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

Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

airbus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#41

Post by azinman2 »

icyfox wrote: post #8

As much as I want to live in a world with the Jetsons, what's the business case here? Presumably it's going to have to launch vertically from the top of buildings, which means that you can go from skyscraper landing pad to skyscraper landing pad. How many taxi users are trying to travel within a financial district? I imagine much more commonly they're trying to go from high-density to low-density (like FiDi to West V…

You’ve hit the nail on the head. You need a big clearance for landing and take off, with dedicated space and easy ways for people to get to it. This is crazy expensive real estate, doesn’t scale usually beyond 1 target (unlike a parking structure), is scarce, and is ultimately the biggest constraint here that cannot be overcome by technology.

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#43

Post by kitsunesoba »

darth_avocado wrote: post #34

> Zero emission flights The same lies that are peddled to us about pretty much everything. The emissions are just moved downstream, and could even be worse in certain places, as compared to other transportation systems. I am curious to see how they fare in energy usage as compared to an electric car, electric bikes and electric trains.

Lie may be a bit strong. True zero emissions from resource extraction to delivery is nigh impossible, but there's still sizable benefit to be had from electrification.

Most notably, even if the craft is charged with electricity generated by a coal-fired plant, overall efficiency is still improved simply because power plants are much more efficient than any kind of internal combustion engine. And of course, the vehicle will only become more clean as fossil fuel plants are phased out, where fossil fuel vehicles will only ever be fossil fueled, barring the unusual electric conversion.

That said, the ideal solution is electric mass transit like the train systems seen frequently in east Asia. Unfortunately, those are unlikely to appear in North American cities any time soon due to the thick jungle created by corrupt local politicians, NIBMYs determined to freeze-frame their neighborhoods at any cost, and price gouging underperforming construction contractors.

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#44

Post by mdorazio »

me_me_me wrote: post #31

Can I have 30? I need to get to my hyperloop pod faster. Those modern transportation 'solutions' are a sign of local maxima of current city design. A bad design that cannot scale any further. So maybe instead we start on fixing cities?

I see comments like this quite often without any suggestions for how it would happen practically. Let's talk Los Angeles, for example - where would you put light rail lines to sufficiently cover the low-density 400+ square miles of city sufficiently well to be better than cars? How would you acquire the requisite property & rights of way to run the lines? How would you fight the guaranteed NIMBY protests from local voters? Where would you get the tens of billions of dollars it would take?

"Fixing" a city is hard. And I haven't seen too many examples of it actually done, in comparison to cities that were built with public transit in mind from the beginning.

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#45

Post by [deleted] »

adamqureshi wrote: post #14

There is a business use case here in NYC. NYC to the Hamptons or out east long Island. The locals in the Hamptons are complaining about noise pollution from helicopters making trips to the Hamptons from NYC. If this makes little or no noise the current helicopter service companies will use them and people will pay $800 ( off-peak) - $2,500 ( peak) one way trip from the west side of manhattan / Chelsea area to east Ha…

[deleted]

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#46

Post by throwaway210222 »

mdorazio wrote: post #44
me_me_me wrote: post #31

Can I have 30? I need to get to my hyperloop pod faster. Those modern transportation 'solutions' are a sign of local maxima of current city design. A bad design that cannot scale any further. So maybe instead we start on fixing cities?

I see comments like this quite often without any suggestions for how it would happen practically. Let's talk Los Angeles, for example - where would you put light rail lines to sufficiently cover the low-density 400+ square miles of city sufficiently well to be better than cars? How would you acquire the requisite property & rights of way to run the lines? How would you fight the guaranteed NIMBY protests from local v…

> in comparison to cities that were built with public transit in mind from the beginning.

Tokyo and Paris were built with electrified, public transport in mind from the beginning?

Really?

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#47

Post by saddlerustle »

fragmede wrote: post #39
saddlerustle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying taxis is public transportation

Charging $3 for bus riders is controversial within the public transportation sphere, nevermind the $20 a car taxi can cost. Unless there's something about flying taxis that would make them price competitive with a $3 bus trip, it's hardly public transportation.

If there were automated and electricity was cheap its easy to imagine them being cost competitive vs a bus trip of the same distance just because they're so much faster. Making them price competitive is just a matter of how much the state is willing to subsidise them.

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#48

Post by awiesenhofer »

saddlerustle wrote: post #30
shafyy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or - and hear me out here - the US could invest in their public transportation infrastructure. But sure, let's do flying taxis.

Flying taxis is public transportation

No they are not. Taxis aren't public transport either.

This CityAirbus takes what, 4-6 people seated? A bus easily takes 40+, a tram 60+ and a metro 250+* - and that's just seats, they all fit hundreds of people if you include standing passengers.

It would take ages and hundreds/thousands of flying taxis to clear a stadium, while it takes only tens of metro trains.

* Numbers taken from public transport options in my home town, will of course differ around the world

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#49

Post by saddlerustle »

awiesenhofer wrote: post #48
saddlerustle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying taxis is public transportation

No they are not. Taxis aren't public transport either. This CityAirbus takes what, 4-6 people seated? A bus easily takes 40+, a tram 60+ and a metro 250+* - and that's just seats, they all fit hundreds of people if you include standing passengers. It would take ages and hundreds/thousands of flying taxis to clear a stadium, while it takes only tens of metro trains. * Numbers taken from public transport options in my…

Taxis are not mass transit, but they are public transport per the definition.

Obviously this will not be comparable in capacity to a metro, but it can conceivably be comparable in capacity to bus lines which tend to operate at very low load factors in US cities, by virtue of being much faster to complete the same journey.

Re: Airbus reveals the next generation of CityAirbus

#50

Post by PhantomGremlin »

datameta wrote: post #16
burkaman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a helicopter is a better comparison here, and they seem to be 80-100 dBA.

I often see (without hearing) helicopters in the downtown brooklyn area. If this aircraft flies above ~600 feet, noise should be little to no concern.

You need to live in a quieter area. Too much noise pollution in NYC.

In a suburb of Portland Oregon I routinely hear helicopters up to about 2000 feet. I hear many planes at over 5000 ft. When jets take off from PDX and climb over my house I can easily hear them at about 16,000 feet.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com

Post reply on HN