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