Commercially Viable Electric Aircraft

[Shotgun]

Please forgive me as I know not of what I speak.
Do they drop like a rock or can you drift down like a kite?

@wrat is doing a good job, but I'd like to add that ultralights tend to fly low.

It is counter-intuitive to non-pilots, but altitude is safety. When the big fan gets quiet, altitude gives you a higher perch to pick a better spot to glide to, and more glide time to get there (more spots are available). ULs are often flown at nearly treetop level. They are slow (by FAA decree), so often pilots stay low to avoid the wind, or just feel the speed. When low, you have precious seconds to make a life or death decision.

I was at 7200' when my engine quit the first time. I fly a light sport plane. I tried to make the airport, then a highway, but ended up in a chicken farmer's field. I had time to make three different decisions.

 

[matthewsx]

Joby is just up the road from me, I have a neighbor who's in HR there.

My dad was a private pilot and homebuilder, some of my best memories are running the radios for him while he worked on his instrument rating

John

 

[rwm]

Yes that was an unmanned flight. I think that underscores the future of aviation. Distant future perhaps? I thought people here would be interested in the VTOL with the fixed Wing flight. I probably should not have put the word commercial in the title. I meant commercial in the sense that I think you could sell those. That's the longest range I have seen..
Robert

 

[C-Bag]

Yes that was an unmanned flight. I think that underscores the future of aviation

I think we’re seeing the confluence of tech that has been promised since the 50’s. We were all supposed to have flying cars long before now. But by what happened with UL industry you can see how it can all go horribly wrong. So they had to perfect autonomous control, driving and flying because people can’t even pay attention enough to drive much less fly! Can you even imagine the mayhem if the maroons that I encounter daily on the streets were given control over a flying vehicle? I see people acting like they are the only one on the road or they are playing a video game almost every time I go into town. And I live in a rural area and the town I live in only has 14,000 people.

So really the OP was not flying as I think where it’s my plane and I’m the one flying it, it’s an autonomous taxi. This is what I’m seeing being pushed on YT as future tech.

And in reference to previous discussions the taxi had more like aerodynamic pylons to hold the motors than wings. I would bet dollars to donuts a brick had a better glide than that quad copter.

 

[wrat]

Yes that was an unmanned flight. I think that underscores the future of aviation. Distant future perhaps? I thought people here would be interested in the VTOL with the fixed Wing flight. I probably should not have put the word commercial in the title. I meant commercial in the sense that I think you could sell those. That's the longest range I have seen..
Robert

You didn't say anything wrong or even particularly misleading. Hey, you were passing on what THEY were saying, right? So no harm.
"Commercial" is an important term. To humans, it means I can sell it and make a buck. Maybe take that buck and make more. It has to be "commercially viable" to make something like this at all, elsewise it's a hobby guy with a cool toy.
So investors are sought and money flows and it gets slicker and more technical. Bang the drum; gather round; sell the product.
Now, if we were making pool floats or horse liniment, that'd be great. We'd all make a buck. But enter now the FAA: a bureaucracy of incomprehensible heft and girth.
They say if you want to sell it as a flying machine, it has to meet certain standards. Lengthy, changing, sometimes insane, standards. You have to meet them and every unit you sell has to meet them. This knocks out most manufacturers and, I believe, will inherently cripple electric flight until changes are made.
You can sell parts. You can sell kits. You can sell partially built kits. The FAA will be the first to pontificate about what they can't regulate you selling. But if you go that route, your customers can never, not ever, make a dime in the flying of these planes -- after they gain FAA approval, each one. Never passengers for hire and darned few passengers at all. No profits means no business model. Back to boys with toys.
We are not even taking baby steps with the FAA, yet. These vehicles, as spiff as the seem, as so incredibly far from Certification it's only a distant dream. Like Ol' Zeke crossing the prairie in a wagon dreamed of a smooth road he could walk on. In that analogy, unmanned electric flight is your cruise-control on an interstate. Yes, that's how far away it is under the current system. At least that's my crystal ball. But I'm a really lousy salesman.
These has been going on for decades. Only with the internet can it by hyped like has been. Used to be things like this would die ignominiously. We're entering a time when the hype will contain more and more messages of "we're almost finished! we're only awaiting FAA approval!" This is a sure sign of a scam and possible desperation.
Maybe I'm jaded. Seen it many times. And I hope someone will prove me wrong, someday. I'll certainly tip my hat to such pioneers if they do.

 

[Shotgun]

@wrat, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm expecting delivery of my Moller SkyCar "any day now".

Now, with the sarcasm off. I'm going to disagree slightly on your prairie crossing analogy. All Ol' Zeke would have had to do is lay some asphalt across the prairie in order to have a road. Today, he would have to spend years doing environmental impact studies, determine the impact on "marginalized indigenous populations", negotiated with multiple unions, develop a tracking system to prove the origin of each ingredient in the asphalt, and then make sure that the asphalt met arbitrary standards designed to protect current players in what an arbitrary government agency feels is the market.

For example, what is the scientific reason for limiting the weight of an ultralight to 254lbs? My understanding is that there was a big player in the market at the time whose product weighed about that much, and wanted to push competitors that weighed slightly more out.

Another example is the upper speed limit for the LSA category. It is a regulation that actually DECREASES safety. A maximum stall speed makes all the sense in the world. A slower landing speed is safer. But, if I could design a plane that stalled at 10mph, yet cruised at 200mph, it would be a technological marvel allowing less time in cruise, so less time for things to go wrong. Once you're more than a couple thousand feet above the ground, 200 doesn't feel much different than 100. But, there is a large number of existing players that the FAA is interested in protecting, so they set up silly, counter-productive, market choking rules.

What I'm saying is that these new players don't have to just develop the technology. The have to navigate a thick morass of self-interested, embedded players that have regulatory power to keep them out, or even to smother them in their infancy.

With that, I'm now interested in an electric powered ultra-light that I can keep at home and fly out of "random big field" when I have a hankering to cruise around. I'm tired of the maintenance on my 601XL.

 

[C-Bag]

I'm now interested in an electric powered ultra-light that I can keep at home and fly out of "random big field" when I have a hankering to cruise around. I'm tired of the maintenance on my 601XL.

This is what I’ve always been interested in. I have my truck and my trike for local biz. I see the UL analogous to a bike to a car, but for flying. Flying for the joy of it. I can see some thinking it’s not safe but if it’s of sound design and you are properly trained I don’t see it as any more hazardous than any other small aircraft.

As I was getting out of A&P school the locals were all into the Bert Rutan designs. The one I loved the most was the Quickie. It was like an X-wing fighter. The fiberglass over structural foam design was really driven home to me when two local guys who had built them and were doing the local time for certification and one ran it into a mountain.

They were flying in some in kind of formation and they were coming upon the small mountain behind the airfield. The lead guy was wanting to pull up but couldn’t see his buddy and was trying to look for him when he looked up and there was the side of the mountain. He had just enough time to chop the throttle and haul back on the stick. His airspeed indicator was stuck at 100mph, a little below cruise speed when they found it. It rolled up the side of the mountain shedding the wings, engine, canopy and tail leaving just basically the cockpit. He walked away with minor scratches. His buddy who was behind him and saw the whole thing was sure he was dead. And like I overheard him say later if he’d been in a typical aluminum aircraft he would have been dead because they typically shred into a million razor blades.

 

[wrat]

@wrat, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm expecting delivery of my Moller SkyCar "any day now".

Now, with the sarcasm off. I'm going to disagree slightly on your prairie crossing analogy. All Ol' Zeke would have had to do is lay some asphalt across the prairie in order to have a road.

Ol' Zeke would have to first discover crude oil (1860 - twenty to fifty years later); he would have to invent refining (for the asphalt); and he would have to invent the internal combustion engine - ever seen an asphalt road built without one? That's about where electric flight is, IMO.
I wanna ride in your Sky Car, man. We're buds, remember. I'll buy you a pizza

For example, what is the scientific reason for limiting the weight of an ultralight to 254lbs? My understanding is that there was a big player in the market at the time whose product weighed about that much, and wanted to push competitors that weighed slightly more out.

254lb = 115kg. It was very trendy at the time for gov't workers to think in metric system but technically unsavory to use large round numbers (100). No idea what "big player" had anything anywhere near that light, but hey, i mighta missed it. Much more likely is that to get the required huge number of bureaucrats to sign off on it, it had to appear to be difficult if not impossible - which is nearly was for the time. Remember, this happened on the heels of the FCC giving up trying to enforce CB radios. The FAA was in the same position with kits like Easy Riser, etc. exploding in sales which meant multiple inspections (pre-covering, post-covering) and certs which was the same as asking a bureaucrat to <gasp!> work!

Another example is the upper speed limit for the LSA category.

You're right, of course.
I was tangentially involved in some of that. Again, my perception is that the obstacles were the committees. And make no mistake, these stupid rules are the product of committees -- where none of us are as stupid as all of us.
The EAA had it all worked out, but the FAA couldn't just accept THAT. After all, if they accepted it, how could they justify their jobs?
You also gotta remember that investigations are double-edge swords. Sure, they find out who/what was at fault, but they also then dig into their own organization and find out who signed off on what. So ever mph of extra speed or pound of allowed weight is a bureaucrat taking more of a risk - which is only slightly less harrowing than asking one to work.

What I'm saying is that these new players don't have to just develop the technology. The have to navigate a thick morass of self-interested, embedded players that have regulatory power to keep them out, or even to smother them in their infancy.

Sure. Agreed. Bureaucracy hurts everyone, but by mysterious coincidence it seems to hurt the embedded player... less.
Here's one: why isn't there thousands upon thousands of diesel fixed wing aircraft flying, especially in the 3rd world where diesel is available? Many big names worked with "compressive ignition" engines (using the word 'diesel' seemed to agitate the regulators). Never really got anywhere to speak of. Last i checked, no engine had been certified.
IMO, it was exactly a combination of just what you say.

With that, I'm now interested in an electric powered ultra-light that I can keep at home and fly out of "random big field" when I have a hankering to cruise around. I'm tired of the maintenance on my 601XL.

I am too, but playing 'wait and see'. Electric fan sounds like it might be fun.
But I've already abandoned the Part 103 stuff and just go Exp, now. I know people (inspectors, DAR, etc.) these days to do the sign-offs and am a better Engineer than most of the FAA staff, so haven't gotten pushback in a long time. One guy told me he actually enjoyed it, seeing someone with full stress workups and aero specs. Whatever. They love their paperwork. Love it.

 

[wrat]

I should leave this alone, but just gotta touch this, sorry...

This is what I’ve always been interested in. I have my truck and my trike for local biz. I see the UL analogous to a bike to a car, but for flying. Flying for the joy of it. I can see some thinking it’s not safe but if it’s of sound design and you are properly trained I don’t see it as any more hazardous than any other small aircraft.

The 2 stroke engine is the main culprit. They're operating near redline on every takeoff and worked pretty hard. Lots of failures. The structure these days is pretty safe. The very low wing loading is also quite susceptible to gusts and shears. Perfect in calm air; kinda scary in rowdy air.

And like I overheard him say later if he’d been in a typical aluminum aircraft he would have been dead because they typically shred into a million razor blades.

Having survived two plane crashes (Cessna, not ultralight), i can tell you this is not exactly true. Never yet seen one in a "million razor blades". Maybe happens. Never seen it. Aluminum tends to stay together and buckle. Even belly landing on a gravel road is not enough to cause more than a couple of scars.
Composite planes, when subject to failure, break apart and leave buzzsaw edges to tear people open. But usually, the impact is enough without all the carnage. Usually. Few people can take a fall from 25 feet without serious hospital time. Add in 40mph for slow crash speed and you're pretty well done.
The thing about Certification - where Rutan designs have never gone - is scrutiny. The idea being that when things go wrong as they always will, the outcome is predictable to what extent it can be. It's been tested, analyzed, and proven. This is why the Cessna/Piper/Beech crowd look like dump trucks next to a Rutan, et. al. design. He doesn't do any of that, nor does he have to. There's no public record or compiled data to consult before or after the fact. He can concentrate on performance and appearance.
Not dissing those designs! I fly Experimental, myself. But there is an unavoidable gulf between Exp and Cert and sometimes it's very wide.

 

[C-Bag]

Having survived two plane crashes (Cessna, not ultralight), i can tell you this is not exactly true. Never yet seen one in a "million razor blades". Maybe happens. Never seen it. Aluminum tends to stay together and buckle. Even belly landing on a gravel road is not enough to cause more than a couple of scars.

Yeah, I was just going by what this guy said. At school we did work on the instructors jobs restoring damaged planes they had bought at auction. They owned the local FBO and would use them for their flight school. I didn't see any razor blades, I saw buckled and crumpled.