Electric airplane

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Your assessment is quite accurate.

Just this morning, I walking my puppy through the woods, pondering the
fairness of proposing a new type of aircraft, but only discussing
those features that are obviously realizable, while deliberately
omitting that which, if not addressed, would make all others moot.

The propulsion system does, in fact, influence every other aspect of
the aircraft. If my ideas are wrong, there is no point in further
consideration, so it seems that it would make sense to discuss it
first. A year ago, before I got into aviation, I would have at least
put out the idea of for consideration. But I decided not to do that
for two reasons:

1. I have not tested it yet, so I do not know how well it would work,
or if it would work [though it seems reasonable to me in context of
Newtonian physics].

2. If there is any merit to it at all, one of the worst things that
could be done is to open it up prematurely to a community that appears
to be rife with individuals that are predisposed to regard alternative
ideas in the way they have been regarded so far. The only pilot I have
met in the past year that has not immediately and prejudiciously taken
a combative stance to my proposition was the owner of my flight
school, who actually defended the idea in the lobby against other
pilots, by saying what you said, that essentially they should keep an
open mind, and that, technically, nothing I had said violated any laws
of physics.

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

Right. There is a benefit from getting to close to status quo. Total
rejection of extant knowledge is not good, but neither is total
acceptance. There is an optimal mid-point at which an outsider might
linger in a state of amusement for maximum observability. Sometimes
one might find something. Sometimes not.

To be honest, what drew me deeper into thinking about flight, aside
from the standard generic lifelong interest in airplanes, was not any
research papers on aerodynamics or technical articles. It was my
textbook in ground school [Jeppesen]. There were a few errors
present, minor things, like saying "power" when they meant "energy",
voltage when they mean current, things like that. Then, one day,
while sitting in lobby in flight school, there was group of student
pilots cramming for exam. I was studying too. They said, "What are
you doing with all those books...?" I said, "I can probably pass the
test, but I feel like the material was a bit shallow. I want to
actually know what's going on." Anyhow we got into argument about
whether it is necessary to have technical understanding of flight, and
they insisted that I just go to WWW and find the questions most likely
to be asked by FAA, and memorize them. Appalling. And so it went on
like this until I learned that some of the pilots did not understand
basic Newtonian physics. Vector math was taboo. One person in
rec.aviation.piloting actually believed that straws work because of a
"suction force". See Message 303:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread/b85a49e900a0c791

And then I talked to my flight instructor, then ground school owner,
again, and discovered that most pilots did not understand basic
aerodynamics. If you ask them why planes fly, they rattle something
off about Bernoulli's principle. Bernoulli's principle is correct, but
their employment of it was wrong.

Then I read a book by Barry Schiff:

http://www.barryschiff.com/

....that said in 1st chapter that most pilots have totally incorrect
understanding of lift. By this time I was doing my own experiments
with paper and plastic, which lead to meandering excursion (again)
into fluid dynamics and an examination of an essay by Maxwell. An
ancillary treat was that I rediscovered Heaviside, who did far more
than popularize Laplace transforms for system analysis. Incredible
person.

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

But the straw that broke the camel's back was the NASA article that
said that even some university professors have incorrect understanding
of lift:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

Then it got worse from there, with some people devising exotic
theories, some of which were highly suspicious.

In any case, it became clear that the science of lift was *NOT* a
settled matter. There were many people in rec.aviation.piloting who
insisted that it was, contrary to the NASA article, and many articles
on the WWW that agree, at least, that it is not yet understood.

In all of this, I developed my own ideas, experimented with small
paper and plastic for tests. My ideas or incomplete, but I have been
able to get lift out of small models using ad-hoc equipment. I would
need significant electronics, electrodynamics, and computer control to
make such a plane fly.

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

Thus validating my supposition that certain would-be critiques are
predisposed to regard the new idea as being bad before it is known
what the idea is.

I agree.

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.

Note that I have not been the one whining about regulation. On the
contrary, I have been defending the need for it, as well as the FAA
itself. It has been the pilots who have beens stating that nothing
will be innovated signigicantly different from Cessna-tractor model
because FAA would never allow it.

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

Under what category would fuel-cell plane fall?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

1. I have not tested it yet, so I do not know how well it would work,
or if it would work [though it seems reasonable to me in context of
Newtonian physics].

The only way known to science to propel a free flying aircraft is to
accerate air (ignoring rockets).

The only way known to science to accelerate air in sufficient volume
is by the use of a fan of some sort, as in a propeller or the fans
in a jet.

Methods like ion wind don't produce enough volume.

If you have stumbled onto some hitherto unknown method of propulsion,
you need to get your suit cleaned for your Nobel acceptance ceremony.

Right. There is a benefit from getting to close to status quo. Total
rejection of extant knowledge is not good, but neither is total
acceptance. There is an optimal mid-point at which an outsider might
linger in a state of amusement for maximum observability. Sometimes
one might find something. Sometimes not.

Babbling nonsense.

You can't possibly know if an idea is new unless you know what all
the old ideas are.

Vector math was taboo.

Total, utter, nonsense.

Knowing how to do a wind triangle problem is a required subject for
a private pilot and wind triangles are vector math.

And then I talked to my flight instructor, then ground school owner,
again, and discovered that most pilots did not understand basic
aerodynamics. If you ask them why planes fly, they rattle something
off about Bernoulli's principle. Bernoulli's principle is correct, but
their employment of it was wrong.

Yeah, lots of people that are not aerodynamic engineers don't really
understand the basic physics of lift.

So what?

Thus validating my supposition that certain would-be critiques are
predisposed to regard the new idea as being bad before it is known
what the idea is.

Babbling drivel; I stated what the idea is.

Note that I have not been the one whining about regulation. On the
contrary, I have been defending the need for it, as well as the FAA
itself. It has been the pilots who have beens stating that nothing
will be innovated signigicantly different from Cessna-tractor model
because FAA would never allow it.

Lier.

You've constantly said you would use materials not allowed by regulation
and the latest flight into Emperor of the Universe world was stating
you would totally change how ATC works.

Under what category would fuel-cell plane fall?

Fuel cells are fuel cells. Though they sort of work like a battery,
they are sufficiently different that they get their own name.

The techonological state of fuel cells as regards airplane is the same
as batteries; a practical fuel cell powered airplane is fantasy absent
a major technological breakthrough.

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

What materials are you going to use to build the airframe of your
home built?

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

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:25:07 GMT) it happened

The only way known to science to propel a free flying aircraft is to
accerate air (ignoring rockets).

The only way known to science to accelerate air in sufficient volume
is by the use of a fan of some sort, as in a propeller or the fans
in a jet.

No fan needed:

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

Atomic ramjet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

I have also see a Dutch helicopter fly with ramjets on the rotorblades, many many decennia ago.

 

[[email protected]]

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:25:07 GMT) it happened


No fan needed:

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

Atomic ramjet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

I have also see a Dutch helicopter fly with ramjets on the rotorblades, many many decennia ago.

Yeah, I should have added the disclaimer that rockets and ramjets don't
count as neither is practical for GA aircraft.

 

[bg_fisted]

Just this morning, I walking my puppy through the woods, pondering the
fairness of proposing a new type of aircraft, but only discussing
those features that are obviously realizable, while deliberately
omitting that which, if not addressed, would make all others moot.

You haven't described your flying contraption in any detail, then when
others fill-in the blanks with their assumptions about what you are
saying, you get defensive and cry "I never said <whatever>." Stop all
this vague hand waving and hinting. What does it look like? How does
it fly? What will power it? How will it be better than a real plane?
Who are you trying to sell this to--pilots or passengers? Whatever you
think of Moller's flying car, but he built one. Where is yours?

1. I have not tested it yet, so I do not know how well it would work,
or if it would work [though it seems reasonable to me in context of
Newtonian physics].

You don't believe in software testing, why test your theory of lift?
Either you understand lift or you don't. Right now, (you think) you
understand lift and you have argued that most pilots have an incorrect
understanding of lift. Why ruin the fantasy by testing?

2. If there is any merit to it at all, one of the worst things that
could be done is to open it up prematurely to a community that appears
to be rife with individuals that are predisposed to regard alternative
ideas in the way they have been regarded so far.

But isn't that exactly what you are doing right now, in this thread???
I would disagree however, that it is the worst thing that could be
done. Ideas with merit should be discussed and shared, while ideas
without merit should be shared for its intrinsic humor value.

The only pilot I have
met in the past year that has not immediately and prejudiciously taken
a combative stance to my proposition was the owner of my flight
school, who actually defended the idea in the lobby against other
pilots, by saying what you said, that essentially they should keep an
open mind, and that, technically, nothing I had said violated any laws
of physics.

Your hero.

To be honest, what drew me deeper into thinking about flight, aside
from the standard generic lifelong interest in airplanes, was not any
research papers on aerodynamics or technical articles. It was my
textbook in ground school...

[--long, dreamy recollection snipped--]

But the straw that broke the camel's back was the NASA article that
said that even some university professors have incorrect understanding
of lift:

No, the straw that broke the camel's back is your own narcissism. You
have a need to tell teachers/professors/managers/NASA/anyone-in-
authority that they are wrong <about whatever>, and once you are on
the warpath, you cannot be stopped. That path will inevitably lead to
the Usenet. What you are seeking is someone to agree with you, to tell
you that your ideas have merit. Finding none, you begin to think that
those who disagree with you are the "old guard" or somehow financially
tied to the status quo.

In all of this, I developed my own ideas, experimented with small
paper and plastic for tests. My ideas or incomplete, but I have been
able to get lift out of small models using ad-hoc equipment. I would
need significant electronics, electrodynamics, and computer control to
make such a plane fly.

Don't forget the commodity leather seats, the commodity in-dash water
spigot with hot and cold tap, and an on-board copy of commodity MSFS X
running on commodity OS Windows Vista. I will give you extra credit if
you could, at the flip of a commodity switch, change the on-board
commodity joystick from controlling the real plane to the flight
simulator plane (the real plane should automatically switch to the
commodity auto-pilot software, which anyone can purchase from their
local Best Buy store). Your model should also be pressurized, for the
comfort of the commodity computer inside.

Thus validating my supposition that certain would-be critiques are
predisposed to regard the new idea as being bad before it is known
what the idea is.

But this is your doing, your choice: You refuse to give any details,
but what few details you have given in this thread are inconsistent
and sound unrealistic, then when pressed for details, you dodge giving
real answers, but you continue to take the attitude that we're all
wrong, and then you conclude that we are "predisposed" against new
ideas? Hey, it doesn't work that way. First show me an idea that has
merit, show that it works, and give real answers, not vague hand
waving.

Until then, I'm predisposed to calling bullshit for what it is. I'm
not going to say it smells like flowers.

+fisting stopped

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:05:04 GMT, [email protected] wrote:


I can't believe that you said that. If we adopted such a conservative
and possibly reactionary policy towards technology, we would be
driving horse carriages, writing with a goose quill pen, and dreaming
of flying. New ideas and products rarely offer revolutionary
improvements in anything. The entire world didn't toss their
incandescent bulbs when LED's arrived. Digital photography has not
totally trashed film. Home theater has not killed movie theaters.
Some people still use typewriters. Ad nauseam. Even the most
revolutionary products fail to produce the predicted mass migrations.

OK, so I forgot to add "and changing it offers no improvement in
either usability or price".

And as for your examples, the automobile provides a huge improvement
in usability and ease of use over the horse carriage, and the same
for the ball point pen over the goose quill.

I don't recall even mentioning the pilot or passengers.

You were specifically saying pilots could learn to adapt to controls
without force feedback.

I'm saying expecting pilots to "adapt" and have yet greater skill
to operate something alread easy to operate is German engineering.

Some sacrifices must be made in the name of progress.

The sacrifices have been made; there is no need to repeat the
experience.

Well, the various military stealth aircraft are quite unstable and
difficult to control.

Yeah, so what?

We are talking about normal category, Part 23 aircraft, NOT a weapon
of war with a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, a highly stressed
airframe capable of extreme aerobatics, and a pilot wearing a G suit
who spends more time training than most GA pilots spend in total
flying in their lives.

Basing what should go in GA aircraft based on what is in military
aircraft makes as much sense as advocating nuclear reactors in bass
boats because military boats have them.

Well, your imagination is in top form. I looked up the method of
control for various flying wings and found that they don't use motors
for controlling the airplane. They use various drag surfaces instead.
The problem is somewhat unique to tail-less airplanes, where placing a
fin and rudder on the wing center is useless:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing>
However, I'm again suspicious. My guess(tm) is that the reason motors
were not used for control is the difficulty of controlling motor speed
in propeller type aircraft. In the days before jets, we just didn't
have the sensors and computahs needed to control multiple small motors
in a predictable manner. That's one place where adding some computing
power might be useful.

If your control comes from power, how do you fly with little to no
power as on short final?

I think I can guess(tm) one of the reasons. Most of the work gets
done near the tips of the propellers because that's the point of
maximum air velocity. Near the spindle, there's not enough air flow
to do much. In addition, the motor or fuselage blocks the air flow.
So, the idea is to maximize the propeller diameter (without hitting
the runway). Therefore one big prop is more effective than two small
props with the same swept area. However, electric motors don't need
to be as big and bulky as infernal corruption engines. The can be
made long and thin, thus blocking less propeller area.

So can turboprops, yet there are LOTS of single engine turbopros.

Guess again.

Yep. So, we go back to basics and verify that the discovery still
holds for long thin multiple electric motors.


Of course. Some such ideas are obviously not going to work.

And most of the "ideas" I seen on the subject fall well into that
category.

would not discourage that person from trying other materials.


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin). Yeah, I
know it's out of context but it applies. The push for safety tends to
limit creativity, progress, innovation, and ingenuity. Also product
liability and prescription drug litigation. Someone dies and the
legislative machinery crafts restrictive regulations. Do this often
enough, and everything comes to a grinding halt. While it's rather
unpopular to advocate LESS safety, I sometimes think we've overdone it
in some areas.

Maybe, however for the specific topic at hand, unless you can point to
something in Part 23 for normal category airplanes to talk about, you
are just arm waving.

That's often not in the regulations. There are also regulations that
were inspired by manufacturer or interest group lobbyists to give them
an advantage. Knowing the background is always a good thing, but it's
usually difficult to find.

Nope.

All federal requlations have a discussion period before adoption.

Yep. That's what the pundits were saying in the 1970's when battery
technology became the limiting factor in everything from cell phones
to electric airplanes. Along came Lithium-Ion and LIPO, which offered
a big step in the right direction. Maybe a few more steps and we have
something slightly better, etc?

More than likely we will soon have something slightly better, but it
will take better than an order of magnitude improvement to make a
practical electric airplanes anything other than fantasy.

And there were portable phones in the 70's, you just couldn't put one
in your pocket, and as far as being a TELEPHONE, the current crop don't
do anything the 70's phones could do.

The trouble with aviation is that it attracts too many bright and
smart people. If its proponents were dumb, we wouldn't have to deal
an overdose of ideas such as:

Using gravity to get off the ground
<http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/62341/Usinggravitytogetofftheground.aspx>

That is not an airplane by definition; it is an airship.

Would you like a real, long list of reasons why that thing will never
be anything other than a curiosity and not allowed to fly much of
anywhere IF the genius that thought it up ever gets one built?

 

[[email protected]]

Only in the short run. Even if the improvement constitutes a
substantial increase in cost, the growing adoption curve and product
improvement cycle will eventually reduce costs and eliminate rough
edges. The hybrid automobile is a good example. Toyota had to sell
the original Prius vehicles at a small loss in order to prime the
pump. They're still quite expensive, but are projected to be both
affordable and competitive fairly soon, especially if the price of gas
climbs again. Many computer related products and technologies are
barely affordable on introduction, but rapidly become commodity items.
I recall paying $3,000 for an HPIII laser printer in the early 1980's.
Today, a comparable HP1500 series laser printer is $150. My first 1x
cdrom drive was $500. Today, it's $35. If companies based their
technology decision on the short run pricing, nothing would ever get
introduced.

All the technologies you mention are fairly recent and evolving.

Aviation is over 100 years old and little to nothing has changed with
subsonic flight technology or aerodynamics in about a half century; it
is mature.

Oh, sure, the avionics are a hell of a lot better, but about the
only "new" technology in the basic airplane is composite construction
and that is over 30 years old and well matured as well.

Today's automobile and pens certainly qualify. However, I seem to
recall reading about British laws requiring someone to run before a
horseless carriage and carrying a red lantern. England was ahead of
the US in horseless carriage design, but shot themselves in the foot
because they listened to all the moaning and groaning from the
technological conservatives. The noise doesn't let me sleep. It
scares the horses. It's not reliable. And so on. We didn't do much
better when some states decided to impose axle width standards to
insure that the infernal horseless carriages would break a wheel in
the ruts. Large cities passed ordinances banning auto before sun up
which force milk delivery vehicle to switch to electric trucks. Of
course those with vested interests in horse and railroad based
transportation did their best to torpedo the horseless carriage. Yeah,
I guess the huge improvement in usability wasn't apparent to those
that hated its guts.

Apples and oranges; I'm talking about the usability and you are rambling
on about perceptions.

Fountain pen, not goose quill. As for the ball point pen, it too had
its problems. Teacher complained that they ruined the students
handwriting. Most of the early models leaked. I learned not to go
flying with a ball point pen as it would surely leak on descent. Many
people complained that it skipped, offered no clue that it was low on
ink, some inks failed to dry, and would not work inverted. I was
using a cartridge fountain pen well into college. I learned quickly
that instructors preferred good hand writing and gave lousy grades to
illegible scribbling. I had no problems with a fountain pen except
when dealing with carbon paper forms.

Of course the ball point pen was a not so instant success. Introduced
in 1935, it was not until about 1945 when the price was sufficiently
low, for sale to climb. That's 10 years where nobody thought it was a
great improvement:
<http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ballpen.htm>

Yeah, the ball point pen had development problems.

So did the wooden pencil, so what?

It seems that an electric airplane is going to follow the same product
cycle. There will be a initial introduction, a small group of
fanatical proponents, some early disasters, regulatory resistance,
financial wait and see, and slow adoption. Like I previously mumbled,
about 10-50 years.

All fantasy without an order of magnitude improvement in batteries.

I guess so. Expecting the customer to change their ingrained habits
and prejudices is German engineering. I would think it would be more
like education, training, read-the-manual, and practice. I had some
experience with operator resistance dealing with speech controlled
hardware (HP RF test system). In order for it to work, the operator
was required to speak in an even, controlled, and consistent manner.
Most didn't or couldn't, even when it was clear that their job
depended on their ability to adapt. Since the hardware was too
expensive and limited to adapt to the speakers habits of the moment,
we gave up and went back to a keyboard.

German engineering at it's finest.

If the system had been able to understand a normal speaking voice, it
would have been and improvement.

Forcing to band aid the inadequacy of the system is asinine and doomed
to failure as you found out.

I have to renew my license. Might as well renew the ritual
sacrifices.

Sorry, I'm not blood thirsty enough to want to see people die just
to satisfy some pulled from the ass techno-whiz idea.

I'm not suggesting cloning a war plane design for general aviation.
I'm suggesting borrowing some of the technology used to stabilize
fundamentally unstable military aircraft, and using it to allow
creative GA airplane design. Much of the consumer technology we have
received from the military and aerospace programs did not arrive in
its original form. It was adapted, tweaked, commercialized, and
sometimes declassified before it was incorporated into consumer
products. Same with computer stabilization assistance (or whatever
it's called) borrowed from the fundamentally unstable stealth
airplanes.

OK, what would be the point of making a GA aircraft so uncontrollable
and unstable it would need technology to fly?

The point of it in military aircraft is so they are highly manueverable
in dog fights.

I haven't heard of any GA aircraft involved in dog fights.

Maybe GA should abandon BRS technology and instead use the military
technology of ejection seats.

How about arrestor hooks instead of making runways long enough so they
aren't required?

Let's not forget to add some air to air missles in case someone cuts
you off on short final.

Armour around the pilot? The military uses it, we gotta have it.

Oh yeah, stealth technology is a must have for a Cessna class airplane.

As I mumbled, using the motors for yaw control isn't going to work by
itself. Most flying wings use devices that create drag for control. I
suspect a system where a little of both can be used. For example,
mounting the motors on pylon and controlling its direction of thrust.
Again, the addition of computers makes all the difference. When using
multiple motors for control was first attempted, the control system
was the usual cable and pulley arrangement. Without a mechanical
nightmare of gears, cams, cogs, and such, to form a mechanical
computah, it probably would be designated a bad idea. However,
computer servo control can easily coordinate the motor power, relative
direction, prop pitch, and control surfaces. Perhaps the idea should
be revisited?

Be my guest Wilber, and actually flying wings use changing lift to
provide directional control.

However, you bring up a good point. Using motors for directional
control will have less of an effect at low airspeeds and low power. I
guess that's where inducing drag for control will be needed.


Well, there's a big difference between a turboprop and an electric
motor. The turboprop is a complexicated messy device, with lots of
plumbing, magic boxes, and maintenance issues. An electric motor is
comparatively simple.

A turboprop is actually simpler than a piston engine, much more reliable
and has less maintenance.

Guessing again... It would seem that a turboprop or similar engine has
a certain minimum complexity in order to function. Adding additional
engines duplicated the complexity, making multi engine designs more
complexicated than single engine designs.

The light is beginning to come on, but you aren't there yet

However, an electric motor is a fairly simple device. All the
complexity is in the control system and drivers, which can be
centralized (and redundant). Adding additional engines does not
geometrically increase the overall complexity.

Off course again.

Probably true. That what happens when one focuses on only one aspect
of a system. Mr Lapin wants to optimize the computer part of the
puzzle while neglecting almost everything else. I'm concentrating on
fly by wire and the psychology of flying. You're concentrating on
preserving existing technology, while taking a conservative position
towards change in any form. We would make a great design team, that
would probably kill each other off after the first meeting.

No, I am not "concentrating on preserving" anything except human life.

You have a solution in search of a problem to solve.

All I'm asking is that you keep an open mind to new ideas and
techniques. At first glance, shoving a computah into a GA airplane is
a waste of time because the existing technology is functional,
reliable, and cheap. I agree so far. However, that computah offers
the ability to add considerably to what can be done with the airplane.
Active stabilization, directional motor control, hands off landing,
GPS augmented visualization, and the usual glass cockpit features. By
themselves, none of these are compelling justifications for
computerizing an electric airplane. It's the 1% incremental
improvement again. Do it 100 times, and you have a revolutionary
improvement. Computers have a tendency to do that. Once you've
"paid" for the computah, additional features and function come really
cheap (mostly software).

There are already processors in modern airplanes doing usefull things.

All I hear being proposed is more processors doing uneccessary things.

I can't and you know it. No sane person designs a new airplane for
immediate production.

No sane person has done otherwise for about 75 years now.

The techonologies and engineering techniques are well known.

But that is just avoiding the point.

Part 23 exists to keep people from becoming dead, not to stifle
creativity.

It becomes part of experimental aviation, where

Subsonic experimental aviation ended about 75 years ago; we've figured
it out.

the bugs can be squashed, pilot feedback collected, and the design is
optimized for eventual production. Although some airplanes have been
introduced directly into production, they were done by established
companies, with substantial resources. Mr Lapin does not have those
benefits. Therefore, his initial attempt will be unique and probably
a unflyable disaster. He will pick up the pieces, analyze the
problems, and try again, and again, and again, until has something
that will attract sufficient investors to justify production and
meeting the necessary specifications.

Lapin will never build anything and if through some miricle he did,
I'm willing to bet that his construction would be so slipshod the
FAA inspector (yes, home built experimentals get inspected for
basic airworthyness) would declare the thing a public hazard.

Part 23 (Airworthiness)
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...e&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr23_main_02.tpl>
I skimmed through a few sections and found plenty of requirements,
specifications, and tests. Somehow, I can't seem to find the
*REASONS* for these requirements, specifications, and tests. I
certainly would not expect the FAA to itemize the fatalities and
crashes the inspired each requirement. It's easy enough to determine
what's required, but kinda difficult to determine the reasons and
logic.

One more time.

All federal requlations have a discussion period BEFORE adoption.

The discussions are public record, though things from before 1950
and the Federal Records Act may be a bit sketchy.

Probably more than 10 times. However, that's comparing the electric
airplane with a typical small airplane. No way is an electric
airplane going to have the payload, range, and endurance of a gasoline
burner. It's going to be a flyweight and limited everything design
that will more closely resemble a powered glider or ultralight, than a
typical small airplane. Every technology has its optimum operating
point. With electric airplanes, that point may be well below that of
a gas burner.

Then it is not a practical airplane, just a toy.

However, what are you going to fly when gas prices go through the
roof? Solar charged electrics might look much more interesting.

To who and what would you put the solar generated electricity into
if the battery technology doesn't exist?

Hmmm.. My Verizon XV6700 runs my life:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/xv6700/XV6700.htm> (somewhat obsolete)
I've owned and maintained mobile phones since the days of mobile
operators (before IMTS). Before that, it was phone patches. Other
than decent analog FM audio, there's not much superior about the early
mobile phones.

They made and received telephone calls. Everything after that was
above and beyond making telephome calls.

Speaking of early mobile telephones, methinks you might find my
posting from 1997 somewhat amusing:


No thanks. I would like to keep the topic fairly close to electric
airplanes and fly by wire.

Practical electric airplanes are fantasy until battaries improve by at
least an order of magnitude. You migt as well discuss impulse engines
and Star Trek shuttles.

Fly by wire has been around for decades and no one who knows about GA
aircraft has yet to see any reason to use it in GA normal category
airplanes.

The ONLY place where you might ever have even a slim chance of seeing
a fly by wire system in a GA airplane is in a competition acrobatic
category airplane as that is the only place where such a system MAY
be usefull.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

But this is your doing, your choice: You refuse to give any details,
but what few details you have given in this thread are inconsistent
and sound unrealistic, then when pressed for details, you dodge giving
real answers, but you continue to take the attitude that we're all
wrong, and then you conclude that we are "predisposed" against new
ideas? Hey, it doesn't work that way. First show me an idea that has
merit, show that it works, and give real answers, not vague hand
waving.

There is already sufficient history in this thread and elsewhere that
a significant percentage of pilots have preemptively rejected any
claim to anything that might be new.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

There is already sufficient history in this thread and elsewhere that
a significant percentage of pilots have preemptively rejected any
claim to anything that might be new.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Like the man said, first show an idea that has merit, show that it
works, and give real answers, not vague hand waving

Here's three simple questions for you:

What would your fly-by-wire GA class airplane be able to do that any
modern GA airplane like the Cirrus SR22 can't do?

What materials would you use to contruct your airframe?

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

 

[Richard Herring]

In message

Don't forget the commodity leather seats, the commodity in-dash water
spigot with hot and cold tap,

With all that water, you'll need a commodity in-seat drain, too ;-/.

 

[Richard Herring]

In message

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.

What, like ADS-B and TCAS already do?

There would be rules about flying, just as there are
rules about driving.

There already are.

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].

Sure. Just a SMOP (in your universe). What do you propose that the
pilot should *do*, when he receives this alert?

Did you bother to read what I wrote about emergent complexity and
scalability before you snipped it?

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.

Do you mean collisions between aircraft? I'm struggling to imagine a
"less dangerous" one, regardless of what they're made of or what propels
them. As for collisions with the ground, I can assure you the ground
usually wins.

 

[Richard Herring]

In message

By design, I mean actually design, like employing the concepts of
semiconductor physics,

Really? You calculated the electron dispersion relation and the
Brillouin zones and the Fermi surfaces for all your semiconducting
materials, just to get the gain of a transistor? Impressive.

electrodynamics,

Feynman integrals? Impressive.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

In message

 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].

Sure. Just a SMOP (in your universe).  What do you propose that the
pilot should *do*, when he receives this alert?

Take corrective action.

Did you bother to read what I wrote about emergent complexity and
scalability before you snipped it?
Yes.


Do you mean collisions between aircraft?  I'm struggling to imagine a
"less dangerous" one, regardless of what they're made of or what propels
them. As for collisions with the ground, I can assure you the ground
usually wins.

Hitting the ground hard would hurt either way. But I imagine that,
for give masses M1 and M2 of two aircraft, not all mid-air collisions
would be equally catastrophic. Speed of each machine would matter
[which implies that super-slow flight would be possible], as well as
their individual structure. Also, for a given seat configuration,
structural strength to weight ratio would probably matter.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Hitting the ground hard would hurt either way. But I imagine that,
for give masses M1 and M2 of two aircraft, not all mid-air collisions
would be equally catastrophic. Speed of each machine would matter
[which implies that super-slow flight would be possible], as well as
their individual structure. Also, for a given seat configuration,
structural strength to weight ratio would probably matter.

Yet more arm waving, babbling nonsense.

A mid air collision between two aircraft at any speed generally results
in the aircraft falling out of the sky due to either loss of
aerodynamics (the lift goes away) or controllability..

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Yet more arm waving, babbling nonsense.

A mid air collision between two aircraft at any speed generally results
in the aircraft falling out of the sky due to either loss of
aerodynamics (the lift goes away) or controllability..

Always?

What if the aircraft are blimps?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Always?

I said generally, can't you read?

What if the aircraft are blimps?

What about it?

Blimps by their very nature are fragile, as can be verified by the families
of the 12 people who died when G-1 collided with L-1 on June 8, 1942.

 

[Androcles]

Yet more arm waving, babbling nonsense.

A mid air collision between two aircraft at any speed generally results
in the aircraft falling out of the sky due to either loss of
aerodynamics (the lift goes away) or controllability..

Always?

What if the aircraft are blimps?

-Le Chaud Lapin-
======================================
Generally, yes. Even blimps, and he said "generally". He's right,
you are babbling nonsense.

=====================================
Le Chaud Lapin - 0, [email protected] 1
=====================================

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

I said generally, can't you read?


What about it?

It would seem that there might be a correlation between degree-of-
catastrohpe and the nature of the construction, mass, velocity...of
the aircraft.

IOW, a collision between two light-weight, slow-moving vehicles, which
no exposed moving parts (propeller, jet,..) might be, generally
speaking, less catastrophic than two heavy-weight, fast-moving
vehicles with props, especially if the prop itself participates in the
collision.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

It would seem that there might be a correlation between degree-of-
catastrohpe and the nature of the construction, mass, velocity...of
the aircraft.

Duh.

M60 tank versus Toyota Prius head on, who wins?

Not much market for aircraft that fly less than 10 MPH.

IOW, a collision between two light-weight, slow-moving vehicles, which
no exposed moving parts (propeller, jet,..) might be, generally
speaking, less catastrophic than two heavy-weight, fast-moving
vehicles with props, especially if the prop itself participates in the
collision.

Let's see, two people, that's about 400 pounds to start with.

Add a structure, a real (not a Star Trek fantasy) engine, wheels, seats,
windscreen, fuel tanks, fuel, etc. and now you have better than a
thousand pounds.

And once again, there isn't much of a market for aircraft that fly less
than 10 MPH.

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

What materials are you going to use to build the airframe of your home
built?

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

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Not much market for aircraft that fly less than 10 MPH.


Let's see, two people, that's about 400 pounds to start with.

My OP said "one-seater".

Add a structure, a real (not a Star Trek fantasy) engine, wheels, seats,
windscreen, fuel tanks, fuel, etc. and now you have better than a
thousand pounds.

If by "real", you mean ICE, that might be difference in opinion. You
are imagining something that looks more or less like a Cessna.

And once again, there isn't much of a market for aircraft that fly less
than 10 MPH.

Unless 10 mph is one of several ranges.

There are many reasons someone might like to momentarily fly 10 mph.

-Le Chaud Lapin-