Joined: 03/07/18 Posts: 292 Post Likes: +201 Location: Woburn, MA
Saw this on LinkedIn today. A tech millionaire has decided to build a clean sheet Rotax twin in a pusher config.
Says he's designing it so the airplane won't let you make a mistake (e.g. CFIT, etc). Seems to want Garmin ESP on steroids and generally remove the pilot from decision-making processes.
The aircraft design seems secondary to the software, so it is going to be a flying computer. Based on the specs, this will likely target the DA-42 market.
I'm just the messenger. I have a lot of questions and no more answers than what the video provides. I'm not sure who he's actually building this for (as in, who will buy it), but I'll give best wishes to anyone putting real engineers on payroll to build a new airplane.
I don't know where the $20M comes from. For a non-conforming prototype, that seems high.
he is a disruptor, and GA is a market in need of disruption. The cost to build and certify aircraft and components is insane, and while it may be somewhat driven by safety, I'm more likely to believe it is driven by bureaucratic factors that have limited the ability for technology to become more pervasive.
_________________ "Find worthy causes in your life."
Joined: 10/07/10 Posts: 1229 Post Likes: +1489
Aircraft: Pitts S-2B
Username Protected wrote:
Listening to the video, I believe they said 200 mph, not knots. That seems more reasonable based upon the powerplants.
Yep, closest comp I can think of is the Velocity Twin which I believe can do 200mph+ with a pair of IO-320s?
I gotta admit this project seems... ambitious... but I'm also not going to take anything away from people prepared to put many millions of their own dollars into such an endeavor. Even if the airframe doesn't succeed maybe we'll get a new avionics company out of the work they put into it.
Joined: 01/10/17 Posts: 2506 Post Likes: +1860 Company: Skyhaven Airport Inc
Aircraft: various mid century
What do the big swoops on the wing and tail tips do?
Pusher and the cockpit location well forward makes me think they will have CG problems empty vs loaded in a small airframe.
Cirrus jet does it a bit larger but how does it work out empty vs full cabin for a smaller airplane? People become a larger percentage of the gross vs empty weight and they are not on the CG.
The video is about 80% fluff, only 20% about the actual airplane.
My takeaway is that this is a vaporware pipe dream in many regards.
The driving vision appears to be about making an airplane that uses modern technology to create an airplane that protects the pilots from their mistakes using fly by wire for the flight controls and engine. Their video claims this plane will eliminate all stalls, LOC, and CFIT accidents but I think they're ignoring EFOTO, icing issues, CAT, and thunderstorm induced inflight breakups to name a few things that no automation could accomplish unless it simply prevents taking off if there's any chance of such adverse conditions existing for the contemplated flight. The very notion that their system can automatically avoid terrain pretty much has to be GPS based and GPS can be jammed or denied by solar activity.
Putting aside the lofty goal of a "pilot proof" airplane for a moment, it's pretty clear that the claimed performance is ambitious at the least. A twin engine airplane that can cruise at 200 mph carrying 4 adults for 1000 miles has been done already (e.g. Turbo Twinkie and a Travel Air comes close) but that's with two 160 HP engines and the proposed Rotax 916iS is only rated for 137 HP continuous. Seems to me that would mean rather lousy single engine performance at best and AFaIK no one has ever mated a Rotax engine with a full feathering prop either and it wouldn't surprise me to find that the added weight of those props would blow any chances for carrying 4 adults 1000 miles.
Getting back to the pilot error proof fly by wire concept I see a bad combination of wishful thinking and engineering naivety that comes close to Muller's lack of aerodynamics. I have no doubt that a fly by wire light airplane could be built but the hugely complex issues involved with the redundancy required for safety would likely cost more to develop than the airframe/engine. Their stated goal is an airplane so easy to fly a "normal" person could learn to fly it in a day (other parts of the video suggest "a few days"). Even if that was an actual possibility (it isn't) unless their FBW system includes autoland, the ability to deal with significant crosswinds, and little things like entering a busy pattern, with a reliability in the 1 failure per 10,000,000 hours range, the pilots will need to be able to fly the airplane sans automation.
OTOH, I'd welcome another 4 place twin that can cruise 175 Kt on 16 gph if it could do that below 12,000 MSL.
I won't be making a deposit on this one yet.
_________________ -lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Joined: 03/07/18 Posts: 292 Post Likes: +201 Location: Woburn, MA
Username Protected wrote:
OTOH, I'd welcome another 4 place twin that can cruise 175 Kt on 16 gph if it could do that below 12,000 MSL.
That's my take on it. If they manage to certify and sell it, a pilot will figure out how to kill him/herself in it. Looking through CrashTalk is a lot of the same: low altitude stall/spin, CFIT, running out of gas, LOC in IMC (or VFR into IMC).
With a working computer (autopilot), we already have CFIT avoidance and IMC flying. For $300/year, you can subscribe to any number of EFBs to have redundant terrain avoidance too.
Maybe the computer won't let you add takeoff power if you're too low on fuel for the trip? Or won't release the brake if there's a line of thunderstorms between you and your destination? Maybe the computer monitors your slip and won't let it develop into a spin? In the video he's flying a Cirrus so maybe he's been inundated with the aircraft's base-to-final stall/spin history.
Since a DA-42 can do most of this already (though not to the same level of automation that SkyTron envisions) I wonder if the "real" plan is actually a long-distance autonomous platform sans pilot. His lead engineer did come from a eVTOL startup.
Joined: 07/09/09 Posts: 3867 Post Likes: +1721 Company: Progress Technical. LLC Location: Doylestown, PA (KDYL)
Aircraft: B-55
Are we seeing a reduction in CFIT / LOC with Garmin ESP? Any stats on that yet? A few people I know have trouble on the low end with the Garmin ESP not being well engineered for their aircraft. Not a good look for Garmin.
Joined: 11/20/14 Posts: 6893 Post Likes: +5105
Aircraft: V35
Longtime Flying columnist J Maclellan always said new airframe developments are downstream from new engine development. This was his explanation for the longevity of airframe designs of the 60’s which is also when the Lycoming and Continental engines came out. I tend to agree, with Cirrus as the notable exception.
The 916 Rotax is just big enough to open up new possibilities for airframers. Especially with MOSAIC reducing the certification hurdles. Whether that’s a fast slick retractable two seat cross country airframe or a small efficient four seat twin. That makes sense.
Putting in the latest electronics like Garmin ESP and ideally an autoland also makes sense. It would be interesting if a pilot could ask for help from a ground based “drone pilot” to take over if the pilot gets in over his head or panics.
Having lots of money backing the project makes sense. With money and patience they will likely figure out the parts of their “Version 1.0” story that don’t make sense yet.
If we’re lucky Rotax keeps expanding the product line (much needed with 100LL in transition out) and we are talking new airframes for 200, 250, and 300 hp unleaded liquid cooled Rotax motors. Then you will see really compelling new airframe ideas.
Is “fly by wire” right for light aircraft? I “sort of” have such a system in my modern digital autopilot. However……
It is disappointing how unreliable even modern autopilots are. People who install a new G500 or STec 3100 are still having servo trouble, etc. I have experienced failures on my STec 3100 myself. I’d be dead by now if that was the only system able to control the plane.
The cables and pulleys take more skill to use than digital flight controls, but as implemented in our current fleet the pulleys and cables and pushrods are much more reliable.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
