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

141–150 of 334 posts

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

#141

Post by dylan604 »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #79
chris_va wrote: post #66

Most people do not have the years to devote to becoming a good pilot, much less get a new category cert, so I find that these sorts of prototypes have a very limited audience. "Or maybe you want to escape to Lake Tahoe for a long weekend? That would be less than an hour on a Lilium Jet" ... ah, mountain flying with batteries, what could possibly go wrong. Also, I find the lack of a vertical stabilizer this plane to b…

And a ballistic parachute is not super safe in mountainous areas where the ground is not flat. With the typical ballistic parachute there is zero control on where you land. And even in the best circumstances the landing is pretty rough, it's more like a last resort. However engine failure can also occur on fuel-powered aircraft. And at least this thing has a whole lot of engines so it could afford the failure of a fe…

>However engine failure can also occur on fuel-powered aircraft

This. Why would a battery powered aircraft be more susceptible to failure than another engine type?

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

#142

Post by einpoklum »

giarc wrote: post #82
hristov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until you invent anti-gravity, VTOL will always be (i) very energy intensive, and (ii) and very disruptive to the surrounding environment. This is both in terms of noise and air turbulence. Self driving is something that may be solved and can become practical for popular use with current and near-term foreseeable technology. Everyday mass use VTOL is not. Sorry, the Jetsons lied to you.

>Everyday mass use VTOL is not. Sorry, the Jetsons lied to you. Many companies are working on this problem currently. I would say consumer accessible, piloted electric VTOL is closer than fully self driving vehicles.

> Many companies are working on this problem currently.

They're working on nullifying gravity? Cool.

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

#143

Post by bobthepanda »

nouveaux wrote: post #130
pdelbarba wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is damage to others.

Generally speaking, even if cars crash into buildings the building itself is not immediately unsafe; injured people and a broken storefront, but the building is not on fire or collapsing. Unless something has changed dramatically, planes crashing into buildings generally start fires, and generally cause concern about the structural integrity of said building in the immediate aftermath.

As a result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_New_York_City_plane_crash

> On October 11, 2006, a Cirrus SR20 aircraft crashed into the Belaire Apartments in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York City, at about 2:42 p.m. EDT (18:42 UTC). The aircraft struck the north side of the building causing a fire in several apartments,[2][3] which was extinguished within two hours.[4]

> Both people aboard the aircraft were killed in the accident: New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle[3] and his certificated flight instructor.[5][6] Twenty-one people were injured, including eleven firefighters. An apartment resident, Ilana Benhuri, who lived in the building with her husband, was hospitalized for a month with severe burns incurred when the post-impact fire engulfed her apartment.[7][8]

> On October 13, 2006, two days after the crash, the FAA banned all fixed-winged aircraft from the East River corridor unless in contact with local air traffic control. The new rule, which took effect immediately, required all small aircraft (with the exception of helicopters and certain seaplanes) to seek the approval of and stay in contact with air traffic control while in the corridor. The FAA cited safety concerns, especially unpredictable winds from between buildings, as the reason for the change.

Most car crashes do not result in 2 dead, 21 injured, and property damage to several residences.

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

#144

Post by Gibbon1 »

microcolonel wrote: post #118
Gibbon1 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is building a high speed rail line. But there is an enormous amount of reflexive opposition from NIMBY's, Conservatives, and Libertarians. To tell you how bad it is there are 100 year old train tunnels between New York and New Jersey that must be replaced and Republicans have killed the projects to replace them _twice_ simply because they are rail projects and passenger rail is 'bad'

> California is building a high speed rail line. Allegedly. > But there is an enormous amount of reflexive opposition from NIMBYs, Conservatives, and Libertarians. The greatest obstacles to California's high speed rail project are vote-buying politicians and the voters who do not pay attention or understand what they are doing. Conservatives and libertarians may have a lot to say about it, I gather that's because it…

As you can see this response proves my point 100%

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

#145

Post by rconti »

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?

I was actually surprised you could do it by train at all. I wouldn't even know how to begin to attempt a train journey in the US. (other than hitting up Amtrak's website and hoping for the best).

I was also surprised at train travel in Norway on my recent visit; I hoped to book a ticket from Oslo to Bergen but it was basically impossible. Only a couple of trains a day, all sold out. I drove instead, which was also a shock, since I spent virtually my entire drive at or below 80kph. The train would have been roughly the same speed -- so, not as bad as your Tahoe example, but not great by continental European standards either :)

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

#146

Post by theptip »

looping__lui wrote: post #126
notatoad wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 chec…

> “innovation has a horrible ROI”

This may be so, but I don't think you've really substantiated it; you're just talking about part of the "I", without any reference to the dollars of "R". Sure, $1m puts a plane out of almost everybody's recreation budget. But for a piece of transportation infrastructure with high utilization, it might not be prohibitive. (I mean, a jumbo jet costs hundreds of millions to build, involves significant R&D budgets on each new model, and is still positive ROI, just.)

You said "you fly a bit faster, a bit safer" in a dismissive way, but how much is this actually worth? I could easily believe that making flights slightly safer is worth an extra $1m of capex; I think your original claim would be much stronger if you provided some more concrete numbers/analysis here.

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

#147

Post by einpoklum »

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?

American capitalists, especially the car industry, lobbied heavily to make this the case, and also allowed privately-owned public transport services to deteriorate.

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

#148

Post by theptip »

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.

Isn't the original literal moonshot (i.e. flying to the moon) more in the category of "things that don't help the working people" than "things that solve poverty/suffering"?

I know the meaning may have shifted over the years, but i've always interpreted it as "audacious and unlikely to succeed", rather than any particular moral / altruistic content.

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

#149

Post by viburnum »

This is bad because it doesn’t scale up the way mass transit does. Only a few people will be able to use it, and those will be the people with the most resources and power. As long as the people in charge can avoid the problems that the little people have, they don’t pay much attention to them. What we need is solidarity. We need systems that work for everyone, not one excellent system for the few and half-hearted make-do for the rest.

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

#150

Post by steffan »

looping__lui wrote: post #126
notatoad wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 chec…

One thing to keep in mind is economies of scale:

Cirrus: "new aircraft deliveries for the piston SR Series reached 380 in 2018"

By way of comparison, Ferrari delivered 9,200 cars in the same year.

Part of the problem with aviation has been that aircraft are boutique items and priced accordingly.

I'd imagine even a Toyota Camry would cost $150k if it was a one-off design.

Post reply on HN