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

191–200 of 334 posts

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

#191

Post by Gibbon1 »

MrFlynn wrote: post #171
microcolonel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> > California is building a high speed rail line. > Allegedly. Not allegedly, it's actually being built right now. 119 miles of it in fact. It's not the whole system, but it's the IOS that they promised that they would build. > the target speeds are disappointing and there are so many detours from any meaningful corridor... The target speed is 220 mph between Gilroy and Burbank which is in line with the current high…

The constant hammering about using the HWY99 corridor vs I5 is kinda telling. It's obvious they aren't even looking at a map. If you did look at a map you'd see that the I5 route only saves 70 miles out of 470. And you need to drive the rail line up and over the grapevine and and through Tejon Pass. If you keep the route though Palmdale and Acton then you save less than 30 miles.

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

#192

Post by kaybe »

TylerE wrote: post #110
kaybe wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's going on with the Sanford-Lorton connection?

That's the autotrain. Carries passengers AND the car. T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_Train

Is it on a ferry or is the map just not accurate there? I don't see it on the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_ferry

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

#193

Post by JAlexoid »

rklaehn wrote: post #119
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…

If US and EU are so buerocratic that innovation is impossible, there will still be a big market for viable VTOL electric planes in the rest of the world. Just like most 3rd world countries these days have better 4G coverage than supposedly 1st world countries like Germany, or rural US.

Which third world countries have better 4G, than... say Estonia?

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

#194

Post by aphextron »

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…

Aviation regulations are written in blood.

They are the only reason you can step into an aircraft with a reasonable expectation of making it safely to your destination. Disasters are generally not caused by obvious large issues, but a multitude of smaller compounding, seemingly benign causes that could otherwise be easily dismissed. The massive body of regulation around aviation is a direct result of this. Each one is almost always a direct response to a particular incident that killed people.

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

#195

Post by Aeolun »

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…

> how does anybody imagine that a novel aerial vehicle like this actually IS CERTIFIED within a lifetime?

All of the aircraft in existence have been certified in what is (for a very old person) one lifetime. I think we’ll be fine.

Their schedule seems to have 5 years for development, and 5 more for certification.

That seems reasonable.

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

#196

Post by nradov »

getpost wrote: post #167
pdelbarba wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely guarantee this will be anything but less expensive. You can get an R44 with better range and payload for a couple hundred thousand. This will be an electronic nightmare requiring extensive certification and maintenance efforts. Cessna can't even sell ridiculously old designs for reasonable prices due to certification overhead.

It might be less expensive due to the electrical powerplant. It will take a while before there is enough of a track record to know for sure. But, for example, electric cars are much lower maintenance than gas cars, as Tesloop as shown. https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/05/10492-tesla-model-s-mai... https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-...

Tesla vehicles actually require much more frequent repairs than similar gas cars.

https://www.truedelta.com/Tesla-Model-S/repair-frequencies-1...

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

#197

Post by Aeolun »

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…

That is super cool! I always wonder why we don’t have something like this if we hear a story about a nonresponsive aircraft eventually running out of fuel and flying into a mountain.

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

#198

Post by nradov »

pdelbarba wrote: post #71
nlawalker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, what I'm not clear on is: what's the cost to fly from SF to Lake Tahoe in a helicopter? If it's a lot more than the $250 that Lilium is promising, what is it that makes Lilium cheaper? Is it just the up-front investment in scale and the route network?

For an owner operator, an R22 and maybe an R44 would be able to do SF to Lake Tahoe for well under $250. For a charter service you could probably get a commercial operator to do it for maybe around ~$500 and there are definitely some inefficiencies you could remove there. Lilium is on crack if they actually think $250 is going to be the all in cost for a private flight though. You don't just spin up a new air frame a…

The R44 has a tiny cargo capacity. It's not really viable for a family of 4 that want to bring skis with them.

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

#199

Post by nradov »

therockspush wrote: post #95

There's a bunch of these companies getting more traction right now. Joby Aviation, Kitty Hawk Aero, Wisk, Terrafugia, Opener, Lillium, probably more. Its already been mentioned here how regulated this industry is, and they aren't going to be able to pull the Uber model of asking for forgiveness instead of permission. Guessing some consolidation is coming up.

Investments and prototypes are not traction. Paying customers are traction.

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

#200

Post by lisper »

Aeolun wrote: post #197
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…

That is super cool! I always wonder why we don’t have something like this if we hear a story about a nonresponsive aircraft eventually running out of fuel and flying into a mountain.

Automation cuts both ways. It can kill you when it doesn't work right just as easily as it can save you when it does.
Post reply on HN