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

So, why do such simple engines cost so darn much?

I rember way back when Eiper was going to do a deal with Lotus or someone to
mass produce an UL engine. Like always, nothing happened as far as I know. Same
with BD-5.

-- Charlie Springer

"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

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]).


The assumption in the minds of many is that the automobile is necessary.
Also, cars intruding homes tend to happen where you would expect them too (T
intersections, corners, off ramps). Houses that get hit, tend to get hit
several times. My present home is hardly more likely to get hit by a car
than a plane. Especially by a car with a mechanical problem.

Mostly though, I agree with your point about folks protecting their own
freedoms.

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.


Still following you, people who know nothing about planes are impressed by
BRS. It does help allay their fears, but will it continue to do so when the
facts about a BRS landing come out?

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.


I agree with you that this type of aircraft could change some people's
perception of flying small planes. Unfortunately, it will not change the
following mindsets:

[Insert your favorite idiot voice and accent]

"Flying is unnatural"

"I don't want that noisy thing flying over MY house"

"I don't trust those F'n computers"

"What happens if the computer fails"

etc.

There are lots of problems to overcome, technological and otherwise for this
idea to work. I won't say it won't happen. I just still see problems with
it (which is admittedly my nature).

Also, while technology does tend to come in leaps, you can't count on one.
Moore's law has been mostly evolutionary to this point. It only counts on
leaps coming along every once in a while. So far, the leaps in aviation
have not been coming along all that fast at the low end. The leaps don't
just happen, they are the result of persistent R&D. Now, Cessna won't make
a new small piston plane.

I will hope for your revolution, but I am not holding my breath. Please,
prove me the unnecessary pessimist.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:19:09 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

[Good stuff snipped]

There are lots of problems to overcome, technological and otherwise for this
idea to work. I won't say it won't happen. I just still see problems with
it (which is admittedly my nature).

Also, while technology does tend to come in leaps, you can't count on one.
Moore's law has been mostly evolutionary to this point. It only counts on
leaps coming along every once in a while. So far, the leaps in aviation
have not been coming along all that fast at the low end. The leaps don't
just happen, they are the result of persistent R&D. Now, Cessna won't make
a new small piston plane.

I will hope for your revolution, but I am not holding my breath. Please,
prove me the unnecessary pessimist.

Oh, I don't think you're unnecessarily pessimistic. The whole problem
boils down to three questions:

1. CAN it be done?
2. WILL it be done?
and
3. SHOULD it be done?

We differ in the response to #1... I feel it's doable, within current
technology. But I agree there are problems. We can rely on the onboard
computer to not allow operation if certain maintenance parameters are out
of spec. But, such technology is open to spoofing. For instance, it'd be
cheaper to burn a ROM that says the BRS has been replaced instead of
actually replacing the BRS.

In any case, by the time we get to #2, we're in agreement. It's not going
to happen. A brand new Cirrus that depends on pilot skills dating from
1938 sells for almost a quarter-million dollars. To automate the piloting
process, even to the extent of duplicating the stall-avoidance features of
the Ercoupe (only doing it in software rather than hardware) won't be
cheap.

But that quarter-million dollars a pop puts the *current* Cirrus out of
financial reach of the average citizen. Even if the "Ercoupe NT" version
of the Cirrus merely *doubles* the price, you still aren't going to get too
many takers.

If the plane offered doorstep-to-doorstep service, you might get some of
the real well-heeled types picking them up. This may even have a
trickle-down effect, leading to lower-cost versions.

But the Ercoupe NT still will require conventional runways. Moller's VTOL
Skycar gets around this...but I suspect there are few millionaire
neighborhoods that'll long tolerate eight shrieking rotary engines hauling
the CEO to work at 7 AM.

Finally, we get to the point of *Should* it be done. Personally, I like to
manually operate the controls, but don't have any problem with someone who
just wants to punch the "Fly to Portland" button then sit back and nap.
However, such a system will probably require positive control of all but
the most out-of-the-way airspace. Which would kill General Aviation as we
know it...and as I prefer it.

So I guess I'll scrap that antigravity sled I've been building... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

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.

that is an unsubstantiated nonsense claim if ever there was one.
you ever heard of the EAA and all the similar organisations the world
over?

....maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society, but it does seem to me that you started on a
pessimistic error in that post.

Stealth Pilot
Australia
(happily maintaining my own aircraft in spite of the legislation)

maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society,

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

Much ado has been made of 'National IQ' tests, comparing one nationality
against another (yes, Oz is right in there).

If such tests have any validity (they don't, but work with me here), then the
average intelligence of citizens of industrialized nations is about 100.

A key point neatly overlooked in this typical bit of modern-day feel-good
'news' is that if the AVERAGE is about 100 then the MEDIAN is around 85.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the behavior of our society is a
closer match to the lower figure than the higher. And that the assertion the
'average citizen' can not be trusted to properly maintain an airplane (or even
a car) is probably more right than wrong.

-R.S.Hoover

We are pretty close together in the end it seems.

Much of the problems you see are cost related, and you point out some things
holding back demand. We could likely build planes for a fifth the current
price IF there were steady volume enough.

So we agree that demand may be the end problem, we just disagree on why


"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:19:09 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

[Good stuff snipped]

There are lots of problems to overcome, technological and otherwise for
this
idea to work. I won't say it won't happen. I just still see problems
with
it (which is admittedly my nature).

Also, while technology does tend to come in leaps, you can't count on
one.
Moore's law has been mostly evolutionary to this point. It only counts
on
leaps coming along every once in a while. So far, the leaps in aviation
have not been coming along all that fast at the low end. The leaps don't
just happen, they are the result of persistent R&D. Now, Cessna won't
make
a new small piston plane.

I will hope for your revolution, but I am not holding my breath. Please,
prove me the unnecessary pessimist.

Oh, I don't think you're unnecessarily pessimistic. The whole problem
boils down to three questions:

1. CAN it be done?
2. WILL it be done?
and
3. SHOULD it be done?

We differ in the response to #1... I feel it's doable, within current
technology. But I agree there are problems. We can rely on the onboard
computer to not allow operation if certain maintenance parameters are out
of spec. But, such technology is open to spoofing. For instance, it'd be
cheaper to burn a ROM that says the BRS has been replaced instead of
actually replacing the BRS.

In any case, by the time we get to #2, we're in agreement. It's not
going
to happen. A brand new Cirrus that depends on pilot skills dating from
1938 sells for almost a quarter-million dollars. To automate the piloting
process, even to the extent of duplicating the stall-avoidance features of
the Ercoupe (only doing it in software rather than hardware) won't be
cheap.

But that quarter-million dollars a pop puts the *current* Cirrus out of
financial reach of the average citizen. Even if the "Ercoupe NT" version
of the Cirrus merely *doubles* the price, you still aren't going to get
too
many takers.

If the plane offered doorstep-to-doorstep service, you might get some of
the real well-heeled types picking them up. This may even have a
trickle-down effect, leading to lower-cost versions.

But the Ercoupe NT still will require conventional runways. Moller's VTOL
Skycar gets around this...but I suspect there are few millionaire
neighborhoods that'll long tolerate eight shrieking rotary engines hauling
the CEO to work at 7 AM.

Finally, we get to the point of *Should* it be done. Personally, I like
to
manually operate the controls, but don't have any problem with someone who
just wants to punch the "Fly to Portland" button then sit back and nap.
However, such a system will probably require positive control of all but
the most out-of-the-way airspace. Which would kill General Aviation as we
know it...and as I prefer it.

So I guess I'll scrap that antigravity sled I've been building... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

While I am admittedly pessimistic, there are a few things that make the
average EAA guy different from the average citizen.

Number one would be a love of building and flying. EAA people are
intimately involved in the way their planes work. They do not see them as a
bland appliance that gets them from point A to point B.

The guy I am worried about is the one that can't fix his car properly, but
thinks he can. Or he thinks that every mechanic is trying to rip him off,
and wants to use the cheapest repair he can get by with.

Now you want to put him in charge of a plane? For Pete's sake, have you
seen the cars on the road?




"Stealth Pilot" 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.

that is an unsubstantiated nonsense claim if ever there was one.
you ever heard of the EAA and all the similar organisations the world
over?

...maybe homebuilders arent average. maybe we should lift the bar on
the rest of society, but it does seem to me that you started on a
pessimistic error in that post.

Stealth Pilot
Australia
(happily maintaining my own aircraft in spite of the legislation)

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:18:06 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

We are pretty close together in the end it seems.

Much of the problems you see are cost related, and you point out some things
holding back demand. We could likely build planes for a fifth the current
price IF there were steady volume enough.

So we agree that demand may be the end problem, we just disagree on why

Yep. Since we don't have anything logical left to argue about, is this
where we switch to name-calling? :-)

Ron "Your father smelled of elderberries" Wanttaja

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

While I am admittedly pessimistic, there are a few things that make the
average EAA guy different from the average citizen.

Number one would be a love of building and flying. EAA people are
intimately involved in the way their planes work. They do not see them as a
bland appliance that gets them from point A to point B.

The guy I am worried about is the one that can't fix his car properly, but
thinks he can. Or he thinks that every mechanic is trying to rip him off,
and wants to use the cheapest repair he can get by with.

Now you want to put him in charge of a plane? For Pete's sake, have you
seen the cars on the road?



your carbeques caused us some amusement on the trip from sandiego to
route 66 :-) :-) and watching something like 3 cars sitting there
calling out the road patrol to change a flat tyre was astonishing.
my last flat tyre took me 2 minutes to swap on the shoulder of a busy
freeway.
I'm sure urban americans dont realise how dumb they look to the rest
of the first world. :-)

relating to aviation.
look there is a pervasive view that all owners are into clueless
shonky maintenance. the hard evidence is quite different though.
South Africans have owner maintenance and discussing this with some of
the pilots who have emigrated tells the same story. when an old
aircraft enters owner maintenance you can watch it develop over the
next few years. the deterioration gradually winds back as the guy
fixes more and more of the effects of age on it. many aircraft in
owner maintenance end up as stunningly restored showcases that are
flown for real pleasure.
The Canadians north of you wouldnt stop maintaining their aircraft and
in their remoteness could operate an aircraft for it's entire life
away from civilisation. Transport Canada changed the rules when the
statistics for illicit maintenance proved to be no different than for
certified maintenance. The sky certainly hasnt fallen in for them.
The brits, we australians and the kiwis all have the same basic
pessimism in their regulatory authorities. they all still have a
mindset from 1918 when it really was dangerous. most of us just ignore
the authorities, close the hangar door, and just get on with it
anyway.

pilots are not the general unwashed of life. they have all been
trained and assessed as competent aviators. isnt it time you had some
confidence. all you need to do is put competent information before
them and they soak it up. pessimism and aviation are poor bedfellows.

Stealth (optimist) Pilot