Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Carplane Developers Criticize BiPod…and Burt responds

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon / USA
    Posts
    64
    Anyone have any thoughts, criticisms, or words of encouragement around the switchblade? http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/

  2. #12
    rosiejerryrosie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by spungey View Post
    Anyone have any thoughts, criticisms, or words of encouragement around the switchblade? http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/
    Wonder what the wing loading is????
    Cheers,
    Jerry

    NC22375
    65LA out of 07N Pennsylvania

  3. #13
    Burt Rutan is claiming his 40hp, 2-seat motor-glider does 200mph at 12,000ft. Has anyone besides me here ever flown a 40hp motor-glider?? Hmmm. I'm a huge fan of Burt Rutan, but if I'm reading the figures right the concerns raised in John Brown's post have some credibility.

    The comparison between the two projects is difficult. I've been following Carplane since 2008 and if you examine the Carplane website you'll see how mature the project is. The Rutan Bi-Pod is a concept vehicle at a much earlier stage of development. How about we try looking at the projects on their own merits, rather than dismissing one because the inventor hasn't flown around the world on a single tank? I guess everyone probably told Burt Rutan he was crazy when he showed the audacity to do the Voyager project. Let's encourage new inventors who let's face it are doing things us regular mortals couldn't do. We live in an exciting era for aviation.

  4. #14
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Let's encourage new inventors who let's face it are doing things us regular mortals couldn't do. We live in an exciting era for aviation
    Imagine what they would be capable of achieving if they weren't wasting their time chasing the most persistent lame duck goal in all of aviation.

    Burt Rutan is claiming his 40hp, 2-seat motor-glider does 200mph at 12,000ft. Has anyone besides me here ever flown a 40hp motor-glider?? Hmmm. I'm a huge fan of Burt Rutan, but if I'm reading the figures right the concerns raised in John Brown's post have some credibility.
    Nothing wrong with setting a goal and if anyone can achieve it, it's Rutan. As far as Carplane....it stands that it might be a pretty decent car but Burt was right: if you can't fly it to Oshkosh because there are mountains in the way, it's not really an effective aerial vehicle.

    How about we try looking at the projects on their own merits, rather than dismissing one because the inventor hasn't flown around the world on a single tank?
    Honestly, I don't see either project as really having much 'merit' so far as practicality is concerned. This is very much one of those "gee whiz!" sort of "achievements" like the Gossammer Albatross human powered flight across the English Channel or the pursuit of completely electrically powered flight. Neither of those is likely to yield a major shift in the way we fly within the lifetime of any adult on this forum. It doesn't mean that it's not interesting or a good source of amusement, but it certainly isn't groundbreaking or heralding a sea change in aviation.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    Imagine what they would be capable of achieving if they weren't wasting their time chasing the most persistent lame duck goal in all of aviation.
    Oh I see. So both Carplane AND Burt Rutan are wasting their time? We can agree to differ on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    Nothing wrong with setting a goal and if anyone can achieve it, it's Rutan. As far as Carplane....it stands that it might be a pretty decent car but Burt was right: if you can't fly it to Oshkosh because there are mountains in the way, it's not really an effective aerial vehicle.
    I doubt you'd find many who would disagree with Rutan about flying to Oshkosh. From my research I understand Carplane's flight performance characteristics are similar to a Piper Cherokee, using a 130hp power plant. I imagine a fair few Piper Cherokees have flown into Oshkosh over the years! Whilst you're certainly correct when you say there's nothing wrong with setting a goal, a goal is all that Burt Rutan has right now. I agree with you that Burt Rutan has the creative abilities to achieve ambitious goals, and I'll be first in line if he can achieve 200mph at 12,000ft using a 40hp power plant. In the meantime, Carplane's claims of Piper Cherokee performance using a 130hp power plant seem more real to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    Honestly, I don't see either project as really having much 'merit' so far as practicality is concerned. This is very much one of those "gee whiz!" sort of "achievements" like the Gossammer Albatross human powered flight across the English Channel or the pursuit of completely electrically powered flight. Neither of those is likely to yield a major shift in the way we fly within the lifetime of any adult on this forum. It doesn't mean that it's not interesting or a good source of amusement, but it certainly isn't groundbreaking or heralding a sea change in aviation.
    It's fortunate then that neither of these very creative people relies on your approval for motivation lol. Personally I love the idea of owning an aircraft that I can store in my garage at home, and which I can drive home if inclement weather prevents me from flying home after a weekend trip up the coast. If ever I fly over your head I'll remember to dip my wings.

    By the way, maybe you'd do better to examine the Carplane website and read the Bi-Pod announcements in more detail before you post again. Your comments reveal a rather obvious lack of knowledge about either project. The truth is out there!!

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2
    Everyone knows that a roadable airplane has extremely limited utility when cost is considered. But anyway, Burt had his prototype at OSH. Where was carplane?

  7. #17
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Whiley View Post
    Oh I see. So both Carplane AND Burt Rutan are wasting their time? We can agree to differ on this point.



    I doubt you'd find many who would disagree with Rutan about flying to Oshkosh. From my research I understand Carplane's flight performance characteristics are similar to a Piper Cherokee, using a 130hp power plant. I imagine a fair few Piper Cherokees have flown into Oshkosh over the years! Whilst you're certainly correct when you say there's nothing wrong with setting a goal, a goal is all that Burt Rutan has right now. I agree with you that Burt Rutan has the creative abilities to achieve ambitious goals, and I'll be first in line if he can achieve 200mph at 12,000ft using a 40hp power plant. In the meantime, Carplane's claims of Piper Cherokee performance using a 130hp power plant seem more real to me.



    It's fortunate then that neither of these very creative people relies on your approval for motivation lol. Personally I love the idea of owning an aircraft that I can store in my garage at home, and which I can drive home if inclement weather prevents me from flying home after a weekend trip up the coast. If ever I fly over your head I'll remember to dip my wings.

    By the way, maybe you'd do better to examine the Carplane website and read the Bi-Pod announcements in more detail before you post again. Your comments reveal a rather obvious lack of knowledge about either project. The truth is out there!!
    It's just as LMAYNARD said...it's of very limited utility and I doubt that it will ever become a particularly common design. If the idea excites you, more power to you. I choose to focus on more practical considerations.

  8. #18
    EAA Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by lmaynard View Post
    Everyone knows that a roadable airplane has extremely limited utility when cost is considered. But anyway, Burt had his prototype at OSH. Where was carplane?
    I'm 99% certain that the Rutan BiPod prototype was NOT at Oshkosh. If someone knows more, please feel free to correct me.

    Zack

  9. #19
    Adam Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jefferson, Maryland, United States
    Posts
    79
    Zack, I can nudge your 99% to 100%, it was definitely not at Oshkosh.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    It's just as LMAYNARD said...it's of very limited utility and I doubt that it will ever become a particularly common design. If the idea excites you, more power to you. I choose to focus on more practical considerations.
    I'm not sure if it is because of my limited aviation experience (compared to other members here), but I can't understand how has a road-able airplane "very limited utility"? Primary reason for not flying more often is, for many of us, the hassle of getting to that airport and back. This explains why there is an abundance of real estate advertising for air parks (homes with direct runway access) in aviation magazines. Even for those who have the convenience of having their aircraft very close to their home, there is that hassle of moving around once we land at destination. Conceptually, road-able aircraft (or carplane) has the ultimate utility, as it can get you anywhere and everywhere. And the only reason we don't have it today is because of conflicting regulatory requirements for road and air travel. The regulation will continue to exist (and may only become even more restricting), but if anyone can find even the minuscule area where the two sets overlap, and within that overlap build a roadable aircraft, it is Rutan. If this design does end up successfully meeting requirements for both road and air (regulatory, as well as utilitarian), it is entirely likely that it could become the more popular than C172.
    Last edited by vasic; 08-18-2011 at 07:13 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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