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

211–220 of 334 posts

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

#211

Post by Aeolun »

epicureanideal wrote: post #17

I wish they showed estimated prices for each of the routes. If it's $100/flight I might use it once per month to get to Santa Cruz or Lake Tahoe. If it's $20/flight I might consider LIVING in one of those places and commuting to work. Edit: Oops, didn't see that they did. Or maybe you want to escape to Lake Tahoe for a long weekend? That would be less than an hour on a Lilium Jet, at a cost of around $250 at launch O…

I don’t understand how they can possibly compare this to a first class ticket on a train?

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

#212

Post by ksd482 »

stickfigure wrote: post #209
aphextron wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> Each one is almost always a direct response to a particular incident that killed people ...in 1970. Not saying that all aviation regulations are bad, but the fact that carburetors are still used in general aviation is pretty damning.

Interesting. Can you please elaborate your point about the carburetors? Why shouldn't they be used in general aviation?

I don't have much knowledge about engines, that's why I am asking you.

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

#213

Post by Aeolun »

joosters wrote: post #155
dylan604 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Because we have decades of experience with the existing engine & fuel types, but very little experience of battery powered aircraft?

Not with battery powered aircraft, but quite a lot with battery powered anything.

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

#214

Post by ceejayoz »

abraxas wrote: post #52

If flying in this involves the all-cavity search like for all other passenger flights then forgetaboutit. I'll take a train ride 3x as long just to avoid the hassle of the airport experience.

> If flying in this involves the all-cavity search like for all other passenger flights then forgetaboutit.

It shouldn't need that; you can already forgo all that for a private jet/helicopter flight today. You're not going to take down a skyscraper and a few thousand people with one of these; it's more like crashing a car.

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

#215

Post by LoSboccacc »

baxtr wrote: post #24
pdelbarba wrote: post #11

This isn't going to be certified and allowed for part 135 operations inside at least a decade. Boeing can't keep their jets from crashing due to simple trim control software, what makes anyone think the FAA is going to go along with these flights over densely populated areas? This feels a lot like when everyone was scrambling to start helicopter taxi services which promptly crashed and burned... Helicopters were a ma…

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

it's really disingenuous to compare personal and mass transit. they have different risk aversion because they have different societal roles.

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

#216

Post by NickNameNick »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #205
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…

Lots of innovation has happened in aircraft electronics. The powerplant? Not so much. Most light aircraft engine designs are four or more decades old, and the only ones cheap enough for a moderately-priced aircraft have carburetors. I don't think you can even buy a car these days with a carburetor, but with airplanes they're still standard, even though fuel injection makes a lot more sense in an airplane than in a ca…

Car horsepower and airplane horsepower are very different things.

A car engine has to be able to maintain peak power output for a few seconds while accelerating. maybe a few seconds, unless you're towing a load up a hill or something. On level ground you're using a small but variable amount of your available power.

An airplane engine has to maintain peak power for the entire climb-out, and a substantial fraction of that for cruising for hours at a time.

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

#217

Post by bfuclusion »

stickfigure wrote: post #209
aphextron wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> Each one is almost always a direct response to a particular incident that killed people ...in 1970. Not saying that all aviation regulations are bad, but the fact that carburetors are still used in general aviation is pretty damning.

Carbs have an advantage when you're not going inverted: You can gravity feed them, with no fuel pump required.It would be interesting to run the numbers on fuel pump engine outs vs carb icing engine outs to decide which one was worse.

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

#218

Post by smabie »

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.

What 3rd world countries are you referring to? I'm pretty well traveled, and in my experience, this definitely has not been the case.

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

#219

Post by bfuclusion »

pdelbarba wrote: post #11

This isn't going to be certified and allowed for part 135 operations inside at least a decade. Boeing can't keep their jets from crashing due to simple trim control software, what makes anyone think the FAA is going to go along with these flights over densely populated areas? This feels a lot like when everyone was scrambling to start helicopter taxi services which promptly crashed and burned... Helicopters were a ma…

It depends on society's tolerance for death honestly. You're not going to be VTOLing a 737s worth of people so you're probably talking about the number of fatalities in a mid size SUV. People would care a lot less if the routes didn't take them over dense urban areas and the chance of one coming down on their head is super low.

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

#220

Post by deepnotderp »

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.

Access to transportation is a stronger predictor of economic mobility than growing up in a two parent household, early test scores or the crime rate. So yes, it is in fact, extremely socially beneficial.
Post reply on HN