91–100 of 632 posts
> The only real single point of failure is the engine
Sounds like a dangerous statement to make. There is multiple more: software, flaps/alt controls, pilot failure, etc.
And also "lever sensor fusion math" - personally being software engineer I am not a big believer in "clever"
I also wanna mention that I really like the idea, and looking forward to where it gets you; hopefully such skeptics like myself will have enough trust into what you're working on!
Worsening the systemic problems that are burning the planet
We need more high density transport for the 500 mile range, not more individual aeroplanes- each with one passenger
I disagree with your assessment. I think that the core problem with GA is that most people in the United States want to travel distances beyond what an affordable GA aircraft can in a single flight. I live in the midwest and I generally want to travel to the East or West coast or Southwest or Florida and the range of a Cessna just isn’t going to cut it. The only practical vehicle would be a Phenom 300 or Honda Jet II…
From a speed perspective, one thing that would make a lot of difference is speeding up the preflight. Now you have to pull the plane out of the hangar, go to the fuel pump, fill multiple fuel tanks, check the oil, sump the fuel tanks, etc. Electronic sensors for oil and water in the fuel, a simpler fuel system, and a built-in electric motor for getting out of the hangar might save 20+ minutes per flight, which would actually be better than even a faster plane because these tasks are annoying and dirty.
Another thing that would be great is a bigger baggage compartment with electric power for folding e-bikes or scooters. America is amazing in the number of small airports we have, but most of them have no rental cars and are outside of town.
What are the environmental implications of transitioning people traveling by car/train to small planes? In addition to being louder and dispersing pollutants over a wider area, don't small planes generate significantly more GHG emissions than cars over the same number of miles? Also, given that planes are not nearly as easy to electrify as cars and trains (energy density is significantly lower in batteries than liqui…
Today, airplanes are not great when it comes to their environmental impacts. If we are successful in our bet that we can grow the GA market, we'll have the resources to invest into greener propulsion technology. That space is currently evolving quickly, with hybrid-electric, hydrogen, full electric and others all being explored. So it's in our plans to address that as well.
Instrument-rated pilot (and engineer) here. First - congrats on the launch! I think you're working on an interesting set of components that will prove useful to GA aircraft technology. Bringing fly-by-wire, and lowering the cost of maintenance/manufacturing are both great efforts. That being said, my personal view is that stick-and-rudder control is one of the less critical components to improving GA safety. Everythi…
Yes, it's that entire helmet-fire that makes flying hard and often dangerous. But what the accident data shows is that these kinds of problems that you mention occur, and then the pilot loses control of the plane. If we give them the ability to relax, think through their situation, and make a good decision because at least the airplane will continue to descend safely towards the runway, we make safer pilots.
Always happy to see new GA aircraft, and the tech here looks very cool. The emergency autoland and chute will definitely be lifesavers. If your system can reliably prevent base-final stall spins then that would clearly be awesome. One thing that jumped out at me is what are you trading to get that protection? While I have no issues with fly by wire, I'd be nervous about a GA aircraft that's overly opinionated about w…
>> If your system can reliably prevent base-final stall spins then that would clearly be awesome. I keep thinking we need more canard aircraft - they don't stall. Most of them are designed with laminar flow wings and no flaps, so landing speeds are higher which makes them less safe and not good for grass strips. I'd like to see a stall-free aircraft without those drawbacks of canards.
I think a cheaper approach to what Airhart is trying to accomplish (from a don't kill pilots perspective) would be to make an aftermarket smart stall horn that could warn earlier and maybe gives some audio/visual feedback if you're getting uncoordinated at a certain angle of attack.
> Flying a small airplane is complicated, mentally taxing, and dangerous—about 28x more dangerous than driving a car. > Our system makes it impossible to lose control of the airplane, potentially solving 80% of today’s fatal accidents in general aviation. So this system is still at least five times as dangerous as driving a car? Is that considered safe enough for you to take liability in case of an accident, as e.g.…
While the stats may conclude "loss of control" as the cause of the accident. Often that loss of control is caused by for example the decision to fly into instrument conditions (bad weather) while the aircraft or pilot is not suitably equipped, trained and experienced for it.
But then I watched as the ADS-B mandate (or whatever you want to call it) came into effect and GA enthusiasts started tossing around concentration camp metaphors. So many of the people in the industry are very old and just don’t want anything to change.
Also shocking is how expensive everything is. It’s like new blockbuster prescription drugs, and perhaps for similar reasons (FAA testing is maybe very expensive?) but with no expiration date. At least in 25 years that new drug will be cheap, adding a simple GPS to your plane is still going to cost more than your Lexus.
It feels like the real problem in this industry is lack of competition. There’s a chicken and egg problem: planes are expensive because so few people buy them, but so few people buy them because they’re expensive.
Light sport aircraft were supposed to be the solution, but the difficulty of flying (which you’re addressing) seems to have precluded that.
All of which is to say: you’ve got a wide open field here and I hope you do well at it, aviation needs this.
> Flying a small airplane is complicated, mentally taxing, and dangerous—about 28x more dangerous than driving a car. > Our system makes it impossible to lose control of the airplane, potentially solving 80% of today’s fatal accidents in general aviation. So this system is still at least five times as dangerous as driving a car? Is that considered safe enough for you to take liability in case of an accident, as e.g.…
Thing in aviation is, that there are a couple of outside factors which might leed to a loss of control: bird strike and mid-air collision come to mind.
Instrument-rated pilot (and engineer) here. First - congrats on the launch! I think you're working on an interesting set of components that will prove useful to GA aircraft technology. Bringing fly-by-wire, and lowering the cost of maintenance/manufacturing are both great efforts. That being said, my personal view is that stick-and-rudder control is one of the less critical components to improving GA safety. Everythi…
thanks! Yes, it's that entire helmet-fire that makes flying hard and often dangerous. But what the accident data shows is that these kinds of problems that you mention occur, and then the pilot loses control of the plane. If we give them the ability to relax, think through their situation, and make a good decision because at least the airplane will continue to descend safely towards the runway, we make safer pilots.
https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/10/the-20-hour-cessna-172-e...