Freeing up Runways, Again

In a blog post last month, I wrote about the probability that important European runways will be oversaturated in the future. In the March, 2009, edition of Aerospace America, Philip Butterworth-Hayes makes the same point in his article "Running out of runways".

WITHOUT MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
continent’s air transport infrastructure,
Europe will find that its busiest airports
and airways will be saturated by 2030—
effectively capping the growth plans of
European airlines and the demand for
new aircraft.

In a recent study called Challenges
to Growth, the Brussels-based air traffic
management agency Eurocontrol predicts
that annual flights within Europe
will rise from 10 million today to 20.4
million by 2030. Even if all the current
airport capacity development strategies
proceed as planned, these figures still
mean there will be 2.3 million flights a
year (nearly 10% of the total) for which
there will be no room in Europe.

The point I made in my previous post and which I reiterate here is the need to utilize existing runways for the one purpose that is absolutely essential: the take off and landing of large, long distance flights. VTOL craft should be used for all shorter haul, regional flights that carry less than 100 passengers and travel less than 100 miles (1610 km), and for all smaller general aviation planes. VTOL craft will need only vertipads for landing, which can be at airports, but also can be in many other, more convenient, locations. The large Boeing and Airbus airplanes of current and future designs will have the runways to themselves, and this will relieve the pressure to build more runways, saving the substantial sums of money that are required.

The Business of Innovation

The senior editor of General Aviation News, Thomas Norton, has a column in the February 6th, 2009 edition of that magazine called "What Business Are You In?". He makes these points:

What should we do when our comfortable niche either vanishes or becomes so small that it no longer supports our business? That's exactly what is happening at many companies, not all of them small, in the aviation community.

If we are to adapt to our circumstances, we need to be thinking more like the Wright brothers, James Watt, Alexander Graham Bell and and number of genuine innovators.

I could not agree more with Mr. Norton. I have felt for some time that general aviation, depending as it does on long take off and landing (LTOL) aircraft, is not offering product with maximum appeal. So long as airports are needed for both ends of a flight, takeoff points and destinations are limited. It's true that many GA pilots in the past and present fly for recreational reasons; but the cost of part time use of airplanes is high, and with there being increased concern about environmental impacts of carbon based fuels, it is not likely that recreational flying will provide a larger and larger market in the future. Airplane manufacturers could have products with increasing appeal if those airplanes were not dependent on airports, and thereby could provide much more convenient air transportation.

Those who have read my blog before know that I am a big fan of vertical take off and landing aircraft (VTOL). Although helicopters are VTOL, they are not ideal from my perspective. They have limited horizontal speed and require frequent maintenance. My company, Aeromobile Inc., has spent a number of years in developing a fixed wing airplane that takes off and lands vertically. We call it the Arc Wing VTOL Airplane. A sketch of it is below:

To me, innovation for general aviation means developing airplanes that fly as fast as the ones we have now, are as well made and safe as the ones we have know, are as pilotable as the ones we have now, but have VTOL capability. Such airplanes could offer true point to point transportation, and air taxi type services would blossom as the beginning and the end points of a flight were almost unlimited. Many other aviation services currently the venue of rotorcraft, like search and rescue, police patrolling, ship to shore flights, fire fighting can also become the venue of fixed wing aircraft. The GA manufacturers of the past and today have accomplished much in the efficiency, safety and capabilities of fixed wing craft. I think that innovation into taking off and landing vertically is where research is most needed, and where the greatest payoff will be.

I invite all GA aircraft manufacturers to contact Aeromobile Inc. to work with us on our innovative and business expanding technology.

Freeing Up Runways

Pierre Sparaco discusses the lack of runways at major European airports in his article "Runways Are Forever" in the Aviation Week & Space Technology journal of February 2, 2009. Due to cost and environmental concerns, airports in the UK, Germany and elsewhere have moved very slowly to add new runways, leaving the existing ones too crowded today and even more crowded in the future.

The larger commercial airplanes of the future - the Airbus A380 and the larger Boeing craft - will need long runways. They and their somewhat smaller Airbus and Boeing bretheren are long take off and landing aircraft, and such aircraft are the best way to tranport large numbers of air passengers long distances. But, much of the air traffic today consists of smaller airplanes, which still need runways, and therefore compete with the large jets for runway space. These craft, which usually travel less than 1000 miles (1600 km), could and should be replaced by VTOL airplanes. Our Arc Wing VTOL airplane can be scaled up to replace "regional" jets and air taxi services. VTOL craft would not need to use runways at all, allowing the existing ones to be dedicated for large jets.

And, the issue is not just with adding new runways. In some regions - New York, for example - new aiports have been proposed, to alleviate the crowded runways at existing airports. With VTOL regional airplanes and VTOL taxis, new airports will not be as necessary. And, the financial and environmental disagreements over adding a new runway are quite tame with the opposition generated over an entirely new aiport. It would make much more sense to make the best possible use of the runways we have, leaving them for just the large jets. Let's develop VTOL technology. It has so many advantages, and reducing runway overuse is among them.

A Better Shuttle - Part I

In the USA Today of January 15th, an article by Larry Copeland called "Forget the Cab, Take a Shuttle Flight", explains how a new air shuttle service is being offered between Gwinnett County airport and Atlanta's Hartsfield airport, 43 miles away. All this so that residents of Atlanta's suburbs do not have to risk missing a flight at Hartsfield due to the often unpredictable traffic slowdowns encountered when driving a car to the airport. I hope the service is successful. But, I'd like to talk about how two of the technologies I've worked on might make the service even better.

In Part I of this blog entry, I'll relate how the Arc Wing VTOL airplane would be the best possible shuttle to get from anywhere to Hartsfield or any other large airport. In Part II, I'll discuss how we can eliminate the traffic congestion that is the problem in the first place.

A VTOL airplane is the best possible way to get people by air from one place to another. The Arc Wing VTOL airplane which I've been working on for many years would let a shuttle service takeoff just about anywhere in the Atlanta area, without any airport being necessary, and land at Hartsfield on a vertipad (a variation of a helipad), allowing the runways to be dedicated to large aircraft, like airliners. This would be far more flexible than requiring a LTOL (long takeoff and landing airplane) at the starting point, which must be a runway, then a short flight to another airport, where one of the runways must accommodate the smaller airplane along with commercial jets.

The shuttle service would have infinitely more starting points, and make far less demand on the runways at Hartsfield, the destination point. A company using the Arc Wing VTOL airplane for its shuttle fleet could have many starting points at various distances from Hartsfield, and truly accommodate all those who want to get to the large airport without having to deal with stupefying automobile traffic.

Going in the Right Direction

The cover of the November, 2008 Popular Science magazine features a proposed design for an four passenger tilt wing vertical take off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. The design has unique features, including the use of an electric/piston engine hybrid power system, which leads to a lightweight craft. The story can also be seen on the Popular Science website.

I applaud all attempts to create vertical take off and landing airplanes for trying to take general aviation in the right direction. Airplanes should take and and land in the minimum amount of space, and runways and airports should be only for the really large jets. However, I do have some issues with this design by a British company called Falx. Many of these remarks are similar to those I made about the V-22 Osprey in other blog entries.

• I believe that tilt wing (and tilt rotor) have a design flaw in that one of the propellers can get caught in its own turbulence as is comes in for a landing. This is known as vortex ring state.
  
• The laterally disposed rotors present an asymmetrical lift situation, and any unequal lift from one or the other propellers can cause severe roll moments. It is essential to have centerline thrust
  
• In total power failure or “running out of gas“, a tilt wing aircraft is a free falling body. It cannot use its wing for gliding flight to non disastrous landing, because the large propellers will impact the ground on landing and crash the craft. Again, neither can it autorotate its propellers like a helicopter, allowing a hard but survivable landing.
• I believe the Falx tilt wing machine is grossly under-powered. A four place helicopter can lift 4 passengers with 150 h.p., because of it 40 foot diameter rotor. Thrust efficiency of rotors is directly proportional to the swept area of the rotors or propellers. To lift four people with two puny single rotating propellers of the tilt wing will require more than 1000 h.p. It is inconceivable that batteries and the proposed 104 HP engine can muster that power and be light enough to fly horizontally, long take off, much less vertically, or VTOL.
  

I'm not saying any of this to deter the Falx people or any other aviation inventors. I think it is good that others are pursuing the "Holy Grail" of general aviation, which is adding vertical flight to a fixed wing aircraft. I have spent many years - 55 of them in fact - exploring VTOL technology, and I really do think that the elements of my Arc Wing VTOL airplane are important to the proper design of any aircraft that will take off and land vertically. These elements include center line thrust, large dual-rotating propellers, the deflected slipstream approach to vertical flight, and the Arc Wing, which has unique lift. More about this craft can bee seen at our website and other blog entries.

In the 1940s and 50s, a lot of government sponsored research was performed on all sorts of approaches to vertical flight. In those pre space race days, innovation in aviation, including VTOL, received a lot of attention and funding. Many of the VTOL designs of those days had issues that limited their effectiveness, and others petered out when aviation funding was greatly decreased. Those extent of the approaches to VTOL can be seen in Micheal Hirschberg's exceptionally comprehensive VTOL wheel of misfortune.

The Sikorsky X-2: A Half Way Solution

As reported by Aviation Week and Flight Global, Sikorsky has recently completed the first test flight of its X2 high speed, compound helicopter. Sikorsky expects this rotorcraft to have a maximum speed of 250 knots when all stages of testing are complete. The X2 has been in development this decade, and is a follow up to the Advancing Blade Concept Demonstrator of the 1970s known as the Sikorsky S-69 / XH-59. The new X2 is using fly-by-wire controls to help minimize blade vibration that created problems for the earlier S-69 / XH-59.

If the X2 can really fly at 250 knots, it will be about 100 knots faster than most helicopters today. That is a quite significant advance in rotorcraft speed, and Sikorsky should be commended for this advance. A reasonably fast vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) craft is certainly desirable.

But, at Aeromobile Inc. we think that faster helicopters are still not the ideal VTOL craft. We prefer an airplane with vertical capabilities to a helicopter that flies faster. Our reasons include:

• Airplanes are inherently safer than helicopters, requiring less maintenance and glidable to earth when power fails. All rotorcraft must have a minimum altitude usually 1500 feet to auto rotate, and it remains to be seen how well the counter-rotating rotors of the X2 auto rotate in the event of power loss.
• With the X2, the slowing of the rotors to prevent them from going supersonic and vibrating excessively has to be done with computer assistance (the"fly-by-wire" element of the control system). This adds complexity, and we will see how reliable that control system works. We feel that complexity means more expense and more risk for failure.
• The requirement of special rotorcraft training, and the high price limits the availability of helicopters to many that need vertical flight.
• Helicopters basically force themselves in the air and need constant rotor action to remain in the air. They do not have the aerodynamic efficiencies of airplanes and consume more fuel, which in periods of high fuel costs makes them even more expensive and therefore less available.
  

We have touted our Arc Wing VTOL Airplane many times in this blog and on our website. We still feel that an airplane with vertical flight capabilities is the best VTOL of all. Our Arc Wing VTOL will fly 100 knots faster than the proposed 250 knots of the X2. It is mechanically far simpler than any helicopter, especially the more complex X2. It can be flown by an airplane pilot without any computer assistance or complicated mechanisms in changing from vertical to horizontal mode and vice-versa. And, with its simpler design, it will be considerably less expensive to build and operate than a fast helicopter.

Safe Flying, Part I

The USA Today of August 18th has an article by Chris Woodyard and Sharon Silke Carty titled "Inventors are sure cars can fly". This story reviews current attempts to create automobiles that can also fly, which I would call "roadable aircraft", and personal vehicles that take off and land anywhere, which I would call "flying cars".

Regarding the "roadable" aircraft designs that add wings or some other lift mechanism to a wheeled vehicle, the problems of safety, good performance as a car and as an aircraft, and the price are obvious hindrances. On top of that, these designs require taking off and landing at an airport, which precludes true point to point transportation. But, my biggest concern is safety. Piloting airplanes is not something to be taken casually. To be fair, according to the USA Today article, most of the inventors of the diverse group of roadable aircraft are targeting people who are already small plane pilots. The substantial difference between obtaining and keeping a pilots license and an automobile license, the rigorous testing of a new airplane design that the FAA requires, and the increased maintenance needed by aircraft all point to safety concerns unique to a craft that travels through the sky.

I believe roadable planes are not for the average citizen. The best airplane is a safe airplane, and that requires not only a aerodynamically proper design, it also requires a pilot who can handle the craft properly, in many different kinds of weather. Also, I feel a roadable airplane is not a really big advantage. Having a airplane that can also travel on roads seems better because conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) airplanes need an airport for departure and takeoff, and also require an automobile for getting to and from the airports. But, what if the airplane could take off and land vertically? There would be no need for the automobile part of the journey. A traveler could go from his real departure point to his real destination.

Of course, I am not the only person who promulgates the advantages of vertical flight craft. In the USA Today article, some of the inventors cited want to offer vehicles that can take off and land virtually anywhere, in other words, flying cars. My main concern with their approach is again, safety. I don't think the technologies employed by these inventors are safe enough. As I said in my blog entry about the Osprey V-22 tilt rotor aircraft, "In total power failure or 'running out of gas', the V-22 is a free falling body below 1600 feet altitude. It cannot use its wing for gliding flight to non disastrous landing,". I also criticized that aircraft as being overly complex. I would say the same about the technologies that are currently proposed to create truly flying cars. They require redundancies and complexities that decrease safety, and they do not have wings that can be used for gliding to safety in the event of a major mechanical failure. They have no air worthiness on their own. And, it is completely unknown what level of skill will be required to pilot these kind of craft safely. Again even if these vehicles can be made to work effectively, which is yet to be seen, could they ever be piloted by most people?

Those of you who have read my blog entries before know that I propose a VTOL airplane, which has the built in safety characteristics of winged craft, and yet can take off and land vertically. I call it the Arc Wing VTOL airplane. A sketch of it is below. You can read more about this unique airplane at previous blog entries, or at the website of my company.


I think this is the best way to eliminate the need for a vehicle to have both wheels and wings. But this craft is for those who are airplane pilots or have a pilot at their disposal. I don't advocate it as a replacement for all transportation. I have another way that "flight" of a certain kind can be used for more general transport. In part II of my response to the USA Today article, I will elaborate on that.

Civilian Tilt Rotor Baggage

The Bell/Agusta BA609 civil tiltrotor has been in the works for a over 10 years, as reported by an August, 2007 article in Aviation International News (AIN) called "As time passes, operators question BA609 appeal". That article goes on to relate the diminishing interest by potential buyers of the craft. A more recent article in 2008 by Aero News Net, titled "BA609 Tiltrotor Makes Its First Appearance At Show", further confirms this by saying "but officials at the American helicopter manufacturer [Bell] have recently signalled the market they once saw for the aircraft has declined significantly in today's economic conditions."

From our perspective, an airplane that can take off and land vertically like a helicopter and also fly as fast and with the same ease as a fixed wing aircraft is the ideal. So, why are people losing interest in the BA609? The primary reason is cost: almost $20,000,000 for a plane that carries eight or nine passengers. With that kind of money, one could buy several helicopters or about five very light jets (VLJs). Other issues quoted by the AIN article are: that the craft is "too big for use on standard helipads and yet too small for comfortable executive charter." Given the already existing helipads in major cities, oil rigs, company campuses, hospitals and private homes, an vertical flight airplane must be able to use them, or it will require an set of such landing pads of its own.

We've already talked before about the inherent weaknesses of a tilt rotor design. That technology is not the most efficient and most reliable way to add vertical flight capability to an airplane. The lack of efficiency and the potential safety problems is what has swollen the cost of the BA609 to far more than any of the competing aviation modes: helicopter or fixed wing plane. We think it just is not possible to build a tilt rotor vertical take off and landing (VTOL) craft without spending money on redundant computer systems and other complexities, thereby inflating the cost considerably.

We do offer an alternative: our Arc Wing VTOL airplane. By using deflected slipstream technology, which we think is the most efficient (the most elegant, really) approach to vertical flight, our craft will cost about the same as a VLJ and will be far more inherently safe than a tilt rotor craft (or even helicopters) due to the simplicity and aerodynamic qualities of the design. We invited all those interested in the best possible VTOL airplane to look into our proposal. The Arc Wing VTOL can be scaled from four passengers to far more. The smaller ones will easily work with existing helipads. The larger craft will have to be accommodated as per their size. In all cases, the cost will be similar to turbine fixed wing planes of corresponding size.

Safety in the Snow

In April of 2008, the NY Times published an article called The Last Frontier of Flying by writer Weld Royal. It relates the great need for flying general aviation (GA) craft as the only means for travel for most of the state of Alaska. But the article points out how dangerous flying can be in the 49th state. There are few official airports in Alaska, and weather can be volatile. The article quotes the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as saying pilots in "the state died at a rate nearly 100 times the mortality rate for all American workers, and over five times the rate for pilots nationwide."

Most general aviation accidents occur at takeoff or landing. In a places such as Alaska, where even small airports are not common, the need that GA aircraft have for long stretches of smooth surface for takeoff and landing work against safe flying. We feel this is yet another reason to develop an aircraft with vertical flight capabilities. As readers of this blog know by now, we happen to have such a craft, our Arc Wing VTOL airplane. It can take off and land just about anywhere, needing a smooth surface only the size of a helipad. This kind of GA aircraft would be the safest possible way to fly around Alaska, or any other place

Here are more blog entries on our vertical flight craft.

Grow the Market

A few days ago, the well respected general aviation (GA) manufacturer, Mooney Airplane Company of Kerrville, Texas USA, announced layoffs and reductions in output out their aircraft. Mooney has long been known for the performance and reliability of their piston aircraft. But, with all piston-engine aircraft sales recently slowing by 28 percent in the USA market, Mooney has had to retrench.

Of course, we wish Mooney the best in the future, as we do all general aviation companies. But, we think they'd be much better off looking into the arena of vertical take off aircraft in order to grow the market. Conventional GA fixed wing aircraft, no matter how well built and no matter how stylish are going to be a limited market: for travel from one airport to another. What people really want is to travel from where they are to to their precise destination. Vertical flight airplanes give the flexibility of much more convenient take off and landing locations, and the fast speed and flight smoothness of fixed wing aircraft.

We invite Mooney and all other GA manufacturers to look at our design for a vertical airplane. We call it the Arc Wing VTOL airplane, due to the unique arc shape of the wing. We've posted a number of blogs entries on this design. And, our website gives much more information, including documents presented to aviation conferences, and videos. We feel our aircraft will broaden the appeal of general aviation, and that can only help everyone involved with it.

A Wing That Really Lifts

I've talked about the Arc Wing VTOL airplane in a number of earlier posts. Today, I want to talk mostly just about the arc wing itself. No airplane today has a wing like it, and I feel it would have many advantages even for conventional take off and landing (CTOL) aircraft, as well as vertical take off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.

This photo shows just the shape of the arc wing:

And, this image shows the arc wing in combination with a dual rotating propeller and a flap at the back that would be used for VTOL operations:

What are its advantages of the arc wing? When combined with dual rotating propellers:

1. The arc wing has inherent "winglets" and minimal tip vortices to reduce 5 to 10 percent of lift of the straight wing.
2. There is no fuselage interrupting the arc wingspan. The fuselage is under the arc wing saving an additional 10 or 15 percent of wing lift.
3. Taken together, the theoretical saving of the arc wing over the straight wing without the fuselage interrupting may be as much as 10 to 25 percent.
4. The arc wing has greater lift, (L/D), for a given span than a straight wing.
5. An airplane designed with the arc wing will have as shorter span for a given load factor.
6. The arc wing stalls at 33 degrees angle of attack vs. the straight wing that stalls at 17 degrees, resulting in later stall and higher lift.
7. Arc wing flaps are full span and without tip losses, inboard or outboard.
   The arc wing has positive pitch stability that removes the need for a horizontal empennage and the structural weight and drag thereof.
8. The arc wing can assume any angle of attack and "freeze" at any angle of attack by moving the tip mounts fore and aft. We have a video that my son William D. Bertelsen narrates that shows the arc wing stability at any attack angle.

Propellers Forever!

In a May 13th story titled "Single engine turboprops prosper", Kate Sarsfield of Flight International makes the point "The single-engined turboprop sector is riding high. Continued hikes in the price of oil worldwide, coupled with their unrivalled operational flexibility, are pushing up demand for these versatile, efficient propeller-driven aircraft.". In another story on May 15th, also from Flight International, writer Mary Kirby, says in her piece called "Embraer resumes analysis of turboprops" "Developing a new commercial turboprop is under renewed analysis at Embraer, and could provide an eventual substitution for the Brazilian manufacturer’s small regional jets."

Why is it that propellers are more efficient than straight jet engines?

1. Props move a larger volume of air more slowly that jets. An illustration is that the 40 foot rotor of the helicopter can lift more with less horse power than can smaller props.

2. Turbo props have larger diameters than jets, and move more air more slowly and more efficiently.

It conveniently happens our Arc Wing VTOL airplane not only uses a large propeller, but it is a dual rotating propeller, which is even more efficient than a single propeller, by a factor of 8%. Dual rotating props have a straight slip stream, but single rotation props leave a twisting slipstream that loses force by the angle of the twist.

With aviation gasoline prices very high, and likely to remain well above past averages, more efficient airplanes will have a big advantage over less efficient ones. We've discussed before how our Arc Wing airplane has vertical take off and landing, which is the most ideal method of operation. Now we can say that with its dual rotating propeller - and we believe its arc wing as well - it is the most efficient flying machine.

Tilt Rotor Turmoil

The Dreadnaught blog reported in March a story about the faster than expected wearing out in Iraq of the engines for V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft. This issue is just the latest in a long series of problems this plane has experienced.

An article in the the New York Times on April 14 of 2007, summarized the history of the development of the V-22. That story pointed out the high development cost, $20 billion dollars, high craft cost, $80 million each, and the fatal accidents that have occurred with this plane. The article relates further criticisms, including the lack of any ability to land safely should power fail, or the craft run out of fuel. It also states that the vortex ring state, where the propellers get caught in their own turbulence during landing is its chief operational risk.

From my perspective these criticisms should be expected because the V-22 Osprey, like any other tilt rotor craft, has an inherently flawed design. As I see it, the V-22 is far too complex because it uses the wrong technology for vertical flight and as a result many workarounds and add ons are needed to get it to operate at all. It's flaws include:

1. The laterally disposed rotors present an asymmetrical lift situation, and any unequal lift from one or the other propellers can cause severe roll moments. It is essential to have centerline thrust to avoid this fatal occurrence.
2. In total power failure or “running out of gas“, the V-22 is a free falling body below 1600 feet altitude. It cannot use its wing for gliding flight to non disastrous landing, because the large propellers will impact the ground on landing and crash the craft. Again, neither can it auto rotate its propellers like a helicopter.
3. The complexity of V-22 cross shafting, nacelle tilt bearings, two transmissions, and servos, are inherent failure points, and potentially fatal failure elements.
4. The V-22 is all computer programmed and controlled, additional elements to fail. The pilots need special training that exceed mere rotor craft training.
5. In VTOL (vertical take off and landing) mode, the download of the propeller slipstream on the wing costs 10% of the trust for lift, plus there is additional upward fountains of air between rotors causing more loss of lift It has a less than optimal use of the propeller lift.
6. With the high cost and maintenance of the V-22, only the military can afford it.
   

At Aeromobile Inc., we have designed and experimented with an entirely different approach to vertical take off and landing. Our Arc Wing VTOL airplane uses deflected slipstream for vertical maneuvers, and is a fixed wing airplane for horizontal flight. It does not have the inherent design problems I listed for the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor craft and will make a far more efficient, safe and inexpensive VTOL aircraft.

True Point to Point Aviation

DayJet of Boca Raton, Florida has been in operation since October of last year, and has recently announced service to Alabama and Georgia as well as their home state of Florida. Their business is to use Very Light Jets (VLJs) to transport passengers from and to numerous airports in its coverage area, including airports not well serviced by larger commercial airplanes. I wish them the best with their venture.

But, as I've pointed out in earlier posts, aviation passengers really would want just about any and all locations to be departure and arrival points, not just airports. VLJs, like all fixed wing airplanes, need runways and that decidedly limits where they can take off and where they can land. True point to point commuting can only happen with a fixed wing VTOL (vertical take off and landing) airplane, which not only needs very small vertipads for points of origin and points of destination, like a helicopter, but also can fly at speeds of 300 knots or more.

Dayjet currently and other companies in the next year or so provide a valuable service to anyone who finds using the larger airlines for traveling less than 1000 miles is often counterproductive and inconvenient. But, why not expand that service to its full potential? I've worked on a VTOL airplane for a number of years, called the Arc Wing VTOL airplane. It will be almost as fast as a VLJ, more economical because it uses propellers instead of jets, and will be almost unlimited in its ability to service any location. And like a VLJ, but unlike a helicopter, it is aerodynamic and therefore easier to land if engine problems arise.

The in-depth story of this airplane is provided here.

Are VLJ’s the solution for General Aviation?

The recent news about the bankruptcy and subsequent sale of Very Light Jet (VLJ) manufacturer Adam Aircraft (as reported in the Denver Post), brings to mind the difficulties of making any aviation business a success. Why might it be hard to make a general aviation business prosper? Well, maybe we are making and selling the wrong kind of aircraft.

Why should planes go from airport to airport when people really want to go from where they currently are to their real destination? VLJ’s are just faster ways of traveling from one airport to another airport. But, who really wants to be limited in their travel to that? What people would really want if they had the choice is a way to fly directly and quickly from one destination to another.

My earliest inventive work concerned making a aircraft that could take off and land vertically - a VTOL airplane. That form of craft can fly fast and yet is not limited to taking off and landing at airports. This plane combines the vertical capabilities of a helicopter with the speed and aerodynamic qualities of a fixed wing plane. As such, it travels much faster and also more cheaply than helicopters - which are much slower than fixed wing planes - and it requires only small Vertipads for places of origin and destination. You can read more about this airplane, which I call the Arc Wing VTOL here.

And, I’ll talking more about this in other blog posts.