n_ermosh

The control system knows what the rudder should be at all times for coordinated flight in the air, and keeping the nose and ground track aligned when near the ground for landing, performing the slip necessary when landing in a cross wind.

I'd love to chat through your questions directly--feel free to book a call with us through our website (just mention this HN post) and I'm happy to talk through everything

You can revert to a "direct law" in an emergency should multiple faults occur that reduce the capability of the flight controller. However, there's a question of is that the right move--if a pilot isn't regularly practiced in flying in a direct control, its probably more dangerous to revert to direct law than to say, pull the parachute, so it would be up to the pilot to determine the best course of action. The system would still be fully "by wire" though, there isn't a mechanical link between the pilot and surfaces/throttle. But, in such a mode, the flight controller is bypassed and the yoke directly commands the actuators, reducing the number of fault points between the pilot's input and the actuator.

We've flown early versions in an test aircraft that we have and are currently integrating the latest version of Airhart Assist (seen in the video) into the Airhart Sling prototype to be flying and giving demos by the end of the year.

I think there's definitely a "tried and true" and "if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality. Combine that with the fear of trying something new in the face of the FAA and regulatory barrier, many will say it's better to just take the risk on older stuff than make something new and better

Well, not exactly. In case of an engine failure, the system still has power from the batteries to control the actuator and glide the plane (in fact, it will automatically switch to flying at the best glide speed to extend it's range) to a safe landing, whether it's at an airport or in a field. But if you are over some trees, mountains, or somewhere else where a landing is impossible (which is a problem in today's planes too) the parachute is a final backup. the parachute is also the backup in case of a complete system failure

we should talk!

We are exploring how to make a subscription model work. It's not possible in an experimental category airplane, but our future models where they can be rented (legally due to FAA requirements) will make that possible.

Airhart Sling is just the first step too. yes, it's expensive, but it gets the tech into today's market. Our mission is to scale the market to develop a plane that costs <$100k by bringing in a new wave of people into aviation--those who don't fly airplanes today for the reasons I've discussed.

There's an interesting dynamic here--we (the industry today) are more okay with flying rickety airplanes from the 70s before flying something built with more modern engineering and production techniques.

> As I understand it the idea here is to expand the market and spread certification costs out over more planes.

exactly.

> There are not enough people interested in a personal airplane at any price to support the costs to bring a new one in the air.

our thesis is that this isn't true. we've seen glimpses of this in the past 10 years that haven't been successful, but have shown that there is a wave of people who would get into GA if it were safer and more affordable. our mission to make it so, and the Airhart Sling is just the first step

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.

yep--we want to reverse that trend. And you are probably right, a lot of those 70s planes still fly today. hopefully we can replace them with better alternatives

We'll still encourage and require the same proficiency checks that pilots do today.

Our hope is that GA pilots will no longer need to do things like train stall recovery. We are moving into an era of aviation where aircraft (not just airplanes) will be complicated enough that computers have to be in the loop to handle things like that, because it allows us to create more interesting aerodynamic aircraft that are more efficient and have better performance.

regarding something like AF447, the immediate answer is we have the ballistic parachute as a final backup in case the pilot is unable to land the plane, for whatever reason. Realistically, it would depend entirely on the exact situation our plane was in, what systems have failed vs which haven't, and the pilots actual skill level

The core innovation here is the fly-by-wire/simplified control scheme. This doesn't exist in any GA aircraft.

As our system has been developed so far, it has negligible impact on the speed and usable load of a base TSi, costing $500k for everything.

we've definitely thought about that! the force-feedback fly by wire makes it really easy to replicate the feel of flying the real thing very well. What you see outside though will be fixed, so maybe for instrument training it would be good, though I'm not sure about using the actual plane vs recreating the cockpit in an indoor simulator

this is definitely more of the "roadster". we will be building a limited number to get it into peoples hands as quickly as possible, with future models being lower cost, more efficient, and hopefully even better in terms of control systems, avionics, and autonomy

We've talked to many and the complexity of flying a plane is a big factor--because the knowledge that if they mess up stick and rudder means they have a high chance of losing control and crashing scares them from flying. Our system helps alleviate that fear.