Electric airplane

[[email protected]]

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.

Yet you still know next to nothing about aviation, much less modern
aviation as this post once again shows.

This the #1 response I hear from many pilots.

Because it reflects reality.

Why add weight, complexity, and cost for an system that isn't needed
and adds nothing to the capability?

If you don't want to or can't fly an airplane, go buy a 3-axis autopilot
and the new Lycoming FADEC; no fly-by-wire needed.

This is another very common response.

Because it is true.

I strongly suspect that, using commoditized components,

Certified airplanes are not, and can not, be legally built with commodity
components.

If you want to build an experimental airplane with Chinese screws and
bolts from Ace Hardware, go ahead.

Somethings
are obvious, like using software-radio to get rid of radio stack.

The advantage of sofware defined radio is the ability to easily and
quickly change the specifications of the radio.

Aviation radio specifications are cast in international treaty
concrete and are NOT going to change.

Most of the functions of modern radios are already in LSI chips.

A software defined aviation radio would be bigger and heavier than
the LSI radio it replaced.

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.

So our budding genius has invented the impulse engine?

The only way known to science to move an object in the air is to
accelerate gas. The acceleration of the gas itself generates LOTS
of 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."

Translation: Such a thing would cost a fortune to build, thus only the
really rich will be able to afford such a thing and they want leather
seats.

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.

Yep, and if talking about something like a 4 place GA airplane, those
people are called puerile.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On 9/8/08 8:16 PM, in article
I doubt that many pilots would scoff at anything.  Not wanting a particular
plane doesn't mean there aren't aspects of it to like.  I like planes that
are stressed for at least some acrobatics.  Some pilots do not want to
intentionally stall and spin.  To each his own.

There are already many groups of preferences for aircraft and their
appointments.  At the top end, you can load up a plane with electronicsthat
can double the price of the package.  To each his own.

Get your private, fly a while, and get in some hanger talk before you think
you know what pilots want

From what I seen, pilots do not want what I am offering. But as I have
stated repeatedly, I am not offering it to pilots. I am offering to
all the other people who think it would be a good idea.

It's the pilots who hear this and claimm that it is a bad idea, even
though the people who might want it are not present to say otherwise.

It's almost as if the pilots are speaking to this other class of
people.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

From what I seen, pilots do not want what I am offering. But as I have
stated repeatedly, I am not offering it to pilots. I am offering to
all the other people who think it would be a good idea.

That would be you and who exactly?

It's the pilots who hear this and claimm that it is a bad idea, even
though the people who might want it are not present to say otherwise.

Bad is the wrong word; naive and childish is more like it.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

That would be you and who exactly?

I only know a small subset of these people, obviously, but typically,
they tend to be young, educated, motivated by advance technology. Many
of them are engineers or mathematicians. A few work in publishing
industry.

Bad is the wrong word; naive and childish is more like it.

Fact is, in 100 years from now, people will not be flying around in
things that are essentially 2008 Cessna's with new paint and the
latest Garmins. All those who think that it is naive and childish
will most likely be dead. But there will be a new group of pilots,
comfortable with what might be considered beyond bleeding edge today,
saying the same thing that you are now, about the not-yet-hear
futuristic technology.

Technology will not stand still for anyone, no matter how hard they
wish it would.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Fact is, in 100 years from now, people will not be flying around in
things that are essentially 2008 Cessna's with new paint and the
latest Garmins. All those who think that it is naive and childish
will most likely be dead. But there will be a new group of pilots,
comfortable with what might be considered beyond bleeding edge today,
saying the same thing that you are now, about the not-yet-hear
futuristic technology.

Childish, fantasy nonsense.

To make that happen would require the technology of Star Trek impulse
engines and anti-gravity to be invented.

There is a slim chance for electric power, but that won't change how
airplanes look or fly.

Technology will not stand still for anyone, no matter how hard they
wish it would.

More childish nonsense.

No one in aviation wishes techonology to stand still.

You, however, are wishing for cartoon and TV show technology to
magically appear.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Real fact is that 100 years from now, 1950s airplanes will still be flownby
enthusiasts of the lifestyle, while the "upscale" pilots help their aircraft
computer drive their new aircraft around the skies.  The rest of the
circa-2108 pilots will fly whatever they can afford irregardless of how
their plane is equipped, electronically.

Pilots will fly their planes, other's may allow their planes to transport
them.

That is all I am saying. There should be room for both.

Hmmmm......  And you will not own a sport car with an automatic
transmission.  Hypocrite.

On the contrary. Even though _I_ will not buy a sport car with
automatic transmission, if such things had not existed, and someone
proposed it, I would have had no problem with it.

The pilots I have spoken to are not saying that about airplanes. They
are speaking for both themselves as well as the other people who might
want something different from what they have.

I have no issue with someone wanting to fly an old 1930s bi-plane in
2108.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

The pilots I have spoken to are not saying that about airplanes. They
are speaking for both themselves as well as the other people who might
want something different from what they have.

It just keeps going right over the top of your head, doesn't it?

They are trying to get you to understand the realities of regulation,
science, engineering, and economics.

It doesn't matter if I or any other pilot likes the idea of a 4 place
GA aircraft with fly-by-wire controls.

The simple reality is that such an airplane would be heavier, more
complex to maintain, more expensive to build, purchase and insure,
and have no advantage over the same airplane with cable and pully
controls.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <[email protected]> wrote:

The simple reality is that such an airplane would be heavier, more
complex to maintain, more expensive to build, purchase and insure,
and have no advantage over the same airplane with cable and pully
controls.

Except for the part about insurance, I disagree.

This whole thread is not so much about piloting. It's more about
egineering.

I have seen enough of the engineering aspect of airplanes to know that
there are many things, both inside the cockpit and out, that can be
done to make the planes cost a lot less than they do, and still fly
under and experimental category.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Except for the part about insurance, I disagree.

So, how much real world experience in design and manufacture to
government specifications do you have that leads you to that
conclusion?

And, with your vast piloting experience, name some things that a fly-by-wire
Cessna 172 could legally do that a cable and pulley Cessna 172 could not.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Childish, fantasy nonsense.

To make that happen would require the technology of Star Trek impulse
engines and anti-gravity to be invented.

Are you 100% certain of this statement?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

So, how much real world experience in design and manufacture to
government specifications do you have that leads you to that
conclusion?

I have designed parts of both hardware and software systems that have
been used by DoD.

But again, I would aim for the experimental category. I do not
subscribe to the notion that, if someone were to design a PAV that met
the specifications put forth by FAA/NASA/CAFE, the FAA would simply
standby and ignore it. I think that, within reason, there would
eventually be an attempt at accommodation.

And, with your vast piloting experience, name some things that a fly-by-wire
Cessna 172 could legally do that a cable and pulley Cessna 172 could not.

At no point did I ever say that I would attempt to design a fly-by-
wire C172. In fact, I have stated on several occasionals that the very
last thing I would do is take a stock aircraft, C172, kit or
otherwise, and attempt to retrofit some kind of fly-by-wire
contraption on it.

I stated:

"Suppose that one of the objectives defined by FAA/NASA is low cost,
where low-cost is $50,000US. Then, it stands to reason that it would
be silly to purchase a $100,000 aircraft and at $15,000 of low-cost
electronic equipment, because the end price would be $100,000+ $15,000
= $115,000, which obviously moves us in the wrong direction."

A systemic redesign would be necessary, which is why the aircraft
would have to start off as experimental. Eliminating the traditional
for of the ICE/prop would be a necessity, for example.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Martin Griffith]

Are you 100% certain of this statement?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

http://www.subtire.com/i.php?n=tt.jpg

martin

 

[[email protected]]

Are you 100% certain of this statement?

Since subsonic aerodynamics is a very mature technology and there is no
way known to science to self propel an object in the air other than
accelerating mass, yes.

The only way to make airplanes significantly different than the airplanes
that already exist is to invent an "engine" entirely different than that
which exists now.

Absent that, airplanes will still have wings or rotors and an engine that
accelerates air with a fan of some sort.

 

[[email protected]]

I have designed parts of both hardware and software systems that have
been used by DoD.

But never an entire system? How about ROI calculations? Do you have
any clue what the term "burdened labor rate" means?

But again, I would aim for the experimental category.

That means you get to build 1.

At no point did I ever say that I would attempt to design a fly-by-
wire C172.

You are avoiding the question.

Substitute any GA class airplane you like, whether it exists or not.

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

I've been there in a small way.  I designed some marine electronics
that required a few changes solely due to the companies lack of
experience with USCG operation.  Trial and error is a very effective,
but also expensive way to get things done.  I suspect you have an
order and sequence problem.  Get your license, fly everything you can
afford, learn, observe, ask, and then start designing.

That sequence is silly for what I am proposing. It is also expensive
and time-wasting. It implies that I chose to start thinking about
these problems as randomly as choosing a type of cereal to buy at the
supermarket.

I have flown, although my experience is very limited. Flying an
aircraft did not, in any way, improve my insight into aerodynamics or
math or computer science or electrical engineering or Newtonian
physics. Learning is very important, but the type of learning I
require is not to be found on any airfield. Asking questions, yes. I
would have extensive interaction with material scientists, etc. I
would avoid asking people who are predisposed to insist that whatever
I make, it must look like a Cessna.

I'll make it simple for you.  Take two flying machines.  One is made
from under the counter components, costs $1,000, and has a 1%
probability of falling out of the sky at an inconvenient moment.  The
other costs about 5 times as much, is mired in bureaucratic safety
regulations, and has a 0.0000001% chance of falling out of the sky.
Which would you buy or fly?  If you were in charge of public safety,
which would you license.  If you were a flight insurance company,
which would you insure?

"Your machine has bugs in it, so I will not insure it under any
circumstances. However, given the significant difference in cost,
$20,000 vs $100,000, we both know that the external pressure to rid
the plane of those bugs so that it can be sold and insured is so
significant, it will be a matter of time before it happens, provided,
of course, that the bugs really are simply bugs, and not something
more profound like gross structural defects."

Then I would wait for the bugs to be out, and when they are out, I
would insure both versions. In the meantime, the person making the 1x
version will have significant support from multiple factions to polish
the product.

Ummm.... see:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_automobile>

A lot of those contraptions look like what the name of the article
implies: automobiles that fly.

I think this is am imprudent approach, taking something that is
basically a car, and slapping wings and a propeller on it.

Literally all of them are certified as experimental aircraft.  Paul
Moller has been working on that problem since the 1960's:
<http://www.moller.com>

Makes me curious as to what he has been working on. Certainly he has
access to CAD software. I would never invest in actually building
something, using real materials, without vetting the design in
software first. If the software tells you that the machine won't fly,
there is no point in building it.

Do you seriously think you can improve safety by automating the
aircraft?  It's one thing to design an RPV (remote piloted vehicle)
which carry a weapons system and have a fairly short operational
lifetime.  Last time I checked, nobody makes RPV or land vehicles that
operate without driver or pilot assistance.  Even automated trains
have operators.

I never thought about improving safety. That was not one of my
objectives, since safety is automatically a non-negotiable necessity.
I was thinking more about the negotiables like, noise, comfort,
controllability, automation, cost, size, weight, etc.

No need for the future.  Methinks the Concord had a TV screen to see
the runway on landing because the nose was too high for the pilot to
see the ground.  The B2 and others with a high nose wheel have the
same feature.  Virtual instrumentation (glass cockpit) is off the
shelf (although expensive).  I'll spare you my comments about what's
behind the instrument panel on most small airplanes.  Here's an
example of a partial conversion using a Fujitsu tablet PC:
<http://mikedwyer.quickieairplanes.org/pnl_2008.html>
Note that the tablet PC is NOT an intergral part of the instrument
panel of a home built Rutan Quickie Q200.

This is nice. If only someone could take the COTS approach to the
entire airplane, and not just to a relatively small part of it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

You are avoiding the question.

Substitute any GA class airplane you like, whether it exists or not.

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.

Minimize effects of turbulence against aircraft bu utilizing
sophisticated digital filters against stochastic modeling of the
turbulence.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Minimize effects of turbulence against aircraft bu utilizing
sophisticated digital filters against stochastic modeling of the
turbulence.

Babbling nonsense and has nothing to do with fly-by-wire.

Do you even know what "fly-by-wire" means?

Do you know what turbulence is?

Obviously not.

For the first item, fly-by-wire means that the control surfaces are
not directly mechanically coupled to the controls but rather are
driven by motors and the controls provide command inputs to the
motors.

A device that "controls" an airplane absent human input is called an
autopiltot.

Autopilots for GA airplanes have been around for better than half a
century.

Autopilots connect into what ever drives the control surfaces and it
doesn't matter if the airplane is fly-by-wire or conventional cable
and pulley; they are two separate systems.

For the second item, turbulence is highly localized air movement and
mostly vertical in component.

The only thing that can be done to "minimize effects of turbulence"
other than avoiding it in the first place is to keep the airplane
straight and level and somewhat on altitude.

Most GA aircraft do not have enough power and are not rated for enough
G load to keep the aircraft exactly on altitude with anything but
the lightest turbulence.

Any off the shelf 3-axis autopilot from the last half century is more
than capable of doing everything that can be done about turbulence
within the power and stress ratings of GA aircraft and are very common
in aircraft that are flown single pilot IFR so the pilot can concentrate
on position instead of keeping the airplane right side up.

The question remains:

Name some things that a fly-by-wire airplane could legally do that the
same airplane could not do with conventional cable and pulley systems.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Babbling nonsense and has nothing to do with fly-by-wire.

Do you even know what "fly-by-wire" means?
Yes.

Do you know what turbulence is?

Obviously not.

Actually I do.

For the first item, fly-by-wire means that the control surfaces are
not directly mechanically coupled to the controls but rather are
driven by motors and the controls provide command inputs to the
motors.
Right.

A device that "controls" an airplane absent human input is called an
autopiltot.

Autopilots for GA airplanes have been around for better than half a
century.

And horrendously expensive compared to how they can be today, in 2008.

Autopilots connect into what ever drives the control surfaces and it
doesn't matter if the airplane is fly-by-wire or conventional cable
and pulley; they are two separate systems.

The degree of control exhibited by cable and pulley cannot compete
with that allowed by fully-electronic servo motors.

For the second item, turbulence is highly localized air movement and
mostly vertical in component.
Ok.

The only thing that can be done to "minimize effects of turbulence"
other than avoiding it in the first place is to keep the airplane
straight and level and somewhat on altitude.

A computer driving a servo system can do that far better than a
computer driving [insert whatever here] driving cables and pulleys.

Most GA aircraft do not have enough power and are not rated for enough
G load to keep the aircraft exactly on altitude with anything but
the lightest turbulence.

That does not mean that light turbulence could not be counteracted.
Automobiles have been using active suspension for a while now. The
same mathematics used in those systems could be employed in aircraft,
but not with cables and pulleys.

Any off the shelf 3-axis autopilot from the last half century is more
than capable of doing everything that can be done about turbulence
within the power and stress ratings of GA aircraft and are very common
in aircraft that are flown single pilot IFR so the pilot can concentrate
on position instead of keeping the airplane right side up.

Those autopilots are typically not designed for counteracting the
effects of "light" turbulence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_suspension

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[JosephKK]

...or that of an ex-politician on parole...

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Naw, everybody knows that even used, politicians are never reliable.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes.

It sure doesn't seem like it from anything you've said.

Actually I do.

It sure doesn't seem like it from anything you've said

And horrendously expensive compared to how they can be today, in 2008.

The cost of a certified system is irrelevant to the topic under
discussion and yet another puerile attempt to avoid the question.

As an aside, if you can build a certified autopilot and sell it cheaper
than the ones currently on the market, go for it.

The degree of control exhibited by cable and pulley cannot compete
with that allowed by fully-electronic servo motors.

Babbling nonsense.

The "fully-electronic servo motors" eventually wind up moving conventional
cable and pulley mechanisms.

You are so ignorant you are laughable.

Do you actually believe that servo motors can be directly, mechanically
connected to the flight surfaces without anything in between?

For the second item, turbulence is highly localized air movement and
mostly vertical in component.
Ok.

The only thing that can be done to "minimize effects of turbulence"
other than avoiding it in the first place is to keep the airplane
straight and level and somewhat on altitude.

A computer driving a servo system can do that far better than a
computer driving [insert whatever here] driving cables and pulleys.

Babble yet again.

How the hell do you think the "servo system" connects to the control
surfaces?

Guess what, it is through cables and pulleys.

That does not mean that light turbulence could not be counteracted.

Well, duh.

Do you understand the difference between keeping the airplane straight
and level and holding altitude in an up/down draft that exceeds the
capability of the airplane?

Automobiles have been using active suspension for a while now. The
same mathematics used in those systems could be employed in aircraft,
but not with cables and pulleys.

Airplanes don't have suspension systems; airplane fly in the air.

Those autopilots are typically not designed for counteracting the
effects of "light" turbulence.

Babbling nonsense.

The *ONLY* thing possible to do to "counteract" turbulence is to keep
the airplane straight, level, and at altitude.

Autopilots keep the airplane straight, level, and as close to altitude
as the airplane performance allows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_suspension

Irrelevant as once again, airplanes don't have suspension systems,
they are flying through the air.

If I didn't know you had to be older to get a student pilot certificate,
I would guess you are about 12 years old from the stuff you say.