On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:> 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 VineyardYeah, that's the ticket. Flying is not so easy. That's why you have to have training and must pass flying tests to get a license. Even if they make personal VTOL planes, not so many will be able or willing to get a license. You also won't be allowed to land it in your town house parking lot. As usual many here go off in hysterics about a new idea. 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
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-4, 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. > > 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.You mean your personal aircraft carrier with steam catapults and landing hooks and nets? Rick C.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 9:14:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:> 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?Everything in engineering is a compromise. Even fixed wing aircraft are compromises. Ideally they would be like a house with wings, but we have to compromise on spaciousness and form factor to make to move through the air without excessive resistance. VTOL flys more efficiently and faster than rotating aircraft with the same advantages. At that point there is clearly a domain of problems it is well suited to solve.> 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.)and yet has the advantages of both. Rick C.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 09:22 PM, John Doe wrote:> Go play on a highway. >Oh my mistake I guess I thought you were actually planning on designing something. Tell that to the VC guys when they offer up mild criticism, they like that.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 9:43:16 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:> 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.I would love to see some details of how the wings are attached so they can both pivot 90 degrees and rotate around the body. That has to be one hell of a design. I recall Boeing was looking at a swept wing design at one point, possibly for their supersonic plane. They found the pivot would need to weigh nearly as much as the wing making it impractical, so the swept wing was scrapped. Rick C.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 09:56 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 9:14:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> 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? > > Everything in engineering is a compromise. Even fixed wing aircraft are compromises. Ideally they would be like a house with wings, but we have to compromise on spaciousness and form factor to make to move through the air without excessive resistance. > > VTOL flys more efficiently and faster than rotating aircraft with the same advantages. At that point there is clearly a domain of problems it is well suited to solve. > > >> 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.) > > and yet has the advantages of both. > > Rick C. >I guess I was hoping for "John Doe" to engage in honest discussion or at least describe like, the characteristics of what it is he actually would like to build/exist in clear terms that could be discussed. I still have no idea. It should be "large drone" but also carrying cargo isn't one of the requirements? ????? Unfortunately judging by the way he textually falls to pieces at the slightest critique or disagreement I'm guessing I'm going to be disappointed
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:42:38 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> 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).As my friend Judy says, why eat cheesecake when I can apply it directly to my thighs? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 09:49 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >> 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 > > Yeah, that's the ticket. Flying is not so easy. That's why you have to have training and must pass flying tests to get a license. Even if they make personal VTOL planes, not so many will be able or willing to get a license. You also won't be allowed to land it in your town house parking lot.Over time (taking the optimistic position technological civilization does have some time left) there'll probably be a confluence of self-driving car technology and VTOL drone technology such that private citizens will be able to have a lil Jetsons drone-pod that can whisk them around over ranges of say dozens of miles in comfort and safety under autonomous control, every pod will know where every other pod is and bumping into things will be unlikely. It sounds more like 2040-2070 tech than 2018. Don't think we quite have the knowledge or skills to do this right yet. GM tried building a commercial EV in the late 90s, it was okay but the tech wasn't really there to make it practical then either.> As usual many here go off in hysterics about a new idea. > > Rick C. >Personal air transport for non-professionals/flying cars isn't really a new idea it's probably almost as old as aviation. Many have tried and many have failed.
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:> On 08/09/2018 09:49 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > >> 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 > > > > Yeah, that's the ticket. Flying is not so easy. That's why you have to have training and must pass flying tests to get a license. Even if they make personal VTOL planes, not so many will be able or willing to get a license. You also won't be allowed to land it in your town house parking lot. > > Over time (taking the optimistic position technological civilization > does have some time left) there'll probably be a confluence of > self-driving car technology and VTOL drone technology such that private > citizens will be able to have a lil Jetsons drone-pod that can whisk > them around over ranges of say dozens of miles in comfort and safety > under autonomous control, every pod will know where every other pod is > and bumping into things will be unlikely. > > It sounds more like 2040-2070 tech than 2018. Don't think we quite have > the knowledge or skills to do this right yet. GM tried building a > commercial EV in the late 90s, it was okay but the tech wasn't really > there to make it practical then either.I never heard that the GM EV wasn't good enough. Maybe the batteries didn't have the range, but we have solved that problem now. Some engineers are good at solving problems. Others like to say "it can't be done"!> > As usual many here go off in hysterics about a new idea. > > > > Rick C. > > > > Personal air transport for non-professionals/flying cars isn't really a > new idea it's probably almost as old as aviation. Many have tried and > many have failed.Yeah, same with the lightbulb until Edison found the right material. What's your point? Rick C.
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in news:yZ4bD.31829$1E6.11779@fx07.iad:> It probably tops out at a couple hundred feet deep, in fair weather it > mostly resembles a pond.From the debris they found, they said they think they hit the water at over 300 knots and perpendicular to the water. The entire plane disintegrated on impact. Finding remains was difficult.
