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

221–230 of 334 posts

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

#221

Post by smabie »

burlesona wrote: post #28
mjlee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > 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). > 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 and less in the near future. It might…

Even at tech salaries those are expensive commutes. But for a ski weekend in Tahoe? Seems legit, assuming these aircraft have a great safety record.

I mean, not really. I way paying over $500 commuting by train into NYC. That comes to $25/day assuming I work 5 days a week. So, I would say it's pretty reasonable.

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

#222

Post by runarberg »

renewiltord wrote: post #204
runarberg wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes the current state of our humanity kind of sad, doesn’t it. It is also not true. There are numerous innovations targeted for the betterment of us all. The three-point seat-belt is a quick one that comes to mind. The field of medicine has tax funded research innovating at a remarkable frequency, where the target beneficiaries is all humans who need it. Expensive infrastructures like roads, train networks, el…

It's always been the case. We linked the world via trade in search of making a rich man's food taste better. I don't think it's sad. I think it's wonderful. The rich 'subsidize' progress for everyone. All of the things you mention (except the 3-point seatbelt, perhaps) have a story just like this one with some guy saying things just like this guy and a veritable shower of lament with no effort behind it.

> The rich 'subsidize' progress for everyone

This sounds like an HN version of trickle down theory which I thought had been thoroughly debunked by economists.

It’s funny but, I’ve always been under the impression that the opposite were true in standard economics, the poor—with their labour—are the once who subsidize the rich. I find it hard to believe that the economics of progress are any different. Let me draw up some napkin economics:

Scenario A: The poor pay disproportionaly higher taxes then the rich. Taxes pay for infrastructure, education, etc. The rich uses the infrastructure and the higher skilled workforce to work on a thing. The rich get richer on that thing. The rich give them self a higher percentage of the profit then the workers or the state. The rich just got richer because of subsidy from the poor.

Scenario B: The poor pay disproportionaly higher taxes then the rich. Taxes pay for infrastructure, education, etc. A team of PhD students (the poor) and their assistance (the poor) spend thousands of work-hours to figure out how a thing can be improved. A company uses their findings free of charge to deliver a better product. The company does not give the students and their assistance a fair share of the profits. The company pays their shareholders (the rich) the majority of the profits. The rich just got richer because of subsidy from the poor.

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

#223

Post by wpearse »

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…

US$5/gallon is about the same price as our vanilla automobile juice here in NZ.

We pick up avgas (half the price) from the small airport near us if we’re doing strictly off-road activities in our vehicles (no fuel tax).

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

#225

Post by runarberg »

deepnotderp wrote: post #220
tmh79 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Note that in many cases access is not only restricted by availability, but also affordability.

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

#226

Post by nine_k »

mishftw wrote: post #127
tmh79 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Who is going to feed these members of the collective mind while they are working? Who is going to pay for the water, electricity, compute power they use while solving the world problems?

Serious question.

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

#227

Post by ricardobeat »

bfuclusion wrote: post #224

I feel these plans are ignoring a big component of why we don't have tons of heliports in urban areas. Noise. Even with electric pushing enough air to move is going to make a fair amount.

They certainly didn't ignore that aspect - right there, in the middle of the article, they mention that the aircraft has been designed for low noise, the equivalent of a truck passing by.

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

#228

Post by s1dev »

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.

A good example of a recent technical failure where one likely alternative is "everyone dies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38

The engine needs to be able to run without electrical power, or you need to convince the FAA that your backup will fail with an extremely small probability. This is one of the reasons magnetos + carburetors are common in general aviation

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

#229

Post by Stevvo »

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…

There's no technical reason light aircraft engines can't be a heck of a lot better than turbocharged, fuel-injected pistons. They could all be cheap turbojets designed for low altitude flight burning regular diesel at 10gph going 300 Knots, with far higher reliability than any piston. Unfortunately for the reasons you mentioned, and the myth that turbines can't be efficient at low altitudes, nobody is going to develop that engine.

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

#230

Post by s1dev »

steffan wrote: post #152
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…

I'd argue that some of the difference between a pilot license and a driver's license would diminish if the difficulty of a driver's license more accurately reflected the challenges of operating a heavy vehicle in close proximity to pedestrians and other vehicles. At the current standards, apparently the only hard requirement is a pulse.

Here are a few ways to kill you and all your passengers under instrument flight rules. Most of these involve a single mistake and a "controlled flight into terrain"

- Turn too early/late past an arbitrary point in space

- Turn the wrong direction

- Descend too early past an arbitrary point in space

- Use the wrong altimeter setting

- Failing to recognize and troubleshoot a failed instrument

- Failing to recognize signs of hypoxia

Not to mention dealing with emergency procedures while you don't do any of the above

Here is an example from a few years ago where a 777 missed a mountain by a few seconds after some non-standard instructions by ATC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFdXax7Zh_g

Post reply on HN