4 ms·

> The problem is that small airplane technology hasn’t innovated and is stuck in the past. Flying a small airplane is complicated, mentally taxing, and dangerou

> The problem is that small airplane technology hasn’t innovated and is stuck in the past. Flying a small airplane is complicated, mentally taxing, and dangerous—about 28x more dangerous than driving a car. I am surprised you don't mention fuel efficiency. Flying a small airplane is much less efficient than driving a car, especially on shorter trips due to take off and landing. And cars are already burning too much fuel, so...

this15testingg 2y ago
but you get to "beat traffic"! lol
- sdeframond 2y ago
  Joking aside, that's an interesting point actually, since it would probably be a common argument for this this type of transportation. However I doubt it would work for the masses due to Jevon's Paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - aaron695 2y ago
    [dead]
  - this15testingg 2y ago
    also the fact that an airport is usually not where you live or work, and in the U.S. that means you're still adding to traffic pre/post flight with an additional need for a car on both ends of the trip.
nullindividual 2y ago
No mention of pollution and some lip service to a "green future" because pollution is irrelevant for this type of individual who Just Doesn't Care about the environment they live in -- who would, when you can have VC money flying up your rear? Screw everyone else, he's got his!
FabHK 2y ago
A Diamond DA40 does around 28 miles per gallon (< 9 litres per 100 km) at 60% power cruise (5.1 gallons per hour at 124 knots). Sure, more than a car, particularly if you add takeoff and landing (though also note that in a plane you can go in a straight line rather than following roads). But it's not outrageously more so, and of course in aggregate much less than what cars consume now. The environmental impact is not the main issue here.
- sdeframond 2y ago
  > you can go in a straight line rather than following roads Yep. You also need another type of transportation to bring you to the airport and back. Given the price tag I doubt the target customer would take the bus. > But it's not outrageously more so More than too much is way too much. > in aggregate much less than what cars consume now The aggregate value is totally beside the point since one could always make up some subcategory for which the aggregate is small. What counts is the unit value per person per year. Unless of course we assume it is ok for some people to mess with climate while the others do more than their part to compensate. > The environmental impact is not the main issue here I respectfully and strongly disagree.
  - FabHK 2y ago
    Then let's remove air conditioners and windshield wipers from cars. People will drive less. Mission accomplished!

this15testingg 2y ago

but you get to "beat traffic"! lol

sdeframond 2y ago
Joking aside, that's an interesting point actually, since it would probably be a common argument for this this type of transportation. However I doubt it would work for the masses due to Jevon's Paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
- this15testingg 2y ago
  also the fact that an airport is usually not where you live or work, and in the U.S. that means you're still adding to traffic pre/post flight with an additional need for a car on both ends of the trip.

nullindividual 2y ago

No mention of pollution and some lip service to a "green future" because pollution is irrelevant for this type of individual who Just Doesn't Care about the environment they live in -- who would, when you can have VC money flying up your rear? Screw everyone else, he's got his!

FabHK 2y ago

A Diamond DA40 does around 28 miles per gallon (< 9 litres per 100 km) at 60% power cruise (5.1 gallons per hour at 124 knots). Sure, more than a car, particularly if you add takeoff and landing (though also note that in a plane you can go in a straight line rather than following roads). But it's not outrageously more so, and of course in aggregate much less than what cars consume now. The environmental impact is not the main issue here.

sdeframond 2y ago
> you can go in a straight line rather than following roads Yep. You also need another type of transportation to bring you to the airport and back. Given the price tag I doubt the target customer would take the bus. > But it's not outrageously more so More than too much is way too much. > in aggregate much less than what cars consume now The aggregate value is totally beside the point since one could always make up some subcategory for which the aggregate is small. What counts is the unit value per person per year. Unless of course we assume it is ok for some people to mess with climate while the others do more than their part to compensate. > The environmental impact is not the main issue here I respectfully and strongly disagree.
- FabHK 2y ago
  Then let's remove air conditioners and windshield wipers from cars. People will drive less. Mission accomplished!