The Aerospace Agenda
A blog about all things aviation and space related
The Aerospace Agenda
Successful Solar-Powered Aircraft Flight Over the Alps
Though it didn't receive much coverage in the mainstream press, the recent flight of the Sunseeker II solar-powered aircraft across the Alps in April showed that the technology for such flight is advancing rapidly. The motor-glider sporting solar cells on the wings and horizontal stabilizer was piloted by one of the pioneers of solar-powered flight, Eric Raymond. I wrote a blog entry last year about electric aircraft, including the work of Raymond and his early solar flight achievements with Sunseeker I way back in 1991. It was good to see Raymond finally receive some mainstream media (MSM) coverage in a recent New York Times article. As impressive as the aerospace/solar technology integration engineering that Raymond is doing, his web site about the European flights of Sunseeker II is equally impressive. The site features some spectacular photos and video of Raymond piloting Sunseeker II over the Alps. With the automotive industry spending millions to develop electric cars, I think you are going to see the development of lighter, more powerful and less costly battery technology, some of which can be applied to light aircraft. Thanks to pioneers like Raymond, electric flight may become practical sooner than later.
Terrafugia Roadable Aircraft "Transitions" to Flight
The Terrafugia roadable aircraft ("flying car" is so yesterday) flew for the first time on March 5, 2009, according to a statement and videos on the company web site. Called the "Transition", the light aircraft/car hybrid was designed, developed and built by aerospace engineering graduates from MIT. As I wrote about in one of my blog entries a little over a year ago, of all the "flying car" concepts I'd seen throughout my career as an aerospace engineer, I felt this one had the best chance of not only flying, but being successfully marketed and sold. Looking at the video posted on their site, it looks like they were very conservative on the first flight, basically flying straight and level only about 50-100 feet off the runway. It appears that the test pilot then landed straight ahead on the long runway at Plattsburg, NY, although you can't really see it touching down. (I'm still curious to see how it lands, especially with its four-wheel landing gear.) The runway at Plattsburg is over 11,000 feet long, which was probably why it was chosen for the first flight. The long runway, built to accommodate B-47 and B-52 bombers during its military days, is also 200 feet wide, making it an ideal place to fly an untested aircraft. As was predicted by the Transition team, the takeoff angle was relatively flat compared to the high pitch angle seen on many light aircraft takeoffs. The low wing, short coupled fuselage configuration pretty much drives a flat takeoff angle, leading to a longer takeoff roll, so the Transition will not be the ideal aircraft to fly off of short runways. Even though the video only shows the airplane flying straight ahead, there is a still photo that shows a Cessna flying chase next to the Transition that seems to indicate that it flew higher than shown in the video. It's possible that the aircraft flew a complete circuit around the airport on a subsequent flight, but that the company is waiting to show that more exciting video at a later time.
So, we've seen the Transition driving on the road, and now in flight. It appears that the major technical obstacles of a roadable aircraft have been overcome. For aerospace engineers, that may actually be the easy part. Since I wrote my blog entry about the Transition in February 2008, the projected price has ballooned from $140K to almost $200K. In these very difficult economic times, will Terrafugia have not only the money to finish development and certification, but also enough orders to begin and maintain production? As an aerospace engineer, I'm definitely pulling for them to succeed. If they do, it could inspire more young people to pursue an aerospace engineering degree, knowing that one day they may not only be able to start a successful aerospace company, but have a heck of a lot of fun doing it.
Supersonic Transport History From an Old LIFE Magazine
I was cleaning out some old magazines recently when I discovered an interesting article about the first flight of Concorde, the British-French Supersonic Transport (usually shortened to SST when first referred to in the 1960s). It was in an old LIFE magazine article from March 14, 1969. The cover story for that issue was about the Grumman Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) which was used to deliver astronauts to and from the lunar surface during the Apollo space program. That's probably why I had that issue laying around. However, as I was paging through the magazine, I stumbled upon the article "The Race for the SST" (pictures below of the title page, and also of a side box article titled "Meanwhile, back in Seattle, Wash..." ). The article talked about the race for the first commercially viable supersonic transport, and mentioned how the Anglo-French Concorde and the Russian TU-144 had already flown, while all the U.S. had to show was a fiberglass mockup. The article went on to mention that the U.S. design by Boeing was at least three years behind the other two SSTs. But it would offer superior speed (more than 300 mph faster) and passenger capacity (229 versus just over a hundred for the other two designs) when it did fly. I remember seeing pictures of the Boeing mockup when I was a kid, but I always thought it was about the same size as Concorde or the TU-144. Having seen the Concorde and TU-144 in person, I can tell you they are not very big aircraft - similar in size to a DC-9. Discovering this article I learned that the U.S. SST, if it would ever have been built, would have been a much larger aircraft. Even more surprising to me was to read that Boeing already had orders for 122 aircraft from 26 different airlines, even though they had only built a partial mockup. Alas, the U.S. SST never took off, grounded by budget and sonic boom issues. Russia only flew their SST commercially for a few years, and then relegated them to hangar queens. However, I happened to see one of them parked at Zhukovsky airfield outside Moscow during a trip to Russia in 1993. Grounded at the time of my visit, it eventually flew again as a supersonic test bed partially funded by Boeing and Rockwell. Of course the famous Concorde was flown successfully by British Airways and Air France for almost 3 decades before finally being removed from service in 2003. Seems they were so costly to operate, though, that they were more status symbols than money makers for the two carriers.
Factors That Helped Flight 1549 Avoid Disaster
The successful ditching of US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson River has made headlines all over the world since the mishap occurred on Thursday, and rightly so. At a time when the whole world, and especially the U.S., is in a deep funk, a feel-good story of quick-acting professionalism and heroism by every-day citizens can't help but lift people's spirits in the dead of winter. There is already a lot of info on the web and in the main stream media about the crash, so I won't rehash much of that. I will give my opinion, as an aerospace engineer and private pilot, on the factors I feel helped make the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 so successful.
When I first heard about the mishap as I left work on Thursday, a co-worker said a flight departing LaGuardia airport in New York city had ditched, and that survivors were seen leaving the plane. My first thought was that the plane, an Airbus A320, had run off the end of a runway and into Flushing Bay by LaGuardia, similar to a USAIR 737 accident in 1989. In that mishap, all but two of the passengers and crew survived, mostly because the plane was in shallow water just off the end of the runway. As more details of flight 1549 emerged, I heard that it had ditched in the Hudson River. Hmmm, the Hudson is on the other side of Manhattan Island from LaGuardia airport, I thought, so this must have been a real, but very rare, ditching of a commercial aircraft on water. As soon as I got to a TV, I saw that in fact the A320 had glided to a controlled ditching in the Hudson River after both engines "flamed out", most likely (at the time of this blog entry) to bird strikes. Early pictures showed the plane floating intact, with the nose, wings and the forward two-thirds of the fuselage out of, or on top of, the water, with a bunch of passengers standing on the wings waiting to be rescued. It turned out all 155 passengers and crew survived with minor or no injuries, another rare feat in an even rarer occurrence.
So what went right to make flight 1549 100% survivable? Here is a list of factors I think helped:
1. First, a very experienced flight crew, including pilot Chesley Sullenberger and co-pilot Jeff Skiles. Sullenberger had almost 20000 hours of military and civilian flying, is an adviser on aviation safety issues, and also a glider pilot. Sullenberger's experience as a glider pilot would have given him knowledge of how an aircraft without power handles inflight, and also provided a rough idea how far the A320 could glide without engine power. Obviously not far enough to get to the closest airport in Teterboro, N.J., so he made the wise decision to ditch on the Hudson river.
2. The A320 had reached a sufficient altitude (about 3000 feet above ground) to allow the flight crew some time to make critical decisions about where they could land. If the bird strike had happened right after lift-off from LaGuardia, their options would have been very limited. This altitude also allowed them to have control of the aircraft all the way down to the water. It looks like they had full control of the A320, and the altitude allowed them to set up a landing on the river just as if it had been a runway. It's always better to have a controlled crash than an uncontrolled one.
3. The mishap occurred during the day. This is very important. If it had happened at night, it would have been much tougher for Sullenberger to judge how far he was above the water during the ditching. It can be tough even during daylight to judge your height above water due to depth perception issues, but at night, with no visual cues, the aircraft could have hit the water at a higher velocity or sink rate, possible damaging the aircraft further. Also, night time makes it more difficult for rescuers to find victims, and it would be easy for a passenger to slip under the water and drown without rescuers noticing.
4. The A320 did not break up on impact. If the fuselage had broken apart, or a wing broken off, the plane would probably have sunk much quicker, leading to a higher probability of fatalities. It appears that at least one of the engines, which are mounted under the wings, tore off, but without significantly damaging the wings. This is critical too, since the engines probably acted like big scoops when they hit the water.
5. The planes wings were full of fuel, which helped keep the plane afloat. Since the plane had just taken off for its flight to Charlotte, the wing fuel tanks were probably full. Since aviation fuel is lighter than water, the fuel tanks acted like big flotation bags. You can see this in the numerous pictures that show many passengers standing on the wings waiting to be rescued, yet the plane is floating perfectly stable in the Hudson River.
6. The plane ditched on one of the busiest waterways, right next to the largest city, in the U.S., allowing quick response by rescuers. That section of the Hudson has many passenger ferries plying the river from New Jersey to Manhattan throughout the day, and the first ferry reached the downed plane within minutes. On a cold, January day when the water temperature was near freezing, survivors would not have lasted long in the frigid Hudson river. Also, NYC has numerous Coast Guard and police rescue units that were quickly on the scene with boats, helicopters and rescue swimmers to aid in the recovery.
7. Finally, aircraft safety features required by the FAA and developed through years of aviation accident lessons-learned helped everyone survive. These features include 16-G seats that don't break away from the floor during a hard impact. When seats break from the floor, it makes evacuating a full plane much more difficult. The emergency slides inflated from the exits are also designed to be used as life rafts, and you can see the passengers sitting on the slides/rafts waiting to be rescued, just as designed. Also, you can see many passengers wearing those yellow life vests that flight attendants demonstrate (but many passengers ignore) before most commercial flights.
Because of the successful outcome of this rare ditching mishap, I'm sure this accident will be studied for years to come by aviation safety experts. When studying aviation accidents, it has been shown that it usually takes a certain chain of events to occur in a particular order for a normal flight to turn tragic. Break any one of those links in the chain, and the accident would not have happened. The same can be said about the survival factors for flight 1549. If any of the factors that I mentioned above had not been present, there is a good chance that some of the passengers or crew on the A320 would not have survived. This time all the factors lined up to their benefit, and for once we can all applaud some very good news.
eBay Aviation Oddities - More Flying Cars
Our dreams, or wishful longing, for a flying car continue unabated. eBay this week is listing not one, but two, flying cars for auction. One has actually flown and been certified, while the other is just a bunch of Computer Aided Design (CAD) files and a half-completed prototype. The listing for the certified Molt Taylor Aerocar indicates this is the third one ever built. From the pictures in the listing, it appears to be in pretty good condition. But it hasn't flown for over 30 years, so it could take a fair amount of money to get it flying again. Then again, if you can afford the "Buy It Now" price of $3.5 Million (that's not a typo, we're talking well into 7 figures for this flying car), you can probably afford to get it flying. While this type of aircraft/car is very rare (one of only four every built), I'm thinking the price is a tad high. But hey, it's eBay, and I'm not surprised anymore by what folks pay for stuff there.
The other listing is for the TAERO flying car, err, ah, I mean "roadable aircraft" prototype. This hybrid car/plane has never flown, and looks like it is a long way from doing so. It reminds me of the bastardized flying car they built on the "Monster Garage" TV show a few years back. After a lot of money and effort, it flew, but just barely a few feet off the ground for the TV cameras. A classic TV reality show stunt, not anywhere near a practical flying car. At $135K, The TAERO is listed for much less than the Aerocar on eBay. But you are basically buying the design and hardware assets of a bankrupt company, and of a design that in all likely-hood will never fly, based on the numerous past failed attempts at building a flying car.
If you still have your heart set on a practical flying car, I believe the best chance of success I've seen in a long time is the Terrafugia Transition, which I blogged about in an earlier entry this year. The latest info from the Terrafugia web site indicates the prototype has been successfully driven on roads, and has started taxi tests in preparation for first flight, which could be very soon. Terrafugia is claiming a price of about $200K (up from original $150K estimate), which is still not cheap by any means. But at least you are buying the latest "flying car" technology, developed by graduate engineers from one of the best engineering schools in the world, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I want the best (and safest) chance of seeing my flying car dreams realized.
DNA Testing Confirms Fossett Mystery Solved
As I speculated in my last blog entry, the evidence found at the wreckage site of a Decathlon light plane near Mammoth Lakes, CA, pointed to it being the one flown by aviation adventurer Steve Fossett when he disappeared in September 2007. Though no remains were found during the original site visit, bones uncovered during a subsequent visit underwent DNA testing which confirmed they belonged to Fossett. The findings this week close the book on what had been a year-long mystery surrounding the disappearance of Fossett. A massive air and ground search failed to find a trace of Fossett after he never returned from what was suppose to be a local pleasure flight in September 2007. The mystery was finally solved when a guy hiking through the Sierra wilderness stumbled upon the wreckage in late September 2008.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the crash, but has not released any findings yet. As part of their investigation, I'm sure they will be looking first for any mechanical problems with the plane or engine. If nothing mechanically wrong can be found with the plane, the NTSB would then look at environmental factors such as weather and terrain to see if they contributed to the accident. If I had to make an educated guess as to the cause, I would say it was a lethal combination of flying a relatively low-performance plane (compared to the ones Fossett used to set aviation records) at high altitude over very rough terrain. Swirling winds through the Sierra peaks could have easily gotten him into a condition where he just didn't have enough power (engine horsepower decreases with altitude, and some of those peaks near Mammoth Lakes exceed 14,000 feet.) to out-climb rapidly rising terrain. Sadly, even though a pilot can have thousands of flight hours in high-performance planes, a light plane can kill you just as quickly if you don't respect its limitations.
Strongest Clues Yet Found in Fossett Disappearance
The most tangible evidence yet in the disappearance of aviation adventurer Steve Fossett was found by a hiker near Mammoth Lakes, CA, on Monday. The items include Fossett's pilots license, cash and what on TV appears to be Fossett's membership card in the Soaring Society of America (SSA). (The TV reports were calling it his glider license, but being a member of the SSA myself, it looks just like the SSA membership card in my wallet.) Fossett disappeared in September 2007 when he left a private airfield in western Nevada for a local flight in a Decathlon light aircraft. No trace of him or his plane were ever found even after extensive ground and air searches. Though most of the recent search efforts centered on the rugged Nevada landscape near the airfield where he departed, Mammoth Lakes in California's eastern Sierra is certainly within flying range of the Decathlon. As I speculated in a previous blog entry on Fossett's disappearance, if the initial exhaustive search didn't find him, it would probably take a hiker or hunter to stumble upon the wreckage. What does surprise me somewhat is that if he did go down in the vicinity of Mammoth Lakes, the wreckage wasn't found earlier. I've skied and hiked in that area, and though it is very rugged terrain, it is still a popular resort area with many visitors year-round. It could be that since he disappeared in September, and if the wreckage wasn't found immediately, then the heavy snowfall in that part of the Sierras could have buried it until well into the next summer. If this evidence is legitimate, and I have no reason to doubt it's authenticity, it looks like we may finally be close to solving the mystery behind the sad ending to Steve Fossett's adventurous life.
Is A Blended Wing Aircraft The Future of Air Travel?
The August issue of Aerospace America magazine (published by the AIAA) has a cover picture of a flying scale model (designated the X-48B) of an experimental blended wing aircraft that may be the future of commercial air travel. Preliminary aerospace research on the blended wing concept indicates such a design could offer reduced fuel consumption, noise and emissions while carrying a larger payload than conventional “tube-and-wing” designs. Not a full flying wing, like the B-2 bomber, but also not a classic tube and wing design, the blended wing could provide up to 40% decrease in fuel consumption while carrying the same payload. These are significant savings, especially in the commercial airline world where every increase in aviation fuel directly impacts the airline’s bottom line.
The 8.5% scale model X-48B being flight tested by NASA was built by the Boeing Phantom works. It is suppose to replicate the aerodynamic and flying characteristics of a full-scale aircraft that would have a wingspan of about 240 feet. This scale remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) is powered by three JetCat engines producing 55 lbs. of thrust. JetCat is a German company that makes engines for radio-controlled aircraft flown by hobbyists.
The X-48B program is just the first early step of a long developmental program, and Boeing doesn't see a blended wing flying commercially for at least 20 years. One potential drawback for its use as a people-carrying aircraft seems pretty basic: where do you put the windows for the passengers? If you look at the cross section of a proposed blended wing airliner, you can see that many people would not be sitting near a window. This could cause some people to hesitate to fly in a blended wing airliner. One possible solution could be external cameras sending real-time video of the scenery outside to a screen at each seat. Not exactly the same as looking out a window, but maybe enough to keep most people from becoming claustrophobic. This potential drawback for carrying passengers should not pose any problem if the blended wing is used to carry cargo. In fact, this is probably where we will see the first real use of a blended wing aircraft. The large payload capacity combined with its high fuel efficiency would be very appealing to the big package carriers. It may turn out that the first full-scale blended wing airplanes we see flying will be sporting the FedEx or UPS logos. If they are successful, it will probably not be long after that we see the major airlines seriously consider the blended wing concept for passenger travel.
Airport Video Will Aid SPANAIR Crash Investigation
As is usually the case with airline mishaps, the first eyewitness accounts turn out to be less than accurate. This seems to be what happened in the SPANAIR MD-82 crash last week in Madrid, Spain. Initially there were numerous reports from people at or near the airport that the left engine of the MD-82 was on fire as the aircraft lifted off the runway. It turns out that a review of an airport video camera showed there were no visible flames coming out of either engine. (Even if one engine was having a serious problem, every commercial aircraft is designed to takeoff and successfully fly with a full load on only one engine.) Instead, the video shows the aircraft wing drop shortly after liftoff, with the aircraft then striking the ground and exploding. As I mentioned in a previous blog post about a wild crosswind landing attempt at Hamburg Airport that was captured on camera, it would be beneficial to have video cameras recording all takeoffs and landings at major airports. Video of the B-2 crash in Guam earlier this year certainly aided that investigation, and the video of the SPANAIR crash has already been used to eliminate one possible cause. However, the mishap video taken at the Madrid airport was apparently from a security camera, and not a dedicated runway camera, so in this case it was more a case of luck that they captured usable video of the MD-82 going down. The data collected by such cameras can provide a wealth of info on the crash, and help find the cause of the mishap sooner. Lets hope the use of airport video in both the B-2 and the SPANAIR crash investigations highlights the need for dedicated runway video cameras at any airport with commercial traffic.
Spanair Crash Prompts Usual Mass Media Feeding Frenzy
A major airline crash prompts the mass media into it's usual feeding frenzy via their breathless coverage of today's Spanair tragedy. As of the time of this entry, 153 passengers out of a reported 172 onboard a Spanair MD-82 died when the plane went down soon after takeoff at Madrid's airport. Even though commercial airlines are still one of the safest ways to travel, the mass media made it their top story on all the major networks. Their airline crash coverage has become very predictable. Video of ambulances and fire trucks rushing to the crash scene, scenes of grief-stricken relatives, and the obligatory comments by airline safety experts (who are paid quite well to be advisors to the networks for just such a situation) who are already speculating on the cause of the crash. I'd also bet some network will find a person who was suppose to be on the doomed flight, but for some reason missed it and now is telling their story how fate intervened to save their life. I've seen that scenario over and over again with airline crash coverage. Compared to highway deaths, which killed over 40,000 people in the U.S. alone last year, 153 fatalities would seem statistically insignificant. Sure, every airline death is a terrible tragedy for the friends and relatives involved, but it really needs to be put into perspective, however the media never seems to be able to do this. Let the safety investigators do their job to find the cause, just report the facts, and leave the airline disaster hyperbole to Hollywood.