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

261–270 of 334 posts

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

#261

Post by opportune »

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.

We can easily do both those things already, the problem is nobody wants to pay for it, because the people most affected by bad water/hunger/climate change are the people with no money.

Moonshots afaik are risky ideas/ventures that have the potential to "moon" i.e. make a shit-ton of money. Solving a problem with no funding can't be a moonshot by that definition.

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

#262

Post by praveen9920 »

noir_lord wrote: post #43
praveen9920 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One word: compliance. FAA has lot of restrictions to allow a planes to fly with pilot in it. Imagine convincing them that without pilot.

Honestly that is as it should be. Does that kind of regulation inhibit progress in some domains, sure - is the cost of the loss of that progress worth it against the likely outcome of de-regulating it absolutely. Safety regulations are written in blood and when organisations like the FCC, FDA etc fall down on the job people die . I want my cyberpunk aircar as much as the next geek but not at the price of having them…

As grim as it may seem, our air safety is built on deaths of thousands of people died in airplane crashes. some may call it cost of progress.

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

#263

Post by raz32dust »

Hate to be the naysayer, but last mile is going to be tricky. 10 mins from Palo Alto to SF sounds fantastic. But if it takes you 15 mins to get from home to the flight, and 15 mins from flight to wherever you need to be in SF, then the total of 40 mins doesn't sound so great when you factor in the price.

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

#264

Post by manquer »

TylerE wrote: post #251
manquer wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a sensible third option which is how automotive changed for the most part. Grandfather in current planes and mandate new models to use new fuel only. Over time, perhaps lot longer than cars(planes do have longer life) you will have changed all of them. Had they started it in 80's and 90's same time as auto-mobiles, most planes would have changed by now. Every industry faces the same challenges to transform t…

No they wouldn't. You're underestimating the age of the fleet. The average GA aircraft is 50 years old, and that is likely to increase in the near-medium term as production of GA aircraft is practically zero. Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/20... . (Cirrus, mentioned above, produces about 300 aircraft a year - compare to the 100,000+ Ceessnas on GA fields, almost all of which are ove…

1980 is 40 years ago now . In another 10 years half the fleet would have changed .. still better than we are now .

You could also speed it up by making costlier to run older ones over time . Keeps the industry more active too..

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

#265

Post by jbay808 »

runarberg wrote: post #132
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.

True. This kind of technology would be a game changer for poorer rural communities with limited infrastructure and vast distances. Places like Greenland or East Congo. But this article did not mention this benefit at all. All they seem to care about is getting rich people between places they already can.

This is an effect of massive wealth inequality. In some cases, you could run a more profitable business with Jeff Bezos as your only customer than building products for an entire country's worth of people.

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

#266

Post by kraig911 »

I work in aviation. Maintenance FAA regulation tracking. Aside from all the great points about safety some things to note A lot of people here seem to forget that for the miles and hours in flight versus the costs of AC/upkeep are VERY different from that of a car.

You spend hours and hours in a car you buy. Most small AC have a TTAF of 300 hours or less. And they are YEARS old. Literally nothing is wrong with a carb engine. The planes get fairly good efficiency compared. People also seem to think that planes are being bought at sold in the volumes of cars. Most AC are fairly older. This is why innovations like avionics are up while airframe and engines are low.

I get it that it feels like there's less innovation but I would gather to say there's more. Especially when you get out of the turboprop market. It's essentially the motorcycle industry versus the cars in the road.

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

#267

Post by redis_mlc »

ksd482 wrote: post #212
stickfigure wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Carburetors are mainly susceptible to icing in normal use. Your engine can just start losing power and rapidly quit.

I once had carb icing in Hawaii at 2000' near Wheeler due mostly to humidity, and it was only thorough training that allowed me to figure that out fast enough to apply carb heat and save the plane.

A lot of inexperienced pilots just ride it down into the ground.

Dual fuel injectors prevent the icing problem (usually, unless your fuel actually crystallizes or freezes), but they have other failure modes like dirt or wear. Or forgetting to turn them on.

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

#268

Post by [deleted] »

runarberg wrote: post #177
renewiltord wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just basic marketing. You sell to the guy who can buy. The Tesla company was started in 2003 to productionize the AC tzero. In 2005, the Roadster was conceived as the product it became and Tesla and Lotus tied up. The Secret Master Plan arrived in 2006. So yeah, that's just how it goes. Because there is an army of people who lament things targeted at rich people, but that army does not participate in progress…

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…

[deleted]

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

#269

Post by drewm1980 »

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…

Wow, hearing that rich people are still allowed to dump lead into the atmosphere above our heads just ruined my morning. What things of non-entertainment value would we loose if we just banned leaded fuel overnight? Are crop dusters burning lead while spraying pesticides over our food crops?
Post reply on HN