Isn’t a better solution for the given distance - rail transport? It’s more affordable, ecological and can serve higher number of people from different economical layers. This seems more like an enthusiast toy rather than an alternative for 50-300 miles travel options.
Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
261–270 of 632 posts
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#262My worry is the noise pollution. I'm always surprised at how loud it is when a small airplane flies over.
it is indeed a problem. however, Sling (who we are working with on our first model) is also developing a "Whisper" version of their airplane to make it dramatically quieter (https://www.slingpilotacademy.com/airport-noise-reduction/#1...). We hope to adopt the tech into the Airhart Sling as well
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#263My worry is the noise pollution. I'm always surprised at how loud it is when a small airplane flies over.
And unlike other aircraft, the small fixed-wing ones spew lead into the atmosphere as if this were still the 1970s or something.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Ercoupe tried this exact approach in the 30s in one of the big GA booms and it just wasn't borne out. The Ercoupe was a great idea for it's time, but we can do so much more with the technology we have today that we didn't have back then > a production aircraft that's cheaper than $50/hr to fly would. yes! our long term goal is to get there, but we need more people flying airplanes today to generate enough scale…
How many people who don't fly, but can afford to, have you interviewed about their reasons for not flying? This is where I would start trying to solve that problem. I'd be shocked if any of them mention coordinated flying :) My 2c - the best way to go to big scale with a GA product is to somehow find a way to make it dual use and secure the DoD as a customer. The problem with doing this is that the DoD becomes your m…
We've talked to many and the complexity of flying a plane is a big factor--because the knowledge that if they mess up stick and rudder means they have a high chance of losing control and crashing scares them from flying. Our system helps alleviate that fear.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It may sound snobby - but I'm not super excited about the idea of lowering the barrier to entry for GA on a foundational skill basis. Like the light-sport rating, it encourages more people to be in the (already congested) airspace system who haven't really gained all the other skills necessary or experience to be there. I'm not a pilot, but I've always wanted to go down the path. In theory - this should be rather e…
I wanted to do this too and was in a financial position to start lessons. Had raced cars in the past, rebuilt cars, mechanically savvy, fiddled around a whole heap with flight simulars, got excited about it. Paid my money for the initial 3 flights. First time up (in a Cessna) beautiful clear day, low wind. Once we had done the safety checks I was instructed to taxi the plane. It was about as complicated as a ride-on…
> Instructor took over and punted the plane into the air.
Sounds like you told the instructor about your car-racing experience.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#266This reminds me of programming languages designed with an English-like syntax in the hope that people would be able to develop software without learning to code. It also reminds me a bit of the Ercoupe, an airplane designed in 1937 with the ailerons and rudders mechanically coupled so that pilots would have fewer controls to operate and reduced ability to put the airplane into uncoordinated flight. Neither approach h…
The crash you reference was most likely caused by a pilot choosing to fly too low (they performed the flyover at 30ft instead of 100ft) and striking trees which had not been marked on charts provided to them. The pilot did try to blame the fly-by-wire system, but it wasn't very convincing.
I don't think the pilots were correct to blame the system either, however I do think some of their decisions to put the aircraft in a dangerous situation were influenced by a belief that the computers would keep them out of trouble. Airbus trying to market the plane as uncrashable probably contributed.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in a suburb near a county airport. I cannot fathom a life with Tesla owners flying over where my kids and I bbq. This idea is great, but people should still be licensed for the real safety protocols e.g. radio and not crashing into others.
A CIWS maybe be the next standard feature on premium grills, ammo not included.
A CIWS probably doesn’t have enough stopping power for a GA aircraft so the burning wreckage will still crash into you. Need to go full AA gun, 12 DD stamps included with your purchase.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#268What are the environmental implications of transitioning people traveling by car/train to small planes? In addition to being louder and dispersing pollutants over a wider area, don't small planes generate significantly more GHG emissions than cars over the same number of miles? Also, given that planes are not nearly as easy to electrify as cars and trains (energy density is significantly lower in batteries than liqui…
Hard to tell. I have a frequent route that takes me ~ 2 hours of flight (13 liters/hour, 26 liters in total) or ~ 10 hours to drive with around 50 liters of gas. Flying means burning 50% less gas. But for others there may be better driving, how to calculate that?
50% seems very unreasonable here, if not in the wrong direction overall.
Ikarus C42 at about 86 knots will use 13 L/hr, for a two-hour flight, it's 26 L fuel and 8.31 kg CO2/gal avgas[1], this comes to 57 kg CO2 to cover 320 km (and this is assuming it immediately starts covering flight distance and not using gas for climbing/approach, etc.).
An average new car in the EU uses 6 L/100 km in 2019[2]. To drive 320 km, this comes to 19 L of gasoline (8.1kg CO2/gallon finished motor gasoline[1]), which is then 41 kg CO2.
Even if you had to make the auto trip 400 km because roads aren't as direct, this comes to 51 kg CO2.
Nevermind that airports are rarely your final destination, nor in the city centre like train station would be, which adds significant distance to your overall trip.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php [2] https://www.iea.org/articles/fuel-economy-in-the-european-un...
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#269This reminds me of programming languages designed with an English-like syntax in the hope that people would be able to develop software without learning to code. It also reminds me a bit of the Ercoupe, an airplane designed in 1937 with the ailerons and rudders mechanically coupled so that pilots would have fewer controls to operate and reduced ability to put the airplane into uncoordinated flight. Neither approach h…
> This reminds me of programming languages designed with an English-like syntax in the hope that people would be able to develop software without learning to code... Neither approach has remained popular into the modern era.
Au Contraire!
MS Office macros continues to use VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) which traces its roots to BASIC - one of those "English like syntax" languages. MS Office macros remains one of the most popular languages in the world.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#270While I think the project is pretty cool, I can't shake the pollution side of things out of my mind. Air transport is one of the most polluting ways to travel, and I would expect a single person airplane is even worse than a full A380. Is there anything you're doing to alleviate this issue ?
Take a look at the more economical modern GA aircraft. A Cirrus SR22 can run at 10 gallons per hour, with a ground speed of 160+ mph. Yes, it’s more total fuel consumption than a car (but in an hour covering 2x the distance, and allowing to travel more directly) but not at all close to turbine or turboprops. At the extremely cheap (accessible to more pilots) side for pressurized planes, fuel burn is going to be 40gph…
You can argue for its convenience/speed/fun, but fuel efficiency does not look good for GA aircraft. Even for your modern GA aircraft example, it literally comes to 16 mpg. This is as bad as worst of the trucks out there. While it's great if existing use cases of GA aircrafts would become more efficient, adding demand in this area (more hobbyists, more rich people shuttling use, encouraging people to live in very remote areas, etc.) and using it as transportation-mode will unlikely ever become environmentally reasonable.