Printable View
Now Frank, I'm going to have to start getting you to advertise for my new LSA design....maybe in that signature line of yours. LOLQuote:
For your single seat, low cost LSA needs
No less boring than most airshow acts (especially the jet jockeys) unless there is a crash.Quote:
Races for time and efficiency are actually really boring to watch - three times back and forth on a heading/back heading.
On the contest idea, one thing that would be very important is to set up a scoring system that encouraged balanced designs and discouraged niche machines. The British competitions at Lympne in the inter-war years accomplished very little other than to show how NOT to build a practical light plane. Any contest to be set up with enough contradictory parameters to make the most balanced design come out on top.
Well, that plus group similar airplanes into classes so everyone who enters can compete against similar types and not the whole field. At any rate, there's always going to be someone who will take a look at the rules and either modify an existing machine or design something from scratch to fill the "niche." In the latter part of the LBF era, the AJ-2 showed up, purpose built for the competition and dominated. But that's partly what it's about. You could certainly adjust scoring parameters every year and not publish specifics until the start of the event. Kinda like the unknown sequence in aerobatics. That's where the piloting strategy would come in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Long
I would like to see a contest to design a roadable aircraft, with the objective being to carry two persons 10 miles by road, 100 miles by air, then another 10 miles by road in minimum time. Allow judges to award points for practicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Long
*facepalm* Be right back....I think we're running low on Kool-Aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
I for one think it's a good idea. If it's okay for one of the greatest designers of our time to try his hand at a roadable aircraft (Rutan BiPod), then I don't know why having a roadable aircraft design contest should be avoided. Just because YOU don't like it does not make it a bad or silly idea. Seems to me quite a few people thought Burt was crazy for trying to build a spaceship, and yet he did just that. The EAA community should be encouraging experimentation, not deriding those who are trying something different. Just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
Zack
He's at the end of a long and productive career and has enough money to throw at such a project. A failure of the project (which still hasn't really flown so far as I have heard beyond some brief "hops") isn't going to harm his reputation or put him into financial ruin. If I had nothing better to do and had pretty much access to unlimited funding, I'd be trying some pretty outlandish things too.Quote:
If it's okay for one of the greatest designers of our time to try his hand at a roadable aircraft (Rutan BiPod), then I don't know why having a roadable aircraft design contest should be avoided.
The difference is that there have been functional manned spacecraft for about a week and a half shy of 51 years. 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. I agree that we can do it from a technological standpoint but it's still one of those "solutions looking for a problem". There's little practical application for such a vehicle that isn't already well filled by a helicopter or fixed wind aircraft. and the idea of putting it into practical use in the hands of your average citizen for daily commuting is fraught with problems in the arenas of human factors, operations, weather, economics (looking at you Terrafuggia and your quarter million dollar price tag), safety and other things that make it simply one of those "Gee whiz! Look what we can do!" sort of pursuits.Quote:
Seems to me quite a few people thought Burt was crazy for trying to build a spaceship, and yet he did just that.
If someone wants to pursue it, that's their choice but I just look, chuckle and wait for the next entry into the long list of failed concepts for such a design. I actually find it a nice distraction and people get so darn worked up and defensive about it that it is almost comical. The attention paid to these projects also tends to get kids interested in math, science and engineering which is always a good thing because the best and brightest of those might wind up helping develop real aircraft and solve real problems some day.
Okay, well, how about a contest to design the most effective high-lift devices. In other words, design an aircraft with a small, efficient wing in the cruise configuration and a low stall speed in the dirty configuration. Not sure what the metric should be.
How can you say there's little practical application for a roadable aircraft?! It would be so much more convenient toQuote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
--always have ground transportation available at any airport,
--be able to depart from a different airport than where I last landed,
--not have to move my stuff from car to plane to rental car back to plane back to my car,
--not waste time reserving, picking up and returning rental cars or waiting for taxis, and
--be able to buy fuel anywhere.
These are the issues that make general aviation impractical for many people. They find it more practical to just drive than to drive the OTHER way to the airport, then make their passengers wait while they pull out the plane, pre-flight, add a quart of oil, load up all the stuff, warm up the engine, fly to the big city airport with the high fees and fuel prices (because it's the only one with reliable ground transportation), taxi miles to the GA ramp, wait for the rental car or taxi, move the luggage, then drive a long way (because the nearest airport to the destination doesn't have ground transportation). Same crap on the return. Helicopters don't solve the problem, either, because you can't just land your helicopter in the parking lot at your destination. Did you know that if you return a rental car after noon on Saturday at Creve Coeur Airport in St. Louis, you have to pay as if you kept it till Monday, because the Enterprise office is closed?
Terrafugia's price target is the result of their design choices, such as four wheels, highway speeds and car-like handling on the road, automobile safety equipment, and within (extended) LSA weight limits. Had they loosened up those constraints, they could have designed a much more economical vehicle.
I didn't suggest putting it in the hands of average citizens, but all the certificated pilots I know can drive on the road just fine. 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?
OK, now, here's the question: Would you be willing to park that quarter-million dollar carplane overnight in a dark Motel 6 parking lot? Would you be willing to park it unattended in the street for several days? 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
If you answered "yes" to all these, are you going to be willing to pay the premiums the insurance company will require?
Ron Wanttaja