On 9.8.18 19:48, John Doe wrote:> I did not evaluate the unusual example... > > Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just > this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a > designer's fantasyland. >And a pilot's nightmare ... -- -TV (JAR-CPL FI-36614)
OT: Personal aircraft, vertical takeoff and landing
Started by ●August 9, 2018
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:51:08 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:> On 08/09/2018 01:46 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: > >> On 08/09/2018 01:01 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:36:26 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: > >>>> On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > >>>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem > >>>>>> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably > >>>>>> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about > >>>>>> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing > >>>>>> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL > >>>>>> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... > >>>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes > >>>>>> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness > >>>>> machine. > >>>>> > >>>>> Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen. > >>>>> Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky. > >>>>> > >>>>> Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive > >>>>> VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and > >>>> safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering > >>>> problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about > >>>> physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and > >>>> lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy. > >>> > >>> I thought the bulk of the weight in an orbital rocket was the fuel? That's the big problem with rockets, it takes a lot of fuel to get the fuel up to where the little bit of remaining fuel can get the satellite into orbit. > >>> In other words, it's all about the fuel, fool! That's "fool" in the same sense as stupid in "keep it simple, stupid". Don't want anyone to think I am trying to insult you. > >> > >> If you had some kind of exotic material which was extremely lightweight > >> and strong to build your rocket frame out of you could build a > >> 1950s-style rocket that could go SSTO from the Earth's surface without > >> too much trouble. You're correct the bulk of the weight would still be > >> fuel. But AFAIK that material doesn't exist, about the best we can do > >> currently are varieties of aluminum-lithium alloys. A structure made of > >> that helps greatly but screws the physics just enough that SSTO with > >> 1950s-style rockets made from conventional materials with conventional > >> chemical rocket engines aren't possible. > >> > >> You could also try to lower the planet's g from 9.8 m/s^2 that would > >> help a lot too, SSTO from the Moon's surface is trivial using 1950s > >> technology. > >> > >> Only other way if all you have is conventional structural materials to > >> work with to avoid staging is trying to optimize the engines in some way > >> as compared to a big dumb booster, like air breathing engines part way > >> or continuously variable engine bells that optimize their shape as > >> atmospheric pressure decreases. > >> > >> > >>> I don't know VTOL is inherently contradictory. It's more a matter of design goals. Will it be as efficient as a jumbo jet in fuel per passenger, maybe not. But when you factor in the huge inconvenience of transportation to and from airports it mitigates a lot. So what are the requirements? I know in DC many would pay extra to not have to go to the large airports. > >>> > >>> Rick C. > >>> > >> > >> I'm not sure just the inconvenience of taking a ground vehicle to the > >> airport is enough of a motivating factor to invest $50 billion in this > >> kind project, even for billionaires. Other countries might try improving > >> city topology or improving public transit, spending megabucks to develop > >> long-range VTOL air taxis and $68,000 self-driving cars are what we call > >> "American-style" solutions to urban planning. > >> > >> In London there's an airport right in downtown, London City, the > >> super-rich there can just have their driver take them there in the > >> Bentley in 15 minutes and hop on an all-business-class A318 to NYC no > >> problem > > > > You are funny. I like watching you joust with the strawmen you create. :) > > > > Rick C. > > > > The HUGE INCONVENIENCE of sitting in a car for 30 min /eyerollYou obviously haven't driven someplace with bad traffic like DC. 30 years ago it took me nearly an hour to commute the 20 miles to my home. I have no idea what it is like now, I avoid DC like it has the plague, in some ways it does. Rick C.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 02:25 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:51:08 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> On 08/09/2018 01:46 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 08/09/2018 01:01 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 12:36:26 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>>>> On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >>>>>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem >>>>>>>> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably >>>>>>>> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about >>>>>>>> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing >>>>>>>> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL >>>>>>>> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... >>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes >>>>>>>> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness >>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen. >>>>>>> Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive >>>>>>> VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and >>>>>> safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering >>>>>> problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about >>>>>> physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and >>>>>> lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy. >>>>> >>>>> I thought the bulk of the weight in an orbital rocket was the fuel? That's the big problem with rockets, it takes a lot of fuel to get the fuel up to where the little bit of remaining fuel can get the satellite into orbit. >>>>> In other words, it's all about the fuel, fool! That's "fool" in the same sense as stupid in "keep it simple, stupid". Don't want anyone to think I am trying to insult you. >>>> >>>> If you had some kind of exotic material which was extremely lightweight >>>> and strong to build your rocket frame out of you could build a >>>> 1950s-style rocket that could go SSTO from the Earth's surface without >>>> too much trouble. You're correct the bulk of the weight would still be >>>> fuel. But AFAIK that material doesn't exist, about the best we can do >>>> currently are varieties of aluminum-lithium alloys. A structure made of >>>> that helps greatly but screws the physics just enough that SSTO with >>>> 1950s-style rockets made from conventional materials with conventional >>>> chemical rocket engines aren't possible. >>>> >>>> You could also try to lower the planet's g from 9.8 m/s^2 that would >>>> help a lot too, SSTO from the Moon's surface is trivial using 1950s >>>> technology. >>>> >>>> Only other way if all you have is conventional structural materials to >>>> work with to avoid staging is trying to optimize the engines in some way >>>> as compared to a big dumb booster, like air breathing engines part way >>>> or continuously variable engine bells that optimize their shape as >>>> atmospheric pressure decreases. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't know VTOL is inherently contradictory. It's more a matter of design goals. Will it be as efficient as a jumbo jet in fuel per passenger, maybe not. But when you factor in the huge inconvenience of transportation to and from airports it mitigates a lot. So what are the requirements? I know in DC many would pay extra to not have to go to the large airports. >>>>> >>>>> Rick C. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure just the inconvenience of taking a ground vehicle to the >>>> airport is enough of a motivating factor to invest $50 billion in this >>>> kind project, even for billionaires. Other countries might try improving >>>> city topology or improving public transit, spending megabucks to develop >>>> long-range VTOL air taxis and $68,000 self-driving cars are what we call >>>> "American-style" solutions to urban planning. >>>> >>>> In London there's an airport right in downtown, London City, the >>>> super-rich there can just have their driver take them there in the >>>> Bentley in 15 minutes and hop on an all-business-class A318 to NYC no >>>> problem >>> >>> You are funny. I like watching you joust with the strawmen you create. :) >>> >>> Rick C. >>> >> >> The HUGE INCONVENIENCE of sitting in a car for 30 min /eyeroll > > You obviously haven't driven someplace with bad traffic like DC. 30 years ago it took me nearly an hour to commute the 20 miles to my home. I have no idea what it is like now, I avoid DC like it has the plague, in some ways it does. > > Rick C. >Boston is well known for its logical street arrangement/urban planning and respectful, courteous drivers lol. No I don't drive myself to the airport this is true.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > <always.look@message.header> wrote: > >> I did not evaluate the unusual example... >> >> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >> >> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include >> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" >> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger >> compartment does not rotate. >> >> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" >> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available >> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of >> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The >> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of >> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the >> aircraft. >> >> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if >> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for >> short trips. >> >> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC >> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite >> Convergence. >> >> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just >> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a >> designer's fantasyland. >> >> > > And a good way to die. > >It's a designer's fantasyland for designers who like to fantasize. The reality of developing a successful product in that industry change you mind real quick. The ash heap of the past century is littered with companies small and large who were gonna make bank on the Next Big Thing in aviation and now in the Where Are They Now-file.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > <always.look@message.header> wrote: > >> I did not evaluate the unusual example... >> >> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >> >> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include >> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" >> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger >> compartment does not rotate. >> >> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" >> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available >> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of >> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The >> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of >> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the >> aircraft. >> >> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if >> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for >> short trips. >> >> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC >> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite >> Convergence. >> >> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just >> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a >> designer's fantasyland. >> >> > > And a good way to die. > >Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good idea at the time... <https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg>
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:>On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >> <always.look@message.header> wrote: >> >>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... >>> >>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >>> >>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include >>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" >>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger >>> compartment does not rotate. >>> >>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" >>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available >>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of >>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The >>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of >>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the >>> aircraft. >>> >>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if >>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for >>> short trips. >>> >>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC >>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite >>> Convergence. >>> >>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just >>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a >>> designer's fantasyland. >>> >>> >> >> And a good way to die. >> >> > >Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering >equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good >idea at the time... > ><https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg>Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
torsdag den 9. august 2018 kl. 22.36.19 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > > >On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > >> <always.look@message.header> wrote: > >> > >>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... > >>> > >>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > >>> > >>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include > >>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" > >>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger > >>> compartment does not rotate. > >>> > >>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" > >>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available > >>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of > >>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The > >>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of > >>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the > >>> aircraft. > >>> > >>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if > >>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for > >>> short trips. > >>> > >>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC > >>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite > >>> Convergence. > >>> > >>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just > >>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a > >>> designer's fantasyland. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> And a good way to die. > >> > >> > > > >Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering > >equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good > >idea at the time... > > > ><https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg> > > Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water?Sailing - The fine art of getting wet and becoming ill, while going nowhere slowly at great expense (equivalent to standing in a cold shower, fully clothed, throwing up, and tearing up $100 bills, while a bunch of other people watch you).
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 04:36 PM, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >> On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >>> <always.look@message.header> wrote: >>> >>>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... >>>> >>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >>>> >>>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include >>>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" >>>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger >>>> compartment does not rotate. >>>> >>>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" >>>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available >>>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of >>>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The >>>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of >>>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the >>>> aircraft. >>>> >>>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if >>>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for >>>> short trips. >>>> >>>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC >>>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite >>>> Convergence. >>>> >>>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just >>>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a >>>> designer's fantasyland. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> And a good way to die. >>> >>> >> >> Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering >> equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good >> idea at the time... >> >> <https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg> > > Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water? > >There are a number of small islands in Narragansett Bay where undeveloped real estate is still pretty cheap, not exactly Bahamas living or anything most of the year. I mentioned to my GF I might pick up some land there somewhere she asked how I would get there and I said "Helicopter" which she thought was absurd but compared to the time and expense of owning, mooring, figuring out what to do with it in the winter, etc. of a small powerboat I feel like a little ultralight helicopter wouldn't be a bad option. Probably safer too because you're not spending as much time "commuting" on the water. It's only about 3 miles of open water you have to cross
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > <always.look@message.header> wrote: > >> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem >> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably >> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about >> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing >> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL >> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). >> >> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... >> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >> >> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes >> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. >> > > Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness > machine. > > Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen. > Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky. > > Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive > VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes. > > >There's not much market for it at least among young people/millennials. millennials don't even buy that many cars much less aircraft. Younger Americans aren't as obsessed with personal transport as older ones are. America has twice as many people as it did 40 years ago, it continues its progression into the ideal of a right-wing authoritarian neoliberal state, there's nothing much to do, sprawl is everywhere, every endless subdivision looks more-or-less like any other, they have all the same chain stores selling the same things. Enormous police budgets mean law enforcement is constantly up your ass and there are cameras everywhere to make sure all citizens are promptly in bed at 9:30 PM. Admission to the beach parking lot just to go for a swim in the ocean is $35/day. Air is $5/lb. Can't even go to a mall to hang out in most of them have closed it's simplest to buy whatever you need from the state store (Amazon.com) I feel like average male Americans go through two major personal-transport-obsession phases once early in life as a child and then when approaching middle age. If my theory is correct I should start to desire vintage convertibles within a few years, I accept this possibility and will keep an eye out for such urges.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:42:43 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:> torsdag den 9. august 2018 kl. 22.36.19 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin: > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > > > > >On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > > >> <always.look@message.header> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... > > >>> > > >>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > > >>> > > >>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include > > >>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" > > >>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger > > >>> compartment does not rotate. > > >>> > > >>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" > > >>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available > > >>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of > > >>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The > > >>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of > > >>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the > > >>> aircraft. > > >>> > > >>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if > > >>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for > > >>> short trips. > > >>> > > >>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC > > >>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite > > >>> Convergence. > > >>> > > >>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just > > >>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a > > >>> designer's fantasyland. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> And a good way to die. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering > > >equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good > > >idea at the time... > > > > > ><https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg> > > > > Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water? > > Sailing - The fine art of getting wet and becoming ill, while going nowhere slowly at great expense (equivalent to standing in a cold shower, fully clothed, throwing up, and tearing up $100 bills, while a bunch of other people watch you).You are thinking of power boats. In a kayak you have to paddle as well! Rick C.
