
Cora – Kitty Hawk's prototype air taxi [video] - partingshots
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LeFxjRMv5U8
======
thisisit
Another discussion on KittyHawk here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16573676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16573676)

------
danielvf
Contrary to almost every comment here so far, this is both innovative and
energy efficient.

Let's talk energy efficiency first. Once it's up in the air, it's has a
similar profile to a normal single engine airplane. A Cirrus SR22 can go 1,200
miles on 80 gallons of gas. That's roughly speaking 15 miles per gallon -
better than many pickup trucks or large SUVs. And that's while going 180 mph.
Slower is more fuel efficient.

This aircraft is definitely going to make noise on takeoff and landing, but
it's not going to make much noise while cruising.

The Dodecacopter/regular aircraft hybrid solves a lot of problems. Once it is
in cruise mode, it is as safe as a regular small aircraft. Importantly, unlike
a quadcopter, it does not crash immediately on loss of engine power - it can
glide to a landing somewhere, or use a parachute, or land with its
Dodecacopter rotors.

Unlike a rotor craft, this aircraft is very energy efficient while cruising.

The Dodecacopter side lets it take off and land in even more places than a
helicopter. It looks like it has redundancy for any two rotors/motors to go
out. If this happens on takeoff, you fly to an airport to land. If this
happens on landing, you leave the aircraft on the ground until someone comes
and fixes you. You skip all the transmission and cyclic complexity of a
helicopter. This is going to cost a whole lot less to maintain than a
helicopter.

In short, this has potential to be way better than either a helicopter or a
small airplane. Even ignoring the air-taxi business, there's a market for this
aircraft.

So let's flip to the business side. An easy target for making these at scale
would be $500,000 per aircraft. (Might be able to half that, but lets be
conservative). Operating costs at scale, max $100/hr, could be one quarter
that.

On the revenue side, this would replace a two hour trip across a city in
traffic with a fifteen minute flight. Unless you've flow small aircraft before
it's hard to appreciate just how much faster it is not to use roads. There's
definitely going to be some market for this - that's worth money.

~~~
cowsandmilk
> A Cirrus SR22 can go 1,200 miles on 80 gallons of gas. That's roughly
> speaking 15 miles per gallon - better than many pickup trucks or large SUVs.

Sure, let's take the most energy efficient aircraft and compare it to the
least energy efficient passenger vehicles??? I mean, how can one even pretend
that is a fair comparison.

More generally for energy efficiency, it is well known that the most efficient
trip is a shorter one or one never taken. Many fans of these technologies are
people who dream of living 90 miles away and fly into town in half an hour. Or
as you described "this would replace a two hour trip across a city in traffic
with a fifteen minute flight". Comparing MPG when your technology is designed
to encourage more miles is a flawed approach.

~~~
danielvf
We do seem to have different value systems. I believe applying energy to make
human lives better is a great thing! Electricity usage in the western world is
getting greener fast. Total usage is going down, not up. This isn't going to
reverse either of those trends.

There's a popular perception that all aircraft burn energy like an oil
refinery on fire. The reality is that small piston aircraft are approximately
as fuel efficient as the vehicles around you on the highway (at least where I
live) while getting you there a whole lot faster.

A Cirrus is a good comparison stand in for the KittyHawk aircraft because it
has a similar design and construction style (ignoring the dodeca-props), four
seats, and is the most common general aviation aircraft not designed in the
1950's. A Cirrus isn't even close to the most energy efficient aircraft - that
would be more like 60 mpg, nor is it the most efficient in its class.

~~~
pc86
> _The reality is that small piston aircraft are approximately as fuel
> efficient as the vehicles around you on the highway_

This is just objectively wrong.

Before taking wind into account, a Cessna 172 travels 120kts on a good day and
at altitude and appropriately leaned can get down to 8 gallons an hour.

120 nautical miles in 140 miles (less, but benefit of the doubt and all).
That's 17.5 miles per gallon. At cruise altitude. Leaned appropriately. You
can tack on another few gallons for the climb, and you're going mixture rich
on descent so you're back up to 10-11 gph for the last 20-30 miles of your
trip. You're lucky to get 10mpg overall for a flight, and that's using gas
that costs $5 a gallon.

There are a LOT of benefits to GA flight in order to get around. Fuel
efficiency is definitely not one of them.

~~~
DennisP
He specified "general aviation aircraft not designed in the 1950's." The
Cessna 172 was first flown in 1955:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172)

Also, it may be worth taking into account that airplanes travel in straighter
lines.

~~~
godelski
Planes are updated, just an FYI. And most GA aircraft are older. That's how
most people fly, by buying an aircraft that is the price of a car (<$50k).

I fly a Cherokee 140. One of the most common aircraft, as with the Skyhawk. My
fuel consumption is 8.4gal/hr at 75% mixture and 5.6gal/hr at 50%. Assuming
I'm doing an average ground track of 100mph (for easy math), that's 12-18mpg
(not counting that I'm 100% rich at TO and LND).

I wouldn't exactly call it fuel efficient, but it isn't burning like an oil
refinery on fire either. I also don't pay $5 for gas ($4.09 today, but it
isn't uncommon to see it at $3.50). But you do have to consider speed and time
to destination if we're going to compare to cars.

One thing to also consider is that avgas is still leaded. And for anyone
interested, here is the POH for the Skyhawk[1] and Cherokee[2]. Note that fuel
consumption will be in hours or gal/hr when discussing aircraft. Mpg doesn't
make as much sense.

[1]
[https://www.flyingd.net/documents/N739EF_172N_POH_000.pdf](https://www.flyingd.net/documents/N739EF_172N_POH_000.pdf)

[2]
[http://wilgroveairport.net/files/Cherokee%20140%20POH.pdf](http://wilgroveairport.net/files/Cherokee%20140%20POH.pdf)

Disclaimer: Use the POH provided with your aircraft.

~~~
pc86
Cherokee 180/181 checking in! $4.09 would be great, $5.12 at my base this
morning. $0.35 club discount helps though.

~~~
godelski
I fly in the south and as long as I'm not at a major airport (in class G) I
can get gas pretty cheap. Poking around on some maps I can even find it
cheaper.

Really all depends where you fly.

------
brunosutic
A lot of negative comments here. I must say I'm impressed and I applaud these
people for building an innovative working thing and taking it to production.
No pilot - mind blown.

And sure, this might not be the solution to humanity's overall mobility, but
heck I can see it being useful in many ways.

~~~
syntaxing
I agree that the technology is exciting to see but I think there is a lot of
negative comments because there is a lot skepticism (which engineers tend to
be including myself due to the nature of our work). That being said, most
commercial flights are actually on autopilot during cruise. Pilots can choose
to use auto takeoff and landing as well but I believe it requires a specific
license and copious amount of paperwork. Pilots are important because of
liability and federal law.

~~~
godelski
As a pilot and engineer, I think there are good reasons to be skeptical.
Here's some of my questions.

1) Can it autorotate? Or in an emergency does it have to glide?

1.5) What's its glide distance? Cruising altitude? There's a lot of drag from
those propellers so I imagine its best glide speed isn't great.

2) How are you going to get it in a city? Seems like you're going to have to
go to the local GA airport (which are fairly frequent, but you'll still need a
normal taxi).

3) There is a really limited range (100km or 60mi) and only goes 150kph
(90mph) (I'm guessing max cruising speed, so real world you'll see it going
slower, plus you have to consider TO and LND). That's not very far and not
very fast.

4) GA is dangerous. How is it communicating with ATC? Can ATC divert it? Will
it integrate into the standards (N1234 fly one niner zero). What happens when
someone doesn't use the standard (this WILL happen)? So can it fly in class B
airspace? I even have questions about class C and D. And how is it going to
handle GA aircraft? And if it is in class G how does it deal with that person
that isn't using the radio? Does the computer know when its own radio isn't
working? And does it know ATC light signals?

5) Who is doing the inspection? In GA we check everything before we fly. Sure
you can automate fuel levels, oil, etc. But how are you checking things like
propeller or airframe cracks? And is it doing runups? How often?

6) Is it VFR? IFR? What altitude is it flying at? How does it handle cross
wind? Which is going to be a big pain if you are flying in cities.

And as to why pilots not only choose, but are required (in the US), to do TO
and LND is because that's BY FAR the most dangerous part. I can even tell you
I'm thinking a lot more during TO. As a pilot you're constantly thinking about
what you're going to do if there is an engine failure. During TO you're under
1000ft and the runway is behind you (you can't turn around). LND, well at
least you got the runway ahead of you. Cruising? You got plenty of time to
figure out where you're going to go. Pilots aren't just required because
liability and federal law, they are required because automation isn't there
yet. I can tell you that it is hard to see aircraft in flight. Especially in
conditions like sunrises and sunsets. Many accidents happen on clear and sunny
days.

There's a lot of things I like about it, but there is legitimately a lot of
reason for concern. But it is a prototype after all.

~~~
baybal2
FAA struck down google's first prototype, that's why they test in NZ

~~~
godelski
That would really give me concern.

------
syntaxing
Can anyone chime in how this aircraft is so energy efficient? It seems like
the props on the wing will give a ridiculous amount of drag. Also, one of the
key requirements for an energy efficient rear prop plane is super laminar air
going to through the rear prop for efficient thrust. The wing design seems to
remove this advantage.

Edit: Also, I thought smaller props for vertical flight is significantly less
efficient than one large prop like a helicopter?

That being said, I always had a soft spot for aircraft startup after working
at one in my younger days. Pretty interesting to see how this ends up
especially with Sebastian Thrun on the team.

~~~
assblaster
I don't know for sure, but I think that autorotation of the multiple vertical
rotors provide substantial lift even if they're not being actively driven,
similar to the tree seeds that autorotate as they fall.

~~~
Someone1234
Auto rotation converts air speed (i.e. drag) into lift. That may slightly
reduce the relative costs of drag (by providing benefit) but it still has to
be overcome by forward momentum.

~~~
fastball
But that's probably more of an issue for max speed than it is for efficiency,
which would explain why it's operating speed is only 150kmph.

------
ansible
From an aircraft design perspective, it is an interesting choice.

I can't help think that this design, with dedicated lift engines is just not
very mass efficient. The pylons and the twelve motors also add a lot of drag
in horizontal flight, even though they've taken steps to reduce it.

As of today, if I was designing an air taxi from scratch, I'd go with a tail-
sitting VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXibbgNix8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXibbgNix8)

For a full-sized aircraft, since you can't vary rotor speed very quickly for
large motors, you'd need to add variable pitch propellers. The passengers
would sit in a pod which rotates to keep them level during all flight modes.

And, as other commenters have mentioned, a ballisticly-deployed parachute for
safety. And maybe emergency landing skids for a horizontal landing if needed.

I know that electric flight is part of the selling point of this design, but
I'd still prefer to use fossil fuel for the energy density.

I'd love to try it out if it goes into production!

------
ransom1538
Small planes have had parachutes for quite some time [1] now and have saved
many lives. Why on earth would this company put people up into the air
unmanned without one? [Personally, if a parachute was onboard I wouldn't mind
jumping into one.]

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQyrPVIIQdE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQyrPVIIQdE)

~~~
willglynn
> [Personally, if a parachute was onboard I wouldn't mind jumping into one.]

The cabin opens in a clamshell fashion and that appears to be the only way in
or out. Opening the canopy mid-flight would probably result in shearing it off
once it catches even a small amount of air. From there, you're left with exit
point that's ahead of the wing, ahead of the main propeller, and ahead of the
rather wide tail section.

Maybe you'd be clear if you hugged the bottom of the door and kind of… rolled
underneath at exit?

As a skydiver who's exited all sorts of planes in all sorts of ways, I would
rather take my chances landing with that plane.

\--

Edit: on further review, I believe you mean "if the aircraft were equipped
with CAPS, I wouldn't mind flying in one" as opposed to "if the aircraft came
with a bail-out rig, I wouldn't mind strapping it on". Nevermind :-)

~~~
danielvf
The Cirrus has a whole aircraft parachute - you can see it used here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J94sGh8fQN8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J94sGh8fQN8)

~~~
willglynn
Oops, I mis-read the comment. Edited to clarify.

------
mannykannot
They claim that it is quiet, but there is no audio to give any sense of that.
I would want to hear two people having a conversation while it takes off
nearby.

~~~
wmeredith
Zero chance this thing is anything a normal person would consider quiet.
Moving enough air to generate the thrust it takes to transport humans is not
quiet.

------
iamgopal
For those who are not aware, the kittyhawk is the place where wright brothers
tested and developed their plane.

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
Kitty Hawk, NC - to be specific! It's why North Carolina license plates say
"First in Flight."

------
pcnix
I'm very skeptical on the energy expenditure here, this does seem to be a
fairly energy intensive mode of transport, but I assume the market would
balance the price accordingly.

It certainly doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would become a
mainstream mode of transport without a big change in the energy market.

~~~
FabHK
According to the 2016 Uber Elevate study, traditional cars achieve about 1
mile/kWh, electric cars about 3 mile/kWh, and electric planes about 2
mile/kWh.

To simplify, one trades roll drag for induced (=lift generating) drag, at
higher speeds.

The bigger issues are battery performance (specific energy), and regulation,
in my view.

------
fouc
I had to check it's not April 1st. Especially after watching the youtube
video. I'm still skeptical that it won't turn out to be an april fools prank.

~~~
ju-st
I'm developing a paranoia that the Alphabet moonshot projects are just PR to
obfuscate the data privacy issues of Google's advertising.

------
NicoJuicy
I think it's perfect for transportation. A share model could really exist with
it, less infrastructure.

If it becomes popular, entire cities could change how they look ( roof = taxi,
roads for bicycles and deliveries on the roof)

------
outside2344
This will be great for millionaire 1% Googlers to fly to work from Monterey.

------
Kequc
I don't like that they're touting no emissions. Electricity has to be
generated and in the US that's mainly coal. Hybrid vehicles are closer to
having it right where running the car charges it and you can get by burning
significantly less fuel. Strictly electrical has not been shown to be an
energy saver or a flag bearer of emissions reduction. In many cases so far it
has been a cause of more pollution than modern engines using oil.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> Electricity has to be generated and in the US that's mainly coal.

Huh? Coal is only 30% of the USA’s energy production, natural gas is higher at
34%.

[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electrici...](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states)

The other points in your post are equally dubious, do you have sources?

~~~
CodeWriter23
Are you suggesting natural gas generation is “Green”?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
No, I’m only suggesting that natural gas isn’t coal.

From an air quality perspective, at least, natural gas is much better than
coal. But it is far from carbon neutral.

------
ZeroGravitas
What's the long pointy bit that sticks out from the nose for?

~~~
clon
A single pitot probe it seems, so no triple redundancy? Also cannot spot any
angle of attack sensors or anti icing measures (perhaps electric?). I hope it
has a BRS at least..

There are a lot of things in aviation written it blood. A lot of work hours
sunk into inspecting the swiss cheese from every angle, until the light does
not shine through. Not the most welcoming ground for "disruption".

Still, even the most modern autopilot will drop the controls to the pilot's
lap almost routinely.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
>Still, even the most modern autopilot will drop the controls to the pilot's
lap almost routinely.

And is likely why their "you won't need a license to ride, because it's
automated" line is going to disappear once the FAA notices this.

------
peterchau
I love it. Can’t wait to see the first batch of production reviews from
customers.

Also on energy usage:

Why does it matter how much electrical energy it uses? We know how to harness
a near infinite amount.

~~~
pjc50
> Why does it matter how much electrical energy it uses? We know how to
> harness a near infinite amount.

This is a silly thing to say while there's still quite so much CO2 being
emitted from electricity production.

~~~
nl
I suspect the OP means solar and wind. It’s a fair point given that these have
batteries, and could easily swap them out for precharged ones.

------
javiramos
My understanding is that a larger, slower turning propeller is more efficient
than a smaller, faster propeller. If so, why do drone companies/small aircraft
companies have been pushing the more and smaller propellers model? Better
aircraft control? Optimizing for range and battery life doesn’t seem like a
bad idea.

~~~
danielvf
So there are two ways to control a rotor craft.

You can adjust the angles of individual blades, changing this angle multiple
times each rotor sweep, as helicopters do. This is expensive, complex, things
wear out, and a safety risk for the aircraft.

Or you can do what quadcopters do, direct drive the rotor and just adjust the
speed of the entire rotor. This gets rid of both the Swashplate system and a
transmission. It's lightweight, simple, and cheap. The problem is that it
doesn't scale well to bigger rotors. When a rotor gets too big, it has enough
inertia that you can't speed it up and slow it down fast enough to control
your aircraft. Also, as you get bigger, you want a slower spinning rotor, and
current electric motors aren't happy direct driving at that slower speed.

If you want to use the simple system, you have to use small rotors for now.

~~~
evgen
One additional point that is worth making regarding this rotational inertia in
the blades is that this is what makes auto-rotation possible. In an engine-out
situation a helicopter has a lot of energy stored in these blades and by
conserving this as much as possible while 'falling' the pilot can pull up on
the cyclic when close to the ground to trade the energy for enough lift to
survive the crash. A direct-drive drone propeller cannot auto-rotate, and if
for some reason it has an in-flight emergency that interrupts electrical power
to the VTOL rotors it will plummet like a brick. I am not sure about the glide
characteristics of those wings, but with all of the drag from the non-
operative drone rotors I am guessing it would be somewhere between 'awful' and
'lawn-dart'.

------
oliv__
That video is so cringy.

~~~
slowmotiony
What did you expect from a product called KittyHawk?

~~~
samfriedman
I'm not sure I get why that name would imply cringiness: isn't it named for
the Wright brothers' proving ground? Is there a reference I'm missing?

------
SlowBro
It seems the vertical take off blades become dead weight and air resistance in
horizontal flight. Could they auto-rotate instead, aiding lift? Similar to how
an auto gyro works. The wings would be the primary lift providers but why not
take advantage of the vertical blades as well?

~~~
mannykannot
The key figure is the lift to drag ratio - as the lift needed is determined by
the weight, then that divided by lift / drag gives you the thrust you need to
keep flying. Autorotating small blades are not efficient lift generators,
compared to fixed wings, which can have lift / drag ratios over 50 (though not
on this machine.) Even partial lift from the rotors would reduce the overall
lift / drag ratio. In addition, having the rotors generate lift would have an
effect on the airflow over the wing, and probably be detrimental to its
efficiency - it is bad enough that they are there at all, especially those in
front of the wing.

~~~
SlowBro
Would a classic helicopter rotor overhead be a better solution, paired with
those classic wide horizontal wings? Lift with the rotor, then thrust with the
rear prop, using both wing and auto rotating overhead rotor combined for
maximum lift.

Requires a tail rotor or similar. Perhaps the rear thrust motor or prop can be
rotated sideways for takeoff? Now we’re getting complex, but not
extraordinarily so.

Ape4 noted would add weight and complexity. Any more than eight small electric
motors and props do now?

~~~
mannykannot
There have been several experimental aircraft like that [1] [2], but they are
more like augmented helicopters than fixed-wing aircraft with VTOL.
Aerodynamically, the arrangement is a biplane, and biplanes are rather
inefficient because interference between the flows over the two wings reduces
the overall efficiency.

Note that in the case of the Sikorsky S-72, the intent was to stop the rotor
in cruise.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3)

[2] [http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_x-
wing.php](http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_x-wing.php)

~~~
SlowBro
Thank you. Looks like what I have in mind is called a Gyrodyne[1] or
Heliplane[2]. I would expect it would have almost the same range and speed as
an airplane with VTOL capabilities. As you mentioned, the interaction between
the two flight surfaces may be too inefficient, but the X3 you linked to broke
the unofficial speed record, so there's that.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrodyne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrodyne)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBA-
DARPA_Heliplane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBA-DARPA_Heliplane)

------
naibafo
> No traffic lights

? only as long as there are just a few flying around. Once there are some with
crossing routes you will need air traffic city rules as well.

I am really interested to see how that would pan out.

~~~
marcosdumay
You don't need traffic lights on a 3D space. Air traffic rules are very
different.

~~~
mannykannot
When your airplane is stacked in a holding pattern, waiting for clearance to
land, it is essentially at a red light. If you and everyone else going to the
same place are in electric airplanes, there is the potential for some real
range anxiety.

------
peterwwillis
I just gave a talk on flying cars. It turns out technical difficulty is not
the reason we don't have flying cars, or self-driving cars.

Innovation is one way new technologies can change the world. For example, the
reason we have skyscrapers is due to the elevator brake.

Elevators have existed in some form or another for over 2,000 years. But
without the modern innovation of the elevator brake, nobody felt safe being
hoisted by a rope up into the air, where a fall could kill you. And nobody
looked forward to walking dozens of flights of stairs. A new combination of a
spring, gravity, and a ratchet-and-pawl (all existing for over 2,000 years,
the same as the elevator itself) gave humans the feeling of safely moving up
and down in space that they didn't have before.

But innovation is not a guarantee of success. Electric cars have existed for
190 years. Their innovation, combined with the development of modern
batteries, made them the most popular car by the beginning of the 20th
century. But two decades later they disappeared, when cheaper, more
convenient, more useful gas cars became available. It took another 60 years to
develop a new production EV.

In comparison to land-based vehicles, drones are used to fly automated GPS-
coordinated routes around the world every day. There are about 31.7 Million
airplane flights over the USA every year. And even though 37,000 people die in
car crashes every year, only 399 people died in air crashes in 2017 (world
wide!). Not only are flying vehicles clearly safer than driving, we can very
reliably coordinate flying vehicles.

So why don't we have automated flying cars? Nobody decided to build them.
Until startups like this one do the actual hard, long-term, complicated work
to coordinate all the necessary pieces, and can figure out how to make it both
convenient and cost-effective, it just doesn't happen. And the same is true of
self-driving cars.

Until someone decides to coordinate all the complicated parts to get it
working, it doesn't exist. Sometimes this takes convincing society to make
compromises - like, you don't get the "freedom" of piloting your own vehicle,
unless you are very very well trained to do so. And sometimes it just takes
lots of elbow grease. Personally, I think we need more of the former than the
latter. But I'm glad this company is taking on both challenges.

~~~
iamgopal
What unless ? This is fun. I understand most of the engineering is in
regression, but still making things that fly is fun. Only problem is money.

------
zeesh
Firstly, I commend them for getting the vision started more than anyone else
I’ve seen. It’s a V1 commercial product and they seem to have the resources to
iterate. That being said, it’s not a very aesthetic craft. Sadly, they didn’t
figure out how not to have wings. It’s like they took a Cessna/Piper and threw
on 6 electric motors on each wing and a big battery pack and called it a
flying car. Their former hovercraft product was much cooler!

------
nopinsight
Once this becomes practical with regulations worked out, there will likely be
more people who choose to live in Napa Valley, Stockton, or Sacramento and
commute to San Francisco or Palo Alto.

Real estate prices in those places might be affected a bit.

The same with New Jersey and Manhattan. What are some other areas that this
might be the case?

Once the direction becomes clearer, perhaps someone should start an REIT with
a focus on arbitraging transportation revolution.

------
msie
Ummm, are there flight corridors defined for low flying aircraft? You can't
just fly in a straight line everywhere. You can't just fly over a densely
populated area and how do you avoid crashing into other flying taxis?

------
davidgrenier
You read the comments and you think everybody gets it, but then nobody gets
it.

Google must be too early.

------
harigov
Anyone know how much this costs per mile?

~~~
iamgopal
Less than gas car.

------
nascar_is_bad
solutions for the .01%

~~~
shortoncash
It always starts with them before it trickles down to the rest of us. Let's
hope they use it and beta test it for us.

~~~
nascar_is_bad
Nah, let's hope one of them gets an itch to become public transportation's
savior.

~~~
decacorn
it isnt sexy enough and wont make them any return. completely agree with you.
its a total waste of resources. never gonna happen

------
akhilcacharya
What's the utility of using electric motors over turboprops, etc? Is it just
the simplicity factor?

------
sandworm101
Another flying car company. Many have tried. Before doing uber-air, first
perfect the flying car as an aircraft. That hasnt happened. Then we can talk
about the robot at the controls or the app that will summon it.

Get all the air safety stuff done. Biuld a few thousand non-experimentals.
Have people actually fly these things daily. Then worry about disrupting the
car market.

~~~
clon
I think it being autonomous is integral to it being a "success". Energy
density is still a major limitation and doing away with the pilot can be one
way to make the numbers work economy wise. A flesh and bone pilot will come at
a substantial weight penalty, effectively reducing the utility of this 2
seater by half.

As a licenced pilot myself, I am with you, however. Would not climb into this
death trap as a self loading freight any time soon.

~~~
mrybczyn
Seeing the rates of "single vehicle accidents" in small aircraft piloted by
amateurs, I'm happier with the autonomy.

Also, autonomy in the sky seems easier than autonomy on the ground.

If Thrun is involved, chances are it will work pretty well...

~~~
clon
> Also, autonomy in the sky seems easier than autonomy on the ground.

This is debatable.

A car has only 1 degree of freedom. An aircraft typically has 3 degrees of
freedom.

A car rests on solid ground. An aircraft is submerged in a fluid medium.

A ground vehicle can adjust it's speed to the conditions, if necessary slow
down if confidence levels get lower, or even go backwards. An aircraft is
typically subject to an aerodynamic envelope.

As for the sky being empty, take a look at this harrowing story of a biz jet
encountering the wake turbulence of a A380. Airframe written off, crew earn
their lifetime salary. Autopilot took 13 seconds to conk out.

[https://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3](https://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3)

Turns out modern aircraft following airways to a precision of mere meters has
increased such incidences. In the olden days pilots where often a bit off the
track. To simulate this sloppiness in flying rigor, a thing called SLOP has
been conceived, for Strategic Lateral Offset Procedures.

------
aezell
All I can think about is Clifford Simak's "City."

~~~
monomyth
leave it to the dogs

------
eecsninja
Finally we are getting flying cars instead of 140 characters.

------
Quanttek
I must say I'm against this development. First of all, even if electric, this
is certainly a very inefficient way of transportation that will 'waste' a lot
of energy to transport maybe 4 people.

The resulting price of this technology will result in the 99% stuck on the
ground while the only te 1% can afford the fare.

And even if it becomes a regular mode of transportation, do you really want
these planes to fly over your apartment/house every few minutes? They might be
more quiet than a Cessna but they wll certainly still be disturbing

~~~
clon
I agree. People talking about flying cars sound a lot like people demanding
faster horses. Or flying horses.

I do not think the American dream of a private car scales too well to the
future, be it with rubber wheels or tiny propellers. Especially given the
population growth.

Instead, a brief visit to Singapore, for example, will convince anyone what
the future of transportation looks like. A public transport system, enabling a
lifestyle that makes cars redundant.

~~~
mrep
How safe is Singapore public transportation and walking?

The reason I ask is that neither are as safe as driving here in the US which i
consider a major blocker in the public transportation utopia people keep
dreaming up.

Relevant discussion I have had about this topic:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16462803](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16462803)

~~~
aqme28
I have a hard time believing that public transportation or walking are more
dangerous than driving in the US or elsewhere.

Do you have any statistics on walking or public transit safety? I couldnt find
any, though car safety is very accessible.

edit: It seems the vast majority of pedestrian accidents are because of
collisions with cars. In a future with more public transport and walking, they
will be even safer.

~~~
mrep
I should have clarified that the safety I am referring to is from other people
in the form of harassment and assaults.

------
orliesaurus
Holy sheep, new zealand looks beautiful

------
FidelCashflow
Am I the only one who finds it endlessly annoying to refer to anything that's
primarily (or exclusively) powered by a battery as "green" or "emissions free"
or "pollution free" or anything else?

What about the energy to manufacture, ship, assemble, design, test (or clean
up when it fails), etc. That all takes energy and most of that energy probably
comes from coal or some other environmental nightmare resource.

~~~
phil248
All manufactured goods needs to be produced, and that production invariably
requires energy and raw materials.

There is no alternative method of production that requires no energy or
resources. Instead, the distinction is made between things that _cannot_ be
used without creating harmful emissions (ICE for example) and things that can
be used without creating those emissions (like battery power).

But you are correct that it takes energy to "manufacture, ship, assemble,
design, test" etc. This is true for literally everything, from pencils to
houses to flying cars, and it always has been.

------
js3dev
KittyHawk is not an Alphabet startup. It is no affiliated with Alphabet. The
title is misleading.

~~~
ape4
Another article on HN today says it has personal funding from Larry Page. ie
not Alphabet.

~~~
tantalor
Source for that: [http://www.businessinsider.com/google-cofounder-larry-
page-f...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-cofounder-larry-page-funding-
owns-flying-car-companies-zee-aero-kitty-hawk-2016-6)

"not clear how much"

------
nl
Finally the 21st century gives us flying cars, and all that happens is _people
complain about it_.

HackerNews indeed.

~~~
nharada
"We know almost nothing about the vehicle, price, performance, or details, but
as someone who has never worked with aircraft or lived in New Zealand let me
tell you why this is the worst idea I've ever heard and why the people
building it are dumb idiots."

------
justin66
Interesting that they'd release this video the same day a helicopter crash
featured prominently in the news.

~~~
justin66
Does anyone think it was a _good_ PR move? This is one of those deals where
I'm actually curious about the reaction here.

