6 ms·

While I think the project is pretty cool, I can't shake the pollution side of things out of my mind. Air transport is one of the most polluting ways to travel,

While I think the project is pretty cool, I can't shake the pollution side of things out of my mind. Air transport is one of the most polluting ways to travel, and I would expect a single person airplane is even worse than a full A380. Is there anything you're doing to alleviate this issue ?

n_ermosh 2y ago
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 generation of green aircraft.
- Aachen 2y ago
  How does further reducing lead in the fuel compare to all the other emissions' impact? I would imagine that lead is dangerous for a long as it's being used, whereas CO2 has an annoyingly long half life that we need to actively remove in (currently) time- or energy-intensive processes, while it's reducing healthy years of life for millions of people —speaking of air pollution from combustion in general here, I don't have specific numbers for airplanes but as an airplane company you are surely better aware of this than me
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  > 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 environmental impact.
  - n_ermosh 2y ago
    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.
_jss 2y ago
Take a look at the more economical modern GA aircraft. A Cirrus SR22 can run at 10 gallons per hour, with a ground speed of 160+ mph. Yes, it’s more total fuel consumption than a car (but in an hour covering 2x the distance, and allowing to travel more directly) but not at all close to turbine or turboprops. At the extremely cheap (accessible to more pilots) side for pressurized planes, fuel burn is going to be 40gph and it just goes up from there. There are many variables, and winds work for or against—but by doing good flight planning you use the winds to your advantage. There is also a lot of research on better aviation fuels (100ll :(((). I’m excited about that part of it, more so than the current electric planes (although electric self-launching gliders are pretty neat) MOSIAC is going to make light sport aircraft more useful, which will also help in this area. Tons of interesting stuff happening here!
- n_ermosh 2y ago
  yep! lots of interesting stuff indeed! Our plane will be ~7 gph at cruise burning unleaded fuels and fly ~170mph over the ground (with no wind)
  - entropie 2y ago
    For my part, I find it questionable to invest in and develop a transport technology that consumes seven times as much fossil fuel as a car. You give consumption of 7 gallons in cruise mode. I don't want to know what is burnt during take-off or landing.
    - lutorm 2y ago
      How do you get seven times? Takeoff constitutes a negligible part of the total fuel consumption. Climb to altitude uses more, but you get that back when landing since you're then using your stored potential energy. Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use, and it will be quite easy to replace that with some renewable fuel solution (compared with the huge amounts of fuel consumed by transport aircraft). For my part, I think it would be a shame to kill GA because of a temporary and relatively unimportant concern.
BWStearns 2y ago
Some of the LSAs I've flown are not actually that bad pollution/climate wise. Slightly less green per mile than my mini cooper, way more green than basically any common American pickup truck.
- blt 2y ago
  MPG-wise sure. Emissions-wise almost certainly not. Airplanes don't have catalytic converters, exhaust recirculation, etc.
- callalex 2y ago
  Does this include the emissions portal-to-portal? Airports tend to be nowhere near destinations because people don’t like living near all the pollution airplanes spew.
  - BWStearns 2y ago
    Most of my trips in small planes are pretty point to point. The airports I've used have been between 1 and 5 miles from my house and most of my destinations were similarly close (I just checked one destination and it was 200 meters). Not sure where you're from but airport density in the US is incredibly high thanks to WWII and Cold War leftover infrastructure (and a fairly robust GA culture up through the 80s). People just don't notice their little local airports unless they fly.
- limitedfrom 2y ago
  Avgas (most commonly 100LL) continues to spew out lead, which was phased out for cars in 1996 in the US, is a major pollutant. [1] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissions-aircraft-engines-cause-or-contribute-air-pollution https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissio... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

n_ermosh 2y ago

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 generation of green aircraft.

Aachen 2y ago
How does further reducing lead in the fuel compare to all the other emissions' impact? I would imagine that lead is dangerous for a long as it's being used, whereas CO2 has an annoyingly long half life that we need to actively remove in (currently) time- or energy-intensive processes, while it's reducing healthy years of life for millions of people —speaking of air pollution from combustion in general here, I don't have specific numbers for airplanes but as an airplane company you are surely better aware of this than me
aziaziazi 2y ago
> 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 environmental impact.
- n_ermosh 2y ago
  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.

_jss 2y ago

Take a look at the more economical modern GA aircraft. A Cirrus SR22 can run at 10 gallons per hour, with a ground speed of 160+ mph. Yes, it’s more total fuel consumption than a car (but in an hour covering 2x the distance, and allowing to travel more directly) but not at all close to turbine or turboprops. At the extremely cheap (accessible to more pilots) side for pressurized planes, fuel burn is going to be 40gph and it just goes up from there. There are many variables, and winds work for or against—but by doing good flight planning you use the winds to your advantage. There is also a lot of research on better aviation fuels (100ll :(((). I’m excited about that part of it, more so than the current electric planes (although electric self-launching gliders are pretty neat) MOSIAC is going to make light sport aircraft more useful, which will also help in this area. Tons of interesting stuff happening here!

n_ermosh 2y ago
yep! lots of interesting stuff indeed! Our plane will be ~7 gph at cruise burning unleaded fuels and fly ~170mph over the ground (with no wind)
- entropie 2y ago
  For my part, I find it questionable to invest in and develop a transport technology that consumes seven times as much fossil fuel as a car. You give consumption of 7 gallons in cruise mode. I don't want to know what is burnt during take-off or landing.
  - lutorm 2y ago
    How do you get seven times? Takeoff constitutes a negligible part of the total fuel consumption. Climb to altitude uses more, but you get that back when landing since you're then using your stored potential energy. Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use, and it will be quite easy to replace that with some renewable fuel solution (compared with the huge amounts of fuel consumed by transport aircraft). For my part, I think it would be a shame to kill GA because of a temporary and relatively unimportant concern.

BWStearns 2y ago

Some of the LSAs I've flown are not actually that bad pollution/climate wise. Slightly less green per mile than my mini cooper, way more green than basically any common American pickup truck.

blt 2y ago
MPG-wise sure. Emissions-wise almost certainly not. Airplanes don't have catalytic converters, exhaust recirculation, etc.
callalex 2y ago
Does this include the emissions portal-to-portal? Airports tend to be nowhere near destinations because people don’t like living near all the pollution airplanes spew.
- BWStearns 2y ago
  Most of my trips in small planes are pretty point to point. The airports I've used have been between 1 and 5 miles from my house and most of my destinations were similarly close (I just checked one destination and it was 200 meters). Not sure where you're from but airport density in the US is incredibly high thanks to WWII and Cold War leftover infrastructure (and a fairly robust GA culture up through the 80s). People just don't notice their little local airports unless they fly.
limitedfrom 2y ago
Avgas (most commonly 100LL) continues to spew out lead, which was phased out for cars in 1996 in the US, is a major pollutant. [1] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissions-aircraft-engines-cause-or-contribute-air-pollution https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissio... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...