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. [IMO, this represents and *enormous* opportunity
reduce requisite skill in flying aircraft].

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-