Move Over Moller

[Larry Dighera]

The future of personal flight?

http://www.gizio.it/cellcraft2.htm
The aircraft is equipped with two ALLISON'S gas turbines . Both
engine are posed in the posterior niche and connected through a
twin transmission box to 4 AXIAL COMPRESSORS. Most of mechanical
organs are placed in the niche behind . Gear boxes-transmission
are both settled ,one aft and another one in the back of the
cockpit ; in-fact each one provide to power a couple of
compressors ( two compressors on the front and other two on the
back).


http://www.gizio.it/verticallinks.htm

[Colin W Kingsbury]

I know it's not the point, but I'd take these people much more seriously if
they *didn't* have a website full of beautiful renderings of the finished
craft. Assuming such a craft is ever possible (given the V-22 experience I
wonder) I suspect the devil lies in the systems integration details.
Parachutes and airbags in case of engine failure? Has he even thought of
what useful load is going to look like when it's all done? Sure, it might
fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old Lear (at low
altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the payload of a
172? Well, I hear Moller has a signed purchase agreement with Michael
Jackson. 'nuff said.

Pretty pictures are the easiest part. It's like a wannabe-novelist who
starts by composing a grandiose title with no idea of characters or plot.
Though I must admit I was surprised there were no leggy models immediately
apparent here, especially given that it's Italian. Disappointed, even.

-cwk.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The future of personal flight?
>
> http://www.gizio.it/cellcraft2.htm

[George Patterson]

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Sure, it might
> fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old Lear (at low
> altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the payload of a
> 172?

Speaking of fuel burn, the tanks shown on that illustration probably wouldn't
last longer than an hour.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:26:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote in
et>::

>Sure, it might fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old
>Lear (at low altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the
>payload of a 172?

Who wants a 25 mph aircraft capable of 120 feet long flight of 12
seconds?
http://www.infsearch.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/stream100/NAC/NAC90_OVP/204233.wmx

It's a start. It portends the future. It's going to need development
and refinement, but I believe these vectored thrust machines will
eventually be successful in achieving flight and eventually public
acceptance.

Michael Jackson, on the other hand .... :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:51:21 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in >::

>
>Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
>>
>> Sure, it might
>> fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old Lear (at low
>> altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the payload of a
>> 172?
>
>Speaking of fuel burn, the tanks shown on that illustration probably wouldn't
>last longer than an hour.

That may be long enough to accomplish its mission. I'll bet it'll be
faster than a helo:

Bell Jet Ranger
---------------
Model: 206B
Category: Restricted
Engine: Allison C20B
Horsepower: 420
Airspeed: 110 knots
Range: 3 hours
Ceiling: 20,000' msl
Max Gross Weight: 3,200 lbs
Useable Payload: 1,400 lbs

So it's range may be adequate despite limited fuel.

I'm encouraged to see some evidence of further advancement of the
concept even if it's only on the drawing board now.

[Roger]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:26:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>I know it's not the point, but I'd take these people much more seriously if
>they *didn't* have a website full of beautiful renderings of the finished
>craft. Assuming such a craft is ever possible (given the V-22 experience I
>wonder) I suspect the devil lies in the systems integration details.
>Parachutes and airbags in case of engine failure? Has he even thought of
>what useful load is going to look like when it's all done? Sure, it might
>fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old Lear (at low
>altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the payload of a
>172? Well, I hear Moller has a signed purchase agreement with Michael
>Jackson. 'nuff said.
>
>Pretty pictures are the easiest part. It's like a wannabe-novelist who
>starts by composing a grandiose title with no idea of characters or plot.
>Though I must admit I was surprised there were no leggy models immediately
>apparent here, especially given that it's Italian. Disappointed, even.

I'd give it at least an equal if not greater chance than Moller, but
it's going to cost about as much as a PC-12, or TBM-700.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>-cwk.
>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> The future of personal flight?
>>
>> http://www.gizio.it/cellcraft2.htm
>

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:26:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
> >Sure, it might fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old
> >Lear (at low altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the
> >payload of a 172?
>
> It's a start. It portends the future. It's going to need development
> and refinement, but I believe these vectored thrust machines will
> eventually be successful in achieving flight and eventually public
> acceptance.

It seems to me that vectored-thrust aircraft face a couple of fundamental
challenges that will not be easily overcome.

First, you have the poor efficiency of turbines at low speed. The ducted fan
approach will improve this somewhat but if you look at the V-22, it has HUGE
propellers, more like mini chopper blades. The V-22 may be intended to spend
more time in hover than a Mollermobile, but I'll side with the machine
that's being flown seriously over the eternal prototype.

Second, the powertain complexity is considerable. You need at least 4
nozzles for control, and 2 engines cross-linked to drive the blowers. I'm
not a MechE but that sounds like a lot of transmission hardware to manage.
What's that statistic I've read about the ratio of shop hours to flight
hours for helicopters? This would be much worse.

And let's not even get into the control systems. These things would seem to
demand pretty sophisticated fly-by-wire and that's going to cost serious
money to design and certify, made all the worse by the fact that someone's
got to be first. Remember the Starship? FAA conservatism has more than a
little to do with why the plane became an albatross, though it also paved
the way for planes like the Premier.

Again, the V-22 is the best precedent we have to go on here, and the
evidence is pretty bad. Twenty-some billion spent as I recall and the things
are still nowhere close to deployment. Heck, by that standard the 70 million
or so Moller has spent seems like a pretty good investment. Still, I don't
see any of these guys solving or even coming close on any of these
fundamental problems. Remember the old engineering saying: 90% done, only
90% to go. Software has become fantastically cheap largely because consumers
have been willing to put up with 90% done. Aerospace does not enjoy this
advantage.

There are many technologies that stubbornly refuse to yield to our desire to
make them workable. Fusion power, for one. In aircraft, the real area to
watch (imho) is pulse-detonatation engines, which if they ever become
commercially viable would give us the "Orient Express" planes that take you
to Tokyo in a few hours. But Pratt and GE have been working on these for
some years, and expect to be working on them for many more, and cannot tell
you how close they are to getting it right. As much as I'd like my Jetsons
car, I doubt I shall be seeing one anytime soon.

-cwk.

> Michael Jackson, on the other hand .... :-)

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'd give it at least an equal if not greater chance than Moller, but
> it's going to cost about as much as a PC-12, or TBM-700.

As much? This thing has 2 engines and much more complicated systems. It'd be
quite an achievement to build one at comparable cost to a PC-12.

-cwk.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:27:57 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:26:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
>> > wrote in
>> et>::
>>
>> >Sure, it might fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an old
>> >Lear (at low altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky, and the
>> >payload of a 172?
>>
>> It's a start. It portends the future. It's going to need development
>> and refinement, but I believe these vectored thrust machines will
>> eventually be successful in achieving flight and eventually public
>> acceptance.
>
>It seems to me that vectored-thrust aircraft face a couple of fundamental
>challenges that will not be easily overcome.
>
>First, you have the poor efficiency of turbines at low speed.

Because the engine(s) of vectored-thrust machines must provide thrust,
as they do in conventional aircraft, as well as providing lift, they
will never achieve the same economy and efficiency as fixed wing
aircraft. I have no idea if turbine or turbofan engines are the best
choice for these newly conceived machines; perhaps more efficient
diesel or electrical* power plants will be found more efficient in
this role.

>The ducted fan
>approach will improve this somewhat but if you look at the V-22, it has HUGE
>propellers, more like mini chopper blades. The V-22 may be intended to spend
>more time in hover than a Mollermobile, but I'll side with the machine
>that's being flown seriously over the eternal prototype.

If the Wrights had had the same attitude, we'd still be floating
around in lighter than air vehicles. :-)

>Second, the powertain complexity is considerable. You need at least 4
>nozzles for control, and 2 engines cross-linked to drive the blowers.

Power train complexity could be eliminated with a system of ducts.
The Harrier manages with two nozzles.

>I'm not a MechE but that sounds like a lot of transmission hardware to manage.

Nor am I, but the answer may be to eliminate the transmission hardware
all together such as independent electric motors powering ducted fans
or a single engine with high pressure airflow ducted to (rather than
generated at) exit nozzles. Clearly, it's going to take a visionary,
creative force able to think outside-the-box to be the enabler for
this technology.

>What's that statistic I've read about the ratio of shop hours to flight
>hours for helicopters? This would be much worse.

My gut feeling is that the vectored-thrust machine, once refined, will
probably require slightly more maintenance than a rotary wing.

>And let's not even get into the control systems. These things would seem to
>demand pretty sophisticated fly-by-wire and that's going to cost serious
>money to design and certify, made all the worse by the fact that someone's
>got to be first.

I don't see the control system as being that difficult a hurdle.
After all, the Harrier is able to hover with only two nozzles.

While fly-by-wire is a new and sophisticated concept for General
Aviation, it's been in use for decades on the F-16 and Airbus
equipment. As you are no doubt aware, Lockheed intentionally designed
the F-16 to be dynamically unstable to facilitate enhanced
maneuverability. Then flight stability was artificially programmed
into the computerized control system. A similar scheme would be
necessary for the machines we are discussing. So while the control
system will require research and development, it isn't like it needs
to be invented; it already exists.

>Remember the Starship? FAA conservatism has more than a
>little to do with why the plane became an albatross, though it also paved
>the way for planes like the Premier.

The Starship** was designed to compete with conventional aluminum
aircraft in conducting the same missions those aircraft already had a
history of accomplishing reliably. The Starship was a rather
unconventional canard design constructed of relatively unproven
composite materials. If you were tasked with acquiring aircraft to
generate income, would you choose aircraft of known and proven
materials and capability, or risk your career/corporation on a new
design for which there existed limited repair facilities and mission
accomplishment data? Radically new aircraft must have adequate time
to prove themselves superior to succeed.

>Again, the V-22 is the best precedent we have to go on here, and the
>evidence is pretty bad. Twenty-some billion spent as I recall and the things
>are still nowhere close to deployment. Heck, by that standard the 70 million
>or so Moller has spent seems like a pretty good investment.

I see the V-22 as being many times larger and heavier than the
prototype vehicles we are discussing. Perhaps, of those designs
currently existent, a Harrier most closely approaches a reasonable
comparison vehicle. But the Harrier has wings and is capable of
speeds in excess of those likely to be achieved by the machines we are
discussing, so it's nowhere near an exact precedent.

>Still, I don't see any of these guys solving or even coming close on any of
>these fundamental problems. Remember the old engineering saying: 90% done, only
>90% to go. Software has become fantastically cheap largely because consumers
>have been willing to put up with 90% done. Aerospace does not enjoy this
>advantage.

It is disappointing indeed that there has been such limited success to
date with these designs. Part of the problem is convincing those with
the ability to fund such projects that there is a viable market for
them by virtue of the unique missions they are capable of
accomplishing. Because existing designs are capable of fulfilling
most missions, there is little impetus to venture the requisite
funding for their development. They look like a good thing, but they
don't really do much more than existing aircraft are capable of.

In the end, it's going to take an inspired genius like Bert Rutan to
pave the way for their development. So far that talent has not
emerged.

>There are many technologies that stubbornly refuse to yield to our desire to
>make them workable. Fusion power, for one.

Personally, I have little doubt that small vectored-thrust aircraft
are possible, unlike the prospect of contained fusion reactions.

>In aircraft, the real area to watch (imho) is pulse-detonatation engines, which
>if they ever become commercially viable would give us the "Orient Express" planes
>that take you to Tokyo in a few hours. But Pratt and GE have been working on these
>for some years, and expect to be working on them for many more, and cannot tell
>you how close they are to getting it right.

Pulse Detonation Rocket Engines*** are throttle controlled rocket
engines that have an economical advantage over conventional rocket
motors by not requiring an expensive turbopump to overcome the
pressure in the combustion chamber to introduce fuel and oxidizer.
Indeed rocket power technology may be the future of airline travel.
But it must successfully prove itself as economically advantageous,
mission enhancing, and safe before it will begin to supplant the
current entrenched technology. Because turbine engines are unable to
operated in the vacuum of space, pulse detonation technology must only
prove it is superior to conventional rocket technology to be deployed
there. I see the use of pulse detonation engines being used in space
missions long before an attempt is made to use them for airline
transportation.

>As much as I'd like my Jetsons car, I doubt I shall be seeing one anytime soon.

That statement reveals the true appeal of the machines we are
discussing. They are futuristic dream machines that possess a certain
visceral appeal. Science fiction writers dangle them as bait in front
of quixotic aviators and the public as they did in The Fifth
Element****. Although these machines fail to solve real world
missions any better than the current technology, I believe they will
eventually be developed as an expression of that playful part of the
human spirit that craves the sheer joy of exuberant freedom of
personal flight.


*
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Highest_20Efficiency_20Electric_20Motor


** http://www.aviatorservices.com/starship_history_1.htm


***
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/astptechbriefs/pulse_detonate.pdf


**** http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116

See them fly here:
http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=7001

[Montblack]

("Colin W Kingsbury" wrote)>
<snips clipped>
> It seems to me that vectored-thrust aircraft face a couple of fundamental
> challenges that will not be easily overcome.
>
> First, you have the poor efficiency of turbines at low speed. The ducted
> fan
> approach will improve this somewhat but if you look at the V-22, it has
> HUGE
> propellers, more like mini chopper blades. The V-22 may be intended to
> spend
> more time in hover than a Mollermobile, but I'll side with the machine
> that's being flown seriously over the eternal prototype.
>
> Again, the V-22 is the best precedent we have to go on here, and the
> evidence is pretty bad. Twenty-some billion spent as I recall and the
> things
> are still nowhere close to deployment.


The V-22 Osprey project drives me nuts. V-22 Billion!!
(Semper Fi Congressional Industrial Complex)

The 1950's Fairey Rotodyne worked. They even had orders.

It was flying around Europe, hauling people and freight, in the late 50's
and early 60's. This thing was designed over 50 years ago. Can you imagine
new engines, new composites, new engineering concepts, new rotors, new
electronics, etc?

I don't know exactly what the design/mission specs are (were) for the V-22,
but I suspect the Rotodyne came close to meeting some of them, while
outdoing others.

The Rotodyne was successfully flying. Tweak it, and you've got something.
Start fresh and you have $22 BBBBillion worth of nothing. What a sad joke.

Apparently, because of the way the jets on the rotor tips work, there is no
need for a tail rotor. Also, the rotor goes into autogyro mode when the
plane reaches a certain forward speed. The rotor-tip jets kick in for
take-off and landing only. Jet thrust is provided by bleed air from the
turboprop engines, located on the Rotodyne's stubby wings.

Reason I've read for its demise was fear of noise pollution (Right, like a
1st generation 707 wasn't loud? And what about those 2 Harrier jump-jet at
OSH last year?). Another reason I've read for the project's cancellation was
British Govt. inside politics - with Fairey being outside.

http://www.hofstra.edu/CampusL/Culture/Autogiro/Autogiro_movies.cfm
Fairey Rotodyne movie on bottom of page

http://www.dunnbypaul.net/aircraft/rotodyne/
Rotodyne info

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/fairey_rotodyne-r.html
Rotodyne page

http://www.hofstra.edu/CampusL/Culture/Autogiro/Autogiro_gallery20_22.cfm
X-game simulations are fun


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Small machines using vectored thrust are going to be noisy, no
matter what, and inefficient (how efficient is a Harrier?). Fly-by-wire
isn't cheap, either (what's an F-16 worth?). These small machines are
no doubt possible, if enough money is spent, but what's the market
going to look like for a two-place model that costs $15 million and
gets 1/2 mile per gallon, giving it a 50-mile range, say? And wakes up
half the city? And don't get me started about electric motors and their
weight and the generators needed and all that.
Thrust is most efficient when it's generated by large-diameter
slow-turning props, rotors or fans. Small units have to spin at high
speed, losing way too much power to drag. A 400-hp helicopter makes way
more thrust than a 400-hp aircraft engine and prop. Airliners use big
fans now instead of the old straight turbojets. All of it proves that
small-diameter air movers are not good and unless there's a powerplant
developed that weighs nearly nothing and turns out huge hp at near 100%
efficiency, these little machines will remain a dream, just like
powered flight was a dream until metallurgy and fuels developed to the
point that the Wrights could build an engine that would actually fly.

Dan

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 at 18:59:18 in message
>, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

>I don't see the control system as being that difficult a hurdle.
>After all, the Harrier is able to hover with only two nozzles.

I think you will find that the Harrier has four main swivelling nozzles,
the front pair are cold air from the compressors, the rear pair are hot
exhaust from the turbine. In addition it has air driven control jets at
nose, tail and both wing tips. All of then are required for hovering
flight.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 at 14:19:31 in message
>, Montblack
> wrote:
>Reason I've read for its demise was fear of noise pollution (Right,
>like a 1st generation 707 wasn't loud? And what about those 2 Harrier
>jump-jet at OSH last year?). Another reason I've read for the project's
>cancellation was British Govt. inside politics - with Fairey being
>outside.

Those people who heard one can testify that it was extremely loud. As to
the politics I cannot say. I say 'those people' because I have a memory
of hearing the ear-splitting noise at a Farnborough Air show. But it
could have been the Flying Bedstead. I saw then both but did I see both
of them fly? - not quite sure of this because of it being around 50
years ago and I am now much older. :-(
--
David CL Francis

[Morgans]

"David CL Francis" > wrote

> Those people who heard one can testify that it was extremely loud. As to
> the politics I cannot say. I say 'those people' because I have a memory
> of hearing the ear-splitting noise at a Farnborough Air show.

If it is the Harrier you are talking about, I can testify to the fact that
they are very loud, having been as close as 75 feet to one in hover. Ear
splitting is more accurate.

But the coolness factor still places it *way* up there. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:02:35 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::

>On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 at 18:59:18 in message
>, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>>I don't see the control system as being that difficult a hurdle.
>>After all, the Harrier is able to hover with only two nozzles.
>
>I think you will find that the Harrier has four main swivelling nozzles,
>the front pair are cold air from the compressors, the rear pair are hot
>exhaust from the turbine. In addition it has air driven control jets at
>nose, tail and both wing tips. All of then are required for hovering
>flight.

I've not noticed any other Harrier nozzles than one on each side.
Thanks for the information. I suppose in theory it would be possible
to hover with only one nozzle.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 17:26:33 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>> Sure, it might fly, but who wants a machine with the fuel burn of an
>> old Lear (at low altitude), the maintenance costs of a big Sikorsky,
>> and the payload of a 172?
>
[...]
>
> It's a start. It portends the future. It's going to need development
> and refinement, but I believe these vectored thrust machines will
> eventually be successful in achieving flight and eventually public
> acceptance.
>
I just wonder *where* these things might be operated. Certainly not down
any city street or through any neighborhood?

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:14:35 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>I just wonder *where* these things might be operated. Certainly not down
>any city street or through any neighborhood?

I know what you mean. And I think you've touched on the cause of
their delayed development: a narrow range mission goals.

I have read that a primary mission goal would be for rescue of
personnel from sky scraper windows where the rotor disk of helos
complicates getting close enough for success. I'm not sure that would
be a viable mission either given the likelihood the down wash would
possibly suck out the glass facade.

The military funded some SoloTech research, so I would expect that the
concept of zooming soldiers around the battlefield or over mine fields
and water has some merit.

The lack of suitable missions, other than sheer joy of operation,
seems to be a significant hurdle.