I strongly disagree.
Yes, we do need direct visual observation. Or let me rephrase, considering how average I am, I'm not good enough to fly without peripheral vision, for starters. And my eyes are very good at seeing stuff that would need a very high resolution camera.

The level of redundancy that would be needed for "virtual" direct vision would be quite costly (and heavy). It's also going to be even more costly when they start certifying perfectly calibrated screens. Many issues with parallax, with FOV, with failure modes.
A few days ago the wind was 35g45, quite a bit of xwind. What do you do if that happens to be on the side where the screen failed?

On top of that, if you want to add HUD/flir info, that means you need to control latency, you also need a LOT more failure modes: if your present-day HUD crashes, that's ok, you can look through. If your overimposed HUD crashes and is now a dark block on a screen, that's a big issue.

Oh and of course there is the very simple issue of a bird strike spilling blood all over the cam, or those mosquitoes....

They can always copy Concorde, that was a brilliant and gorgeous solution.

I strongly disagree.
Yes, we do need direct visual observation. Or let me rephrase, considering how average I am, I'm not good enough to fly without peripheral vision, for starters. And my eyes are very good at seeing stuff that would need a very high resolution camera.

The level of redundancy that would be needed for "virtual" direct vision would be quite costly (and heavy). It's also going to be even more costly when they start certifying perfectly calibrated screens. Many issues with parallax, with FOV, with failure modes.
A few days ago the wind was 35g45, quite a bit of xwind. What do you do if that happens to be on the side where the screen failed?

On top of that, if you want to add HUD/flir info, that means you need to control latency, you also need a LOT more failure modes: if your present-day HUD crashes, that's ok, you can look through. If your overimposed HUD crashes and is now a dark block on a screen, that's a big issue.

Oh and of course there is the very simple issue of a bird strike spilling blood all over the cam, or those mosquitoes....

They can always copy Concorde, that was a brilliant and gorgeous solution.

Well, there's this, if it proves out:



The RED engine is actually pretty darn interesting, and it offers some competitive advantages vs. turbines, especially with fuel economy. I've looked into the available info on the engine, and it competes well vs. turbines in the same power range. It is also a clean-sheet engine, not an automotive-derived conversion.


https://red-aircraft.com

I admit that I know almost nothing about the RED engine. According to their website, they've been certified with the EASA since 2014. If that's the case, why aren't there any airframes that have been certified using this powerplant??

"RED aircraft GmbH holds design organization approval (DOA) from EASA since 2014."

https://red-aircraft.com/

Don’t forget about the triple turbo setup.

This plane would be great if it could magically be at 50,000 ft and not take so long to get up there, but it can’t.

The cool thing with diesel engines is that their extra weight doesn't matter at longer range, because the lower fuel consumption starts to give them an advantage after about 5hrs. A gas engine+fuel, will weigh more than a diesel engine+fuel - it skews more and more in favor of diesel the longer you're airborne.

I thought that at those altitudes (and temps) the fuel consumption of an efficient turboprop was similar to a diesel, or at least very close. A 12 cylinder diesel with three turbos and associated cooling drag would need to be a good amount more efficient to make up for the weight, size, and drag. I’d think there is many hundreds of pounds of fuel that a turboprop could carry and still be at the same weight.

Maybe at a delta up high the difference becomes smaller and smaller, but I don't think you can escape SFC, no matter what altitude. But I'm sure smarter guys than me will have the correct answer.

I thought that at those altitudes (and temps) the fuel consumption of an efficient turboprop was similar to a diesel, or at least very close. A 12 cylinder diesel with three turbos and associated cooling drag would need to be a good amount more efficient to make up for the weight, size, and drag. I’d think there is many hundreds of pounds of fuel that a turboprop could carry and still be at the same weight.

You do realize military drone pilots land them every day without direct observation, right?

Exactly.

Figure a PT6 in the same power range is roughly 300pph in cruise.

The BSFC of the RED at similar power is about 150 pph.

The PT6 will burn 450lbs more fuel to get to the same place at the same speed. That excess fuel burn is about the weight of the RED engine.

That and the cost fuel is a decent argument.

You do realize military drone pilots land them every day without direct observation, right?

You do realize military drone pilots land them every day without direct observation, right?

We are moving in the direction of getting the pilot removed. How many years before the FO is not needed? Airplanes would be much safer without human intervention.

Exactly.

Figure a PT6 in the same power range is roughly 300pph in cruise.

The BSFC of the RED at similar power is about 150 pph.

The PT6 will burn 450lbs more fuel to get to the same place at the same speed. That excess fuel burn is about the weight of the RED engine.

That and the cost fuel is a decent argument.