NASA Spends $25M On Unmanned Planes, Awards Aviation Prizes

An anonymous reader points out a NetworkWorld story about NASA's purchase of two unmanned aircraft for use in "observing remote locations of Earth not feasible or practical with piloted aircraft." The planes are Northrop Grumman Global Hawks, and NASA selected them for their extreme range and the fact that most other unmanned vehicles don't have the FAA's approval for regular use over the US. NASA also distributed prizes for its General Aviation Challenge this weekend. The goals of the challenge include improving fuel efficiency in aviation, reducing emissions, and aircraft safety. None of the teams were able to achieve the $50,000 prize for managing 30 miles per gallon, but the top team was able to complete the 400-mile course at 28.8 miles per gallon.

Comments

Re:Odd

[SimonGhent]

The Pipistrel won $250,000 from NASA last year http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9758741-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20/

And in TFA:

One of the biggest prizes it granted was $50,000 for aircraft safety to the lone returning competitor, the Slovenian-built Pipistrel known as Virus. The plane, which was the big winner at the 2007 event, had added such precautions as a cabin integrated with Kevlar and an installed ballistic parachute system, or a deployable rocket that would launch a parachute 100 feet above the plane in the event of an emergency

But in answer to your question (again from TFA!):

The Pipistrel, for example, used a carbon-fiber propeller on its aircraft this year to reduce its noise by at least 10 percent, but that shift cut the plane's fuel-efficiency by as much as 50 percent.

Re:Will these innovations ever be adopted?

[MadnessASAP]

Well there's a damned good reason for that too. When your cars computer dies or a fuel injector clogs you pull over to the side of the road. In an airplane you can also pull over to the side of the road, unfortunately that road happens to be 5000' below you. Pilots don't WANT to fly in anything that hasn't been tested and proven again and again and again.

Re:Will these innovations ever be adopted?

[SunBug]

I'm a general aviation pilot and would LOVE to have a fuel-injected engine. More power, better reliability, better fuel economy, smoother running, and one less control to monitor.

One big problem with EFI is how to handle total loss of the electrical system. As it stands now, you can lose the alternator, the battery, and one magneto and still fly. Same with mechanical (Bendix systems) injection. However, with the mechanical systems, you don't gain a whole lot. There is still a mixture control- they basically act as a glorified carburetor.

With EFI, if you lose the alternator and the battery goes dead, the engine stops. An additional alternator and battery could be installed to mitigate most of the risk. Same for the coils. You could even keep a magneto as a fallback if the coil dies.

Really, the biggest opposition to modernizing GA is the government and all the red tape involved. It would fairly easily cost millions of dollars to just get an EFI system certified on ONE make/model. Even if you targeted the Cessna 172 with the Lycoming O320, the cost would be prohibitive. As just a guess, it would cost $30-45 thousand per installation- close to the cost of a complete new engine with mechanical fuel injection. Not really a viable option.

There was a program a few years ago call the General Aviation Propulsion engine (GAP). It was supposed to reduce the cost and increase the reliability of GA propulsion. Last I read the project was "considered a success" and disappeared. Seems like a shame, really.