Shameless update from Dale Kramer

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 2:04:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Mandatory Flarms? Maybe if folks arent so busy playing with all their cockpit electronics they can keep their eyes outside where they belong. Flarms are not the answer, decent airmanship is. And heaven forbid any more dang things become mandatory. We cant legislate away idiocy.

Why not? We mandate parachutes, at about the same cost, and for the same reason: "See and Avoid" is really the "Big Sky Theory" and even the best lookout can't always detect a threat in time to prevent a collision.

Flarm is a valuable tool to help prevent a mid-air. When it fails (perhaps because the other guy doesn't believe in Flarm), your parachute is the next tool to use to save your life.

To me, idiocy is ignoring actual threats and practical solutions.

Kirk
66

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:02:45 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 2:04:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Mandatory Flarms? Maybe if folks arent so busy playing with all their cockpit electronics they can keep their eyes outside where they belong. Flarms are not the answer, decent airmanship is. And heaven forbid any more dang things become mandatory. We cant legislate away idiocy.

Why not? We mandate parachutes, at about the same cost, and for the same reason: "See and Avoid" is really the "Big Sky Theory" and even the best lookout can't always detect a threat in time to prevent a collision.

Flarm is a valuable tool to help prevent a mid-air. When it fails (perhaps because the other guy doesn't believe in Flarm), your parachute is the next tool to use to save your life.

To me, idiocy is ignoring actual threats and practical solutions.

Kirk
66

Hi Kirk,

I'm totally with you on Flarm, but I was marveling this morning about how we were having a great technical discussion about relatively high level stuff with Dale & how brave he was to start it here. I know Dale is the one that threw out the Flarm bait and I bit too, but we've got so many other threads to beat each other up about Flarm that it would be a shame to derail this nice discussion.

Cheers,
Craig

Craig, if it keeps people reading this thread and sends a few people to Kickstarter to buy a $10 signed vLazair print then I'm OK with it

Dale

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:20:36 AM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
Craig, if it keeps people reading this thread and sends a few people to Kickstarter to buy a $10 signed vLazair print then I'm OK with it

Dale

Dale:
A second engine is listed for battery charging. Isn't it possible to charge the batteries from the Rotax?
Jim

Jim, that is correct, in the full scale vLazair there is an onboard 15kw generator, powered by a separate gas motor, that charges the batteries in flight. Should never need to charge batteries from the power grid and it will only take about 15 minutes in flight to charge the last landing and last takeoff. The generator is just a JM1 motor attached to a gas motor and its 3 phase output rectified. Generator runs at governed rpm which sets charge voltage. Very light setup.

Dale

Holding a steady voltage with a Rotax installed generator is more complex, besides, I want the generator on board when I remove the wings and Rotax so that I can drive the remaining 'motorcycle' around on the road.

Dale

LOL I like that Dale

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:53:08 AM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
Holding a steady voltage with a Rotax installed generator is more complex, besides, I want the generator on board when I remove the wings and Rotax so that I can drive the remaining 'motorcycle' around on the road.

Dale

Dale, the JM1 + gas motor and some batteries sounds like a good hybrid option for a FES setup. What's the weight and output on the charging unit?

I sure appreciate all the comments here and definitely dont want hijack this thread, dale your concept is definitly interesting, and at the very least the engineering study regarding the vstol portion of this project is a helpfull excercise and I am sure will be coming our way from other developers in the future.
As to flarm and other anti collision systems, my point has been that these systems create a detrimental false sense of security. I have experience flying gliders in three very conjested airspace areas, las vegas nv, minden/reno and pensacola. The key to each of these areas was EYEBALL awareness. As a commercial pilot, I never fully trust air traffic control or anti collision hardware, i trust situational awareness period.
The second aspect has to do with freedom. If you want a european type air traffic control system, then keep laying down when federal or association dictated mandates are being proposed, always under the unbrella of "safety". Your freedom to fly will dissapear or be economically handicapped. Reality is, the skies are no more crowded today than they were 10 years ago. That is a myth being propogated by the faa. The exact situation was encountered by derick piggot years ago in UK when their fed agency was expanding airspace restrictions and shutting down gliderports. Thank God he and others stood up and didnt take the governmental over reach laying down.

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 12:37:42 PM UTC-4, wrote:
As to flarm and other anti collision systems, my point has been that these systems create a detrimental false sense of security.

I am a little wary of this point, I don't drive faster because I wear a seatbelt nor do I worry about glancing at my speedometer to make sure that I am driving safely and matching the posted safe speed limit on an on ramp. My speedometer is giving me a real sense of security if someone hasn't modified that safe speed sign.

Dale