On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:> 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 crossDidn't Kennedy die there? Rick C.
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
fredag den 10. august 2018 kl. 01.24.16 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: > > 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 > > Didn't Kennedy die there? >Jr. crashed his plane on the way to Marthas Vineyard
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 07:24 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> 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 > > Didn't Kennedy die there? > > Rick C. >That was over open ocean off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, I believe. That area is treacherous sadly ships and aircraft have been lost there routinely for hundreds of years. IIRC overconfidence on his part as a pilot they left late and he flew into dark and overcast conditions when he wasn't IFR-trained. Narragansett bay is this area of southern Rhode Island and MA: <https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0764/6941/products/Narragansett-Bay-2015_1024x1024.jpg?v=1521533416> It probably tops out at a couple hundred feet deep, in fair weather it mostly resembles a pond. <https://ssl.cdn-redfin.com/photo/116/mbpaddedwide/211/genMid.1186211_0.jpg>
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 07:24 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> 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 > > Didn't Kennedy die there? > > Rick C. >Fox Point Marina at the southern tip of Providence, RI, about a mile from Brown University (and HP Lovecraft's birthplace, too): <https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=IMG_20180729_183000819_HDR.jpg>
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> 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. > > 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.Depending on distance traveled... It will be more efficient, faster, and less hazardous than a helicopter or a multi-rotor. The inefficiency comes from the vertical movement of takeoff and landing. But that is temporary. There are other possibilities, involving ultralight aircraft. Possible solutions, besides building the vertical-to-horizontal capability into the aircraft, include a platform for launching and landing.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 08:52 PM, John Doe wrote:> gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > >> 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. >> >> 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. > > Depending on distance traveled... It will be more efficient, faster, and > less hazardous than a helicopter or a multi-rotor.All VTOL aircraft so far have been exercises in compromise, there's no known way to build such an aircraft with all the advantages of rotary aircraft plus the speed and efficiency of a fixed-wing aircraft. Remind me of what your gimmick is again that makes your concept have different rules? And at least so far there also haven't been any aircraft of that type which could be described as safer than a conventional plane or helicopter, AFAIK pilots have described them all as "unforgiving" at best.> The inefficiency comes from the vertical movement of takeoff and > landing. But that is temporary.The inefficiency primarily comes from the fact that to VTOL you want your thrust vectored up and down. For efficient cruising you want your thrust vectored 90 degrees to that. So at least naively your options are either to build an aircraft with two sets of thrusters pointed different directions which adds weight, cost, complexity, and inefficiency. Or to build one that has a single thruster set that rotates which also adds all the above (likely in some other proportion.)> There are other possibilities, involving ultralight aircraft. > > Possible solutions, besides building the vertical-to-horizontal > capability into the aircraft, include a platform for launching and > landing. >
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
<698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org> wrote:> John Doe came:>>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. > > There is Airbus vahana. It did make a test flight, and is still in > development. Google > 'airbus vahana' > > Quadcopter idea, but wings with engines go horizontal after > takeoff to get lift.That is the idea. Ideally it would be able to soar for some distance if motor failure, like a plane.> There is also a guy on youtube who build and flies his own > quadcoper, or now it is multi-rotor IIRC... followed that for a > while, but dangerous...For transportation, it should have more than four motors. But for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, fewer motors might work. The risk is very short duration, and a parachute in the tip of the aircraft might be usable. There is also the possibility of launchpads.> But for personal transport gyrocopters exists. Those can actually > travel some distance, are cheap, also come as a kit... You will > need flying lessons, same as driving lessons for a car. But.. > would not want it flying over my head with home build engines and > all sorts of experiments.Personal helicopters look great, but... For short trips, a helicopter might be ideal except for lack of safety. How can you add a parachute to a helicopter? You can't soar, so you are coming straight down if anything fails.> And then.. there is the hot air balloon, you need the right wind. > One was flying past my house very low altitude, some years ago, > toward the sea at high speed, had to make an emergency landing in > some field, thing damaged. At first I though he was heading for > one of the islands here, but did read later he was totally out of > control. Once at sea they would have been dead.You are missing powered paragliding and powered hang gliding.> Been thinking of buying a gyrocopter... just for fun, many other > interest. Sailboat is mure useful, ocean levels will rise faster > and faster, Noah's ark.. No fuel, maybe solar... electric motor. > ;-) > > >
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
Go play on a highway. -- bitrex <user example.net> wrote:> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder4.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail > Subject: Re: OT: Personal aircraft, vertical takeoff and landing > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > References: <pkgdn7$ekj$1 dont-email.me> <dkoomd5ua8fqi5g0ljlkdplaqeofo8obr1 4ax.com> <94_aD.23325$m27.1021 fx10.iad> <187bf8ac-d740-45d9-9473-e1f97ae5a77d googlegroups.com> <pkinke$2qs$1 dont-email.me> > From: bitrex <user example.net> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > In-Reply-To: <pkinke$2qs$1 dont-email.me> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 52 > Message-ID: <sF5bD.46113$9q3.22715 fx34.iad> > X-Complaints-To: abuse frugalusenet.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 01:14:00 UTC > Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com > Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 21:13:59 -0400 > X-Received-Bytes: 3429 > X-Received-Body-CRC: 1774009367 > X-Original-Bytes: 3246 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:520050 > > On 08/09/2018 08:52 PM, John Doe wrote: >> gnuarm.deletethisbit gmail.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >> >> Depending on distance traveled... It will be more efficient, faster, and >> less hazardous than a helicopter or a multi-rotor. > > All VTOL aircraft so far have been exercises in compromise, there's no > known way to build such an aircraft with all the advantages of rotary > aircraft plus the speed and efficiency of a fixed-wing aircraft. Remind > me of what your gimmick is again that makes your concept have different > rules? > > And at least so far there also haven't been any aircraft of that type > which could be described as safer than a conventional plane or > helicopter, AFAIK pilots have described them all as "unforgiving" at best. > >> The inefficiency comes from the vertical movement of takeoff and >> landing. But that is temporary. > > The inefficiency primarily comes from the fact that to VTOL you want > your thrust vectored up and down. For efficient cruising you want your > thrust vectored 90 degrees to that. So at least naively your options are > either to build an aircraft with two sets of thrusters pointed different > directions which adds weight, cost, complexity, and inefficiency. Or to > build one that has a single thruster set that rotates which also adds > all the above (likely in some other proportion.) > > >> There are other possibilities, involving ultralight aircraft. >> >> Possible solutions, besides building the vertical-to-horizontal >> capability into the aircraft, include a platform for launching and >> landing. >> > > > >
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> wrote:> 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 ...It might be inconvenient for some pilots. Electronics will take care of the risk. The world is changing very quickly.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> John Doe 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. > > Doesn't matter. Didn't you watch the video? The transition > consists of a free fall while pointing up followed by a transition > of the propulsion. That would be an E ticket ride at Disneyland. > Many will find it very upsetting.No, I didn't watch the video. I just ran across it when doing an immediate search for the subject. After watching the video... I can imagine the transition from takeoff to normal flight being objectionable to a geezer. Don't use it as a medevac. Still a very interesting design. Would be great to see an RC model on sale, tested and the videos uploaded to YouTube.
