Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 632 posts

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#331

Post by [deleted] »

gizajob wrote: post #152
shafyy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A million times this. Modern and efficient train networks are the best way to travel, even for longer distances of a few thousand kilometers (night trains). Sure, there are still use cases for flying, but the dismissiveness of people who have never experienced great train travel against it just shocks me.

Hmmm I just flew from Bergamo, Italy to Liverpool, UK and it was basically four hours door to door from where I was staying to where I was going in Liverpool, and for less than €100. The train can’t do this.

[deleted]

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#332

Post by 2143 »

gizajob wrote: post #152
shafyy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A million times this. Modern and efficient train networks are the best way to travel, even for longer distances of a few thousand kilometers (night trains). Sure, there are still use cases for flying, but the dismissiveness of people who have never experienced great train travel against it just shocks me.

Hmmm I just flew from Bergamo, Italy to Liverpool, UK and it was basically four hours door to door from where I was staying to where I was going in Liverpool, and for less than €100. The train can’t do this.

Bergamo to Liverpool is over 1700 km by road as per Google Maps.

The company is trying to solve transportation for the 50 to 300 mile range (around 80 to 500 km). Trains can easily do this.

Anyway, in China the Beijing to Guangzhou high-speed rail covers the 2200 km distance in 8 hours. Costs $120.

-----

Do note that — while I do understand there's an environmental impact (and I hope technology improves to eliminate this impact) — I'm not against flying. I love flying. In fact I wanted to become a commercial pilot myself.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#333

Post by floam »

sokoloff wrote: post #314
bigyikes wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no inconsistency. The first quote is meant to highlight that commercial planes have autopilot while e.g. Cessnas do not. The second quote emphasizes the importance of training despite autopilot. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that commercial planes have auto pilot while acknowledging that it would be nice for non-commercial planes to also have auto pilot even though training is important.

Most GA aircraft used for travel have autopilots. Even most flight school aircraft used for IFR training have them, at least in my experience in the northeast.

GA planes can’t land themselves, the autopilot they share in common is more like cruise control.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#334

Post by throwaway_ab »

A few thoughts:

- Enable fall back controls where the pilot can input "traditional" controls when the more advanced system is degraded, even though it's all fly by wire their should still be inputs that fully mimic a traditional cockpit and ability to use this system should be allowed if the pilot requires it.

- Drop any focus or marketing on getting more people flying, if the ease of use of your aircraft is such that pilots who otherwise would not be qualified to fly now can fly, this is a recipe for disaster.

- Instead, focus on bringing a higher quality aircraft to market for pilots who want a more capable system, this cannot do any harm imo.

- Any system that lowers mental workload so that more focus can go into other areas of flying is welcome, just ensure there is always a method to fly the aircraft without the "auto" magic, there should always be controls that give raw control if needed even modern fly by wire commercial airliners have this fall back ability.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#335

Post by jmward01 »

I want all of this and it really shouldn't be hard. In fact, many have tried at least parts of this but failed because of the regulatory hurdles. Taking 10 years to bring a product to market while spending a huge amount of $$$ testing and certifying it just to sell to a small GA market is a very hard business model to make work. How do you plan to get over those hurdles? I think the only real way to break into aviation is to start in a space that isn't overly encumbered with regulation. What about ultralights? paramotors? maybe even electric? Innovating in these spaces may be able to get you the market that could side-step the problems with testing and certifying in the GA space.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#336

Post by Aeolun »

sethkim wrote: post #83

Instrument-rated pilot (and engineer) here. First - congrats on the launch! I think you're working on an interesting set of components that will prove useful to GA aircraft technology. Bringing fly-by-wire, and lowering the cost of maintenance/manufacturing are both great efforts. That being said, my personal view is that stick-and-rudder control is one of the less critical components to improving GA safety. Everythi…

I find it really hard to understand how we have solved this problem on the ground (e.g. roads), when in the sky we have nearly 100x more space (assuming 100m altitude bands), but we manage to have so many issues.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#337

Post by aeternum »

sokoloff wrote: post #312
aeternum wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but I don't know of any GA stall/spin warning system that takes into account pilot input. Even simple sensors are lacking, for example accelerometers are nearly free yet GA planes give you no warning that you're in a skid. Similarly given yoke input, bank angle and speed you could warn of an impending stall well before it actually happens with a few position encoder sensors. As you point out, the current system…

> the vast majority of GA accidents could be completely avoided with slightly better avionics. Reading accident reports or the annual summary McSpadden Report (previously called the Nall Report), I get a different view: if pilots would keep fuel in the airplane and flowing to the engine(s), not fly into weather beyond the capability of the airplane and crew, and divert or not takeoff at the onset of signs that an air…

Most cars give you significant warnings that you're about to run out of gas and as a result very few people do.

Improved avionics could warn you that you're flying into a storm or that the airplane is not airworthy or that you are converging with other traffic.

Complacency kills because it sneaks up on pilots, but it doesn't have to be that way. We should not accept that the FAA's answer is an IMSAFE checklist. Pilots should not have to die simply because they didn't realize they were feeling slightly stressed or emotional prior to takeoff and forgot to check a single one of the 40+ items on the preflight/runup/takeoff checklists.

Of course good pilots should check it all anyway but just as NHTSA requires safety warnings for cars, we could save many more lives if we required low fuel warnings, terrain warnings, gear warnings, speed warnings, etc. in aircraft avionics.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#338

Post by rtpg »

Aeolun wrote: post #336
sethkim wrote: post #83

Instrument-rated pilot (and engineer) here. First - congrats on the launch! I think you're working on an interesting set of components that will prove useful to GA aircraft technology. Bringing fly-by-wire, and lowering the cost of maintenance/manufacturing are both great efforts. That being said, my personal view is that stick-and-rudder control is one of the less critical components to improving GA safety. Everythi…

I find it really hard to understand how we have solved this problem on the ground (e.g. roads), when in the sky we have nearly 100x more space (assuming 100m altitude bands), but we manage to have so many issues.

There's a lot less space when you consider how many airstrips there are in the world. Imagine if everyone on the highway in a city had to get on and off on the same exit ramp.

Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane

#340

Post by Aeolun »

randomnumber314 wrote: post #195
sethkim wrote: post #83

Instrument-rated pilot (and engineer) here. First - congrats on the launch! I think you're working on an interesting set of components that will prove useful to GA aircraft technology. Bringing fly-by-wire, and lowering the cost of maintenance/manufacturing are both great efforts. That being said, my personal view is that stick-and-rudder control is one of the less critical components to improving GA safety. Everythi…

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.

Wasn’t the point that there’s so many small aircraft currently crashing (at a rate 28x higher than cars)?
Post reply on HN