Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

421–430 of 632 posts

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

#421

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.

Trains are orders of magnitude more accessible than airports could ever be, what are you talking about?

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

#422

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 get the rest of the way by bike or walking. Japan does this really well by having rail even going high into the mountains. The majority of people shouldn't be using cars - if we're serious about sustainability and tackling climate change, countries would be investing much more in rail than car centric infrastructure.

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

#423
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would only add that if people have an interest in aviation then gliding is a fun gateway, and relatively inexpensive. As a student it felt like a lot of money (an aerotow might cost 40-50 pounds), but a year subscription to my old airfield cost about 1.5 hours of powered instruction time, flying is cheap on top of that. You get very good at understanding how an aircraft handles and I like the club aspect. It's real…

Yes! As a PPL that recently picked up gliding, I hugely recommend it. It’s a proper sport with a super high skill ceiling, supportive clubs, and competitions/racing when you’re ready. In studying for the glider rating, you’ll cover quite a bit that’s also applicable to flying “power”. Plus, the economics are great. I bought a glider earlier this year for about 15k. I recently flew 5 hours from a $50 aerotow to 2500ft…

isn't gliding more dangerous that GA? I've been wanting to try it, but the idea of not having an engine if you really need one, scares the crap out of me. Would love to fly in a motorized glider

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

#424

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…

Absolutely agree. Really quite tired of living in a country which focuses on individualised transport and car centric infrastructure. It's an absolute delight to get around in a country like Japan where I don't have to rely on a car at all.

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

#425
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't try to weasel your way out of this. Just be honest and say you like working on cool plane tech stuff and admit it's not great for the environment when more people will fly. No shame in that. Or maybe there is shame, but that's up to you.

maybe I wasn't clear but I completely agree that airplanes are not good for the environment. That absolutely needs to be fixed. But to fix it requires capital and public demand. We are hoping to generate both by getting more people flying so that it's not just a niche people who fly planes and care about the environment working asking for it and spending money in the industry

And you don't see the problem with your reasoning? Honestly not?

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

#426

While I think the project is pretty cool, I can't shake the pollution side of things out of my mind. Air transport is one of the most polluting ways to travel, and I would expect a single person airplane is even worse than a full A380. Is there anything you're doing to alleviate this issue ?

Our early model you see here will use unleaded fuel rather than traditional low-lead fuel used in aviation today. The master plan is to use the scale we will create in this new market and invest it into green propulsion tech for our future aircraft. A lot is going to change in that space over the next 5 years so I'm very interested to see where things go, but I suspect hybrid-electric will be the move for the first g…

> green propulsion tech

Fact of the lead content, the wishes and the promises of your post have a place here.

However "Green" only sounds good in a marketing pitches. While it might resonate with potential customers who are already sold on the idea, it can come across as vague and insubstantial to those trying to understand your response.

It sounds misleading and deceptive for the individuals who are skeptical of the environmental impact.

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

#427
post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to tell. I have a frequent route that takes me ~ 2 hours of flight (13 liters/hour, 26 liters in total) or ~ 10 hours to drive with around 50 liters of gas. Flying means burning 50% less gas. But for others there may be better driving, how to calculate that?

The solution for most people is not to have frequent trips to a destination that's 10 hours' driving distance or to use high speed rail. Comparing rocket fuel to airplane fuel may look one option look favorable but that's not the whole picture

It is not something I do for the fun of driving, it's my father's house and I need to help there. There is no high speed rail, train takes 9 hours too. As I said, there are situations and situations, cannot draw conclusions too fast.

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

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% seems very unreasonable here, if not in the wrong direction overall. Ikarus C42 at about 86 knots will use 13 L/hr, for a two-hour flight, it's 26 L fuel and 8.31 kg CO2/gal avgas[1], this comes to 57 kg CO2 to cover 320 km (and this is assuming it immediately starts covering flight distance and not using gas for climbing/approach, etc.). An average new car in the EU uses 6 L/100 km in 2019[2]. To drive 320 km, t…

> Even if you had to make the auto trip 400 km because roads aren't as direct, this comes to 51 kg CO2. What if there's a sogging great mountain range in the middle and I literally do need to drive 2-3x as far, because (rail) tunnels take something between 2 and 3 decades to build and won't be finished before 2040, if any are even planned to begin with?

That's exactly the case. Driving from Bucharest to Vatra Dornei, Romania. No highway yet, the one in construction (A7) is still going around the Carpathian mountains for 370km, it will make the drive faster but not shorter. Also driving highway speed takes more gas.

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

#429
I think you’re trying to solve the wrong problem, though with a lot of the right tech.

Basic stick and rudder skills aren’t that hard, save perhaps for crosswind landing/takeoff.

Envelope protection and emergency auto land are good, but I think already done by other companies.

Taking existing controls (stick and throttle) but giving them different names and making them command inputs rather than controls, but ones that vary what that command is subject to the IMPLICIT mode the aircraft believes it’s in (TOGA, land, cruise, taxi etc) are sowing the ground for confusion - look at all the analyses of Airbus incidents due to pilots not understanding what modes the aircraft thinks it’s in due to combination of control and sensors and control law fallbacks due to failures. The idea is sound but pilots lulled into complacency with normally simplified handling get into wild and sometimes fatal rides when things go amiss. Spend time on Mentor Pilot’s excellent channel.

Personally I think one of the biggest improvements to safety would be a decent AoA display and warning system for all aircraft.

Next up a solution to VFR into IMC, with subsequent loss of control or terrain / obstacle impact, which is effectively a use case of envelope protection and emergency autoland.

This tech exists, it’s just not in most of the fleet and not triple redundant.

Finally, rather than trying to make an aircraft more like a car, or only being confident flying your aircraft within a narrow regime, go do some aerobatics and unusual attitude training so you get a feel for how the wing really flies.

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

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Pilot…

I agree there is room for improvement and smarter airplane equipment is undoubtedly part of that.

I do not believe that “slightly better avionics will completely avoid the vast majority of GA accidents.”

Post reply on HN