Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod


  • #2
    Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

    I can see where the BiPod would be valuble to married couples.......

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

      I'd Leave the wife at home and bring my dog!!!!

      I would buy one. I think that it looks awesome.
      Tony

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

        I saw that announcement some days ago, with only one small blurry photo. Nice to see they finally released more of them.


        I don't see this ever going anywhere for the same flaws that infected previous car-plane attempts:


        1. Having to dissemble the aircraft after landing to convert to car-mode, not convenient in poor weather and/or extreme temps.

        2. Having to find a place to store the aircraft parts (wings, propellers, etc.) while scooting around in the automotive portion of the craft.

        3. a light-enough-to-fly vehicle will also be a big problem when pounded by strong crosswinds churned up by passing big-rigs or even Mother Nature herself. Perhaps ballast tanks on the bottom of the fuselage that can be filled and drains of water would aid stability.

        4. What protection is there from collisions, especially side impacts. I doubt there will be any crush space nor steel beams to absorb collision energy before reaching the passenger as found on modern automobile doors. How about roll-over protection should it end up on it's roof at freeway speeds?

        One good accident in a "Bipod" that kills somebody, whom it is determined would have likely survived in a modern car with modern safety features, would generate a major lawsuit that could wipe out any aircraft company. Looks at the massive losses Ford had to endure with the Bronco/Firestone roll-over fiasco some years back....few aircraft companies could survive such a legal attack.

        5. Lack of sufficient "trunk" space for automotive use, and no doubt a limited cargo payload after passengers anyway...batteries are STILL heavy, even the expensive, high-capacity lithium ones.

        6. Does a minor traffic collision or parking lot bump mean an expen$ive airframe-inspection will be required before flight can be allowed again? In a regular car you just drive home complaining about the new dent in your left-rear fender or driver's side door.

        7. Will the pod with the car controls require dual, rear-view mirrors by law, as is with all other passenger road vehicles ( at least in Calif.)?

        Is there much point? Despite that dream that every heavy-traffic commuter has enjoyed, you will not be able to simply lift-off and bypass traffic jams and detours. You will have to visit the nearest airport to take flight, and ONLY IF the aircraft portions of your vehicle are stored there, make the conversion, the take to the air. Launching and landing (at another legal landing site only) may each require a fee.

        At that point, tired, maybe sleepy, in a hurry or whatever the case, you will now, before you can go anywhere, break the plane down back into a car, find a place to store those flight-related bits (more money spent for storage fees, if safe storage is available on site at all), and only then PERHAPS you can finally leave the airport.



        I don't think this is gonna happen.... in my lifetime anyway. Much has to change and improve first.


        .
        .
        Last edited by AirDOGGe; 07-18-2011, 11:20 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

          Originally posted by AirDOGGe View Post
          I saw that announcement some days ago, with only one small blurry photo. Nice to see they finally released more of them.


          I don't see this ever going anywhere for the same flaws that infected previous car-plane attempts:


          1. Having to dissemble the aircraft after landing to convert to car-mode, not convenient in poor weather and/or extreme temps.

          2. Having to find a place to store the aircraft parts (wings, propellers, etc.) while scooting around in the automotive portion of the craft.

          3. a light-enough-to-fly vehicle will also be a big problem when pounded by strong crosswinds churned up by passing big-rigs or even Mother Nature herself. Perhaps ballast tanks on the bottom of the fuselage that can be filled and drains of water would aid stability.

          4. What protection is there from collisions, especially side impacts. I doubt there will be any crush space nor steel beams to absorb collision energy before reaching the passenger as found on modern automobile doors. How about roll-over protection should it end up on it's roof at freeway speeds?

          One good accident in a "Bipod" that kills somebody, whom it is determined would have likely survived in a modern car with modern safety features, would generate a major lawsuit that could wipe out any aircraft company. Looks at the massive losses Ford had to endure with the Bronco/Firestone roll-over fiasco some years back....few aircraft companies could survive such a legal attack.

          5. Lack of sufficient "trunk" space for automotive use, and no doubt a limited cargo payload after passengers anyway...batteries are STILL heavy, even the expensive, high-capacity lithium ones.

          6. Does a minor traffic collision or parking lot bump mean an expen$ive airframe-inspection will be required before flight can be allowed again? In a regular car you just drive home complaining about the new dent in your left-rear fender or driver's side door.

          7. Will the pod with the car controls require dual, rear-view mirrors by law, as is with all other passenger road vehicles ( at least in Calif.)?

          Is there much point? Despite that dream that every heavy-traffic commuter has enjoyed, you will not be able to simply lift-off and bypass traffic jams and detours. You will have to visit the nearest airport to take flight, and ONLY IF the aircraft portions of your vehicle are stored there, make the conversion, the take to the air. Launching and landing (at another legal landing site only) may each require a fee.

          At that point, tired, maybe sleepy, in a hurry or whatever the case, you will now, before you can go anywhere, break the plane down back into a car, find a place to store those flight-related bits (more money spent for storage fees, if safe storage is available on site at all), and only then PERHAPS you can finally leave the airport.



          I don't think this is gonna happen.... in my lifetime anyway. Much has to change and improve first.


          .
          .
          AirDogge that was really depressing.

          I will comment on #3, as I think that the comment will be technically interesting. Beyond that I will have to remember not to ask you to fund or work on the next of the many wild projects consistently being worked on here in Mojave.

          I was really impressed by Burt's interest in learning to design a car that would be stable at ~80 mph in Mojave's crosswinds. He was not at all intimidated by being able to make the airplane mode stable, it was the car mode that excited him. His approach was several removable surfaces and a couple spoilers. The idea being that if you move the Cp in each axis forward to the cg then it doesnt matter where the wind is blowing from and then by spoiling any residual lift you will have friction with the ground. Beyond that he made all those surfaces tunable in car mode, so that as the envelope of the car was expanded you could dial in the surfaces for maximum stability. Hurry up and test it....very Burt Rutan and very Scaled.

          Elliot Seguin

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

            Oh, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Rutan and his ingenious designs. You can review my past posts in here and see for yourself. Sometimes I think that man is a secret visitor from another world, letting us in on a tiny bit of their advanced technology.

            And I wish the team the best of luck on this task. They certainly have the ability to pull it off.


            But a "flying car" reminds me of the F-111, an aircraft that was designed and intended to do it all, but instead did little very well.

            Like that unfortunate aircraft, the air-car can never drive as well nor be as convenient as a regular car, nor ever have the performance of a dedicated aircraft, IMO. There have always been trade-offs with do-it-all designs, is this not true?



            Beyond that I will have to remember not to ask you to fund or work on the next of the many wild projects consistently being worked on here in Mojave.

            Well, while I could never fund anything short of lunch-on-me, I have my gifts in the graphics, design and imagination department, have 20 years of tool & die designing and fabbing experience, and spend my spare time doing the same for fun. I have an excellent "mind's eye" if you will, and it has helped me greatly with design issues, among other things.


            For instance, I can see in my mind how such "dial-in" surfaces could work to make the Bipod stable, but in sudden gusts coming from any unexpected direction from nature or large passing vehicles, such aerodynamic stabilizing devices must react very fast. "Dialing in" will do on runway jaunts, but not do in the real world.

            I imagine something that reacts very quickly, ROUGHLY like how a computer in an F-16 controls that intentionally unstable aircraft and keeps it in the air would be needed for Scale's vehicle.

            No human operator will be able to adjust the flaps/spoilers fast enough, unless MAYBE if you used some type of fast-acting control, like the foot-pedal Jim Chaparral used in his race cars to control wing angle when he introduced such aerodynamic devices to auto racing (pedal down on straights to flatten the wing and reduce drag, then let off in turns to angle wing for best downforce). I don't know how such a device could be set-up for quick gust-direction adjustments by a human driver though.

            And anyway that duty would distract the driver from regular driving chores, so a computer-controlled stability device seems the best route to me, practicality-wise that is.

            See? I'm sure if I was down south working with you guys, I'd be contributing my share. I love "WILD", but I always combine it with "Practical" so the idea can be realized successfully.


            So, in a nutshell, my opinions in my last post were not directed at Mr. Rutan's work, but at the past history of unsuccessful car-plane attempts and the reasons for their failures. I LOVE wild ideas, but not all have a future, or work as well as hoped. I'm sure even Burt himself could speak from experience in that arena.


            And, not that anyone was offering, but even though I think the chance of working at Scaled would be a lifetime dream, I'm content up north here for now turning trashed, rusted, ready-for-the-junkyard bicycles back into awesome riding machines, like these in the two BEFORE/AFTER photos seen below. It's not aircraft design, but it's a fun hobby:


            I have my gifts... Maybe I should try to make one flyable?


            Peace to all...



            .
            Attached Files
            Last edited by AirDOGGe; 07-19-2011, 09:08 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

              Another issue... being a "car", won't it have to meet all the federal safety standards that apply to four wheeled vehicles ("cars")?

              Those safety standards governing four wheeled vehicles is why Sam Bousfield (Remember him from his other ventures?) went with three wheels (according to their website, making it only have to meet motorcycle standards) making the possibility of actually making a production vehicle that would not be weighted down with 5 MPH bumpers, crush zones... etc, etc...

              NOT knocking Burt's design, just sayin'
              Wayne Sagar
              "Pusher of Electrons"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                Good discussion guys.

                The Bipod is obviously not a final iteration of anything. As has been said several times on this thread, if the flying car was a simple problem it would be solved already. I really enjoyed watching Burt cook this one up, and wanted to share a bit of the culture that is Mojave and Scaled as seen by this project. Like so many things if you have the flying car, or the commercial spaceship sitting on the feds doorstep ready to fly, the licensing can get alot easier. Thats why we need the guys that take the risks to make the thing that may never work. Because without it aviation, or air racing, or car racing or whatever won't move forward. If there is anything that a bunch of race guys will understand it is hangin your reputation and your livelyhood out there to see if you can make it work, and thats why experimental airplanes are cool, why air racing is cool and why AAFO is cool.

                Elliot

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                  I can see a need for a flying car in remote places where you land and there is no other transport available (fairly common over here in Australia).
                  Does/can this design carry the wings when used as a road vehicle, allowing departure from a different flying strip.
                  How long does it take to re-rig for flight from the car mode and visa versa.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                    Originally posted by Reno_Steve View Post
                    I can see a need for a flying car in remote places where you land and there is no other transport available (fairly common over here in Australia).
                    Does/can this design carry the wings when used as a road vehicle, allowing departure from a different flying strip.
                    How long does it take to re-rig for flight from the car mode and visa versa.
                    Earlier in this thread there is mention of provisions for stowing the wings. I assumed that to mean it is designed to stow the wings for the road trip.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                      As interested and as fascinated as I have always been by the flying car concept, I just don't see how it could be practical today. Unless you are travelling a fairly long distance you do not save time and THAT is the only tangible benefit of flying for most people.
                      I commuted for a while from Sacto to Ontario. By the time I drove to the airport, went through the various "procedures" there, boarded, the flight itself, then getting from the airport to my end destination I could just about drive the whole trip as fast. And that's in a 500+mph people tube.
                      Same with a flying car. Drive to the airport, attach the wings, fly it to a destination, detach the wings then drive to the end destination I don't see how you would gain anything, especially at the ranges available with a small aircraft. Add to that the costs of landing fees, etc. Unless you are headed to Podunk they can get substantial.
                      The closest idea to the flying car dream is something like the Moller Aircar which, of course, has never worked out for a million reasons. The concept is compact, simple (in theory) and can launch/land practically anywhere. Besides the engineering issues the thought of a bunch of those zipping around with drivers/pilots yaking or texting on cellphones scares the he!! out of me...
                      None of this is any reflection on Rutan or any of those that have gone before him, or may go after him, in this design direction. Kudos for trying, otherwise there is no progress. I just have never seen any of the attempts end up practical and that's what is needed to be a success.
                      Leo Smiley - Graphics and Fine Arts
                      airplanenutleo@gmail.com
                      thetreasuredpeacock.etsy.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                        I agree with airdogge 100% !

                        It would be easier to do a roadable aircraft carrier than a flying car that really works and fullfills all demands.

                        BiPod is number 367th design...I have seen maybe 20-30 of them...where are the rest of them ?

                        http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                          roadable aircraft carrier
                          Been done by Kent Pietsch
                          Leo Smiley - Graphics and Fine Arts
                          airplanenutleo@gmail.com
                          thetreasuredpeacock.etsy.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                            Oshkosh, Wisconsin - July 25, 2005: Air show performer Kent Pietsch performs one of his signature acts at Airventure - attempting to land on the roof of a moving motor home.


                            Thanks Leo...I had forgotten this fine stunt...now go and develope it...and give people at the gas stations a rental car and a room to leave ac for a while. The need for roadable ac will vanish.

                            http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: OT: Burt Rutan's BiPod

                              Originally posted by Juke View Post
                              ...It would be easier to do a roadable aircraft carrier than a flying car that really works and fullfills all demands....


                              That would have to be one hell of a road!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X