Using a Rotax 915 iS no thanks
Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
481–490 of 632 posts
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#482I find this whole concept somewhat disturbing. It sounds like he is trying to democratize aviation by creating an airplane that just about anybody can fly without any pilot training. This is so far removed from the reality of the FAAs perspective, that I do think it is destined to fail. This aircraft will never be certified by the FAA, it would cost hundreds of millions to do so and will certainly not allow automotive grade hardware. The FAA will never lower their standards for Pilot training, and hardware certification, so that any pilot that does fly this airplane will still have to meet airman certification standards (ACS) as all other pilots, and that means learning to mitigate the things that this company is trying to eliminate. Although our technology has certainly advanced significantly, history has shown that this so-called “airplane for everybody” is doomed to failure. This has been tried many times before, but the reality is that Pilot training and experience is the most significant factor and the greatest hurdle to creating more pilots in our world. This idea of anybody simply getting in an aircraft and going anywhere you want to go, much like you would get into a car, may indeed happen, but it will not be with a human pilot, this will happen when we have autonomous drones and everybody inside the aircraft is simply a passenger, not a pilot.
Sorry to be a party pooper, but don’t expect this concept to really materialize, I think the people working on this are young dreamers who have yet to learn the reality of aviation law. All too often, the pace of technological innovation, drastically exceeds the pace of legal change and oversight by the FAA (and for a very good reason).
Yes, there are indeed a lot of things that can improve in general aviation, but that change will happen at a snails pace, It will be very expensive, and I do not see that changing anytime soon. On a more positive note, we are seeing significant technological changes in our general aviation cockpit. Also, if you look at statistics and something called the Nall report, the last 25 years has shown a drastic reduction and accident and fatality rates in general aviation, something we need to be proud of!
E Chipps ATP CFI CFII
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 150kt Cruise, 4h endurance - 400kg "useful" load for pax/luggage @ 4h endurance / batteries - 3-axis AP that'll do coupled approaches + autoland - BRS, FIKI, Oxy/Pressurized - $100k fly away Totally agreed. Our long term roadmap has basically this exact product on it. However, anyone who doesn't know about GA will have no clue what this even means. We want more people to get into GA so that there's enough of a mark…
I don't think the GA market will ever grow that large though - not without substantial effort to make compliance with all the regulations effortless. You need more pilots, so making it easier to navigate and comply with Parts 61/141/142, with 67/68. You need more aerodromes; Part 139. You need more aircraft, that's Parts 21, 23, 33, 35, 45 and maybe 34, 36 and 39 too. You need more mechanics; Part 66 / 147. You need…
I haven’t done any piloting. If I could convert a 250 mile trip from a 5 hour drive to a 90 minute flight, I would take my family of 4 to many more places. I’d be willing to invest several months in the requisite training.
Currently I won’t do that at all because (1) way too dangerous, (2) way too expensive, (3) not obvious how to start.
Honestly, I’d love a subscription model for this. I’d pay an initial fee for training. Certify me when I’m safe. Then let me pay to get the airplane and fuel for a specific journey. Handle all the maintenance for me. Check my work on planning. Have a real expert available on integrated speed dial to talk me through anything complicated.
If this winds up being fun and fast, I’m willing to pay more for it. The specific trip I’m looking at would cost $800 to fly with a standard airline. I’d pay double that to self-fly. The premium gets me convenience (I control the exact departure time, less airport hassle) and adventure (flying!).
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example it's crazy that most pilots are still taught to calculate W&B using printed charts and approximate takeoff performance. We're taught that so we know what we're doing. Then we open our iPhone app (EFB or electronic flightbag) and do it there. In fact, part of the reason we do it there is because most of them phone home to their maker and log that we did it. So if there's an accident people can know "well…
> But again, it's not that we can't do those things, it's just that they're completely cost prohibitive. Isn’t this what the OP is referring to when he says the current market can’t support the necessary innovation? As I understand it the idea here is to expand the market and spread certification costs out over more planes.
I don't think he can get the required certifications and charge a reasonable price for this plane. There are not enough people interested in a personal airplane at any price to support the costs to bring a new one in the air. You can rebuild all current airplane's (most built before 1980) for much less than the costs to certify a modern replacement, and only then can you start asking what it costs to build that replacement. Which is why we rebuild old airplanes all the time - it is wouldn't pass modern regulations but since it already exists it is certified.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yeah by the same token I love trains too. I’d happily get the train between Bergamo and Liverpool but as it stands we’d probably be talking €500 and 12-24 hours with multiple changes. Flights can be had from €20.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#486>Freedom of Flight for Everyone
>*The full price of the Airhart Sling pre-tax is $500,000 with availability predicted for January of 2026.
"Everyone" is quite a stretch. It's hard for me to see this as anything but a new toy for rich people.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#487It'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…
It's not actually cost-efficient if you take into account one factor: demographics, or specifically: staffing. A crew member of a train has a very demanding job. The shifts are highly irregular and you may have to spend the night far from home. In this regard it's even worse than flying. Someone has to maintain the infrastructure, which by its very nature can also be in remote places. Particularly busy railroad cross…
> It's not actually cost-efficient if you take into account one factor: demographics, or specifically: staffing.
Cars and planes are cost-efficient if you *don't* take into account their environmental and human cost.
Otherwise bikes and trains are crazy cheap.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#488So basically a GA Airbus. I think this is a pretty cool project, and while it may not achieve the lofty goals you’ve set forth, any improvement in safety is worthwhile. As other commenters have point out though, where this stuff falls short is ultimately still the human. Ok, great… your aircraft won’t stall in Normal Law. However you’ve now lost a generator and a whole FCC and you’re in direct law. The 400 hr pilot h…
Thanks! you're totally correct that emergencies are where the real issues lie. That's why we've built in multiple layers of fault tolerance so that a generator failure or a flight computer failure doesn't immediately revert you to a direct law control scheme (I'm assuming you're familiar with Airbus control laws given that you're using those phrases) On top of everything, small GA aircraft have the luxury of being to…
> proficiency is a fundamental issue
Have y'all considered that a fully digitized, fly-by-wire aircraft, of the type that you're proposing to build, would also essentially be a ridiculously high-fidelity flight simulator whenever and wherever it is sitting still with the engine off?
This could be part of your pitch—the pilot could program in a flight plan and then fly it in simulation, practice all the radio work etc., using the actual physical controls they would use to do it for real, then go do it for real all in the same chair.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#489Earlier 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…
People run out of gas all the time (there are a lot of drivers, probably most never will in their lifetime, but that still leaves a lot that do). However in a car running out of gas is much easier to recover from - most of the time you can safely and easially coast to the side of the road. In an airplane there rarely is an airport nearby to coast into, so you end up looking for a place that might or might not be a good option - roads have power lines that you won't see until it is too late, fields sometimes have large holes (wet spots) that if you into at landing speed will flip the plane.
Low fuel warnings wouldn't really help in an airplane - from what I can tell most who run out of fuel know they are low for a while but are unable to get someplace to fill up.
Re: Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, trains for passengers can only work for tiny low-population countries like China and Japan.
Trains can work great for either passengers or freight. The problems arise when you try to do both at the same time (on the same line). If the US was to dramatically improve its passenger service it would have to either build an entirely new set of parallel tracks (which would be very expensive) or dramatically worsen its rail freight offering, which would greatly increase the number of trucks of the road.
And if you’re going to pick one, there are plenty of reasons to pick freight. A single freight train might have 70-200 cars, each of which can carry 1-2 full-size intermodal containers (if not a comparably massive tanker car or something). Trains are more efficient than road vehicles in terms of energy consumption, wear and tear on the road (or railroad), and labor cost, but these efficiencies scale up considerably based on vehicle weight, and the weight of a few hundred loaded intermodal containers is a very high number indeed. Not to mention that intermodal containers are a lot less fussy about hospitality than passengers!