Distributed Electric Propulsion

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Apollo, Jul 7, 2014.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 26, 2014 #81

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    The bomber in Captain America has most of the trailing edge covered by engines and it's not a bad looking design.
     
    Xanadrone and akwrencher like this.
  2. Jul 26, 2014 #82

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    My earlier posts being deleted disrupts any possibility to conduct a technical argument and the misrepresentation about water landing or something I did not say but could not subsequently defend derailed the very essence of the problem with 'fly in your own slipstream' design schemes of the kind involved here . There is a whole patent subsection dealing with this idea but no successful or even working examples.

    Norman's observation about the TRAILING edge multiple prop fictional design (sounds like a multi multi B 36 ) emphasizes the point about LEADING edge disturbance being so much more problematical --if you side slip something with multiple bulges along the leading edge you can expect wholesale flow separation and loss of lift and control whereas if on the trailing edge the main 'working' part of the wing has already done it's job (in fact 'corrugated' trailing edges do show some advantages and have been experimented with on rotor blades --imagine a corrugated iron shape with the humps and hollows being chordwise but without thickness )

    in order to develop lift you need three things (at least) Velocity of flow, Angle of attack, and Camber ( a flat plate will work somewhat but very poorly) these are indispensable . With a 'blow in your own face' system (propellers covering the leading edge ) you get velocity of flow but you don't get angle of attack - the propwash is directed pretty much straight aft from the prop disc regardless of the attitude of the whole aircraft --the prop develops a normal force if the flow comes in at an angle with will assist raising the nose for tractor props but the basic wing cannot achieve an angle of attack and therefore cannot achieve a high lift coefficient. Dropping trailing edge flaps can give aft camber and some angle of attack (but much less than that required to get a high Cl --the quoted figure of "5.5" implies both a very high camber and a high alpha ) -adding power to get more propwash velocity creates extra thrust faster than any slipstream enhanced lift and defeats the original aim of getting low speed. There are only two ways out of this dilemma --having tiltable propellers (nacelles) and/or artificially creating massively more drag to overcome the unwanted thrust. (this is presuming that the wing CAN have some sort of high lift flap system or variable camber etc -if it does there will be very high pitching moments created that must be opposed by some sort of commensurately powerful powered lift tail --and the torsion loads etc will also get to be an issue, whirl flutter on long thin wings will be another risk) A wing with dozens of separate TILTING leading edge propellers able to tilt down as the wing tilts up to create and angle of attack could develop high lift if 'held back' somehow to stop it accelerating. (and would need high lift devices to get anywhere near 5.5 -triple slotted flaps plus ) de Havilland Canada explored this basic approach in the 60s with a modified Otter which had two extra AFT facing propellers that created NEGATIVE thrust to 'anchor' the aircraft in effect so that the wing engines could be spooled up to create 'slipstream lift'

    they were wise enough to make a huge rolling framework to support the whole aircraft so that they could explore the 'finer' points of this scheme before writing off an aircraft and test pilots. They knew a thing or two about actually designing and building practical STOL aircraft and had tried things like drag chutes ,'clamshell' thrust reversers and several other seemingly feasible schemes before concluding that it was all a dead end (various other 'slipstream enhanced lift' schemes feature on the wheel of misfortune including several by Ryan and other experienced competent aero firms.

    adding in electric power does not change the basic physics of the wing system (but creating the 'anti thrust' will probably more than double the power consumption at low speed and further increase the entire aircraft complexity and failure modes multiply exponentially. Folding, tilting, individually controlled plus cross connected and interconnected to the 'braking' props is only the start of it (or the end....again )

    Rapidly pulling off power with powered lift is far worse than "just' the hazard of flying behind the power curve as in true STOL but when the props blanket the entire wing the result is a forgone conclusion (add in pilot failures to the failure tree -even if just ignoring the "20 seconds of power left" voice coming over the intercom. Pilots invent new failure modes that the best designer cannot forsee but a few years in a GA repair shop and FBO helps to guess some of them.
     
    BBerson likes this.
  3. Jul 26, 2014 #83

    Mark_Moore

    Mark_Moore

    Mark_Moore

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    A bunch of good questions...

    Concerning Oshksoh, no we won't be presenting. I would have liked to so that I could hear feedback from the pilot and sportplane community. Sometimes they think of things we haven't thought of. I will be present on Thur and Fri next week, as Airbus is sending out one of the key design people for the E-fan concept who will be presenting at the PADA dinner meeting (Corvette Theater of the Museum starting at 7:30 pm). I've really wanted to learn more about how they did the E-fan design, as it seems under powered (especially for the higher discloading ducted props they're using). Next year I'll make sure to sign up well ahead of time so that we can present our latest results and get some feedback.

    Concerning the design of the power management and energy supply system for redundancy. Honestly we haven't figured that out yet. This first year experiment will be brute forcing/inelegant wiring just to get to the initial test. Next year we'll design the more elegant solution for the flight demonstrator. Lots of degrees of freedom present to achieve redundancy and minimal impact of a failed system - this is one of the really cool attributes of distributed systems.

    Concerning the control - yes we want to 'eventually' exercise all the new degrees of control that are present to provide robust control. So many really cool experiments to perform to show what direct propulsion control can do (especially at low airspeeds when the propulsion control is maximized but the aerodynamic control is weakest). We will likely do these experiments progressively, where we have a fully mechanical system present, but can start to apply the digital propulsion control as an overlay to achieve different capabilities. But we need to prove out one thing at a time... but with this highly coupled solution, there are so many different experiments we want to conduct across acoustics, propulsion, aerodynamics, highlift, operations, control, aeroelastics...

    Concerning the overly opinionated Aircar dude. You bring up several interesting questions, but many of your conclusions are faulty and it will take too long to go through them all. So I wish you well, and encourage you to have more of a dialog about these interesting issues. If you want to stick to one subject and discuss - I'll be happy to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2014
  4. Jul 27, 2014 #84

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Compliments to you too Mark. "bluster"eh ? my dictionary defines this as to 'blow fiercely' amongst other things -- I would have thought that that applied to 'your' proposals with Joby actually. (when I say "your' I reiterate that the idea is as old as aviation almost and approaches the related idea of 'lifting yourself by your own bootstraps' or perpetual motion machines and other 'self contained' miracle machines that resurface from time to time. In an ideal world folding propellers never fail nor do the precise slots into which they fit ever get iced up ,the airplane is always flying into wind and never skids or slips and a million other things that do not take place in a wind tunnel or in CAD.

    If YOU get it wrong 300 million Americans are going to suffer the consequences Mark (and in reality billions of other Earthians - to borrow Buckminster Fuller's term - who in practice look to America as the leading technological nation to spearhead the future for the rest of mankind ) Going off on a misconception and using the immense resources (and prestige) of their entrusted aeronautical research organization to no avail thereby displacing any other possibility and consuming precious time- the most unforgiveable waste in the words of Henry Ford because it allows of no possible salvage unlike materials. IF there IS a way for those Americans (and the other 97% of humanity) to enjoy the benefits of flight and escape the rat race and jammed traffic on the roads and it is pompously rejected and completely misrepresented by those empowered,paid and entrusted uniquely to look after this area on their behalf then the cost to them is inestimable. If I get it wrong then I pay the price and it won't cost YOU anything to refute my facts or deductions --in fact this is the ideal forum for YOU to 'blow me away' with your far superior (as implied) understanding. That is what forums are supposed to be about and we have had numerous examples of people making claims here which were challenged and every opportunity to argue their case with facts. You have been protected in contrast - I have never asked for anyone else's writing to be expunged on this forum and stand to back up anything I have said. For whatever it may or may not be worth I will try to lodge a complaint about your behaviour towards me shown in the above post (on behalf of NASA I am taking it ) but CERTAINLY NOT to have it 'erased' in some sort of '1984' like fashion. I can defend my statements if not gagged or censored. Other readers here do not know the 'backstory' between us and the CAFE takeover or redirection of the PAV effort which is unfair to me .


    There have been a number of previous Joby CAD renderings of VTOL 'solutions' -some shown on this site, they have recapitulated the gamut of 'standard' VTOL schemes including tilt wing with props both above and below the wing (but not fully bathing the wing in those iterations nor solving the 'barn door' blow away problem when vertical or having any zero speed control in yaw or to counter gusts on the long isolated tail let alone ground effects and all the rest that damns these efforts. To present shiny CAD picturings together with rosy descriptions of how lovely it will be to float up and fly off carefree and with no 'side effects' is a standard technique in the VTOL promotional literature - Paul Moller is the master at such techniques and is also an honoured guest on TED and just about every magazine or news service and seldom if ever gets any critical 'feedback' . He is making a buck out of it which is a lot more than I can say for myself but I prefer some integrity even if being badmouthed for my trouble.

    I have not made one cent from airplane design in my country over 40 years -- I have had to do all sorts of somewhat demeaning occupations in comparison to being paid to speculate without consequences and not being accountable for the failure thereafter (the Centennial challenge debacle and the 'seven flags' scheme etc etc are just two small things that come to mind . Without knowing it I ended up retooling and building hearses for a company owned by the paramount Mafia boss in Australia and got beaten up and robbed with violence by a mob of his thugs complete with a low loader that carted off my molds tools, etc etc with corrupt police protection ,leaving me with a large debt --only now is there an investigation into this whole fetid slimy mess by the newly instituted IBAC (Independent Bureau Against Corruption ) -still untested . Googling Australian newspapers will show the facts for anyone who cares to bother. Anyway the salient point is that it is hardly a fair fight for me versus the combined might of NASA and government sponsored American 'competitors' like Joby (and the commercial ethics of the US govt backing American industry unfairly has already been played out at the World Trade Organization with a long running commercial dispute between Airbus Industrie and Boeing regarding unfair state support on both sides . My firm is called Aircar Industry in a tongue in cheek reference to Airbus, maybe sometime in the future I will have to defend my right to not have unfair competition .... -- but I have no funds of any kind from my government (who have taken my workshop built at Essendon airport and destroyed everything I then had almost 30 years ago. If I knew that the entire direction of the NASA effort and funding to US competitors via the SBIR scheme or otherwise was in fact going to be wasted (as it was) would it be to my advantage to say nothing and let it play out or to try, repeatedly, to STOP this waste and redirect it to a fertile direction instead ? You had better find another way to sort out your enemies from your friends Mark and how to behave towards them . A real friend will go out of their way to tell you what you NEED to hear rather than what you WANT to (mere flattery) -- I went 7000 miles out of my way quite a few years ago and spent,literally, my last dollar in the process . (last week I was invited to a Unitarian church concert and was able to attend only because as a 'senior' I get free rail travel on a Sunday --I was embarrassed to find out it was a fund raiser and I only had $4 . Another fact. )

    You have been 'combative' against others who have had the temerity to question your assertions and design wisdom in the past Mark --one example was on "the register" website --they take an interest in the flying car and personal air vehicle area . Turning a tin ear to valid critique is not the mark of a good scientist or an engineer.

    "NASA Flying Car engineer shoots down reg coverage" - at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/3/05/nasa_mark_moore_flame/ for anyone inclined to do some research.
     
  5. Jul 27, 2014 #85

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Regarding the issue of 'being overly opinionated' 'tired of knowing more than anyone else' and other insulting asides --the general trend being to denigrate any dissention and especially any threat to take the focus off the minutae of your particular embodiment of a generic VTOL scheme . ("move along ,nothing to see here" "off you go..") I started the thread about "What is wrong with VTOL -design philosophy" to TRY to get a bit more of a longview of the entire goal that is implicit in this thread's raison de etre' . It is so easy to lose sight and get submerged in the tiniest details otherwise and even easier to categorically dismiss any argument or fact that doesn't suit the proponent --resorting to personal abuse is an indication that something is not wanted to be examined perhaps.

    I have not claimed to "know more than anyone else" and find the charge insulting -- Mark Moore MAY be the arbiter of HOW MUCH "opinionation" is permissible and not "overly" as charged again but I do not concede him that right or expertise.

    There is no "standard" of competence or understanding on HBA and it ranges from kids with wild eyed fantasies but no grounding at all in experience or engineering (but who might in time turn into good engineers and in general they are encouraged or gently directed to a path that might lead them somewhere useful) to some with a lifetime of experience in aviation, possibly senior engineering positions in major aerospace companies and a masters doctorate besides (Orion might have come closest to this end of the scale) and every level in between . I guess I come somewhere in the middle of this notional range but if you examine my postings you will, I trust, always find that I am careful to append either and example from real life (that can be verified by googling or from documented sources) to back up any statement I have made that is claimed to be fact (eg in the above I end with the actuality of the DH Canada Twin Otter blown wing experiment --someone with a better internet connection is welcome to post that -directly relevant- piece of information on this thread (which might better be titled "Leading edge propellers blowing wing for V/STOL"- it is only secondary if those propellers are turned by electricity, IC engines or hamsters running in cages as to whether the entire basic principle is viable or not.

    I don't know that there is any "Ed Heinemann" (Douglas senior designer) equivalent or even a Burt Rutan or other class of aircraft designer of actual achievement who takes an interest in this forum --it seems not or if so they keep to themselves . Some have built kit or plans homebuilts and a few others have built and flown their own designs and fewer again have done so on anything of novel or advanced design . Mark chooses to single me out for his ridicule though (directly above this which is where it will be seen -and should stay) I have at least done something in this area and might have learnt a thing or two in the process but regardless of that I have stated that I have more than a passing or trivial interest in the aircraft design field and in the particular area of the personal 'utility' (ie useable and useful) aircraft --in fact everything I have is committed to it and has been for a very long time --but MAINLY I have stated that I made a fairly deep study of everything I could lay my hands on in the published literature on any aspect of aviation technology that seemed to be of possible value in this quest.

    That included going through and when required copying EVERY aviation technical journal from ,in some cases ,their inception to the present day -- this means that I have NOT concocted some 'authority' for myself as Mark imputes but rather drew upon the huge pool of accumulated know how and research that is (or was a few years ago) available in the engineering libraries of major universities, our state library and the library of our closest approximation to NASA in the DSTO (defence science and technology organization) where I worked for several years and spent my lunchtimes and spare time trawling the amassed technical literature (including every published NACA and NASA paper ). Apart from the hands on and own design experience in pursuing the same basic goal as is behind this thread (and Mark's NASA funded activities for many years) over 40 years -in your country and mine I also sought out the real pioneers in this field in the form of Molt Taylor,Dan Zuck and Luigi Pellarini (and by phone several others) --men who had been ignored and even spurned in their own countries by the younger generation who it seems are now doomed to remake the same mistakes in seeking the ideal personal aircraft.

    So it is by LISTENING to others (via the printed word in most of it) that I have gained any small understanding that I might have acquired in this field and by which I assume the right to speak (it might not have hurt that I duxed my school and did have some success as a competitive pilot and have done a few good things that worked engineering wise --but basically I have tried to listen and think through things in light of the bank of learning that is the heritage of mankind rather than resorting to bluster and personal position in an organization or so called celebrity . The "What is wrong with VTOL etc" thread is the appropriate place to carry on any overview of the basic premises behind this thread .
     
  6. Jul 27, 2014 #86

    Mark_Moore

    Mark_Moore

    Mark_Moore

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    Aircar - have we met before? I honestly have no idea who you are so you have me at a disadvantage. As I said, if you'll stick to a specific technical issue - I'll be happy to address it. But you have this tendency to ramble in strange conspiratorial tones - and it tends to make people not take you seriously (at least that is my perception). I tried to follow your link to me being flamed - I would have liked to see that. Actually it was just a case of a really stupid reporter who took what I said out of context because he knew what he wanted to write and didn't care about the facts. Also, what is this strange CAFE takeover - and do you think I had some part of this? I have nothing to do with CAFE whatsoever (and often disagree with them). So I tell you what, if you can just stick to a single technical issue in your posts, and not do the weird sidetracks - I'll be happy to discuss things with you and let's see the discussion goes.
     
  7. Jul 27, 2014 #87

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    I have no idea if this post will be expunged without warning as were the others I posted earlier (and have Holden's also been erased?) -you DO know that this WAS done on your behalf ,don't you ? ( I was cut off and unable to say anything in my defence on this forum without any warning )
    (I have a 'philosophical' objection to the destruction of any historical records and when the numbering of the posts seems to remove the evidence of that having occurred it is, literally, Orwellian (presuming you know of George Orwell's '1984' and the ministry of truth etc --that is not 'some conspiracy' that I just made up, Googling for the book and it's thesis will prove that. Incidentally, the Russian press is now being accused of "moderating" (their word -check again) the 'free' press there in regard to sanitizing reports about the real reason for the shooting down (sorry, "Downing") of the Malaysian airline flight MH 17 with quite a few Australian on board . Re writing and removing any reports or internet posts that contradict the party line or 'offend' someone in power DOES go on and IS going on NOW ( in Russia and China in particular) . There is no need to imply some conspiratorial angle to what I have written or to further discrediting myself --some conspiracies actually DO happen but using the 'hare brained conspiracy nut' card is nonetheless an almost certain winner .

    We have never met in person. Neither have I met Dennis Bushnel but I have exchanged emails with you and him (and Andy .... forget his surname for the moment -involved in the whole PAVE and Tailfan etc ) Denis was very helpful and in fact reposted me a few of the emails between us after my computer records were entirely wiped -- his despairing prediction that China might be the place that actually does take up and run with PAV production seems likely to come true sadly and you might well be the agent to bring that about ,albeit perhaps inadvertently. I have met Todd Hodges of course and knew a bit about him from our connection via Bryan Aircraft . I think he might have attended the 98 Oshkosh roadable forum and even maybe the 91 forum when I ran it after Molt Taylor was too ill to attend (he gave me a lift in 91 to John Roncz's place at South Bend Indiana en route to see Dick Schreder our old boss . Syd Siddiqui attended my 1991 forum along with a couple of other NASA guys who talked about the whole field and I tried to persuade them that ATOL (see a dictionary online ) ASSISTED Take Off and Landing was the only potentially viable route to get any economical and practicable mass useage air vehicle system.

    I felt that the entire field was going nowhere (even backwards) and summarized in my 91 talk what needed to be done to get it moving ahead -starting with a comprehensive compilation and review of all the work done in the roadable aircraft/flying car field and including the patent database . Mel Kosanchick was apparently in the audience then (as he relayed to me some years later by email) and took to heart this part of the program and some how funded Palmer Stiles to produce his book "Roadable aircraft -from wheels to wings' being a compendium of patents from the US patent office . I used to talk by public phone to Palmer regularly and we swapped arcane material he and I had gleaned and included in his book. I drove with Palmer after Oshkosh 1998 to his home in Melbourne Florida and was able with his permission and encouragement to review his enormous database and record a piece to camera as well

    post before it drops out, back then
     
  8. Jul 27, 2014 #88

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,542
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
  9. Jul 27, 2014 #89

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Aircar

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3,567
    Likes Received:
    367
    Location:
    Melbourne Australia
    Andy Hahn -just recalled (nice guy, apparently 're assigned' after the PAV program was terminated {"Were' going to Mars !!"}

    I also suggested that NASA SHOULD take the lead in researching the most promising avenues for getting a workable vehicle and moreover the electronic environment to allow it to happen without all the turgid ATC etc procedures that complicate the act of moving through the air today (that was 1991 - I had come over in 1990 to the west coast to see Molt Taylor and various others and to try to get SCALED to take up the flying car challenge -I have the business cards etc and a photo or two from then (me sitting in the ARES ) and supplied a few drawings and renderings by a Ford designer friend that they copied --also evidence of the exact Pond racer and Voyager configurations (and Beech starship) from decades earlier built as models or patents - Burt was almost pleased when I told him that it was Kurt Tank who had anticipated (patented earlier) his three point flap idea and showed him the German patent ditto for the others. Burt has been generally self deprecating about his degree of innovation or invention and had to downplay things credited to him that he knew otherwise --the major exception might be the actual origin of the Vari eze which was in fact derived from NASA's Dale Reed UAV "Super snooper/Mini sniffer" built by expat Australian Fred Jiran at Mojave - and he also supplied Burt with the knowhow and material sources etc as well as physically instructing him and building quite a bit of the prototype . the only reference to this fact,many years later was an anonymous brief mention of a glider repair guy that helped with the first Vari Eze 'just for food'. Fred Jiran was very helpful to me in locating materials in the US to build the prototype HP18 fuselage and I had only met him twice before -in Australia at a nearby gliding club and on my vacation in mid 1974 before Rutan returned to Mojave -- on my way back in early 1975 I get to see the Vari eze under construction during a few days staying with Fred and helped him with the Mini sniffer and F 15 spin models (getting a free tour of Edwards in the process ) I also renewed an aquaintance with NASA's Paul Bikle (through gliding) on that trip --one way or another NASA has crossed my path if not influenced it and ditto for America which at least gave me a chance to get involved in real aircraft design and construction that was outlawed in my own country . I had my 21st birthday at Oshkosh actually in 1974 . So I am very far from being an opponent of NASA or ill disposed to it or the US,far from it --but,as things are unfolding it is very likely that I will have no choice but to take my technology to China --the 'sensible' business decision (just ask Cessna..) but in this case one with potentially grave consequences . (maybe you know the story of a Jewish refugee who had some ridiculous idea that could 'end the war' and pestered US officials to even take a look --he had been laughed out of England before getting to the US already . He even went to Albert Einstein to see if he could find a way around all the pompous minor officials shutting doors in his face . The preeminent scientist of his day had ridiculed his work and called it 'moonshine' and respected scientists all agreed . His name was Leo Szilard and his crazy idea went on to become the Manhattan project and led to the atomic bomb. There are many old folk tales about not being disrespectful to seemingly worthless people you might come across lest they are in fact more than they seem.....

    Burt Rutan has been scathing about the waste and mismanagement he sees at NASA (or "Nay Sayers" as he openly refers to you guys ) and he declined (refused actually) to be involved in the NASA PAVE program. He did appear in 98 on the same forum with Bruce Holmes that was to launch the new initiative (the "Bruce and Burt show" referencing Sesame Street )--at that forum Bruce Holmes held up a little book and said that "this book is what inspired the NASA PAV program and new interest in flying cars" -the book was "An Airplane in Every Garage" by Dan Zuck . I almost cried; Dan had died only a couple of years before this (as had molt Taylor after also being cold shouldered by EAA ) -- I had sought a copy of that book since being told the title in 1976 after a lecture I gave on the design of the Opal --I had only a name (Tom Mulcahy) and the address "snake valley Victoria" -it is a real place. It was ten years later that I finally located the man and spoke to him about "the book" -he told me I could have it if I wanted it but would have to come to him to pick it up . Next morning I jumped on my motorbike and headed for snake valley --we had a tea and scones and I showed him my work with him confirming what he had said over the phone "that is in the book" time and again. Indeed it was -- albeit in different guises but fundamentally different from the 'mainstream' of other flying car thinking if a trickle could be called mainstream. I had to meet the author somehow but drew a blank in 1990 -in 1991 I came across a single piece of paper in the EAA Boeing library -the award of a Honeywell blind landing certificate to one Daniel Zuck --from that I tracked him down and spent a fabulous day (staying overnight in his den with pictures signed by Kelly Johnston on the walls. He even relented to show me the rusting remains of the Planemobile One in his backyard garage and gave me a 'new' copy of his book signed by him then and with a short line "utility will be aviation's future' and dated. The book may have 'inspired' NASA after his death but the fundamental concepts in it seem to have been somewhat overlooked (including the basic flaw in the slipstream bathed Freewing that formed the basis of his approach and resulted in his sticking warnings and disclaimers in later copies --all posted here on HBA long ago.

    In 1990 when I came across I had looked up Julian Wolkovitch and had studied his work for a few years prior -during our discussions I mentioned that I had "the book" to which he expressed astonishment having only heard of it but never seen it or knew anyone who had one (this was all after I had 'passed' his grilling procedure to decide if he would even spend time with you ) when I said I had 'the book' right here in my backpack he was incredulous and immediately called in Barnaby Wainfan and together they poured over it like a Gutenberg bible and exchanged hushed comments over many of the diagrams --so much like this or that patent etc.

    I still did not know how to contact Dan Zuck but he was alive and living at the same address as in the 1958 book (only a stone's throw from Julian's office ) --it was next year that I stumbled upon the phone number and got in touch. Julian offered me a job to build prototypes for him on the spot (and like my flying model joined wings amongst other configurations including the very low aspect ratio "Zimmerman' types that caught Barnaby's eye and got him telling me about his 'geodesic airplane' under construction. Sadly Julian Wolkovitch died from cancer only a few months later -there was no indication he was at all ill ( I only heard it by rumour and a telephone that didn't answer) People and unwanted ideas have a habit of passing away and taking with them everything that might have been and that reinforces the fragility of knowledge and what it's loss (or deliberate destruction in the worst case) can do -- we could have been on the Moon hundreds of years before we did and who can say what else might have been achieved if the Chinese had not burnt their fleet and withdrawn from a backward, by their standards, world and left it to the dark ages and all the rest ? (something Arthur C Clarke could not forgive them for ) The abortive or stillborn or just failed NASA PAV program and the reasons for it ending in that manner are absolutely central to my present 'disquiet' and the guts of this 'exchange' --the consequences for another misfire might take a further generation to pass before it can be looked at again -that is how it goes with such things once crushed or deflated (think of the almost revolution of Tiananmen square )

    Perhaps you do forget - I was put onto you by someone in NASA after I had written to propose an international flying car contest to be administered by EAA and technically run by NASA ( I have my letters to Molt Taylor seeing if he would be a patron or even a judge but he wanted to compete!) -- Jack Cox told me how he was pestered by Molt Taylor about flying cars and I put in a good word for both Molt and the field with him (just before Oshkosh 91 he did publish a good story on the Aerocar ...) when I saw Molt in 1990 and subsequently went to the museum of flight in Seattle and viewed the Aerocar 3 exhibit I had 'hung around' the exhibit to overhear people's comments on it and many thought it was just a film prop and hadn't really flown (!) I spoke to Molt by phone shortly before I had to get back to LA to catch my flight back and implored him to produce a video using the TV clips and stuff he had shown me so that people could get a real idea of his work and that might be the best way to get backing for his Honda CRX version . Lo and behold but in 1991 there was the video of his life'swork and I played it for the first time at the forum tent standing in for him in effect.

    How this field is 'handled' here and now might well determine to a not inconsiderable extent as to whether the future IS something recognizably like the "Jetson's" future or even some apocalyptic dystopia such as is all the rage in the current pessimistic zeitgeist- and you, Mark Moore, of all the other Americans probably have the most capability to influence which outcome actually comes to be -- that is why I have 'wasted' all this time on my reply. It was you who told me that NASA had handed over the flying car work to Brian Seeley and CAFE and I subsequently spent a lot of time trying to help them in running a successful flying car contest including stuff about the Europa Rundflug and other competitions and whatever I could offer ( I would rather somebody else did in fact take over the organization and running and besides it was still ILLEGAL in my country to even build a stckstandard homebuilt without FULL FAR 23 certification --and would be for nearly another decade . I also turned down the offer of taking over Roadable Times and tried to get Branko Sahr or Palmer stiles to fo it being far better placed than me -- I introduced JohnBrown of Carplane GMBH to Palmer actually and he did take over Roadable times but has not kept it up - I built his presentation models for Aero 2011 at cost also of his twin fuselage flying car (and told him about Burt Rutan's BiPod of very similar layout and very much like one of my discarded concepts shown to SCALED and Burt in 1990 (see my sidecar pix on HBA...)

    Single individuals have the capacity to change the way this entire field develops -or dies out -and ,despite those who deny that any obscure forum like HBA could possibly have anything to offer I still maintain that it is worth trying by logic and reasoned persuasion to try. I just have. Must go and hope this is not lost.
     
  10. Jul 27, 2014 #90

    Mark_Moore

    Mark_Moore

    Mark_Moore

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    Aircar - since you know my name, why don't you tell me yours? I'd like to go back and see our prior discussions. Almost all that you have been saying is completely off topic, and quite inaccurate - I've worked at NASA 30 years and led the efforts that you're discussing and you simply don't understand what actually transpired. This discussion thread is about Distributed Electric Propulsion, if you have questions that you'd like to discuss, I've made myself available so that others can also better understand what we're researching. I have no role in deleting your posts, but honestly, they don't belong on this thread - they're a distraction that takes away from the technical discussion that our host is providing to us for the benefit of others.
     
    Xanadrone, Apollo and akwrencher like this.
  11. Jul 28, 2014 #91

    Xanadrone

    Xanadrone

    Xanadrone

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Bucharest Romania
    I fully agree - Daniel Simon is a monster of creativity, even if his designs are not always targeted on the utilitarian side (btw, I talked with him shortly years ago, when he was junior designer at Audi and he's also a funny guy.)

    Getting back now to DEP, I also agree that some inputs are offtopic, despite the valuable information (not only from the historical point of vue) brought to us by Aircar.
    In the mean time, I'm still trying to conceive the most economical DEP HB-microlight possible - a practical task that should be pursuited perhaps more focused by some of us, simultaneously taking advantage of the main design points already tested by Mark Moore's team.
     
  12. Jul 30, 2014 #92

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,213
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Regarding Distributed Electric Propulsion:
    I am at Oshkosh now. Just attended Dean Siglers "Electric Flight Now" forum talk.
    Dean showed a DEP called Edgeley Optimist with 16 electric model motors on the leading edge. The motors were mounted below the leading edge, and I think this is important after reading Aircar's comment about flow problems from yawed flight that may cause up surface stall.

    off topic from Oshkosh:
    The NASA WB-57F flew over and landed is on display, see below.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Aug 17, 2014 #93

    Holden

    Holden

    Holden

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    USA
    On page 13 of the attachment it has a graph showing fuel price comparisons. The blue line is the cost of electricity... at about $1/gallon vs auto gasoline (without road tax) at around $3.

    Question 1: Where does one find electricity at such a low rate? If you take 33 kw-hr/gallon that is $1/33 = $0.03 /kw-hr. Nation wide average is nearly $0.14/kw-hr for residential.

    Question 2: Would airplanes get cheap electricity by 1/4 or less the retail cost?

    Question 3: Would I have a special meter at my house for plugging in the airplane? At the airport too? Would the government subsidize the difference via the special meter so as to promote electric airplane use?

    I know coal is around $14/ton at about 10.5 lbs/gallon or about$0.0736/gallon. Assume 30% and you get $.2456/gallon at 100%. Mark it up by 4x and you get $1/gallon, so the figure quoted is about right, but retail is over 4x (12-14 cent/kw-hr) or about $4/gallon.

    Question 4: If you take the base twin p2006t and remove the wing and add in the new electric wing, how do I get to 10 times costs? Can you show the math please? (I believe it is possible, just want to know the assumptions).

    Question 5: What percentage is wing and engine drag and what is the fuselage and tail? I noticed 80 hp true for the electric wing vs 135 hp for the larger twin version. Where does the drag loss come from with the 150 sft wing vs the 55 sft wing?

    Holden
     
  14. Aug 18, 2014 #94

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,975
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I've been to several stores and can't find anyone that sells electricity by the gallon, though one store offered to sell me a bag of yellow electrons. :gig:
     
  15. Aug 18, 2014 #95

    Norman

    Norman

    Norman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    Grand Junction, Colorado
    Watch out, Bruce, those were counterfeit electrons. The real thing is bronze colored and they keep it in a freezer:

    [video=youtube_share;tYjQXjUUvwY]http://youtu.be/tYjQXjUUvwY[/video]
     
    bmcj likes this.
  16. Aug 18, 2014 #96

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    459
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    -any news in RTOL project?
     
  17. Aug 19, 2014 #97

    Holden

    Holden

    Holden

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    USA
    Henry,

    This thread got me thinking and I changed a lot of the design. Much better than before. Very different than what the NASA guy proposes however.

    Holden
     
    henryk likes this.
  18. Aug 19, 2014 #98

    Holden

    Holden

    Holden

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    USA
    BMCJ,

    Gallon of electrons...:roll:

    factor 3412 BTU/kw-hr. Decide what a gallon of gasoline is ... 115,000 BTU (high heat ... non condensing) or 125,000 (1/8 of decatherm) (low heating value...to ambient temp condensed vapor). 115,000/3412=33.7 kw-hr.... or 125,000/3412 = 36.6 kw-hr. I think GM uses the 33.7 value if I recall right, because an engine efficiency is only to the point of 212 F and not down to ambient in the value of the heat. There is a 8.7% difference. IC engines cannot use the 212F-ambient (72F). Make sense?



    Holden
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2014
  19. Aug 19, 2014 #99

    henryk

    henryk

    henryk

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    4,736
    Likes Received:
    459
    Location:
    krakow,poland
    -you are right,
    aspatially hybrid like solutions...+fotovoltaic loader\airvehicule is staying long time in sunschine!=fotofoils have yet 33% efficiancy !!!\
     
  20. Aug 19, 2014 #100

    Holden

    Holden

    Holden

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    USA
    Henry,

    I am not using electric motors...
     

Share This Page



arrow_white