Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

371–380 of 632 posts

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

#371

It's insane the length we go as humans (in the US at least) to not invest in the easiest, most cost-effective and environmentally friendly mode of transportation: trains. Hyperloops, wider and wider highways, now personal airplanes. Anything but goddamn trains. It's mental to me. Wish the best to the startup, after all they are filling a void someone else would, but still, not happy with the direction transport is go…

You can't take a train to anywhere you want. Tracks will always be less accessible than roads or the sky.

You can’t land wherever you want in a plane? I’m two minutes walk to my local station, and a 15 minute drive to the nearest airfield.

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

#372

It's insane the length we go as humans (in the US at least) to not invest in the easiest, most cost-effective and environmentally friendly mode of transportation: trains. Hyperloops, wider and wider highways, now personal airplanes. Anything but goddamn trains. It's mental to me. Wish the best to the startup, after all they are filling a void someone else would, but still, not happy with the direction transport is go…

You can't take a train to anywhere you want. Tracks will always be less accessible than roads or the sky.

Only in the beginning and it's not linear. One track can be used by an infinite amount of people with very little to no congestion, unlike roads.

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly I'm hosting my dad near Amsterdam for the week and to get from Sacramento to SFO (from where he flew to AMS) he... flew. Which I guess is logical, but seems insane to me when he lives close to Sacramento Amtrak which actually HAS good, regular service to SFO (via Bart, connecting at Richmond). Even if you build the train some people won't give it a try, sadly. A lot of carbon was spewed in to the air to…

I saw a cargo flight going from LAX to Ontario, California which looks like ~80km/50mi distance, which seems crazy to me. I don't live in Europe, but I was there earlier this year going from Amsterdam to Paris. That's 430km/260mi direct from what I can find. I took the train, it took 3.5 hours, direct from central Amsterdam to central Paris, and no security theatre. And I had leg room!

It's a lovely ride. Even longer distances aren't too bad - to get to the alps, we take the night train from Amsterdam to Zurich. https://rail.cc/night-train/zurich-amsterdam-oebb-nightjet-n...

The train is a superior experience to flying in pretty much every way, the challenge is often cost - trains can be more expensive. And, of course, this is really only possible because flying doesn't have its externalities priced in.

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly I'm hosting my dad near Amsterdam for the week and to get from Sacramento to SFO (from where he flew to AMS) he... flew. Which I guess is logical, but seems insane to me when he lives close to Sacramento Amtrak which actually HAS good, regular service to SFO (via Bart, connecting at Richmond). Even if you build the train some people won't give it a try, sadly. A lot of carbon was spewed in to the air to…

I bet if you and he were travelling together he would do it. I've gotten people to join me on train trips when the option was something different - flying or taking a one hour taxi ride.

Yeah, a lot of the issue is familiarity. He's a pretty standard suburbanite and the train confuses him.

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

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep! lots of interesting stuff indeed! Our plane will be ~7 gph at cruise burning unleaded fuels and fly ~170mph over the ground (with no wind)

For my part, I find it questionable to invest in and develop a transport technology that consumes seven times as much fossil fuel as a car. You give consumption of 7 gallons in cruise mode. I don't want to know what is burnt during take-off or landing.

How do you get seven times?

Takeoff constitutes a negligible part of the total fuel consumption. Climb to altitude uses more, but you get that back when landing since you're then using your stored potential energy.

Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use, and it will be quite easy to replace that with some renewable fuel solution (compared with the huge amounts of fuel consumed by transport aircraft). For my part, I think it would be a shame to kill GA because of a temporary and relatively unimportant concern.

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

#376

It's insane the length we go as humans (in the US at least) to not invest in the easiest, most cost-effective and environmentally friendly mode of transportation: trains. Hyperloops, wider and wider highways, now personal airplanes. Anything but goddamn trains. It's mental to me. Wish the best to the startup, after all they are filling a void someone else would, but still, not happy with the direction transport is go…

You can't take a train to anywhere you want. Tracks will always be less accessible than roads or the sky.

Funny, because i need to use the train to get to my closest airport.

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

#377
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today, airplanes are not great when it comes to their environmental impacts. If we are successful in our bet that we can grow the GA market, we'll have the resources to invest into greener propulsion technology. That space is currently evolving quickly, with hybrid-electric, hydrogen, full electric and others all being explored. So it's in our plans to address that as well.

I didn't want to make a snarky, unabashadly NIMBY comment until I read this response. For every dollar you lower barrier to entry in aviation, I'm going to be calling my local government representatives to raise it back up by two with taxes and fees. The solutions to environmental problems aren't to grow markets with technology we know is bad so we have the money to make it less bad. The solution is to make it so exp…

I take it from your attitude that you don't drive, fly commercially, buy resource-intensive consumer goods, use electricity produced from nonrenewable sources, or eat food produced from large-scale agriculture then, and agree we should make those so expensive for the average consumer that it's uneconomical to do these bad things at all?

Because otherwise your comment sounds more like hypocrisy.

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

#379
post #307
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't want to make a snarky, unabashadly NIMBY comment until I read this response. For every dollar you lower barrier to entry in aviation, I'm going to be calling my local government representatives to raise it back up by two with taxes and fees. The solutions to environmental problems aren't to grow markets with technology we know is bad so we have the money to make it less bad. The solution is to make it so exp…

Their planes cost half a million dollars, I’m not too concerned about everyone flying just yet. These are expensive toys for the wealthy.

So wrong. You can get an airplane for the cost of a car. Yes, it won't be new and it won't be fancy, but you can definitely fly without being wealthy.

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

#380
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels like the real problem in this industry is lack of competition. There’s a chicken and egg problem: planes are expensive because so few people buy them, but so few people buy them because they’re expensive. Lack of competition is not the root cause. It's all the regulations. Certifying a new GA airplane takes a lot of time, and costs a fortune. This translates to high development costs, and certification cos…

One key difference I see between something like this and an ultralight is the danger to people on the ground. A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy.

Definitely not "key". On the ground fatalities are very rare, perhaps 1%-2% of all general aviation fatalities [1].

One massive restriction on ultralight airplanes is that you can't carry passengers. Again, on paper, because of risk, but it ends up having some controversial effects. If you want to occasionally carry passengers, as many pilots do, you can't fly a cheap, simple, light, and slow ultralight aircraft. No, the regulations push you to fly a more expensive, complex, heavier, and faster one that is type-certified, but requires higher skill and currency (regularly recurring flight experience) to operate safely.

Given that pilot error is far and away the main cause of general aviation crashes, that push does not seem very wise, safety-wise, even disregarding the question of costs.

> A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy.

Also, FTR, Cessna 152, a type-certified two seater, weights 1670 lbs gross, cruises at 120mph, and if it ever hits the ground wrong, it very likely won't be because it broke up in mid-air and plummeted at terminal velocity onto someone's house, but because the pilot stalled it at low altitude while turning from base to final, crashing onto airport property or an empty field nearby.

[1] See table 10 in the accident statistics spreadsheet here: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/research.aspx

Post reply on HN