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

311–320 of 334 posts

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

#311

Post by nradov »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #309
nradov wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a certification process for helicopters and autogyros, so VTOL capability alone is no reason for a different certification process. Helicopters require a 20 minute fuel reserve in VFR conditions and 30 minutes in IFR conditions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.151

Yes but these are automated, so they could be programmed to stay within X minutes of backup landing sites at all times, and altitudes to reach them easily.

No there will be a human pilot in control. It's going to be many years before fully automated aircraft are allowed to carry human civilian passengers through regular airspace.

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

#312

Post by projektfu »

The thing that concerns me (and probably any regulatory body as well): a conventional helicopter can make a controlled landing without power. This plane will rely on a ballistic chute? So flying over urban areas at low altitudes, after a power failure it will just fall down wherever the wind takes it?

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

#313

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

TylerE wrote: post #284
_ph_ wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one factor would be, that people are happy to fly old planes. If due to the environment regulations, you would have to buy more new planes, demand and consequently production would increase.

That would have to be onerous regulation. The cost difference between new and used is truly immense. A new Cessna 172 starts at around $400,000, and that's before you start checking off things on the options list. Used can be as low as $20,000 for examples for the 1960s. If you thought depreciation on luxury cars was bad... The GA system is already frankly dieing due to ever increasing costs. Your suggestion would ju…

I was working on my Private Pilot license in the mid-90's. I quit just around 40 hours with my only remaining required training maneuver being a Night cross country.

I quit for pretty much the reasons you give: while I could have afforded to finish my license, I realized owning my own airplane would have been prohibitive. Sure, I could get a Cessna 152 for around $20k at the time, but then hangar fees, maintenance, insurance, etc. were far more than I could afford.

There's a reason the average small plane owners at my airport drove Toyota rustbuckets with the bumper sticker "My other car is an airplane."

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

#314

Post by benhurmarcel »

baybal2 wrote: post #78

Switzerland is one of few countries where "air taxi" services turned to profit. Hilly terrain makes it hard to make straight roads. Quite a lot of big cities don't have direct road connections. In a relatively flat USA, you don't have a lot of similar spaces.

Also, Switzerland is crucially a very wealthy country.

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

#315

Post by stickfigure »

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.

I'm not a pilot but I have a lot of experience with carburetors in cars and motorcycles.

Carburetors are fiddly analog devices that require tuning by way of changing port sizes, needle valve sizes, float levels, mixture adjusters, throttle position adjusters, and more. Most of these require disassembly, and they clog and distort as the carburetor ages. Carburetors are highly sensitive to temperature and altitude. Tuning them is "more art than science".

Modern fuel injection systems have digital control and feedback loops using a variety of sensors. They provide optimal fueling in pretty much any condition. They may be more complicated, but (at least in vehicles) they're rock solid reliable compared to carburetors. They also have more graceful failure modes - if the O2 sensor craps out, the computer defaults to running rich and puts a warning light on the dash.

I'm pretty sure that if the carburetor was invented today, it would never be allowed to carry human traffic.

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

#316

Post by causality0 »

Sebb767 wrote: post #300
causality0 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could hold the director of the FAA at gunpoint and they still wouldn't let personal planes fly close enough to each other to make this remotely scalable. Even if you pulled the nonexistent vehicles out of a hat like magic we missed the social acceptance window. Automobiles emerged at a time when nobody really cared about safety regulations and they've continuously gotten safer, so nobody has a problem with the cu…

> we missed the social acceptance window. I don't think that's the reason we accept the higher death rate of cars. In cars, you feel like you have direct influence on whether you die, or at least you know the person in control. This might not be the actual case, but it's enough to make people save. Compare this to planes: You're flown in big machines you don't understand by people you don't know and, if something goe…

Still, I think the age has something to do with it. The death rate for motorcycles is 24 times higher than that for cars but we would never allow a car missing enough safety features to be comparably dangerous on the road. You couldn't get regulators and the public to accept, say, 80 mile per hour electric rollerblades even if you could demonstrate they were just as safe as motorcycles.

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

#317

Post by lisper »

causality0 wrote: post #316
Sebb767 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we missed the social acceptance window. I don't think that's the reason we accept the higher death rate of cars. In cars, you feel like you have direct influence on whether you die, or at least you know the person in control. This might not be the actual case, but it's enough to make people save. Compare this to planes: You're flown in big machines you don't understand by people you don't know and, if something goe…

Still, I think the age has something to do with it. The death rate for motorcycles is 24 times higher than that for cars but we would never allow a car missing enough safety features to be comparably dangerous on the road. You couldn't get regulators and the public to accept, say, 80 mile per hour electric rollerblades even if you could demonstrate they were just as safe as motorcycles.

> Still, I think the age has something to do with it.

No, it's the externalities. When you fly you don't just put yourself at risk, you put others at risk as well. Roads are designed to isolate faster-moving vehicles from people and property so the people who die are mostly the occupants of the vehicles and there is not much collateral damage. But it's not possible to isolate air traffic this way. So it's not just the occupants of aircraft who die, it's people sitting in their living rooms watching TV when a plane suddenly comes crashing through their roof.

Also, the limiting factor on air travel is not technology, it's takeoff and landing space. Even VTOL aircraft need a lot more room to takeoff and land than a car does because there's a blast zone.

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

#318

Post by looping__lui »

searchableguy wrote: post #306
renewiltord wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helicopter pilots in the Bay Area get paid $30k/year? Okay, I don't know that to not be the case but it sounds hard to believe.

OP might be talking about europe: https://www.dw.com/en/being-a-pilot-isnt-what-it-used-to-be/... https://dutchpilotgirl.com/pilot-salary/

No, I wasn’t talking about Europe...

I don’t want to “shame” anybody in particular, but look up your local charter airlines and what they offer...

This can of course vary if there are rather complex requirements (e.g., a certain type rating, experience level etc.) - but being a pilot isn’t cool financially anymore. A small fraction ends up with “the large airlines” - but if you don’t, you are not in for the big money...

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

#319

Post by looping__lui »

redis_mlc wrote: post #288
looping__lui wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can recommend Mike Busch on that topic (like somebody did earlier). Leaning is not only for better mileage. The engines usually do not like a fat mixture for prolonged periods of time... I can’t recall all the reasons, but I think a couple of mayor ones were: 1) lead in the avgas will foul the spark plugs for rich mixture settings which is a safety risk, 2) exhaust gas temperatures will be lower which can lead to a…

Some argue that the US won the WW2 War in the Pacific by running LoP with the P-38 Lightning. Charles Lindbergh demonstrated to US pilots how to do it, based on his Atlantic crossing testing, and the result was double the range. This allowed the US to surprise and "outrange" Japanese island installations, and to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto at great range. (I would argue that the full story hasn't been told of the lat…

Wow, thats some cool fact I wasn’t aware of...

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

#320

Post by looping__lui »

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.

Lol. And don’t forget the choke...

In planes it’s called the “primer” - and starting up the engines can be quiiiite tricky if you don’t know your plane. Especially in cold weather. I know plenty of people that ignited a carburetor fire on startup and the planes were almost write offs...

Post reply on HN