Propeller Efficiency

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
aspects of the status quo

-Le Chaud Lapin-

You have certainly attained that goal.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:26 pm, wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:17 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
solutions to old problems.
Ah. So the old saying about knowing history lest you make
the same mistakes doesn't apply here, huh?

It applies, but if someone asked you to build a fort, in 2008, you
most like would not start with brick and mortar. You probably would
not use wood. You probably would not insist on having a moat around
it. This is an extreme analogy, but you get the point.



No but I would look at fortifications throughout history and see what
worked and what didn't against different types of attack.

On Apr 16, 1:35*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Pressurizing aircraft would allow use of COTS components that have
maximum altitude specifications.

So to use cheap off the shelf components you are going to add a system
that is not cheap and not off the shelf. Great idea.

I think so. I am also talking about adding an $800 computer. That's
$800 extra. But that single computer can replace the functions of
multiple devices, all costing in excess of $500.

Do you mean intercom. There are plenty of perfectly good intercom
systems on the market for $1000 already.

I would reuse the $30 headset and the $800 computer to implement the
intercom, making incremental cost (if one excludes cost of developing
new software), $0. Technically, there is already free "intercom"
software on the net, but that would be sloppy.

That nice $30 Logitech headset you bought is indeed nice. I have one too
but it has no noise attenuation properties which is the main reasons you
have a headset in a small plane. Back when I got my initial flight
training wearing headsets was the exception not the rule. You talked on
the radio through a hand mic and listened on a crappy speaker. It is one
of the reasons my hearing sucks today.

Skipped that one didn't you.

As I have said many times, the propulsion model I have in mind would
make significantly less noise than a prop. I doubt that any type of
headset would be necessary. It certainly would not make more noise
than an automobile engine.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In article
,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Apr 16, 12:26*pm, wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:17 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
But deliberately remaining in a state of ignorance about particular
aspects of the status quo is often the clearest path to finding a new
solutions to old problems.


A designer should use principles and materials that are appropriate
for the times. I would imagine this same conversation occurred during
the 20th century between two electrical engineers, one who cut his
teeth on vacuum tubes, the other who is abot to forsake vaccum tubes
in favor of transistors. The Old Guard would say, "You really ought
to rethink your decision to not study vacuum tubes. You could learn
quite a bit."

Well, I am an electrical engineer, and though I know the basics of
vacuum tubes, I never studied them, and no reputable engineering
school consider them to be a requisite part of its curriculum.

Well, that explains your affinity for extraneous gadgets and electrical
controls, when simple, mechanical controls perform better and more
reliably.

If you were an aeronautical engineer, you would realize the foolishness
of your design ideas.


The Dean of Engineering at my university expended extraordinary effort
to create "cross-displine projects" among the engineering and science
discplines. He was fanatical about it. It was as if he was promoting
interdepartmental marrying. I failed to see his motivation, why there
was a sense of urgency and conviction. Later in life, I realized that
there are entire industrial groups who isolate themselves from other
industrial groups from whom they might greatly benefit. It *seems*
like this is not happening, because in design meetings, there will be
representatives of various discplines present. But sometime happens
in those meetings, and the result is what you get is not as good as
what could be, certainly not as cheap, at least in case of software.
The Dean saw this and probably trying to induce his departments to
break this pattern, first in the context of academia, then later, in
industry.

It also appears that you failed the course. If you had been paying
attention, you would have realized that simple is best, unless there is
a need for complexity. Such needs are few and far between on a small,
subsonic aircraft.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Apr 16, 3:19*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

It also appears that you failed the course. If you had been paying
attention, you would have realized that simple is best, unless there is
a need for complexity. Such needs are few and far between on a small,
subsonic aircraft.

What course? There was no course. It was the Dean of the Engineering
School.

Simple is not always best. GPS devices are not as simple as maps, but
people use them anyway. Are they needed?

There are many things that are not needed, but people want them
anyway, because the new is better than the old.

That's what it means to advance in a field - move the old out of the
way to make room for the new, if it is deemed that the new is better
than the old.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

We eagerly wait for a realizable design

Most, however, have resisted holding our breath. Noses may be another
matter.

In article
,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Apr 16, 3:19*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

It also appears that you failed the course. If you had been paying
attention, you would have realized that simple is best, unless there is
a need for complexity. Such needs are few and far between on a small,
subsonic aircraft.

What course? There was no course. It was the Dean of the Engineering
School.

Simple is not always best. GPS devices are not as simple as maps, but
people use them anyway. Are they needed?

Look, Stupid:

GPS devices are nice, but the safety of the flight does not depend on
them. Putting an expensive electronic control in place of simple, cheap
pushrods and cables for flight controls is inviting disaster, if the
flight performance does not depend on them.

Your design suffers from extreme overcomplexity and poor engineering
practice. Starting from ignorance does NOT assure a good design.


There are many things that are not needed, but people want them
anyway, because the new is better than the old.

Not always.


That's what it means to advance in a field - move the old out of the
way to make room for the new, if it is deemed that the new is better
than the old.


Your design ideas remind me of the old "Flying Oddities" film, with the
"pancake flipper" and the "Flying Venetian Blind".

Get some aeronautical engineering and mechanical background before you
waste more bandwidth and participants' time reading about your poorly
thought out ideas about flying machinery.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Apr 16, 7:28*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
Look, Stupid:

GPS devices are nice, but the safety of the flight does not depend on
them. Putting an expensive electronic control in place of simple, cheap
pushrods and cables for flight controls is inviting disaster, if the
flight performance does not depend on them.

One years from now, someone will be saying to someone else who has new
ideas about building aircraft...

"Look, Stupid: Putting expensive [whatever] controls in place of
simple, cheap, stochastic estimators based on Kalman-Bucy filters
running on 5GHz Quad-Core CPU's with 64GB RAM for flight control is
inviting disaster, if the flight performance does not depend on them."

Your point of view is endlessly backward, back to the invention of the
wheel.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In article
,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Apr 16, 7:28*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
Look, Stupid:

GPS devices are nice, but the safety of the flight does not depend on
them. Putting an expensive electronic control in place of simple, cheap
pushrods and cables for flight controls is inviting disaster, if the
flight performance does not depend on them.

One years from now, someone will be saying to someone else who has new
ideas about building aircraft...

"Look, Stupid: Putting expensive [whatever] controls in place of
simple, cheap, stochastic estimators based on Kalman-Bucy filters
running on 5GHz Quad-Core CPU's with 64GB RAM for flight control is
inviting disaster, if the flight performance does not depend on them."


Hoe reliable are those things? Remember, the total system reliability of
items in series is the multiple of the individual reliability of every
item required to make something work. If you have four items that have
99% reliability each, the system reliability is .99**$ = .9606.

As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does."


Your point of view is endlessly backward, back to the invention of the
wheel.


No, it isn't. Your ideas are akin to "Let's build square wheels, or
ovoid wheels, because they are sexier than the old-fashioned round
wheels."

Some things simply boil down to the lowest common denominator. You have
given no reason for the extra complexity than "it is the new
technology," without providing believable arguments for making changes.

Don't you know that change, for the sake of change, is a time and money
waster extraordinaire?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Apr 16, 8:37*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
In article
,
*Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

"Look, Stupid: Putting expensive [whatever] controls in place of
simple, cheap, stochastic estimators based on Kalman-Bucy filters
running on 5GHz Quad-Core CPU's with 64GB RAM for flight control is
inviting disaster, if the flight performance does not depend on them."

Hoe reliable are those things?

The B-2 uses estimators.

Remember, the total system reliability of
items in series is the multiple of the individual reliability of every
item required to make something work. If you have four items that have
99% reliability each, the system reliability is .99**$ = .9606.


As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Your point of view is endlessly backward, back to the invention of the
wheel.

No, it isn't. Your ideas are akin to "Let's build square wheels, or
ovoid wheels, because they are sexier than the old-fashioned round
wheels."

Some things simply boil down to the lowest common denominator. You have
given no reason for the extra complexity than "it is the new
technology," without providing believable arguments for making changes.

It's a catch-22. Many of the problems with GA light-aircraft are
cirucuitous. It is hard to talk about one problem without linking to
the next.

* One has to pay hangar fees because the aircraft is too big to fit in
a garage.
* Even if aircraft were smaller, it's not roadable.
* Aircraft is too big because fuselage needs to be that long to
counterbalance ICE + prop, among other things.
* Aircraft is too noisy because of prop.
* Flight enhancement gadgets are too costly because sales volume is
too low.
* Sales volume is too low because of pilot population is too low.
* Pilot population is too low because cost of ownership (one reason)
is too high, including hangard fees.
* Pilot population is too low because of complexity of control.
* Advance control mechanisms not introduce because of added expense.
* Advance control mechansism cost so much because industry mindset is
to retrofit on metal and cables.

So if it were possible to replace ICE+prop with something quieter,
simpler, that did not move CG so far forward, that would effect many
other things. I think one day this will happen. When it does, it will
effect many things, including size of aircraft, range of aircraft,
cost of fuel, ability to store in garage, lower noise, greater
maneuverability, etc.

The model that I have mind would eliminate the ICE+prop at front of
plane, but the plane would no longer be controllable by a human, not
in the conventional sense. There would be simply too many variables.
The pilot would have to use the stick to indicate what is desired, and
let the computer bring that state about based on real-time computation
of state variables. Naturally, the idea is write the software so that
there is one-to-one correlation between what pilot wants and what
plane does.

Don't you know that change, for the sake of change, is a time and money
waster extraordinaire?

There are desirable objectives here, so desirable that NASA offered
$250,000 for PAV to achieve them.

I would not call that change for sake of change.

-Le Chaud Lapin-