Launch HN: Airhart Aeronautics (YC S22) – A modern personal airplane
A YC-backed startup is building a fly‑by‑wire, highly automated light airplane that aims to make general aviation safer and accessible to non‑expert pilots, pitching it as a faster alternative to cars for 50–300 mile trips. Commenters probe technical claims about “impossible” loss of control, redundancy, and emergency parachutes, and question whether automation will erode pilot proficiency or simply shift failure modes. Much of the debate centers on economics, regulation, and environmental impact—whether such aircraft can be certified and insured at scale, compete with cars and trains on cost and convenience, and justify adding more fossil‑fuel‑burning flights at a time of climate and noise concerns.
Concept and Goals
- Startup is building a modern general-aviation airplane with fly‑by‑wire, “simplified vehicle operations,” and custom avionics on a Sling TSi airframe.
- Aims: prevent stalls/spins and loss of control, automate planning/routing and parts of preflight, and make flying “as easy as driving” for 50–300 mile trips.
- First product: ~$500k experimental aircraft, positioned as a “roadster”; long‑term goal is sub‑$100k models and much larger GA market.
Pilot Training, Safety, and Automation
- Supporters like envelope protection, autoland, and a ballistic parachute; some compare it to “GA Airbus” and note these could reduce base‑to‑final stall‑spin accidents.
- Others argue most accidents start with bad decisions, not stick‑and‑rudder limits, and fear less training on fundamentals (stall recovery, weather, emergency handling).
- Worries about “Tesla FSD”‑style overtrust: pilots flying seldom, relying on automation, then failing when it degrades.
- Debate over whether pilots should ever stop training stall recovery; several see that idea as dangerous.
Technology & Reliability Concerns
- Many technical questions about:
- How envelope protection behaves under upset, turbulence, or faulty sensors (pitot/AoA icing, blocked lines).
- Redundancy of MEMS gyros vs traditional laser-ring gyros, actuator failure modes, and “direct law” reversion.
- How crosswind landings, slips, steep turns, or icing are handled or constrained.
- Some like the active, force‑feedback stick and see potential for high‑fidelity in‑cockpit simulation practice.
Regulation, Certification, and Market Economics
- Multiple comments highlight FAA certification, MOSAIC/LSA rules, and liability as the real bottlenecks in GA innovation, not hardware.
- Skepticism that a small startup can certify FBW and custom avionics cheaply enough; many cite Garmin’s dominance and historical failures of similar efforts.
- Questions around insurance cost, ownership costs, dispatch reliability, and whether enough non‑pilots can be converted to make the economics work.
Use Cases vs Alternatives
- Some pilots love GA for medium trips and places airlines don’t serve; others say US distances and weather make small planes impractical versus driving or regional jets.
- Large subthread argues that better intercity and high‑speed rail is a more scalable, efficient answer than “flying cars.”
Environmental & Noise Impact
- Strong criticism that expanding personal aviation worsens CO₂ and local pollution (especially vs cars/trains) and noise over communities.
- Startup replies: first plane uses unleaded fuel; future plans for more efficient, possibly hybrid‑electric or hydrogen designs, but many remain unconvinced and see this as “green” rhetoric.
Reception and Open Questions
- Overall tone: admiration for ambition and technical depth but heavy skepticism about:
- “Impossible to lose control” claims and legal exposure.
- Market size at current price point.
- Environmental justification for trying to get “everyone flying.”
- Several note that even a partial success that meaningfully improves GA safety would still be valuable.