Sun goes dark, rivers run red, Facetmobile webpage updated.

If you've looked outside and found a rain of frogs, don't worry, it's
not Ragnarok.

Barnaby Wainfan has updated the Facetmobile web page.

http://members.aol.com/slicklynne/facet.htm

The best part is a study he's just written for NASA on a theoretical
composite super-Facetmobile as a Personal Air Vehicle. The weight,
interior volume and cost make it really interesting. You can download
the entire study as a PDF at:

http://members.aol.com/slicklynne/pavreport.pdf

Its amazing how many of us overlook the true impediment to increasing the
use of private air transport - lack of demand.

An airplane could easily be priced at close to the cost of a car IF you
could sell just a million a year. The price of a G1000 with autopilot could
easily drop to under ten thousand at that volume.

The engines and frames could also easily be produced for under ten thousand
at that volume.

Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant autopilot
system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails. Average guy just
cannot handle the responsibility. Therefore, he won't be buying a plane or
becoming a pilot.

Note, I did not say anything about the training, the complexity, or the
cost. I say we just cannot trust the average guy at the controls from
crashing due to poor decisions in the air or on the ground. For Pete's
sake, a large percentage of our drivers should not be on the road, and we
all know pilot's we worry about too.

And, the LIABILITY of the whole idea.

The air taxi idea, as well as the possibility of larger, nicer, more
available rental fleets could add to the volumes of aircraft in a positive
and useful way. Technology could one day get to the point that the plane is
in charge instead of the pilot, but that is not today. For now, it seems
the cattle car approach is best for those saving cash. If we are lucky, we
may be able to soon see where those willing to spend a little more can take
a taxi or charter, while those who are pilots can own or rent much more
cheaply.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant autopilot
system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.

Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.

Ron Wanttaja

Actually, I don't agree with you, there.

----------------------------------------

Me too, but for a different reason.

Application and use of technology by humans reflects a kind of Moore's Law. To
obtain useful service from the first cars (circa 1880's) typically required a
driver, mechanic and 'boy.' (Duties of the latter were never defined very
well; he appears to have been a kind of gopher.)

Nowadays cars are virtual transportation appliances, the skills and experience
needed to start, steer and maintain them codified into electronic codes or
built-in to the structure of the machine.

The Wright's 'Flyer' was an astable handful to pilot. But it evolved to where
nowdays any idiot can drive a plane and most do.

I can't see any indications of something that might limit this evolution-of-use
in any field. Plenty of obstructions but history provides numerous examples of
that as well, allowing the thoughtful to catch an occaisonal glimpse of the
forest that lays ahead in spite of the trees.

-R.S.Hoover

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" wrote:


Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his plane
well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant autopilot
system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.


Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.

Ron Wanttaja

I'll side with Ron, but for a different reason. Even the people with
airplanes bought and paid for have to use the excuse of a $100 hamburger
as some sort of 'justification' of the enjoyment of getting off the
ground. Until Alcatel builds a runway that terminates in their parking
lot, the airplane will not be useful as a reliable mode of transportation.

Cars were only marginally useful until Uncle Sam decided that his troops
needed a better way to get their big guns to the sea ports. If the
decision had been that planes would do the job better than cars, we'd
all have a runway in the backyard now. And we'd live clustered around
steel tracks if the decision had been for trains.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

And it lands on someone's house at 1600 fpm?

We still need a big leap in tech.


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his
plane
well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant
autopilot
system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.

Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.

Ron Wanttaja

"Veeduber" wrote in message
...
Actually, I don't agree with you, there.

----------------------------------------

Me too, but for a different reason.

Application and use of technology by humans reflects a kind of Moore's
Law. To
obtain useful service from the first cars (circa 1880's) typically
required a
driver, mechanic and 'boy.' (Duties of the latter were never defined very
well; he appears to have been a kind of gopher.)

Nowadays cars are virtual transportation appliances, the skills and
experience
needed to start, steer and maintain them codified into electronic codes or
built-in to the structure of the machine.

The Wright's 'Flyer' was an astable handful to pilot. But it evolved to
where
nowdays any idiot can drive a plane and most do.

I can't see any indications of something that might limit this
evolution-of-use
in any field. Plenty of obstructions but history provides numerous
examples of
that as well, allowing the thoughtful to catch an occaisonal glimpse of
the
forest that lays ahead in spite of the trees.

-R.S.Hoover

From my own post _

"Technology could one day get to the point that the plane is
in charge instead of the pilot, but that is not today."

So we agree somewhat. Now all we have left to discuss is how long. I will
say that Moore's Law is too fast for aviation if history is any indication.
Also, if the private owner has to maintain it, can it be trusted?

BTW and totally OT is multithreading going to be available in time to keep
Moore's law? Last I checked it was not yet really there, and the MHz game
was hitting a ceiling in usefulness due to memory fetch times and that old
speed of light problem.

Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing 3000
pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.

Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
problem. But if the cars on our highways are any indication, I can't trust
that the chute will be maintained and work probably if its up to average
citizen as owner.

I used to think that technology was the answer, but now I have become
cynical about society's ability to manage this sort of system with more than
a few percent of the population owning their own planes. Judgment calls
begin before you even leave the ground, and while technology can overcome
lack of skill, how does it overcome bad judgment?


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:58:19 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

Unfortunately, the average citizen cannot be trusted to maintain his
plane
well enough to keep it safe. Also, even if you make a redundant
autopilot
system, the pilot has to be able to fly if it fails.

Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.

Ron Wanttaja

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing 3000
pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.

Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
problem.

Oh, like U-haul???? Hmmmm
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:43:30 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message

Actually, I don't agree with you, there. That's what ballistic chutes are
for. Second autopilot fails, the onboard processor blows the chute.

Two problems, one, I don't want airplanes landing on my roof weighing 3000
pounds and traveling at 1600 fpm.

Nor do most folks want 4,000 pound cars crashing through their house
walls...yet that occurs, fairly often.

Yet we don't hear cries calling for people to ban automobiles. Why?
Because people won't argue for more restrictions on their *own* freedoms
(well, other than [insert least-favorite political affiliation here]).

Why don't more people fly? Because they're afraid of dying.

You know, and I know, it's a (mostly) irrational fear. But the fact is, a
lot of people think "little airplanes" are dangerous. They don't get
enraged at stuff like TFRs, because it doesn't affect them, just those
"rich snobs with their Learjets".

That isn't going to change until more people are flying. But people aren't
even going to consider it until something changes their minds about the
safety aspects. It doesn't have to be a *logical* item... but the presence
of an aircraft recovery chute that automatically deploys when things go bad
is likely to be a big factor.

I'm not fond of automotive airbags...yet the marketers now seem to think
safety features help sell cars. Ever since I've been flying, non-pilots
have asked me, "Hey, why don't they invent a parachute that saves the
entire airplane?" Now they've got one.

Second, if the plane is maintained in a fleet, this may not be a big
problem. But if the cars on our highways are any indication, I can't trust
that the chute will be maintained and work probably if its up to average
citizen as owner.

I used to think that technology was the answer, but now I have become
cynical about society's ability to manage this sort of system with more than
a few percent of the population owning their own planes. Judgment calls
begin before you even leave the ground, and while technology can overcome
lack of skill, how does it overcome bad judgment?

Dude, you're assuming an evolutionary approach. Quit that. Assume an air
vehicle (AV) that does not *require* a pilot. One in which the only way to
control the AV is via the computer.

You step inside, and press the "start" button. When the self-test is done,
you specify your destination, then press "depart."

BRS past its repack date? The AV refuses to take off. Ditto if the annual
inspection hasn't been accomplished.

And if you're in flight and the AV CPU locks up, the independent safety
system (ISS) fires the BRS and activates the ELT. Heck, there's no reason
a BRS chute can't be made someone steerable, and the ISS aims for the
nearest open space in its database.

Is it *flying*? Heck no. But it would probably make GA palatable for more
of the non-flying public.

Ron Wanttaja