Slashdot Mirror


Project OpenSky Takes Off

Jesrad writes "As was reported two years ago on Slashdot, japanese artists, students and engineers under the lead of Kazuhiko Hachiya have taken upon themselves to build a real-size, fully functional Mehve (japanese website), the small jet-powered glider flying wing ridden by anime heroin Nausicaa. They have made a lot of progress, and are now test-flying the full scale, yet unpowered model by tow-launching it along with its thrilled pilot. They're having a lot of fun, too, judging from the movies of the testing sessions."

148 comments

  1. Hm... by zptao · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this sort of thing illegal here in the states?

    1. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "anime heroin"

      I think ANY kind of heroin is illegal in the States.

    2. Re:Hm... by mamer-retrogamer · · Score: 3, Informative

      You would have to get FAA clearance to fly it if it does not fall under the classification of an ultralight aircraft.

      --
      Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
    3. Re:Hm... by 13bPower · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, I thought he meant getting sued by whomever created the anime.

    4. Re:Hm... by megaditto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, not really, all is legal. It just has to be slow (100 mph I believe) and weigh less than 200 lb (100 kg).

      Unpowered verstions of paragliding and hand gliding are very popular and have been around for decades. Re: http://www.ushga.org/ and http://www.paragliding.net/
      And the only reason the story made the front page is because it had 'anime'

      Check your state law, however, as some states have certain restrictions on flying over populated areas, cities, etc.
      Also, you might get shot down if you try to fly one of those around Washington, DC.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    5. Re:Hm... by Luke+Psywalker · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but then only if your wearing underwear.

    6. Re:Hm... by kfg · · Score: 3, Informative

      It just has to be slow (100 mph I believe). . .

      That would kilometers/hour. 55 knots. 63 mph.

      . . .and weigh less than 200 lb (100 kg).

      155 lbs. for unpowered craft; 255 lbs. empty (maximum fuel load of 5 gal.) for powered craft.

      KFG

    7. Re:Hm... by TaGirl_Keri · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the States everything is illegal. Excepting that which is compulsory of course

      --
      My fav units are dead Mavs
    8. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he meant heroin. Drugs are bad, mmkay? /WhiteyTheGeek

    9. Re:Hm... by JeffElkins · · Score: 0

      >glider flying wing ridden by anime heroin Nausicaa. Oh. I thought he meant flying with heroin.

      --
      Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
    10. Re:Hm... by jibjibjib · · Score: 1
      Excepting guns, also.

      /me runs and hides from impending flame war

    11. Re:Hm... by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 1
      Isn't this sort of thing illegal here in the states?
      You can ride a hangglider, paraglider, or ultra light aircraft (basically, anything small/light enough), or go skydiving without any license whatsoever. If this thing gets popullar, though, there are going to be deaths. Flying isn't the same as riding a rollercoaster.
    12. Re:Hm... by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 1

      You know what's sad? Aeronautics majors in the States have to use non-metric for their calculations, which requires extra work.

    13. Re:Hm... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually US restrictions on Homebuilt/Experimental aircraft are about the most liberal in the world. The odds are it is more likely to be legal in the US than most other countries. Check out EAA.org for more information.
      This post reminds me of the posts that showed up when some restrictions on High Power model rocket engines talked about on Slashdot. You had a bunch of idiots talking about how much better things where in the EU. Then it turned out that the motors that where going to be restricted in the USA where about 30 times the power of any motor you could buy legally in the EU.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this sort of thing illegal here in the states?

      (Creativity? Curiosity? Can-do spirit?)

      Yes. Yes, it is. Now put your blue vest back on and get back to work, slacker.

    15. Re:Hm... by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 1

      If this thing gets popullar, though, there are going to be deaths.

      Well, there are way too many people on that tiny island of Japan.

    16. Re:Hm... by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Other posts in this thread seem to be suggesting that Japan isn't part of the US.

    17. Re:Hm... by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 1

      Other posts in this thread seem to be suggesting that Japan isn't part of the US.

      (ALERT!! SARCASM)

      Understandable mistake. The US IS the center of the known universe.

    18. Re:Hm... by Grab · · Score: 1

      That would be hang-gliding, thank you. Very few humans have hands big enough to glide with...

      Powered hang-gliders and paragliders (aka paramotors) are also gaining in popularity these days - they attach a small engine and propellor to the pilot's harness (usually either around the pilot's feet for a hang-glider or to the pilot's back for a paraglider). Note that these are different from microlights, which attach a wing to a trike-type fuselage/engine/seating arrangement - powered hang-gliders and paragliders are defined by the capability to be launched by foot (ie. the pilot must be able to take off and land on their feet whilst using it). There's also rules on fuel tank size too, but the major limitation is being able to foot-launch whatever contraption you're using.

      Incidentally, the guys who made the "Doodlebug" hang-glider power unit also have a jet-powered version. It is *LOUD*!!!

      Grab.

    19. Re:Hm... by Digi421 · · Score: 1

      Aren't tits on tv illegal in the states, too?

      --
      Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia: Fear of long words
  2. Fuel by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 0

    I find it possible that something that small could fly and carry a human passenger. What I find much less likely is that it could carry enough fuel for a sustained flight. And if it can't stay in the air for more than a few minutes on it's own power it will never be more than a novelty. (not even a luxury sporting item)

    1. Re:Fuel by Baddas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fuel density:

      Kerosene (Diesel fuel): 11,000 watt-hours per liter, 13,000 watt-hours per kg

      Typical ultralight engine: 30,000 watts

      Assuming you are running at full throttle all the time (fairly unlikely):

      a 10 liter tank will last you 3-odd hours and weigh right around 12 kg. Most ultralights have a fuel capacity between 8 and 35 liters.

      Does the math work out better for you now?

    2. Re:Fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This thing is not that small. According to their website the previous model has a wingspan of 9.6m and this one looks slightly larger.

      This is proportionally much larger than what was depicted in the anime.
      If we lived in a fantasy world where the atmosphere was denser, then maybe everyone would be flying like this, but in reality things are a bit more difficult. :)

    3. Re:Fuel by kfg · · Score: 1

      If we lived in a fantasy world where the atmosphere was denser. . .

      LA LA Land.

      KFG

    4. Re:Fuel by jdray · · Score: 1
      Well, there's this guy. Granted it was a flying start, but four minutes at about 50 feet off the ground doing 115 mph is pretty impressive for some fold-up fairy wings and a couple of model airplane engines.

      From TFA:

      At 7:30pm on June 24, 2004 Rossy dropped from 4000m over the Yverdon airfield. After opening the wings, he glided to 2500m, ignited the engines and waited 30 seconds for them to be able to stabilize and begins to open the throttle. At 16m, he achieved horizontal flight for more than 4 minutes at 100 knots (115 mph).
      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    5. Re:Fuel by kfg · · Score: 1

      it will never be more than a novelty.

      As others have addressed the longevity of flight issue perfectly adequately I will simply point out that I don't think the people involved in this project have ever intended it to be anything but.

      Well, that and a real kick just to pull off.

      KFG

    6. Re:Fuel by Sparr0 · · Score: 1
      The smallest biplane ever flown is the Bumble Bee II, designed and built by Robert H Starr of Tempe, Arizona, USA. The plane was 2.69-m (8-ft 10-in) long, with a wingspan of 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in). On May 8, 1988 after flying to a height of 120 m (400 ft) the Bumble Bee II crashed and was totally destroyed. The pilot suffered serious injuries, but went on to make a full recovery.


      That was one guy almost 20 years ago. If these professional aircraft designers cant get this thing to work, I bet Burt Rutan can.
    7. Re:Fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html

      An example of a jet powered ultralight that meets the European requirements.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight

  3. "anime heroin" by DoctorMabuse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is anime heroin better than black tar heroin or china white heroin? I'm going to have to go to Tokyo and ask a heroine.

    1. Re:"anime heroin" by phorm · · Score: 1

      No, but if I remember the cost of anime correctly, it'll probably cost more than either of those...

    2. Re:"anime heroin" by Briareos · · Score: 1

      As the saying goes - "Anime: drugs would be cheaper..."

      I can totally confirm that... ^_^

      np: Underworld - Mmm Skyscraper I Love You (Underworld 1992-2002 (Disc 1))

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    3. Re:"anime heroin" by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      You can download drugs from bittorrent now? If you thought the Riaa was extortive, you just wait until the drug dealers find out that their buisiness model is in trouble.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    4. Re:"anime heroin" by Briareos · · Score: 1
      You can download drugs from bittorrent now?

      See, there's those things called "anime DVDs", but I guess you freeloading people who automatically equate "anime" with "bittorrent" probably never heard of those...

      np: Underworld - Mmm Skyscraper I Love You (DubNoBassWithMyHeadMan)
      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    5. Re:"anime heroin" by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Also, there are unpleasant side effects not present with other forms of heroin. Tendencies toward pedophilia often surface, for instance.

  4. Glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not to be needlessly pedantic, but...well, what the hell...to be needlessly pedantic, if it's going to be jet powered, won't it cease being a glider?

    I mean, right now it's a glider, but as soon as it's jet powered it'll by definition cease being a glider, right? So what they've really got is a personal glider that they're hoping to develop in to a personal jet aircraft.

    1. Re:Glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah... "flying wing" seems more like the right thing to call it

    2. Re:Glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't it pedantic to use the word pedantic? Seriously, not flaimbait-ing...

    3. Re:Glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure is pedantic to use the word pedantic! That makes it even more annoying.

      Anyway, I think "flying wing" works pretty well, as someone suggested above. It makes no claims about how it's powered in general, how it's being drawn forward at any particular moment, and it's generally pretty descriptive.

    4. Re:Glider? by bombman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well - sort of - in the animated movie, the jet is used only occationally (liftoff etc)
      and the wing is often used as a glider.

    5. Re:Glider? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      to be needlessly pedantic, if it's going to be jet powered, won't it cease being a glider?
      The space shuttle is a rocket powered glider - it doesn't descend under power.
    6. Re:Glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been jet powered and powered gliders before. THey are called motor gliders. I have actually flown some motor gliders as well as nonpowered.... usually the motor or engine is used to get up to altitude and is then shut off. It is an alternative to being aerotowed or winch launched. If they do not turn the jets off at anypoint then I would say it is not a glider... It does not look like that design will have a very good L/D (lift to drag ratio), in other words it wont get very far before comming down. I think it is more ment to be pretty and cool though than to be practical.

      Laura

  5. Something about this I didn't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...namely, the rationale. It does not help that I am Slashdotting drunk.

  6. usage -10 by leed_25 · · Score: 4, Informative

    In think that you may have meant 'heroine' instead of 'heroin'.

    1. Re:usage -10 by MrSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Nah, if they're building something out of a cartoon, they must be on drugs :D

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
  7. whatever floats your boat... or glider-type-thingy by vinsanity1 · · Score: 0, Troll

    seems like an awful lot of time, effort, and money being wasted on something so insignificant and probably useless...
    i say good on 'em!
    Good luck guys.

  8. Call me.. by Visceral+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    when they get the purple tentacles down so I can start my pr0n career.

    --
    *Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
    1. Re:Call me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll? Dammit, that's funny you twit!

      Now THIS is a troll.

  9. The roll bar by woksta · · Score: 0, Troll

    that thing looks really dangerous, there is no roll bar and the pilot is totally exposed. Any kind of crash and that guy is dead.

    --
    teh omg kekekekkekekekekeke!!!!11shift!!!1one11eleven
    1. Re:The roll bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >Any kind of crash and that guy is dead.

      That is why it is flown by a girl in the movie and graphic novel.

    2. Re:The roll bar by kfg · · Score: 1

      Also handy in case they run into a Nazgul

      KFG

    3. Re:The roll bar by Khyber · · Score: 1

      People said that about motorcycles.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:The roll bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they put a proper cover on it, it'd cease to be a new idea: this thing seriously looks like a WWII German point-defense invention.

    5. Re:The roll bar by n0dna · · Score: 1

      See also: Natural Selection.

    6. Re:The roll bar by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have a cowcatcher, airbag, or bumpers. either. What the hell are they thinking!?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  10. I'd prefer if they created an Ohmu :-) by joneshenry · · Score: 2, Informative

    But would Ohmu's be forced to register with the government ...

  11. Mirror! For the love, mirror! by theGreater · · Score: 1
  12. Mehve? by Mish · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...have taken upon themselves to build a real-size, fully functional Mehve (japanese website)
    Did anyone else read this and find their brain filing "Mehve" away as the Japanese word for "website"? For a minute I found myself wondering what was so special about putting together a Japanese website.
    1. Re:Mehve? by Al_Lapalme · · Score: 2, Funny

      I instinctively assumed the Japanese hadn't succeeded in putting together a 'fully functional' website; until now!

      --
      Al
    2. Re:Mehve? by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      I thought this also.

      that is all.

    3. Re:Mehve? by kjart · · Score: 1

      I thought the same thing....and then I wondered why it took them 2 years to put it together.

    4. Re:Mehve? by FinnWinter · · Score: 1

      But this is a fully functional website. That's quite an achievement. Even Google, with their perpetual beta programs, can't claim that.

    5. Re:Mehve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same happened to me.
      As it turns out, "Mehve" is Japanese-mangled German for "Möwe": seagull.

    6. Re:Mehve? by kamome · · Score: 1

      I stumbled there too ;) Until I realized that it was their anglojapanese way of spelling "moewe" (one of their gliders is named moewe) which is, of course, the "europeanly" correct way of spelling "Möwe" (german, being seagull in english and kamome in japanese) if you don't have german Umlaute.

    7. Re:Mehve? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I thought for a moment, with a name like 'OpenSky' that it was going to be a Japanese website airborne on a small plane.

      Sadly, it's far, far less interesting than that.

    8. Re:Mehve? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      I had such trouble with the description, I thought maybe they were building a life size mockup of a website, with a person flying around in the freaking plane for navigation.
      I didn't even find myself considering that an outlandish possibility given past stunts that have appeared here (real life pac man, das blinkenlights, light saber idiocy, goatse, etc)

      It would be an art installation, with a rectangular frame that depicts the website and the guy is in some cable and pulley driven airplane doing stuff on the (real-size fully functional) japanese website (Mehve or whatever)
      I guess I assumed that they have way cooler websites than us americans too.

      Turns out I was pretty far from the reality of it, but after looking at some of their other projects (fairy finder, mega diary, lightdepth, over_the_rainbow, airboard, psycomu, etc) it didn't seem all that far fetched to me.

      --
      music lover since 1969
    9. Re:Mehve? by CrkHead · · Score: 1

      I was trying to parse what is a real-size, fully functional website.

    10. Re:Mehve? by NATIK · · Score: 1

      Måve ftw, they are a nuiseance in coastal cities, scream like hell too.

    11. Re:Mehve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first I thought they were going to build life sized website.

  13. small jet-powered glider? by clintk · · Score: 1, Redundant

    small jet-powered glider

    jet: jet-propelled vehicle, especially a jet-propelled aircraft.

    glider: A light engineless aircraft designed to glide

    That is quite an invention.

    1. Re:small jet-powered glider? by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      IIRC from the movie it didn't use the engine all the time.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:small jet-powered glider? by jbrader · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are lots of glider pilots who use small compressed air or gasoline engines to take off and then switch to glide mode once airborne.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    3. Re:small jet-powered glider? by megaditto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is no contradiction there, if that's what you are implying.

      Consider that the Space Shuffle is actually a glider over most of the re-entry (called glide-approach).

      A cruise missile is a jet-propelled glider... as opposed to a Russian Satan ss-18, which is a jet-propelled ballista, though such things may use fins and such for stabilization.

      In other words, anything that uses wings for flying (and not solely for manuvering e.g. a fighter during afterburn) is a glider.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    4. Re:small jet-powered glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been done before:

      www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow04/sywell/sywell.htm

      Shows a regular hang glider powered by a jet engine.

      Strangely, regulation of homebuilt aircraft is less stringent than you might assume. The result is that homebuilt aircraft are more likely to have safety features (e.g. modern auto engines, ballistic parachute systems) than commercially built aircraft, because the commercial aircraft would have to undergo extensive safety testing to have these systems fitted. The result is that homebuilt aircraft have as good a safety record as commercially built designs.

      Hang glider design places the pilot within a triangle frame - that provides considerable protection from minor bumps and scrapes as I have discovered the hard way. Special aerofoils provide stability - like the design above, hang gliders are flying wings. But somehow, rather them than me on that contraption.

    5. Re:small jet-powered glider? by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1
      Strangely, regulation of homebuilt aircraft is less stringent than you might assume. The result is that homebuilt aircraft are more likely to have safety features (e.g. modern auto engines, ballistic parachute systems) than commercially built aircraft, because the commercial aircraft would have to undergo extensive safety testing to have these systems fitted. The result is that homebuilt aircraft have as good a safety record as commercially built designs.
      Uh... neither the FAA nor EAA nor Kitplanes magazine nor any of the other reputable sources will back that up. Homebuilts suffer more engine failures (even with 4-cylinder car engine conversions), more structural failures, etc. That ballistic parachutes have lessened the fatality rate (and that's sure a good thing, and they should be added to all light planes) doesn't make them "safer". Just "less deadly".
    6. Re:small jet-powered glider? by rossifer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The result is that homebuilt aircraft are more likely to have safety features (e.g. modern auto engines,

      Gotta stop you right there. Automobile engines and aircraft engines are very different beasts for very good reasons. Automobile engines normally run at 20% of rated power with occasional bursts to 80% rated power and only the rarest burst to 100% rated power. Aircraft engines normally run at 80% rated power and will routinely spend several minutes at 100% power during each flight (takeoff and climbout). That critical "expected normal load" results in a very different engine design.

      If you try to put an automobile engine in an airplane without substantial redesign to account for the different expected loads, you're basically guaranteeing premature catastrophic failure.

      The result is that homebuilt aircraft have as good a safety record as commercially built designs.

      Check your facts. Homebuilts have a much higher accident rate per flight-hour. Still pretty low, though.

      Regards,
      Ross

    7. Re:small jet-powered glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is patently untrue. Many home-built airplanes use small car engines, such as that from a VW Beetle. I have personally ridden in such a plane; I promise that I did not imagine it.

    8. Re:small jet-powered glider? by gronofer · · Score: 1

      The engine is not so important for an anime vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes just as fast when gliding as it does when using the jet engine.

    9. Re:small jet-powered glider? by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1


      No you are wrong! I saw it in the A-team! BA (Barracus) duct-taped an automobile engine to a propeller and a bunch
      of 2x4s and made a plane that Murdoch (not Ian Murdoch) said he could pilot. Then Face hit BA on the back
      of the head, and they loaded everyone into the plane and took off with the cool theme music playing.

      "I love it when a plan comes together"

    10. Re:small jet-powered glider? by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      Presumably though that's just a case of setting things up right? i.e. if you set the maximum throttle setting to be, say, 60% of the rated maximum of the engine, it wouldn't be such a problem?

    11. Re:small jet-powered glider? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1
      From Ye Olde Wikipedia:
      A "glider" is an unpowered aircraft. However, the term is also used to refer to motorgliders, which are aircraft that switch off their engines in flight.

      (...)

      The term "pure glider" (or equivalently, but less commonly "pure sailplane") may be used to distinguish an unpowered glider from a motorglider, without implying any differential in gliding or soaring performance.

      Of course, if you can find a better way to describe what a mehve is while being similarly succinct, be my guest, or are you too busy trolling?
    12. Re:small jet-powered glider? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the EAA, commercially built planes and homebuilts differ by less than 1 percentage point than in terms of accident rates. A large proportion of the EAA accidents occur in the first hour of flight, and the most common problem is with fuel lines.

      http://www.eaa.org/education/index.html

    13. Re:small jet-powered glider? by strstrep · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then you'd have a much larger (and heavier) engine than you need, which is a significant issue to examine in an ultralight aircraft.

    14. Re:small jet-powered glider? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No, a glider is an unpowered aircraft. It's easy to turn a powered aircraft into a glider though -- just turn off the engine.

      I believe cruise missiles run their engines constantly so they're not gliders (and with those little wings they'd make pretty bad gliders anyway). SS-18's are ROCKET propelled ballistic missiles.

      A fighter running on afterburners almost always uses it's wings for flying. A few fighters are capable of actually flying on their engines but don't do it very often.

    15. Re:small jet-powered glider? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Most aircraft do (more or less). The wing is usually designed to operate most efficiently at the cruising speed of the aircraft. That also tends to be the point at which the aircraft will achieve it's best glide ratio.

    16. Re:small jet-powered glider? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The F-15 was the first to be able to do this (as exhibited by its sustained vertical climbing ability) but it gulps fuel when it does so.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    17. Re:small jet-powered glider? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Besides the fuel consumption it's a dubious maneuver. It CAN climb on it's engines, but it's sort of a sitting duck while doing it for any prolonged period of time.

    18. Re:small jet-powered glider? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It's not a combat maneuver, just a demonstration of power, such as a climb to 12,000m from a standing start in about 55 seconds, although in a somewhat lightened aircraft. However, for many years, it could out-climb any other jet-powered craft in the skies, and it still can outdo most of them. Not bad for a 30-year-old design.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    19. Re:small jet-powered glider? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Oh, definitely. The original context of the discussion was whether fighters fly on their engines or their wings. While some are capable of it, they'd never do so in normal operation so saying fighters fly on their engines (only using their wings for maneuvering) is incorrect.

    20. Re:small jet-powered glider? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      To a first approximation, that's exactly what airplane engines are. You assume that an airplane engine produces half its volume in horsepower: an O-360 makes 180 horsepower. That's coz it's running without gearing and your prop's only able to spin at about maybe 2500 rpm max before the tips go supersonic (and you make hellacious noise and chew up the prop and put all your power into fighting transonic drag.) Since power rises linearly with the RPM (until just after the torque peak of the engine) running an engine slowly means lower power. Auto conversion engines usually run at higher RPM with a gearing setup, like a car's transmission, to get high power out of a small engine, and pay the cost of reliability.
      There are gains that can be made: liquid-cooled engines weigh more but their mechanical clearances are better since they operate at near-constant-temperature rather than having the 300 degree engine temp fluctuations of aircraft air-cooled engines, and you can increase the cooling capacity of the system to allow the auto conversion to run at very high power settings for long periods of time. But then you run into strength and resonance issues: auto engines were not designed to run for any length of time at a single RPM, and when you do that you find resonance issues that fatigue parts and lead to premature breakage, and increasing the cooling capacity of the engine vastly increases drag (since for many airplanes over a quarter of the aircraft's drag is the cooling system for the engine unless you're going really fast and benefitting from the Meredith Effect, but that's only been used on a small handful of airplanes and doesn't apply to this situation.)
      If you look at the anecdotal evidence on places like rec.aviation.homebuilt, a large percentage of the people flying behind auto conversion engines (particularly homebuilt conversions rather than stuff like the professionals at Eggenfelter and the like) you see a lot of engine-stoppage-resulting-in-emergency-landing situations. You *very* rarely see this with aviation engines, tho' you see it a lot more in the homebuilts than in the commercially built aircraft. The NTSB indicates that commercially built aircraft tend to crash because they run out of gas or get flown into bad weather -- pilot error, in other words -- and homebuilts tend to crash because their engines fail -- builder error -- or they're flown too aggressively and stall/spin or break apart -- pilot error. Choose your poison.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  14. Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    but are they wearing pants?

  15. Every kid's dream machine by ashitaka · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone who's seen the opening sequence from "Kaze no Tani no Nausicaa" (Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind ) can understand the type of flight experience they are trying to produce here.

    The freedom with which Nausicaa sails around the skies on a flying machine light enough to carry yet strong enough to carry out some hairy aerobatics has figured in many a daydream. Hayao Miyazaki takes our daydreams and puts them on the big screen.

    Of course the reality of FAA regulations and principles of aerodynamics tend to get in the way of truly realizing the dreams but I give kudos to these guys for trying.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    1. Re:Every kid's dream machine by joneshenry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My dream machine (although it turned out to not be a machine) as a kid would have been an EVA from Neon Genesis Evangelion. I would not have had a qualm about even killing another kid if given an order to do so if obeying such orders was the price of being an EVA pilot. The power to level cities, and if in EVA Unit 01, power without limit, would be in my opinion the most common modern dream in the post video game younger generation, not peacefully flying on a jet-powered glider.

      Nausicaa was a scientist who performed careful experiments that led her to her ultimate conclusions about the role of the deadly fungus and forest in the ecology of the post-apocalyptic world. Genre fiction since then has generally preferred to reject science as the mode of enlightenment, preferring anything else from heredity to magic.

      I guess this point I am more a cynic about what young people really want if freed from the thin vaneer of civilization, similar to the philosophy of Lord of the Flies.

    2. Re:Every kid's dream machine by sabernet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      then again, an Eva had the battery life of your average Dell laptop.

    3. Re:Every kid's dream machine by suyashs · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he'd want it to include an S2 engine.

      --
      http://chrono.posterous.com/
    4. Re:Every kid's dream machine by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Probably someone else has already mentioned this but if you can keep the flyer's weight under 254 pounds and its speed under 65 miles an hour, it's an ultralight and the FAA doesn't get to say much about it other than that you can't fly it in controlled airspace. And if you can land off-airport and don't have big registration numbers (which ultralights aren't required to have) it's not like anyone can catch you, in any case.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  16. tell me when they get Zefram Cochrane's ship made. by plasmacutter · · Score: 0, Troll

    Booooring.. now when they replicate a fully functional version of Zefram Cochrane's ship from star trek, the phoenix

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  17. The Fuel Inside You. by twitter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure you can keep it up for hours. See here for a quick run down on human powered flight. Now consider the fact that a lawn mower, with it's tiny tank, provides ten to twenty times as much power as you can sustain and does it for hours on end. It's not far from there to the whole ultralight aircraft industry.

    Those things are too dangerous for me but are lots of fun for those who fly them. I like something with a little more power to get out of trouble. Ultralights get blown around and where the wind blows is not always good for you.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:The Fuel Inside You. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so willy, whenever you see your karma go down because of negative mods on your "M$ is teh sux" flamebait you fall back to posting links to Wikipedia? Three in a row now. Very interesting.

  18. I see dead people. by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

    Nobody knows the trouble I see, nobody knows the sorrow.

    Disruptive technology is a tree watered by the blood of the brave. Otto Lelienthal is somewhere watching this.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    1. Re:I see dead people. by patiwat · · Score: 1

      That would be Otto Lilienthal

  19. editors of what?? by capoccia · · Score: 1, Redundant

    heroinEEEEEEEE!!!!!! there's an E!!.

    else it's under the jurisdiction of the ATF.

    on second thought, maybe the editors purposefully insert egregiouss errors to troll readers into commenting, thus increasing ad revenue.

    1. Re:editors of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would heroin be under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?

    2. Re:editors of what?? by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      You certainly mean under the jusrisdiction of the DEA.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    3. Re:editors of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heroinEEEEEEEE!!!!!! there's an E!!.

      else it's under the jurisdiction of the ATF.

      on second thought, maybe the editors purposefully insert egregiouss errors to troll readers into commenting, thus increasing ad revenue.

       
      oo oo ooo o oo, i get to nitpick a nitpicker. What do Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms have to do with Herion? It's the DEA you want. Now if your firing cigars while drunk out of your potato gun than you have the right acronym.

    4. Re:editors of what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're," not "your." Also, he spelled "egregious" incorrectly.

  20. Impressive work by Thagg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had seen their previous RC models -- which really didn't look too much like the glider from the movie -- and thought "OK, that's pretty cool".

    This is lightyears beyond cool.

    They are fighting a lot of aerodynamic issues to make a human-carrying glider that now looks remarkably like the one in the movie. The challenge in flying wings is to fight the tendency of most wings to pitch down. In addition to this natural tendency, this wing has two things going against it.

    1) The "jet" causes drag below the CG
    2) The person raises the CG so high that there is a tendency to be unstable

    Add to this the fact that the design allows very little sweepback (a typical way to get pitch stability in flying wings (see B2 and Northrop)) then you are really in a bind.

    They must have a fabulously high positive pitching-moment airfoil. It is possible to make reasonably efficient airfoils with some positive pitch moment, but unless they've invented something truly revolutionary -- the demands on this airfoil for stability might mean that the glide ratio would not be very good.

    Still -- unbelivably impressive. Way to go!

    Thad Beier

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Impressive work by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With a fast enough onboard computer, robust software and suitable servos, one could have an aircraft that constantly monitors and corrects for the instabilities inherent in such an aircraft.

      As is the case with the F-117 "Stealth" aircraft.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    2. Re:Impressive work by firemangreg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem knowledgable on aerodynamics, so maybe you can answer this. Would it help if the center part of the wing (where the pilot is located) was lowered? You would also have to lower that duct thing on the front, but that seems like it would lower the center of gravity. That may also screw up the whole likeness to the anime though.

    3. Re:Impressive work by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      Surely the obvious answer is to build in a real jet? The extra mass of metal from the turbine etc would drag the CG down again.

    4. Re:Impressive work by rcw-home · · Score: 2, Informative

      Increased dihedral really doesn't affect pitch stability, only roll stability. Dangling the weight like a pendulum below the aircraft isn't very effective either, you'd end up fighting phugoid oscillations. Normally, the key for pitch stability is to have your center of gravity in front of your center of (wing lift) pressure. Such a configuration would cause the plane to nose dive like a lawn dart if it had no tail or canard. An unswept flying wing avoids this, essentially, by building the tail into the back of the wing, using what's called a reflex airfoil, which is curved up slightly in the back. You can see this in Opensky's pictures. This severely reduces lift compared to a typical airfoil, but unless you have an onboard computer flying the thing, it's the only way to prevent it from flying like this.

    5. Re:Impressive work by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Since I've been "building" out my own version of the Mevhe using the X-Plane software suite, I can offer some more insight on the challenges of building this kind of flying wing:

      On such an aircraft, the pilot makes up ~80% of the drag and ~70% of the weight: this means that you get to choose between keeping the pilot very close to the aerodynamic center, and modifying the wing's trimmed angle for pitch control while retaining decent stability, or you keep the pilot away from it and try to purposefully use this for creating dynamic stability.

      OpenSky uses elevons, controlled by the pilot's harness. Basically, the pilot turns hips one way or the other to roll, and slides forward and back on the fuselage to pitch up or down.

      By keeping the pilot and engines vertically near the CG they limit any dynamic change in pitching moment, and can keep the wing inside a known flight envelope, and tune its performance easily. They are apparently using a positive-pitch moment airfoil that looks a lot like the MH78 I'm using, plus a swept back section with washout for giving an additional boost to the pitching moment, as well as for (my guess) improving stall behaviour. The latter is especially important to avoid falling in a flat spin at low speeds.

      My own version uses pure weight-shifting. The presence of the pilot over the wing induces some positive pitching moment so in this case, the further from the Cg the better (but higher tendency to spin). Once the wing is powered, the engine(s) provide(s) some more positive moment (the nacelle is below the CG). The more forward offset of the Cg over the Cp, the more longitudinal stability: on take-off the wing is very stable, but with power off a significant part of the stability is gone, making for dangerous landings unless the wing has a soft stall behaviour.

      And with a pilot making most of the drag, leaning left and right to roll, the pilot's body acts as a big roll-coordinated drag rudder that maintains flight symmetry (you can also extend a leg or arm to the side if needed ;) )

      The half-scale model OpenSky built earlier used a zero-moment airfoil on a swept wing with washout for generating the positive pitching moment. Their move to a positive-pitch airfoil with a limited swept section is probably due to a concern over the necessary span of the wing: I think the swept wing would have needed to be too wide, which would have caused too many roll-induced yaw troubles.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
  21. Nausicaa wears pants. by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're close to skin color, so unfortunately it isn't terribly obvious. This isn't that kind of anime. Sheesh.

    FAQ

  22. Yes! by fuzzyfozzie · · Score: 0

    I really wish I could "shoot up" those people. Thank-you, thank-you, I'll be here all night.

  23. Scooby doobie doo by DanTheLewis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anime heroin is two parts narcotic, one part soul of the forest, and one part nanobot. Somebody told me they were starting to put in ground Pikachu, but who could harm that little thing? Except Mew Two, that is.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  24. I know it's addictive, but... by GreyDuck · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "Anime heroin," indeed. I may have a heroine addiction, but anime's not exactly a drug.

    Mind you, my DVD shelf is testament to my occasional desire for a "Miyazaki fix." (And a "girls with guns fix." And a "post-apocalyptic adventure fix." And... well, you get the idea.)

    --
    I'm only wearing black until they come out with something darker.
    1. Re:I know it's addictive, but... by firemangreg · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait, I have one...*insert pseudo-witty phrase and/or analogy about heroin and anime heroines here* Seriously, the first one was ok, but it got really tired really quickly.

    2. Re:I know it's addictive, but... by GreyDuck · · Score: 1

      Hey, when I posted it, there weren't any others. After I posted, I looked again. Still all alone.

      So thanks awfully. *shrug* Whatever.

      --
      I'm only wearing black until they come out with something darker.
  25. Re:Hm... who cares by tanek · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Isn't this sort of thing illegal here in the states?
    U.S. jurisdiction does not (yet) spill over into Japan, so this is sort of irrelevant.
  26. As a model-aircraft designer... by inflex · · Score: 2, Informative

    I give these people full credit for persuing their idea this far. However they're going to have a very difficult time with a design like this as it is inherently unstable. While it may fly fine when straight and level, perhaps doing gentle moves, it'll be very happy to snap back with some very ugly characteristics when pushed outside of its stability envelope.

    A full time computer working on the stability will help a lot, however at some points no amount of computer intervention will re-establish stable flight (ie, tumbling).

    Then again, similar things were said about the helicopter :D

    Looking forward to seeing what they end up with... especially for the turbine motor.

  27. Yves Rossy has been there... by Hymer · · Score: 1

    A swiss pilot (Yves Rossy) has done it... 2 jet engines and a small deltaving. His homepage (in french) is here.

    1. Re:Yves Rossy has been there... by Hymer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry... the link is here

  28. Re:Hm... who cares by McFadden · · Score: 1
    U.S. jurisdiction does not (yet) spill over into Japan, so this is sort of irrelevant.
    Give them a chance! The current administation only just got started on Sweden.
  29. Re:tell me when they get Zefram Cochrane's ship ma by Uncle+Ira · · Score: 1

    I'd be more excited to see Kaneda's bike (which is actually plausible, come to think of it).

  30. I used to fly paragliders pretty seriously by Strolls · · Score: 2, Informative
    I used to fly paragliders pretty seriously, and there is NO WAY on this planet you would get me up on one of those things until a few people have died flying them.

    Under the FAI definitions paragliders and hang-gliders are both in the same category of foot-launced unpowered aircraft, they both have loosely similar flight-characteristsics, tend to share the same airspace and consequently in many countries they (now) share a regulatory body.

    Thus it was I came to be on an instructors' course some years ago when the subject of accident prevention and reporting was being discussed and one thing I remember very distinctly about that was that the same mistakes tend to be made time & time again. I guess this applies to all fields, programming as well, but on this occasion it was pointed out how accident reports of 5 years before looked pretty much like the accident reports currently submitted to the association. I guess the statistics were probably lower than you might think and the majority of incidents involved sprained ankles and broken wrists but the causes were typically pilot error, over-confidence, carelessness &/or neglect - the same reasons hang-glider pilots had been having accidents for 20 years.

    Likewise it took a few dead paraglider pilots before the introduction of a certification regimen under which manufacturers of gliders were required to submit new their models for testing - a regimen which 10 years ago had recently matured but which bore remarkable similarities to the certification schemes under which hang-gliders had been regulated since the 1970s. And of course the testing for hang-gliders had been introduced for the same reason - dead pilots, just in the early 1970s they were the result of simple Rogalio hang-gliders entering "luffing-dives" whereas in the early 1990s the cause was paragliders "collapsing" in turbulent air &/or finding themselves stable in flat-spins or spirals.

    A previous poster wrote that "the freedom with which Nausicaa sails around the skies on a flying machine light enough to carry yet strong enough to carry out some hairy aerobatics has figured in many a daydream" but wings that achieve this goal, this dream, are already widely available. Just because they don't look quite like the one out of your favorite comic book, I don't think that's a great reason to learn aviation design the hard way.

    Aviation design is a really complicated discipline with lots of pitfalls, and mistakes may not show up until a wing has been flown for a number of hours, which is kinda inconvenient if you're flying at a few hundred feet at the time. Tailless aircraft are particularly quirky, and last time I checked (a few years ago, admittedly) there weren't many designs available - a tail is just a really easy way to ensure pitch and yaw stability.

    Don't get me wrong - this looks like a really great toy, I'd love to have a play with it and I wish these guys the best, but I hope for their sakes that they've done their homework. The veteran pilots I've known who have lost friends to the sport (and I guess that includes me) haven't really known what they were getting into.

    1. Re:I used to fly paragliders pretty seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      there is NO WAY on this planet you would get me up on one of those things until a few people have died flying them.
      Er, exactly how many people need to die flying them before they're proven safe, then?

      (.. yes, I read your whole post.) :-)
    2. Re:I used to fly paragliders pretty seriously by Strolls · · Score: 1
      Ummm.... probably just enough that there are a few manufacturers of similar wings and a testing & certification program.

      The posts from Thagg and Inflex were posted whilst I was writing my comment and give a better technical explanation than mine - I guess being model-fliers their perspective on aerodynamics relates less to dead people than mine does.

      After a quick chat with the designer, I'd be pretty much happy to jump on this thing & fly it tomorrow, had it originated from an existing & reputable manufacturer of aircraft (of microlights for instance). I'm not saying that none of the OpenSky designers know anything about aerodynamics - in fact. they must be pretty good to have got this far - just that I'd like to know how it behaves when it's inverted, when you deliberately try to make it stable in an undesirable attitude (accelerating nose towards the ground, for instance), how quickly it recovers from a flat-spin, that sort of thing. Any existing designer or manufacturer of aircraft would be able to tell you about how their wings behave in these situations, and would at least to be able to discuss the design considerations that they'd taken to manage them on a prototype.

      All forms of production aircraft, from Boeing 747s to those silly parachutes I used to fly, are designed with stability & self-recovery in mind - they should (lose height, but) tend to end up flying straight & level, whatever you do to them. Even if you try to loop them but foul-up half-way through, for instance. In good Slashdot style I haven't read the fine article enough to know what the aim of this project is - whether it is to make one fight with a wing like this or to enable regular flights for a number of pilots - but in the latter case they should really be designing with a "what if?" mentality, because accidents DO happen.

      One thing that springs to mind is that they're towing for these tests - are they using a weak-link? Kiting was a serious cause of fatality in the early days of hang-gliding and of parascending / low-launched-paragliding and these days no qualified pilot would even THINK about being towed without one - it's one of a handful of complete no-nos that every pilot learns at school. They may not be towing under a heavy load at present, but if a towed glider goes the slightest bit off-centre the pressure of the line and the lift of the aircraft's wing will tend to induce further diversion; this can easily be corrected by the pilot in the early stages, but pressure needs to be relaxed by the tow-winch operator. What happens if the wind gusts? What happens if the winch's motor jams on? (actually it should have a clutch) Tow operations are required to have a sharp blade immediately on hand for the winch-operator, or a guillotine blade that can be manually-operated and cut the line from the operator's working position. I hope these guys have spoken to existing gliding operations about things like this before conducting these tests.

      Stroller.

  31. Re:Hm... who cares by cptgrudge · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Yeah, good luck with that. A few days later and this is what you get...

    ping thepiratebay.net
    PING thepiratebay.net (83.140.176.146) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepirate bay.org (83.140.176.146): icmp_seq=1 ttl=40 time=138 ms

    --
    Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
  32. Next step in the project by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

    Build a fully functional EVA! YAY!!! (Yes I'm in love with Rei Ayanami, so what? You know you are, too) :D

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
    1. Re:Next step in the project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, just get a Realdoll. They can display more emotions than Rei can.

    2. Re:Next step in the project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Tis a strange love indeed if you disrespect the object of it so much as to write her name in non-canonical order...

  33. Measly gliders? HAH! by btnheazy03 · · Score: 0

    Bring on the mechanized humanoid robots

  34. hmm... by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

    I also agree. Shallow and pedantic.

    --
    Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
  35. Subaru uses same motor for Car and Airplane. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also it was very popular for long time to use volkswagon aircooled motors in lightweight airplanes.

    I expect the fuel systems to be a bit different. (injection, fuel rails, (or carb) intake manafold and so on and so forth) But that's nothing compared to what modifications people make for racing or for marine use.

    Sure this can result in different loads. As long as the motor is mechanically strong and has good cooling characteristics I don't see how it would make a difference. The cooling is most important.

    Except for needing 100% power for lift off or whatnot I expect that the loads the aircraft need (like you said constant 80%) would be MUCH MUCH easier then what a motor faces in a car. It's just that usually the aircraft motor has to be of much higher tolerance and quality then a typical car installation.. If your car breaks down then that is fine, you pull over and call for help. If your airplane motor breaks down then that'll usually result in at minimum severe damage to the airplane and possibly death of it's passenger.

    So don't say it isn't done or can't be done.. Because have done it and are doing it very successfully.

  36. What is Mehve? (Japanese Website) by tuomas_kaikkonen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I thought for couple of seconds, that the unfamiliar word "Mehve" was a Japanese word for Website. So, I was curous to see how the Japanese websites can be made full size and flown in the sky. And who would "click" on the links in this giant monster in the sky?

  37. kewl by goarilla · · Score: 1

    this is awesome i loved that glider in the movie, and i loved the movie as well

    I just hope we can keep our underpants on :D

  38. Depends on it's mode of operation... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    If the jets are used to gain lift until you're to altitude and then turned off to glide, it's much the same thing as the towed gliders that need to be pulled up with a plane- you're just producing something with enough thrust and light enough to carry with you on the glider- if they're running it all the time, it becomes a jet propelled microlight, and anybody with enough know-how can do that one anyhow.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  39. Re:tell me when they get Zefram Cochrane's ship ma by vivian · · Score: 1

    Been done in a few places already:

    Kaneda's bike. Here too

  40. All this and "fun" too? by Illbay · · Score: 1
    They're having a lot of fun, too,

    What, were we supposed to believe this was "serious work" otherwise?

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  41. Translation help by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    Google Tools can translate Japanese web pages.

      Open Sky homepage
      Open Sky movies

    --
    \
  42. Someone should show this to Miyazaki by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

    He's a real aviation buff; I think he'd get a kick out of it.

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...
  43. Maybe Ducted Fan? by vg30e · · Score: 1

    I am not an aerospace engineer, and I don't know how much thrust one would need to get airborne on a glider like that, but there are small piston driven ducted fan engines that currently run hi-powered radio controlled aircraft to over 100Mph. These model aircraft are designed to look like minature fighter jets.

    I am a friend of racing engine builder Gregg Hekimian at http://www.hekimianracing.com/ and he has built single cylinder lawnmower engines that can go over 50 Mph carrying a 300lb man running on 93 octane gasoline for a strange sport called lawnmower racing here in the southern USA. The cost of the engine was about $1000.00 US

    Again, not an engineer, but it seems to reason that it is possible to build a small lightweight engine that can generate the thrust necessary to keep the aircraft and pilot aloft for a while at modest speeds.

    1. Re:Maybe Ducted Fan? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      In my tests I've determined that a 20 HP engine with two ducted contra-rotating propellers of 1' diameter can provide over 100 lbf of thrust at takeoff, and make the wing fly at up to 90 knots in level flight. JPX makes suitable engines for that, IIRC.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
  44. Try as they might... by PhakeDC · · Score: 1

    ... nothing beats a 'Mech equipped with a jump pack! :D But I must admit overheating is a killer. This does look interesting however, albeit it won't see the light of day, at least outside Japan.

  45. Very cute, but wing area a problem by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's impressive that they're doing this. Moewe has rather low wing area for the slow-speed maneuvering it does in Nausicaa, though. It's certainly possible to make a lively little aerobatic monoplane (the Sukhoi S-26 is one of the best modern ones), but those little wings imply a high stall speed. If you want hang-glider type stall speeds, you need more wing area or less weight. The classic solution for slow flight is the biplane. Take a look at this old Sperry Messenger, which has about the same wingspan as Moewe. The Messenger was a very maneuverable little plane. Sperry himself once landed one in front of the U.S. Capitol.

    Moewe's tailless design creates a pitch stability problem from hell, but that's what flight-control computers are for. It's interesting to see what changes they made from the R/C model. The R/C model looks more like Moewe, with straight wings and a huge dihedral angle. The bigger towed model has a bent wing. They're trying for something that wants to fly straight and level.

    There's much new interest in light aircraft today. The FAA has created a new category of "light sport planes", heavier than ultralights but lighter than general aviation aircraft, with less restrictive licensing. Take a look at this StingSport, which isn't much bigger than Moewe, even though it's a two-seater.

    I expect the Open Sky crowd will build something that looks more or less like Moewe and flies reasonably well. And they'll do it long before Moller gets off the ground.

    1. Re:Very cute, but wing area a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With an airfoil of Cl 1.6, you need only ~6 sqm of wing for such an aircraft to get your stall speed under 30 knots.

      The problem is to find the best compromise between low stall speed and wind shear susceptibility: being able to take off at 12 knots isn't very useful when any wing faster than 8 knots can tear the wings off or bring you down in a whim...

  46. flywheel? by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they could trade stability for weight and install a flywheel acting as a gyroscope to increase stability. Would that be practical, or would a flywheel need to be too heavy before it contributed significantly to stability?