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.

I recently came across a web site with some great aerial photos of light plane flying in Alaska.  The pictures were taken by the late Shaun Lunt, who was tragically killed in the crash of his Piper Super Cub single-engine aircraft earlier this month. Shaun was an anesthesiologist by profession, but in his free time he loved to fly his Super Cub to Alaska to explore the wild parts of the state. Even though he had only been flying in Alaska for about a year, he took some amazing photos during his Alaskan adventures. They show the rugged beauty, on the ground and from the air, of a state where light aircraft are still the best way to travel.

Sadly I remembered reading about Lunt in a May 2008 Air & Space Magazine article about learning to fly light planes "off airport" in Alaska. The article features bush pilot Loni Habersetzer and his course for teaching pilots how to land and takeoff on beaches, sand bars, mountain meadows, river banks, etc. Lunt is quoted as one of Habersetzer's students in the article. In fact, at the time of his accident, Lunt was flying his plane along side of Habersetzer's Super Cub.  Accident reports indicate Lunt was circling at low altitude to get a better look at some whale bones on the beach when his plane went down.

Lunt was only 33 years old at the time of his death, but his photos showed a talent for great aerial photography. It makes you wonder how many more beautiful images he would have taken during his wilderness flying adventures if his life hadn't been cut short.

I finally got around to watching the first two episodes (saved on my DVR) of the Discovery Channel's new mini-series, "When We Left Earth", and so far I have to say I'm impressed. I've watched many TV specials, movies and documentaries about the U.S. space program (see my previous review of "In the Shadow of the Moon" ), most of them showing the same recycled NASA footage of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. "When We Left Earth" not only uses many images I've never seen before, but the inclusion of new recollections by many of the astronauts still living adds a personal touch missing from the previous films I've watched. Fortunately "When We Left Earth" includes comments by the normally reclusive Neil Armstrong. One of my major complaints with "In the Shadow of the Moon" was the absence of  Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon. Not including Neil Armstrong's thoughts and recollections on one of man's biggest engineering achievements is like making a documentary on the Rolling Stones and not interviewing Mick Jagger.

Some of the film that I hadn't seen before included more footage of astronaut Ed Whites first spacewalk by an American, and closeup shots of Gemini capsules 6 and 7 practicing the first rendezvous maneuvers ever attempted in space. The capsules are so close that you can clearly see astronauts Wally Schirra and Tom Stafford in Gemini 6 waving to Jim Lovell and Frank Borman, in Gemini 7, through the capsule windows. The fact that Discovery has transferred the archival NASA color footage into the high definition format made the blackness of space, the exterior details of the capsules, and the deep blue of Earth below even more spectacular on my high definition TV. 

Some of the footage shown of the astronauts training on the U.S. Navy human centrifuge at Johnsville, PA, brought back nostalgic memories for me. I worked in that centrifuge building for 15 years as a crew systems engineer for the Navy, and my office was on the ground floor directly below the cavernous room that held the astronaut-carrying gondola on the end of a 50-foot rotating arm. (Sometimes when they weren't running the centrifuge, we would play basketball in the room using a portable backboard, or in the winter use it as an indoor track to get some exercise during lunch.) That building was built so well (and placed on solid bedrock), that most of the time I could hardly tell when the centrifuge was running. However, ever few years the bearings  on the main electric motor would start to wear, and then I could notice a slight vibration in my office walls and ceiling until new bearings were installed. There were reminders of the groundbreaking human spaceflight research  done with this centrifuge throughout the building.  Pictures of Mercury and Gemini astronauts who rode the centrifuge, such as Neil Armstrong, Alan Shepard, and Gus Grissom hung on the walls. I also remember going up to the "attic" area above the main centrifuge room and found some of the original custom-fit "couches" that each astronaut had made for their high-g runs, with their individual names on them. I'm not sure what happened to those couches, but I hope some of them wound up in a museum. Alas, the history-making centrifuge at Johnsville was eventually shut down when the Navy closed the base in 1996. It was too expensive to operate, and had been replaced by more modern equipment for training Navy and Marine pilots in high-g environments. The building and the centrifuge are still there in Johnsville, PA and there has been talk recently of making it into a museum to reflect it's historical significance in the training of the first U.S. astronauts.

My congrats to the Discovery Channel and NASA for working together to producing a visually beautiful recap of the space program, along with relevant commentary from some of the astronauts, flight controllers, and engineers who made it happen.  If the remaining four hours of this mini-series continue with the high quality of footage and first-person commentary, I may be tempted to buy the series when it comes out on DVD. Though I may wait until it is released on Blu-Ray DVD to take advantage of the high definition format as seen on the broadcast.

Last week the U.S. Air Force released the findings of the investigation into the cause of the mishap that destroyed a B-2 stealth bomber in February.  The accident investigation board concluded that the flight control computers, which essentially keep the aircraft stable throughout the flight envelope, received erroneous information due to moisture in the air data system. This lead to an uncommanded pitch-up during takeoff, and subsequent low speed, low altitude stall. The two crewmembers successfully ejected as the left wing of the B-2 scraped the runway just prior to ground impact.

The ejection system, which I wrote about in a previous blog entry about the crash, worked perfectly, and shows the capability of modern ejection seats to provide successful emergency escape even at very low altitudes. The video below, which was released by the Air Force along with the final report, shows the escape hatches being jettisoned, then the copilot leaving the aircraft first, followed quickly by the pilot. The ejection seats are the ACES II model manufactured by Goodrich Corporation. The video apparently was taken by a security camera, probably located on or near the control tower at the air base in Guam. As I wrote about in a blog entry on a wild A320 crosswind landing in Hamburg, Germany, the B-2 crash clip shows the importance of having video coverage of takeoffs and landings at major airports to aid in mishap investigations.

As a final note on the crash, the Air Force report states the B-2 destroyed in this mishap had a value of $1,407,006,920. The B-2 is truly a billion dollar+ bomber.