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

321–330 of 334 posts

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

#321

Post by rimliu »

wpearse wrote: post #223
dreamcompiler wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

And cheaper than car gas here in Europe (Lithuania).

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

#322

Post by jessriedel »

danaliv wrote: post #246
jessriedel wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That regulations are motivated by avoiding deaths does not mean that they are effective at that, or even if they are effective that they are worth the costs. Regulations that specify specific safety equipment, rather than specifying target error rates or bonds/liability, are the worst because they get enacted and then stay on the books for decades unchanged.

They aren’t motivated by it. They’re a result of it. Practically every rule or standard in the book can be traced to a crash. Mode C veil? Aeromexico 498, 82 dead. Radio comms standardization? Tenerife, 583 dead. CRM: United 173, 10 dead. Altitude requirements while being vectored to an approach (91.175(i)): TWA 514, 92 dead. I could go on. The answer to “why can’t we just” in aviation is “because people died.” The F…

Being caused by previous deaths and being motivated to avoid future deaths are very compatible.

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

#323

Post by dheera »

kaybe wrote: post #105
dheera wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also I don't know about Lilium but one of my biggest gripes about Amtrak and other train infrastructure in the US, besides the sheer slow speed, is the complete lack of basic human necessities at the endpoints of travel. You get off the train and get basically thrown into a dilipidated, desolate parking lot full of locked cars, next to a locked building with no food, often not even bathrooms, no rain shelter, no bus…

The point is, the food court and shops usually make the train companies money because they pay high rent. That only works when enough passengers come through, which I'd guess might be the problem in the US? (eg in Japan, JR East makes 30-40% of its profits from the shops: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/12/30/business/jr-eas... )

I guess. But what if they started with low rent, just enough to break even? Added comfort to passengers might increase the number of passengers to the train system itself to help get the cycle going.

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

#324

Post by golem14 »

wpearse wrote: post #223
dreamcompiler wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Reminds me of Germany in (I guess) the 80s, where police was sometimes checking diesel cars on whether owners had used (lower taxed) heating oil for their cars (which is technically tax evasion). It might still be a thing.

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

#325

Post by magahacka »

golem14 wrote: post #324
wpearse wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Reminds me of Germany in (I guess) the 80s, where police was sometimes checking diesel cars on whether owners had used (lower taxed) heating oil for their cars (which is technically tax evasion). It might still be a thing.

In eastern Europe(Baltics) it is still a thing because people just bring over Diesel from Belarus or Russia by cars with big fuel tanks and low fuel consumption, so they simply cross the border and at the first fuel stop brim the tanks and go back to europe, In Belarus it is especially easy as the fuel price is mandated by government and is equal across the whole country. And police sometimes checks the fuel tank for non taxed fuel, it is either Green(Agricultural, illegal for anything else), Normal taxed, and Russian(If you can prove that it was "imported" by you then its ok) non taxed.

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

#326

Post by teleforce »

Why Gyrocopter is not more popular today than ever is beyond me. It's probably the most efficient and effective way to air travel for short distances.

The ultralight Gyrocopter can fly with unleaded 95 Octane and with strong wind of more than 40 knots (see circumnavigation of of Iceland) and its wonderful technology [1],[2].

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmwEbjzLtDo

[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8IB-5PbL9U

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

#327

Post by looping__lui »

golem14 wrote: post #324
wpearse wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Reminds me of Germany in (I guess) the 80s, where police was sometimes checking diesel cars on whether owners had used (lower taxed) heating oil for their cars (which is technically tax evasion). It might still be a thing.

They still test it a lot actually in Germany. Especially on trucks. Using heating oil instead of the diesel is a big cost advantage...

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

#328

Post by looping__lui »

renewiltord wrote: post #186
looping__lui wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we have different mindsets here: !every! company in aviation, the automotive or transportation industry is worried about the “I” for the R&D. If there is a factor 10 whatever uncertainty in this equation - you are essentially just gambling like an Options-Day-Trader on Reddit. I understand that investors see “the hockeystick” unlimited revenue upside and justify everything around that. But I personally would…

Are you in the aviation industry? I am not. So know that what I'm saying is based on low-grade near-zero prior knowledge. Would love to know the certainty on your knowledge.

I think what matters more is the line of my argumentation. If I was a long-standing aviation industry veteran I would probably not be the source of great innovation and thus be blind for radical disruptions. Automotive and space disruptors had little to no prior knowledge but asked the right questions and had the right arguments... My line or argumentation does not require much aviation expertise: a heavily regulated market with many uncertainties that put the chance of your investment succeeding at a low percentage, require ALL the investment be made before you can test it on the market is a big red flag; even more when the industry is known for very high costs in the innovation space and you are “disrupting” it; add to that that the return on investments have historically been horrible -e.g., google Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft and a dozen other big players that went bust or were very close to it...

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

#329

Post by looping__lui »

ryandrake wrote: post #207
looping__lui wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me rephrase: The innovation you describe (which is cool and needs certification) bumped the price for a new airplane from about 50k in the 70s (I guess we may be talking 200k in today’s money) to close to 1MM USD. And that innovation is “just” glass cockpit, and some more advanced avionics. Not changing the principles - you fly a bit faster, a bit safer but still need a license and do all the preparation and chec…

There's a lot of innovation now happening in the experimental/amateur-built category. Super-capable avionics, GPS everywhere, electronic ignitions and advanced engine intelligence/management. And for reasonable cost (relative to a new Cirrus and even a new Cessna). If you're willing to do the building yourself or trust another builder, you can get a very capable, modern airplane for under $100K that puts the certific…

I think what you are stating should be a top comment and shows what the certification and paperwork overhead do in terms of “purchasing costs”. I doubt these planes are less safe (but I admittedly don’t have the numbers ready) - but they are a fraction of “certified planes”
Post reply on HN