Mass produced vtol aircraft to eliminate eventual global gridlock of ground vehicles

[rosiejerryrosie]

Wonder how much one of these gems would sell for? And will there be trained mechanics, nation wide, to perform routine maintenance and repair? What is max gross takeoff weight? How about refueling - will the special bio-fuel or natural gas be readily available nation wide?

[Eric Page]

Excellent questions, Jerry. We've seen all sorts of ideas for the next generation of automobiles. Hydrogen fuel cells, fast-replacement battery packs, compressed natural gas, etc. They all suffer from the same problem: no existing support infrastructure and prohibitive cost to build it. Unfortunately, we have a very well established network of gas stations, and they won't be easily converted to serve some other function.

[Frank Giger]

The tech, if one could pull it off, would be amazing.

Heck, think of the huge sums of money one could make on military applications alone for an unmanned VSTOL that could take off, fly 50 miles (or more) and then land, unassisted, with an accuracy of five feet of its aimpoint.

We can't even get automated ground vehicles to navigate that far reliably, and they don't have to deal with gusts, thermals, wind, etc.

[Matt Gonitzke]

More automation is not necessarily better; this has been proven by recent accidents, including AF447. Someone still has to fly the aircraft when the automated systems disconnect or fail, and currently, I'm not aware of any aircraft that is capable of making an unassisted emergency landing. You cannot possibly program every conceivable emergency situation into the flight control system.

"Since the electronic systems went on watch there hasn’t been a midair involving an airline jet." That is NOT true. The GOL Transportes Aereos Flight 1907/Embraer bizjet midair and the Bashkirian Flight 2937/DHL 611 midair both occurred due to TCAS malfunctions.

It will still be an airplane, and will still need to be inspected and repaired by an A&P, making the operating cost substantially more than an automobile, and you'll have to see a LOT of these to get the cost down to something reasonable (i.e. $20-30k, similar to many current new cars). I would never buy one, and neither would any pilot I know...we are pilots because we love FLYING our own airplanes. At any rate, the original post reads like the Eclipse business model applied to the Moller pipe dream, so this should all be pretty entertaining to watch, if nothing else.

[Kyle Boatright]

Fully Automated.
VTOL.
Inexpensive.

Nobody in GA is currently doing any of those things. Accomplishing all 3 at once is quite a challenge.

[Stan]

Hi Kyle, fully automated means that the autopilots(3) for redundancy just as I had in the B-777, have the ability to fly the aircraft in all flight modes mainly for very high density traffic areas. That mode of flight would only be necessary in the distant future when their are as many aircraft as their are autos now. Initially the market would be the 1 million licensed pilots world wide. As the public becomes aware of the capabilities of the aircraft , they would naturally want to purchase them. It would probably be a slow evolution as envisioned by the FAA's NextGen program. As far as VTOL is concerned I took the best ideas in aviation history and put them together using the latest engine and airframe technology to design the Verticraft. The biggest challenge is to make the aircraft affordable. The non-massed produced parts can be bought for about $200,000.
I would guess if you went to the parts store and bought all of the parts for your car at retail and then assembled the car, it would probably cost $250,000. I estimate that the aircraft could be mass produced for a price of between $100,000 and $50,000. I am trying to contact the companies that mass produce the current transportation vehicles such as Ford, GM, etc. to see if they are interested in a joint venture. I hope to get funding from DARPA for a UAV version of the Verticraft to save the military billions in runway construction and logistics cost. The Georgia Tech Aerospace Design Lab is working on a computer simulation model of the Verticraft.

[Stan]

Hi Matt, I envision the fully automated system would be required only when everyone had one, and only when flying into a very high density population area. Until then I agree with you totally that I would hand fly
the aircraft as much as possible. I personally avoid high density population areas as much as possible. That leaves everywhere else in the world to have fun hand flying. I was one of the original test pilots that tested the ACLS ( automatic carrier landing system ) in the F-4 when it was first developed to cut down on the aircraft carrier accident rate especially in night or bad weather conditions. I only flew the B-777 on autopilot in cruise and hand flew the departure and approach and landing unless the weather was below CAT II minimums and then an auto landing was required. I saw a new segment recently that said that airline pilots hand flew an average of three minutes of the total flight. The rightful concern was lack of proficiency leading to aircraft accidents. You are also correct about having" to see a LOT of these to get the cost down to something reasonable."

[rwanttaja]

As far as VTOL is concerned I took the best ideas in aviation history and put them together using the latest engine and airframe technology to design the Verticraft.

So, how many flight hours does it have? How about posting some pictures of it flying? Is this the same thing as Frank Black's Modus Verticraft concept?

Remember Otto Lillienthal: "To invent an airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything." We scorn Paul Moller, but he, at least, has flown his design. Have you?

How about posting the Patent Number so we can look it up?

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

From the "what really killed GA" thread, from Stan:

I was answering your question about what killed general aviation. Affordability is the answer and mass production is the solution. The auto is obsolete but its replacement can only be successful if it is mass produced just as Henry Ford proved in 1914. Mass production of aircraft for primary transportation outside of high density population centers is the best way to prevent global gridlock that is ironically discussed by Henry Ford's great grandson (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_ford_a..._gridlock.html.

History is not kind to your assessment of mass production vs. cost of aircraft.

After WWII aircraft manufacturers looked at the huge number of returning pilots and the economic boom from war production and bet that it was time to start cranking out large numbers of aircraft.

It broke them.

In a perfect storm of economic sensibilities - a large prospective market, economies of scale making their products affordale, and an infrastructure of local airports that were demilitarized - it made sense on paper.

Sixty years later there are still a healthy number of Champs, Cubs, etc. hanging around because their production numbers were so high that normal attrition hasn't taken them off the market.

For conversation's sake, let's say we can get the auto-plane down to 60K a model (which would be pretty impressive). One is going to make it the second or third family vehicle; the need for the automobile due to weather concerns and convenience (taking the flying car to the pharmacy a mile to pick up a prescription away isn't going to happen) doesn't disappear.

Magic 8 Ball says Outlook Not Good on getting a flying car into the average home.

[Frank Giger]

From the "what really killed GA" thread, from Stan:

I was answering your question about what killed general aviation. Affordability is the answer and mass production is the solution. The auto is obsolete but its replacement can only be successful if it is mass produced just as Henry Ford proved in 1914. Mass production of aircraft for primary transportation outside of high density population centers is the best way to prevent global gridlock that is ironically discussed by Henry Ford's great grandson

History is not kind to your assessment of mass production vs. cost of aircraft. Or on the idea that if a company makes a lot of something it will generate demand because the product is in plentiful supply.

After WWII aircraft manufacturers looked at the huge number of returning pilots and the economic boom from war production and bet that it was time to start cranking out large numbers of aircraft.

It broke them.

In a perfect storm of economic sensibilities - a large prospective market, economies of scale making their products affordale, and an infrastructure of local airports that were demilitarized - it made sense on paper.

Sixty years later there are still a healthy number of Champs, Cubs, etc. hanging around because their production numbers were so high that normal attrition hasn't taken them off the market.

For conversation's sake, let's say we can get the auto-plane down to 60K a model (which would be pretty impressive). One is going to make it the second or third family vehicle; the need for the automobile due to weather concerns and convenience (taking the flying car to the pharmacy a mile to pick up a prescription away isn't going to happen) doesn't disappear.

Magic 8 Ball says Outlook Not Good on getting a flying car into the average home.