Slashdot Mirror
Makerplane Aims To Create the First Open Source Aircraft
cylonlover writes "MakerPlane plans to do for the aviation industry what Firefox and Linux did for computers. By adopting open source design and digital manufacturing, MakerPlane's founder John Nicol hopes to overcome the frustration and disappointment that most kit plane builders encounter. Over 60 percent of all kitplanes started end up collecting dust and those that are finished must overcome the challenges of complicated plans, the need for special tools and thousands of hours of labor with little or no manufacturer support. Nicol believes that a more community-oriented design approach will overcome many of these obstacles. Israel-based aeronautical engineer Jeffrey Meyer is leading the MakerPlane charge to develop a safe, inexpensive kitplane that can be built at home or at a 'makerspace' through the efforts of people volunteering their efforts and ideas. MakerPlane intends to make the plans and avionics software for the plane available for free, but will sell parts and support services to fund the project."
There's a group called the Experimental Aviation Organization. They have a whole bunch of local chapters full of people who are obnoxiously willing to help you build an airplane. There are dozens of kitplane manufacturers out, including my favorite Airdrome Aeroplanes which has an awesome kit for building a replica (full size or scale) of the Red Baron's DR-1 among others. The build time is on the order of 400 hours, vice 2000-3000 for the modern composite designs, and this design needs no tools beyond those from Harbor Freight.
Enjoy
Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.
First: Awesome project. Don't let what I'm about to say slow you down if you're interested.
I see a few problems here -- first is that in order to actually fly the plane, it has to be certified by the FAA. A manufacturer can guarantee the process made to create the first plane off the assembly line will result in about the same quality and performance for the 1,000th plane to roll off the line. "Printing" a plane opens the door for a lot of variation, not just in terms of materials and workmanship, but also that there's no way to verify that there have been changes to the design. The whole point of 3D printing is to rapidly prototype and make quick and dirty modifications to designs prior to validation of the components in its finished state.
The other is that you still need an FAA license. That means training, and that training isn't cheap. There's also a whole bunch of medical requirements, not all of which are really fair. For example, did you know taking anti-depressants could disqualify you from flying a plane? I won't even get into the requirements if you've ever been convicted of a crime -- even a trivial one. So even if you have the tools to print yourself your very own plane, it doesn't change the cost by a whole lot. The training and certification requirements can in many cases surpass the cost of the plane itself.
And then there's the problem of being able to build an airplane without the authorities knowing; It's pretty easy to create an explosive device. If it's just as easy to print a delivery system (hello plane!), then you can just add some remote controls and a camera and build yourself a plane bomb. Yes, I know it would be cheaper to build a missile, and more practical, but the authorities (cough, american law enforcement, cough) will always assume the worst. In there eyes, everything is a weapon, or components to build a weapon, and will happily and with great gusto violate every one of their own laws to catch you, the bad guy with a 3D printer, because you possess the capability to create weapons. Nevermind that you don't actually have any, or the intent to do so, the mere possibility that you could if you wanted to seems to be enough these days to get you disappeared in many countries... especially mine.
With all these problems, don't you think you're being a bit naive to think that your open source aircraft will actually get off the ground (literally)?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
If it's not a flying car, I'm not interested.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Open source people don't like regulation, because it confines the creative process.
You're trolling pretty hard there. Many open source licenses depends on regulation. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright law. So no, regulation by itself doesn't confine the creative process; Bad regulation does.
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
They've been trying, but every time they drop an apple it lands on the ground instead of the ceiling. They've tried threatening the apple with a lawsuit, they've tried applying intellectual property laws saying things landing on the floor is prohibited by law, but the damn apple keeps landing on the ground. One person even tried firing it into orbit with a giant gun, but we're not sure if it worked -- he was later found covered in applesauce and shrapnel.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The OpenEZ was to be an "open source" version of the LongEZ. Last I checked, people were making various modifications and there was really no "official" release of plans. The problem is that many people will not build a plane and bet their life on a design that has not been built and tested "as designed" by someone else - nor should they.
Going for open source avionics is a waste of time - you can get a full 6-pack (equivalent) from Dynon for $1500 and install it as a unit.
Kits have been getting better all the time. I know many many people with different backgrounds who built and fly kits from Vans. There are many plans and kits available from other sources as well - many with support forums and such. If you want a successful open source plane it will have to be easier and/or cheaper to build than anything out there and you will have to build and fly one first. Open source or "free" plans are not the issue. More time and money is spent on parts, supplies, and actually building the thing. For plans-built planes, the cost of an engine usually dwarfs the cost of tried-and-true plans.
So how is this going to be better than what you get from your local EAA chapter
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
Repeal the first (or even only the second) law of thermodynamics and we'd get enough energy to beat gravity.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Saying you need FAA approval to prototype an airplane is a bit misleading. Do you need FAA approval to fly a model airplane or a drone? Because that is how you prototype an airplane on the presumably open source budget that the project will start with, unless they can get someone like Mark Shuttleworth to sponsor them.
Maybe I'm wrong about the drone part. Still I find it hard to believe that attaching a motor to some flat pieces of wood or fiberglass I'd soon get the Feds knocking on my door and not just the local cops for wrecking the neighbor's lawn.
Start small and scale up. Think first about about how you can send your doll collection up to the clouds before you start worrying about FAA approval to strap your significant other onto the cockpit of your full-size aircraft.
Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.
Not necessarily in the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration "... does not certify, certificate, or approve aircraft kits. Also, the FAA does not approve kit manufacturers." Though I'm sure there are regulations for the person piloting the aircraft.
I think all that quote is saying is that the normal certification and approval process does not apply. My understanding is that kit airplanes fall under the category of experimental aircraft and a different large body of regulations do apply. Including regulations limiting where an experimental aircraft can be flown. Of course things may be quite different from long ago when I became acquainted with such things.
Having built my own plane (https://sites.google.com/site/tomscozypage/) it is something ANYONE can do. Well, not anyone, especially anyone who would rather tell us all that they can't do stuff, but anyone who is willing to spend a couple years out in their garage, basement, or whatever workshop you have getting stuff done. It is not a risky venture, if you either follow the plans, or do reasonable engineering (if you know that discipline) when designing your own.
Any avocation can be expensive. Sure you can pick up fishing for like $15 for a rod and reel at Walmart, but in a couple years, after the boat and SUV purchase, you are talking about real money. Very capable airplanes can be bought (yes factory built even) for the cost of a good used car ($15K probably for a 2 seater). Learn to fly in your own airplane, with a good instructor, and you can learn for very little.
The medical requirements are minimal, and if you are willing to stay with a 2 seater aircraft and not really high performace (Light Sport Aircraft category) you only need a drivers license as your medical certificate. Even a 3rd class medical (if you want an airplane with higher performance or carrying more than 2 passengers, you need that) can be passed by anyone who is willing to get off their butt a couple times a week and move around. (if you want to fly for money, you need a 2nd class medical, and if you want to be a captain of an airliner you'll need a 1st class medical with the whole EKG and all).
The inexpensive airplanes aren't made anymore, Steve Witman designed some wonderful inexpensive fast! airplanes (tailwind as an example). Long-eze was maybe a peak of recent plans designs, by the man, Burt Rutan. Kitplanes magazine does annual issues of various kit offerings, as well a plans designs. Wicks and Aircraft Spruce are reliable suppliers.
The EAA is a little shifty supporting the home builders, but have been the most reliable for over 50 years. The EAA chapter organization is probably the best support group in the world. Use the resourcfes available, don't do it alone. There are plenty of resources available, from tech counselors to flight advisors. Yes you can fly an airplane you built yourself, or you can have someone else fly it for you.
Vim or emacs?
No manual. Any question about equipment or design will be answered with- WTF do you need that for? What? We have to fly it for you too ? F'ing noob.
Having spent many years envolved in building experimental aircraft I will agree that open source could potentially solve some problems. One barrier still remains however. An inexpensive engine. Any engine manufacturer that has any plans for remaining in business very long will have to insure themselves for liability. This ends up being almost half the cost of the engine. I am not award of an open source solution for greedy stupid people and their lawyers.
Great role models they've chosen, Firefox and Linux. Next stories: "Google introduces MakerPlane competitor" and "This could be the year of the MakerPlane aircraft" followed by "MakerPlane overtaken by Google plane in marketshare" and "The MakerPlane aircraft is dead".
Do not move the "fuel switch" from the front panel (where it belongs) to an awkward location behind the pilot. Because the person you sell the plane to later will have to stretch around to flip the switch, causing their foot to hit the foot pedals, and then the plane dives down and plunges into the ocean. RIP John Denver.
Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.
Making planes is also about getting sued. Lawsuits destroyed the private light aircraft market in the U.S.
You do not even have to make an error to lose a lawsuit. A lawyer merely needs to convince a jury that a "better" design choice could have been made. Your choice may have been the better choice in a broad overall sense but the lawyer just needs to argue that in a specific narrow sense something else would have been better. For example a fuel injected engine vs a carbureted engine. In a specific narrow sense fuel injection might have avoided an icing related crash. Never mind the pilot failed to apply carb heat. Never mind all the complications and issues fuel injection raises in other areas.
...will be getting their build past CAA inspection, which is mandatory before you even get to roll the aircraft onto the apron. Then you got static avionics tests, static engine tests at idle and full power, then you got taxiing tests, takeoff-circle-approach-waveoff-approach-landing and testing systems all the while, while making sure you don't wrap yourself around a building... you'll probably spend more time running tests to satisfy the inspector than you will have done building the thing (IIRC there's a minimum number of hours build time on a two seater that's something like 2500 hours; on a hot air balloon envelope it's 1,000 hours per 800,000cu.ft (that I do know having been there and worn the T-shirt) and the inspection involves a close eyeball inspection of every single inch of stitching. I shit ye not).
Kit aircraft (of any description) is more than throwing bits together and giving it a lick of paint, just bear that in mind if you get the urge to have a garage project... perhaps you'd prefer something a little less involved, like a forty foot boat? The only requirement of a boat is that it floats and is steerable. You might have a river users' licence to get but that's a piece of piss, even easier than getting a fully qualified drivers licence.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Why are there alot of unfinished kits? Because building any kind of kit aircraft takes ALOT of time. Like divorce inducing amounts of time. Even the buying ALL of the quick build options for any major kit still leaves you with hundreds of hours of work. Plus the fact that the generally accepted rule is that the kit is only 1/3 of the total price, with avionics being 1/3 and engine/prop being 1/3.
Being a experimental means FAA certification does not come into play, but its the effort required of the builder that kills most kits/projects.
People simply have no idea of the time investment when they spend their money.
http://pastebin.com/DtbTyFnR
There's an old saying, "If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."
Buildings, at least, don't fly. You won't catch ME in that airplane!
I'm gonna shamelessly plug my own open source project http://sourceforge.net/projects/pbfthunderbolt/?source=directory here. I'm looking to connect with anyone that might be interested in this. It is an FAR103 legal aircraft, for the sole purpose of flying for enjoyment or pleasure, not necessarily intended to be used as a means of transportation. I really hope to put some time and effort back into this project again in the near future. I have flown this aircraft, and it did exactly as I expected; http://www.pbthrust.com/ I've tried to drum interest from kickstarter and various open source hardware oriented cliques like The Open Source Hardware Association and OpenDesignEngine.net, but no interest from them- I'm admittedly not good at marketing...
Nope.
Basically, when you complete a kit plane, you get it certified by the FAA as an experimental aircraft. Those can be flown anywhere that's permitted by their equipment and your licensing; for instance, the plane has to have its minimum equipment list to fly at all and navigational aids to fly in IFC. The major restriction on an experimental aircraft special airworthiness certificate is that it can't be used for commercial cargo or passenger operations.
Unless an FAA bureaucrat feels otherwise:
"The Van Nuys Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) has prohibited experimental flight tests and normal operations (Phase 1 and Phase 2 flights) at Burbank, Van Nuys, Whiteman, and Santa Barbara airports."
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060118experimental.html
Add Bernie Pietenpol to that list. Man had an 8th grade education and developed an air foil ideally suited to his aircraft type / flying style..... In the 1920's.
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
I can't help but think of "If OS were Airlines:" http://www.webaugur.com/bazaar/53-what-if-operating-systems-were-airlines.html
Specifically, "Unix Airlines":
Each passenger brings a piece of the airplane and a box of tools to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, they build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations. All passengers believe they got there.
You had to do what with the seat?!
I wish this effort well, but I don't think it answers any problems. I don't believe I would be tempted. Building an airplane is just too damn much work to not be certain of the results.
There are many excellent kits to choose from. Like anything else, you have to finish the project to reap the rewards. If your main goal is to fly (and not to build) then just buy a nice used airplane. I expect to have spent over $100K (plus labor) to complete my RV8. In the current depressed market, $100K will buy a very nice used single. Note that Van's only got about $30K for the kit, the balance of that money is mostly engine and avionics.
Experimental aircraft are not treated the same as certificated aircraft. It is true the FAA does not approve experimental aircraft designs but if your kit is on "the list" then your test flight requirements are reduced. An experimental aircraft is legal to fly anywhere a certificated aircraft can be, including class "A" (which implies a IFR clearance). An experimental aircraft must be inspected and approved prior to first flight/starting test flights.
What you cannot do w/a experimental is commercial operations such as flight training, air taxi, etc.
Whoever mentioned the EAA is spot on. Actual help depends on the chapter but there does seem to be an abundance of retired people who want to take over your project.
How are we going to keep this open technology away from the Muzzies?
The Gyrobee (http://taggart.glg.msu.edu/gyro/gbplans.htm) was open source long before the term became known in combination with other things than software. They are at least 10 years too late for the first open source aircraft.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
There are plenty of kit manufacturers that sell plans [only] at reasonable prices, and there even free versions of plans for popular aircraft (eg. Piper Cub) around. ...). No open source aircraft plans will ever make this easy, although I welcome any interesting new design. Then, of course you need an engine - prefereably one that won't kill you. Modifying an engine for aircraft use is not a job for a home builder. Aircraft engines have specific cooling requirements, so you can't just slap any old installation on the front of your aircraft. Usually, even an automotive conversion is not cheap. Then you have avionics. A radio/transponder alone will cost upwards of $2000.
Have a look at the part count on any aircraft though. It is not small.
The biggest problem of actually building a plane is cost, cost, cost, measuring and fitting, drilling holes in the correct place, drilling straight/non-ovalled holes, accurately complying with the plans (without making expensive mistakes, and having to re-make parts), and understanding the standard of workmanship that is expected (ie. how tight should bolts be, what are tolerances for grinding bushings, how much chromate primer should i spray on it
It is relatively simple to build a rag and tube microlight, with a small two stroke, but a small group A aircraft, is probably 400-1500 hrs work, regardless of how you design it.
I'd disagree that kit makers offer poor support. Currently, as I work on an aluminium kit plane, we have actually found the manufacturer to offer very good support, and assembling it with the stubborness of a software developer, expect to complete it in pretty resonable time [about 40% done, currently].
The completion rate for kit planes will not change, open source or not. People will still make the decision to attempt something that they do not have the perseverance or time to actually achieve. Building a plane, is like building software. There are times of frustration, times when everything seems to be going well, unexpected problems, it takes lots of time, and it costs a lot of money. Good luck if you want to try. It can be a very rewarding experience, but choose carefully.
A lot of kits now, are much easier than they once were, with match drilled holes and laser cut skins. Today, you have a much better chance of success than previous builders.
1. Experimental aircraft can take passengers. After they are built they require a proving period where the builder flies it to prove it's safe. The airplane gets a certificate of airworthiness and is legal to carry passengers after the inspector looks over the plane and the pilot meets the minimum solo hours proving it's safe to carry passengers. Have you ever actually looked at any kit planes? Do you see any with more than one seat? I certainly do, including some of the most popular kit planes in the world, Van's Aircraft http://www.vansaircraft.com/ . A kit plane does NOT have to be a certified airplane to be able to take passengers. They operate under the Experimental Aircraft category in the US.
2. IFR has NOTHING to do with built up and urban areas. This may surprise you but the big jets you see landing at a major international airport are often operating in VFR. VFR is visual flight rules, it means the pilot is responsible for see and avoid, as well as being required to be able to see at least x miles, which is different between countries and jurisdictions. VFR pilots can operate in controlled airspace, except class A which is 18,000 and above.
3. Ultralights are not limited to under 100 feet. Do you realize how low that really is? Yes you can not usually fly them over congested areas, but congested does not mean IFR. Ultralights may fly in controlled airspace, both class B and C, with prior permission. Ultralights typically fly out of a farm field or grass strip and generally those are in uncontrolled airspace, class G. For the type of flying one usually does with an ultralight, this is generally fine since they go slow and have a small payload. They are really for recreation anyways. I don't know why you would think anyone would WANT to fly an ultralight in IFR conditions. First of all you need expensive instruments which won't likely even fit on the instrument panel in an ultralight. Second, IFR conditions are usually cloud, rain, snow, ice, etc. and ultralights are extremely light weight(duh) and a lot are open cockpit. So what's the issue here? Ultralights fit many people's needs for recreational flying and are quite cheap to build and operate.
4. Experimental aircraft are making great strides forward compared to the FAA certified aircraft such as Cessna, etc. The engines are using half the fuel(such as the Rotax) compared to the certified aircraft engines(Lycoming, Continental). The reliability is also on par with certified aircraft engines. The same thing is happening with avionics. Kit planes are often built with full glass panel cockpits and much cheaper cost than doing it with certified avionics. They are just as reliable as the certified avionics. Having everything require certification makes the price 2-4 times as much and slows down the progress. For commercial operations, I can see the need for certification, and the piece of mind it gives people. But the EAA has shown for non commercial and personal flight, the certification does not give you much if any benefit.
You can take paying passengers in a Cessna or other small aircraft. Sea plane tours come to mind as a practical example. They are also used for training which is another commercial use.
To take passengers for money (commercial operation) you can not use a plane certificated as experimental (home built) but you are most certainly able to take non-paying passengers. I've been such a passenger. The Young Eagles organization depends on it too.
Bottom line: kit planes are certified by the FAA as experimental, but can be used in just about any way commercially built planes can except for commercial operation.
This post is misleading. Nowhere on the MakerPlane site does it say they are aiming for the worlds first Open Source Aircraft!!!! They don't claim that at all!! This from their site if anyone has actually bothered to read it: MakerPlane Aim “The mission of MakerPlane is to create innovative and game-changing aircraft, avionics and related systems and the transformational manufacturing processes to build them. As a result of this aim, aircraft can be built with consistent, repeatable and highly accurate processes which create safer flying at lower cost. ” Objectives The objectives of the Open Source Aircraft project are: Foster a new wave of innovation and creativity in aviation which will lower the overall cost of ownership; Provide new ways of building aircraft that the average unskilled builder can comfortably achieve success with; Create innovative, popular, safe and modern aircraft designs; Provide free and open source based files and plans for low-cost airframes; and Create accessible and affordable open source avionics systems.
HUGE Security Resource+ - version 6000 - 08/31/2012
http://cryptome.org/2012/08/huge-sec-v6000.txt
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=f3Z4fQvK
http://pastebin.com/f3Z4fQvK
The laws of thermodynamics speak of observations in a closed systems. We still cannot prove the universe is or isn't a closed system and if in fact there is an infinite multiverse, then all bets are off. A great story along these lines if Asimov's "The Gods Themselves". So a more powerful engine than matter-antimatter might be two closely spaced portals to two universes, a universe about to become a big bang, and a universe on the verge of heat death. You could harness huge flows of energy from both portals and because the effects on our space would be cancelled out by the two opposite universes, our universe would incur no dangerous shift in fundamental physical conditions (read the article to better understand.)
Has anyone here flown or know anything about the Mountain Goat? Stall speed 26 mph, top cruising speed over 175 mph, and able to take off on flat ground in less distance than the length of a 747. That and able to carry over half a ton in cargo safely. I just want to know this isn't too good to be true. I saw a film of this thing flying over cow pastures on the Monterey Coast at about 20 feet, then floating at about 2,500 ft. as it hovered over a hilltop in a 30 mph headwind. Weirdest thing I've ever seen a plane do. Any time you can jump out of a moving plane with better than even odds of surviving, the plane is going really slow.