Electric airplane

[Le Chaud Lapin]

The issue I was alluding to is maintaining separation under IFR in IMC,
or, more colloquially, "pushing tin".  Consider what happens to the
infrastructure that manages this if every airliner is replaced by
several hundred "safe, efficient, electric-powered single-seat,
ultra-long range aircraft", all of which have to be prevented from
colliding.

There are regular stories in comp.risks about failures of computerised
ATC systems under current levels of loading, let alone the hundredfold
increase you're suggesting.

I would not use the ATC. I would use a combination of aircraft and
ATC. Each machine would maintain a virtual grid of the 3D-sky highway
as it knows it. There would be rules about flying, just as there are
rules about driving. With typical GPS device, it is not difficult to
write software that alerts the pilot if these rules are viloated [or
about to be violated].

I would imagine it would be more dangerous to crash in prop-driven,
ICE-loaded machine than with something else where these elements were
not present.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

  The moral of the story is a pio happens so quickly  and unexpectedly
  that most pilots will crash the plane.

Perhaps thats why, in the show about Blue Angels I mentioned, the
pilots were required to know calculus and basic theory of complex
variable, or at least that's how it appeared. I did see an H(s)
written on the whiteboard during the show, and several Blue Angels
pilots sitting watching the instructor.

I think once a pilot understands the basics of control theory, it is
hard to not trust the math after that.

My bike has no steering damper, so around 138 mph, the front end
starts to vibrate strongly, and the first time I got it into that
range, I knew instinctively not to fight it, but to wait, and "watch
the humps".

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

I designed my first analog radio when I was 20,

I designed my first radio when I was 9 or 10.

"In the long term, software-defined radio is expected by its
proponents to become the dominant technology in radio communications"

For certain applications, it probably will.

It is especially attractive in HAM circles where things are always
changing, but, one more time, aviation radio is cast in international
treaty concrete and is NOT going to change.

Also, I noticed that you keep writing "LSI".

Since you don't seem to know what much of anything means, I was
dumbing it down for you.

I'm well aware of what is in a modern radio.

Not true. There are radios, fully assembled, for less than $7 at local
supermarket. In any case, I have completed the actual application for
certain bands/classes from FCC. As I recall, the costs are not that
great. In some cases, it is not more than few thousand dollars. A
transceiver that I designed in mid 1990's would have cost < $10,000US.

The independant testing lab will charge way more than that.

http://www.ask-wi.com/certification.html

That is for Part 15 toys.

Aviation is covered by Part 87.

My god you are ignorant.

I never said I would.

No, you implied that you were going to.

Proprietary.

Babbling idiot; it can't be proprietary since all you would have to do
is look at it and you would know what the TECHNOLOGY is.

The TECHNIQUE used can be proprietary, but the TECHNOLOGY can't.

So which is it, aluminum, composite, or hybrid aluminum/composite?

There aren't any other choices for a pressurized airframe.

What is is that your home build fly-by-wire airplane will be able to
do that any modern GA aircraft such as a Cirrus SR22 can't do?

If you encounter significant turbulence, what is the first thing you
do and why?

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

I designed my first radio when I was 9 or 10.

By design, I mean actually design, like employing the concepts of
semiconductor physics, electrodynamics, theory of complex variable,
etc. I did not mean putting together a kit, if that's what you mean.

For certain applications, it probably will.

It is especially attractive in HAM circles where things are always
changing, but, one more time, aviation radio is cast in international
treaty concrete and is NOT going to change.


Since you don't seem to know what much of anything means, I was
dumbing it down for you.

Hmmm...well it appeared that you had become out of touch with field of
electronics, for at least 30 years.

I'm well aware of what is in a modern radio.


The independant testing lab will charge way more than that.


That is for Part 15 toys.

Aviation is covered by Part 87.

My god you are ignorant.



No, you implied that you were going to.



Babbling idiot; it can't be proprietary since all you would have to do
is look at it and you would know what the TECHNOLOGY is.

Are you 100% sure about that statement?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

I wasn't thinking so much about takeoff and landing as maneuvering
(flying donuts) and possibly aerobatics. The RPV's I tinkered with
has gyro stabilized platforms to stabilize the cameras. I have no
idea how well they would do aerobatics. I suspect fairly badly as
feedback to the yoke and pedals is fairly important.

Maneuvering flight is easy and pretty trivial.

Landing where you are moving at high speed and are close to the ground
is a bit more critical of precision control of the airplane.

Is this is quiz or credibility check? In a cross wind, I have to crab
(side slip) the aircraft on landing. I had to do that anyway on a
Cessna 150 because the engines torque center is not on the aircrafts
center line. For a short field landing, I would do a power off
landing. I've never tried it with both a short field and a crosswind.

A little of both.

Actually, the torque is centered and would cause the airplane to spin
around the axis of the propeller shaft, but all the aerodynamic forces
result in a turning moment, generally to the left.

A short field landing is done with power at just above minimum
controllable airspeed.

Sure. With the trim tabs and the trim wheel. Keep the nose up and
all that.

What you do is set up the airplane then use the trim wheels to eliminate
any control force.

If you try to do it without the force feedback from the controls 9 times
out of 10 you will wind up oscillating around for a while before getting
it trimmed out.

To save you the effort of a cross examination, I do not have a pilots
licence. I took a few lessons in about 1968 where the idiot
instructor had me land in a cross wind with about 10 hours of time in
the log book. I noticed the windsock was all wrong, but didn't say
anything. When I hit the runway, the Cessna 150 bounced. The
crosswind got under the wing and tried to flip the plane over. Both
the instructor and I instinctively over compensated, grinding the
opposite wingtip into the runway. If I had hit the grass, we would
have cart wheeled. After that mess, I gave up flight skool. Most of
my subsequent flying was with friends. I've been invested in an
avionics shop for about 20 years.

Sorry to hear that. Where's the shop?

I went through 5 instructors; one got a better job so that one doesn't
really count, but the other 3 were probably good buddies with the one
you had. The one I finished with I still go to for flight reviews.

Ok. You're right. They won't kiss the ground after landing.

One of my former bosses worked on the ill fated Microwave Landing
System:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_landing_system>
I learned quite a bit about it listening to his stories. I recall
that he mentioned that they successfully tested hands off landings
using it. However, I don't believe that the subsequent WAAS/LAAS GPS
landing systems were ever as good at landing as MLS. There were
plenty of reasons not to do this on a regular basis, but it is
possible to do a smooth hands off landing.

Yeah, I remember MLS.

I think the two big factors that killed it were the cost of the ground
equipment required and international politics.

Another credibility check (which incidentally has nothing to do with
my previous comments)? Yes, the terms mean landing on a short runway,
a grass field, or a muddy dirt road. I've never done any of these.

Thin skin because I've dealt with far too many naifs that have read
a couple of web articles on aviation and think they know everything
there is to be known about flying.

What does your question have to do with force feeback in airplane
controls? Sure, it's more difficult to land on these limited runways,
where hands off landings are probably a bad idea. However, I'm not so
sure that force feedback is going to be the determining factor for a
sucessful landing. Methinks much depends on the abilities of the
pilot. If they are experienced in zero feedback landings, methinks
they can do it well enough.

Again, just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD
be done.

Having force feedback makes flying an airplane easier and ultimately
safer.

Hmmm... no force feedback on most (not all) of these simulators:
<http://www.projectmagenta.com>
<http://www.projectmagenta.com/references/private.html> (examples)
<http://www.wideview.it>
This one uses pneumatic dampers and an air compressor for force
feedback:
<http://www.schiratti.com/cockpit.html>

You don't have to rebuild the firewall on a simulator when you slam
the nose wheel on the runway and bend the firewall/nose wheel attach
area.

 

[[email protected]]

In message

In message
<a00eefa0-8523-4a3a-a671-e054a9a5e...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Le

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,

Sure. Now design the infrastructure needed to maintain separation
between you and all the swarms of other people doing the same in zero
visibility. Done much instrument flying yet?

No. Not any in fact [except for simulator].

I'm not talking about practising hand-eye coordination to keep yourself
the right way up in zero visibility, important though that is, but about
the procedural stuff. Did your "simulator" require you to fly SIDs and
STARs and airways, holds and missed approaches? Did the simulator keep
issuing new levels and headings?

This is a software issue, IMO, and not something that is technically
insurmountable.

Sure. And in your universe, everything's a SMOP and all problems can be
solved by adding another level of indirection. And in that universe,
emergent complexity and scalability issues simply don't exist.

The issue I was alluding to is maintaining separation under IFR in IMC,
or, more colloquially, "pushing tin". Consider what happens to the
infrastructure that manages this if every airliner is replaced by
several hundred "safe, efficient, electric-powered single-seat,
ultra-long range aircraft", all of which have to be prevented from
colliding.

It's probably been done already in some other
context.

There are regular stories in comp.risks about failures of computerised
ATC systems under current levels of loading, let alone the hundredfold
increase you're suggesting.

Exactly.

Add to that the common misconception that ATC is somehow and magically
actually controlling the movement of all those airplanes.

 

[[email protected]]

By design, I mean actually design, like employing the concepts of
semiconductor physics, electrodynamics, theory of complex variable,
etc. I did not mean putting together a kit, if that's what you mean.

No, that is not what I meant.

The only manufactured electronic part was the variable capacitor.

Are you 100% sure about that statement?

Well, since I had to post the definition of "proprietary" because you
didn't know what it means, yes.

What materials are you going to use to build your homebuilt's
airframe and aerodynamic surfaces?

What is it that your fly-by-wire home built will be able to do that
any modern aircraft such as a Cirrus SR22 can't do?

If you encounter significant turbulence, what is the first thing you
do and why?

 

[[email protected]]

Stall/spin (recovery) practice, at altitude, is good to do and will give a
pilot a much higher survival rate. The FAA used to require such training
for a Private rating, but instructors complained about the numbers of
students that terminated their training after the first power-on stall, so
the FAA eliminated the requirement. I opted to do them anyhow. It's
cool... You're in a spin before you recognize what happened.

Spin training at the private level was eliminated some years ago, but
stall training is still required.

The justification was that the numbers indicated more accidents from
spin training than accidents by private pilots who got into spins.

What is now taught is spin avoidance and spin recovery without actually
doing a spin.

Lacking that training and practice, a student will probably encounter their
first stall and spin entry while they are in the pattern for landing,
probably while turning onto final. Since the untrained reactions are
completely wrong (they will increase the stall), the plane will likely
crash.

True.

The emphasis now is stall and spin avoidance since usually if you do
stall during the landing phase there isn't enough altitude to recover
anyway.

 

[[email protected]]

I think that's called wheel-barrowing. With just the nose wheel on
the ground, the aircraft acts like a wheel barrow. I haven't flown
enough to have run into the problem. However, like all beginners, I
have managed to overcompensate several times. My first attempt at
simply maintaining altitude was an exercise in overcompensation until
I got the feel of the airplane.

If you are going down the runway on the nose wheel, it is called
wheel-barrowing.

If you are bouncing up and down, it is called porpoising.

Yep. So what's your opinion? Can a general aviation (production, not
experimental) airplane be built that flys using a joystick and limited
force feedback? Is force feedback optional, desirable, or mandatory?
Is PIO such a major technology killer that practice and training are
insufficient ineffective?

No, not for a normal category airplane as it would never meet the
stability and controlability requirements of Part 23.

As a home built experimental it would get the reputation of being
squirrelly and no more than 1 or 2 would ever be built.

 

[[email protected]]

Perhaps thats why, in the show about Blue Angels I mentioned, the
pilots were required to know calculus and basic theory of complex
variable, or at least that's how it appeared. I did see an H(s)
written on the whiteboard during the show, and several Blue Angels
pilots sitting watching the instructor.

I think once a pilot understands the basics of control theory, it is
hard to not trust the math after that.

The Blue Angels aren't flying GA aircraft, they are flying high
perfomance, aerobatic, jets with a huge thrust to weight ratio and
wearing G suits.

 

[[email protected]]

I would not use the ATC.

Then you would go to jail.

ATC is international in scope.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

The Blue Angels aren't flying GA aircraft, they are flying high
perfomance, aerobatic, jets with a huge thrust to weight ratio and
wearing G suits.

I have often wondered what would happen if a would-be-Blue Angel could
not get past the math.

Probably rejected?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

I have often wondered what would happen if a would-be-Blue Angel could
not get past the math.

Well, since you have to be a carrier-qualified, active duty, Navy or
Marine tactical jet pilot with at least 1,350 hours, and before you
can become that you have to have, among other things, a 4 year degree,
I doubt by that point the math is much of a problem.

 

[Rich Grise]

7. I would use commoditized operating system. [Yes, Linux, Yes, MS
Windows, yescouple others].

Anyone who would use Windows in an airplane is either insane or merely
a fool.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Mike Monett]

I think that's called wheel-barrowing. With just the nose wheel on
the ground, the aircraft acts like a wheel barrow. I haven't flown
enough to have run into the problem. However, like all beginners,
I have managed to overcompensate several times. My first attempt
at simply maintaining altitude was an exercise in overcompensation
until I got the feel of the airplane.

It's only wheel-barrowing for a fraction of a second. The nose wheel
touches the ground first while the a/c is still descending. The
contact is very brief, and the springs push the nose back up into
the air.

The pilot's first instinct is to push the nose back down, but he
overcontrols and the nosewheel hits again. Now the pilot is 180
degrees out of phase with the a/c, and the resulting pio usually
results in a crash.

No mention of force feedback. That was filmed in 1978 on an
aircraft that was probably designed a few years earlier. My
guess(tm) is that since this was a research project, the initial
configuration would have been very Spartan and without any
feedback to the pilot to see what could be done with a minimal
configuration. Force feedback was probably added later. Dunno for
sure.

Yeah, that would be a problem. If the actuators protect themselves
and are hard limited to some max rate at which they can move,
there's a real possibility of resonance or under-damping when
operating at the limits. That's a problem even in model airplanes,
where a slow moving servo and an overly aggressive pilot can
easily cause PIO (also known as porpoising). The trick, which is
quickly learned, is to intentionally shove the control well beyond
the desired position and quickly return it to normal, at just the
right moment. If you're too slow to recover, you get PIO. There's
no need for force feedback as this is really an exercise in
timing.

But thats exactly what pio is. However it starts, the pilot ends up
out of phase with what the a/c is doing.

It is very difficult to break out of that loop. The pilot in the F8
Crusader example above was extremely good. But he was also extremely
lucky since he was well above the stall speed of the plane. When he
got into the pio, he still had enough airspeed to be able to climb
and get out of it. That was an amazing piece of airmanship. But if
he was at or below the stall speed when the pio started, he would
have crashed.

Yep. So what's your opinion? Can a general aviation (production,
not experimental) airplane be built that flys using a joystick and
limited force feedback? Is force feedback optional, desirable, or
mandatory?

Is PIO such a major technology killer that practice and training
are insufficient ineffective?

Personally, I think proportional force feedback is mandantory. There
are many other situations where the lack of feedback would cause the
pilot to overcontrol and pull the wings or tail from the a/c.

One example is recovering from a spin. The nose is pointed straight
down at the ground, and if you obey your instincts and try to pull
up too fast, you will likely lose the wings.

Another example is the crash of American Airlines flight 587 at JFK.

The lack of proportional force feedback on the rudder pedals led the
copilot into overcontrolling the plane. He ripped the rudder off,
followed by the engines. The result was the second worst crash in US
aviation history. This is described in a bit more detail here:

"Unknown to either the co-pilot or the airline's trainers, a change
in the way the plane's rudder mechanism worked seriously worsened
the problem. The change made the rudder control pedals far more
sensitive than any other plane's - including other Airbus models -
and the sensitivity increased dramatically with speed. This is
exactly the circumstance where excessive use of the rudder can cause
high stresses on it."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6589-compounded-errors-caused-new-
york-crash.html

Another example is my second pio. This happened in Malibu N4360V,
which I bought new in 1984. You can see it coming over the threshold
while landing:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5874208&nseq=0

Notice the very wide stance of the main gear. This forms an almost
equilateral triangle with the nose gear. Normally this is considered
very good since it increases the stability whenever the wheels are
touching the ground. I flew this a/c cross-country from San Jose to
Boca Raton, Florida many times without incident.

But one time while landing in Palm Springs, everything was perfectly
normal until touchdown. The instant the wheels hit, the a/c went
into a very violent side-to-side oscillation that I could not
control. I quickly took my hands and feet off the controls to let
the plane stabilize, and luckily it ended up aligned with the runway
and I completed the rollout normally.

Would training have helped? Probably not. It started and was over in
fractions of a second.

Would force feedback help? No, in this case there was already normal
force feedback.

I think the problem with flying is things can go along normally for
a very long time, then suddenly something happens that is totally
unexpected. It happens so fast that the pilot ends up
overcontrolling the a/c, which usually results in a crash. The
problem is most of the time it is completely unpredictable.

In a perfect world, the a/c would be decoupled from the pilot, and
sufficient force feedback to make the pilot think he was in control.

But the software would not let the pilot get into the kind of
situations that would lead to loss of the a/c. It would eliminate
spins and stalls, flying into mountains or thunderstorms, running
out of gas, flying into known icing, high-speed stalls, and all the
other ways we can kill ourself in the air.

I don't think we are good enough to write that software. Close, yes.
But not perfect yet.

Best Regards,

Mike Monett

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:45:05 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

Yeah, something like that. There was also considerable resistance
from the airline pilots union (Teamsters) over potentially losing some
jobs. They seemed to be afraid of hands off landings which might
allow the airlines to hire less experienced pilots. I don't remember
much about the situation except that it died very slowly and in
stages, rather than a sudden termination of funding and testing.
Whatever the price or politics, MLS did demonstrate that it was
possible to do hands off landings.

As I recall there were also non-compatible European schemes which
caused the political problems as any system adopted would need to
be an international standard.

Well, that's good description of me.

No, its not, you are not an idiot.

why prevent someone else from doing something simply because you find
it unacceptable? There seems to be reasonable arguments on both sides
of the fly by wire and force feedback argument that would make it at
least worth trying. If the industry adopted your logic, nothing would
ever get done simply because the best and most radical ideas tend to
collect the most critics and criticism. Dumb ideas are usually
ignored and left to demonstrate their own shortcomings. I initially
thought Mr Lapin's ideas were rather marginal. Yet, with all the
resistance and attention you're giving to the problem, I'm beginning
to suspect that his ideas might be worthy of a closer look (after they
get more organized).

Industry and the military made the decision decades ago and all
fly-by-wire airplanes have force feedback.

For GA, ignoring for a moment no one would be willing to pay for the
cost of a fly-by-wire system in a GA airplane, such an airplane
without force feedback would not be able to meet the Part 23 requirements
for stability and controlablity.

For home builts, anyone could build one if they so desired, however
you would never be able to sell a kit or plans as the airplane would
quickly get the reputation of being squirrelly without force feedback.

Back on subject (Electric Airplane), I wonder if the motor becomes a
generator on decent and re-charges the LIPO batteries?

Not likely since you still carry a fair amount of power until short
final.

Generating power implies the prop is acting as a brake which in turn
implies a severe decent angle and an ear popping rate of decent.

 

[JosephKK]

I designed my first analog radio when I was 20, using Colpitts
oscillator that oscillated on first run of components.

So you claim to have done at 20 what some here (s.e.d) have done at 15
or less as a great accomplishment; what kit did you use?

My guess is
that I am more experienced in this area than you are. Your ideas
about SDR's are simply incorrect. You can read more here:

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

"In the long term, software-defined radio is expected by its
proponents to become the dominant technology in radio communications"

Also, I noticed that you keep writing "LSI". LSI is not something
that electrical engineers use anymore. Saying "LSI" is like saying "8-
track tapes". It does not make sense in 2008, really. Younger
engineers might not know what you mean. Not even "VLSI" is
appropriate.

Teen tyro. It is merely a somewhat era specific shorthand for any
complex mixed mode IC.

There are plenty of people here (s.e.d) that can do any modulation you
want on an embedded DDS in an FPGA. Not my area of expertise, try
Highland Technology or TransGalactic Instruments, both owned by
regulars here.

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

Today we use chips that, contrary to what Joseph wrote, can do
absolutely incredible things at low-cost and extremely low weight and
footprint.


Not true. There are radios, fully assembled, for less than $7 at local
supermarket. In any case, I have completed the actual application for
certain bands/classes from FCC. As I recall, the costs are not that
great. In some cases, it is not more than few thousand dollars. A
transceiver that I designed in mid 1990's would have cost < $10,000US.

http://www.ask-wi.com/certification.html


I never said I would.


Proprietary.

So you really do not have a clue. Nor do you pick up ones given to
you.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

OK, rabbit where did you graduate from? Earlier in THIS thread you
said you were an engineering student. All i can see is a lying
braggart with nothing to offer.

 

[JosephKK]

I designed my first radio when I was 9 or 10.


For certain applications, it probably will.

It is especially attractive in HAM circles where things are always
changing, but, one more time, aviation radio is cast in international
treaty concrete and is NOT going to change.


Since you don't seem to know what much of anything means, I was
dumbing it down for you.

I'm well aware of what is in a modern radio.


The independant testing lab will charge way more than that.


That is for Part 15 toys.

Aviation is covered by Part 87.

My god you are ignorant.


No, you implied that you were going to.



Babbling idiot; it can't be proprietary since all you would have to do
is look at it and you would know what the TECHNOLOGY is.

The TECHNIQUE used can be proprietary, but the TECHNOLOGY can't.

So which is it, aluminum, composite, or hybrid aluminum/composite?

There aren't any other choices for a pressurized airframe.

What is is that your home build fly-by-wire airplane will be able to
do that any modern GA aircraft such as a Cirrus SR22 can't do?

If you encounter significant turbulence, what is the first thing you
do and why?

Go Jim. Keep it up with your on point questions and we all watch the
rabbit run.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

OK, rabbit where did you graduate from?  Earlier in THIS thread you
said you were an engineering student.  All i can see is a lying
braggart with nothing to offer

I said student pilot, not engineering student.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:25:05 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

Argh. You chopped off the best parts of my rant. Oh well.



As far as aviation is concerned, I may as well be. I would like to
think that my background and education qualifies me to 2nd guess my
way through the technology. Usually, that works for the basics, but
fails miserably where experience would be a better teacher than
physics. I would prefer to be treated as an idiot so I can "harvest"
the explanations.

I haven't heard any claims from you that you know better than the
results of a hundred years of experience based on your couple of unrelated
engineering classes.

Yep. However, I'm suspicious. Man is a very conservative animal
which doesn't change it ways very easily. The market for fly by wire
airplanes are almost totally composed of existing cable and pulley
pilots. They have developed a preference for force feedback and would
probably insist that any future technology retain the older features.
It's something like the automobile industry taking 10 year to get rid
of the buggy whip socket, typewriter features on computah keyboards,
printers that were really motorized typewriters, and other elements of
conservative product design. Also parachute design, which I've been
told took years to get away from the round chute. Rather than retrain
experienced pilots, it probably makes more sense to give them an
environment that they're familiar with. With all the regulatory and
historical baggage to consider, radical changes will become
evolutionary changes.

If it works and is easy to use, why change it?

You're advocating German engineering; the people will accomodate the
machine rather than building the machine to accomodate the people.

Incidentally, I don't think Neil Armstrong had force feedback on the
Apollo capsule moon lander.

I must have missed seeing the wings and other aerodynamic surfaces
on the Apollo capsule.

AIR, there was also a predictor to help with getting the vertical
speed to zero at the same time as the altitude.

Spoken like a bureaucrat, where literally everything needs to fit into
the existing regulatory structure. I've spent years watching the
alternative energy horde struggle with codes and regulations, many of
which were totally unsuitable for the intended purpose. It was only
in about 2001 when the NFPA finally got around to even recognizing
alternative energy. The technology had to change a little, but most
of the changes were in the regulations and codes. The same will be
for any new thing in aviation. You can force fit an electric airplane
into the existing regulatory framework, but there will need to be some
changes.

Those requlations are built on a huge pile of dead bodies.

There may be some minor areas for quibble, but not for basic stuff
like stability and controlablity.

Well, there are several ways to view an airplane design. One is a box
that flys through the air and is moved by an air motor. You start
with the aerodynamic surfaces and add the necessary propulsion.
Another is to start with an engine, and build the aerodynamics around
it. Since this is about an electric airplane, some major changes will
need to be made. For example, the infernal combustion engine tends to
be a rather compact device, with a concentrated center of gravity,
while the electric motor and its battery pile, can have the weight
distributed around the airframe. There's also no (major) efficiency
gain from concentrating the propulsion in a single motor. A series of
small electric motors can be distributed along the wing. While
elevators, flaps, rudders, and other control surfaces are nice for
gliding, with multiple motors, it might be possible use the motors for
directional control. Use your imagination.

My imagination says depending on motors for directional control will
ultimately result in a smoking crater.

Actually, there are a lot of very good aerodynamic reasons to minimize
the number of motors on an airplane, no matter what type they are.

That was discovered in the very early days of aviation.

Mr Lapin apparently has a functional imagination. However, he has a
different problem. He fails to separate the important problems from
the trivia. Much of what he suggests has to do with accessories,
options, gadgets, goodies, convenience features, and other dross that
has little to do with the basic functioning of an electric airplane.
Ignore the propulsion and aerodynamic issues, and all the SDR and
computah technology is not going to make the pile of ideas fly.

That and he has weird ideas like somehow magically a socketed LED
is easier to change than a socketed incandescent lamp.

Note: I have the advantage in using my imagination. Since I don't
know what I'm doing in aviation and aerodynamics, I don't know what
cannot be done and what will not work. Same for Mr Lapin. We may
therefore produce a wide array of dumb and impractical ideas, but
among the debris, you might find a few good ideas and imaginative
solutions. Keep an open mind.

If someone suggests replacing rubber balloons with steel ones to minimize
the helium leakage, I'll give the idea everything it deserves...

Drivel: One of my past side activities was helping out at the local
high skool on their senior projects. Everyone gets to build and/or
design something in their senior year (usually in small teams). While
I try to keep some of the ideas within the range of what can be
accomplished in a few weeks, the degree of imagination and originality
of these kids is far beyond what I've seen in industry. I have a
guess where we lose it. It's possible to be creative and imaginative
within a regulatory framework, but it's much more difficult.

A lot of regulations exist because people are dead.

Before someone whines about being constrained by regulations they need
to find out why the regulation exists.

Ooops. Y'er right. Yet, it would be tempting to use gravity to
recover some energy. For example, if the mythical electric airplane
were to have oversized wing surfaces (for gliding and STOL), it might
be possible recover some energy without going into a steep dive. It
won't be much, but if the added energy recovery can produce a
proportionate reduction in the size and weight of the LIPO battery
pile for the same flight duration, it's a win.

It is all fantasy anyway since absent a major breakthrough in battery
technology there isn't going to be any practical electric airplanes.