Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

621–630 of 632 posts

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

#621
post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're not really understanding the scope of the problem. We have a train network. Amtrak is barely used, costs more than flying, and you still have to rent a car at the end of your multi-day trip on the train. The US is HUGE. I lived in a mass transit society (Japan) for years. It's fundamentally different, in ways that aren't changeable.

I understand the scope of the problem. Saying nothing can change is also wrong. We literally built a nationwide interstate highway system in this country which included bulldozing downtowns and spending the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars to do it. That wasn't that long ago, we're the same country in most ways. It's a political problem at all levels. Not a technology or physics problem. Looking at the f…

The interstate highway network is a problem at least two orders of magnitude smaller than what you want.

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

#622

My positive encouragement to your success. Personally, I believe in a futuristic vision of transport like this for 50-300 miles, trains for 3-150 miles, and bicycles and ebikes for It may seem unrealistic, but just visit the Netherlands, or visit the airports around the UK and Western Europe. It's ridiculously cheap to get around by bike, and healthier. Yes not all or even most environments are not suitable for cycli…

> It may seem unrealistic Yes, it is unrealistic for the North American continent as our population is spread out today. > Wouldn't we all benefit from distributing people more widely No, this is antithetical to the protection of the environment. Concentration of population is far healthier for not only individuals (reduction or elimination of polluting personal transport; potentially walk-able locations), but for th…

I did not address environmentalism in my comment. I agree this is worse for the environment, at least, on it's own.

However, I am somebody who rides a bike 20x as much as I use a car, when in Europe. That's what happens when your commute, supermarket, gym are all enroute. I mean that's more the vision I care about than this device. But I know just as this device is disliked for greenwashing, car users in the US admonish that I cycle and dare to try so in the US.

I just do believe it is possible. The reason people in europe do not let go of cars, is in a major part because of the need for journeys of 50-150 miles, like this vechile would do. You see, under 50, you can just about afford an uber. Over 50, not really. Without a car you are limited to cities with trains for the most part in most of europe. Maybe this could displace that. Those 50-150 mile journeys are very rare. But because of them, people own cars and use them for shorter journeys.

I flat out disagree with your argument on transportation. I think you imagine several spots in distant disconnected areas of Arizona or Nevada - that's not what I mean. I mean more the east and west coast, the northern states. Transportation does not increase with more equal distribution of people at different locations, because they would become hubs as people moved to them and decreasing (car) populations of current cities could actually decrease transport times there alongside with pollution. Yes it would potentially be bad for the biosphere and natural diversity. But for the human experience. For Quality of life. To create more self-sustaining locations, with their own beauty spots. To be healthier most of the time we use transport. I know the argument can be made as you have that concentration is an economy of scale, well it is to a point, but such level off before 100k people don't they?(besides arguably economic capital reasons). And that's what I'm advocating for, more places with 100k people, less with 10 million.

I don't know. I've lived in a tight small city with insane rent and people there were not happy. Great if you are college age or to get into the corporate world. Horrible for people. Nearby Attractions 3x as busy as they were 10 years ago, while others, as beautiful, remain largely unknown. More pollution and cars.

Then I have lived in small european cities where everybody cycles and uses trains for distance by and large. It seemed a lot happier. It seemed a lot cleaner.

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

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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. Ineresting. I get a ride as a passenger in an ultralight two-seater. The pilot was a Vietnam vet. It was in Virginia,…

Nice! If it was a two seater, it does not legally qualify as an ultralight in the US, see FAR 103.1(a) [1]. Back in the day, some older ultralights were designed with a very wide seat ("loveseat"), that physically but not legally allowed the pilot to take a passenger. Not sure if that's the case here. If the aircraft actually had two distinct seats, one clearly intended for a passenger, then it may have been a homebuilt aircraft, registered in the "experimental" category (FAR 21.191). Just like ultralights, these also operate without a type certificate, but upon completion of the build, the builder needs to provide a bunch of logs / photos / etc. documenting the construction process for the FAA to approve the aircraft for flights. Because such aircraft are designed to be built/assembled mostly (51%) by regular people (not at the factory), they often look very basic, just like proper ultralights, but they can be heavier, faster, carry passengers, etc.

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

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

#624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Ineresting. I get a ride as a passenger in an ultralight two-seater. The pilot was a Vietnam vet. It was in Virginia,…

Nice! If it was a two seater, it does not legally qualify as an ultralight in the US, see FAR 103.1(a) [1]. Back in the day, some older ultralights were designed with a very wide seat ("loveseat"), that physically but not legally allowed the pilot to take a passenger. Not sure if that's the case here. If the aircraft actually had two distinct seats, one clearly intended for a passenger, then it may have been a homebu…

I see, so thus guy was probably licensed to carry passengers. Thanks.

The seating arrangement was pilot in the front, passenger behind. When my son (about 8) get off his ride and was asked if he enjoyed it, he said "I prefer planes with doors".

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

#625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice! If it was a two seater, it does not legally qualify as an ultralight in the US, see FAR 103.1(a) [1]. Back in the day, some older ultralights were designed with a very wide seat ("loveseat"), that physically but not legally allowed the pilot to take a passenger. Not sure if that's the case here. If the aircraft actually had two distinct seats, one clearly intended for a passenger, then it may have been a homebu…

I see, so thus guy was probably licensed to carry passengers. Thanks. The seating arrangement was pilot in the front, passenger behind. When my son (about 8) get off his ride and was asked if he enjoyed it, he said "I prefer planes with doors".

It's not about him being licensed so much as the plane itself being approved.

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

#626
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

Just wanted to say thanks for saving pilot lives and making an awesome sport more accessible. As someone with a background in controlling difficult vehicles who has seen the accessibility improvements of electric assists, your plan makes sense to me! And the plane is priced appealingly. Please don't feel discouraged by the loonies who can't do math deciding that today is the day yet another niche sport (0.04% of global emissions) must die at the altar of the Environment. They'll forget by tomorrow.

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

#627
post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the scope of the problem. Saying nothing can change is also wrong. We literally built a nationwide interstate highway system in this country which included bulldozing downtowns and spending the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars to do it. That wasn't that long ago, we're the same country in most ways. It's a political problem at all levels. Not a technology or physics problem. Looking at the f…

The interstate highway network is a problem at least two orders of magnitude smaller than what you want.

I’m not sure you understand what I want then. I never said I want the US to have the same level of public transit ridership as the Japan, or replace all car journeys with trains.

I was specifically responding to a quote that trips of 50-300 miles are too long for public transit. That is demonstrably untrue around the world.

And using that as a justification to try to solve the problem using personal airplanes instead of real working solutions that scale to high capacity at low emissions seems silly to me.

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

#628
post #544
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

BASIC is literally "Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code"

To quote Wikipedia:"They wanted to enable students in non-scientific fields to use computers."

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

#629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he would have a car of his own. That he can drive himself to the hospital. I'm not sure why you jumped to helicopters.

If he can drive and that’s not an emergency why wouldn’t take the train ? Less stress and more safe if he’s impaired. For an emergency I would suggest a professional-driven ambulance with flashing light, or an helicopter if it’s remote if your wallet or country medicare afford it.

I think their point was a doctor being called in to work in an emergency not that the doctor is having an emergency.

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

#630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he can drive and that’s not an emergency why wouldn’t take the train ? Less stress and more safe if he’s impaired. For an emergency I would suggest a professional-driven ambulance with flashing light, or an helicopter if it’s remote if your wallet or country medicare afford it.

I think their point was a doctor being called in to work in an emergency not that the doctor is having an emergency.

Oh thanks that makes sense! Those "flying doctors" already exists in Australia and one of them saved my life 13 years ago : landed on a single lane road on the middle of the desert to pick me and my friend in a thought condition after a car crash. We arrived in the hospital 2 hours later, instead of 12 hours car drive. IIRC it was a small propeller plane looking simple and not so new or fancy. Didn’t remember the flight :( they quickly nailed me to dream after landing.
Post reply on HN