Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Electric airplane

L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
is yes, then by all means, continue and get your license.  We need more
private pilots.  Shop around for a flight school and dont be too concerned
about the age of the fleet.  It's nice to go boring holes in the sky ina
brand new 172 or Archer, but that 30 year old plane with the bad paint job
will do just as nicely.  And usually the rental rate will be less and
availability will be great.  I used to fly a beat up Piper 140.  Looked
like hell from the outside, but had a strong engine, solid controls, and
good radios.  No one else flew it so I had the plane to myself - almostas
good as owning.

Well I did ground school in Georgetown not far from you, and I've been
in what I guess would be both extremes for small airplane: Old
Tomahawk that vibrates "dramatically" on roll-out and new DA-20 with
G1000 and other nice fixin's.
Find an instructor you really like and try and stay way from the young
ones.  They are usually just trying to build time.  Dont be hesitant
to change instructors.  Find one you get along with and can work with.
You are gonna spend a lot of time in close quarters with this person.
Budget more than the required 40 hours and try and fly at least
twice a week.  Just like any other training, if you fly for a couple
of hours and then it's 2 or 3 week before you fly again, it will be
one step forward - two steps back routine.

Instructor was good, but owner of school is simply great. But being an
engineer, I thought ground school a bit shallow on knowledge part, so
I decided to slow down and go back through entire curriculum step-by-
step so that I can understand what's really going on. This is how I
came to suspect that backwash does not cause lift, for example.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
On a sunny day (Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:10:26 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
Now jet fuel is 335.3 cents per gallon
 http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm
so to fill up that Dreamliner costs 33,528 x 335.3 cents = 11238585.6 cents =
112 386 dollar.

100 x .75 x 250 for the electric plane makes 18 750 dollar.
Almost 1/10 of the fuel costs.

And you do not get on fire if crash landing.... and plenty
of power for your laptop....
Engines are silent, only problem would be the low speed,
takes days to cross the Atlantic, more meals need to be served,
well, but anyways, maybe Dreamliner could do better electric.

Did anybody ever consider going electric for big airplanes...?

Not big. I think small is inevitable.

Pehraps the entire design perspective of flight is destined to change
dramatically within the next 25 years. One of the things that would
happen, if PAV's became successful, is the elimination of mass
flight. It is highly inconvenient at present. For example, if I want
to take a trip to my friend's place in France, I have to:

0. Drive from home to Austin Airport.
1. Wait in Austin hour.
2. Fly Austin to Houston.
3. Wait in Houston 3.5 hours.
4. Fly Houston to Paris, packed like sardine for 11 hours.
5. Wait at Charles de Gaulle for 1.5 hours.
6. Take shuttle to Orly for 50 minutes.
7. Wait 1.5 hours.
8. Fly Paris to Montpellier.
9. Wait 20 minutes.
10. Take train to downtown.
11. Call my friend to let him know I am in town.
12. Wait 30 minutes for pick up.
13. Drive 30 minutes to his house.
13. Unpack, try to stay awake and be cordial even though it is 3:30 in
afternoon because I'm utterly exhausted.
* Do the entire thing in reverse, not forgetting to pay parking fee in
Austin for $50.

This situation cannot possibly last.

Someone is going to figure out a way to build a safe, efficient,
electric-powered single-seat, ultra-long range aircraft to elminate
all this hassle. In such an aircraft, I would probably make one stop
along the way in Nova Scotia, then fly directly to Montpellier, mostly
on hands-off auto-pilot, to my friends house, at which point I would
put on my shorts, and dive into swimming pool directly from aircraft
which would then proceed to park itself. ;)

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
A

Androcles

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hal Murray said:
Data from a recent flight from San Francisco to Chicago on a 767.
$24K for fuel
244 seats (close to full)

Ok, $100 per person. Distance 1850 miles. 18.5 passenger miles per dollar.
3 hours... 4 hours flying time? Ticket price $600... $700?
Next?
 
J

Jörg Schneide

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
Now, it really flies:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/09/02/obrien.electric.plane.cnn.json

With better and better batteries, mm how about some RTG... 25 years flying
without refueling?


Not 25 years, but with enough thermal lift after the start you may fly a long time:

http://www.airenergy.de/html/ae-1_silent.html

It was done in 1998/99 with NiMH batteries, so the altitude mentioned in the text is for
that old version.
A few years ago a Li-Poly version was built that allows 2000m altitude as stated in
the "Technical Data" page.

To fly theoretically unlimited may be this project has some potential,
at least there will be no "classic" refueling (only the pilots have to be exchanged
and refueled with sleep ;)

http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/index.php

I dont think a RTG would really help, it would be too heavy for the needed output.

Jörg.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not 25 years, but with enough thermal lift after the start you may fly a long time:

http://www.airenergy.de/html/ae-1_silent.html

Now that you mention it, I did see that one in somne video years ago.

It was done in 1998/99 with NiMH batteries, so the altitude mentioned in the text is for
that old version.

Interesting, this one uses a 17hp motor, almost the same as the 16hp one.
A few years ago a Li-Poly version was built that allows 2000m altitude as stated in
the "Technical Data" page.

To fly theoretically unlimited may be this project has some potential,
at least there will be no "classic" refueling (only the pilots have to be exchanged
and refueled with sleep ;)

http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/index.php

Yes, you need quite a bit of surface area to collect enough electricity.
With the latest state of the art solar cells it may get better.
I dont think a RTG would really help, it would be too heavy for the needed output.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
MHW-RTG Voyager 1 (3), Voyager 2 (3) 390W 7200C 238Pu 39kg
So for say 100kg we get 1kW, or a bit more then 1hp.
That is too heavy indeed.
But perhaps, because of the airflow, efficiency could be better,
as the efficiency depends on the temp difference you can create.
Flying at some 75 mph will create greate cooling and up the output :)

In case of upscaling the thing so it can carry 100000 kg, a small nuclear
reactor would allow big electric planes:
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovctric.htm
7500kg 150kW, 10 years of power :)

Of course many would be scared that a nuclear reactor would fall on their head,
but the fuel cost would be very very low.
 
T

TheM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan Panteltje said:
Of course many would be scared that a nuclear reactor would fall on their head,
but the fuel cost would be very very low.

I'd prefer not to have reactors flaying over my head.

Why not reinvent Zepellin? Low fuel consumption, you can also put
solar cells over part of its huge body to power it.

Mark
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'd prefer not to have reactors flaying over my head.

Why not reinvent Zepellin? Low fuel consumption, you can also put
solar cells over part of its huge body to power it.

Mark

Zeppeling, could be nice, as long as filled with helium, not hydrogen,
like the Hindenburg was.
But is not Zeppelin a victim of wind and weather?
It would take good weather reports and navigation to cross the oceans with one.
 
T

tadchem

Jan 1, 1970
0
Haha..funny read, and gullible old me, I almost thought it was true
until I read "Horse Cave, Kentucky." Horses do not live in caves.

Agreed, it is an excellent read, and demonstrative of how anal federal
regulators can be. I must point out that Horse Cave is a real town in
Kentucky, about 80 miles south of Louisville, where they have so many
horses they can't build barns fast enough. Horses *will* live in
caves if people put them there.

"Kentucky, Where Men are Men and Women Prefer Horses."

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
(on the other side of the mountain from Kentucky)0
 
J

Jörg Schneide

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:

Yes, Mr. Piccard trys to fly around the world in a manned solar powered plane.
This article describes the motivation behind the project:
http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/symbol/index.php?idContent=15&idIndex=6
It can be remote controlled from the ground (or even
automated). There have been various proposals to have airplanes (or
tethered balloons) fly donuts over cities to provide cellular and
internet access. The proposals never went anywhere, but LIPO powered
airplanes might revive the idea:
<http://www.angeltechnologies.com>
Balloon version:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20020923132121/http://skystation.com/>

I have heared about this kind of application.
But I think even satellites will be the more reliable and more cost effective technology.
The SolarImpulse plane will have a wing span of 61m at a weight of 1.5t and therefore will be
a bit fragile and it will be slow. So you need permanent forecast and planning to
avoid bad weather conditions to hit the plane.
The need to climb during daylight to 8000m and decline to a few 100m during the night,
is another disadvantage for a communication platform. Not to mention the arising
problems with air traffic control.
I can imagine too: With better solar cells (highly efficient _and_ lightweigted)
and better Li-Poly cells some of the problems will be solved in a few years,
but I don't think there will be such a need for communication bandwitdh that
this kind of planes will be used.
They may be useful for exploration purposes, research or the like.

The grid-charged e-planes may replace more and more of the recreational use,
in 10-20 years they will be ready for shuttle service to int. airports.

Jörg.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
.
likely to cast out the old if the new is better...is,

the FAA:

http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php

From what I seen, the biggest impediment to advancing aviation is not
the FAA. It's the people who sit in the cockpit, many of whom will not
hesitate to let it be known the last thing they want in the cockpit is
advanced technology. They prefer to fiddle with the knobs and
gadgets.

I'd bet that a lot of that attitude comes from not trusting electronics/
computers/fly-by-wire. They like the mechanical instruments because you
can see the mechanisms operate, and if they break, it's obvious. If you've
got nothing but an electrical joystick connected to a computer, which then
flies the plane, when the computer breaks, you're dead.

Yeah, OK, mechanical linkages can break too, but how many of those
failures have you heard of, vs. software crashes? (Hmmmm... kinda gives
new meaning to the term "crash". ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
.
Maybe he uses lithium iron, that is 150 to 200Wh/kg.
Makes at best 67.5 kg.
This last thing seems doable !

So, you get 90 minutes of flight, and have to plug it in and recharge
it overnight or so?

Wouldn't it be quicker to just walk? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
So, you get 90 minutes of flight, and have to plug it in and recharge
it overnight or so?

Wouldn't it be quicker to just walk? ;-)

No, 1 or 2 hour recharge (see video on youtube).
So, 100 km for 75 cents at 100 km/h makes 1 hour.
Nice for personal transport, but where to land and take of?
On the roof of your work?

If everybody got one, lots of mid-air collisions, needs 100 % computerisation
for traffic control.
I would not mind having one, but need at least 170 km range
(airport to airport here).
 
In sci.physics Rich Grise said:
I'd bet that a lot of that attitude comes from not trusting electronics/
computers/fly-by-wire. They like the mechanical instruments because you
can see the mechanisms operate, and if they break, it's obvious. If you've
got nothing but an electrical joystick connected to a computer, which then
flies the plane, when the computer breaks, you're dead.

Yeah, OK, mechanical linkages can break too, but how many of those
failures have you heard of, vs. software crashes? (Hmmmm... kinda gives
new meaning to the term "crash". ;-)

When it is your ass in the cockpit, all the theortical arm waving and
arm chair engineering goes away in the face of the stark reality that
it *IS* your ass on the line if the airplane goes tits up.

And if it is your airplane, it is your money that has to pay for it.

You also must understand there is are differences among General Aviation
(GA) aircraft, airline type aircraft, and military aircraft.

There is also a difference between instrumentation and control.

Electronic instrumentation is hot for all classes of aircraft and it
is only in the past few years that the size, weight, and cost of it
has dropped to the level where it was practical to put into GA aircraft.

Everyone wants a glass panel in the airplane these days. I've replaced
some of the "steam gauges" with electronics in my airplane and will
probably replace more as the prices drop.

If you would care to send me money, I will do it sooner.

Electronic control of flight surfaces is a separate issue.

Electronic control is necessary in some cases; there isn't anyone strong
enough to fly a 747 if it didn't have active controls or anyone fast
enough to fly a high performance fighter if it didn't have stabalizing
systems.

GA aircraft, however, fly just fine with cable and pulley controls
which are cheap, simple, light, and have about a century's worth of
reliability data.

There is no practical reason to put electronic controls in GA aircraft
and a lot of practical reasons not to.

This does not include autopilots which have been in GA aircraft for about
a half century now.

That leaves us with engine control.

The reality here is that Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC)
has been around for quite a while for the big airplanes and is just now
starting to show up for GA aircraft. Once again it is a size, weight and
cost issue.

And yes, a "computer" that goes in an airplane costs a hell of a lot
more than a laptop at Best Buy.

The fact that the airplane "computer" has to be proven to be reliable
and that the market for such "computers" is tiny has a lot to do with
that.

The guarantee on the Best Buy laptop is that if bursts into flames on
you they will give you a new one and any one store probably sells
many times more in a year than the total number of GA aircraft made.

Is that the sort of guarantee you would fly with?

The bottom line is that all the technological stuff that is appropriate
for GA aircraft *IS* already going into GA aircraft.
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
You also must understand there is are differences among General Aviation
(GA) aircraft, airline type aircraft, and military aircraft.

There is also a difference between instrumentation and control.

Yes, I noticed this perception among pilots. They regard the
computerization of the airplane as attaching expensive, low-volume
electronic monitoring systems to what is essentially a glorified lawn-
mower. I think part of the problem is that the monitors
(instrumentation) are becoming fancier while that which they monitor
remains antiquated.

I have a feeling that that difference will become less prevalent as
time passes. A competent electro-mechanical engineer will be far less
perturbed by the notion of fly-by-wire than the average pilot, IMO.
When qualifying the safety of such system, one has to consider exactly
who is making the qualification. Most brain surgeons are not perturbed
by the idea of having to pick pieces of metal from a persons brain,
for example, but the average person would not think of it.
Electronic instrumentation is hot for all classes of aircraft and it
is only in the past few years that the size, weight, and cost of it
has dropped to the level where it was practical to put into GA aircraft.

Ether that, or the attitudes have changed. PC's have been cheap for
quite a while, almost 20 years in my book.
Everyone wants a glass panel in the airplane these days. I've replaced
some of the "steam gauges" with electronics in my airplane and will
probably replace more as the prices drop.

This is where I find the most irony in pilots. If one mentions
electronics, etc..they shriek. Yet at the same time, they cannoy stop
talking about the latest gadget from Garmin. It's hypocritical. It's
almost as if they are saying, "yes, we want it, but we want it to come
to us in a certain way that takes into consideration that we are
pilots who have earned the right to want it this way."
If you would care to send me money, I will do it sooner.

Electronic control of flight surfaces is a separate issue.

That's part of the problem. There is no comparison between what a
computer+electro-mechanical actuator can do versus human with cables
and pulleys.
Electronic control is necessary in some cases; there isn't anyone strong
enough to fly a 747 if it didn't have active controls or anyone fast
enough to fly a high performance fighter if it didn't have stabalizing
systems.

GA aircraft, however, fly just fine with cable and pulley controls
which are cheap, simple, light, and have about a century's worth of
reliability data.

They fly just fine *if* the goal is to not change anything. But it is
still impractical for the average consumer to buy and fly an airplane.
Eventually, something will happen where such consumers can
participate. When that happens, naturally, the aircraft will problably
not be constructed like a C182.
There is no practical reason to put electronic controls in GA aircraft
and a lot of practical reasons not to.

????

I can think of many reasons.
This does not include autopilots which have been in GA aircraft for about
a half century now.

Autopilots driving 75-year-old technology. It's the equivalent of
using a PC to control a lawn-mower with flaps.
That leaves us with engine control.

The reality here is that Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC)
has been around for quite a while for the big airplanes and is just now
starting to show up for GA aircraft. Once again it is a size, weight and
cost issue.

All of these problems start with an unnecessary presumption: "The
basic system model of the aircraft will be the same as it has been for
75 years." I think make this presumption makes the argument moot. I
would prefer to start anew with the objective in mind, without
consideration for the status quo, then ask whether it is feasible to
meet those objective if one did not have to accommodate the status
quo. If the answer is "maybe", then we proceed. If it is "no", then we
abort. But you limit the possibiities immediately when you say, "Oh,
by the way, it will need cables and pulleys and lots of metal."
And yes, a "computer" that goes in an airplane costs a hell of a lot
more than a laptop at Best Buy.

I would use a standard $500 PC, in experimentaal aircraft, to prove at
least that it could be done.
The fact that the airplane "computer" has to be proven to be reliable
and that the market for such "computers" is tiny has a lot to do with
that.

Circuitous. Yes, FAA requires approval. But for non-critical items do
not require approval. For example, if I want to take my iPod aboard, I
do not need FAA approval. If I make a mount in the aircraft that can
hold my iPod, how much will that cost?

The industry itself has created this situation. Let's face it -
owning an aircraft is not just a matter of cost, it's a matter of
convenience. The antiquated technology is a big part of the
inconvenience. The propeller alone is a problem. It's dangerous.
The guarantee on the Best Buy laptop is that if bursts into flames on
you they will give you a new one and any one store probably sells
many times more in a year than the total number of GA aircraft made.

Is that the sort of guarantee you would fly with?

It's a risk/reward ratio. A lot of problems with computers are
software-related. The hardware is not perfect, but for what it does,
it does well. The computer I am using to type this message has been
running 24x7 for over a year, without any cleaning. The CPU "machine"
does it's job 2.4 billion times a second and does not require an oil
change. Ever. These devices, if properly employed in redundant
configuration, can offer far more benefit than detriment.
The bottom line is that all the technological stuff that is appropriate
for GA aircraft *IS* already going into GA aircraft.

A century from now, there will be a PAV that would be far beyond what
we are discussing now.

And there will be some pilot somewhere, uttering those words.

"The way it is is the way it should be and will be."

And then another 100 years will pass.

Change is inevitable, and if history is any indication, it _will_
happen that a PAV will be composed of ultra-advanced technology. The
idea that computers and electro-mechanical actuators are not employed
will be absurd.

The key question we should be asking ourselves today is whether it has
not happened because the technology is not available, or because of
the intransigence of those most closely associated with the industry.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
I would use a standard $500 PC, in experimentaal aircraft, to prove at
least that it could be done.


Well, I hope you are lucky, and I hope you do not use it to control
anything essential, even the temperature of your coffee :)
think vibration (especially in a propeller plane), your remark below
'1 year 24/7' may well become '5 minutes', before the thing falls apart.
There are other issues too, memory with parity check, redundant systems..

It's a risk/reward ratio. A lot of problems with computers are
software-related. The hardware is not perfect, but for what it does,
it does well.

I have had plenty of problems with 'computers' in the widest sense of the word.
Even with a real bug creeping in one and causing random errors.
That will hit you bad up there.
Software in a way is simpler to test, and usually always crashes at the same point.
The computer I am using to type this message has been
running 24x7 for over a year, without any cleaning.

This server is up since 2001, oldest hard disk is say 7 years 24/7.
Cleaned it many times, replaced fans several times, replaced processor heat sink
for bigger one.. replaced PCI cards for newer / lower power ones...
[Preventive] maintenance is important.
Still I would not want to use it for fly by wire, although it is one of the most expensive
motherboards (Tyan).
 
In sci.physics Don Bowey said:
On 9/8/08 1:08 PM, in article
[email protected], "Le Chaud

(snip)


If you aren't a pilot, why do you think you can define what GA should do?

This is exactly why he was repeatedly spanked in all the aviation
groups.

He came in with some engineering courses and a couple of hours of
private pilot ground school and proceeded to proclaim he was god's
gift to aircraft design, manufacture, and piloting who knew more
about what should be than all the people who have really been doing
these things for decades.
If I'm just out for a sight seeing flight and decide I want to do Dutch
Rolls just for the hell of it, I don't want a computer to do them for me.
If I want to do stall/spin exercises, I want to "do" them, not have the
electronics do them.

I don't need a computer to trim out the plane for maximum efficiency, so why
pay the cost of a computer to do it.

Private flying is expensive. Don't load it up with unnecessary electronics.
What's "necessary" is up to each pilot based on their skills and how they
use their plane. An ultralight and a handheld GPS and transceiver satisfies
many who can no longer afford to rent a plane. I can't quite imagine
someone flying theirs using their laptop cursor keys.

Not just that, but throwing technology on something just for the sake
of technology is plain stupid.

If adding technology solves a problem, then it is a good idea.

So far everything Le Chaud Lapin has suggested either already exists
or is technology just for the sake of technology.
 
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin said:
Yes, I noticed this perception among pilots.

It isn't perception, it is reality.

The instruments are all the nav instruments, gyros, airspeed indicator,
etc. including the engine system monitors such as the tach, oil
pressure, fuel level, etc.

The controls are the yoke, rudder pedals, flaps, landing gear, cowl
flaps and engine controls.

Learn the difference or continue to be laughed at by pilots.
A competent electro-mechanical engineer will be far less
perturbed by the notion of fly-by-wire than the average pilot, IMO.

You really don't get it, do you?

There are lots of fly-by-wire aircraft and *NO ONE* is perturbed by the
notion of fly-by-wire.

However, the idea of putting a fly-by-wire systm is laughed at by
anyone that knows anything about real airplanes because it is more
expensive, complex, and weighs more than existing systems and entirely
unnecessary in GA aircraft.
This is where I find the most irony in pilots. If one mentions
electronics, etc..they shriek.

Wrong, they laugh when you propose the microprocessor controlled
wooden #2 pencil.
There is no comparison between what a
computer+electro-mechanical actuator can do versus human with cables
and pulleys.

That may be true for an airplane that weighs in at over 20,000 pounds
or is a high perfomance fighter with marginal to no aerodynamic
stability, but it flat ass false for GA aircraft.

Just because you can't muster the coordination necessary to land a
Cessna 172 without requiring major airframe repairs doesn't mean
the rest of can't.
They fly just fine *if* the goal is to not change anything.

The goal of airplanes is to fly.
But it is
still impractical for the average consumer to buy and fly an airplane.

And 99.99% of that is cost and the dedication of time required to
learn how to fly.
Autopilots driving 75-year-old technology. It's the equivalent of
using a PC to control a lawn-mower with flaps.

Babbling nonsense as you haven't a clue what is in the current
generation of airplanes.
All of these problems start with an unnecessary presumption: "The
basic system model of the aircraft will be the same as it has been for
75 years."

You seem to be about the only one with that presumption. The
manufacturers of todays airplanes seem to have a different attitude.
I would use a standard $500 PC, in experimentaal aircraft, to prove at
least that it could be done.

Everyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells know it can be done.
But for non-critical items do
not require approval. For example, if I want to take my iPod aboard, I
do not need FAA approval. If I make a mount in the aircraft that can
hold my iPod, how much will that cost?

Once again you show your aviation ignorance.

EVERYTHING that attaches to a certified airplane requires approval.

And yes, the stupid little sheet metal mounting bracket for my
handheld GPS costs more than one for a car because it is approved.

And if I want the power hard wired into the airplane instead of
the cigarette lighter outlet, that has to be done by an approved
repair station with a form 337 filed with the FSDO.
The industry itself has created this situation.

Wrong.

Airplane crashes have caused this situation.

Right or wrong the purpose of the certification requlations is to
try to prevent further deaths by establishing safety criteria
for certified airplanes.

If you want to go build an experimental registered airplane out
of Lowes hardware store material and consumer electronics, go
ahead and do it.

Let us know how that works out for you.
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
Le said:
Yes, I noticed this perception among pilots. They regard the
computerization of the airplane as attaching expensive, low-volume
electronic monitoring systems to what is essentially a glorified lawn-
mower. I think part of the problem is that the monitors
(instrumentation) are becoming fancier while that which they monitor
remains antiquated.

I can quite imagine the fossil fuel version of the future - Star Trek,
with Captain Kirk/Picard occasionally going below to watch the greasy
spanner monkeys stoking the warp engines with coal or fuel oil.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
L

Le Chaud Lapin

Jan 1, 1970
0
If you aren't a pilot, why do you think you can define what GA should do?

Well, technically speaking, though I am inexperienced, the FAA does
reserve a category for me:
"student pilot", since I have completed ground school and have flown
as a student.
If I'm just out for a sight seeing flight and decide I want to do Dutch
Rolls just for the hell of it, I don't want a computer to do them for me.
If I want to do stall/spin exercises, I want to "do" them, not have the
electronics do them.

I don't need a computer to trim out the plane for maximum efficiency, so why
pay the cost of a computer to do it.

This the #1 response I hear from many pilots.

I think their concerns are legitimate, but for them onlythem. There
are others who might prefer an alternative. For example, I would
never buy a motorcycle or a sports car with an automatic transmission.
I find the very idea viscerally repulsive. But others like automatic
transmissions. So we have both.
Private flying is expensive.  Don't load it up with unnecessary electronics.

This is another very common response.

I strongly suspect that, using commoditized components, I could, along
with help from my aero/astro friends from college, design an
experimental aircraft electronics that outperforms an equivalently-
sized aircraft that is a lot cheaper for features offered. Somethings
are obvious, like using software-radio to get rid of radio stack.
Other things, which I am not prepared to discuss, is the propulsion
system. I think there might be a new method that has heretofore been
overlooked. But it's only specualtion at this point. But if it
worked, the prop would not be necessary, there would be zero
vibration, and extremely little noise.

I just happened to return from a dinner meeting tonight with a person
who sells $2.5 million to $40 million aircraft for living and have
sold quite a few. After meeting over drinks, I discussed the concept
of the PAV with him and several others in attendance (pilots). Most of
them were quiet. At the end, the salesman said, "Well, it remains to
be seen whether it will be done, but if you do it, I only have one
request - don't skimp on luxury. Pay attention to the details. You
might as well make it comfortable."
What's "necessary" is up to each pilot based on their skills and how they
use their plane.  An ultralight and a handheld GPS and transceiver satisfies
many who can no longer afford to rent a plane.  I can't quite imagine
someone flying theirs using their laptop cursor keys.

That's a good point. My point is that it is OK if existing pilots
would scoff at something like a PAV, as long as they recognize that
there are people who might prefer the electronics over cables and
pulleys.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 
Top