Blue on Top

There were also no bathrooms on the "Enterprise".

I wouldn't bet on that. Airplanes will get anti-COVID filters.

Sort of back on topic (but I love the other stuff, too). Cessna let go another 800ish in the last couple weeks. 70 or so engineers last week and nearly 800 more yesterday (I don't know the breakdown of the nearly 800). We joke about toothbrushes, but Cessna, Beechcraft and Stearman (Boeing) all built other things during the down times to keep good employees: furniture, hydraulics, bicycles, cars, etc.

What is wrong with nuclear? I thought the containment issue had a known solution.

This is just funny as the Wright brothers as young children with a toy "helicopter", given to them by their father, learned that scaling didn't work. They tried unsuccessfully too.

I better stop being so emotional. I'm going to run out soon .. and then I'll be like every other engineer That reminds me of a bad joke ... Every time I see my good friend, Paul Bowen, he says, "You know that they came up with a new contraceptive for engineers?" "Their personality." LOL.

Used to, but I would like to get back into it again. Wichita is just completing their new boathouse. Head races only (again no fast twitches … and I am not tall and lanky). St. Denis Head Race (26 miles) is on my bucket list but fading … if they still have it. "Escape from Alcatraz" Triathlon is still strong on the list, though. My last big rowing event was at the Iron Oars in Chicago (15 miles). I like my pain to be long and very excruciating Sprints are for wimps I don't measure power any more. I did one time. It's too depressing to know that I am not worthy.

It's not just this virus thing. Cyclists have some weird tan lines, too. Right @aviatoreb?

So, on this "bike" topic, why is a bicyclist called a "rider"? I ride on a train or bus or in an automobile. But on a bicycle, not only do I drive (steer), I am also the propulsion. Go figure! As for sculling (which I too love), nothing compares to the grace, beauty and raw power. I have ZERO fast twitch muscle in my body, so TT and sprints are not even a fleeting thought for me. Our bodies (human propulsion) are truly amazing.

I believe that 12 of the original Crosley M-18s were produced. They were all recalled back to the factory to be upgraded to Lycomings. The Kansas Aviation Museum here in Wichita has one of the original Crosley engines … and a Continental M-18 on display. I believe that Don M. may have an M-18 still with the Crosley … waiting for restoration.

Forget the car. I want the house!

@cliffy And here is the exact reason I formed Blue on Top LLC. For part 23 applicants, they must complete certification in no more than 3 years from the date of application (or they have to pick up new regulations). Part 25 (Transport category airplanes) have 5 years. This has never changed. Few regulations have changed substantially over the years. They are all based on safety, and typically only change after a fatal accident(s). So what is different? We, the OEMs, are different. Airplanes used to be certified with pictures of the instrument panel. Takeoff and landing data was a series of photographs of the airplane during taking off and landing. Now we have $0.5M data systems, recording 100s to 1000s of parameters, hundred of times a second. Then we have 100s of engineers analyze all the data. Then we have outside, contracted ($$$) DERs (Designated Engineering Representatives) to assure we analyzed the data correctly. Then we present reams of data to the FAA that looks for errors (and typos and improper grammar) in our reports. The running joke is that the airplane will certify when the weight of the paperwork equals the gross takeoff weight of the airplane. The original M20 was certified with a couple engineers and a few draftsmen. That is all. Today (depending on the company and airplane), the Engineering staff alone will be from a couple hundred to 1000+. We've done this to ourselves. Sadly, when I would state that we are an OEM, and we can certify anything, the first response was typically that the DER wouldn't approve that. OEMs don't need or require outside, consulting DERs. Cessna used to do everything themselves, and they were good at what they did (and they met or exceeded every schedule). Now, little is done in house … and they are paying the price for it. The new CEO is going back to the old ways. Yes, there are valid cases for outsourcing (as larger companies continue to get less competent). Outsourcing the whole product says an OEM shouldn't be in business … and the cost of the end product will be double what it should be. Sorry, a lot more than my 2 cents. -Ron

@firelog1101 I agree with you. A 1980 "J" made today would probably be in the $500K range. But, convincing an OEM to make such a vehicle will be next to impossible. Simple, cost-effective and practical are not in their vocabularies. Btw, that is the biggest and most complex word I know. A redesign for today's manufacturing capabilities will go a long, long way to reduce costs. Through today's CFD (computer aerodynamics), the older and lower horsepower airplanes can be made more aerodynamic and see a nice improvement in efficiency … The real Mooney trademark. Speed at any cost was not an Al Mooney trademark.

Interestingly, the product liability insurance on a C210 is very similar to that of a Citation … a lot of it is in the number of people on board.

Good point, but the delta is not as big as what most people think. Insurance has gone up a lot with liability lawsuits. Labor rates have also gone up a lot … and airplanes were not designed to be built in an automated assembly line. BUT, what has also gone up is the luxuries within the cabin: better avionics (and very pricey), leather, air conditioning, sound deadening, etc. As I have mentioned before. Building an original "J" today could be profitable. Building an "Ovation/Acclaim J" would not be. My two cents.

Lead is currently the only additive that can boost the octane rating to required levels for certificated engines. Phillips and others have tried other additives with limited success (and much higher costs). Here's the catch 22. Automobiles can use lower octane fuel (btw, octane ratings between cars and airplanes are different) because they have electronic ignition, and therefore, variable timing. This is an issue in airplanes that require guaranteed performance. In other words, your takeoff/climb/go-around performance is based on full HP, but the computer pulls the power back so the engine doesn't knock, … hello trees and mountains! If the engine was "de-rated" all this issue could go away! Geared magnetos just can fire precisely enough.

@Austintatious Interestingly, and now that I think about it, there was no mention in the Aviation Week webinar today about batteries. The Rolls guy was very knowledgeable about everything Rolls and everything Airbus are doing. He didn't mention the NXT, either. Hummmmmm??????

I just finished listening to a webinar put on by Aviation Week entitled, "Electrification: Dead End or the Future of Aviation?" Obviously it was slanted toward the "Future of Aviation" point of view. It brought up several valid points of where we are going … by 2035 at the earliest. 1. Is the future one source or more likely a mix of hydrogen, electric, hybrid, synthetic fuel, etc. 2. Currently (without subsidies) electric is 3-4X more expensive than current fossil fuels. 3. The progress of biofuels has been much slower than anticipated. 4. Synthetic fuels are being worked on, but they are only in the early stages. 5. Hydrogen has storage and airframe integration issues, but these issues are only engineering issues (LOL … from an engineer). 6. It was noted that this movement is going to make airplane aerodynamic designs more efficient, which is where most of the gain will come from. These changes can also be accomplished on current airplanes. 7. Airbus states their next, single-aisle, airline will be 30% more efficient … 20% coming from the propulsion and 10% from the airframe design. The head of Rolls-Royce stated that the 20% from propulsion is more than extremely aggressive. 8. The real answer could be a combination of all of them. For example electric power boost on takeoff is possible. 9. Lots of talk about airlines with much shorter range which would need to include a different business model. In other words, a true regional airplane that wouldn't have the capability of flying the longer range missions (200-300 mile range). 10. The TRL (Technical Readiness Level) of all of these new technologies (with the exception of battery electric) is between 0 and 2 and ALL have a long ways to go. Just my top 10 … that I can remember with my notes. The webinar is planned to be posted online within 24 hours. Right now there is a beautiful bicycle anxiously waiting for me to put another 30 miles on her. Not emissions free, but only a small portion of a horsepower required. It's a new day, it's a new dawn and I can once again be fully emotional

Bye is definitely doing their thing. They are also going the certificated route. Many hurdles to be cleared, but they are doing it. But, aero is well aero, cooling is well cooling and batteries are well not energy dense as fuel. In addition to Tom B. being there, so is Scott Wilson, former head of Avionics and Electrical at Mooney-Chino. Scott is leading their low voltage team.

There is a really good article in Kitplanes this month about the electric NXT Next. Real world numbers of what we can do in airplanes. I'm not going to spoil the surprise on what it can do and for how long NXT Next Pg 43.pdf NXT Next Pg 44.pdf NXT Next Pg 45.pdf NXT Next Pg 40 (1).pdf NXT Next Pg 41 (1).pdf NXT Next Pg 42.pdf

Interesting … Yes, Austin is the left coast of Texas (an hour east of Kerrville). IF Elon does build in Austin or Tulsa, at least he's thought enough to move out of California. What's going to happen to all this lithium when these batteries are overflowing the landfills?

@cujet Are you one of the lucky ones to work on the X-57? I get to talk with Nick Borer (program head, I believe) every Wednesday morning with our ASTM conference calls. I've also had the honor to work with some of their contractors, too. Ironically, Mooney related.

All: Thanks for getting real with this thread I agree with the vast majority of what has been said. I am always optimistic on what can be accomplished and will try to speak to reality as much as I can/know. My comment about 30 minutes would make certification of the first airplane much, much easier from a failure mode standpoint … of course along with a stall speed in the landing configuration of at or below 61 knots. It's hard for me to imagine it has been more than a decade since I led a great team of engineers at Hawker Beechcraft, designing an electric Bonanza. A lot has happened since then but nothing like what was predicted in energy storage. That part hasn't happened as was originally predicted … in the lab or the real world. Maybe Tesla will have some advancement with their new announcement? I'm optimistic about the future. Electric will bring a lot benefits not apparent on the surface … the biggest being much reduced airframe vibration and fatigue.

@aviatoreb You are correct in that this is a good example of usefulness. The Grand Caravan is somewhat glider like in wingspan and L/D ratio. It also has a useful load of ~3,300 lbs. It will be interesting to see how far these guys get. I wish them well. There is another firm doing a half and half with a Cessna C337 "Skymaster/O-2" with one engine being removed and replaced with an electric motor.

LOL. I would have just laughed at your comment @mike_elliott but I guess I'm out of emotion for today. I just get so emotional, baby. OMG! I'm turning into Mr. John Baker! Oh wait, that wouldn't be a bad thing … it would be a great upgrade for me.