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.

        

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 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.

        

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.