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

Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

lilium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 334 posts

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#91

Post by GekkePrutser »

TylerE wrote: post #80
GekkePrutser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discrepancy is much higher from the other destinations they mention, so I would imagine there is either no station nearby the lake so you have to take another mode for the last leg, or you have to get some complicated multiple-train route with long layovers :)

That's wildly imaginative. But no. Train routes don't exist . Outside commuter routes long distance rail basically don't exist in the US, outside a few connectors between major cities. This is IT: https://trn.trains.com/~/media/files/pdf/map-of-the-month/tm... Keep in mind the scale here... see that small-looking gap between Flagstaff and Tucson? That's 400km... you could fit most European countries in there.

Good point, I was speaking of European experience.

But still, here with a really fine train grid, the train is much less efficient due to the many stops and many changes you have to make to get somewhere :( It can take up to 2-3 times as much time to get somewhere by train than by car.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#92

Post by arcticbull »

gopalv wrote: post #45
burlesona wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even at tech salaries those are expensive commutes. But for a ski weekend in Tahoe? Seems legit, assuming these aircraft have a great safety record.

> Even at tech salaries those are expensive commutes. Are they really that expensive? I was paying 40$ on Lyft one-way to office earlier this year, which was a huge part of my transportation costs (economically speaking, I should've driven, but this allowed me to take the bullet back in the evening, which beat driving by a lot). 50$ for SF -> PA isn't that much more expensive than Lyft in 2019.

You could do a line or pool in 2019 for as little as $17 even slightly off-hours, fwiw. Your point remains well taken.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#93

Post by looping__lui »

lisper wrote: post #64
looping__lui wrote: post #40

I love innovation and stuff. Radical ideas. But the aviation market is one of the most heavily regulated - bureaucracy beyond comprehension. Did you ever wonder why Piper or Cessna airplanes look EXACTLY what they did 50 years ago? And why the engines used in these planes (e.g., Lycoming) are referred to as “Lycosaurus”!? If you go for a sightseeing flight with a local aeroclub - you will find the pilot spending 30mi…

Private pilot here. Yes, aviation innovates slowly, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it sound. Cirrus aircraft have been a game changer, as has the Garmin G1000 avionics. I can fly just about any instrument approach entirely on autopilot. The only thing I have to touch is the throttle and the flaps. I get real-time traffic information via ADS-B, real-time weather via Nexrad. I do my flight planning in five minu…

Yes, but let us not compare a 50k used Cessna to a 500k Cirrus?

They rely on a Continental that was developed in the 80s (so quite new) - but doN’t you still have to adjust the mixture manually (e.g., manually adjust the air to fuel ratio)?

I mean, the cool stuff you are describing can easily end up at 500k-2MM USD with a fully trained private pilot...

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#94

Post by looping__lui »

kitteh wrote: post #88
GekkePrutser wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree about the certification. It's so annoying having to do stuff like managing the mixture. There is absolutely no chance I'm going to be better at that than even the most basic FADEC system. Every car since the early 90s has done away with the choke, but for some reason in a 2020-built C172 I still have to do this... :X I would argue that this insistence on safety certification makes actual flights less sa…

The fact that there are businesses that specialize in engine data monitor analysis and training on mixture operation says a ton about where GA is on this topic. There has been very little movement from the manufacturers on this. That said highly recommend any materials from Mike Busch on this topic. Super knowledgeable and has moved the needle in getting people to understand how engines operate.

Yes, great recommendation!

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#95

Post by therockspush »

There's a bunch of these companies getting more traction right now.

Joby Aviation, Kitty Hawk Aero, Wisk, Terrafugia, Opener, Lillium, probably more.

Its already been mentioned here how regulated this industry is, and they aren't going to be able to pull the Uber model of asking for forgiveness instead of permission.

Guessing some consolidation is coming up.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#96

Post by 0_____0 »

baybal2 wrote: post #78

Switzerland is one of few countries where "air taxi" services turned to profit. Hilly terrain makes it hard to make straight roads. Quite a lot of big cities don't have direct road connections. In a relatively flat USA, you don't have a lot of similar spaces.

Only place in the US I can think of that matches that is rural Alaska. Lots of little islands and communities where bushplanes are a primary transportation mode.

I remember seeing a row of houses built along a grassy strip that operated as a runway. Like their combined backyards were literally the airstrip.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#97

Post by kaybe »

TylerE wrote: post #80
GekkePrutser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discrepancy is much higher from the other destinations they mention, so I would imagine there is either no station nearby the lake so you have to take another mode for the last leg, or you have to get some complicated multiple-train route with long layovers :)

That's wildly imaginative. But no. Train routes don't exist . Outside commuter routes long distance rail basically don't exist in the US, outside a few connectors between major cities. This is IT: https://trn.trains.com/~/media/files/pdf/map-of-the-month/tm... Keep in mind the scale here... see that small-looking gap between Flagstaff and Tucson? That's 400km... you could fit most European countries in there.

What's going on with the Sanford-Lorton connection?

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#98

Post by looping__lui »

looping__lui wrote: post #50
CalChris wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part 135 is FAA. Lilium is German/EU.

Trust me - Germans wish they had FAA because it is magnitudes more customer focused and actually “reasonable”. The German LBA is literally Prussian Bureaucracy stuck in the 19th century...

Ok - maybe those hating me for the comment: FAA validation for my German license took a day and I got a plastic card license after 6 weeks with a preliminary one right away.

Changing ownership of a plane took me 6! weeks with the LBA.

I guess that there are potentially 10+% of all planes in Germany operated with an American N-registration (owned by a trust) because the maintenance overhead and paperwork headache is so much lower.

Imagine registering your German car with a German license plate in the US and setting up a German entity so you could pull that off - how big would the difference in pain have to be?

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#99

Post by kccqzy »

mangecoeur wrote: post #51

Can an American please explain how a 3h41 minute car journey to Tahoe turns into an 8h49(!) train journey? Are your trains pulled by horses or something?

The railroad is centered around cargo. And the American freight rail industry is in fact pretty healthy and profitable, unlike passenger rail.

Now consider viewpoints like this Economist article: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-rai... "America’s system of rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it" and you get why passenger rail is discouraged.

Re: Regional Air Mobility: Why we don’t plan to operate flights under 20km

#100

Post by apendleton »

burlesona wrote: post #28
mjlee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > If we imagine for a moment that you work in an office in Palo Alto, you could now choose to live in Hayward (5 min flight, $25), downtown San Francisco (10 min flight, $50), or even San Rafael (15 min flight, $70). > Or maybe you want to escape to Lake Tahoe for a long weekend? That would be less than an hour on a Lilium Jet, at a cost of around $250 at launch and less in the near future. It might…

Even at tech salaries those are expensive commutes. But for a ski weekend in Tahoe? Seems legit, assuming these aircraft have a great safety record.

I think we'll also have to see how things shake out in terms of office cultures post-covid, as I think there might be some attitude changes around partial work-from-home. I don't think my current employer would be likely to go all-remote, but I could maybe see them going to hot desks with less-than-100% seating capacity on the expectation that most people only come into the office a couple days a week, and the economics of this kind of pricing definitely shift if it's not a daily expense.
Post reply on HN