3 ms·

NASA's previous X-Plane initiative seemed to end without making any substantial change to civil (non-military) aviation. We could really use small jets out her

by watersb 11y ago

NASA's previous X-Plane initiative seemed to end without making any substantial change to civil (non-military) aviation. We could really use small jets out here in sparsely-populated Western USA. Eclipse Aviation got very close, then ran out of money. How much money would be required to start them up again? We need new engines. My 1966 Cessna 172 required leaded AV gas, which is as rare -- and as damaging -- as the tears from a weeping unicorn. Why invest in supersonic transport? We need low-end disruption, not high-end incremental improvements.

throwaway_exer 11y ago
The assets of Eclipse were bought out, and the ~259 unfinished EA500 airframes were completed and sold. Then a new model, the EA550 was built by the new company. What killed Eclipse was gross mismanagement, lack of funding to cover that, and Cessna's Mustang.
ardit33 11y ago
The main goals are efficiency and pollution, and eliminating the supersonic boom is a secondary goal. "Goals include showcasing how airliners can burn half the fuel and generate 75 percent less pollution during each flight as compared to now, while also being much quieter than today’s jets – perhaps even when flying supersonic. " "Meanwhile, other experimental aircraft also are under consideration, including those with novel shapes that break the mold of the traditional tube and wing airplane, and others that are propelled by hybrid electric power. "
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  Just for comparison the Concorde (which used engines based on a military bomber) used around 5x as much fuel as an A380 to transport passengers over the same distance - so there is a lot of room for improvement. Economically I don't think there will ever be a market for the speed alone to command paying a much higher ticket price, but maybe technologies can be developed that will mean supersonic aircraft are as efficient (or more so) than subsonic aircraft.
- paganel 11y ago
  > The main goals are efficiency and pollution, and eliminating the supersonic boom is a secondary goal. The supersonic boom should be one of the top priorities, also. Just look at this well-known video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE , you can't have that happening over populated territory, meaning land. Adding to that, just wanted to say that airplanes' sound pollution is a real and damaging thing. My parents live in a remote Eastern European village but, apparently, the skies over their house is a commercial airplane highway, as there were moments when I could count 6 or 7 of them up in the sky at the same time, including a big, white whale which looked like an A380. Anyway, it's not fun when it's 5 in the morning, you're surrounded by the four thick walls of your parents' house but you can still hear the airplane flying above your house at 30,000 feet.
- Theodores 11y ago
  My neighbours with fast sports cars and massive SUVs don't see fuel costs as a big part of their transport choice. If they had any sense they would drive Priuses, Teslas and sensible Hondas, but they don't. Therefore, is it not possible to have supersonic jets for the likes of captains of industry, sports and other mega stars? Small, supersonic private jets? I can see a market for that. Lewis Hamilton would be first in the queue as would those Gulf 'sheikhs' that have small fleets of Boeing planes.
saulrh 11y ago
> without making any substantial change to civil (non-military) aviation. Having known a bunch of aerospace people: this is in the works, it's just that we won't see it come out for a while because civil aero moves really slowly in an attempt to guarantee safety. Not "high probability of safety", not "we're pretty damn sure", guarantee. The levels of paranoia and conservative use of technology they get to are unbelievable. It's been roughly one military design generation, and only half a civilian generation, since the 1998-2000 crop of X-Planes. The military just got done deploying the delta-winged and fully-autonomous fruits of the 1998-2000 crop of X-Planes, which means that civilian aerospace is going to start working on it in another two or three years, will have designs in ten, and will start selling in fifteen.
dingaling 11y ago
> We need new engines. My 1966 Cessna 172 required leaded AV gas, which is as rare Frankly, not an arena where NASA is needed. In Europe turbo-diesels are popular for retrofit because they happily consume Avtur ( kerosene ) which is cheap and plentiful. I've seen a few 172s with Thielert TD engines. There was also a project to install a TP100 turboprop but I'm not sure how that's progressing. The fact that Cessna is still hawking a derivative of a 1947 airframe with an engine that isn't much fresher is more indicative of their attitude than any lack of advances in low-end aerodynamics. Look at the Stallion to see what they could be delivering, instead: http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/specifications.html http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/specifications.html 200 kts for 2,200 nm, seating for four people. At the small-end we need disruption of the big-three ( Cessna, Piper, Beech ) manufacturers, with technology that exists but they don't bring to market. Projects such as the 177 and Starship show that they had the technology, they just didn't have the incentive to change.
fluffysquirrel 11y ago
The low-compression engine in a 1966 Cessna 172 doesn't require leaded fuel; there are at least two supplemental type certificates available to legally run it on unleaded auto fuel. The lead is in the fuel as an octane booster, and is required by the high compression, higher horsepower engines much further up the food chain which are increasingly being replaced in the marketplace with Jet-A fueled turboprop engines (or even in some rare cases by Jet-A burning diesels). Leaded 100LL avgas is certainly going away... http://www.autofuelstc.com/approved_engines_airfames.phtml http://www.autofuelstc.com/approved_engines_airfames.phtml https://swiftfuels.com/ https://swiftfuels.com/

by watersb 11y ago

throwaway_exer 11y ago

The assets of Eclipse were bought out, and the ~259 unfinished EA500 airframes were completed and sold. Then a new model, the EA550 was built by the new company. What killed Eclipse was gross mismanagement, lack of funding to cover that, and Cessna's Mustang.

ardit33 11y ago

The main goals are efficiency and pollution, and eliminating the supersonic boom is a secondary goal. "Goals include showcasing how airliners can burn half the fuel and generate 75 percent less pollution during each flight as compared to now, while also being much quieter than today’s jets – perhaps even when flying supersonic. " "Meanwhile, other experimental aircraft also are under consideration, including those with novel shapes that break the mold of the traditional tube and wing airplane, and others that are propelled by hybrid electric power. "

lucaspiller 11y ago
Just for comparison the Concorde (which used engines based on a military bomber) used around 5x as much fuel as an A380 to transport passengers over the same distance - so there is a lot of room for improvement. Economically I don't think there will ever be a market for the speed alone to command paying a much higher ticket price, but maybe technologies can be developed that will mean supersonic aircraft are as efficient (or more so) than subsonic aircraft.
paganel 11y ago
> The main goals are efficiency and pollution, and eliminating the supersonic boom is a secondary goal. The supersonic boom should be one of the top priorities, also. Just look at this well-known video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE , you can't have that happening over populated territory, meaning land. Adding to that, just wanted to say that airplanes' sound pollution is a real and damaging thing. My parents live in a remote Eastern European village but, apparently, the skies over their house is a commercial airplane highway, as there were moments when I could count 6 or 7 of them up in the sky at the same time, including a big, white whale which looked like an A380. Anyway, it's not fun when it's 5 in the morning, you're surrounded by the four thick walls of your parents' house but you can still hear the airplane flying above your house at 30,000 feet.
Theodores 11y ago
My neighbours with fast sports cars and massive SUVs don't see fuel costs as a big part of their transport choice. If they had any sense they would drive Priuses, Teslas and sensible Hondas, but they don't. Therefore, is it not possible to have supersonic jets for the likes of captains of industry, sports and other mega stars? Small, supersonic private jets? I can see a market for that. Lewis Hamilton would be first in the queue as would those Gulf 'sheikhs' that have small fleets of Boeing planes.

saulrh 11y ago

> without making any substantial change to civil (non-military) aviation. Having known a bunch of aerospace people: this is in the works, it's just that we won't see it come out for a while because civil aero moves really slowly in an attempt to guarantee safety. Not "high probability of safety", not "we're pretty damn sure", guarantee. The levels of paranoia and conservative use of technology they get to are unbelievable. It's been roughly one military design generation, and only half a civilian generation, since the 1998-2000 crop of X-Planes. The military just got done deploying the delta-winged and fully-autonomous fruits of the 1998-2000 crop of X-Planes, which means that civilian aerospace is going to start working on it in another two or three years, will have designs in ten, and will start selling in fifteen.

dingaling 11y ago

> We need new engines. My 1966 Cessna 172 required leaded AV gas, which is as rare Frankly, not an arena where NASA is needed. In Europe turbo-diesels are popular for retrofit because they happily consume Avtur ( kerosene ) which is cheap and plentiful. I've seen a few 172s with Thielert TD engines. There was also a project to install a TP100 turboprop but I'm not sure how that's progressing. The fact that Cessna is still hawking a derivative of a 1947 airframe with an engine that isn't much fresher is more indicative of their attitude than any lack of advances in low-end aerodynamics. Look at the Stallion to see what they could be delivering, instead: http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/specifications.html http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/specifications.html 200 kts for 2,200 nm, seating for four people. At the small-end we need disruption of the big-three ( Cessna, Piper, Beech ) manufacturers, with technology that exists but they don't bring to market. Projects such as the 177 and Starship show that they had the technology, they just didn't have the incentive to change.

fluffysquirrel 11y ago

The low-compression engine in a 1966 Cessna 172 doesn't require leaded fuel; there are at least two supplemental type certificates available to legally run it on unleaded auto fuel. The lead is in the fuel as an octane booster, and is required by the high compression, higher horsepower engines much further up the food chain which are increasingly being replaced in the marketplace with Jet-A fueled turboprop engines (or even in some rare cases by Jet-A burning diesels). Leaded 100LL avgas is certainly going away... http://www.autofuelstc.com/approved_engines_airfames.phtml http://www.autofuelstc.com/approved_engines_airfames.phtml https://swiftfuels.com/ https://swiftfuels.com/