Slashdot Mirror
Smallest Manned Electric Plane Flies
garymortimer writes "EADs have successfully flown an electrified Cri-Cri aircraft. The Cri-cri (short for cricket) is the smallest twin-engined manned aircraft in the world, designed in the early 1970s by French aeronautical engineer Michel Colomban, the Cri-cri aircraft is the world's smallest twin-engine . At only 4.9 m (16.1 ft) wingspan and 3.9 m (12.8 ft) length, it is a single-seater, making an impression of a dwarf velomobile with wings at close range. After its manned flight trials the airframe will be configured for autonomous flight. Obviously once the pilot is removed payload increases dramatically and the airframe itself has been approved for manned flight so certifying it for UAV flight should be simpler."
"Obviously once the pilot is removed payload increases dramatically"
At first glance I thought they were going to complete the conjunction by saying "and the plane cannot fly." But Cpt. Obvious reminded me that UAV is the new aviation buzzword (trend?).
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Next thing you know, someone will be dragging this into a parking space at work, raving about the ecological benefits, and simultaneously getting denied both life and medical insurance!
...I see a potential problem:
When it crashes, you, the pilot, absorbs the entire forces involved. Chances of survival are dimmed if not non existent.
That plane is an experimental plane for one.
Secondly, I see planes like that at my local airport with gasoline engines (single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.). This plane isn't out of the ordinary when it comes to any crash abilities or lack thereof.
Lastly, have you ever flown in a Cessna 172? It's a tin can with an engine. The trick is not to crash - hence all the safety training pilots go through even for the Sport Pilot license.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Here's a link to the same story with a picture taken from the side, much more revealing. Four motors total grouped in two pairs.
http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/cri-cri-the-all-electric-aircraft-gets-airborne
Nate
The Cri-cri (short for cricket) is the smallest twin-engined manned aircraft in the world, designed in the early 1970s by French aeronautical engineer Michel Colomban, the Cri-cri aircraft is the world's smallest twin-engine .
At first I thought the writer of the summary had simply messed up when editing and repeated the same thing twice. But when you check wikipedia, it has the same mistake, even down to the space in front of the period: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colomban_Cri-cri&oldid=383417426
At least when you copy and paste verbatim from wikipedia, read the sentence and see if it makes sense.
Someone has an odd idea of 'short'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbgcIOaDpw
Here is a video of this Cri-cri.
Angle of attack seems high, and the landing looked a little rough.
FTFA:
"The combined utilisation of these environment-friendly technical innovations enables the Cri-Cri to deliver novel performance values: 30 minutes of autonomous cruise flight at 110 km/h, 15 minutes of autonomous aerobatics at speeds reaching up to 250 km/h, and a climb rate of approximately 5.3 m/sec."
30 minutes of flight as a UAV! Sounds like those little rc helicopters from walmart
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I'll have to go read up on my copy of FAR/AIM, but a 30 minute cruise... for anything other than a developer-owned experimental, I'm not 100% sure that would even be legal for sale, even as a kit. It would certainly never make IFR, as that has a next-airport-plus 45-minute reserve hard requirement (FAR 91.167) regardless of commercial-vs-experimental status. Yes, I know, it's a development vehicle, not intended for sale. A little ways to go.
Climb is 1000 feet per minute. That would be under full power, which aerobatics would also almost certainly be under. So assuming you want a good 5000 feet of "oops" between you and a dirt-nap, that's 5 minutes burned in climb, leaving 10 minutes of playtime (they mention 15 minutes of "aerobatics power"), assuming you're fine with a glide home. Any retired Komet pilots or BD5-J jockeys out there want to give this one a shot? :) That being said, I'd have no hesitation to fly an all-electric as long as it has been demonstrated to have a good 5000-hour MTBF and 4 hours plus IFR reserve in real-world at-altitude conditions.
It's an interesting development on a path to all-electric or hybrid manned flight, certainly a milestone to be proud of, but I'll stick with a 172 until my RV10 is finished...
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
...motorized self-launching glider. That's an application for which 30-ish minutes of power would be just fine, and an electric motor plus NiCad pack of batteries may well beat out a gas motor plus fuel on weight. Additionally, there would likely be greater reliability for a high-altitude restart. Make it sexy like a Stemme S10 and you're in business!
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
It's sorta instinct if you're a beta tester...
I thought it was hard to build large, useful electric vehicles. It turns out the real innovation is in small, impractical ones. Well done fellas.
The Ballistic Recovery System. A fine idea, but heavy. For a Cessna 172 (2700 pounds max weight), it's 79 pounds, which is 13 gallons of fuel, or about 180 miles farther you can fly. The smaller version for 500-ish pound ultralights is 18 pounds. I'm not certain that's the best possible way to spend the weight. Of course, if I really want one, I can go to the gym and get at least part of that weight back. :)
See http://www.brsparachutes.com/cessna_182_faq.aspx for details on what is certainly a fascinating piece of tech.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
How is Cri-Cri short for Cricket? They're both two syllables and both 7 characters long ...
Apparently the engineer, Michel Colomban, no longer sells the plans for this craft. Probably because he's involved in a defense contract through EADS.
*DrugCheese rants*
...I see a potential problem:
When it crashes, you, the pilot, absorbs the entire forces involved. Chances of survival are dimmed if not non existent.
That plane is an experimental plane for one.
Secondly, I see planes like that at my local airport with gasoline engines (single engine in the rear - I forgot what they're called.). This plane isn't out of the ordinary when it comes to any crash abilities or lack thereof.
Lastly, have you ever flown in a Cessna 172? It's a tin can with an engine. The trick is not to crash - hence all the safety training pilots go through even for the Sport Pilot license.
It also moves very slowly. Unlike airline crashes, most passengers walk away from private plane crashes. The stories with fatal endings get more coverage and skew the news reports.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Not by far. There are ultralight planes and some come with electric engines If you actually read the article as opposed to the incorrect summary posted, you see no claims for smallness. It is just the first ever FOUR engine all electric plane. The only important thing here was the 4 electric engines, not size.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Christ.
"Engine" has the same root as "ingenious," and is attested in the English "engine," "gin," (like cotton gin) "ginny," and "jenny" (like "spinning jenny").
If it transduces force (force of a working fluid under heat/pressure or any other force) into motion, it's an engine. It's a positively ancient concept and the use of the term (and its cognates) predates the industrial revolution.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The Cri-Cri has been around since it's maiden flight in 1973. To date there have been Internal Combustion and Jet (Google cricri jet) versions created. This is just the next step in the Cri-Cri's evolution.
More information
As has been pointed out by others, most small aircraft (especially the aluminium ones) are just the pilot wrapped in tin foil. They are ALL designed to be light - not crashable.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Actually, the BD-5A had the horrible wings. Since then, the design has been modifed to have a standard GAW wing airfoil, which is quite benign. It's lowered the stall speed from 105 down to 74. There is even a retrofit, called the Ribblett Reprofile, that allows the original wings to be modifed with the new airfoil. There has only been one recent fatal crash of a BD-5, which was back in 2006, and it was simply becuase the pilot forgot to connect the flaps correctly after they reassembled the plane, when he engaged the flaps on short final, only one flap extended, causing the aircraft to roll over. Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!