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.

        

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.

        

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.

        

Watching the Olympics from Beijing the last week got me thinking about how much aerospace technology is used at the games. Probably the biggest application of aerospace technology is also the least apparent: the use of satellites to transmit audio, video and data all over the world. Without the satellites to provide near-real time information on each and every event, the games would never have reached the popularity that allows over a billion people to watch, listen or read about the athletic events taking place. The only time you get a feel for the pervasiveness of the technology is when the cameras pan over Tiananmen Square. That's when you notice the satellite dishes from news and TV organizations scattered about like water lilies, transmitting Olympic information to orbital satellites where it is then relayed back down to ground stations, and into homes throughout the planet.

One area that has been getting a lot of attention are the new swimsuits worn by both male and female swimmers. The Speedo LZR swimsuit is probably a good reason over a dozen world records were set at these Olympics. This swimsuit was the most notable application of aerospace technology at the games. NASA was involved in wind tunnel testing to determine a material that produced the least amount of wind resistance ("drag" in aeronautical terms). Also,  wind tunnel testing helped determine the optimal suit configuration so that when worn, it reduced the "nooks and crannies" of the human body that produce drag when moving through the water.

Also, any Olympic sport that involves speed and quickness to determine a winner probably includes aerospace-developed materials, or used aerospace technology to test and develop the hardware. Olympic sports such as cycling, sailing, rowing, tennis, etc. strive to have the lightest and most streamlined hardware available, and that usually means light-weight, high-strength materials such as carbon-fiber composites, and even titanium parts. The use of this technology was first seen in aerospace applications, were every ounce is critical to the range and load-carrying capability of an aircraft. Wind tunnels are often used to reduce drag to a minimum, especially on the high-tech bikes used in the velodrome events. Once again, the Beijing Olympics have demonstrated that aerospace technology can be applied to many other areas than just aircraft or spacecraft.

        

Well, after much fanfare and suspense, the supposedly revolutionary Martin jetpack was unveiled in front of a large and curious crowd at AirVenture Oshkosh on Tuesday.  After watching the videos and reading the details, I have to say I'm underwhelmed. Yes, it flew, but only a few feet off the ground, and it appeared to require two ground handlers to help keep it steady, or at least for safety reasons, to keep it from wondering into the crowd. As I suspected, there isn't any radical breakthrough in aerospace technology in this VTOL (Vertical Take Off & Landing) device. (I'm going to use the generic VTOL because many people will argue what the term "jetpack" really means.)  It appears to be similar to the SoloTrek VTOL device that was attempted several years ago by a small company in California, now known as Trek Aerospace. The SoloTrek even had government backing from NASA and the U.S. Army, but after several years of development, never flew further than a few feet off the ground, and even at that, was usually tethered to a crane. Like the SoloTrek, the Martin jetpack uses a conventional internal combustion engine driving two small rotating blades, or ducted fans, to provide lift. As I speculated, this VTOL is also not "backpack" size, and weighs almost 250 pounds. It is basically built around a stand or platform that you strap into before you can fly it. Not exactly the comic book fantasy of popping a jetpack out of the trunk of your car, strapping it to your back, and zooming into the sky. At a projected price of 100K, it also seems a little excessive for it'svery limited performance. I could buy a nice, practical light aircraftfor that amount of cash.

While I commend Martin for his skill and perseverance in pursing his dream of a practical jetpack, I just wish that companies like this would wait until they have a flying machine that is pretty much a final design before hyping it to the general public. I've seen too many companies promising the next great flying vehicle (Can you say Moller SkyCar?). They string folks along for years that it is "almost ready for production", then fail to deliver, disappointing many people. You cry wolf too many times, and people won't take you seriously anymore. (I admire the way the Wright brothers did it: they performed their research in private for years, and only revealed their aircraft to the world when they felt they had solved the problems of practical, controlled flight.) Unfortunately, I guess the cost to develop just about any type of air vehicle these days requires large amounts of cash.  So companies will release preliminary details well before the vehicle design is finalized to attract investors and allow them to continue development. What you as an investor or potential owner have to do is really study the product and the company to determine if they will ever deliver what they promise.

One final note. After reading about my skepticism on his jetpack in a previous blog entry, Mr. Martin offered to let me fly his device. I have to say after what I have seen, I'll pass on your offer, Mr. Martin. To paraphrase an old flying adage, don'tfly higher than you are willing to fall.  Successfully flying it to much higher altitudes wouldn't change my mind either, as it wouldexceed my personal comfort level for flying. (If you go to the Martinweb site, they touch on the subject of degree of risk people are willing to take.) Even with a ballisticparachute, I'm thinking there would be a part of the flight envelope close to theground where the chute could not be deployed quickly enough to stopyour fall before you hit the ground. I'll let someone else be the test pilot on this one. I hate to disappoint the dreamers, but you're still going to have to wait a long time for that comic book fantasy jetpack to arrive.

        

What is arguably the largest airshow in the U.S., if not in the world, (based on number of aircraft attending), starts on Monday, July 28, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Known as AirVenture 2008, the large gathering of aviation enthusiasts is run by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), an organization devoted to promoting owner-built light aircraft. AirVenture (known just as "Oshkosh" for many years, and still referred to by that name by many pilots) would be considered THE aerospace Mecca by most pilots - a site that you must make a pilgrimage to at least once in your life. In fact many attendees come from all over the world, some of them even flying their light aircraft to Oshkosh from Europe or South America. For a full seven days, you can immerse yourself in all things aviation (and also space, since NASA has their own pavilion).  While the emphasis is on light aircraft, you can also see a large collection of restored antique airplanes, plus old and new military planes. AirVenture probably is as close as we get to a national airshow in the U.S. But it is quite unlike the large international airshows held annually at either Paris, France or Farnborough, U.K.. Those shows emphasize the big players in commercial and military aerospace such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, etc. Instead, AirVenture is geared towards the average folk in aviation: the people who like to build and fly their own plane, not only to save money, but just for the pure fun of it. That doesn't mean there aren't your share of commercial light plane manufacturers, like Cirrus, Cessna and Piper, with displays at Airventure. There are hundreds of aviation vendor displays, inside and out, plus daily airshows, technical forums, a great aerospace museum right on the grounds, and even activities for kids.

Total attendance typically runs more than 700,000 over the seven days, plus thousands of planes that fly into Whitman Field, located about 100 miles north of Chicago. While the numbers continued to grow in the 90s, setting new records each year, recent years have seen a downturn in total attendance. This is probably due to economic conditions in the U.S., plus the general decline in the U.S. pilot population. I suspect attendance to be down even more this year, especially among pilots flying in, due to the recent spike in oil that has driven aviation gas close to $6 per gallon in the U.S.

I attended my first Oshkosh in 1979 while taking summer courses at Purdue University in Indiana. A classmate mentioned this great  grassroots-style airshow up in Wisconsin featuring homebuilt airplanes, and being an aerospace engineering student, it sounded like just the place for a weekend visit. We drove up in his old Rambler and camped right on the airshow grounds in what is known as Camp Scholler. I was blown away by the breadth and scope of aircraft attending, and was also impressed by how well the event was run, with clean grounds and friendly volunteers. I joined EAA on the spot, and I've been a member ever since. Even though I can't go every year, I've flown and driven to Oshkosh on numerous occasions. Unfortunately I can't make it this year, but with the EAA hosting a great web site for AirVenture, you can follow much of what is going on through audio, video and pictures. Their are usually announcements of new aircraft and products every year at Oshkosh, some truly groundbreaking, some more hype that substance. (It remains to be seen which category the Martin jetpack I wrote about early will fit in.) As the week goes on, I'll try to provide my take on some of these new announcements, so check back to The Aerospace Agenda throughout the week for my thoughts on what is happening at AirVenture 2008.

        

This latest blog entry on my favorite aerospace museums covers the other end of the spectrum from the professional, high-tech aerospace museums I've written about before. This little gem of a museum, called the Golden Age Air Museum, is located in the ridge-lined countryside of central Pennsylvania. Golden Age is only open during the summer months, and is what is known as a "flying" museum. This means that most of the planes in their collection are kept in airworthy condition, and brought out at various times throughout the season for aerial demonstrations. In this case, "Golden Age" generally refers to the early years of flying in the U.S., from roughly 1917 to the start of World War II. Some of the aircraft at the museum include biplane classics such as a 1930 Great Lakes, a 1926 Winstead Special and a 1929 Waco GXE that is used to give rides above the green, rolling farmland. There are also some early monoplane light aircraft at the museum that are routinely flown. These include a 1932 Taylor E-2 Cub and a 1936 Aeronca C-3 Master.

The entire museum is located on Grimes Airfield, which consists of a single, smooth grass runway, and three hangars built to look like those used to shelter planes during the 20's and 30's. Adding to the nostalgic look of that era are a restored farmhouse that has a small office and some inside displays, a couple of vintage automobiles and a replica light beacon tower like those used to guide airmail pilots to their destinations before the use of electronics for air navigation. One of the hangars is used for restoration work, and you can see the latest aircraft being diligently restored to flying condition. The last time I was there, they were working on a 1917 Curtis JN4D Jenny biplane.  Most of the airframe had been restored, but the fabric had not yet been installed, so you could see the beautifully crafted wood that makes up most of the Jenny's main structure.

The museum holds special events during the season, including several fly-ins where you can pitch your tent next to your airplane and enjoy evening cookouts and entertainment. If you can only attend one special event, I would recommend the museum's Flying Circus airshow, usually held in August. It is a recreation of a 1920's airshow, including aerobatics, barnstorming skills, and a little Keystone cops comedy thrown in, all performed by museum volunteers dressed in vintage Roaring 20's garb.

As I pilot, I really enjoyed flying my Citabria 7ECA to the Golden Age Museum during late summer.  At that time of the season, the corn lining both sides of the runway is tall enough to block your view of the rest of the complex until you taxi to an opening near the end of the runway. As you emerge from the "corn canyon" you feel like you have flown back in time as you approach the retro hangars with biplanes neatly arranged outside. The nearby forested ridge of the blue mountains that towers over the airfield probably looks the same as it did more than 80 years ago, when most of these planes were still in the dawn of their flying careers.

If you are not a pilot, Golden Age Air Museum can easily be reached by car. It is located near Bethel, PA, just off I-78, the major interstate highway between Harrisburg and Allentown, PA. The entry fee is only five bucks for adults and three bucks for kids, a real bargain for a fun trip back into aviation history.

        

Here we go again. Another company is claiming to have finally designed a practical flying jetpack, and is planning to unveil it to the world at the annual flying Mecca known as AirVenture Oshkosh on July 29.  The company, Martin Jetpack, is being coy at this point, releasing very few details about what they are calling "The Worlds First Practical Jetpack". They have produced a cryptic video which talks about man's dreams of soaring through the skies with a personal jetpack, and then teases with some clipped views of what I assume are various parts of the jetpack. You never do get to see a complete view of the vehicle, so it's hard to tell how big it is compared to previous jetpacks that have flown.  However, some of the information released does permit me to speculate about what we may see. 

As I wrote in a previous blog entry about jetpacks, while numerous designs have flown, none has ever evolved beyond being an aviation oddity. The primary failing of the jetpack has always been its very short flight duration, measured not in hours, or even minutes, but only in seconds. Martin is claiming that their jetpack will have a flight duration 100 times greater than the Bell Rocket belt flown in the 60's. Since the Bell Rocket belt could only fly for about 20 seconds, that would mean the Martin jetpack can fly for 2000 seconds, or almost 30 minutes. Flying at a conservative speed of about 20 mph, that would produce a flight distance of at least 10 miles.  Quite a spectacular claim considering the best rocket belts could only fly a few hundred yards.  Also, Martin claims their jetpack will meet FAA ultralight requirements, which indicates it could have an empty weight of up to 254 pounds. This would mean it could be more of a flying platform than something you could strap to your back.  It is also said to run on regular gasoline, implying it uses some type of turbine or jet engine instead of a rocket engine. While jet engines are much more fuel efficient than rocket engines, you would still require quite a bit of fuel to lift a human and keep them airborne for 30 minutes. This need for 30 minutes of  fuel would also increase the size of the jetpack. Then there are the questions of flight stability, safety and cost, all of which can have a big impact on whether a jetpack is practical.

So I still remain very skeptical on whether this company is really going to produce a "practical jetpack".  If you want to convince me otherwise, then release the engineering and performance data, and also let me see it fly - don't just take the wraps off a snazzy looking full-scale mock up and say it will be flying "real soon".  I guess we'll just have to wait and see what appears at Oshkosh, Wisconsin on July 29. 

 

 

        

With the cost of aviation fuel soaring, I'm not surprised to see engineering efforts to find alternatives to conventional aircraft fuel, either jet or piston-powered. Previously I wrote on this blog about efforts to find replacement aviation fuels, either by Virgin Atlantic looking at biofuel as an alternative for jet fuel, or a small start-up company, Swift Enterprises, working on a synthetic substitute for general aviation gas. While it will be interesting to watch these efforts to see if they ever become practical fuel replacements, some folks are looking at completely different power sources for aircraft, including hydrogen and electric power.

With technology allowing for lighter, more powerful and longer-lasting batteries (thanks to the general public's appetite for ever-smaller portable electronics, such as laptops, cell phones and music players), you are starting to see the fledgling attempts to power a light aircraft with electric power alone. The radio controlled scaled aircraft industry has been building electric powered aircraft for a number of years, as has the UAV industry. Of course the technology is nowhere near advanced enough to allow large aircraft such as airliners to fly on electric power, but some smaller companies are attempting to see if electric power is practical for light general aviation airplanes. Though human-carrying electric aircraft have flown before, they have basically been experimental, very unique aircraft. The successful ones have used aircraft-mounted solar cells to provide power to the electrical motor instead of on board batteries. Such aircraft include the Solar Challenger, developed by pioneering aeronautical engineer Dr. Paul MacCready, that successfully flew across the English Channel in 1981. Another solar powered aircraft is the SunSeeker, which used solar panels and soaring flight techniques to fly across the U.S. successfully in 1991. Taking the design of a piloted solar powered aircraft to the extreme, a European team is developing an aircraft, called Solar Impulse, that they hope to fly non-stop around the world. Since this effort will take several days, the aircraft will require some type of on board batteries that can be charged during the day so they can power the electric motor during nighttime.

Although these solar-powered aircraft are great aerospace engineering achievements, the cost of solar panels and the need for steady sunshine still make them impractical as everyday aircraft. The next step we are starting to see is the development of battery-powered electric aircraft. It started with self-launching motor gliders, such as the AliSport Targa 2, and the Antares 20E. Putting an electric motor in a sailplane is a good place to start, since sailplanes are the most aerodynamically efficient flying vehicles. Getting to an altitude to begin soaring doesn't require a large engine or much fuel, so it was the logical place to add an electric power system for self-launching.  The next step in electric aircraft development is to go beyond providing enough power (usually only about 10 minutes)  for self-launching, to providing enough energy for sustained horizontal flight of at least one hour or more. This would make a piloted electric aircraft more practical for local fun flying or short cross country flights. Several such planes now under development include Sonex Aircraft's E-flight Initiative, the ElectraFlyer-C and the Pipistrel Taurus ELECTRO, the latter two which have already flown. In fact interest in electric-powered aircraft is increasing so rapidly that a recent technical symposium was held in San Francisco to discuss the latest technical achievements in electric flight.  These promising developments have also lead to the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) to petition the FAA to authorize electric motors in ultralights and light sport aircraft.

We are still a long way from having electrically-powered commercial (i.e. carrying passengers for hire) aircraft. However, these recent encouraging developments indicate that it may not be too long before pilots will be able to safely fly a less costly, environmentally friendly, electric aircraft for sport and recreation purposes.

        

I recently received a brochure for the International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC), and it got me thinking how the aerospace industry has much to contribute when it comes to helping to solve the energy crisis. Organized by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the forum allows presentations and discussions on such topics as "21st Century Space Solar Power", "Fuel Cells and the Hydrogen Economy" and "Synergies Between Space and Terrestrial Photovoltaics".  The aerospace industry has long been involved with alternative power sources, developing and using fuel cells to provide electrical power for the spacecraft used on the Apollo program, and the near universal use of solar panels to provide power for most satellites and the huge international space station. This space technology has been perfected over a 50-year period, and much of the technology is directly applicable to uses on earth. There are now discussions of taking some of this technology even further by collecting, converting and beaming solar energy from space to earth receiving stations, where it could be added to the national power grid. Solar panels in space are more efficient, as the energy from the sun isn't "diluted" by the earth's atmosphere.

Other areas where the aerospace industry can contribute to reducing reliance on oil is aerodynamics and advanced light-weight materials. One of the most visible applications of aerodynamics to terrestrial applications are wind turbines, which are basically refined aircraft propellers that convert wind energy into electricity.  You are starting to see them pop up in numerous windy areas, such as mountain passes and ridge tops. There are even plans to place them offshore to take advantage of the strong, steady winds found over the ocean. Some of the best ways to make a vehicle go further on a gallon of gas is to make it more aerodynamic, and lighter. Weight has always been a concern for aircraft engineers, so the aerospace industry has been at the forefront of developing strong, light-weight materials such as advanced composites. Many of these advanced materials can be applied directly to the design of new cars and trucks, giving them the same or better strength as steel, but at a lower weight. Also, many of the major car companies now have their own wind tunnels for refining the aerodynamic characteristics of their new models. Just a slight change in the roof, side-view mirrors, or hood design can provide less wind drag, and thus greater mileage for a car.

One of the first scientists to recognize the benefits of applying aerodynamic efficiency from aircraft to ground vehicles was Dr. Paul MacCready. MacCready was the famous aeronautical engineer who designed the human powered aircraft the Gossamer Condor, which won the Kremer prize in 1977. MaCready's wind tunnel studies on tractor-trailers lead to the streamlined shrouds you see today on the top of just about every tractor-trailer cruising the highways. These shrouds help reduce the drag of the trailer, thus increasing the miles-per-gallon and saving money for the long-haul trucker.  MaCready went on to start AeroVironment, an engineering firm that specialized in developing products that use aerodynamics to make them more efficient.  MacCready also had a hand in the aerodynamic design of the infamous GM EV-1 electric car that was the topic of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car".  It's not stretching the truth to say that MaCready was one of the first to successfully prove that aerodynamics could be used to successfully develop and sell products other than aircraft.

As the energy crisis becomes more acute, I believe the aerospace industry will play a larger role in developing cost-effective, environmentally safe alternatives to carbon-based fuels. The IECEC conference is scheduled for July 28-30, 2008 in Cleveland, Ohio.