3 ms·

I share this concern, and it will probably be awful in the beginning. However, that being said, I thought i'd hate living next to an airport, and I live by one

I share this concern, and it will probably be awful in the beginning. However, that being said, I thought i'd hate living next to an airport, and I live by one right now. The sounds of planes over my head are often ignored and I enjoy looking up and seeing a plane coming in for a landing. So what I thought I would hate I actually grew to enjoy. People adapt, that's actually what we're really good at.

egeozcan 9y ago
An average plane carries around 150 to 200 people and planes are used only for long distances. Living in a world where the affordability of these are like cars, would be far worse, I imagine.
- nine_k 9y ago
  Unlike cars, these machines would not be tightly packed into roads, concentrating the noise and pollution; likely they'd have to keep a serious distance. Also, with a top speed of 70 mph and range of 70 miles, it does not look like a great daily-commuter vehicle. This device looks like a good fit for an expensive urban fast-jump service, or a good solution for places where roads are hard to build, like going to a forest hike or a mountain trip.
  - georgeecollins 9y ago
    I think there are a lot of places (SF, Los Angeles) where if you could travel 25 miles at a consistent 50 MPH speed that would be a huge improvement over many people's commute. It would be great for my commute personally. I can see reasons why this would not work as a commuter vehicle, but speed and range don't seem to be the issue.
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    If you're outside 70 miles, you've got bigger problems. But considering that rush-hour traffic can bring average freeway speeds down to the 5 and 10 MPH range, I'd say this would be a huge improvement for daily commuting. At great expense of course. The only thing is, something invented for a niche market on Sunday will be made much cheaper on Monday, will be widespread and causing mayhem by Tuesday, regulated to the hilt on Wednesday, the sole domain of big corporations by Thursday, and used for aerial assassinations at-will by the military by Friday. (My little sequence there takes a cue from this talk, posted on HN yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16106331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16106331 )
    - nine_k 9y ago
      70 miles one way, so it's likely 35 miles round-trip after which you're dry. Winged aircraft is so much more economical, but it's necessarily large.
      - rdiddly 9y ago
        Curses, foiled by the old "one way/round trip" trick!
  - Retric 9y ago
    70 miles by air is a long distance. You really want ~1 hour of reserve in an aircraft, but it said 70 miles per tank so you might have 70 miles with a 70 mile reserve. Remember weight is the real limit. So, having a single passenger frees up ~150 lb for extra fuel.

egeozcan 9y ago

An average plane carries around 150 to 200 people and planes are used only for long distances. Living in a world where the affordability of these are like cars, would be far worse, I imagine.

nine_k 9y ago
Unlike cars, these machines would not be tightly packed into roads, concentrating the noise and pollution; likely they'd have to keep a serious distance. Also, with a top speed of 70 mph and range of 70 miles, it does not look like a great daily-commuter vehicle. This device looks like a good fit for an expensive urban fast-jump service, or a good solution for places where roads are hard to build, like going to a forest hike or a mountain trip.
- georgeecollins 9y ago
  I think there are a lot of places (SF, Los Angeles) where if you could travel 25 miles at a consistent 50 MPH speed that would be a huge improvement over many people's commute. It would be great for my commute personally. I can see reasons why this would not work as a commuter vehicle, but speed and range don't seem to be the issue.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  If you're outside 70 miles, you've got bigger problems. But considering that rush-hour traffic can bring average freeway speeds down to the 5 and 10 MPH range, I'd say this would be a huge improvement for daily commuting. At great expense of course. The only thing is, something invented for a niche market on Sunday will be made much cheaper on Monday, will be widespread and causing mayhem by Tuesday, regulated to the hilt on Wednesday, the sole domain of big corporations by Thursday, and used for aerial assassinations at-will by the military by Friday. (My little sequence there takes a cue from this talk, posted on HN yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16106331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16106331 )
  - nine_k 9y ago
    70 miles one way, so it's likely 35 miles round-trip after which you're dry. Winged aircraft is so much more economical, but it's necessarily large.
    - rdiddly 9y ago
      Curses, foiled by the old "one way/round trip" trick!
- Retric 9y ago
  70 miles by air is a long distance. You really want ~1 hour of reserve in an aircraft, but it said 70 miles per tank so you might have 70 miles with a 70 mile reserve. Remember weight is the real limit. So, having a single passenger frees up ~150 lb for extra fuel.