Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Makerplane Aims To Create the First Open Source Aircraft

Posted by samzenpus on from the peoples-plane dept.

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."

12 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. EAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  2. Making airplanes is all about regulation by sinij · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Making airplanes is all about regulation by joelsanda · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      The Luddites were ahead of their time.
    2. Re:Making airplanes is all about regulation by icebrain · · Score: 3, Informative

      That just isn't true; you still need a flightworthiness certificate from the FAA in order to register and (legally) fly the plane. The exceptions are for ultralights, sport aircraft, and aircraft which remain tethered to the ground (see: moller Skycar) or never leave ground effect (see: hovercraft and ground effects planes such as the Ekranoplane - which would be registered as boats).

      That isn't certification, though. A certified aircraft (anything factory-built, basically) has to meet very particular standards for performance, function, reliability, etc. That takes a lot of paperwork and testing (I know this because I am an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer). It also requires very tight control of the manufacturing process, and requires that any modifications or deviations be approved.

      Homebuilt aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, but that is expressly not a certification. There's a little formality to it, but it's basically a quick check to make sure you didn't do something horribly obviously wrong (like forget to hook up your controls, or leave a wing off, or forget your basic instruments). You're also required to perform some level of test-flying. And even after that's done, you can't carry passengers or cargo for hire, or use the airplane for any commercial purpose (like banner towing or aerial photography).

      With a certified light airplane, you get a guarantee that the aircraft meets certain performance and safety standards, a proven flight envelope, greater flexibility with use, and a wider resale market. However, you have to pay a licensed mechanic for all your maintenance (including annual inspections) past things like changing your oil, you have to follow the manufacturer's maintenance program, and making changes or modifications (or even buying replacement parts) can be very expensive.

      A homebuilt airplane will generally give you better performance for your money in terms of range, speed, payload, maneuverability, etc., and there are many more options to choose from than on the certified market. It is also much more customizable (you can fit any equipment to it that you want), and the maintenance is much cheaper because you can do it all yourself, even if the airplane is secondhand (except for the annual inspection--you can only do that yourself if you were the primary builder). Homebuilts also tend to have newer, fancier "stuff" than certified airplanes, because you don't have to go through lengthy certification processes to add those things.

      On the negative side, homebuilts do not come with that guarantee of performance or safety standards. That doesn't mean that they don't meet them (many do), just that they aren't proven to have done so. They are also subject to varying degrees of build quality--some builders produce amazing stuff, others I wouldn't trust to build a Lego kit properly. Designs with many flying examples (or those from established kit makers) are generally less risky than one-offs; airplanes built closely to plans generally have less risk than those with drastic modifications or unusual engine installations. You also lose flexibility with use; you can't use the airplane for commercial purposes, and your resale market is much smaller--fewer people are willing to buy used homebuilts. And finally (obviously), you have to invest the build time--something that's enjoyable to some, and a nightmare to others.

      My dad and I (along with a little help from the rest of the family) built an airplane while I was in high school. I'm now looking to build one myself (albeit a smaller, more affordable one) as soon as I finish saving up the money for the kit.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  3. Did they learn the lessons of OpenEZ? by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Did they learn the lessons of OpenEZ? by type40 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I saw Makerplane at Oshkosh. I wasn't impressed. Not because it isn't a good idea or isn't full of good intentions. It's just nothing new under the sun in WI. Their basicly reinventing the VP1 Volksplane with CNC machines. For under $100 you can get plans for a Pietenpol Aircamper, Volksplane, or Legal Eagle. Designs that have been around for 90, 40, and 20 years respectively. The cost of materials alone on those fairly basic easy to build designs will easily crest $5000.
      Their not doing anything Bernie Pierenpol wouldn't have done if he had a 3D printer and CNC machine.
      +1 for good intentions, 999,999 to go till you reach the high score.

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
  4. Re:Problems by jwold · · Score: 3, Informative

    Solutions:
    - Experimental-Amateur-Built
    - Sport-Pilot
    - EAA.org
    (and your favorite search engine)

  5. Re:Problems by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nothing you listed is a problem. Of course there are requirements and costs for getting a pilots license. As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world. In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt. You don't get to fly it until an FAA examiner goes over your paperwork (you must document the construction process to some extent), checks out your plane, and issues an airworthiness certificate so you can begin testing. You don't get a normal type certificate because it is a one-of-a-kind since building it in your garage is not a certified process. Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.

    Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places. I do recommend some training though, and leaving design to professionals ;-)

    Home building is where aviation started, and it's alive and well.

  6. Re:Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hopefully it wont slow them down because none of it is true, just your own personal assumptions, which are, thankfully, pretty much all false. It is different for different countries... but you mention the FAA, so I assume that you think that you're commenting on how it is in the USA... but that said...

    1) anyone can make a plane if they have the skill and the knowledge, and nobody would bother them. it happens all the time, it's happening right now all over the country by aircraft enthusiasts.
    2) you don't have to alert authorities about it at all, and it does NOT need to be certified by the FAA if it's under weight guidelines.
    3) it's perfectly legal to fly whatever you want, whenever you want as long as you keep it under weight specifications for "ultra-light" aircraft. Seriously, if you lack the skills to build, you can go buy an ultra-light, find some dude who can fly to teach you to fly it... and fly it whenever you want, all legally, all without telling any authority or regulating body. You can actually make an ultralight that can carry a passenger and nobody will bother you.

    The most hilarious part of the post is "I wont even go into the requirements" because it's pretty clear that you don't even remotely know what they are let alone well enough to "go over them". Seriously, anyone (at least in the USA) can make a plane and go fly it whenever they want as long as it meets the rules for ultralights. You don't need a license, you don't need to tell a soul and it's still perfectly legal. It's recommended that if you build a plane that you get proper training and have your plane looked over by an engineer, but that's only because people in general don't want others to hurt themselves and give a bad name to aviation. But anyone telling you that you can't do this has no clue about what they're talking about.

    So bad was the ignorance of your post that you failed to bring up the most basic of sources that would inform you about ultralight aviation...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation

    It's actually pretty cool that it's still legal for people to be able to commit and risk their own lives in the pursuit of invention and flying machines just like it was 1900. ...wikipedia, it's a pretty cool resource to check things before you say dumb things on the internet.

  7. similar 103 legal open source project by Mostsigbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  8. Re:the problem a lot of people will have by strangeattraction · · Score: 3, Informative
    There is no minimum hours. Your have to build %51 of the project yourself to meet the requirements fo experimental certification. If the total project is 10 hours your have to build 6 hours yourself. Even if the kit manufacture sets up a factory to do assembly in 5 hours that would take you as an individual 3000 hours. Your are correct that people under estimate the effort involved in most kits. However you as the builder are the licensed mechanic and assume the liability as such. The FAA will happily let your plow yourself into your own grave aslong as they are reasonably sure no one else will get hurt in the process. There are some basic flight test you must perform to certify your aircraft, High speed taxi - run the aircraft down the runway without taking off and see if the gear falls off an the engine maintains power. Fly the plane a brief period in ground effect to to see if it is controllable in flight. In is called opening the envelope (go read the "Right Stuff"). All in all the requirements are probably scarily minimal when it come down to it. Nad if you are smart enough to build the plane in the first place probably a process you would see as prudent. And for amazingly small amounts of money private test pilots will risk testing your aircraft. After you personally fly your aircraft within 50 or 100? miles of your base airport for 50 hours you are then allowed to be certified as experimental. Engines are the tough part. You cannot manufacture them yourself and they have to be reliable. Liability is an issue for manufacturers so they are not cheap.

    Actually for boats the requirements are quite rigorous and enforced mainly because you can usually pile more people on a boat than a home built aircraft.

  9. You don't know what you're talking about by yabos · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.