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

181–190 of 632 posts

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

#181

Post by restalis »

mritchie712 wrote: post #16
daft_pink wrote: post #7

I disagree with your assessment. I think that the core problem with GA is that most people in the United States want to travel distances beyond what an affordable GA aircraft can in a single flight. I live in the midwest and I generally want to travel to the East or West coast or Southwest or Florida and the range of a Cessna just isn’t going to cut it. The only practical vehicle would be a Phenom 300 or Honda Jet II…

I might be over estimating, but I'd also think taking off and landing will tack on a few hours to the start and end of your trip. Fueling, safety checks, dealing with the control tower, etc. all seem like they'd effectively take your time savings to zero.

"dealing with the control tower"

I know little to nothing about GA, but... it only makes sense to take time if the procedures are still done somehow manually, like speaking with human operators out there. It true, the dependence on a fallible human attention for something that can be automated, that right there is a safety hazard to me.

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

#182

Post by pjkundert »

bozhark wrote: post #139

MEMS gyro for fly-by-wire airplane using “ clever sensor fusion math” does not sound reassuring At $500,000 why not use the laser-ring gyros that’s hardly cost prohibitive

One expensive laser-ring gyro, or 3+ independent MEMS gyros?

I’ll take the multiple independent gyros, thanks.

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

#183

Post by [deleted] »

namdnay wrote: post #112

> We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying It really depresses me that in 2024 we have some of the smartest, most privileged people in the world deciding that this is what they’re going to dedicate their life to Shouldn’t we be doing exactly the opposite? Getting people to stop flying

[deleted]

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

#184

Post by ryandrake »

n_ermosh wrote: post #21
talldayo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By eliminating loss of control as a failure mode I think this is a flawed view of the problem, even with an industry-grade FCS to work with. If you're in the air, you should know how to break out of a stall, belly-land in an emergency, or route around turbulence as it crops up. These things happen , and preventing someone from doing a loop-de-loop won't eliminate a category of failure-modes. This is something I ver…

Most accidents occur because the pilot makes a bad decision somewhere and a chain of events leads to an accident (in GA--commercial is a completely different beast). Our hope is to break that chain by making it as easy as possible for the pilot to continue flying the airplane and bring it safely to the ground in a high-stress emergency.

Even when the tools are available, pilots need the training to know to use them. How many NTSB accident reports include non instrument rated pilots getting disoriented in IMC despite having an autopilot with a "level" function? If your system can keep them out of this kind of trouble without them even having to take action, it will save lives.

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

#185

Post by ctoth »

9dev wrote: post #158

I understand the excitement on a technical level, and your plan sure sounds neat; and I definitely have a lot of respect on a personal level. On the other hand, humanity is rolling head-first into a climate crisis, won’t stop emitting way too much CO2, and people generally refuse to adapt their lifestyle even a modicum in face of an exponentially growing list of problems. Do we really need even more personal aviation…

> Do we really need even more personal aviation in the situation we’re currently facing?

Yes? What's to stop them from using the fly-by-wire tech on a battery-powered, solar-powered, or hydrogen-powered airplane as they become viable? What in particular does the motive power for the prototype have to do with global warming?

Is flying inherently bad even if carbon-free? I certainly don't think so!

Mad props to the engineers behind this project. We need more innovation going in more interesting and varied directions, and less pooh-poohing. Maybe you can be the one who works on the hydrogen engine!

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

#186

Post by spaceywilly »

gwbas1c wrote: post #172

> 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. About once a month, I make a 90 mile (180 round trip) drive to see family. The drive is usually 90-100 minutes. Would GA really save time? It's half an hour for me to get to a GA airport, and then roughly half an hour to get to my family from the other G…

You will also need to account for the time to pre-flight the plane, and fuel it up, possibly wait on the taxiway, and possibly divert around weather (including to an entirely different airport if necessary).

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

#188

Post by Tepix »

namdnay wrote: post #112

> We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying It really depresses me that in 2024 we have some of the smartest, most privileged people in the world deciding that this is what they’re going to dedicate their life to Shouldn’t we be doing exactly the opposite? Getting people to stop flying

My thoughts exactly. It's depressing really. Even if i had an idea for a novel airplane that leads to more people flying, i would immediately conclude that it's not a good idea to chase after because our planet needs less CO₂ emissions, not more.

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

#189

Post by mightyham »

burkaman wrote: post #164
n_ermosh wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is like saying that you know gas power plants are not good for the environment, so you're hoping to get gas generators into more homes to generate capital and demand to fix the problem. If your company is successful enough for you to invest significant resources into "greener propulsion technology", what is going to happen to all the planes you already sold to get there? Are you going to send an email blast out…

Classic false equivalence. Mature airplane engine technology based on alternative energy really doesn't exsit at the moment, while the same cannot be said for residential energy.

The existence of the a fossil fuel based car market provided an impetus for electric car and battery technology to develop. Similarly, practical alternative energy flight will likely develop faster if there is a market for small, innovative aircrafts.

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

#190

Post by bigyikes »

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.

I’m begging for trains in the Texas triangle. It’s such a perfect use case. It’s ~3 hours between any of San Antonio-Austin, Houston, and Dallas-Fort Worth. Long enough to be a horrible drive, short enough to be a waste of a flight. There’s also not much density in between to contend with.
Post reply on HN