Printable View
There was a time when the EAA sponsored at least one design contest (which gave birth to the Bowers Fly Baby). Why not do the same thing today?For example, with the worldwide economic downturn there is a real need for modern, low cost designs. With developments in battery technology a simple electric homebuilt seems to be within reach. I am sure that there are many more possibilities.What kind of contest would you like to see and how might we go about creating such a contest?Cheers,Matthew
Having followed what the Sonex guys have done with respect to "electric homebuilt" possibilities, as well as seeing their presentation on the subject at Oshkosh 2010, it would appear they have a long, long lead in this race. They took their Waiex design and electrified it. The battery technology is anything but "low cost". In fact, the battery needed to power a 2-place for a theoretical 1/2 hour flight is currently well above what we're paying for current production 100-120hp engines. Then you've still got to buy the motor and power control hardware. As far as long, long lead in the race, the pacing item (besides the battery) is the power control hardware / software. The Sonex guys have spent gobs of hours and money on getting that stuff going.
Of course, being an aircraft design and kit company, they have very specific ideas on how they would re-optimize the airframe for the electric power. Most of this would take something like the Waiex and make it more "glider-ish". Higher aspect ratio wing, maybe some tweaking to the fuselage shape to take advantage of the packaging possibilities of an electric motor and battery.
So my impression is that unless it's "motors on an ultralight" kind of design, anything more "practical" like a 2-place, enclosed cockpit, 130-ish mph cruise kind of machine is being and will be designed/perfected by organizations / companies with lots of resources behind them. Of course, companies don't take on stuff like this unless they plan to sell a bunch of them. Or at least plan to sell the number of them required to recoup the cost. So a contest where the output is the IP out there "for free" for anyone else to build from - probably isn't going to be a very attractive proposition.
Along the lines of "efficient airplanes" - one development I see as eventually generating some interesting products is the proposed "no medical up to 180hp" proposal. This essentially does away with the LSA speed limit. As such, I predict a future where VERY fast single-place designs come about with relatively low power (and "lower" cost) engines. Like 180-200mph cruise on a $7-8k VW-based engine, for instance. Or other smaller, lighter, more efficient engines giving similar cruise kinds of speeds at lower fuel burns, say 2-2.5 gph, albeit with higher buy-in costs. When we get there - in the realm of 90-100mpg at 180-200 mph, a personal airplane becomes a VERY attractive way to travel.
As Eric mentioned, batteries are costly and limited in range and useful life before needing replacement.
Since fuel price can only go up, we need new smaller engines for smaller single seat designs.
But no suitable low cost small aircraft engines exist at this time (30-40hp). This has been a problem for more than 60 years.
A good contest to promote small engine design ideas is needed in my view. With engine options, hundreds of airframe designs could emerge.
Bill
Well...I'm not expecting we'll see another EAA design contest. I went through the Sport Aviation archives leading up to the contest, and it looked like there was a lot of difficulty coming up with the rules. And I'm sure that some of the changes really caught in some folks' craws. For instance, the original rules said "any engine," but the final rules required a type-certified engine.
Nowadays, it'd probably be worse. Back then, it was a competition between private individuals. Now, of course, it'd be a competition between kit companies...you can bet kit companies would lobby hard for rules that favor their products and exclude their competitors.
Electric powered aircraft are an interesting concept, but don't forget the overriding goal of the first EAA design contest: A *practical* airplane. Unless the technology exists to allow a builder to use the plane for something more than a "gee whiz" machine, there's not going to be much interest. The Fly Baby won in 1962 because it was easy to build, had low construction costs, and gave performance equivalent to the typical GA aircraft of its day. It's hard to see an electric airplane accomplishing this....
Ron Wanttaja
Thanks, all, for your replies. I should clarify that the low-cost and electric options were two different suggestions for potential design contest themes and not intended to be taken together. Other themes might be for a 21st century bush plane, an affordable aerobatic mount or a cross-country machine for a family of five--since my wife and I have three kids ;-)I agree that the high cost of fuel would seem to encourage the development of small engines that would then create their own market, "if you build it, they will come." I am not so sure that an engine for the single-seat market makes much sense, historically most successful single-seat designs have almost always morphed into more sucessful, two-seat designs (Quickie to Q2, KR-1 to KR-2, Sonerai to Sonerai II, Midget Mustang to Mustang II, RV-3 to RV-4, etc.). Something like a 60 hp engine optimized for affordability and economy, cheaper to buy and operate than the Rotax 4-strokes, would certainly be a welcome addition to the market. But since engines are almost exclusively a commercial proposition, not amateur designed or built, I am not so sure it makes since as a contest. And if I were the manufacturer of such an engine, the first thing I would do is to sponsor a design contest and races and competitions for new and existing designs to draw attention to my engine.I know it's a common refrain, but am I wrong in thinking that we need more offerings at the low end of the homebuilt price spectrum, both plans and kits, to attract new members to our community and to provide affordable options in tough economic times? Of course, the same thing can be said for the factory-built market both LSA and standard airplanes. Where is the DH Moth, the Aeronca C-3 or the Piper J-3 for the 21st century?
Of course, Fred was (is) a single seat design and so is Flybaby. Yes, it is true that commercial airplane factories focus on profit and this means they have no interest in lower cost single seat. I found that no single seat SLSA have been offered in these 8 years since Light Sport went into effect. The light sport rule was supposed to enhance affordable options but the focus on two-seat has driven the engine cost higher than would be the case if the focus was on single seat size engines.
Light single seat is left with no good engine options now, from the airplane engine companies, these engine options have to be nurtured from the experimental group.
For a contest, liability is always a concern. One seat have less liability, a passenger warning is not required obviously, this is an advantage.
Matt,
I see a lot of potential in your design contest idea being held as an academic exercise at the university and even at the high school level. The high school level could have some serious ties to the STEM program. At the university level there is the potential for bright young engineers to shine which can make the difference when getting that all important first job.
Cheers,
Kurt
I like to see them bring back some of the competitive flying events, like the L-B-F speed/efficiency race. See who can go the fastest & slowest, takeoff & land in the shortest distance, most payload, etc. That pushes aircraft design as much as anything. Plus the pilot can come up with his own strategy for placing as high as possible.
I'm conflicted on whether to support this idea or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
For your single seat, low cost LSA needs:
http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/ai...orderform.html
On flying competitions, I don't see the problems with ressurecting "land on the dot" or short field challenges of yore. The rules were straight forward and the emphasis was on safety. As planes got heavier and faster, they fell out of favor - it's the realm of Champs and Cubs.
I'm not too keen on max load competitions, as it sounds an awful lot like testing to failure. Slow flight competitions are met with short field challenges. Races for time and efficiency are actually really boring to watch - three times back and forth on a heading/back heading.
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
okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
Attachment 1771
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
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.Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
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.
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.
Attachment 1837Attachment 1838Attachment 1839Attachment 1840
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:
Attachment 1849
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZEAlJduRrs
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:
Attachment 1850
Cheers,
Matthew
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!
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.Quote:
Here is a the design I'd choose for inspiration, the Miles M.57 Aerovan:
The morgue? You know, if you get rear-ended by a motorcycle or a real car?Quote:
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:
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?Quote:
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:
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:
http://youtu.be/gA8WCt6ozyY
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
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.Quote:
Your tone is as warm and encouraging as ever, Steve.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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:
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.
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.Quote:
The Croses EC.9 ParaCargo, also quite successful, carried five people with excellent short- and rough-field performance on 180 hp
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
No, but I don't leave my car in the street for days, either.Quote:
Would you be willing to park it unattended in the street for several days?
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.Quote:
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?
Yes, but I don't expect it to be a problem, because I expect pilots will consider the risks when driving and parking.Quote:
If you answered "yes" to all these, are you going to be willing to pay the premiums the insurance company will require?
Someone backs into your $120,000 Porsche, you cuss and drive it with the ding until you get back home. Someone backs into your $120,000 flying car, you're stuck where you're at until you can get an A&P to fix it. Airplanes are MUCH more delicate in comparison to cars. ANY damage, and you're grounded. Doesn't have to happen overnight, either...could happen in the Cracker Barrel parking lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
You've never traveled to another town to visit family or friends for a few days? Where do you park your car during the visit?Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
Insurance rates are not driven by the safe pilots, they're driven by the UNsafe ones. My guess is that the insurance for a flying car will run at least the same as for an amphibian...annual premiums can run to 10% of the aircraft's value. It'd be cheaper to buy and abandon a used car at every destination...Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
The issue is not whether a flying car is technologically feasible; Molt Taylor proved that fifty years ago. Economic viability is the issue. You end up spending a LOT of money to avoid having to transfer your bags to a rental car when you arrive at your destination. Remember, Molt had a TON of free advertising, with the main character of a popular TV show driving an Aerocar. Didn't translate into sales.
It's always possible to define a corner condition where a flying car is a viable option (Going to a small town that doesn't have any cab service or rental car companies!) but there aren't that many people who face that kind of situation...and without a market, the flying car cannot be economically viable.
I'm a bit more optimistic about rotorcraft and powered-parachute style flying cars, as the airfoil sections can be much more easily protected. But you don't get that much of an "aviation advantage" with these types of aircraft since they don't go much faster than a car on the interstate. My little $15,000 econobox can haul me and three friends from Seattle to Portland in about two and one-half hours. For $100,000 more, I can shave a half-hour off that time (less the time required to convert the flying car to/from aviation mode) as long as I leave two friends behind. Not seeing the advantage, really.
Ron Wanttaja
Quite likely in this case you could still drive to the airport, where you could get a fix or a waiver or whatever. If you hold the repairman certificate, you could of course fix it (and document it) yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Ouch. We should publicly invite insurance companies to explain this. It doesn't feel "right" to me. Amphibians don't have a ten-year life expectancy, do they? Is it just the liability, or the repair? Is it just certificated or all amphibs? Paying a second mortgage to keep your SeaRay in the garage explains a lot about why we see so few these days. And lets face it ... they are practical.Quote:
My guess is that the insurance for a flying car will run at least the same as for an amphibian...annual premiums can run to 10% of the aircraft's value. It'd be cheaper to buy and abandon a used car at every destination...
You never come to Portland anyway. :-)Quote:
My little $15,000 econobox can haul me and three friends from Seattle to Portland in about two and one-half hours. For $100,000 more, I can shave a half-hour off that time (less the time required to convert the flying car to/from aviation mode) as long as I leave two friends behind.
Ron Wanttaja[/QUOTE]
Certainly...the point is, it has to be fixed before you can go home, where the Porschogini can be driven home dented. You're going to have to hope the local A&P is willing to drop everything they're doing to replace the sheet metal/re-do the composite, and hope that nothing has to be ordered from the factory, like a windshield after a truck kicks a rock into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spungey
If the plane is EX-AB or ELSA, you aren't really better off. I only carry a 10 mm wrench (to disconnect the battery), a screwdriver (built into the fuel tester), a spare inspection disk, a few key screws, and (of course) a roll of duct tape in my Fly Baby. Carrying sufficient tools to do sheet metal or composite repair for a carplane is going to eat into what's probably a fairly low useful load anyway. Plus working on the ramp in the open for several days....
My guess is that it's because the aircraft has to operate in an additional hazardous medium...in other words, you have to pay both aircraft and boat insurance. Same thing for a carplane, which is the basis for my guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by spungey
Your reference to the SeaRey illustrates the issue precisely. I've done a lot of analysis of fleet accident rates for homebuilts (number of accidents vs. the total number registered) and the SeaRey an accident rate twice that of the Kitfox (higher than the Lancair IV, in fact). But most of those extra accidents involve water hazards, which most Kitfoxes (and no Lancairs) never experience.
Your carplane insurance will have to cover both aviation and road hazards, and if the plane is worth a quarter million dollars, the rate will be pretty steep. I did a quick online check, and Lambo insurance costs ~$25,000 a year. And I bet none of them guys parks overnight at Motel 6, either.
On the plus side, Powell's. On the minus side, my in-laws. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by spungey
Ron Wanttaja
You wouldn't have to apply it to a random selection of people out of the phone book.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
You are assuming that everyone who is capable of flying safely is already a pilot. If there are 600,000 pilots now, I think there are easily that many more who are capable and would be pilots but no one gave them a Young Eagles flight.Quote:
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.
AOPA president Craig Fuller says 70-80% of people who start flight training drop out. Some wash out, some run out of money, some have their curiosity satisfied. Others quit because they learn that GA is only practical if you have a regular need to travel 200-400 miles to or from places not served by airlines. Roadable aircraft would make flying practical for shorter trips, greatly expanding the population who would find GA beneficial. They'd still have to take the training and pass the same checkrides as the rest of us. They'd be selected in precisely the same manner as existing pilots. Why assume they would be less capable than existing pilots?
You can only get a car delivered or picked up when the Enterprise office is open and they have cars and staff available, and you have to pay for delivery.Quote:
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.
I think roadable aircraft owners would still do the vast majority of their driving in real cars, so their exposure to car crashes would be limited. And I don't expect they'd be on the interstates much, because they'd fly to an airstrip close to the destination, and wouldn't go very fast on the road.Quote:
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.
The goal is not to design the ideal airplane or car, but the optimum vehicle to travel, say 100-200 miles and cross obstacles that make surface travel inefficient.Quote:
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.
I love discussions about flying cars; it's second only to amphibious cars and jet packs for passion and hilarity!
All three are wonderful platforms for developing tech and innovating applications for use on other things that have actual utility.
The motorcycle pods are a natural; heck, I was thinking that one of those collapseable bicycles would be something I'd seriously look into if I had a two-seat aircraft with useable space and load for one.
Don't know about the EAA, but not too long ago Aircraft Spruce announced a design contest and the prize was going to be a gift of the materials to actually build the designed aircraft. There were mega hard feelings when ASS reneged claiming none of the entries were "acceptable." Despite that I believe at least one of the designs was subsequently built and flown.
Now you're getting specific about the requirements. I believe that for people to invest in the contest, they would need to know, if not the exact specific terrain / obstacles, at least general goals such as the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougbush
I had thought of a couple of scenarios:
What is the "car mode" for?
- Surface transport from/to an airport?
- To deliver the flying contraption "home" away from an airport for storage?
- Surface transport with an occasional "lift" for the surface vehicle when extensive obstacles are encountered.
- Land-and-drive when weather gets too bad.
If the first, I propose to enter my G-IV and pre-position my favorite surface vehicles at the selected airports. On the other hand, we'll just load an appropriate motorcycle into the G-IV (did I mention it has a freight door)... Oh, now you're going to impose a cost requirement? Or some other arbitrary "obstacle" like we have to build it ourselves?
If the second, I propose to enter the folding-wing Kitfox, the Chevy Suburban, and an appropriate trailer. Cost requirement met.
If the third, I enter the Maverick.
If the fourth, you didn't have any business flying that day anyway. Wait for a better day, use a more capable airplane, or just drive. This scenario is an excuse for poor planning, as well as being a dangerous way to pitch a sale of a very complex machine to a non-pilot.
Alternatively, if the goal is 100-200 miles, I propose to follow the multibillion-dollar investment already made in highways and just drive. If cost is a factor, you can't beat the investment in highways that already exist. I would look for a 40-50mpg car, and claim to "accomplish" the mission on just $8-15 of gas. If schedule is a factor, I'll meet you 150 miles down the road later today! (Entirely bypassing the million-dollar multi-year development process...)
Come on, you just want a flying car because you want one. Not because it solves any unsolved purpose...
When you're done, I'll park it next to my roadable personal watercraft, my roadable submarine, and my highway-capable suborbital space ship... (My orbit-capable space ship is not highway capable :(.)
You're inspiring, Eric. :-) With the goal of furthering the discussion ... what are your actual mission requirements? Would a sensible selection of a cross-section of EAA'ers missions provide a good starting point for contest requirements?
I listed all the farms, roads, beaches, bays, lakes, and airports I'd like to fly to. Then I went to google and got distances. Then I used that information to build the rest. The results astounded me and also reminded me why I'm not current.
Seats: 2 required (side by side), 4 desired
Fuel: autogas or diesel, electric or avgas less desirable but not deal killers
Endurance: 4 hours + vfr reserve (my "average" distance to fly is about 350 miles, greatest single-leg up to 750 miles)
Speed: 140 mph +
Economy: < 8 gal / hour
Ideally, able to haul a couple hundred pounds of cargo and land on floats
Few options already available. Ignoring Ron's red-hot idea poker, how are those for starting conditions? Too loose? Too severe?
Got you covered. Just add money.Quote:
Originally Posted by spungey
http://tinyurl.com/transport-solution