Propeller Efficiency [Archive]

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 02:31 AM

On Apr 14, 12:58*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any idea of the ratio between thrust power and churn
> > power?
>
> There are literally hundreds of books on propellor efficiency - some
> exceedingly inexpensive. There are probably dozens of web sites you would
> find by a simple google search of "propeller efficiency". A newsgroup on
> piloting is really the last place to ask - once one has done their own bit
> of research and come up empty. What resources did you use that you couldn't
> find an answer?

None. Didn't think to look, but it does indeed say 80% on the
Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller

> (Anyway, try here:
>
> http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/BA-Background.htm
> )

All repsonses gave very good suggestions. I was suprised that the
ebook that Tina linked to had such detailed theoretical information
about flying in 1920. I guess I have seen one too many videos of
"slapping pancake" contraptions.

Also, another reason for the laziness is that I am knee-deep in a
research project, so for weeks I have been trying to abstain from
thinking about flying, as I can only think about one hard subject at
once to be productive, but over past week it's been hard to resist.

As I am still learning to fly, I have come across many articles about
flying cars. Yes, I know, it's the honey-pot for crack-pots in
aviation, but it seems that there are a lot of people interested in
having such a contraption, and not just people like Moller.

So during my breaks at lunch, I have been thinking about flying
vehicles, what they might look like, given obvious constraints (should
not kill the children if prop accidentally starts), and so that's how
I started thinking about prop efficiency.

I also started thinking about balance, how there is not very much
variation on component distribution in GA aircraft. They all follow
the same basic model: wings are placed to counteract very heavy
components (engine) and cause turning. Elements on empannage used for
elevation and normalizing centripetal force toward center of
curvature. Yes, this is all obvious by opening any book on flying, but
when you start thinking about actually designing an aircraft, it
*really* becomes obvious. I am beginning to wonder if there are
alternative models that would reduce length of aircraft
significantly. The existing model is tried and true, but there is no
law that say that the component distribution must be as it is now.

I think though, to get away from tried-and-true, if there is any value
in doing so, would require the designer to acknowledge the great
benefit that computerized control would bring. And I don't mean
Stealth, which is an obvious example. It might happen that the so-
called flying car would be best served by breaking away from the
current model and going with something that is a bit more distributed,
with computers effect what the pilot implicitly specifies via fly-by-
wire controls.

Needless to say, this is an *extremely* exciting field. Wish I had
more time to think about these things.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Morgans[_2_]

April 15th 08, 03:01 AM

Jim, have you forgotten?

Le Chaud Lapin is a MX sock puppet, or so most think.

Makes sense, why he could not find something that has several hundred hit,
with a simple search.
--
Jim in NC

Jim Logajan

April 15th 08, 03:32 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> As I am still learning to fly, I have come across many articles about
> flying cars. Yes, I know, it's the honey-pot for crack-pots in
> aviation, but it seems that there are a lot of people interested in
> having such a contraption, and not just people like Moller.

If you haven't already located it, the following website has a fairly
lengthy list (93 designs as of today) of past and present attempts to build
"flying cars":

http://www.roadabletimes.com/

The number of ideas and variations (and actual occasional flying
prototypes) that have been tried should keep you occupied for a while.

(Check its link on Resources and Research, including the one on "Can We
Eliminate The Propeller On Roadable Aircraft?":

http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadable_experimenter.html

Which takes you to:

http://www.fanwing.com/

wherein you can find videos of experimental RC models in flight. Look ma -
no prop!)

Jim Logajan

April 15th 08, 03:59 AM

"Morgans" > wrote:
> Jim, have you forgotten?
>
> Le Chaud Lapin is a MX sock puppet, or so most think.

I recognize "Le Chaud Lapin" from previous threads. I also recall that he
eventually stated it was a mistake to have posted a question on
aerodynamics to a discussion group having to do with piloting. I'm sure he
remembers his own writing.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 04:08 AM

On Apr 14, 9:32*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > As I am still learning to fly, I have come across many articles about
> > flying cars. Yes, I know, it's the honey-pot for crack-pots in
> > aviation, but it seems that there are a lot of people interested in
> > having such a contraption, and not just people like Moller.
>
> If you haven't already located it, the following website has a fairly
> lengthy list (93 designs as of today) of past and present attempts to build
> "flying cars":
>
> http://www.roadabletimes.com/
>
> The number of ideas and variations (and actual occasional flying
> prototypes) that have been tried should keep you occupied for a while.
>
> (Check its link on Resources and Research, including the one on "Can We
> Eliminate The Propeller On Roadable Aircraft?":
>
> http://www.roadabletimes.com/roadable_experimenter.html

Hah!

That's actually the second link on my list of quick-access links on my
Internet Explorer. I visit maybe 2 times a week on average just to
see what's new. I offered to "face-lift" the web site as a fan, but
author did not reply.

> Which takes you to:
>
> http://www.fanwing.com/
>
> wherein you can find videos of experimental RC models in flight. Look ma -
> no prop!)

Illuminating indeed.

I have some thoughts about a new kind a propulsion system that would
also elminate the danger of the propeller. A one-passenger vehicle of
my design would fit in a small, US parking space (non-folding wings
included). My guess is that the propeller efficiency of this design
would be better than that of a conventional prop, but since I am just
starting out, I have to wait until I finish my current research find
out.

I did notice that a lot of designs on that site derives directly from
the expression "flying car". Many of the designers simply take a car
and add wings, a prop.

The people over at http://www.terrafugia.com have a nice-looking
vehicle, but I remember reading somewhere that even they, several MIT
aero/astro graduates, were "not going to pursue a super-radical design
because the software control was simply not there yet."

I'd be inclined to move toward more computer control.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[email protected]

April 15th 08, 04:11 AM

On Apr 13, 8:20 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> > Does anyone have any idea of the ratio between thrust power and churn
> > power?
>
> Less than 80%. Look in Wiki for discussion of losses.

Wiki isn't so accurate. The figure for max efficiency is in the
range of 85 to 87%, depending on AOA and a bunch of other stuff. The
Wright Brother's propeller on their Flyer had an efficiency of 83%
because they understood that it was a rotating airfoil rather than
some sort of paddlewheel.
For prop math, see this: http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_technology/selecting_a_propeller.htm

Sure, the air will swirl around some as it leaves the prop. It
has to, since there is no such thing as a drag-free propeller. But
it's manageable. Anyone who thinks he can design a better propeller or
airplane or anything else is well advised to do his research first so
as to avoid spending vast sums of money making the same mistakes
dozens of other guys have already made. If the OP, who is a PPL
student and has been known to "know better than the experts" in the
past, wishes to design and build himself a phenomenally new and
successful airplane or flying car, he'll have a pretty hard time doing
it. There are hundreds, maybe thousands worldwide, of aeronautical
engineers who know the limits of the physics and materials involved
and they are often employed at very good salaries by huge aircraft
manufacturers who wish to save even a few percent on fuel consumption,
drag, safety risks and other costs just to give themselves a
perceptible advantage over the competition. Any large improvement at
this point is going to require some new technologies that don't exist
yet. Better to spend the time discovering those new technologies.
There are many garages and barns and landfills full of pointless
efforts at designing a new airplane. Most successful new designs are
variations on the same old theme we've had for a long time now.

Dan

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 05:36 AM

On Apr 14, 10:11*pm, wrote:
> * * *Sure, the air will swirl around some as it leaves the prop. It
> has to, since there is no such thing as a drag-free propeller. But
> it's manageable. Anyone who thinks he can design a better propeller or
> airplane or anything else is well advised to do his research first so
> as to avoid spending vast sums of money making the same mistakes
> dozens of other guys have already made. If the OP, who is a PPL
> student and has been known to "know better than the experts" in the
> past, wishes to design and build himself a phenomenally new and
> successful airplane or flying car, he'll have a pretty hard time doing
> it. There are hundreds, maybe thousands worldwide, of aeronautical
> engineers who know the limits of the physics and materials involved
> and they are often employed at very good salaries by huge aircraft
> manufacturers who wish to save even a few percent on fuel consumption,
> drag, safety risks and other costs just to give themselves a
> perceptible advantage over the competition. Any large improvement at
> this point is going to require some new technologies that don't exist
> yet. Better to spend the time discovering those new technologies.
> There are many garages and barns and landfills full of pointless
> efforts at designing a new airplane. Most successful new designs are
> variations on the same old theme we've had for a long time now.

It is true that I am still a student PPL. And it is true that I tend
to fish in ponds long deemed to be devoid of fish. But I know that I
know less than others. However, in areas of science that I am
passionate about, I feel that it is better to not accept stocks answer
that smell fishy.

On the matter of flying cars, yes, someday I would like to take a shot
at design some kind of flying vehicle. It would be a daunting task to
say the least, but that would not deter me. Though it is true that
1000's of people have sought to make flying cars and failed, if you
look at their designs, many of them are cars with wings on them. I
doubt that this is the right way to make a PAV.

In the early days of flying, there were many things tried by many
people that we now know with certainty could not possibly work lest
they violate basic physical principles. Hindsight might be 20/20, but
forethought and more rigorous paper analysis could have preempted many
of these attempts, but people tried them anyway. They tried them
perhaps because they could not contain their passion and desire to
make a breakthrough. This is where I get my encouragement from, not
from thinking I know better. I learned a while back that discplined
thought, the kind that requires doing nothing but sitting still and
thinking, can be an inexpensive way to solve a problem.

I do have an idea about propulsion, which, ironically, was derived
from my initial exploration into whether backwash could cause lift.

*IF* my suspicions are correct, there would exist a new type of
propulsion system that would have very desirable attributes as far as
flying cars are concerned. It would, indeed, require a restatement of
the explanation of aerodynamics above the wing. But as I have no idea
whether it is correct, so I cannot yet say either way. I have tried
little paper models at home, which all seem to confirm my suspicions,
but needless to say, paper models do not constitute proof, and in any
case, I do not understand the physics well enough to be able to
explain them to someone else, even though I am convinced that what is
happening is _not_ entirely explained by prevailing aerodynamic
theory.

So if I were to begin fiddling with this problem, the first thing I
would do is focus on the parts that matter, to see if there is
anything worth pursuing. If it turns out that I am wrong, I would
abort.

I would _not_ spend years tweaking some aspect of the vehicle until I
finally squeezed 3% more efficiency out of it. As you noted, there
are many people who are much better than I ever will be at that.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

WingFlaps

April 15th 08, 10:53 AM

On Apr 15, 3:11*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:20 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > Does anyone have any idea of the ratio between thrust power and churn
> > > power?
>
> > Less than 80%. Look in Wiki for discussion of losses.
>
> * * * Wiki isn't so accurate. The figure for max efficiency is in the
> range of 85 to 87%, depending on AOA and a bunch of other stuff. The
> Wright Brother's propeller on their Flyer had an efficiency of 83%
> because they understood that it was a rotating airfoil rather than
> some sort of paddlewheel.
> * * * For prop math, see this: *http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_technology/selecting_a_propeller.htm
>
There's nothing like theoretical efficiency calculations to impress.
I'll say it again, real props struggle to achieve 80%. Now Dan, before
you jump down my throat, note that of these calculations in your ref.
did not include vortex tip losses and most don't even consider
friction and never compressibility (which is major problem as the tip
goes near or supersonic). Basing efficiency purely on slip doesn't
work for real airscrews and the washout is nearly always _wrong_.

Cheers

WingFlaps

April 15th 08, 11:02 AM

On Apr 15, 3:11*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:20 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > Does anyone have any idea of the ratio between thrust power and churn
> > > power?
>
> > Less than 80%. Look in Wiki for discussion of losses.
>
> * * * Wiki isn't so accurate. The figure for max efficiency is in the
> range of 85 to 87%, depending on AOA and a bunch of other stuff. The
> Wright Brother's propeller on their Flyer had an efficiency of 83%
> because they understood that it was a rotating airfoil rather than
> some sort of paddlewheel.

83%? BS. Even if it had reached optimal speed it would have struggled
to get 70% (note the CFD calcs do not include surface roughness
losses):

http://www.fluent.com/about/news/newsletters/03v12i2_fall/a2.htm

It was lucky that Orville knew from tests a bit about about props (he
estimated 66% efficiency) or it might not have flown at all. That of
course was not such great insight on his part as the theory of
propellor design was well known from naval architecture.

Cheers

[email protected]

April 15th 08, 04:05 PM

On Apr 15, 3:53 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:11 pm, wrote:> On Apr 13, 8:20 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > Does anyone have any idea of the ratio between thrust power and churn
> > > > power?
>
> > > Less than 80%. Look in Wiki for discussion of losses.
>
> > Wiki isn't so accurate. The figure for max efficiency is in the
> > range of 85 to 87%, depending on AOA and a bunch of other stuff. The
> > Wright Brother's propeller on their Flyer had an efficiency of 83%
> > because they understood that it was a rotating airfoil rather than
> > some sort of paddlewheel.
> > For prop math, see this: http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_technology/selecting_a_propeller.htm
>
> There's nothing like theoretical efficiency calculations to impress.
> I'll say it again, real props struggle to achieve 80%. Now Dan, before
> you jump down my throat, note that of these calculations in your ref.
> did not include vortex tip losses and most don't even consider
> friction and never compressibility (which is major problem as the tip
> goes near or supersonic). Basing efficiency purely on slip doesn't
> work for real airscrews and the washout is nearly always _wrong_.
>
> Cheers

Those calculations are more than theoretical. We know, in foot-pounds
per minute, what an engine produces, and we can take that directly to
the acceleration of the airplane or its cruise speed versus drag, and
come up with an efficiency figure.

Dan

Tina

April 15th 08, 04:17 PM

Not trying to invalidate the point you're making, but sometimes we
simply get lazy or our brain goes asleep. I got some useful help here
after having asked what turned out to be something easily found had I
been better at searching.

However, trom a technical perspective going from an 80% efficient
prop to 100% will most likely not do much to change a design from
fantasy to 'realizable'. There's a hierarchy of problems associated
with design, and this particular one, prop efficiency, would be pretty
far down on most designers' lists if they were looking to design an
innovative GA airplane that converts to a car.

It would be nice to save 20% of one's fuel, though.

Sometimes those not skilled in the art make breakthroughs, most times
not. If you saw the potential cancer treatment talked about on 60
Minutes last weekend you were were treated to something that most
likely will fall into the "not" group.

. On Apr 14, 10:59*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
> > Jim, have you forgotten?
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin is a MX sock puppet, or so most think.
>
> I recognize "Le Chaud Lapin" from previous threads. I also recall that he
> eventually stated it was a mistake to have posted a question on
> aerodynamics to a discussion group having to do with piloting. I'm sure he
> remembers his own writing.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 07:08 PM

On Apr 15, 10:17*am, Tina > wrote:
> Not trying to *invalidate the point you're making, but sometimes we
> simply get lazy or our brain goes asleep. I got some useful help here
> after having asked what turned out to be something easily found had I
> been better at searching.

That's actually what happened in my case. :)

> However, trom a technical perspective *going from an 80% efficient
> prop to 100% will most likely not do much to change a design from
> fantasy to 'realizable'. *There's a hierarchy of problems associated
> with design, and this particular one, prop efficiency, would be pretty
> far down on most designers' *lists if they were looking to design an
> innovative GA airplane that converts to a car.

A hieararchy indeed. One would have to solve many problems at once.
I'm already spending too much time thinking about this, but if I were
to have a go at it, right now, I would aim for:

1. One seat-only, initially.
2. Structural symmetry throughout, whenever feasible.
3. Inexpensive USB-based COTS sensors everywhere.
4. Inexpensive USB-based COTS controls everywhere.
5. Elimination of conventional ICE and prop. [Biggest impediment to
flying car, in my not-sufficiently-educated opinion].
6. Even weight distribution. Ideally, the aircraft would have a box-
like structure.
7. Glass-cockpit everything with marginal cost of < $1000 for
commodity CPU. *No more* Garmin. :)
8. Pressurized cabin.
9. Computer assisted take-off, computer assisted approach, computer-
assisted stabilization, computer-assisted tracking.
10. Ultralight components (no pun intended). I see no fundamental
reason that a 100kg man should ride in 1000kg vehicle. Use plastic and
other frilly components if doing so does not compromise structural
integrity or pilot safety.
12. Abnormally-scary dependence on fly-by-wire. If it can me made
electronic instead of mechanical, make it so.
13. Basic safety features (parachute, auto-oxgen, auto-extinguisher,
auto-pilot when computer senses that pilot is incoherent)
14. Convenient means of entry an exit. Grandma should not have to
mount the wing.
15. Efficiency - all that heat lost by ICE, plus 20% loss due to prop
twisting air, plus unnecessary weight from all those mechanical
components that could just as well be made of plastic actuators.
15. Leather seats.
16. Luxury sound system including digital radio.
17. Video-games (including Microsoft Flight Sim).
18. Inter-aircraft communication using WiMax (or something similar).
Proximity detectors, etc.
19. Pre-heating and pre-cooling of cabin.
20. Three-liter water tank with spigot on dash.
21. Air conditioner.
22. Integration of all instruments into computer monitors with few
exceptions (backup compass, backup altimeter, backup etc.)
23. USB camera mounts around the aircraft
24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
vicinity of aircraft.
25. Real-time capture of all flight data in minutest detail onto
sealed hard disk for when it crashes.
26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
make this unnecessary, right?
27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.
28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.
29. Trash bin.
30. Order of magnitude more control over the orientation of
aerodynamic surfaces. .
[i]
> It would be nice to save 20% of one's fuel, though.

> Sometimes those not skilled in the art make breakthroughs, most times
> not. If you saw the potential cancer treatment talked about on 60
> Minutes last weekend you were were treated to something that most
> likely will fall into the "not" group.

What do you think of Steve Moller? I have seen respectable
commentators laud his work, but...

-Le Chaud Lapin-

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 15th 08, 07:21 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
> 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> make this unnecessary, right?

How does the computer know when you *want* to slip?

[email protected]

April 15th 08, 08:15 PM

On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> I'm already spending too much time thinking about this, but if I were
> to have a go at it, right now, I would aim for:
>
> 1. One seat-only, initially.

Mm. Utility.

> 2. Structural symmetry throughout, whenever feasible.

Symmetry often means simple which in turn often means heavy.
Bridges are complex affairs to save weight so they don't collapse
under their own mass. The lightest and most useful airplanes are
usually rather complex structurally.

> 3. Inexpensive USB-based COTS sensors everywhere.
> 4. Inexpensive USB-based COTS controls everywhere.
> 5. Elimination of conventional ICE and prop. [Biggest impediment to
> flying car, in my not-sufficiently-educated opinion].

So, electric, which is really heavy and has short range, or a
turbine, which makes the money saved using COTS sensors look tiny
indeed. Or were you maybe thinking nuclear?

> 6. Even weight distribution. Ideally, the aircraft would have a box-
> like structure.

Drag, big time. Corners, even corners aligned with the flight
path, create drag. Even weight distrubution will mean CG problems, or
spin recovery issues.

> 7. Glass-cockpit everything with marginal cost of < $1000 for
> commodity CPU. *No more* Garmin. :)
> 8. Pressurized cabin.

Weight. Lots of weight. The systems to control it weigh more,
too. A fuselage strong enough for pressure is considerably heavier
than its non-pressurized counterpart.

> 9. Computer assisted take-off, computer assisted approach, computer-
> assisted stabilization, computer-assisted tracking.

Might as well leave the pilot on the ground. Why bother
learning to fly? Besides, there are already too many people driving
airplanes that know too little about flying.

> 10. Ultralight components (no pun intended). I see no fundamental
> reason that a 100kg man should ride in 1000kg vehicle. Use plastic and
> other frilly components if doing so does not compromise structural
> integrity or pilot safety.

Already been done. Leeon Davis designed a single-seat airplane
that weighed 177 lb and was powered by an 18 HP Briggs industrial
engine. Clocked well over 100 mph.

> 12. Abnormally-scary dependence on fly-by-wire. If it can me made
> electronic instead of mechanical, make it so.

What are you saying? Fly-by-wire is scary but we'll make it so
anyway?

> 13. Basic safety features (parachute, auto-oxgen, auto-extinguisher,
> auto-pilot when computer senses that pilot is incoherent)

Parachutes weigh something and take up considerable room.
Oxygen tanks are heavy, too and take up more room. Where is the pilot
supposed to go in this little airplane? And what is he doing in it
when he's incoherent? And what happens if the computer incorrectly
decides he's incoherent and takes over just when the pilot, who sees a
danger approaching, decides to avoid that danger and the computer
decides NO?
The Piper Arrow had an automatic gear-extension system to
prevent the pilot from landing gear-up. It sensed pitot pressure and
dropped the gear below a certain airspeed. Trouble was that this
"safety feature" killed a few folks when the pitot tube iced up and
the system thought airspeed had dropped, so it lowered the gear,
adding drag and another ice-catcher just when the pilot was struggling
to stay airborne long enough to get out of the ice. These automatic
systems sound nice until the unforeseen occurs. Those unforeseen
things are why it's harder to get a pilot's license than a driver's
license. You have to know what's going on.

> 14. Convenient means of entry an exit. Grandma should not have to
> mount the wing.

Good luck. Structural nightmare. The Cessna Cardinal successfully
addressed this back in 1968, but the weight penalty was significant.

> 15. Efficiency - all that heat lost by ICE, plus 20% loss due to prop
> twisting air, plus unnecessary weight from all those mechanical
> components that could just as well be made of plastic actuators.

Fantasy. Like I said, find those new technologies. As far as
plastic goes, the Boeing 787 is mostly plastic but its control are
metal. Plastic does not do well handling hot hydraulic fluid.

> 15. Leather seats.

Weight.

> 16. Luxury sound system including digital radio.

More weight. And a distraction. Stay at home in your living room.

> 17. Video-games (including Microsoft Flight Sim).

Now there's an intelligent thing. Flying while pretending to
fly.

> 18. Inter-aircraft communication using WiMax (or something similar).
> Proximity detectors, etc.

Weight. Complexity. Expense.

> 19. Pre-heating and pre-cooling of cabin.

With what? Heaters and air conditioners weigh a lot.
Especially air conditioners.

> 20. Three-liter water tank with spigot on dash.

Another eight or nine pounds.

> 21. Air conditioner.

See above.

> 22. Integration of all instruments into computer monitors with few
> exceptions (backup compass, backup altimeter, backup etc.)

Been done.

> 23. USB camera mounts around the aircraft
> 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
> vicinity of aircraft.
> 25. Real-time capture of all flight data in minutest detail onto
> sealed hard disk for when it crashes.
> 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> make this unnecessary, right?

Someone is lazy.

> 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.

Mufflers. More weight.

> 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.

So fuel splashes forward over everything when the airplane
ccrashes, and so that the CG wanders all over the place as fuel is
burned.

> 29. Trash bin.

The whole design should go into this trash bin.

> 30. Order of magnitude more control over the orientation of
> aerodynamic surfaces. [IMO, this represents and *enormous* opportunity
> reduce requisite skill in flying aircraft].

OK. Design an "airplane" with all those goodies, and see
just how heavy it will be. It'll have a stall speed in the range of
120 MPH. Even the 1000 kg airplane that carries the 100 kg man, the
airplane you think is inefficient, already exists and has some of the
above goodies. That's why it weighs so much and can carry so little.

You forgot de-icing systems.

Dan

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 08:21 PM

On Apr 15, 1:21*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
> > 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> > make this unnecessary, right?
>
> How does the computer know when you *want* to slip?

When you move the controls in such a way to indicate that you want
slipping. :)

I would design first for mechanism, leaving policy 100% in the
software domain. For example, I imagine that there are many "hard-
coded" feedback systems in basic GA aircraft, mechanical controls for
which aerodynamicists have spent years determining the optimal
interdependencies, then effecting these interdependencies through
mechanical interlocks. I would break all of these interlocks, and move
all actuation to software control (even external light systems).

So if you move the joysticks to indicate that you want slipping, the
software would do whatever is necessary, at that particular instant,
based on set of formulas, to achieve the effect you seek.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

B A R R Y

April 15th 08, 08:33 PM

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote:

>On Apr 15, 1:21*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>
>> > 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
>> > make this unnecessary, right?
>>
>> How does the computer know when you *want* to slip?
>
>When you move the controls in such a way to indicate that you want
>slipping. :)

If you flew, you'd know how silly that comeback is.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 08:56 PM

On Apr 15, 2:33*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>
> > wrote:
> >On Apr 15, 1:21*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
> >> > 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> >> > make this unnecessary, right?
>
> >> How does the computer know when you *want* to slip?
>
> >When you move the controls in such a way to indicate that you want
> >slipping. :)
>
> If you flew, you'd know how silly that comeback is.

I have flown, though never slipped.

I received 3 responses to my imaginary-flying-car, and one thing they
all have in common is that they presume that the basic design of such
a vehicle would be, more or less, a Cessna, tweaked to add the
features I listed. As I mentioned before, I would not do that.

-Le Chuad Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 09:31 PM

On Apr 15, 2:15*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> * * * * Symmetry often means simple which in turn often means heavy.
> Bridges are complex affairs to save weight so they don't collapse
> under their own mass. The lightest and most useful airplanes are
> usually rather complex structurally.

I do notice that many of them follow the basic model, even model
airplanes. Engine in front, long wings, long fuselage, little
empannage with controls, careful attention to balance, primarily due
to engine and other heavy components. I would probably break away
from this model.

> > 3. Inexpensive USB-based COTS sensors everywhere.
> > 4. Inexpensive USB-based COTS controls everywhere.
> > 5. Elimination of conventional ICE and prop. [Biggest impediment to
> > flying car, in my not-sufficiently-educated opinion].
>
> * * * * So, electric, which is really heavy and has short range, or a
> turbine, which makes the money saved using COTS sensors look tiny
> indeed. Or were you maybe thinking nuclear?

Right now, hybrid electric, but yes, the final part of drive system
would undoubtedly be electric.

> > 6. Even weight distribution. Ideally, the aircraft would have a box-
> > like structure.
>
> * * * * Drag, big time. Corners, even corners aligned with the flight
> path, create drag. Even weight distrubution will mean CG problems, or
> spin recovery issues.

Assuming the engine-mounted-foward model, etc. What does one call this
model anyway?

> > 7. Glass-cockpit everything with marginal cost of < $1000 for
> > commodity CPU. *No more* Garmin. :)
> > 8. Pressurized cabin.
>
> * * * * *Weight. Lots of weight. The systems to control it weigh more,
> too. A fuselage strong enough for pressure is considerably heavier
> than its non-pressurized counterpart.

Agreed.

> > 9. Computer assisted take-off, computer assisted approach, computer-
> > assisted stabilization, computer-assisted tracking.
>
> * * * *Might as well leave the pilot on the ground. Why bother
> learning to fly? Besides, there are already too many people driving
> airplanes that know too little about flying.

Who knows...it's 2008. I'm an engineer, and I like numbers,
caculations, etc. But frankly, I'd get more pleasure sometimes from
flying if I could just get in and go. Not all pilot's feel this way,
but many common people do. Might be time to start thinking about
accommodating them. It would expand GA considerably.

> > 10. Ultralight components (no pun intended). I see no fundamental
> > reason that a 100kg man should ride in 1000kg vehicle. Use plastic and
> > other frilly components if doing so does not compromise structural
> > integrity or pilot safety.
>
> * * * Already been done. Leeon Davis designed a single-seat airplane
> that weighed 177 lb and was powered by an 18 HP Briggs industrial
> engine. Clocked well over 100 mph.

Nice.

> > 12. Abnormally-scary dependence on fly-by-wire. If it can me made
> > electronic instead of mechanical, make it so.
>
> *What are you saying? Fly-by-wire is scary but we'll make it so
> anyway?

I'm saying that the scary might not be as hairy as the wary claim it
to be. I have been in an uncountable number of situations where
experts in completely different fields were mutually intimidated/
suspicious of the the other's profession. They are confident in their
own, but the idea that the other might do his part right seems
somewhat absurd. Universities now have program where the actively
attempt to break down this mindset. Not sure how well it's working.
I think in case of fly-by-wire, yes, it is being done, but the way it
is being done is not the way a "conventional" software/electrical
engineer would do it. This is why incremental improvements are so
painful. Someone will take an existing 30-year-old actuator, decide
that it could be controlled electronically, leave in the 90% of the 30-
year-old component, and add 10% electronics, and charge a hefty
premium for the design over what a conventional electrical engineering
firm would charge, for various reasons. This is painful. A systemic
approach is necessary, IMO.

> > 13. Basic safety features (parachute, auto-oxgen, auto-extinguisher,
> > auto-pilot when computer senses that pilot is incoherent)
>
> * * * * * Parachutes weigh something and take up considerable room.
> Oxygen tanks are heavy, too and take up more room. Where is the pilot
> supposed to go in this little airplane? And what is he doing in it
> when he's incoherent? And what happens if the computer incorrectly
> decides he's incoherent and takes over just when the pilot, who sees a
> danger approaching, decides to avoid that danger and the computer
> decides NO?

Pilot override? All these are policy questions, not mechanism.

> * * * *The Piper Arrow had an automatic gear-extension system to
> prevent the pilot from landing gear-up. It sensed pitot pressure and
> dropped the gear below a certain airspeed. Trouble was that this
> "safety feature" killed a few folks when the pitot tube iced up and
> the system thought airspeed had dropped, so it lowered the gear,
> adding drag and another ice-catcher just when the pilot was struggling
> to stay airborne long enough to get out of the ice. These automatic
> systems sound nice until the unforeseen occurs. Those unforeseen
> things are why it's harder to get a pilot's license than a driver's
> license. You have to know what's going on.

Redundancy. And an emphasis on electronics.

Frankly, if someone approached me with a component that they claimed
to be "electronic", but was actually an old mechanical control that
was "enhanced" with an electronic actuator, I'd be extremely nervous.
I'd have multiple, redundant, advanced, inexpensive controls using
modern materials.

> > 14. Convenient means of entry an exit. Grandma should not have to
> > mount the wing.
>
> *Good luck. Structural nightmare. The Cessna Cardinal successfully
> addressed this back in 1968, but the weight penalty was significant.

Just took a look at Wikipedia. That aircraft looks very much like a
Cessna single-prop plane. :)

The aircraft I have in mind would look nothing like that, so I wonder
if there would be added weight.

> > 15. Efficiency - all that heat lost by ICE, plus 20% loss due to prop
> > twisting air, plus unnecessary weight from all those mechanical
> > components that could just as well be made of plastic actuators.
>
> * * Fantasy. Like I said, find those new technologies. As far as
> plastic goes, the Boeing 787 is mostly plastic but its control are
> metal. Plastic does not do well handling hot hydraulic fluid.

I was thinking of plastic in cabin, for exmaple.

> > 15. Leather seats.
>
> * * *Weight.

Really? :(

> > 16. Luxury sound system including digital radio.
>
> *More weight. And a distraction. Stay at home in your living room.

> > 17. Video-games (including Microsoft Flight Sim).
>
> * * * * Now there's an intelligent thing. Flying while pretending to

>
> > 18. Inter-aircraft communication using WiMax (or something similar).
> > Proximity detectors, etc.
>
> * * * * Weight. Complexity. Expense.

My Dell laptop can provide these features. I bought it for < $1000.
Bring it on board the airplane should not down it. It's mass is less
than 3kg.

> > 19. Pre-heating and pre-cooling of cabin.
>
> * * * * *With what? Heaters and air conditioners weigh a lot.
> Especially air conditioners.

Heating coil and blower for heater. For AC, i'd have to do research.
The cabin, being for 1 person, would be tiny.

> > 20. Three-liter water tank with spigot on dash.
>
> * * * * *Another eight or nine pounds.

> > 21. Air conditioner.
>
> * * * See above.
>
> > 22. Integration of all instruments into computer monitors with few
> > exceptions (backup compass, backup altimeter, backup etc.)
>
> * Been done.

> > 23. USB camera mounts around the aircraft
> > 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
> > vicinity of aircraft.
> > 25. Real-time capture of all flight data in minutest detail onto
> > sealed hard disk for when it crashes.
> > 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> > make this unnecessary, right?
>
> * * * Someone is lazy.

Yes indeed. My boss once told me that he likes to hire "lazy smart
people", because they'll find the most efficient way to get something
done to avoid working.

> > 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.
>
> * Mufflers. More weight.

Assumes conventional ICE, etc. I do admit that I do not know what to
power electric system with, but under assumption that electric power
is available, there is something I am exploring that would be a lot
quieter than ICE-mounted prop configuration.

> > 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.
>
> * * * *So fuel splashes forward over everything when the airplane
> ccrashes, and so that the CG wanders all over the place as fuel is
> burned.

I thought about this. My Jeep Cherokee V8, and many SUV's have engine
mounted at slight angle so that, if you rear-end someone hard, the
engine will drop down and not come into the passenger area. Might go
with something similar for aircraft, so that, on crash, engine has
tendency to detach. The tank would have to be extremely sturdy
though, adding weight.

> > 29. Trash bin.
>
> * * * *The whole design should go into this trash bin.
Hah.

> > 30. Order of magnitude more control over the orientation of
> > aerodynamic surfaces. [IMO, this represents and *enormous* opportunity
> > reduce requisite skill in flying aircraft].
>
> * * * * * * OK. Design an "airplane" with all those goodies, and see
> just how heavy it will be. It'll have a stall speed in the range of
> 120 MPH. *Even the 1000 kg airplane that carries the 100 kg man, the
> airplane you think is inefficient, already exists and has some of the
> above goodies. That's why it weighs so much and can carry so little.

I'm probably going to focus just on the propulsion system, since, if I
turn out to be wrong, there is no point in continuing with anything
else, as all improvements thenceforth would be necessarily tweakage of
the basic aircraft model: engine, prop, balancing, etc.

> * * * * You forgot de-icing systems.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Benjamin Dover

April 15th 08, 10:11 PM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Apr 15, 2:33*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Apr 15, 1:21*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>
>> >> > 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers
>> >> > should make this unnecessary, right?
>>
>> >> How does the computer know when you *want* to slip?
>>
>> >When you move the controls in such a way to indicate that you want
>> >slipping. :)
>>
>> If you flew, you'd know how silly that comeback is.
>
> I have flown, though never slipped.
>
> I received 3 responses to my imaginary-flying-car, and one thing they
> all have in common is that they presume that the basic design of such
> a vehicle would be, more or less, a Cessna, tweaked to add the
> features I listed. As I mentioned before, I would not do that.
>
> -Le Chuad Lapin-
>
>
>
>

The car you want was designed and built by Francisco Scaramanga many years
ago. He started with a car, specifically an AMC Matador, and modified it
so it could be flown as well as driven.

[email protected]

April 15th 08, 10:47 PM

On Apr

>I thought about this. My Jeep Cherokee V8, and many SUV's have engine .
>mounted at slight angle so that, if you rear-end someone hard, the
>engine will drop down and not come into the passenger area. Might go
>with something similar for aircraft, so that, on crash, engine has
>tendency to detach. The tank would have to be extremely sturdy
>though, adding weight.

> > 29. Trash bin.

The motor is angled to give better geometry to the drive train,ie the
U joints, constant velocity joints, rear end posiotion. The reason it
is obvious is that SUV's sit up higher and the angle is steeper. Even
cars have the motor tilited slightly.. Look close ol buddy........

Ben

Le Chaud Lapin

April 15th 08, 11:08 PM

On Apr 15, 4:50*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> >I'm an engineer
>
> Most pilots can talk with someone. who claims to be a pilot. for 2 minutes
> and know if they really are.
> Most engineers can talk with someone. who claims to be an engineer. for 2 minutes
> and know if they really are.
>
> I'm both.
> You're neither.

Thanks for afternoon laughs. :))

-Le Chaud Lapin-

B A R R Y

April 15th 08, 11:45 PM

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:56:21 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote:

>
>I have flown, though never slipped.

That's right, PC sims don't have crosswind. My mistake.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 16th 08, 12:02 AM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 15, 10:17*am, Tina > wrote:
> > Not trying to *invalidate the point you're making, but sometimes we
> > simply get lazy or our brain goes asleep. I got some useful help here
> > after having asked what turned out to be something easily found had I
> > been better at searching.
>
> That's actually what happened in my case. :)
>
> > However, trom a technical perspective *going from an 80% efficient
> > prop to 100% will most likely not do much to change a design from
> > fantasy to 'realizable'. *There's a hierarchy of problems associated
> > with design, and this particular one, prop efficiency, would be pretty
> > far down on most designers' *lists if they were looking to design an
> > innovative GA airplane that converts to a car.
>
> A hieararchy indeed. One would have to solve many problems at once.
> I'm already spending too much time thinking about this, but if I were
> to have a go at it, right now, I would aim for:
>
> 1. One seat-only, initially.
> 2. Structural symmetry throughout, whenever feasible.
> 3. Inexpensive USB-based COTS sensors everywhere.
> 4. Inexpensive USB-based COTS controls everywhere.
> 5. Elimination of conventional ICE and prop. [Biggest impediment to
> flying car, in my not-sufficiently-educated opinion].'

Replace the ICE with what???

> 6. Even weight distribution. Ideally, the aircraft would have a box-
> like structure.
> 7. Glass-cockpit everything with marginal cost of < $1000 for
> commodity CPU. *No more* Garmin. :)
> 8. Pressurized cabin.

Why? Most light aircraft do not fly high enough to require
pressurization -- just an added expense/weight/complexity.

> 9. Computer assisted take-off, computer assisted approach, computer-
> assisted stabilization, computer-assisted tracking.

Again -- why? Anybody competent rnough to fly has to be competent enough
to navigate. Added expense/complexity.

> 10. Ultralight components (no pun intended). I see no fundamental
> reason that a 100kg man should ride in 1000kg vehicle. Use plastic and
> other frilly components if doing so does not compromise structural
> integrity or pilot safety.
> 12. Abnormally-scary dependence on fly-by-wire. If it can me made
> electronic instead of mechanical, make it so.

Bad engineering! KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid! Light aircraft are
designed for stability/controllability. Adding another system to enable
it degrades reliability and adds expense/complexity.

> 13. Basic safety features (parachute, auto-oxgen, auto-extinguisher,
> auto-pilot when computer senses that pilot is incoherent)

KISS!

> 14. Convenient means of entry an exit. Grandma should not have to
> mount the wing.
> 15. Efficiency - all that heat lost by ICE, plus 20% loss due to prop
> twisting air, plus unnecessary weight from all those mechanical
> components that could just as well be made of plastic actuators.
> 15. Leather seats.
> 16. Luxury sound system including digital radio.

Detracts from flying.

> 17. Video-games (including Microsoft Flight Sim).

Absolutely NOT!

> 18. Inter-aircraft communication using WiMax (or something similar).
> Proximity detectors, etc.

It is called a "radio."

> 19. Pre-heating and pre-cooling of cabin.

KISS!

> 20. Three-liter water tank with spigot on dash.

A simple water bottle suffices.

> 21. Air conditioner.

Nice, but KISS!

> 22. Integration of all instruments into computer monitors with few
> exceptions (backup compass, backup altimeter, backup etc.)

KISS!

> 23. USB camera mounts around the aircraft

KISS!

> 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
> vicinity of aircraft.

KISS!

> 25. Real-time capture of all flight data in minutest detail onto
> sealed hard disk for when it crashes.

KISS!

> 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> make this unnecessary, right?

WRONG! Necessary for handling crosswind takeoffs/landings.

> 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.

KISS!

> 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.

??????

> 29. Trash bin.

??????

> 30. Order of magnitude more control over the orientation of
> aerodynamic surfaces. .

??????

[i]
> > It would be nice to save 20% of one's fuel, though.
>
> > Sometimes those not skilled in the art make breakthroughs, most times
> > not. If you saw the potential cancer treatment talked about on 60
> > Minutes last weekend you were were treated to something that most
> > likely will fall into the "not" group.
>
> What do you think of Steve Moller? I have seen respectable
> commentators laud his work, but...

I think that he is a fraud and a scamster. His design contains numerous
errors and demonstrates a complete ignorance of aviation, aerodynamics,
controllability, engines and reliability.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[email protected]

April 16th 08, 12:12 AM

On Apr 15, 2:31 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> Assuming the engine-mounted-foward model, etc. What does one call this
> model anyway?

Tractor. If you are going to design an airplane you should be a LOT
farther along than that.

> > > 14. Convenient means of entry an exit. Grandma should not have to
> > > mount the wing.
>
> > Good luck. Structural nightmare. The Cessna Cardinal successfully
> > addressed this back in 1968, but the weight penalty was significant.
>
> Just took a look at Wikipedia. That aircraft looks very much like a
> Cessna single-prop plane. :)

So you can't tell the difference between a 172 and a 177. Take
a much closer look. Just because it has a high wing and the prop on
the nose doesn't mean it's the same design. It's an entirely different
airplane.

> I was thinking of plastic in cabin, for exmaple.

Well, now. Maybe you should actually climb into a light
airplane and see what the interior is lined with. They beat you to it
back in the 1950s.

Dan

Le Chaud Lapin

April 16th 08, 12:49 AM

On Apr 15, 6:02*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> *Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > 5. Elimination of conventional ICE and prop. [Biggest impediment to
> > flying car, in my not-sufficiently-educated opinion].'
>
> Replace the ICE with what???

That's the part I am working on. Note that I don't necessary mean a
new type of egine. I mean the ICE/prop combination. If we could get
rid of this somehow, it would solve several problems at once.

An associate of mine and I were out not long ago flying a DA-20. It
actually overheated. I was thinking.. "Why is it that we are sitting
here on the ramp, waiting because our engine wasted energy? So we're
basically sitting here because it couldn't waste energy fast enough,
and now we're waiting for it to waste even more energy."

> Why? Most light aircraft do not fly high enough to require
> pressurization -- just an added expense/weight/complexity.

The computer system. It would allow the owner to be able to use
inexpensive COTS components (generic, $100, 1TB hard disks).

> > 9. Computer assisted take-off, computer assisted approach, computer-
> > assisted stabilization, computer-assisted tracking.
>
> Again -- why? Anybody competent rnough to fly has to be competent enough
> to navigate. Added expense/complexity.

Software is weightless, and the material cost is essentially zero, so
it would be a nice-to-have. Additionally, as mentioned, I would
increase the number of moveable airfoils on the aircraft dramatically,
each controlled by the computer.

> > 10. Ultralight components (no pun intended). I see no fundamental
> > reason that a 100kg man should ride in 1000kg vehicle. Use plastic and
> > other frilly components if doing so does not compromise structural
> > integrity or pilot safety.
> > 12. Abnormally-scary dependence on fly-by-wire. If it can me made
> > electronic instead of mechanical, make it so.
>
> Bad engineering! KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid! Light aircraft are
> designed for stability/controllability. Adding another system to enable
> it degrades reliability and adds expense/complexity.

As I've mentioned several times, there would have to be a change in
how the pilot thinks about flying. Right now, the pilot is a very
active participant in seeking balance. Much of this could be done
automatically by computers, if the pilot uses the controls instead to
indicate desired results instead of steps toward that result.

And there are things that a computer can do that a pilot cannot do,
like auto-stabilization in present of noise (light turbulence) based
on sophisticated filters from estimation theory.

> > 13. Basic safety features (parachute, auto-oxgen, auto-extinguisher,
> > auto-pilot when computer senses that pilot is incoherent)
>
> KISS!

> > 14. Convenient means of entry an exit. Grandma should not have to
> > mount the wing.
> > 15. Efficiency - all that heat lost by ICE, plus 20% loss due to prop
> > twisting air, plus unnecessary weight from all those mechanical
> > components that could just as well be made of plastic actuators.
> > 15. Leather seats.
> > 16. Luxury sound system including digital radio.
>
> Detracts from flying.

Why? On trek to Bahamas from Florida, certainly it would be more
pleasant to have a bit of entertainment. I would also use USB ports
for headsets, like the high-quality $30 USB model from Logitech I
bought not long ago.

> > 17. Video-games (including Microsoft Flight Sim).
>
> Absolutely NOT!
>
> > 18. Inter-aircraft communication using WiMax (or something similar).
> > Proximity detectors, etc.
>
> It is called a "radio."
>
> > 19. Pre-heating and pre-cooling of cabin.
>
> KISS!
>
> > 20. Three-liter water tank with spigot on dash.
>
> A simple water bottle suffices.
>
> > 21. Air conditioner.
>
> Nice, but KISS!
>
> > 22. Integration of all instruments into computer monitors with few
> > exceptions (backup compass, backup altimeter, backup etc.)
>
> KISS!
>
> > 23. USB camera mounts around the aircraft
>
> KISS!

Hmm...this "KISS" I cannot let go. These things are not just for
frills. They would actually make flying easier (and maybe safer).
Since we're on this subject, I have noticed that there is creepage/
hysteresis/hypocrisy in the aircraft gadget industry:

1. Someone proposes some gadget.
2. Pilots complain that it is too complicated, to dangerous, will
never work, unnecessary, etc.
3. Some aircraft company does it anyway.
4. Some periodical writes about it.
5. Pilot's "oooh...ahhh" about it.
6. Repeat, except topic changes to some other gadget.

I imagine that, 100 years from now, when aircraft contain most of the
things I have mentioned plus much more...

> > 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
> > vicinity of aircraft.
>
> KISS!

Not too hard to do.

> > 25. Real-time capture of all flight data in minutest detail onto
> > sealed hard disk for when it crashes.
>
> KISS!

Would be incremental step from fly-by-wire control anyway.

> > 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> > make this unnecessary, right?
>
> WRONG! *Necessary for handling crosswind takeoffs/landings.

> > 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.
>
> KISS!

Sound reduction would be natural side-effect of propulsion system I
have in mind.

> > 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.

Ahem..I should not have mentioned this. It turns out that, for my
propulsion system, this is optimal location of fuel tank, and it is
not because of balance.

> > 29. Trash bin.
>
> ??????

To throw away hamburger wrapper.

> > 30. Order of magnitude more control over the orientation of
> > aerodynamic surfaces. .
>
> ??????

Four-wheel drive.

The situation we have now is that the aircraft all have a particular
shape. I don't know what this shape is called, be we all know what it
is. The pilot has to actively think about CG so that it balance is
achieve. The location of wings, extent of fuselage, etc, are not
arbitrary. Design choices made earlier heavily influence set of
choices later. The moment it is decided that a huge, ICE engine+prop
is to be mounted at front of plane, many other things follow
necessarily. The design I am thinking about (very early..don't even
know if it will work) does not have ICE+prop., and the pieces are much
lighter and can be distributed better. The aircraft would not need a
long fuselage, etc. But there would be many more control surfaces.
Naturally, the pilot isn't going to have 40 yokes in cockpit
controlling alll these surfaces, plus talking to ATC, plus eating,
plus playing Flight Sim...so i would use a computer to effect that
which s/he desires.
[i]
> > > It would be nice to save 20% of one's fuel, though.
>
> > > Sometimes those not skilled in the art make breakthroughs, most times
> > > not. If you saw the potential cancer treatment talked about on 60
> > > Minutes last weekend you were were treated to something that most
> > > likely will fall into the "not" group.
>
> > What do you think of Steve Moller? I have seen respectable
> > commentators laud his work, but...
>
> I think that he is a fraud and a scamster. His design contains numerous
> errors and demonstrates a complete ignorance of aviation, aerodynamics,
> controllability, engines and reliability.

He's been at it so long. When I first hear dabout him..how long ago he
started, it was discouraging. But after taking a look at the Skycar
and the steel cable suspending one of his prototypes (I think the
insurance excuse is just an excuse..)...made me start wondering
exactly what it is he wants. This whole flying car business seems
seductive. One can easily fall into the trap of wanting to be the
first to make a flying car, rather than wanting to know how to make a
flying car, to distinct philosophies, one potentially yielding fruit
with patience and tenacity, the other unforgivingly destructive.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[email protected]

April 16th 08, 12:56 AM

On Apr 15, 5:49 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:02 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > 5. Elimination of conventional ICE and prop. [Biggest impediment to
> > > flying car, in my not-sufficiently-educated opinion].'
>
> > Replace the ICE with what???
>
> That's the part I am working on. Note that I don't necessary mean a
> new type of egine. I mean the ICE/prop combination. If we could get
> rid of this somehow, it would solve several problems at once.
>
> An associate of mine and I were out not long ago flying a DA-20. It
> actually overheated. I was thinking.. "Why is it that we are sitting
> here on the ramp, waiting because our engine wasted energy? So we're
> basically sitting here because it couldn't waste energy fast enough,
> and now we're waiting for it to waste even more energy."
>
> > Why? Most light aircraft do not fly high enough to require
> > pressurization -- just an added expense/weight/complexity.
>
> The computer system. It would allow the owner to be able to use
> inexpensive COTS components (generic, $100, 1TB hard disks).
>
> > > 9. Computer assisted take-off, computer assisted approach, computer-
> > > assisted stabilization, computer-assisted tracking.
>
> > Again -- why? Anybody competent rnough to fly has to be competent enough
> > to navigate. Added expense/complexity.
>
> Software is weightless, and the material cost is essentially zero, so
> it would be a nice-to-have. Additionally, as mentioned, I would
> increase the number of moveable airfoils on the aircraft dramatically,
> each controlled by the computer.
>
> > > 10. Ultralight components (no pun intended). I see no fundamental
> > > reason that a 100kg man should ride in 1000kg vehicle. Use plastic and
> > > other frilly components if doing so does not compromise structural
> > > integrity or pilot safety.
> > > 12. Abnormally-scary dependence on fly-by-wire. If it can me made
> > > electronic instead of mechanical, make it so.
>
> > Bad engineering! KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid! Light aircraft are
> > designed for stability/controllability. Adding another system to enable
> > it degrades reliability and adds expense/complexity.
>
> As I've mentioned several times, there would have to be a change in
> how the pilot thinks about flying. Right now, the pilot is a very
> active participant in seeking balance. Much of this could be done
> automatically by computers, if the pilot uses the controls instead to
> indicate desired results instead of steps toward that result.
>
> And there are things that a computer can do that a pilot cannot do,
> like auto-stabilization in present of noise (light turbulence) based
> on sophisticated filters from estimation theory.
>
> > > 13. Basic safety features (parachute, auto-oxgen, auto-extinguisher,
> > > auto-pilot when computer senses that pilot is incoherent)
>
> > KISS!
> > > 14. Convenient means of entry an exit. Grandma should not have to
> > > mount the wing.
> > > 15. Efficiency - all that heat lost by ICE, plus 20% loss due to prop
> > > twisting air, plus unnecessary weight from all those mechanical
> > > components that could just as well be made of plastic actuators.
> > > 15. Leather seats.
> > > 16. Luxury sound system including digital radio.
>
> > Detracts from flying.
>
> Why? On trek to Bahamas from Florida, certainly it would be more
> pleasant to have a bit of entertainment. I would also use USB ports
> for headsets, like the high-quality $30 USB model from Logitech I
> bought not long ago.
>
>
>
> > > 17. Video-games (including Microsoft Flight Sim).
>
> > Absolutely NOT!
>
> > > 18. Inter-aircraft communication using WiMax (or something similar).
> > > Proximity detectors, etc.
>
> > It is called a "radio."
>
> > > 19. Pre-heating and pre-cooling of cabin.
>
> > KISS!
>
> > > 20. Three-liter water tank with spigot on dash.
>
> > A simple water bottle suffices.
>
> > > 21. Air conditioner.
>
> > Nice, but KISS!
>
> > > 22. Integration of all instruments into computer monitors with few
> > > exceptions (backup compass, backup altimeter, backup etc.)
>
> > KISS!
>
> > > 23. USB camera mounts around the aircraft
>
> > KISS!
>
> Hmm...this "KISS" I cannot let go. These things are not just for
> frills. They would actually make flying easier (and maybe safer).
> Since we're on this subject, I have noticed that there is creepage/
> hysteresis/hypocrisy in the aircraft gadget industry:
>
> 1. Someone proposes some gadget.
> 2. Pilots complain that it is too complicated, to dangerous, will
> never work, unnecessary, etc.
> 3. Some aircraft company does it anyway.
> 4. Some periodical writes about it.
> 5. Pilot's "oooh...ahhh" about it.
> 6. Repeat, except topic changes to some other gadget.
>
> I imagine that, 100 years from now, when aircraft contain most of the
> things I have mentioned plus much more...
>
> > > 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
> > > vicinity of aircraft.
>
> > KISS!
>
> Not too hard to do.
>
> > > 25. Real-time capture of all flight data in minutest detail onto
> > > sealed hard disk for when it crashes.
>
> > KISS!
>
> Would be incremental step from fly-by-wire control anyway.
>
> > > 26. Elimination of rudder control with foot pedals. Computers should
> > > make this unnecessary, right?
>
> > WRONG! Necessary for handling crosswind takeoffs/landings.
> > > 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.
>
> > KISS!
>
> Sound reduction would be natural side-effect of propulsion system I
> have in mind.
>
> > > 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.
>
> Ahem..I should not have mentioned this. It turns out that, for my
> propulsion system, this is optimal location of fuel tank, and it is
> not because of balance.
>
> > > 29. Trash bin.
>
> > ??????
>
> To throw away hamburger wrapper.
>
> > > 30. Order of magnitude more control over the orientation of
> > > aerodynamic surfaces. [IMO, this represents and *enormous* opportunity
> > > reduce requisite skill in flying aircraft].
>
> > ??????
>
> Four-wheel drive.
>
> The situation we have now is that the aircraft all have a particular
> shape. I don't know what this shape is called, be we all know what it
> is. The pilot has to actively think about CG so that it balance is
> achieve. The location of wings, extent of fuselage, etc, are not
> arbitrary. Design choices made earlier heavily influence set of
> choices later. The moment it is decided that a huge, ICE engine+prop
> is to be mounted at front of plane, many other things follow
> necessarily. The design I am thinking about (very early..don't even
> know if it will work) does not have ICE+prop., and the pieces are much
> lighter and can be distributed better. The aircraft would not need a
> long fuselage, etc. But there would be many more control surfaces.
> Naturally, the pilot isn't going to have 40 yokes in cockpit
> controlling alll these surfaces, plus talking to ATC, plus eating,
> plus playing Flight Sim...so i would use a computer to effect that
> which s/he desires.
>
> > > > It would be nice to save 20% of one's fuel, though.
>
> > > > Sometimes those not skilled in the art make breakthroughs, most times
> > > > not. If you saw the potential cancer treatment talked about on 60
> > > > Minutes last weekend you were were treated to something that most
> > > > likely will fall into the "not" group.
>
> > > What do you think of Steve Moller? I have seen respectable
> > > commentators laud his work, but...
>
> > I think that he is a fraud and a scamster. His design contains numerous
> > errors and demonstrates a complete ignorance of aviation, aerodynamics,
> > controllability, engines and reliability.
>
> He's been at it so long. When I first hear dabout him..how long ago he
> started, it was discouraging. But after taking a look at the Skycar
> and the steel cable suspending one of his prototypes (I think the
> insurance excuse is just an excuse..)...made me start wondering
> exactly what it is he wants. This whole flying car business seems
> seductive. One can easily fall into the trap of wanting to be the
> first to make a flying car, rather than wanting to know how to make a
> flying car, to distinct philosophies, one potentially yielding fruit
> with patience and tenacity, the other unforgivingly destructive.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Mx in disguise, for sure. The more you post, the more we realize
you don'y fly.

Dan

B A R R Y

April 16th 08, 01:11 AM

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:56:39 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>
> Mx in disguise, for sure. The more you post, the more we realize
>you don'y fly.
>
> Dan

Not a flyer of aircraft, but I don't think it's MX.

The posting IP shows as used by Road Runner in Tampa, FL and Austin,
TX.

OrgName: Road Runner HoldCo LLC
OrgID: RRSW
Address: 13241 Woodland Park Road
City: Herndon
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20171
Country: US
Comment: Allocations for this OrgID serve Road Runner residential
customers out of the Austin, TX and Tampa Bay, FL RDCs.
RegDate:
Updated: 2006-03-27

Just another wannabe or frustrated simmer taking advantage of the fact
that most actual pilots (or students) who come here take flying pretty
seriously. Since you can only whack it to web porn for so long before
things get sore, it gives them something to do until the abrasions on
the private parts heal.

[email protected]

April 16th 08, 04:11 AM

On Apr 15, 4:02 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:11 pm, wrote:
>>The
> > Wright Brother's propeller on their Flyer had an efficiency of 83%
> > because they understood that it was a rotating airfoil rather than
> > some sort of paddlewheel.
>
> 83%? BS. Even if it had reached optimal speed it would have struggled
> to get 70% (note the CFD calcs do not include surface roughness
> losses):
>
> http://www.fluent.com/about/news/newsletters/03v12i2_fall/a2.htm
>
> It was lucky that Orville knew from tests a bit about about props (he
> estimated 66% efficiency) or it might not have flown at all. That of
> course was not such great insight on his part as the theory of
> propellor design was well known from naval architecture.

Better see this: http://www.memagazine.org/flight03/propwr/propwr.html

Wright estimated an efficiency of 66%. Later, more
sophisticated tests on the Flyer's prop design gave an efficiency of
82%.

A quote from the article:

"These data show that the 1903 Wright propeller had a maximum
efficiency of 82 percent.
"Based on Wilbur Wright's notes on the fourth flight of Dec. 17,
1903, the Flyer had an estimated forward speed of 31 mph during the
steady flight portion of its path and the propellers were turning at
379 rpm, which yields an advance ratio of 0.85. Hence, the 1903 Wright
propellers were operating at a mechanical efficiency of slightly over
75 percent during steady flight.
"This was a remarkable feat, considering the state of propeller
knowledge prior to World War I.
"Since Wilbur estimated their propeller performance to be 66
percent in March of 1903, we found the results of our experimental
tests to be quite surprising. Using Wright bent-end propeller
reproductions as our reference test case (there are several well-
preserved sets in existence), we have subjected these propellers to
multiple wind tunnel tests. We recalibrated the instrumentation used
in the propeller tests and we subjected the bent-end geometry
propellers to a full Navier-Stokes equation computational fluid
dynamics analysis in order to affirm our test results. The bent-end
propellers had peak efficiencies of nearly 87 percent. The overall
comparisons between the numerical predictions and the test results
agreed. To our surprise, we learned that the Wrights' bent-end
propeller twist distribution (a variation of pitch angle with radius)
was in nearly exact agreement with modern computer-based designs over
the outer two-thirds of the propeller blade."

How's that?

Dan

Alan[_6_]

April 16th 08, 06:58 AM

In article > Le Chaud Lapin > writes:

>I would design first for mechanism, leaving policy 100% in the
>software domain. For example, I imagine that there are many "hard-
>coded" feedback systems in basic GA aircraft,

You "imagine" -- you don't KNOW?

You might want to learn a bit more about aircraft before you proceed.

Alan

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 16th 08, 02:35 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> That's the part I am working on. Note that I don't necessary mean a
> new type of egine. I mean the ICE/prop combination. If we could get
> rid of this somehow, it would solve several problems at once.

And create several new ones.

>> Why? Most light aircraft do not fly high enough to require
>> pressurization -- just an added expense/weight/complexity.
>
> The computer system. It would allow the owner to be able to use
> inexpensive COTS components (generic, $100, 1TB hard disks).
>

What the hell does that have to do with altitude and the need for
pressurization?

>>> 9. Computer assisted take-off, computer assisted approach, computer-
>>> assisted stabilization, computer-assisted tracking.
>> Again -- why? Anybody competent rnough to fly has to be competent enough
>> to navigate. Added expense/complexity.

>
> Why? On trek to Bahamas from Florida, certainly it would be more
> pleasant to have a bit of entertainment. I would also use USB ports
> for headsets, like the high-quality $30 USB model from Logitech I
> bought not long ago.
>

There are plenty of entertainment systems for aircraft already. The
Garmin 396 & 496 GPS have XM radio built in.

That nice $30 Logitech headset you bought is indeed nice. I have one too
but it has no noise attenuation properties which is the main reasons you
have a headset in a small plane. Back when I got my initial flight
training wearing headsets was the exception not the rule. You talked on
the radio through a hand mic and listened on a crappy speaker. It is one
of the reasons my hearing sucks today.

>>> 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
>>> vicinity of aircraft.
>> KISS!
>
> Not too hard to do.
>

But of very little to no use.

>>> 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.
>> KISS!
>
> Sound reduction would be natural side-effect of propulsion system I
> have in mind.
>

You going to get rid of the prop? That is where most of the noise comes
from.

>>> 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.
>
> Ahem..I should not have mentioned this. It turns out that, for my
> propulsion system, this is optimal location of fuel tank, and it is
> not because of balance.
>

You had better start thinking of balance. Not that it really matters.
Moller's aircraft will be in every garage before you get your idea on
paper.

> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 16th 08, 04:50 PM

On Apr 16, 8:35*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > That's the part I am working on. Note that I don't necessary mean a
> > new type of egine. I mean the ICE/prop combination. *If we could get
> > rid of this somehow, it would solve several problems at once.
>
> And create several new ones.

The new ones would likely be less painful than the old ones.

> >> Why? Most light aircraft do not fly high enough to require
> >> pressurization -- just an added expense/weight/complexity.
>
> > The computer system. It would allow the owner to be able to use
> > inexpensive COTS components (generic, $100, 1TB hard disks).
>
> What the hell does that have to do with altitude and the need for
> pressurization?

Pressurizing aircraft would allow use of COTS components that have
maximum altitude specifications.

> > Why? On trek to Bahamas from Florida, certainly it would be more
> > pleasant to have a bit of entertainment. I would also use USB ports
> > for headsets, like the high-quality $30 USB model from Logitech I
> > bought not long ago.
>
> There are plenty of entertainment systems for aircraft already. The
> Garmin 396 & 496 GPS have XM radio built in.

Probably expensive. That is a theme here. Pratically everything I
named, with exception of new type of propulsion system and
computerized actuation, could be had today. But the prices are
outrageous. For example, I know that it is possible to build cock-pit
to cock-pit communication system using WiMaxed PDA's. If I were to do
it for myself, it would cost < $1000 for all equipment including
software. But if an aircraft company does it, that price would
increase dramatically.

> That nice $30 Logitech headset you bought is indeed nice. I have one too
> but it has no noise attenuation properties which is the main reasons you
> have a headset in a small plane. Back when I got my initial flight
> training wearing headsets was the exception not the rule. You talked on
> the radio through a hand mic and listened on a crappy speaker. It is one
> of the reasons my hearing sucks today.
>
> >>> 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
> >>> vicinity of aircraft.
> >> KISS!
>
> > Not too hard to do.
>
> But of very little to no use.
>
> >>> 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.
> >> KISS!
>
> > Sound reduction would be natural side-effect of propulsion system I
> > have in mind.
>
> You going to get rid of the prop? That is where most of the noise comes
> from.

I have thought about it, yes, which is what lead me to the original
topic.

> >>> 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.
>
> > Ahem..I should not have mentioned this. It turns out that, for my
> > propulsion system, this is optimal location of fuel tank, and it is
> > not because of balance.
>
> You had better start thinking of balance. Not that it really matters.
> Moller's aircraft will be in every garage before you get your idea on
> paper.

I have and will. The conventional aircraft design requires thinking a
lot about balance. The very structure of the aircraft is a direct
result of distribution of weighty components. But if there were a
different distribution, then that would change how one approaches the
problem of balance. The problem might be significantly abated with a
more even distribution.

Do you actually believe this? Apparently there are posters who believe
it won't.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 16th 08, 06:17 PM

On Apr 16, 12:58*am, (Alan) wrote:
> In article > Le Chaud Lapin > writes:
>
> >I would design first for mechanism, leaving policy 100% in the
> >software domain. For example, I imagine that there are many "hard-
> >coded" feedback systems in basic GA aircraft,
>
> * You "imagine" -- you don't KNOW?
>
> * You might want to learn a bit more about aircraft before you proceed.

Of course.

But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
solutions to old problems.

I would distinguish between aspects of the old that are relevant, and
those are not.

Trying to figure out how to counteract the weight of a massive ICE and
prop at the front of plane, for example, would not be relevant in the
model that I have in mind, although the notion that balance is
necessary, would be relevant. Similary, trying to determine the proper
grade of lubricant to lubricate a series of mechanical interlocks
would irrelevant, although the notion that actuators will have to be
controlled from a central location would be relevant.

One can argue that, since an aircraft is mostly mechanical anyway,
there is some educational benefit from studying what has already been
done, for example, the cabling system to control airfoils. To that I
would agree, but because the system is already so big to start with,
there will not be a lack of opportunity to learn from analyzing those
aspects of the old which are relevant.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[email protected]

April 16th 08, 06:26 PM

On Apr 16, 11:17 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:58 am, (Alan) wrote:
>
> > In article > Le Chaud Lapin > writes:
>
> > >I would design first for mechanism, leaving policy 100% in the
> > >software domain. For example, I imagine that there are many "hard-
> > >coded" feedback systems in basic GA aircraft,
>
> > You "imagine" -- you don't KNOW?
>
> > You might want to learn a bit more about aircraft before you proceed.
>
> Of course.
>
> But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
> aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
> solutions to old problems.

Ah. So the old saying about knowing history lest you make
the same mistakes doesn't apply here, huh?
>
> I would distinguish between aspects of the old that are relevant, and
> those are not.

With no frame of reference, none of the old will make sense to
you. You need to learn to fly first. And then take some mechanical
training. Then you'll have a vague idea that you know next to nothing.
There are many intelligent and educated people trying to design new
airplanes, and finding that it's not nearly as easy as they thought.

He's doing nothing but trolling, guys. He enjoys pulling our
tails just to get a reaction. Can't take him seriously at all.

Dan

Ken S. Tucker

April 16th 08, 07:03 PM

On Apr 16, 10:17 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:58 am, (Alan) wrote:
>
> > In article > Le Chaud Lapin > writes:
>
> > >I would design first for mechanism, leaving policy 100% in the
> > >software domain. For example, I imagine that there are many "hard-
> > >coded" feedback systems in basic GA aircraft,
>
> > You "imagine" -- you don't KNOW?
>
> > You might want to learn a bit more about aircraft before you proceed.
>
> Of course.
>
> But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
> aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
> solutions to old problems.

Remote Controlled flying would be a cheap
and easy way to start to put a new design
in the air. Join the EAA.
You should sharpen your mission objective.
Good Luck
Ken

Le Chaud Lapin

April 16th 08, 07:17 PM

On Apr 16, 12:26*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 16, 11:17 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
> > aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
> > solutions to old problems.
>
> * * * * * *Ah. So the old saying about knowing history lest you make
> the same mistakes doesn't apply here, huh?

It applies, but if someone asked you to build a fort, in 2008, you
most like would not start with brick and mortar. You probably would
not use wood. You probably would not insist on having a moat around
it. This is an extreme analogy, but you get the point.

A designer should use principles and materials that are appropriate
for the times. I would imagine this same conversation occurred during
the 20th century between two electrical engineers, one who cut his
teeth on vacuum tubes, the other who is abot to forsake vaccum tubes
in favor of transistors. The Old Guard would say, "You really ought
to rethink your decision to not study vacuum tubes. You could learn
quite a bit."

Well, I am an electrical engineer, and though I know the basics of
vacuum tubes, I never studied them, and no reputable engineering
school consider them to be a requisite part of its curriculum.

The Dean of Engineering at my university expended extraordinary effort
to create "cross-displine projects" among the engineering and science
discplines. He was fanatical about it. It was as if he was promoting
interdepartmental marrying. I failed to see his motivation, why there
was a sense of urgency and conviction. Later in life, I realized that
there are entire industrial groups who isolate themselves from other
industrial groups from whom they might greatly benefit. It *seems*
like this is not happening, because in design meetings, there will be
representatives of various discplines present. But sometime happens
in those meetings, and the result is what you get is not as good as
what could be, certainly not as cheap, at least in case of software.
The Dean saw this and probably trying to induce his departments to
break this pattern, first in the context of academia, then later, in
industry.

Each time I get into a Tomahawk or C172, or DA-20, I am excited, but I
can't help thinking, "This stuff looks 40 years old." Then I realize,
in the case of the Tomahawk, it really is 40 years old. It should come
as no surprise that a software engineer or electrical engineer might
see signifcant room for improvement. In fact, this might be one
reason why Garmin does so well. They fill a gap that the aircraft
manufacturers have refused to fill, cheaply. The auto industry is not
much better. There are commercials on TV today about Microsoft
Sync. http://www.syncmyride.com This might be a big deal to auto
industry, but to a software engineer experienced in these types of
technologies, it is shockingly unimpressive relative to the cost.

I think the problem is one of turf - the aircraft manufacturers do
have their own electrical engineers and software engineers. But when
they do something that involves avant garde technology, the cost is
10x more than what it would be if a "normal" engineer did it. I think
what the Dean of Engineering was trying to say was, "Let each group of
people do what s/he is competent at, and get out of the way while they
are doing it." I don't see this happening in GA. Instead I see
companies like Garmin making a fortune in the void.

> > I would distinguish between aspects of the old that are relevant, and
> > those are not.
>
> * * * With no frame of reference, none of the old will make sense to
> you. You need to learn to fly first. And then take some *mechanical
> training. Then you'll have a vague idea that you know next to nothing.
> There are many intelligent and educated people trying to design new
> airplanes, and finding that it's not nearly as easy as they thought.

Well, I do understand physics. I have flown. And I have built several
moderately complex machines, one more than 20 years ago.

As far as many intelligent and educated people trying to design new
airplanes, some of these people have been trying for quite a while.
Look at the results. In many cases, it actually looks like a car with
a propeller on it, and it is obvious from sight that it contains
severe design flaws.

Are you talking about these?

If you are talking about other ideas of flying cars, I would like to
see them. I have already seen enough contraptions that look like cars
with wings attached.

> * * * He's doing nothing but trolling, guys. He enjoys pulling our
> tails just to get a reaction. Can't take him seriously at all.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 16th 08, 07:35 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:35 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>> That's the part I am working on. Note that I don't necessary mean a
>>> new type of egine. I mean the ICE/prop combination. If we could get
>>> rid of this somehow, it would solve several problems at once.
>> And create several new ones.
>
> The new ones would likely be less painful than the old ones.
>

You are basing that assumption on nothing other than your uninformed gut
feeling.

>>>> Why? Most light aircraft do not fly high enough to require
>>>> pressurization -- just an added expense/weight/complexity.
>>> The computer system. It would allow the owner to be able to use
>>> inexpensive COTS components (generic, $100, 1TB hard disks).
>> What the hell does that have to do with altitude and the need for
>> pressurization?
>
> Pressurizing aircraft would allow use of COTS components that have
> maximum altitude specifications.

So to use cheap off the shelf components you are going to add a system
that is not cheap and not off the shelf. Great idea.

>
>>> Why? On trek to Bahamas from Florida, certainly it would be more
>>> pleasant to have a bit of entertainment. I would also use USB ports
>>> for headsets, like the high-quality $30 USB model from Logitech I
>>> bought not long ago.
>> There are plenty of entertainment systems for aircraft already. The
>> Garmin 396 & 496 GPS have XM radio built in.
>
> Probably expensive. That is a theme here. Pratically everything I
> named, with exception of new type of propulsion system and
> computerized actuation, could be had today. But the prices are
> outrageous. For example, I know that it is possible to build cock-pit
> to cock-pit communication system using WiMaxed PDA's. If I were to do
> it for myself, it would cost < $1000 for all equipment including
> software. But if an aircraft company does it, that price would
> increase dramatically.
>

Do you mean intercom. There are plenty of perfectly good intercom
systems on the market for <$1000 already.

>> That nice $30 Logitech headset you bought is indeed nice. I have one too
>> but it has no noise attenuation properties which is the main reasons you
>> have a headset in a small plane. Back when I got my initial flight
>> training wearing headsets was the exception not the rule. You talked on
>> the radio through a hand mic and listened on a crappy speaker. It is one
>> of the reasons my hearing sucks today.
>>

Skipped that one didn't you.

>>>>> 24. Electronic megaphone for voice communication to those in immediate
>>>>> vicinity of aircraft.
>>>> KISS!
>>> Not too hard to do.
>> But of very little to no use.
>>
>>>>> 27. Significant reduction in sound pollution.
>>>> KISS!
>>> Sound reduction would be natural side-effect of propulsion system I
>>> have in mind.
>> You going to get rid of the prop? That is where most of the noise comes
>> from.
>
> I have thought about it, yes, which is what lead me to the original
> topic.
>
>>>>> 28. Rear-mounted fuel-tank.
>>> Ahem..I should not have mentioned this. It turns out that, for my
>>> propulsion system, this is optimal location of fuel tank, and it is
>>> not because of balance.
>> You had better start thinking of balance. Not that it really matters.
>> Moller's aircraft will be in every garage before you get your idea on
>> paper.
>
> I have and will. The conventional aircraft design requires thinking a
> lot about balance. The very structure of the aircraft is a direct
> result of distribution of weighty components. But if there were a
> different distribution, then that would change how one approaches the
> problem of balance. The problem might be significantly abated with a
> more even distribution.
>
> Do you actually believe this? Apparently there are posters who believe
> it won't.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 16th 08, 07:37 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>
> But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
> aspects of the status quo
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

You have certainly attained that goal.

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 16th 08, 08:48 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:26 pm, wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 11:17 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>> But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
>>> aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
>>> solutions to old problems.
>> Ah. So the old saying about knowing history lest you make
>> the same mistakes doesn't apply here, huh?
>
> It applies, but if someone asked you to build a fort, in 2008, you
> most like would not start with brick and mortar. You probably would
> not use wood. You probably would not insist on having a moat around
> it. This is an extreme analogy, but you get the point.
>

No but I would look at fortifications throughout history and see what
worked and what didn't against different types of attack.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 16th 08, 09:17 PM

On Apr 16, 1:35*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > Pressurizing aircraft would allow use of COTS components that have
> > maximum altitude specifications.
>
> So to use cheap off the shelf components you are going to add a system
> that is not cheap and not off the shelf. Great idea.

I think so. I am also talking about adding an $800 computer. That's
$800 extra. But that single computer can replace the functions of
multiple devices, all costing in excess of $500.

> Do you mean intercom. There are plenty of perfectly good intercom
> systems on the market for <$1000 already.

I would reuse the $30 headset and the $800 computer to implement the
intercom, making incremental cost (if one excludes cost of developing
new software), $0. Technically, there is already free "intercom"
software on the net, but that would be sloppy.

> >> That nice $30 Logitech headset you bought is indeed nice. I have one too
> >> but it has no noise attenuation properties which is the main reasons you
> >> have a headset in a small plane. Back when I got my initial flight
> >> training wearing headsets was the exception not the rule. You talked on
> >> the radio through a hand mic and listened on a crappy speaker. It is one
> >> of the reasons my hearing sucks today.
>
> Skipped that one didn't you.

As I have said many times, the propulsion model I have in mind would
make significantly less noise than a prop. I doubt that any type of
headset would be necessary. It certainly would not make more noise
than an automobile engine.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 16th 08, 09:19 PM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 16, 12:26*pm, wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 11:17 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
> > > aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
> > > solutions to old problems.
> >

> A designer should use principles and materials that are appropriate
> for the times. I would imagine this same conversation occurred during
> the 20th century between two electrical engineers, one who cut his
> teeth on vacuum tubes, the other who is abot to forsake vaccum tubes
> in favor of transistors. The Old Guard would say, "You really ought
> to rethink your decision to not study vacuum tubes. You could learn
> quite a bit."
>
> Well, I am an electrical engineer, and though I know the basics of
> vacuum tubes, I never studied them, and no reputable engineering
> school consider them to be a requisite part of its curriculum.

Well, that explains your affinity for extraneous gadgets and electrical
controls, when simple, mechanical controls perform better and more
reliably.

If you were an aeronautical engineer, you would realize the foolishness
of your design ideas.

> The Dean of Engineering at my university expended extraordinary effort
> to create "cross-displine projects" among the engineering and science
> discplines. He was fanatical about it. It was as if he was promoting
> interdepartmental marrying. I failed to see his motivation, why there
> was a sense of urgency and conviction. Later in life, I realized that
> there are entire industrial groups who isolate themselves from other
> industrial groups from whom they might greatly benefit. It *seems*
> like this is not happening, because in design meetings, there will be
> representatives of various discplines present. But sometime happens
> in those meetings, and the result is what you get is not as good as
> what could be, certainly not as cheap, at least in case of software.
> The Dean saw this and probably trying to induce his departments to
> break this pattern, first in the context of academia, then later, in
> industry.

It also appears that you failed the course. If you had been paying
attention, you would have realized that simple is best, unless there is
a need for complexity. Such needs are few and far between on a small,
subsonic aircraft.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 16th 08, 11:23 PM

On Apr 16, 3:19*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:

> It also appears that you failed the course. If you had been paying
> attention, you would have realized that simple is best, unless there is
> a need for complexity. Such needs are few and far between on a small,
> subsonic aircraft.

What course? There was no course. It was the Dean of the Engineering
School.

Simple is not always best. GPS devices are not as simple as maps, but
people use them anyway. Are they needed?

There are many things that are not needed, but people want them
anyway, because the new is better than the old.

That's what it means to advance in a field - move the old out of the
way to make room for the new, if it is deemed that the new is better
than the old.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Tina

April 17th 08, 12:38 AM

We eagerly wait for a realizable design

Most, however, have resisted holding our breath. Noses may be another
matter.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 17th 08, 01:28 AM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 16, 3:19*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>
> > It also appears that you failed the course. If you had been paying
> > attention, you would have realized that simple is best, unless there is
> > a need for complexity. Such needs are few and far between on a small,
> > subsonic aircraft.
>
> What course? There was no course. It was the Dean of the Engineering
> School.
>
> Simple is not always best. GPS devices are not as simple as maps, but
> people use them anyway. Are they needed?

Look, Stupid:

GPS devices are nice, but the safety of the flight does not depend on
them. Putting an expensive electronic control in place of simple, cheap
pushrods and cables for flight controls is inviting disaster, if the
flight performance does not depend on them.

Your design suffers from extreme overcomplexity and poor engineering
practice. Starting from ignorance does NOT assure a good design.

>
> There are many things that are not needed, but people want them
> anyway, because the new is better than the old.
>
Not always.

> That's what it means to advance in a field - move the old out of the
> way to make room for the new, if it is deemed that the new is better
> than the old.
>

Your design ideas remind me of the old "Flying Oddities" film, with the
"pancake flipper" and the "Flying Venetian Blind".

Get some aeronautical engineering and mechanical background before you
waste more bandwidth and participants' time reading about your poorly
thought out ideas about flying machinery.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 01:53 AM

On Apr 16, 7:28*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> Look, Stupid:
>
> GPS devices are nice, but the safety of the flight does not depend on
> them. Putting an expensive electronic control in place of simple, cheap
> pushrods and cables for flight controls is inviting disaster, if the
> flight performance does not depend on them.

One years from now, someone will be saying to someone else who has new
ideas about building aircraft...

"Look, Stupid: Putting expensive [whatever] controls in place of
simple, cheap, stochastic estimators based on Kalman-Bucy filters
running on 5GHz Quad-Core CPU's with 64GB RAM for flight control is
inviting disaster, if the flight performance does not depend on them."

Your point of view is endlessly backward, back to the invention of the
wheel.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 17th 08, 02:37 AM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 16, 7:28*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > Look, Stupid:
> >
> > GPS devices are nice, but the safety of the flight does not depend on
> > them. Putting an expensive electronic control in place of simple, cheap
> > pushrods and cables for flight controls is inviting disaster, if the
> > flight performance does not depend on them.
>
> One years from now, someone will be saying to someone else who has new
> ideas about building aircraft...
>
> "Look, Stupid: Putting expensive [whatever] controls in place of
> simple, cheap, stochastic estimators based on Kalman-Bucy filters
> running on 5GHz Quad-Core CPU's with 64GB RAM for flight control is
> inviting disaster, if the flight performance does not depend on them."
>

Hoe reliable are those things? Remember, the total system reliability of
items in series is the multiple of the individual reliability of every
item required to make something work. If you have four items that have
99% reliability each, the system reliability is .99**$ = .9606.

As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

> Your point of view is endlessly backward, back to the invention of the
> wheel.

No, it isn't. Your ideas are akin to "Let's build square wheels, or
ovoid wheels, because they are sexier than the old-fashioned round
wheels."

Some things simply boil down to the lowest common denominator. You have
given no reason for the extra complexity than "it is the new
technology," without providing believable arguments for making changes.

Don't you know that change, for the sake of change, is a time and money
waster extraordinaire?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 03:06 AM

On Apr 16, 8:37*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > "Look, Stupid: Putting expensive [whatever] controls in place of
> > simple, cheap, stochastic estimators based on Kalman-Bucy filters
> > running on 5GHz Quad-Core CPU's with 64GB RAM for flight control is
> > inviting disaster, if the flight performance does not depend on them."
>
> Hoe reliable are those things?

The B-2 uses estimators.

> Remember, the total system reliability of
> items in series is the multiple of the individual reliability of every
> item required to make something work. If you have four items that have
> 99% reliability each, the system reliability is .99**$ = .9606.

> As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
>
> > Your point of view is endlessly backward, back to the invention of the
> > wheel.
>
> No, it isn't. Your ideas are akin to "Let's build square wheels, or
> ovoid wheels, because they are sexier than the old-fashioned round
> wheels."
>
> Some things simply boil down to the lowest common denominator. You have
> given no reason for the extra complexity than "it is the new
> technology," without providing believable arguments for making changes.

It's a catch-22. Many of the problems with GA light-aircraft are
cirucuitous. It is hard to talk about one problem without linking to
the next.

* One has to pay hangar fees because the aircraft is too big to fit in
a garage.
* Even if aircraft were smaller, it's not roadable.
* Aircraft is too big because fuselage needs to be that long to
counterbalance ICE + prop, among other things.
* Aircraft is too noisy because of prop.
* Flight enhancement gadgets are too costly because sales volume is
too low.
* Sales volume is too low because of pilot population is too low.
* Pilot population is too low because cost of ownership (one reason)
is too high, including hangard fees.
* Pilot population is too low because of complexity of control.
* Advance control mechanisms not introduce because of added expense.
* Advance control mechansism cost so much because industry mindset is
to retrofit on metal and cables.

So if it were possible to replace ICE+prop with something quieter,
simpler, that did not move CG so far forward, that would effect many
other things. I think one day this will happen. When it does, it will
effect many things, including size of aircraft, range of aircraft,
cost of fuel, ability to store in garage, lower noise, greater
maneuverability, etc.

The model that I have mind would eliminate the ICE+prop at front of
plane, but the plane would no longer be controllable by a human, not
in the conventional sense. There would be simply too many variables.
The pilot would have to use the stick to indicate what is desired, and
let the computer bring that state about based on real-time computation
of state variables. Naturally, the idea is write the software so that
there is one-to-one correlation between what pilot wants and what
plane does.

> Don't you know that change, for the sake of change, is a time and money
> waster extraordinaire?

There are desirable objectives here, so desirable that NASA offered
$250,000 for PAV to achieve them.

I would not call that change for sake of change.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 03:57 AM

On Apr 16, 9:50*pm, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:53pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> All that stuff you want in your flying car is available on other kinds
> of airplanes: fly-by-wire, autopilots, glass cockpits, pressurized
> cabins, GPS, even leather seats, video screens, and no ICE/prop. These
> planes are called passenger jets. Since you are more interested in
> playing video games in the cockpit than actually flying, you should look
> into passenger jets.

It is not enough to simply have the feautres. Otherwise, we could all
have them. There is the cost with which they are aquired.

If such features were so readily accessible to the general pilot, all
planes would have them.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Morgans[_2_]

April 17th 08, 04:25 AM

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote\

What course? There was no course. It was the Dean of the Engineering
School.

MX, you lieing sack of crap, quit acting like something you are not.

You are not a pilot. You are not a student pilot.

You are sure as crap not an engineer.

Haven't you ridden this train to the end of the line, yet? EVERYone knows it's
you. Really. Give up, and move on.
--
Jim in NC

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 17th 08, 04:44 AM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 16, 9:50*pm, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 7:53pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > All that stuff you want in your flying car is available on other kinds
> > of airplanes: fly-by-wire, autopilots, glass cockpits, pressurized
> > cabins, GPS, even leather seats, video screens, and no ICE/prop. These
> > planes are called passenger jets. Since you are more interested in
> > playing video games in the cockpit than actually flying, you should look
> > into passenger jets.
>
> It is not enough to simply have the feautres. Otherwise, we could all
> have them. There is the cost with which they are aquired.
>
> If such features were so readily accessible to the general pilot, all
> planes would have them.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Most of those features are already readily available (for $$$ and $$$$$)
to the GA pilot. I have friends with homebuilts that have multiple GPS,
digital autopilots, glass cockpits, etc., but their primary flight
controls are good, reliable push rods and cables.

Pressurized cabins require a means of pressurization (turbochargers or
turbine engines and are useless and add unnecessary expense and
complexity if you are going to do most or all of your flying below 12000
ft.

FBW systems apply only if your design is so bad that it is unstable.
Witness the Cirrus, which could not pass spin certification, so they
added a BRS parachute (and subtracted about 80 lb from the useful load).

Chaud, your thinking is like an unnamed (but real) computer facility
that invented their own programming language for programs to run on
their system. The lead manager bragged that it "Is probably the most
complex system ever designed," without justifying the complexity of his
system.

One day he said in a conference that they did not yet have batch
capability and were working on it. I raised my hand and said that I was
already running in batch.

He asked how I did it, and I replied that I was using PVF.

He: "PVF? What's that?"

Me: "Plain Vanilla Fortran."

Tou ssound like that misguided manager, worshipping complexity for
complexity's shape, have forgotten that everything has its place and
that simple is the best and most reliable thing to do.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 04:45 AM

On Apr 16, 10:37*pm, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:57pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > If such features were so readily accessible to the general pilot, all
> > planes would have them.
>
> Uh, no planes wouldn't have them.
>
> Haven't you been paying attention to this thread? GA pilots don't want
> these electronic distractions that add weight, cost, and reduce
> reliability. It has nothing to do with accessibility to general pilots.

If what you say is true, then 100 years from now, GA aircraft will
look essentially the way they do now. After all, the people who buy GA
aircraft are typically GA pilots, and if GA pilots don't want these
"electronic distractions", then who will?

There is nothing special about the year 2008. It is not the Year of
Aviation Enlightenment. What you are saying might have been said (and
probably was) by some pilot in 1960.

The more I read these responses, the more I get the feeling that the
some pilots are simply set in their ways, inherently resistant to
change, which would be quite tragic from an innovation point of view.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 17th 08, 04:52 AM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 16, 10:37*pm, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 9:57pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > If such features were so readily accessible to the general pilot, all
> > > planes would have them.
> >
> > Uh, no planes wouldn't have them.
> >
> > Haven't you been paying attention to this thread? GA pilots don't want
> > these electronic distractions that add weight, cost, and reduce
> > reliability. It has nothing to do with accessibility to general pilots.
>
> If what you say is true, then 100 years from now, GA aircraft will
> look essentially the way they do now. After all, the people who buy GA
> aircraft are typically GA pilots, and if GA pilots don't want these
> "electronic distractions", then who will?
>
> There is nothing special about the year 2008. It is not the Year of
> Aviation Enlightenment. What you are saying might have been said (and
> probably was) by some pilot in 1960.
>
> The more I read these responses, the more I get the feeling that the
> some pilots are simply set in their ways, inherently resistant to
> change, which would be quite tragic from an innovation point of view.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

If the innovation offers improvement, then pilots buy it. Witness GPS,
glass cockpits.

Change for the sake of change, however, is just plain STUPID!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 05:00 AM

On Apr 16, 10:52*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> If the innovation offers improvement, then pilots buy it. Witness GPS,
> glass cockpits.
>
> Change for the sake of change, however, is just plain STUPID!

So...having an aircraft that is

0. smaller
1. quieter
2. lighter
3. more fuel-efficient
4. more comfortable
5. easier to control
6. more stable in adverse conditions

Would this fall into the "improvement" or "change for sake of change"
category?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 05:16 AM

On Apr 16, 10:44*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> Tou ssound like that misguided manager, worshipping complexity for
> complexity's shape, have forgotten that everything has its place and
> that simple is the best and most reliable thing to do.

We obviously have difference in opinion of what each of us regards as
complex.

I regard a general-purpose computer that runs multiple cockpit
applications at once as being less complex, on many levels, than
custom-made device that is 10x the cost and runs a small fraction of
applications, designed by a company with less than 20 engineers on
staff.

Granted, a cable attached to a stick going from airfoil to cockpit is
simple. But an electro-mechanically controlled actualtor is also
simple, if one does not fiddle with it. It depends upon who is doing
the evaluation. This is what I meant earlier about the Dean of
Engineering encourage people to cross-pollinate.

The formulas that describe what goes on inside microwave oven, for
example, can be regarded as complex or trivial depending on who is
looking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_Equations].

There are people all over the world who can barely calculate their
mortgage interest, but they won't give a second thought to using a
microwave oven, something that is arguably more complex than the
formulas for time-value-of-money [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Time_value_of_money]. It is also dangerous if you put your cat in it.

Are micorwave ovens more or less complex than conventional ovens?
Is it a good idea to have them?
Should we have stayed with conventional ovens (which worked just
fine)?
What pressing need was there for microwave ovens?

Did the engineers who created microwage oven change for change's sake?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 06:13 AM

On Apr 16, 11:44*pm, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:45pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> The wheel looks the same 6000 years later. Form follows function. Did
> they not teach you that in engineer school?

My wheels have inflated tires on them, derived from petroleum
products, patented by various individuals since 19th century. I doubt
I could ride my VFR-800 at 150mph on 6000-year-old wheels.

> The Year of Aviation Enlightenment was 1903. Since then, the changes
> have been incremental.

That might be a problem with innovation aviation.

> > The more I read these responses, the more I get the feeling that the
> > some pilots are simply set in their ways, inherently resistant to
> > change, which would be quite tragic from an innovation point of view.
>
> Why tragic? GA doesn't drive innovation. If you are an engineer and you
> want to work on innovation, join Lockheed Martin.

Why not Cessna?

The biggest gains from innovation can be realized by selling to
average consumer.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Morgans[_2_]

April 17th 08, 06:31 AM

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote!
You have proven none of your points below.

So...having an aircraft that is

0. smaller
What? Pilots want bigger. Biggest they can afford.

1. quieter
You have not shown that you can get quieter; first it has to fly with good
performance, and what you propose can not with the proposed power plant and
added weight and complexity.

2. lighter
Haven't you been listening? Everything you propose adds weight.

3. more fuel-efficient
First it has to fly well. Your fuel cell will not.

4. more comfortable
Not going to happen, unless you exceed your weight budget.

5. easier to control
Perhaps, until your fly by wire, unreliable system craps out. What will it be
running, microsoft? Gads! How many backups will it have? At least two, right?
That would be the minnimum number of acceptable backups.

6. more stable in adverse conditions
Only you say so. You want to make it shorter, and that will not be more stable.
Try ballancing a bowling ball on your finger, then a 16 foot 2 x 4. Which is
easier, or put differently, more stable.? Hint-not the bowling ball. Your fly
by wire has to be reliable, and that it will not be, and it has to have software
developed, and that will be too expensive to be done, and if you had the money
to do it, someone would probably die while developing it.

Go to engineering school, then come talk to us. Then get some flying
experience. You have neither. You will never.
--
Jim in NC

TheSmokingGnu

April 17th 08, 07:23 AM

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> There can't be two of them.
> At least I hope not. :)

Poster child(ren) for enforced sterilization? :P

Internet trolls are like touching the wings of a butterfly; no matter
how much you try to help them or hope that they'll recover, once
disturbed you know deep down in your heart they're on a long, slow
spiral down.

To Le Chaud-who-is-not-MX-and-is-an-engineer-he-swears:

Look at gliders. Light, efficient, alternative materials, single man
cabins, not designed or burdened with an ICE or a prop. And yet, they
are still designed in the same basic configuration: cockpit forward,
wings behind, long empennage, big tail surfaces. Glider pilots (and by
extension, glider manufacturers) are concerned with the most efficient,
stable aerodynamic shape possible, and that shape has been practically
achieved. It's the same one everyone and their brother uses, because
they choose to utilize more than 100 years of aerodynamic research
instead of sticking their fingers in their proverbial ears and
pretending not to hear, all the while bleating their delusions of
grandeur all over the Internet.

Grow up, darling. QED.

TheSmokingGnu

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 02:15 PM

On Apr 16, 3:05*am, wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:53 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 3:11 pm, wrote:> On Apr 13, 8:20 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > > Does anyone have any idea of the ratio between thrust power and churn
> > > > > power?
>
> > > > Less than 80%. Look in Wiki for discussion of losses.
>
> > > * * * Wiki isn't so accurate. The figure for max efficiency is in the
> > > range of 85 to 87%, depending on AOA and a bunch of other stuff. The
> > > Wright Brother's propeller on their Flyer had an efficiency of 83%
> > > because they understood that it was a rotating airfoil rather than
> > > some sort of paddlewheel.
> > > * * * For prop math, see this: *http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_technology/selecting_a_propeller.htm
>
> > There's nothing like theoretical efficiency calculations to impress.
> > I'll say it again, real props struggle to achieve 80%. Now Dan, before
> > you jump down my throat, note that of these calculations in your ref.
> > did not include vortex tip losses and most don't even consider
> > friction and never compressibility (which is major problem *as the tip
> > goes near or supersonic). Basing efficiency purely on slip doesn't
> > work for real airscrews and the washout is nearly always _wrong_.
>
> > Cheers
>
> *Those calculations are more than theoretical. We know, in foot-pounds
> per minute, what an engine produces, and we can take that directly to
> the acceleration of the airplane or its cruise speed versus drag, and
> come up with an efficiency figure.
>
And the answer is TADA less than 80%....

Cheers

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 17th 08, 03:34 PM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 16, 10:52*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > If the innovation offers improvement, then pilots buy it. Witness GPS,
> > glass cockpits.
> >
> > Change for the sake of change, however, is just plain STUPID!
>
> So...having an aircraft that is
>
> 0. smaller
> 1. quieter
> 2. lighter
> 3. more fuel-efficient
> 4. more comfortable
> 5. easier to control
> 6. more stable in adverse conditions
>
> Would this fall into the "improvement" or "change for sake of change"
> category?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

But your notional design falls into the category of "None of the Above,"
as it requires complex, stacked, expensive systems to work, as well as
an undefined means of propulsion.

There is a big difference between "starting with a clear head" and
starting with an empty head. You, sir, I fear, fall into the laqtter
category.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 04:59 PM

On Apr 16, 3:11*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:02 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 3:11 pm, wrote:
> >>The
> > > Wright Brother's propeller on their Flyer had an efficiency of 83%
> > > because they understood that it was a rotating airfoil rather than
> > > some sort of paddlewheel.
>
> > 83%? BS. Even if it had reached optimal speed it would have struggled
> > to get 70% (note the CFD calcs do not include surface roughness
> > losses):
>
> >http://www.fluent.com/about/news/newsletters/03v12i2_fall/a2.htm
>
> > It was lucky that Orville knew from tests a bit about about props (he
> > estimated 66% efficiency) or it might not have flown at all. That of
> > course was not such great insight on his part as the theory of
> > propellor design was well known from naval architecture.
>
> * * * *Better see this: *http://www.memagazine.org/flight03/propwr/propwr.html
>
> * * * *Wright estimated an efficiency of 66%. Later, more
> sophisticated tests on the Flyer's prop design gave an efficiency of
> 82%.
>
> * * * * A quote from the article:
>
> * * * "These data show that the 1903 Wright propeller had a maximum
> efficiency of 82 percent.
> * * * "Based on Wilbur Wright's notes on the fourth flight of Dec. 17,
> 1903, the Flyer had an estimated forward speed of 31 mph during the
> steady flight portion of its path and the propellers were turning at
> 379 rpm, which yields an advance ratio of 0.85. Hence, the 1903 Wright
> propellers were operating at a mechanical efficiency of slightly over
> 75 percent during steady flight.
> * * * *"This was a remarkable feat, considering the state of propeller
> knowledge prior to World War I.
> * * * "Since Wilbur estimated their propeller performance to be 66
> percent in March of 1903, we found the results of our experimental
> tests to be quite surprising. Using Wright bent-end propeller
> reproductions as our reference test case (there are several well-
> preserved sets in existence), we have subjected these propellers to
> multiple wind tunnel tests. We recalibrated the instrumentation used
> in the propeller tests and we subjected the bent-end geometry
> propellers to a full Navier-Stokes equation computational fluid
> dynamics analysis in order to affirm our test results. The bent-end
> propellers had peak efficiencies of nearly 87 percent. The overall
> comparisons between the numerical predictions and the test results
> agreed. To our surprise, we learned that the Wrights' bent-end
> propeller twist distribution (a variation of pitch angle with radius)
> was in nearly exact agreement with modern computer-based designs over
> the outer two-thirds of the propeller blade."
>
> * * * *How's that?
>

Very romantic. You'd think that good propellors had never been built
before... The only uncertainty they had to deal with was the actual
RPM their engine would generate -they already knew the drag numbers
for the flyer by kite testing the design. BUT, as I said, the
optimal effiiency is almost never reached so less than 80% is the
correct ball park figure for props. I'm also suspicious that the CFD
calculation quoted in that article was a lot higher than that reported
by researchers I gave you the ref. for...

Cheers

Le Chaud Lapin

April 17th 08, 06:55 PM

On Apr 17, 12:31*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote!
> You have proven none of your points below.
>
> So...having an aircraft that is
>
> 0. smaller
> What? *Pilots want bigger. *Biggest they can afford.

So basically, if a pilot has a choice between a C172 that is size of
a C172, and a C172 that is size of B-52, you're saying he'd want the
latter? [Assuming he could afford hangar fees.]

> 1. quieter
> You have not shown that you can get quieter; first it has to fly with good
> performance, and what you propose can not with the proposed power plant and
> added weight and complexity.

What I have in mind is lighter than 60HP ICE.

> 2. lighter
> Haven't you been listening? *Everything you propose adds weight.

But is lighter than that which it replaces.

> 3. more fuel-efficient
> First it has to fly well. *Your fuel cell will not.

I never said anything about fuel cells [yet].

> 4. more comfortable
> Not going to happen, unless you exceed your weight budget.

Computer-controlled auto-stabilization would probably do a bettter job
of maintaining comfort than pilot himself.

> 5. easier to control
> Perhaps, until your fly by wire, unreliable system craps out. *What will it be
> running, microsoft? *Gads! *How many backups will it have? *At least two, right?
> That would be the minnimum number of acceptable backups.

Probably. If cost is cheap enough, 3, 4..whatever is necessary.

> 6. more stable in adverse conditions
> Only you say so. *You want to make it shorter, and that will not be more stable.

Not an inherently true statement.

> Try ballancing a bowling ball on your finger, then a 16 foot 2 x 4. *Which is
> easier, or put differently, more stable.? *Hint-not the bowling ball. *Your fly
> by wire has to be reliable, and that it will not be, and it has to have software
> developed, and that will be too expensive to be done, and if you had the money
> to do it, someone would probably die while developing it.

I don't see "too expensive" for software to be done, but as far as
dying, it is very likely that there will be serious injuries, but from
what I have seen, that is typical of this industry for new designs.

> Go to engineering school, then come talk to us. *Then get some flying
> experience. *You have neither. *You will never.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 17th 08, 07:03 PM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Apr 17, 12:31*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote!
>> You have proven none of your points below.
>>
>> So...having an aircraft that is
>>
>> 0. smaller
>> What? *Pilots want bigger. *Biggest they can afford.
>
> So basically, if a pilot has a choice between a C172 that is size of
> a C172, and a C172 that is size of B-52, you're saying he'd want the
> latter? [Assuming he could afford hangar fees.]
>
>> 1. quieter
>> You have not shown that you can get quieter; first it has to fly with
>> good
>
>> performance, and what you propose can not with the proposed power
>> plant an
> d
>> added weight and complexity.
>
> What I have in mind is lighter than 60HP ICE.
>
>> 2. lighter
>> Haven't you been listening? *Everything you propose adds weight.
>
> But is lighter than that which it replaces.
>
>> 3. more fuel-efficient
>> First it has to fly well. *Your fuel cell will not.
>
> I never said anything about fuel cells [yet].
>
>> 4. more comfortable
>> Not going to happen, unless you exceed your weight budget.
>
> Computer-controlled auto-stabilization would probably do a bettter job
> of maintaining comfort than pilot himself.
>
>> 5. easier to control
>> Perhaps, until your fly by wire, unreliable system craps out. *What
>> will
> it be
>> running, microsoft? *Gads! *How many backups will it have? *At least
> two, right?
>> That would be the minnimum number of acceptable backups.
>
> Probably. If cost is cheap enough, 3, 4..whatever is necessary.
>
>> 6. more stable in adverse conditions
>> Only you say so. *You want to make it shorter, and that will not be
>> more
> stable.
>
> Not an inherently true statement.
>
>> Try ballancing a bowling ball on your finger, then a 16 foot 2 x 4.
>> *Whi
> ch is
>> easier, or put differently, more stable.? *Hint-not the bowling ball.
> *Your fly
>> by wire has to be reliable, and that it will not be, and it has to
>> have so
> ftware
>> developed, and that will be too expensive to be done, and if you had
>> the m
> oney
>> to do it, someone would probably die while developing it.
>
> I don't see "too expensive" for software to be done, but as far as
> dying, it is very likely that there will be serious injuries, but from
> what I have seen, that is typical of this industry for new designs.

Oh you so droll

Bertie

[email protected]

April 17th 08, 07:10 PM

On Apr 17, 1:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 12:31 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote!
> >> You have proven none of your points below.
>
> >> So...having an aircraft that is
>
> >> 0. smaller
> >> What? Pilots want bigger. Biggest they can afford.
>
> > So basically, if a pilot has a choice between a C172 that is size of
> > a C172, and a C172 that is size of B-52, you're saying he'd want the
> > latter? [Assuming he could afford hangar fees.]
>
> >> 1. quieter
> >> You have not shown that you can get quieter; first it has to fly with
> >> good
>
> >> performance, and what you propose can not with the proposed power
> >> plant an
> > d
> >> added weight and complexity.
>
> > What I have in mind is lighter than 60HP ICE.
>
> >> 2. lighter
> >> Haven't you been listening? Everything you propose adds weight.
>
> > But is lighter than that which it replaces.
>
> >> 3. more fuel-efficient
> >> First it has to fly well. Your fuel cell will not.
>
> > I never said anything about fuel cells [yet].
>
> >> 4. more comfortable
> >> Not going to happen, unless you exceed your weight budget.
>
> > Computer-controlled auto-stabilization would probably do a bettter job
> > of maintaining comfort than pilot himself.
>
> >> 5. easier to control
> >> Perhaps, until your fly by wire, unreliable system craps out. What
> >> will
> > it be
> >> running, microsoft? Gads! How many backups will it have? At least
> > two, right?
> >> That would be the minnimum number of acceptable backups.
>
> > Probably. If cost is cheap enough, 3, 4..whatever is necessary.
>
> >> 6. more stable in adverse conditions
> >> Only you say so. You want to make it shorter, and that will not be
> >> more
> > stable.
>
> > Not an inherently true statement.
>
> >> Try ballancing a bowling ball on your finger, then a 16 foot 2 x 4.
> >> Whi
> > ch is
> >> easier, or put differently, more stable.? Hint-not the bowling ball.
> > Your fly
> >> by wire has to be reliable, and that it will not be, and it has to
> >> have so
> > ftware
> >> developed, and that will be too expensive to be done, and if you had
> >> the m
> > oney
> >> to do it, someone would probably die while developing it.
>
> > I don't see "too expensive" for software to be done, but as far as
> > dying, it is very likely that there will be serious injuries, but from
> > what I have seen, that is typical of this industry for new designs.
>
> Oh you so droll
>
> Bertie

He's a droll chode, er, Chaud, yeah. No, wait "chode" is accurate
after all.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 17th 08, 08:17 PM

wrote in
:

> On Apr 17, 1:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote
>> innews:8a7e9271-ef17-4f98-8a6a-ebe742c7fbf8
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 17, 12:31 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> >> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote!
>> >> You have proven none of your points below.
>>
>> >> So...having an aircraft that is
>>
>> >> 0. smaller
>> >> What? Pilots want bigger. Biggest they can afford.
>>
>> > So basically, if a pilot has a choice between a C172 that is size
>> > of a C172, and a C172 that is size of B-52, you're saying he'd want
>> > the latter? [Assuming he could afford hangar fees.]
>>
>> >> 1. quieter
>> >> You have not shown that you can get quieter; first it has to fly
>> >> with good
>>
>> >> performance, and what you propose can not with the proposed power
>> >> plant an
>> > d
>> >> added weight and complexity.
>>
>> > What I have in mind is lighter than 60HP ICE.
>>
>> >> 2. lighter
>> >> Haven't you been listening? Everything you propose adds weight.
>>
>> > But is lighter than that which it replaces.
>>
>> >> 3. more fuel-efficient
>> >> First it has to fly well. Your fuel cell will not.
>>
>> > I never said anything about fuel cells [yet].
>>
>> >> 4. more comfortable
>> >> Not going to happen, unless you exceed your weight budget.
>>
>> > Computer-controlled auto-stabilization would probably do a bettter
>> > job of maintaining comfort than pilot himself.
>>
>> >> 5. easier to control
>> >> Perhaps, until your fly by wire, unreliable system craps out.
>> >> What will
>> > it be
>> >> running, microsoft? Gads! How many backups will it have? At
>> >> least
>> > two, right?
>> >> That would be the minnimum number of acceptable backups.
>>
>> > Probably. If cost is cheap enough, 3, 4..whatever is necessary.
>>
>> >> 6. more stable in adverse conditions
>> >> Only you say so. You want to make it shorter, and that will not
>> >> be more
>> > stable.
>>
>> > Not an inherently true statement.
>>
>> >> Try ballancing a bowling ball on your finger, then a 16 foot 2 x
>> >> 4.
>> >> Whi
>> > ch is
>> >> easier, or put differently, more stable.? Hint-not the bowling
>> >> ball.
>> > Your fly
>> >> by wire has to be reliable, and that it will not be, and it has to
>> >> have so
>> > ftware
>> >> developed, and that will be too expensive to be done, and if you
>> >> had the m
>> > oney
>> >> to do it, someone would probably die while developing it.
>>
>> > I don't see "too expensive" for software to be done, but as far as
>> > dying, it is very likely that there will be serious injuries, but
>> > from what I have seen, that is typical of this industry for new
>> > designs.
>>
>> Oh you so droll
>>
>> Bertie
>
> He's a droll chode, er, Chaud, yeah. No, wait "chode" is accurate
> after all.
>

Groan!

Bertie

[email protected]

April 17th 08, 08:24 PM

On Apr 16, 2:17 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> As I have said many times, the propulsion model I have in mind would
> make significantly less noise than a prop. I doubt that any type of
> headset would be necessary. It certainly would not make more noise
> than an automobile engine.

It makes no noise at all, since it exists only as a figment
of the imagination. There are no noiseless propulsion systems.
Antigravity could be noiseless, but until the GUT theory is worked out
and understood there's no hope of creating antigravity.

Dan

[email protected]

April 17th 08, 08:24 PM

On Apr 16, 4:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> That's what it means to advance in a field - move the old out of the
> way to make room for the new, if it is deemed that the new is better
> than the old.

The problem: what is the new? It doesn't exist.

Dan

Morgans[_2_]

April 17th 08, 09:59 PM

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote \
>
> BTW, I bought a piece of equipt. in January, made in 2007, that uses
> vacuum tubes.
> Who do you think designed it?
>
That has my interest aroused. What pray tell was the equipment?
--
Jim in NC

Jim Logajan

April 18th 08, 01:23 AM

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote \
>>
>> BTW, I bought a piece of equipt. in January, made in 2007, that uses
>> vacuum tubes.
>> Who do you think designed it?
>>
> That has my interest aroused. What pray tell was the equipment?

I'm guessing high power RF transmitter or possibly something with a
klystron. A CRT would also qualify.

[email protected]

April 18th 08, 02:15 AM

On Apr 17, 6:23 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
> > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote \
>
> >> BTW, I bought a piece of equipt. in January, made in 2007, that uses
> >> vacuum tubes.
> >> Who do you think designed it?
>
> > That has my interest aroused. What pray tell was the equipment?
>
> I'm guessing high power RF transmitter or possibly something with a
> klystron. A CRT would also qualify.

There are a few vacuum-tube audio amplifiers back on the
market. It's been long enough that they have some appeal. you should
see the prices, and you should see the amps: two tubes on top, guarded
by a cage. What you don't see are the chips and power transistors
inside. It's a scam.

Dan

Tina

April 18th 08, 11:09 AM

It is past time for you to stop trying to impress us with your
rationalizations, and to start impressing us with your designing
ability.

Even early design thoughts about weight distributions would be
interesting, since your understanding of balancing moments seem
somewhat odd. Design thoughts would include numbers: weight and
balance are factors in sailplanes too, and you might have noticed they
do not have engines.

On Apr 17, 1:55*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 12:31*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote!
> > You have proven none of your points below.
>
> > So...having an aircraft that is
>
> > 0. smaller
> > What? *Pilots want bigger. *Biggest they can afford.
>
> So basically, if a *pilot has a choice between a C172 that is size of
> a C172, and a C172 that is size of B-52, you're saying he'd want the
> latter? [Assuming he could afford hangar fees.]
>
> > 1. quieter
> > You have not shown that you can get quieter; first it has to fly with good
> > performance, and what you propose can not with the proposed power plant and
> > added weight and complexity.
>
> What I have in mind is lighter than 60HP ICE.
>
> > 2. lighter
> > Haven't you been listening? *Everything you propose adds weight.
>
> But is lighter than that which it replaces.
>
> > 3. more fuel-efficient
> > First it has to fly well. *Your fuel cell will not.
>
> I never said anything about fuel cells [yet].
>
> > 4. more comfortable
> > Not going to happen, unless you exceed your weight budget.
>
> Computer-controlled auto-stabilization would probably do a bettter job
> of maintaining comfort than pilot himself.
>
> > 5. easier to control
> > Perhaps, until your fly by wire, unreliable system craps out. *What will it be
> > running, microsoft? *Gads! *How many backups will it have? *At least two, right?
> > That would be the minnimum number of acceptable backups.
>
> Probably. *If cost is cheap enough, 3, 4..whatever is necessary.
>
> > 6. more stable in adverse conditions
> > Only you say so. *You want to make it shorter, and that will not be more stable.
>
> Not an inherently true statement.
>
> > Try ballancing a bowling ball on your finger, then a 16 foot 2 x 4. *Which is
> > easier, or put differently, more stable.? *Hint-not the bowling ball. *Your fly
> > by wire has to be reliable, and that it will not be, and it has to have software
> > developed, and that will be too expensive to be done, and if you had the money
> > to do it, someone would probably die while developing it.
>
> I don't see "too expensive" for software to be done, but as far as
> dying, it is very likely that there will be serious injuries, but from
> what I have seen, that is typical of this industry for new designs.
>
> > Go to engineering school, then come talk to us. *Then get some flying
> > experience. *You have neither. *You will never.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 18th 08, 12:41 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote \
>>> BTW, I bought a piece of equipt. in January, made in 2007, that uses
>>> vacuum tubes.
>>> Who do you think designed it?
>>>
>> That has my interest aroused. What pray tell was the equipment?
>
> I'm guessing high power RF transmitter or possibly something with a
> klystron. A CRT would also qualify.

Guitar amps still use tubes.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 18th 08, 05:33 PM

On Apr 18, 5:09*am, Tina > wrote:
> It is past time for you to stop trying to impress us with your
> rationalizations, and to start impressing us with your designing
> ability.

> Even early design thoughts about weight distributions would be
> interesting, since your understanding of balancing moments seem
> somewhat odd. *Design thoughts would include numbers: weight and
> balance are factors in sailplanes too, and you might have noticed they
> do not have engines.

I'm fiddling with a design in my spare time. I visited local harware
store last night to get simple materials for prototype of propulsion
system. You probably already know that I am understandly reluctant to
describe any design here in detail unless I know in advance that it
will work or won't. Whether it works or not, I will eventually put
brief write-up here, describing why I thought it would work, or why I
learned it won't.

On matter of balance, there is not much to understand. I tried to say
enough without saying too much: obviously, if we start with current ICE
+prop at front [Will someone *please* tell me the standard name for
this model?] the aicraft will be front-heavy. If the ICE+prop is
simply moved to the back, it will be back heavy. If the assembly were
somehow moved to center, that would reduce double moment about pitch
axis, but that does not mean the aircraft will be auto-balanced. High
concentration of mass in center is not necessarily desirable, as that
would make front and rear relatively light, and probably introduce
modes of instability in one of many system functions representing
orientation aircraft, resulting in oscillations that cannot be
mitigated through human control alone.

This is why I mentioned computer control of airfoils. There are
things that the computer can do to balance the plane that a human
simply cannot do. For example, after linearization, a designer might
find a set of transfer functions {H(s)} representing system responses
of the aircraft to turbulence+attempt-of-pilot-to-correct-deviation.
As mentioned, these transfer functions, with pilot feedback, might
have oscillatory modes, and depending on how severe they are, the
pilot would not be able to correct, either because the H(s)'s do not
lend themselves well to corrective feedback, or because there are so
many corrections to be made, the pilot does not have enough limbs to
control them all. But a computer could control the oscillations
wherther the system could be modeled as linear or non-linear, with an
essentially unlimited number of control surfaces. It would not matter
(up to certain limit).

This concept is not new, being far older than aviaition itself, and we
all know that the B-2 does this.

What would be new, which is thesis of what I am saying, is to start
using some of these techniques in small aircraft. Some of you might
be thinking of the cost might be exceedingly high, as in case of B-2.
IMO, much of those costs are arbitrary.

For example, there is software, on the Internet, being sold by
software companies to people unfamiliar with what it really "costs" to
design software for $1000, when there is another web site offtering it
in a slightly less-presentable package - it does not come with snappy-
looking salesperson - essentially for free. In some case, the
alternative free software is of even better quality than the $1000
version.

The same would be the case for small aircraft. If what I am proposing
is done by a large, established, small-aircraft manufacturer,
certainly the cost would prohibitive. The companies would make all
kinds of excuses and justifications for the cost. But if that same
sofware (and components) were created by an organization whose primary
objective was to introduce such technology at low cost using COTS
components, then the game would change. The FAA would have to be fair
in the approaval process, but from what I have seen, the FAA has been
more than accommodating in trying to induce this industry to solve
some of the problems that bar the masses from GA.

But if you are still wondering about mass distribution of my model,
from what I envision now, the distribution would be more or less even
over the entire aircraf. The shape of the aircraft would be
relatively boxy. The long fuselage would be shortened considerably.
There would be airfoils all over the aircraft for control using models
like PID, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller.
With good software algorithms, even something so short that it could
fit in a home garage would still exhibit good stability, because a
computer would be that which would be doing the sabilizing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 18th 08, 05:48 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>
> [Will someone *please* tell me the standard name for
> this model?]

Tractor, though I'm pretty sure someone did tell you that last time you
asked.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 18th 08, 06:40 PM

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Apr 18, 5:09*am, Tina > wrote:
> > It is past time for you to stop trying to impress us with your
> > rationalizations, and to start impressing us with your designing
> > ability.
>
> > Even early design thoughts about weight distributions would be
> > interesting, since your understanding of balancing moments seem
> > somewhat odd. *Design thoughts would include numbers: weight and
> > balance are factors in sailplanes too, and you might have noticed they
> > do not have engines.
>
> I'm fiddling with a design in my spare time. I visited local harware
> store last night to get simple materials for prototype of propulsion
> system. You probably already know that I am understandly reluctant to
> describe any design here in detail unless I know in advance that it
> will work or won't. Whether it works or not, I will eventually put
> brief write-up here, describing why I thought it would work, or why I
> learned it won't.
>
> On matter of balance, there is not much to understand. I tried to say
> enough without saying too much: obviously, if we start with current ICE
> +prop at front [Will someone *please* tell me the standard name for
> this model?] the aicraft will be front-heavy. If the ICE+prop is
> simply moved to the back, it will be back heavy. If the assembly were
> somehow moved to center, that would reduce double moment about pitch
> axis, but that does not mean the aircraft will be auto-balanced. High
> concentration of mass in center is not necessarily desirable, as that
> would make front and rear relatively light, and probably introduce
> modes of instability in one of many system functions representing
> orientation aircraft, resulting in oscillations that cannot be
> mitigated through human control alone.
>
> This is why I mentioned computer control of airfoils. There are
> things that the computer can do to balance the plane that a human
> simply cannot do. For example, after linearization, a designer might
> find a set of transfer functions {H(s)} representing system responses
> of the aircraft to turbulence+attempt-of-pilot-to-correct-deviation.
> As mentioned, these transfer functions, with pilot feedback, might
> have oscillatory modes, and depending on how severe they are, the
> pilot would not be able to correct, either because the H(s)'s do not
> lend themselves well to corrective feedback, or because there are so
> many corrections to be made, the pilot does not have enough limbs to
> control them all. But a computer could control the oscillations
> wherther the system could be modeled as linear or non-linear, with an
> essentially unlimited number of control surfaces. It would not matter
> (up to certain limit).

The best use of the computer is in optimizing the design, in the first
place, determining stability, airfoil size, configuration, etc.

I suggest that you get a good textbook on aerodynamics, stability and
control. My textbook was "Airplane Pweformance, Stability and Control,"
Perkins & Hage, Wiley & Sons 8th Printing, 1980.

Much of what you think are problems has already been solved decades ago.

When asked about the secret of his designs, the late Ed Heineman of
Douglas, designer of the AD (A-1), A4, Skyray, etc, replied, "Simplicate
and add lightness."

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 18th 08, 06:48 PM

On Apr 18, 9:47*am, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> In article <df5b2f41-07ba-4e61-8cfd-
> >, says...
> > My wheels have inflated tires on them, derived from petroleum
> > products, patented by various individuals since 19th century. *I doubt
> > I could ride my VFR-800 at 150mph on 6000-year-old wheels.
>
> Nice try. I said form follows function. It doesn't matter what the wheel
> is made of, it has not changed shape in 6000 years. Likewise, I believe
> that in 50 years small planes will look as they do today. They will have
> wings and propellers. They will have the same basic control surfaces:
> aileron, elevators, flaps, rudder. They will not look like the flying
> car from The Jetsons.

Note: Since no one will tell me the proper name for the model you
describe, I will henceforth call it the "double-dagger" model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_(typography).

Well, at least we can agree what we disagree on. I am obviously
speaking prematurely, as I only recently (last night) began aquiring
materials to see if the model I have in mind will work. But yes, we
are in disagreement whether the double-dagger model will persist as
the primary model for new aircraft. I think it will not. I think it
will still be around in 50 years, but there will be something new that
is generally regarded as "better" on most axes. I base my suspcions on
two preconceptions, the first, I am not yet ready to discuss in
detail, the other I can talk about as much as necessary:

1. If one thinks about what the propeller is doing, essentially
dragging the aircraft through the air, and that the lift is caused by
aerodynamics about the airfoil, it *might* be the case that there is
another way to achieve the same net effect using a different
propulsion mechanism, meaning, the distribution of fluid around
aircraft is same as in double-dagger model, but far lighter, more
efficient, less noisy, and predictable in performance. A jet is an
example this something that is different from ICE+prop.

2. Computers are cheap. Software is cheap. Control theory and practice
has advanced considerably. These functions are hardly being used in
small aircraft, and it is not because they are inherently dangerous,
or expensive, or technically inaccessible. It is because those who
make the aircraft have a disconnect with those who already know how to
build these things (easily), and are reluctant to surrender, even in
an experimental capacity, control to such other-discipline engineers
to even determine feasibility.

> On the contrary. Your problem is that you think there IS no innovation
> in aviation. Incremental, evolutionary change is normal: that is the
> path of innovation. Innovation doesn't just spring forth out of nowhere,
> overnight, from the mind of one who is clearly not a subject matter
> expert. It doesn't work that way.

Napster.

Shawn Fanning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Fanning] was 19, not
legally able to drink in the US. He did in months what would have
taken a company like IBM years to do. And the managers of such a big
company would have justified the high development cost with all kinds
of untrue excuses which would not be verifiable because the act of
spending money would have been a fait-accompli.

Napster is not the only example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

> Take the development of the jet engine. Most people think that the first
> jet, the Me 262, appeared in 1944, but it wasn't an idea that appeared
> from a vacuum: the basic concept and idea for the jet engine had been
> around since Coanda built his jet prototype in 1910. That's just seven
> years after Kitty Hawk. But it took decades of engineering problem
> solving to reach the Me 262. Jets were breaking the sound barrier a
> decade after the Me 262.

Ok, sure. So people have vision, and sometimes people die before their
vision is realized, like da Vinci. That does not mean the vision is
invalid. It simply takes a group of people with right approach to
technology advanced (displine is probably most important) to actually
do it. Also, as mentioned, a huge problem is the cross-over problem.

I give you an anecdote:

As mentioned in another post, I have two sisters, one neurologist, the
other neuroscientist. A few years back my brother started having
twitching in his left arm that would not go away, and this disturbed
him greatly, as he is a young man. He would call me up worrying
himself nearly to death about it. I asked him why he didn't go to see
a doctor, and he had no medical insurance. I said to him...

Me: "What you need is for a doctor to do like a quick check."
Him: "Yeah."
Me: "Like a freebie quick check."
Him: "Yeah."
Me: "Ideally someone you could trust to give you right answer and take
time to find out what's going on."
Him: "Yea."
Me: "Preferabbly somone you could see as early as Monday."
Him: "Monday? Man if I could have that..I would sleep so much
better...."
Me: "Can you think of anyone like that?"
Him: "Uh...no..."
Me: "You sure? Think hard..."
Him: "Uh...no...no...I don't know...I don't know any neurologists."
Me: "Think harder."
..pause..."Who? Oh! Uh..uh..no...wait....Lita! No...Nicole is a
neurologist!"

You get the point. It's my own brother, with acess to a neurologist
who loves him so much she would give him a kidney without thought, and
in weeks of twitching agony, it never occurred to him to think of her.

This same phenomenon occurs in industry. Everywhere, all over the
world, there are engineers in design meetings struggling to solve
problems that are not of their domains that domain experts would scoff
at for their simplicity. It takes a reassessment of attitude to
realize one is engaging in this behavior. That's why, when I am about
to have a technical discussion with a stranger, the first thing I want
to know is what's already in stranger's head, so as not to offend them
or waste his time discussing things that he already knows.

> If you realize that innovation works like this, you'll (1) appreciate
> the need to learn all you can from those that came before you, and (2)
> position yourself to contribute to the future of aviation. If you think
> innovation is the result of "geniuses working in a vacuum" then you will
> achieve nothing.

Hmm....first, I don't think redesign requires genius. But since you
brought it up, those who are historically regarded as making greatest
contributions to science/engineering, often did just that. And there
is nothing wrong with that. It depends on point of view. From the
general public's point of view, it's working in a vacuum. From the
genius's point of view, it's assuming a maximal state of mental focus.

> > Why not Cessna?
>
> LOL. Have you never heard of Lockheed? *The DOD pays top dollar for
> technological innovation. Sometimes that tech trickles down to GA, like
> GPS, but a lot of it hasn't because of cost and weight. If you worked
> for Cessna, they would throw out every idea you came up with.

True. DoD understandably has an unsatiated appetite. They spend
enough trying.

I think the problem might be that a significant majority of people who
are directly involved in advancing the state of art of aircraft design
are focusing on incremental improvements to existing models, either by
will, or necessity, the latter more or less a result of the first.

The problem, as I see it, is definitely not lack of want; not by NASA,
DoD, NSF, CNN, FAA, EAA, general public, venture capitalists
everywhere....the list is endless of people who want something they
can fly and park in their garage and doesn't make them go broke or
deaf.

However, I do see a lot of pilot's in this newsgroup who might not
like the idea of the general public flying around in Jetson-like
cars. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

TheSmokingGnu

April 18th 08, 07:49 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> [Will someone *please* tell me the standard name for
>>> this model?]
>>
>> Tractor, though I'm pretty sure someone did tell you that last time you
>> asked.
>

And an /ENTIRE HOUR LATER/:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> Note: Since no one will tell me the proper name for the model you
> describe, I will henceforth call it the "double-dagger" model

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obstinance

Who does not see the troll? Stop wasting time with him. Killfile, move on.

TheSmokingGnu

[email protected]

April 18th 08, 07:56 PM

On Apr 18, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
> > [Will someone *please* tell me the standard name for
> > this model?]
>
> Tractor, though I'm pretty sure someone did tell you that last time you
> asked.

Yeah. I told him that, but he doesn't believe anything we tell
him. That goes for all the other input we've posted, too. He wants
computer-controlled actuators on every control surface, as if the
weight and complexity of the computer and all those actuators are
justified on a lightplane. A rudder, for instance, is typically pulled
either way off centre by its two 1/8" 7x19 steel cables, together
which weigh less than a pound, have a breaking strength of 2000 lbs or
better, and require no backup, no electrical or hydraulic power and
can withstand the forces put on them by a nervous pilot standing on
the pedals. Electricity and hydraulics both require alternators or
pumps, and more electricity or hydraulic force requires bigger
alternators or pumps, and both require accumulators or batteries for
backup. Who, in their right mind, would design a lightplane with such
a dog's breakfast of weight, cost and complexity to achieve exactly
the same thing the cables do? It wouldn't be a "light" plane anymore
and probably wouldn't fly worth a hoot, either.
The control surfaces, after all, are happy when in neutral
and require only a little push either way to get the desired reaction.
The most successful lightplanes have been designed for maximum
reliability using minimum complexity and weight. There's a compromise
involved with every design, but computer-controlled actuators are so
far from any legitimate compromise that it's ridiculous. Even bizjets
use cables, for Pete's sake. And cables are likely to be made of
carbon fiber one of these days, where their weight will be almost
nothing and stronger than the steel.
In 35 years of aviation I have run into folks who were
determined to design a better airplane than the experts have so far
been able to come up with. ALL of those folks were non-pilots. One of
them did design and build an airplane, which looked a lot like a WWI
fighter, and he crashed it from circuit height yet lived to tell the
tale. Not registered, not certified in any way, and all of us warned
him about it.

Dan

JGalban via AviationKB.com

April 18th 08, 08:02 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
>You get the point. It's my own brother, with acess to a neurologist
>who loves him so much she would give him a kidney without thought, and
>in weeks of twitching agony, it never occurred to him to think of her.
>

The only thing this anecdote illustrates is that your brother is an idiot.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200804/1

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 18th 08, 08:46 PM

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> You get the point. It's my own brother, with acess to a neurologist
>> who loves him so much she would give him a kidney without thought, and
>> in weeks of twitching agony, it never occurred to him to think of her.
>>
>
> The only thing this anecdote illustrates is that your brother is an idiot.
>
>

And it obviously runs in his family.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 18th 08, 09:43 PM

In article >,
Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> >> You get the point. It's my own brother, with acess to a neurologist
> >> who loves him so much she would give him a kidney without thought, and
> >> in weeks of twitching agony, it never occurred to him to think of her.
> >>
> >
> > The only thing this anecdote illustrates is that your brother is an idiot.
> >
> >
>
> And it obviously runs in his family.

And -- he does not believe in incremental changes.

Instead of doing things in small increments, he wants to do them in
large excrements.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 18th 08, 10:18 PM

On Apr 18, 3:43*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
> > JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> > > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > >> You get the point. It's my own brother, with acess to a neurologist
> > >> who loves him so much she would give him a kidney without thought, and
> > >> in weeks of twitching agony, it never occurred to him to think of her..
>
> > > * The only thing this anecdote illustrates is that your brother is an idiot.
>
> > And it obviously runs in his family.
>
> And -- he does not believe in incremental changes.

I do if it makes sense.

> Instead of doing things in small increments, he wants to do them in
> large excrements.

Tweaking a C172 with "advanced" technology that cost $500 in one
industry and $80 is a reason for gross change.

Systems often have an inherent interdependency that makes incremental
improvement very expensive.

So I believe that both should happen. Those that benefit, both
industry and consumers, from incremental improvements, should continue
to follow that path.But in parallel, there should other groups that
focus on system-wide rethinking.

Sometimes, there is very little left to rethink, as in the case of
distilled water. After a certain degree of purity, that well is dry.
But in the case of other system, where the first widespread model is
all that the public knows, it makes sense to start over with a clean
slate.

This conversation we are having, I had with Internet Protocol
researchers 20 years ago. They said many of the same thing you are
saying...

"It's good enough...leave it alone.."
"A lot of smart people are working on it..Do you really they haven't
thought of that already?"
"It's too expensive to start over.."
"The state of art will not deviate significantly from what it is
now...stop looking for drastically new models."
"Incremental improvement is the most prudent path to sucess..."

I was not the only one proposing clean-slate. There were a handful of
us, maybe 10%t. The rest vigorously defended their right to duct-
tape, so much so that when it came to vote for clean slate or patch-
it, the patch-it people won. The 10% us us remained silent for 20
years.

Today, all that is change. Patch-it is out, clean-slate is all the
rage. The incremental people continue to try to duct-tape the current
model (and still receive enormous amounts of grant money to do so):

http://www.ipv6.org/

But they will soon be overrun by projects such as the following, which
strangely, is often filled with many of the very same people who said
clean-slate was imprudent:

http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/

Based on the few conversations I have had here, and what I see in the
cockpit each time I get into a small aircraft, it *might* be a good
idea to apply the same philosophy to small aircraft design.

Also, NASA, at least indirectly, wants the same thing with their
$250,000 PAV sponsorships [http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/
cafenews_home.php]. They identify individual objectives of a
futuristic aircraft: noise, efficiency, controllability, road-
worthines, etc.) to lower the standard which participating entities
must meet to receive a prize. [IIRC, one winnder one with a slightly
modified Cessna]. But certainly, if you achieve a large set of these
objectives, they will not scoff at you, and IMO, because of system
interdependency, it might be better to attack all at one. The
alternative, trying to come up with a sufficiently quieter prop, for
example, would be an extremely painful and slow process, if it is even
possible to have such a thing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Morgans[_2_]

April 18th 08, 10:22 PM

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote
>
> The only thing this anecdote illustrates is that your brother is an idiot.

Good Lord! Would everyone quit replying to this idiot, and leave him to his
mental masturbation in solitude?

If this isn't MX, we surely do not need another carbon copy of him spewing
ignorance in this little corner of the world.

Leave him alone. Ignore his BS, and he will have nothing to respond to.
Please???
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_2_]

April 18th 08, 10:29 PM

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote

> Nothing fancy.
> Just a microphone preamp.
> My wife and I have been working on our first music project, together, in
> over 20 years.
> She's got a teriffic voice, but we've been battling to capture just the right
> recorded tonal qualities. We've got to put the signal through tubes to get
> the proper harmonic balance. You just can't do it without the tubes. :)

I had heard a few years back that audio aficionados had been going back to some
tube technology, and you are the first specific instance that I had heard of.

I always liked my Heathkit Amp, until the sound of caps gassing up, (then
blowing over/open, or whatever you want to call it) was almost as frequent as
the sound of clear music.

Interesting.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

April 18th 08, 11:24 PM

On Apr 18, 3:29 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote
>
> > Nothing fancy.
> > Just a microphone preamp.
> > My wife and I have been working on our first music project, together, in
> > over 20 years.
> > She's got a teriffic voice, but we've been battling to capture just the right
> > recorded tonal qualities. We've got to put the signal through tubes to get
> > the proper harmonic balance. You just can't do it without the tubes. :)
>
> I had heard a few years back that audio aficionados had been going back to some
> tube technology, and you are the first specific instance that I had heard of.
>
> I always liked my Heathkit Amp, until the sound of caps gassing up, (then
> blowing over/open, or whatever you want to call it) was almost as frequent as
> the sound of clear music.
>
> Interesting.
> --
> Jim in NC

Here's the amp I saw at London Drugs:
http://www.vuumaudio.com/images/VTi-B1_lrg.jpg

Two or three compact vacs on top. Those are capable of handling
what.....about two or three watts apiece? And what about the rest of
the amp stages? The boxes are too small to have any more tubes inside.
Therefore I suspect that those tubes are either lit-up dummies, or are
part of the first stages of amplification, or they're the final drives
for a rather anemic amplifier, except that the transformer mounted
atop the box implies that the output must be considerably higher than
a couple of watts per channel. In any case, there will be lots of
solid-state stuff inside the box. And this thing was priced at
something like $700.
A fool is born every minute...

Dan

Tina

April 19th 08, 01:49 AM

More words. "Fiddling" indeed. Where's the meat? Where's the bun? The
first posting has demonstrated there's neither, This is a classic "and
then magic happens" just before a result is claimed.

A Skunkworks is needed, The odor is already here.

On Apr 18, 12:33 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 5:09 am, Tina > wrote:
>
> > It is past time for you to stop trying to impress us with your
> > rationalizations, and to start impressing us with your designing
> > ability.
> > Even early design thoughts about weight distributions would be
> > interesting, since your understanding of balancing moments seem
> > somewhat odd. Design thoughts would include numbers: weight and
> > balance are factors in sailplanes too, and you might have noticed they
> > do not have engines.
>
> I'm fiddling with a design in my spare time. I visited local harware
> store last night to get simple materials for prototype of propulsion
> system. You probably already know that I am understandly reluctant to
> describe any design here in detail unless I know in advance that it
> will work or won't. Whether it works or not, I will eventually put
> brief write-up here, describing why I thought it would work, or why I
> learned it won't.
>
> On matter of balance, there is not much to understand. I tried to say
> enough without saying too much: obviously, if we start with current ICE
> +prop at front [Will someone *please* tell me the standard name for
> this model?] the aicraft will be front-heavy. If the ICE+prop is
> simply moved to the back, it will be back heavy. If the assembly were
> somehow moved to center, that would reduce double moment about pitch
> axis, but that does not mean the aircraft will be auto-balanced. High
> concentration of mass in center is not necessarily desirable, as that
> would make front and rear relatively light, and probably introduce
> modes of instability in one of many system functions representing
> orientation aircraft, resulting in oscillations that cannot be
> mitigated through human control alone.
>
> This is why I mentioned computer control of airfoils. There are
> things that the computer can do to balance the plane that a human
> simply cannot do. For example, after linearization, a designer might
> find a set of transfer functions {H(s)} representing system responses
> of the aircraft to turbulence+attempt-of-pilot-to-correct-deviation.
> As mentioned, these transfer functions, with pilot feedback, might
> have oscillatory modes, and depending on how severe they are, the
> pilot would not be able to correct, either because the H(s)'s do not
> lend themselves well to corrective feedback, or because there are so
> many corrections to be made, the pilot does not have enough limbs to
> control them all. But a computer could control the oscillations
> wherther the system could be modeled as linear or non-linear, with an
> essentially unlimited number of control surfaces. It would not matter
> (up to certain limit).
>
> This concept is not new, being far older than aviaition itself, and we
> all know that the B-2 does this.
>
> What would be new, which is thesis of what I am saying, is to start
> using some of these techniques in small aircraft. Some of you might
> be thinking of the cost might be exceedingly high, as in case of B-2.
> IMO, much of those costs are arbitrary.
>
> For example, there is software, on the Internet, being sold by
> software companies to people unfamiliar with what it really "costs" to
> design software for $1000, when there is another web site offtering it
> in a slightly less-presentable package - it does not come with snappy-
> looking salesperson - essentially for free. In some case, the
> alternative free software is of even better quality than the $1000
> version.
>
> The same would be the case for small aircraft. If what I am proposing
> is done by a large, established, small-aircraft manufacturer,
> certainly the cost would prohibitive. The companies would make all
> kinds of excuses and justifications for the cost. But if that same
> sofware (and components) were created by an organization whose primary
> objective was to introduce such technology at low cost using COTS
> components, then the game would change. The FAA would have to be fair
> in the approaval process, but from what I have seen, the FAA has been
> more than accommodating in trying to induce this industry to solve
> some of the problems that bar the masses from GA.
>
> But if you are still wondering about mass distribution of my model,
> from what I envision now, the distribution would be more or less even
> over the entire aircraf. The shape of the aircraft would be
> relatively boxy. The long fuselage would be shortened considerably.
> There would be airfoils all over the aircraft for control using models
> like PID, for example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller.
> With good software algorithms, even something so short that it could
> fit in a home garage would still exhibit good stability, because a
> computer would be that which would be doing the sabilizing.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 19th 08, 06:44 AM

On Apr 18, 11:20*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> If you spent as much time trying to _DO_ your project as you are
> spending _TALKING_ about it, you'd be halfway to failure by now. :)
>
> But, if I'm wrong, I'll offer you a little advice.
> Success will get every opponent to shut up.
> And 3/4 of them will claim that they had faith in you, all along.

Sounds fair.

I loaded SolidWorks onto laptop yesterday. As mentioned, I will report
either success or failure, whichever occurs.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

April 19th 08, 06:46 AM

On Apr 18, 7:49*pm, Tina > wrote:
> More words. "Fiddling" indeed. Where's the meat? Where's the bun? The
> first posting has demonstrated there's neither, This is a classic "and
> then magic happens" just before a result is claimed.
>
> A Skunkworks is needed, The odor is already here.

I will know sooner or later if the part that matters is feasibe or not
and give introduction here.

Putting model into SolidWorks.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[email protected]

April 19th 08, 09:46 AM

On Apr 18, 11:01*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Morgans" >
>
> > I had heard a few years back that audio aficionados had been going back to
> >some
> >tube technology, and you are the first specific instance that I had heard of.
>
> Tubes never really went away in the area of music CREATION.
> They tend to emphasize the uneven overtones (5ths and maj. 3rds) and give
> sound a certain "warmth".
> My "amp of choice" for my guitars is still an old, 1970 vintage Fender Quad Reverb.
> An added benefit is that when I fire it up in the winter......it heats my house. :)
>
> >I always liked my Heathkit Amp, until the sound of caps gassing up, (then
> >blowing over/open, or whatever you want to call it) was almost as frequent as
> >the sound of clear music.
>
> Hey! I built one of those.
> It was still working when I sold it in the late 70's.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSAmjwpMoscYxZNI5AQEnWQP+Oe9q4YSSnjksD57K54 pH2YAY+lro2BI1
> bYa98twCwFuJYUVOQD9ADeS3uILptE06dJ0xPfimvpbJJ9JSww NMxPcxAQiBfWsU
> J1kydz7OqwKnaqBwBbxyEY6qqGM8IVRhAS3rxpbURm4Nkh0GAS 6PqwsgTXTzZ2Mb
> 4qurrbdFu+E=
> =A+Dt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ok you guys... This is bringing back alot of wonderful memories of my
early years. I built some heathkit stuff, bought them from Olson
electronics in Miami Fla.. Ahhh, the smell of solder and the feeling
one gets when you plug it in for the first time and it doesn't smoke
or trip the breaker,,, Actually they were those screw in fuses back
then... Seems to me I killed more of the green fuses then the red
ones, but I digress......... I also agree on the fine sound of the
fender amp. I had a Strat and a bandmaster amp in another life and
those days were a great time, and the beginning of my hearing
loss. :<)). Thanks for reminding me....

Now back to your regular scheduled programming. !!!!!!!!!!!!

Ben.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 19th 08, 01:10 PM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:edd2455b-2fd7-410f-
:

> On Apr 18, 11:20*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>>
>> If you spent as much time trying to _DO_ your project as you are
>> spending _TALKING_ about it, you'd be halfway to failure by now. :)
>>
>> But, if I'm wrong, I'll offer you a little advice.
>> Success will get every opponent to shut up.
>> And 3/4 of them will claim that they had faith in you, all along.
>
> Sounds fair.
>
> I loaded SolidWorks onto laptop yesterday. As mentioned, I will report
> either success or failure, whichever occurs.

Do hurry, I'll be holding my breath.

Bertie

Tina

April 19th 08, 03:21 PM

Nose, Bertie, nose. Hold your nose.

On Apr 19, 8:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:edd2455b-2fd7-410f-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 11:20 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> >> If you spent as much time trying to _DO_ your project as you are
> >> spending _TALKING_ about it, you'd be halfway to failure by now. :)
>
> >> But, if I'm wrong, I'll offer you a little advice.
> >> Success will get every opponent to shut up.
> >> And 3/4 of them will claim that they had faith in you, all along.
>
> > Sounds fair.
>
> > I loaded SolidWorks onto laptop yesterday. As mentioned, I will report
> > either success or failure, whichever occurs.
>
> Do hurry, I'll be holding my breath.
>
> Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 19th 08, 04:07 PM

Tina > wrote in news:28aa8896-13e0-4772-9a1f-
:

> Nose, Bertie, nose. Hold your nose.
>

Ah, he's roadkill....

Bertie

[email protected]

April 19th 08, 08:34 PM

On Apr 19, 12:46*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:49*pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > More words. "Fiddling" indeed. Where's the meat? Where's the bun? The
> > first posting has demonstrated there's neither, This is a classic "and
> > then magic happens" just before a result is claimed.
>
> > A Skunkworks is needed, The odor is already here.
>
> I will know sooner or later if the part that matters is feasibe or not
> and give introduction here.
>
> Putting model into SolidWorks.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Can't you at least post a drawing or something before then?

Personally I think what you're really needing is anti-grav drive.
There was a German guy working on the theory of it. Burkhard Heim was
his name. He died, though, before completing his work. But here's a
start:

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/burkhard-heim.htm

Now you have to be able to read German and most physicists don't
really grasp his mathematics and system of physics, but you'd probably
make pretty good progress once you had the anti-grav drive part down
pat. The rest should be a piece of cake.

Anyway the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awarded
a prize for a paper on the concept:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

New Scientist mentions Sandia Labs and the US Military looking into it
though, so you may simply be too late (alas!).

Still, there may be a homebuilt market for similar technology, so your
efforts might not be entirely wasted.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

April 19th 08, 09:36 PM

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Apr 19, 12:46*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 7:49*pm, Tina > wrote:
> >
> > > More words. "Fiddling" indeed. Where's the meat? Where's the bun? The
> > > first posting has demonstrated there's neither, This is a classic "and
> > > then magic happens" just before a result is claimed.
> >
> > > A Skunkworks is needed, The odor is already here.
> >
> > I will know sooner or later if the part that matters is feasibe or not
> > and give introduction here.
> >
> > Putting model into SolidWorks.
> >
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Can't you at least post a drawing or something before then?
>
> Personally I think what you're really needing is anti-grav drive.
> There was a German guy working on the theory of it. Burkhard Heim was
> his name. He died, though, before completing his work. But here's a
> start:
>
> http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/burkhard-heim.htm
>
> Now you have to be able to read German and most physicists don't
> really grasp his mathematics and system of physics, but you'd probably
> make pretty good progress once you had the anti-grav drive part down
> pat. The rest should be a piece of cake.
>
> Anyway the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awarded
> a prize for a paper on the concept:
>
> http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspa
> ce.html
>
> New Scientist mentions Sandia Labs and the US Military looking into it
> though, so you may simply be too late (alas!).
>
> Still, there may be a homebuilt market for similar technology, so your
> efforts might not be entirely wasted.

THe above type of concept is what we would need in order to fly to other
planets and the stars on a routine basis. It certainly piques the
imagination!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Le Chaud Lapin

April 20th 08, 05:14 AM

On Apr 19, 2:34*pm, wrote:
> On Apr 19, 12:46*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Can't you at least post a drawing or something before then?

I will as soon as I figure out a configuration that works. The ones I
have conceived so far might have power-output problems, even for one-
seat aircraft. There is a lot of math, with cyclic dependendies that
has to be worked out.

> Personally I think what you're really needing is anti-grav drive.
> There was a German guy working on the theory of it. Burkhard Heim was
> his name. He died, though, before completing his work. But here's a
> start:
>
> http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/burkhard-heim.htm
>
> Now you have to be able to read German and most physicists don't
> really grasp his mathematics and system of physics, but you'd probably
> make pretty good progress once you had the anti-grav drive part down
> pat. The rest should be a piece of cake.
>
> Anyway the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awarded
> a prize for a paper on the concept:
>
> http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into...

Hmmm...never seen that before.

> New Scientist mentions Sandia Labs and the US Military looking into it
> though, so you may simply be too late (alas!).
>
> Still, there may be a homebuilt market for similar technology, so your
> efforts might not be entirely wasted.

My still-in-thought idea is far less exotic. Everything is based
Newtonian physics.

clint

April 20th 08, 08:05 AM

whats this ****?
Nomen Nescio explained on 4/19/2008 :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A

> iQCVAwUBSAmjwpMoscYxZNI5AQEnWQP+Oe9q4YSSnjksD57K54 pH2YAY+lro2BI1
> bYa98twCwFuJYUVOQD9ADeS3uILptE06dJ0xPfimvpbJJ9JSww NMxPcxAQiBfWsU
> J1kydz7OqwKnaqBwBbxyEY6qqGM8IVRhAS3rxpbURm4Nkh0GAS 6PqwsgTXTzZ2Mb
> 4qurrbdFu+E=
> =A+Dt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Peter Clark

April 20th 08, 01:07 PM

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:05:55 -0400, clint
> wrote:

>whats this ****?
>Nomen Nescio explained on 4/19/2008 :
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: N/A
>
>> iQCVAwUBSAmjwpMoscYxZNI5AQEnWQP+Oe9q4YSSnjksD57K54 pH2YAY+lro2BI1
>> bYa98twCwFuJYUVOQD9ADeS3uILptE06dJ0xPfimvpbJJ9JSww NMxPcxAQiBfWsU
>> J1kydz7OqwKnaqBwBbxyEY6qqGM8IVRhAS3rxpbURm4Nkh0GAS 6PqwsgTXTzZ2Mb
>> 4qurrbdFu+E=
>> =A+Dt
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

It's a PGP signature. If you have a PGP decoder and download his
public key it's used to prove the message came from who it says it did
since nobody else's private key will encrypt to the appropriate string
above. Eliminates people forging posts since they either won't post
with a PGP key (rules the post in as a forgery if the real user always
posts a key), or the string won't validate against the real user's
public key.

Jay Maynard

April 20th 08, 01:27 PM

On 2008-04-20, Peter Clark > wrote:
> It's a PGP signature. If you have a PGP decoder and download his
> public key it's used to prove the message came from who it says it did
> since nobody else's private key will encrypt to the appropriate string
> above.

Except for one minor detail: since the guy hides behind an anonymizer,
there's no information gained from the fact that the message passes the
signature test, since all it proves is that the same anonymous coward posted
each one.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Peter Clark

April 20th 08, 02:47 PM

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:27:42 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-04-20, Peter Clark > wrote:
>> It's a PGP signature. If you have a PGP decoder and download his
>> public key it's used to prove the message came from who it says it did
>> since nobody else's private key will encrypt to the appropriate string
>> above.
>
>Except for one minor detail: since the guy hides behind an anonymizer,
>there's no information gained from the fact that the message passes the
>signature test, since all it proves is that the same anonymous coward posted
>each one.

Yea, but it does prove it's the SAME person, not a different person
using the same public anonymizer to imitate them. That's what a PGP
sig is for. It's not for validating content of the posts, just the
origin.

Jay Maynard

April 20th 08, 03:09 PM

On 2008-04-20, Peter Clark > wrote:
> Yea, but it does prove it's the SAME person, not a different person
> using the same public anonymizer to imitate them. That's what a PGP
> sig is for. It's not for validating content of the posts, just the
> origin.

Without knowing who this person is, the fact that it's the same anonymous
coward is of vanishingly small usefulness. What difference does it make
who's saying the words when he's not standing behind them to begin with?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Kevin Horner

April 20th 08, 03:43 PM

On Apr 19, 2:34pm, > wrote:
> Can't you at least post a drawing or something before then?
>
> Personally I think what you're really needing is anti-grav drive.
> There was a German guy working on the theory of it. Burkhard Heim was
> his name. He died, though, before completing his work.

He should have worked on a solution to mortality.

On second thought, anti-grav is exactly what Le Chaud Lapin needs to get
his heavy, boxy, one-seat flying brick to fly. Especially after he puts
in an air conditioner, leather seats, computer, water jug with spigot,
dvd player, foot massager, flight simulator, toilet with 5 gallon tank,
trash bin for his hamburger wrapper, a small fridge, an a 700 watt
microwave oven, XM radio, satellite TV, all powered by a USB hub, and
managed by the same laptop that will control the hundreds of airfoils.

> Still, there may be a homebuilt market for similar technology, so your
> efforts might not be entirely wasted.
>

The U.S. military has all the patents locked up and classified. Do you
think they would hand over technology like this to hostile nations, let
alone, admit that they have perfected it? They won't even admit Roswell
happened :)

Kevin

[email protected]

April 20th 08, 08:24 PM

On Apr 20, 9:43*am, Kevin Horner > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2:34pm, > wrote:
>
> > Can't you at least post a drawing or something before then?
>
> > Personally I think what you're really needing is anti-grav drive.
> > There was a German guy working on the theory of it. Burkhard Heim was
> > his name. He died, though, before completing his work.
>
> He should have worked on a solution to mortality.
>
> On second thought, anti-grav is exactly what Le Chaud Lapin needs to get
> his heavy, boxy, one-seat flying brick to fly. Especially after he puts
> in an air conditioner, leather seats, computer, water jug with spigot,
> dvd player, foot massager, flight simulator, toilet with 5 gallon tank,
> trash bin for his hamburger wrapper, a small fridge, an a 700 watt
> microwave oven, XM radio, satellite TV, all powered by a USB hub, and
> managed by the same laptop that will control the hundreds of airfoils.
>
> > Still, there may be a homebuilt market for similar technology, so your
> > efforts might not be entirely wasted.
>
> The U.S. military has all the patents locked up and classified. Do you
> think they would hand over technology like this to hostile nations, let
> alone, admit that they have perfected it? They won't even admit Roswell
> happened :)
>
> Kevin

Well, sir "Horner", I think you know exactly where I'm coming from and
where my suggestion was going and what it's purpose was. The homebuilt
anti-grav market suggestion is a bit dry, I admit. Snicker. ;)

Jay Maynard

April 21st 08, 01:29 PM

On 2008-04-20, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> From: Jay Maynard >
>>Without knowing who this person is, the fact that it's the same anonymous
>>coward is of vanishingly small usefulness. What difference does it make
>>who's saying the words when he's not standing behind them to begin with?
> Jay, I'm not sure where this animosity comes from. I think it's pretty
> easy to tell who's "real" and who's not .

Well, it's pretty easy to tell who's a real pilot, and who's a wannabe.
That's a separate issue from people refusing to stand behind their words.

> But is you want to play the "anonymous coward" game. I'll remind other
> readers that it's coming from a middle aged, single guy, who likes to play
> "dress up" and pretend he's a character in the B-movie, "Tron", and could
> use a few less carbs in his diet.

And I've never said any differently. You see, I do stand behind my words,
baggage and all.

OTOH, I'm not shallow enough to think this is in any way relevant to my
opinions on aviation (or lots of other subjects). The anonymous detractors
Big John appears to support do; this merely indicts their judgment.

I'll also point out that "anonymous coward" is a term for someone who posts
without standing behind their words that originated on Slashdot. I do find
it appropriate, since it smacks of cowardice.

> You couldn't pay me enough to go out in public and look like an idiot,
> which you seem to revel in.

I have a lot of fun doing it, and there are a lot of folks who have fun
seeing me do it. That makes it all worthwhile. I've met a lot of people, and
made more than a few friends, and gone places, and done things I would never
have had the chance to if I hadn't done it.

> I tend towards "live and let live". Making a public spectacle of myself is
> certainly not my style. But I won't fault you for it if it validates your
> existence in some weird way.

I don't consider it as somehow validating my existence. It's just something
I have fun with.

> Please extend the same courtesy to me, "Tron Guy".

The only information I have about you is that (assuming you're the same
person posting each time, an assumption I'm willing to concede for the sake
of argument) you're someone who appears to know a fair amount about
aviation, but who does not have the courage of his convictions and refuses
to stand behind his words. It is the latter part that's under discussion,
and it is the latter part that leaves me unable to put much credence in what
you say.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)