Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: EAA design contest?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    Show me a flying car that is more than a one-off novelty or the means by which a con artist (Moller) gets people with more money than sense to line his pockets.
    okay.

    Name:  aerocar.jpg
Views: 641
Size:  64.9 KB

  2. #22
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    okay.

    Name:  aerocar.jpg
Views: 641
Size:  64.9 KB
    And how many of those were actually built? How many of them were actually used? If it was such a successful design why didn't the "success" continue on into a new generation? According to Wikipedia, six Aerocars were built which is smaller than the pre-production test runs of most real commercially built airplanes.

    How is a roadable aircraft more "fraught with problems in the areas of human factors, operations, weather, economics..., safety and other things" than helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft?
    Because to make it economically viable you'd have to apply it to more than just the existing pilot population. Given how poorly the average person handles their own car, putting them at the controls of an aircraft (especially one with the marginal handling characteristics that would result from the design compromises necessary to make a flying car even technically viable) is asking for the GA body count to shoot up sharply. You want to see the FAA put their boot up our collective asses, an increase in the death toll will trigger exactly that.

    The "even if every pilot bought one" argument is a non-starter as well. That's assuming that every last one of us wants a low, slow and minimal useful weight flying car. No thanks....a lot of us would rather just arrange a rental car which I don't see that many inconveniences involved in using and I've yet to find an paved airport that you can't get a rental car to especially if there's an Enterprise dealership within 40 miles.

    As for safety, the issue becomes how well something like the various flying car designs would handle on the interstate or in a crash with a real car. As someone else pointed out, you have to compromise which winds up producing a mediocre airplane and mediocre car that most people won't spend the money on.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    And how many of those were actually built? How many of them were actually used? If it was such a successful design why didn't the "success" continue on into a new generation? According to Wikipedia, six Aerocars were built which is smaller than the pre-production test runs of most real commercially built airplanes.

    Since you answered your own question, I guess you know it's not a one-off novelty. There's a lot of reasons why a design might not be produced in large 'generation spanning' quantities. Aviation history is full of such examples. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a design failure.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    26
    There are around a dozen roadable aircraft flying today and I think we're overdue for a contest. Participants can carry FAI data loggers, just as they do in sailplanes. This will allow comparison of routes, airspeeds, drive speeds, transition times, etc. A few GoPro cameras would also be nice. For one particular task, it's possible for a competitor to get lucky or enjoy an unusual advantage. Therefore, the contest should last for several days, each day having a different real-world task. By the end of the event, the best designs will rank at the top.

    Personally, I'd love to enter. We have a variety of designs for hauling motorcycles inside/beneath perfectly good airplanes. These are in production, in use and serving the business and recreational needs of customers around the world. RoadableTimes.org lists these as "modular roadable aircraft" although others argue they aren't. I'm not too concerned about the name or classification as long as it takes me to where i need to go. Hopefully such a contest would be open to any and all solutions. In fact, I'd hope that someone enters a conventional airplane + rental car so we can see how designs compare with a traditional base-line.



    Name:  motoLOAD_page_IMG_2600.jpg
Views: 505
Size:  26.2 KBName:  motorcycle01.jpg
Views: 367
Size:  9.4 KBName:  PodInFlight_sm.jpg
Views: 439
Size:  7.4 KBName:  motoload_pic02.jpg
Views: 430
Size:  29.7 KB

  5. #25
    cluttonfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    World traveler
    Posts
    457
    Neat stuff on the motorcycle pods, thanks for sharing. There was a post in another thread about a homebuilt version of a Shorts Skyvan, which seems a bit ambitious, but it would be great to see a little 4-5 seat utility aircraft with the ability to fold the seats out of the way easily to carry a motorcycle, lightweight electric car or other ground transportation when flying just two-up.

    Here is a the design I'd choose for inspiration, the Miles M.57 Aerovan:

    Name:  Miles_Aerovan_1955.jpg
Views: 487
Size:  82.4 KB

    And here is a simple, 350-pound electric car, slower than a motorcycle to be sure but adequate to get you where you are going:



    It's not hard to imagine a smaller, single-engine design with the same swing-open rear fuselage or an actual loading ramp. As a matter of fact, the Croses EC.9 Para-Cargo is not far off:

    Name:  HPIM2230.JPG
Views: 726
Size:  50.8 KB

    Cheers,

    Matthew
    *******
    Matthew Long, Editor
    cluttonfred.info
    A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
    and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ft Lost in the Woods MO
    Posts
    57
    To be honest , think I'd look for inspiration somewhere else! Guess it could be worse, your inspiration could have been the the fleet shadowers built before WW2!

  7. #27
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Here is a the design I'd choose for inspiration, the Miles M.57 Aerovan:
    That thing is sinfully ugly. It makes a Shorts 360 look like a thing of beauty. It's like someone tried to reverse engineer a C-119 but with only half the plane present.

    And here is a simple, 350-pound electric car, slower than a motorcycle to be sure but adequate to get you where you are going:
    The morgue? You know, if you get rear-ended by a motorcycle or a real car?

    It's not hard to imagine a smaller, single-engine design with the same swing-open rear fuselage or an actual loading ramp. As a matter of fact, the Croses EC.9 Para-Cargo is not far off:
    LOL It's kind of like someone with double vision tried to design an airplane or like something out of Borat ("Airplane built for glorification of great nation of Kazahkastan!"). Does that thing actually fly? How could you land it without either smashing the tail into the ground or having a prop strike? Is the tailwheel in the rudder?
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  8. #28
    cluttonfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    World traveler
    Posts
    457
    Your tone is as warm and encouraging as ever, Steve.

    The Miles M.57 Aerovan was a very successful design for a light freighter originally conceived with with support for the British Army in the field during the Burma Campaign in mind. Plans to put it into large scale production immediately after WWII were hampered by wartime restriction on civilian investments and the post-war recession in Britain, including frequent power outages which played havoc with building essentially wooden aircraft which required constant temperature for glue to cure. 5,800 lb max gross weight (5,400 in passenger operations), 3,000 lb empty weight, ~2,400 useful load (~2,000 for passenger carrying), 12 seats, 127 mph max speed, 112 mph cruise, 46 mph stall, 400 mile range, all on 300 hp. I am sure that many rural communities and developing countries would jump at a modern aircraft with this kind of performance to provide inexpensive light passenger, cargo and air ambulance services. There are some nice contemporary articles here: http://home.comcast.net/~aero51/html/gallery/m57.htm

    The SunnEV is certainly no less safe than your typical motorcycle, to which it should be compared because of it's weight. Personally, I would wear a helmet, but that seems a reasonable trade-off for inexpensive transportation using renewable energy at pennies per mile. Here is a complete short documentary film about this interesting little vehicle:



    The Croses EC.9 ParaCargo, also quite successful, carried five people with excellent short- and rough-field performance on 180 hp. Typical of Mignet-configuration designs (of which it is the largest yet to fly), it varied the incidence of the front wing for pitch control, which means the angle of incidence of the fuselage changes very little, so it will take-off, cruise and land in a nearly level attitude. Control is by wheel-type yokes connected to the front wing and the rudder (which incorporates the large-diameter tailwheel). Roll is induced only by the large dihedral effect, there are no ailerons. This design also includes individual tabs on the left and right rear wing that can be used together for pitch trip or differentially for roll trip, especially to "dial in" a fixed amount of "aileron" for a crosswind takeoff or landing. I have flows a smaller, two-seat microlight Mignet type and it all works very well and is very natural in practice. Many more pics here: http://www.fraseraerotechnologycompa...ographer5.html
    *******
    Matthew Long, Editor
    cluttonfred.info
    A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
    and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

  9. #29
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Your tone is as warm and encouraging as ever, Steve.
    I'm just trying to be honest. I may not always be correct, but at that same time, you seem to have this flair for aircraft that are non-starters because they are so outlandish that they don't get off the ground (figuratively) based on lack of market appeal.

    The Miles M.57 Aerovan was a very successful design for a light freighter originally conceived with with support for the British Army in the field during the Burma Campaign in mind.
    I don't doubt it was successful. It's just funny looking. So was the C-119 but it is still one of my favorite planes of all time.

    The SunnEV is certainly no less safe than your typical motorcycle, to which it should be compared because of it's weight. Personally, I would wear a helmet, but that seems a reasonable trade-off for inexpensive transportation using renewable energy at pennies per mile. Here is a complete short documentary film about this interesting little vehicle:
    Point taken but that's not saying a whole lot and I'm willing to bet it lacks the maneuverability of a motorcycle. The problem with the comparison is that it's either supposed to be a car or it's supposed to be a motorcycle but it looks like the weekend project of a color-blind Dr. Who fan. There's something that a lot of the "efficiency" vehicle advocates seem to miss out on is that for a design to truly be meaningful and functional, it has to have a certain middle of the road aesthetic grace. Otherwise you can pretty much kiss any broad application of it goodbye and no one really pays attention to it because they think of the ugly little vehicle that was the proof of concept.

    Honestly, I often wonder why folks who are willing to spend YEARS or even decades trying to prove that something works are willing to shoot themselves in the foot by cramming what is often decent technology into something that the majority of the public is going to look at and either laugh or go "No way in hell I'd ride in that".

    Aesthetic design is probably one of the "easier" aspects of design, especially when it comes to aircraft. As an example, one of my designs should achieve roughly 67-110 passenger miles per gallon (depending on speed, altitude and number of passengers) while easily outpacing most high-end GA aircraft. I'm not about to sacrifice the chances of my work being used as the basis for something more broadly applicable so I took what could have been ungainly craft and tried to make it pleasing to look at and ask the input of others to make sure I wasn't simply being overly supportive because it's "my" design.

    The Croses EC.9 ParaCargo, also quite successful, carried five people with excellent short- and rough-field performance on 180 hp
    Apparently you're definition of 'successful' is different than mine. Only two were ever built according to the sources I could find on it. The performance is rather surprising given the layout (although I have to say I do like the huge cargo door). It just looks like it wouldn't be able to land without sacrificing it's belly especially on rough terrain.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    Would you be willing to park that quarter-million dollar carplane overnight in a dark Motel 6 parking lot?
    I've never stayed at Motel 6, and I don't agree that it has to cost that much. If I found a good used one for $120,000, I would happily park it in the garage at Embassy Suites, right next to a shiny new Porsche or Terrafugia.

    Would you be willing to park it unattended in the street for several days?
    No, but I don't leave my car in the street for days, either.

    If you land just after a big snowstorm hits, are you going to be willing to risk that $250,000 airplane on slippery city streets with the usual ratio of sloppy drivers?
    I live in Florida, but, OK, it probably wouldn't do well in thick snow, so it would lose some utility in the winter up North.

    If you answered "yes" to all these, are you going to be willing to pay the premiums the insurance company will require?
    Yes, but I don't expect it to be a problem, because I expect pilots will consider the risks when driving and parking.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •