probably do that. But the point is: even if politicians DO push that and even if the rules and regulations are written down - doesn’t mean that they will be granted a certification. I mean, funnily enough, they don’t yet even KNOW what they will have to adhere to and achieve and start burning through 300MM USD in investor money... Boeing, Airbus, Cessna, Cirrus and Piper have dozens of years of experienc…

Helicopters in the U.S. only need a 20 minute reserve, at least for VFR.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#125

Post by maxcan »

lisper wrote: post #64
looping__lui wrote: post #40

I love innovation and stuff. Radical ideas. But the aviation market is one of the most heavily regulated - bureaucracy beyond comprehension. Did you ever wonder why Piper or Cessna airplanes look EXACTLY what they did 50 years ago? And why the engines used in these planes (e.g., Lycoming) are referred to as “Lycosaurus”!? If you go for a sightseeing flight with a local aeroclub - you will find the pilot spending 30mi…

Private pilot here. Yes, aviation innovates slowly, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it sound. Cirrus aircraft have been a game changer, as has the Garmin G1000 avionics. I can fly just about any instrument approach entirely on autopilot. The only thing I have to touch is the throttle and the flaps. I get real-time traffic information via ADS-B, real-time weather via Nexrad. I do my flight planning in five minu…

Private pilot, instrument rated here ;). I fly a G5 SR22 Turbo, which is state of the art for GA piston aviation, or as the rest of the calls it, state of the are for 1982.

No autothrottle, no FADEC, and that plane new costs close to $1 mil. Short of the turbine world, its the best you can get but its still ancient tech. Following a magenta line on autopilot is not a hard problem to solve.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#126

Post by looping__lui »

notatoad wrote: post #114
looping__lui wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but let us not compare a 50k used Cessna to a 500k Cirrus? They rely on a Continental that was developed in the 80s (so quite new) - but doN’t you still have to adjust the mixture manually (e.g., manually adjust the air to fuel ratio)? I mean, the cool stuff you are describing can easily end up at 500k-2MM USD with a fully trained private pilot...

>let us not compare a 50k used Cessna to a 500k Cirrus? why not? the original post was that innovation can't happen in aviation because of regulation. if we're shifting the argument to innovation doesn't happen because it's expensive, that's a much more solveable problem.

Let me rephrase: The innovation you describe (which is cool and needs certification) bumped the price for a new airplane from about 50k in the 70s (I guess we may be talking 200k in today’s money) to close to 1MM USD.

And that innovation is “just” glass cockpit, and some more advanced avionics. Not changing the principles - you fly a bit faster, a bit safer but still need a license and do all the preparation and checks. But it’s a bit more fancy. From 200k to almost 1 MM.

The Garmin Autoland you described bumps up the sum to 3MM (https://www.piper.com/press-releases/piper-announces-new-m60...).

So factor 10 for something “that was already unreasonably expensive”...

My argument was around “innovation has a horrible ROI” in the aviation industry.

Building a startup in that space has to take costs into consideration... I mean, Musk initially didn’t shoot people into space, there was an inefficient market and the margins were enormous... That’s a different story...

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#127

Post by mishftw »

tmh79 wrote: post #113
ordinaryradical wrote: post #5

This to me is a true moonshot and venture-worthy idea. Some of these concepts may be technically or economically infeasible—it's a major risk—but the pay-off for human wellbeing is phenomenal. I wish we celebrated more companies like these, but it seems like most of them are met with (well-earned) skepticism rather than genuine curiosity. The world of atoms is harder than software, but it's awaiting disruptions like…

I dunno man, im getting kind of jaded as I get older. "True moonshot" to me seems more like cheap clean water for everyone, or a real way to sequester carbon, not a way for rich folks to get to their country cottages faster.

Sometimes I imagine if our collective minds were put together to figure out some of those basic - civilization wide problems like clean water for all, clean energy for all, or carbon sequestration. Imagine that world...

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#128

Post by maxcan »

looping__lui wrote: post #93
lisper wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private pilot here. Yes, aviation innovates slowly, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it sound. Cirrus aircraft have been a game changer, as has the Garmin G1000 avionics. I can fly just about any instrument approach entirely on autopilot. The only thing I have to touch is the throttle and the flaps. I get real-time traffic information via ADS-B, real-time weather via Nexrad. I do my flight planning in five minu…

Yes, but let us not compare a 50k used Cessna to a 500k Cirrus? They rely on a Continental that was developed in the 80s (so quite new) - but doN’t you still have to adjust the mixture manually (e.g., manually adjust the air to fuel ratio)? I mean, the cool stuff you are describing can easily end up at 500k-2MM USD with a fully trained private pilot...

Yes, you do have to manually adjust the mixture. I have to admit, for the newer turbo cirruses its insanely easy to do. just have to pull it until your fuel flow matches a blue indicator on the display.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#129

Post by notatoad »

looping__lui wrote: post #109
Hovertruck wrote: post #107

> If we imagine for a moment that you work in an office in Palo Alto, you could now choose to live in Hayward (5 min flight, $25), downtown San Francisco (10 min flight, $50), or even San Rafael (15 min flight, $70). This is a strange example to include in here – that's a pretty expensive (one-way?) commute.

I guess they address the pressing problems of their investors? Like people with too much money to spend and a bit detached from reality? ;-)

yeah, looking at the size of their aircraft and their proposed "vertiports", they're not suggesting that hundreds of thousands of people can move to san rafael and commute to sf, they're talking about more like 12 people. and tbh they could probably find a dozen people in the bay area with a $36k/year commuting budget

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#130

Post by nouveaux »

pdelbarba wrote: post #26
baxtr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that’s exactly what someone said about cars in 1900. BTW: In 2019, 39k people died in car crashes, in the US alone.

You can throw around statistics but the reality is aircraft receive far more scrutiny. Nobody wants to sit helplessly as one of these things flies them into the side of a skyscraper or watch as one falls out of the sky onto them. Is that fair? Maybe? Is that reality? Yes. This isn't like the invention of cars. We have had all manner of airplanes for over 100 years and know how they work. This is like the NYC helicopt…

Maybe. To me, the cost is a bigger factor. If you can show helicopters have the same fatality rate, but has the same price of an Uber, I'm sure a ton of people would use it.

It seems to me price is the larger barrier for most people when it comes to air travel.

Post reply on HN