Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane • Hacker News Board

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

#541

Post by limitedfrom » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:22 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #391

limitedfrom wrote: post #268

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?

You can always cherrypick examples that favour planes. In fact, to take it to the extreme, you can just put bodies of water in between and that might become practically the only choice as distances increase (e.g. there are no ferry service between Honolulu and Kona in Hawaii), and I'd agree with you in some cases planes are the most reasonable way to go between places.

That said, looking at the website for the main post, I don't think that's the main use case it has in mind: top banner rotating between "Flying made easy for first-time aviators/weekend trips/avoiding traffic" or "We believe the freedom of flying is an unparalleled experience that everyone deserves access to" and "The power of flight is intoxicating".

It's great if existing use cases of GA aircrafts have sleeker/more intuitive interfaces, but adding demand in this area (more hobbyists, more rich people using it for shuttling/avoiding traffic, encouraging people to live in very remote areas, etc.) and using it as transportation-mode will unlikely ever become environmentally reasonable.

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

#542

Post by n_ermosh » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:24 PM UTC

dorfsmay wrote: post #324

n_ermosh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you make it easy to stay proficient? For example you say your plane will never stall, will your pilots train stall recognition and recovery regularly? How will prevent something like what happened to AF447?

We'll still encourage and require the same proficiency checks that pilots do today.

Our hope is that GA pilots will no longer need to do things like train stall recovery. We are moving into an era of aviation where aircraft (not just airplanes) will be complicated enough that computers have to be in the loop to handle things like that, because it allows us to create more interesting aerodynamic aircraft that are more efficient and have better performance.

regarding something like AF447, the immediate answer is we have the ballistic parachute as a final backup in case the pilot is unable to land the plane, for whatever reason. Realistically, it would depend entirely on the exact situation our plane was in, what systems have failed vs which haven't, and the pilots actual skill level

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

#543

Post by n_ermosh » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:26 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #472

n_ermosh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 70s when a lot of this system was designed, the industry was selling 10x the number of GA planes it does today, so I imagine 10x more were flying as well. So we have the capability for an order of magnitude increase. We'll need more controllers, sure. But, you are totally right, we need to move away from voice based ATC to more digital systems that allow a management of more aircraft, and allow the GA aircraft…

> the industry was selling 10x the number of GA planes it does today, so I imagine 10x more were flying as well. I'm pretty sure most of these planes from the 1970s are still merrily flying around! The wikipedia article on the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act has a graph showing the astonishing drop in shipped aircraft (and the rise in unit cost!) since around 1980: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviat…

yep--we want to reverse that trend. And you are probably right, a lot of those 70s planes still fly today. hopefully we can replace them with better alternatives

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

#544

Post by Zak » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:28 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #269

Zak wrote: post #205

This reminds me of programming languages designed with an English-like syntax in the hope that people would be able to develop software without learning to code. It also reminds me a bit of the Ercoupe, an airplane designed in 1937 with the ailerons and rudders mechanically coupled so that pilots would have fewer controls to operate and reduced ability to put the airplane into uncoordinated flight. Neither approach h…

> This reminds me of programming languages designed with an English-like syntax in the hope that people would be able to develop software without learning to code... Neither approach has remained popular into the modern era. Au Contraire! MS Office macros continues to use VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) which traces its roots to BASIC - one of those "English like syntax" languages. MS Office macros remains one of…

I wouldn't put BASIC in that family; it's probably closer to simplified FORTRAN. SQL is probably the best counterexample.

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

#545

Post by n_ermosh » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:30 PM UTC

aziaziazi wrote: post #426

n_ermosh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

fair criticism--I should be more specific than just "green".

our first model will still be a gasoline ICE airplane, but we are building a limited number of them to get our tech out there and get a new wave of people excited about GA. out future aircraft will be able to utilize our fly-by-wire/simplified controls to fly more aerodynamically efficient airframes that will use less energy, whatever that source is. We can do this because these airframes would be too unstable for a human to fly by hand, hence the need for fly-by-wire/simplified controls in the loop.

today, we don't have a good alternative to ICE for airplanes that also meets the mission profile of the vehicle. I personally think hybrid electric is at least the next step, with hydrogen (though that has it's own challenges) coming after.

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

#546

Post by n_ermosh » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:34 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #484

bjornsing wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 repla…

There's an interesting dynamic here--we (the industry today) are more okay with flying rickety airplanes from the 70s before flying something built with more modern engineering and production techniques.

> As I understand it the idea here is to expand the market and spread certification costs out over more planes.

exactly.

> 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.

our thesis is that this isn't true. we've seen glimpses of this in the past 10 years that haven't been successful, but have shown that there is a wave of people who would get into GA if it were safer and more affordable. our mission to make it so, and the Airhart Sling is just the first step

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

#547

Post by n_ermosh » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:37 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #528

erellsworth wrote: post #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.

Or just people that work hard for what they want. Besides, you don't have to own one to use one. Lot's of folks can fly a plane without owning a plane.

Airhart Sling is just the first step too. yes, it's expensive, but it gets the tech into today's market. Our mission is to scale the market to develop a plane that costs <$100k by bringing in a new wave of people into aviation--those who don't fly airplanes today for the reasons I've discussed.

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

#548

Post by n_ermosh » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:40 PM UTC

pbronez wrote: post #483

_s wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tra…

we should talk!

We are exploring how to make a subscription model work. It's not possible in an experimental category airplane, but our future models where they can be rented (legally due to FAA requirements) will make that possible.

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

#549

Post by concordDance » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:46 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #239

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…

The problem with trains is they're much more expensive than planes while being much slower. An EasyJet from Gatwick to Edinburgh at the convenient time of 3pm will cost you £35. The train is £94.

There are many reasons for this, but the biggest one is the need to purchase all the land along the route and the resulting natural monopoly that results.

I'm almost certain they would be more expensive even if all the externalities of the two (such as CO2 emissions) were accounted for. Back of the envelope has that trip being around 40kg of CO2 (double that of national rail, apparently EasyJet have amazing CO2/passenger mile figures), even the $1000/ton CO2 removal tax doesn't make it more expensive than the train.

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

#550

Post by n_ermosh » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 4:52 PM UTC

Stevvo wrote: post #420

memset wrote: post #286

I have a silly question: my dad got his private pilot a few years back and in watching him I learned is that, even with engine failure, pilots train to be able to glide the aircraft safely. On a Cessna 150 this is purely mechanical. In this case, how does the pilot have control to be able to land in a field in the case of engine failure? (Not a pilot myself, so pardon the naive question!)

Following their answer in another comment, you don't; aircraft turns into a useless brick and you pull the parachute and hope for the best.

Well, not exactly. In case of an engine failure, the system still has power from the batteries to control the actuator and glide the plane (in fact, it will automatically switch to flying at the best glide speed to extend it's range) to a safe landing, whether it's at an airport or in a field. But if you are over some trees, mountains, or somewhere else where a landing is impossible (which is a problem in today's planes too) the parachute is a final backup. the parachute is also the backup in case of a complete system failure