Lets face the facts: general aviation is starving. Or it could be said that general aviation is even dying. There are many signs to that: less and less people are getting pilot's license, regulations are becoming more and more unreasonable (especially in Europe for general aviation as they have been designed for airline companies, with all the standards drawn to such level where there is no business) and hardcore hobbyists (like myself) are flying with from aging and poor to mediocre flying machines that are very expensive to operate and that are not enough capable (there are few exceptions, but there would still be very much room for improvement) to be useful for serious transportation. Years come and go and nothing changes, and every new year comes with no progress and all new things come without learning anything new but rather on evolution which is not very steep but rather very shallow. Very small amount of people are interested anymore in subsonic flight and the breakthroughs needs to happen exactly on this subsonic flight this new renaissance to happen.

Yes, I am myself flying airplanes for fun, and the fun is very important. And the fun will need to remain important in the future as well. The fun part should therefore not be taken away. Airliners are taking the fun away, sitting in economy class is more like suffering than fun and business class is not fun either, everything has been made to take the attention away from the aviation, people are eating and drinking and not looking out of the window. Windows even are ridiculously small, even in business class.

Then if we look road transportation. How many people prefer traveling in bus rather than in a private car or taxi? Are you a bus-fan? At least I am not. We drive with our Prius to work everyday and my carbon emissions are less than they would be if we would drive with the 1/3 filled bus. You could argue that the bus drives anyway, but that is not the point. Bus travel is like being in the economy class, it does not have anything that I could describe with fun or enjoyable. However driving with own car or sitting in taxi can be much better experience.

So I think here is the cure for general aviation:
1) Diesel piston engine based efficient air taxis that can carry 5-6 persons. Requirement for the aircraft would be that they would need to be efficient (leading to low passenger mile cost), safe and comfortable. Low passenger mile cost means cost comparable to airline ticket price. This cost should be able to include the whole thing: aircraft cost, insurance, pilot, everything. I think this is doable, but requires some novel engineering and not doing things like they have been always done. These planes would look more like Burt Rutan's special machines with very long wings or they could be possibly also blended flying wings but one could not expect these to look like Cessna C150.

2) Personal aircraft (I am not repeating what cafe is saying about PAV, this is my personal view on this) intended for serious transportation with large level of automation. This calls for fly-by-wire and stability augmentation. Pilot would rather choose to which direction to drive rather than correcting for bumpy air or cross wind. It would be different from autopilot, you could still drive the plane, but the plane would make driving a lot more convenient and so much easier that most car drivers could learn it. There could be additional aids, such as landing aid which would automatically line up the plane with the runway. It could use machine vision to be able to help the landing path all the way to full stop on runway independently from navigation aids. It would be still fun to fly even if it would be much easier. Why the definition of fun has to be hard? These aircraft geared for personal transportation would be at least 4 place machines making them comparable to family car capability.

Lots of people are shouting that "more entry level planes are needed". I do not fully agree. There are lots of planes which are very suitable for flight training. For example the LSA planes, Diamonds, Cirruses etc. Of course if the intention was to fly a fly-by-wire PAV-machine, there could be a different path that would be trained with these PAV machines. Logical step in that direction would be to drop all medical, currency etc. requirements, but rather make the flying with these with similar requirements than driving a car. If flying these would be so easy, you simply would not need check rides now and then, BFRs etc. And then planes are made with unreliable parts which were certified 40 years ago while cars almost never break with parts that were designed one year ago.

In personal aircraft you fly with the computer the flying machine. This license should be upgradeable to a normal pilot's license which would require then learning to fly with planes with traditional controls and avionics. Some could argue that this would be so expensive as the computers would be so heavy and they would cost more than a plane and what not. I don't think so. Computer that can run this kind of algorithms in real time does not need to cost a fortune. In mass production, a reasonable price is hundreds of dollars, not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Such computer weights less than 0.3 kg and while it would need some more weight for all the control hardware, it would not be that complicated. Actually telephones are so much more complicated today than any electronics in aircraft, in fact, these things are so low hanging fruits that they are waiting for somebody to implement.

What slows down the progress on this area in my opinion, is very conservative thinking in the aviation circles, not thinking out of the box and at least in Finland there seems to be a tendency to repeat old beliefs like they would be teachings in a church and even clever people may take silly things for granted. Of course that is all they can do, as there are no alternatives, but that does not mean it would be right. In fact, the situation with aviation is so desperate that this feels like some alternate universe in Stargate TV-series where things have gone real badly wrong. We are that dystopic parallel universe and someone needs to do something to fix it. So aviation in general needs a major overhaul. New kind of airplanes are needed, new kind of regulations are needed (while dropping old obsolete ones), new kind of air traffic control system is needed (when there are millions of personal planes in the air, there is no way for the current system to work, it is a dinosaur already, you can not have centralized system in a case where traffic is so huge, car traffic already has hard data about that) and new kind of attitudes are needed. New more efficient and less expensive mass produced planes and regulations are necessary enablers for the attitudes becoming more positive towards flying.

So what I am complaining about attitudes? Consider this: I was one day few years ago in cafeteria of the Malmi airport. There was a some mother with her child there. The little boy said that he wants to drive airplanes. The little boy spoke out the truth of what he wants. His mother then replied that "No, you can't fly planes, they are so expensive that only richest of the rich people can afford that and these planes are just fancy toys for yuppies". I was sorry to hear that. The no-way-you-can-fly attitude seems to be brainwashed to children at young age and their dreams are severed "ah that was the thing I can't do, so I don't consider about it". This must change, personal and air taxi -like flying needs to become common practice to get from point A to point B. Not something that is for only rich people, but something that is for everyone.

No densely packed people in huge planes like in cattle car. No queues in security checks. No limitations on liquids, take as much Coca Cola you like. And you just pack your gear to the plane and make departure and arrive shortly after to your destination. No flight planning, you just drive the plane and all your plan is almost automatic. No radio communications with air traffic control unless you are in trouble for some reason. It would all be automatic that computer would do for you.

Personal and air taxi style travel can augment or even replace domestic travel and also part of the travel to neighboring countries in Europe. Busses and trains are still needed despite there are personal cars and taxis, but this what I described above is the breakthrough that needs to happen. It does not happen by itself. It does not happen by government (FAA, CAA, LAA etc.) making it readily available for you. No it does not happen without lots of work. It requires you. When I was little child, I was thinking that "what kind of technology there is in year 2019". Later I realized that no, the technology is not given, it has to be done by people like you and me. Nothing is given, someone is always needed to invent, plan, design and implement it. Breakthroughs can be made by thinking out of the box and not just improving the envelope of the old. You can help by doing your part on that.

Thanks for reading and happy rest of the week.

I have been thinking about the series hybrid and it may not be ideal for conventional aircraft configuration. The weight penalty is rather high and it needs to be accounted with wing area. It seems that best way to achieve more wing area is to make the plane a wing itself. Flying wing design ends up with large wing area very easily and this can be used to account for the weight penalty.

Therefore I am proposing now this series hybrid idea to flying wing instead. It would also save the long drive shafts and the associated problems which are in the Northrop early designs there.

The engine that drives the generator could reside in CG inside the wing and the electrical drive which is light could be distributed in the trailing edge to several motors and propellers.

This way also it would be possible to get lower disc loading for the same power for high altitude flight by distributing the power to several propellers which would be distributed in the trailing edge. This would work as alternative for using large propellers as these many props would move as much air as the two large props which would make the landing gear unbearably tall. These smaller props could also be inside the wake getting drag reduction benefit from the Goldschmied wake propeller idea but in a bit different form. These props would be easier to manufacture because of the lower power per prop and also smaller diameter for aeroelasticity considerations and it would also enable optimizing the prop planform to reynolds number on the rotation speed meaning very drastic taper ratio (very pointy blades with thick roots, and high curvature).

Interesting case example for poor power to weight ratio flying wing is Northrop N1M. 120 hp takeoff power for 1750 kg plane. That is enormously low power figure. The plane was upgraded later to a bit higher power, but it flew with that power, indicating that it would be realistic to design a rather heavy plane as a flying wing without needing to ending up using enormously big engines.

I have apparently so many ideas that they can not be incorporated in one aircraft. Therefore I have concluded that there needs to be several steps or tiers with a slightly different themes.

So these are now:
Tier 1: Conventional simplicity: Low drag low power low cost twin. Small wing but high aspect ratio. Compromise: Medium power to weight ratio required. Concept usable for personal aviation.
Potential outcomes: RC-models, UAVs, Private aircraft.
Budget: Shoe-string

Tier 2: Flying wing: Suitable for diesel power, series hybrid and other non-optimal power/weight ratio powerplants. Large wing. Compromise: Poor power to weight ratio is ok.
Potential outcome: Plane with long range and diesel economy. UAV applications possible.
Budget: Shoe-string, external funding possibly needed for the large craft

Tier 3: Ladder: Large aspect ratio, climb machine. Compromise: High power to weight ratio beneficial, has impact in fuel consumption. Interference drag from multi-fuselage configuration.
Budget: External funding required. Implementation requires substantial investments in infrastructure and machinery.

Tier 4: Scissor wing delta: Aircraft that are optimized for speed and altitude.
Budget: Requires substantial investments.

Tier 5: Will happen only if tier 1-4 succeed. Idea not announced. Not all of these will be guaranteed to produce real flying aircraft, these are just categorization for a family of concepts.

I have noticed (well, might be that it is a usual way to use it but I just haven't heard of it) that Teknodur polyurethane paint that can be used to paint composite structures like those on experimental aircraft, can be applied with brush and then perfected with sanding like on applying topcoat (/gelcoat) on a sailplane.

This just works for me, please do not follow if you are not willing to take the responsibility of potentially ruining your paint:
0. Do not use base paint or raw epoxy method, you don't need to fill pinholes, just forget about pinholes with this method! In other words, you can directly apply like this on top of smooth sanded dry micro or automotive polyester filler!
1. Apply thick layer of Teknodur 2 component polyurethane paint (e.g. white) on top of the composite structure. Any other similar polyurethane paint works too (I have also tested with Hempel 2-component boat polyurethane paint). Base paint is not necessary, the Teknodur takes on a bare epoxy surface which is sanded to dull (be sure it is sanded to dull, if it is not, then it will not take, but peels off). Do not use solvent to make the paint thinner, the thick property is desirable. The thick paint blocks the pinholes on the surface below.
2. Let it cure and then inspect. Look, 1 layer of paint and no pinholes! There may be runs, but you can get rid of the runs easily!
3. Wet sand the surface smooth. Use quite coarse grit at this point.
4. Add second layer of Teknodur paint. You can use a bit solvent now, and you will get no pinholes. Try to avoid runs more carefully at this time.
5. Wet sand to completely smooth finish.
Use all available wet sand paper grits up to 2000 if you can find 2000 grit. 1200 grit is fine though.
6. Use polishing compounds to finish the surface to high gloss.
7. Add vax and polish.

A little bit tedious with all the wet sanding, but on the other hand: full control over pinholes, no base needed, and most sanding goes to the paint without harming the critical glass/carbon fabric under it.

I am just in middle of painting a little composite part this way and I have noticed that it works. Before you ruin any large parts by using a method where the paint is misused and done differently than all painters will teach you, please try it to some scrap part first. I have finished two scrap parts like this and they have been in the snow and ice the whole winter without any harm done to the paint surface, so I would guess that this sanding method does not ruin the paint.

I am not sure, but it could be that:
- You would be even better off if you first apply a very thin layer of paint that enters the pinholes. Sand dull. Then don't care about the pinholes, just add the thick layer of paint on top of the thin layer.

On the base and on the first layer, the sanding result does not need to be smoother than 240 grit. Anything more than that is waste of time because the thick paint rounds the minor irregularities.

Pros:
- Polyurethane paint is easy to sand, very very very very easy compared to sanding epoxy
- Runs on polyurethane paint is no big deal, just sand them off in a minute and you are done!
- Quick to finish
- The thick paint is very weather resistant and is as smooth as you sand it

Cons:
- The layer of paint becomes pretty thick and it is heavy, and in some cases might be undesirable.

I have been thinking this back and forth now quite some time. This idea is quite simple, the purpose is to fix the most critical problem with auto conversions, achieve better aerodynamics, propeller placement and mass and inertia distribution.

Auto conversions most often fail, no surprise, because of the reduction gear or belt. The core engine is not the root cause in the problems and many problems with the reduction belt or gear system can not be seen beforehand because the dynamics of the vibrations of the engine, propeller and their inertia forces affecting each other is a bit more complicated than one could think at first - it is not that simple to make these parts to last for hundreds or thousands of hours.

So we came up (with Kate, we usually talk with Kate about these things and we kind of invent these things together, I usually happen to be the one who writes them down - and it is usually so that Kate is the opponent into which I test my idea's feasibility before I write it here) with the idea of having a auto engine, possibly a diesel engine, running at constant power, most likely exactly at the optimum point of the engine, always. Then all the power variation would come from the electric motors which would drive the propellers. The idea is that the diesel engine only runs a generator.

The downside of this idea is the additional weight from the generator, batteries, motor controllers, electric motors and the props (depending how many electric motors are used, it is also possible to use just one if that is preferred). However, there are two several things possibly good about this:

- First the diesel engine burns less fuel, resulting smaller fuel tanks.
- Secondly the gearbox system is saved. The gearbox system can be very heavy duty in a high power aircraft engine and they still have tendency to fail. Possibly something like 40-50 kg is saved straight away.
- Thirdly the aerodynamic advantage - optimal aerodynamic shape without using long extension shafts and couplings to deal with the dynamics of the rotating shaft connected to a non-optimally rotating propeller and the power pulses of the diesel engine. Now there is the chance to put the engine anywhere in the airframe where it best fits and propeller drive don't need to be considered at all.

Then there is the redundancy thing. Brushless DC electric motors usually never fail, but the prop can still fail in bad circumstances. Therefore having two independent props for the one diesel engine could be advantageous. Same thing with the batteries - if the diesel engine fails, the batteries could be sized such that the aircraft can fly without the diesel engine for example for 30 minutes in level flight. That might be enough in most cases to get safely on the ground, except on middle of an ocean. The most likely place for the engine to fail is the takeoff. This takeoff stress would never happen with this engine configuration - the engine would be run always at optimum and safe power, never on takeoff power. The extra power for the takeoff can be easily taken from the batteries if they have proper capacity and the electric motors are powerful enough. On takeoff the batteries at full power are not discharging that quickly, because the diesel engine is recharging the batteries at the same time. The takeoff power can be rarely used for longer than 5 minutes on an aircraft equipped with Lycoming engine either, so having a limited period of time for the full power is not that big problem.

Generator and electric motor can have very high efficiency, and the gap to a efficiency of a reduction belt system is not that great. Best electric motors (though heavy ones) are around 98% efficient.

On descent the diesel engine could be shut down providing there was enough battery capacity. The motors could actually regenerate also batteries when the pilot wants to decelerate the plane.

Maintenance cost would be like a single engine aircraft, but the reliability geared towards a twin. Of course there is the one little fine print: the battery pack is expensive and it has an expiration time and date, unfortunately. But nothing is perfect and without compromises.

Any comments about this idea? This surely would not be a racer as the power to weight ratio would be rather poor, but anyhow I am thinking, providing it would be efficient enough to climb adequately, this would be a quite economical thing to fly and also easy conversion-wise, almost stock auto engine would be okay, no reduction gear and prop installation and an assembly that takes the push or pulling loads, would be needed. Also waiting on the airport would not waste any energy, since props can be completely stopped when the plane does not need to move. For example Lycoming IO-360 consumes about the same amount of gasoline per hour when waiting on IFR clearance on the ground than our Toyota Prius car on highway. Consuming zero amount of fuel when still on the ground, but still being ready, would save some liters.

And answer to the question, why diesel and not gasoline when gasoline engines can be run very lean and quite great specific fuel consumption values can be achieved in optimal conditions - it is quite simple: availability of the 100LL/Avgas seems to be becoming poor. There has been three 100LL operators in Finland, but two of them decided to discontinue this year. There is only one left. When that only one decides that it is not profitable enough, there is no 100LL available for anybody and the whole country's fleet of Lycoming and Continental based planes are grounded. The Jet-A1 is not going anywhere, so engine that can burn the jet fuel would be a safe bet. Jet engine, turboprop, or turbofan are out of the question because those are not available in meaningful sizes and power classes - there is not a small turbofan that would have high pressure ratio and bypass ratio available, nobody manufactures such a thing. And it is unlikely anybody will in the future because this personal flying all is a very niche market unfortunately until it changes for better (if it ever does).

The implementation possibilities have challenges; namely no such electric motor available (would require custom motors possibly), etc. And the weight also causes penalty for the efficiency and speed of the plane. But the power to weight ratio will be with this arrangement a lot better than on a pure electric aircraft. And pure electric aircraft is feasible, why an electric aircraft with a generator and a fueltank added would not be.

And by the way, even if it is first of April at the time of writing this, this blog post is not an April fool.

I was today walking with a dog and it occurred to me that with a fly by wire system a helicopter which would have blades outside of a circular lifting body and that would have a pusher prop (cruise prop) on top of the said flat lifting body in a pivoting pylon with thrust vectoring, could possibly fly stable and avoid the not that good things of a helicopter and be more efficient VTOL craft than a conventional helicopter. The bearing on the outer ring would possibly though be some sort of a challenge. On a big one, the outer ring could be not connected to the inner ring at all, but it could actually use maglev technique to levitate in a hole without physical contact with the bearing. This could come with too heavy weight penalties, so not sure if it would be feasible. So this is just a out of the box thinking idea because I have always felt that there is something wrong with helicopters, I have never really liked how they look like and how they function, there must be a better way to do that.

Cyclic system could be hidden inside the center section so that it would not cause drag like on a helicopter where there are lots of mechanical parts directly in the airflow causing drag. In cruise the plane would be a gyrocopter rather than a helicopter because it would have positive angle of attack unlike helicopter which cruises at negative angle of attack (and only blades have positive angle of attack).

I would like to try this as RC-model, but the challenge would be to fabricate such a large and yet lightweight bearing that would be size of the craft itself. The outer shell with the bearing would have a gear tooth that would be driven with a pinion gear that would be connected to the engine. This would also function as gear reduction drive. In addition to the ring drive to takeoff and landing, there would need to be a generator for driving the pylon mounted thrust vectoring prop that would be run with an electric motor.

The shape of the lifting body would be a suboptimal airfoil because it would need to be symmetrical and have both sharp leading edge and trailing edge but. This kind of craft would be naturally unstable but it could be artificially stabilized with software.

I wrote a long time ago about how to do cross sections in Rhino. I mentioned that it needs to be Object intersection. If you do Boolean Intersection, this technique is not going to work. I found that the earlier instruction might have been a bit confusing because there are multiple ways to do intersections in Rhino.

The original article is here: http://design-plane.blogspot.com/2020/10/irhino-learnings-of-today.htmlPlease read it.

The function what you have to use is Intersect (to do Object Intersection).
If you type it to the command area, type Intersect, not Intersection or Booleanintersection.
You know that you have chosen wrong intersection method if you have to select two set of objects. Multiselect everything (your cutters and the lofted surface) at the same time and do Intersect. It works.