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

"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.

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

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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"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


I am assuming the FAA and insurance companies will be better at policing the
fleets than U-haul, but then again your local part 61 schools aren't all
exactly pictures of maintenance perfection.

Still, central to my point is that the populace at large will not want to
trust their neighbors to maintain aircraft properly.




---
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