

Plane Gets 45 MPG at 207 MPH, Capable of 100 MPG (Better Than Most Cars) - MikeCapone
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/081230100mpg.html?WT.mc_id=090102epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

======
jeffcoat
He's flying a modified VariEze, one of a series of planes designed by Burt
Rutan (who, among other many other things, designed SpaceShipOne).

The VariEze was sold as a set of plans; buying a set gave you the right to
spend an enormous amount of time in your garage with fiberglass and foam,
emerging a couple of years later with a fully functional two-seater airplane.
The original design was targeted as efficient, long distance flying, at the
expense of capabilities like aerobatics; according to the article, this guy
has stepped up his with a re-designed engine an ignition system. Very cool,
especially when you remember that this is very likely a plane he built himself
in the first place.

I find home-built experimental aircraft are fascinating; I'm plotting one of
my own for next year. (There are a number of composite fiberglass designs in
the VariEze family that are just beautiful, but they take much more effort to
build than the more traditional aluminum, so I'm looking right now at the
Van's RV Aircraft family.)

~~~
towndrunk
I built a RV-8 from Van's. The kits are very well done and you will love the
way it flies. Sorry for being some what off topic.

~~~
run4yourlives
What about the noise in certain circles regarding safety? I've heard the wings
tend to snap off if you pull higher G's... your thoughts?

I've always thought the Falco's were pretty nifty.

~~~
towndrunk
As long as you stay within the design limits you will be fine. I built mine
light as Van intended. My empty weight was 1029 lbs. More and more builders
are putting a ton of "goodies" in the panel that I believe distract from the
true sport nature of the Van's design. I never felt unsafe in mine doing sport
aerobatics.

Falco's are very nice but will take forever to build. There is a reason Van's
has a huge number of completions.

------
rbanffy
"Why don’t you put magnetos in your cars?"

Because we are not likely to die because the car engine stopped.

I sympathize with him, but airworthy and street-legal are very, very different
concepts. If he wants advanced electronic controls for airplane systems on
non-experimental aircraft, then he should engineer them around the components
that have been exhaustively certified and field-proven in a way they can
provide adequate fall-back in case of a problem. Given time, they will end-up
in commercial aviation.

~~~
jcoby
It's a shame but I don't think I'll ever see digital systems in widespread use
in my lifetime. Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) systems are out
there but they're generally not trusted. People understand mags and vacuum
pumps and the peace of mind it brings to know you can lose your entire
electrical system and still be flying.

Most of the FADEC systems have dual alternators, dual controllers and dual
sensors, but people still don't run them very often. Probably the most popular
one I know of is in the Rotorway Exec series helis.

SDS also sells a (non-redundant) EFI system that's used in a couple of
aviation applications. My dad is using a SDS system in his Jenny.

You also can't run a modern closed loop EFI system because of 100LL (avgas).
The lead in it will destroy an oxygen sensor. So you're still stuck with a
mixture lever in most cases.

And that's just the experimental crowd. The cost of certifying an EFI engine
into an existing airframe would make a retrofit cost prohibitive. Most people
won't spend an additional $20k at overhaul time to add fuel injection and
digital ignition. It would take a bunch of hours at +20% efficiency to make
that back.

A couple years ago I heard about a company selling a modern ignition system
packaged into a mag. The idea was to replace one mag with the digital ignition
and leave one mag as a safe backup. I don't know what happened to them. Last I
heard they were selling units and working on certification for the Lycoming
O-320/O-360 and Continental O-300 engines.

Also, I just looked up the guy in the article. He sells his digital ignition
systems for around $2k. He's managed to get a STC for a heli, so that's some
progress in the right direction.

~~~
davepage
Dry vacuum pumps fail regularly (<500 hours). Not exactly peace of mind, that.
I'll take a battery backed electric gyro or AHRS any day.

------
easp
Very interesting. I understand the conservatism of aviation engineering, but
this is a clear example of how stagnation in an industry can cause even
conservative adoption of innovations proven in other realms to lag by decades.

~~~
lutorm
My impression that this is not the conservatism of aviation _engineering_ but
rather the conservatism of aviation _manufacturers_. Whether this is due to
product liability concerns (I just eyed through
<http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181885-1.html>) or something else, who knows.
It definitely seems that all "technologically advanced" aircraft are in the
experimental category.

I wonder if Burt Rutan can be subject to a product liability lawsuit for
problems with a Vari-Ez et al?

~~~
jeffcoat
Experimental aircraft (all amateur-built planes are registered with the FAA as
"experimental") fall under an entirely different set of laws and regulations
specifically designed to avoid that sort of of problem.

That's not to say that experimental designers are completely immune lawsuits,
but I've never heard of it happening, and doubt such a thing would survive
long in court.

The net result is that home-built aircraft tend to have dramatically better
performance numbers than comparable certified aircraft.

~~~
spitfire
Quickie aircraft corporation - the guys who made the quickie Q2 (based on a
Rutan design) were sued out of existence back in the 80's.

They had a fantastic plane, fast, fuel efficient and affordable. Then someone
died and their widow sued. They won the suit but the debt from defending
crushed them.

~~~
towndrunk
Do you have a link to that?

~~~
lutorm
I looked around and found <http://www.check-
six.com/Crash_Sites/N82X-Jewett.htm>

~~~
jeffcoat
Thanks for the reference -- I hadn't heard that story. Definitely the
nightmare of the small company selling kit planes or plans.

(Edit: Aside from the nightmare of someone getting hurt and it actually being
your fault. (I've written too many defects recently.))

------
cameldrv
A friend of mine had a Long-EZ. It is a very cool looking plane, fast, and
very efficient. The only problem is that it only seats two and has no room for
baggage. He had small baggage pods suspended below the wings, but they could
only hold something the size of a small duffel bag. I don't think it would be
very comfortable to take a long trip in it.

~~~
dkokelley
And at the rates given in the article, you could theoretically stay airborne
for over 8 hours. Keep in mind that most pilots would like to keep about an
extra hour's worth of fuel in reserves should your intended destination be
unavailable. Still, figure a 'road' trip of about 6 hours in your seat, with
no bathroom breaks, and no rest stops.

~~~
spitfire
It's not like, it's a legal requirement to have 45 minutes of reserve fuel,
plus some for maneuvering . So call it a one hour legal requirement.

------
westbywest
Although intriguing, this comparison is apples to oranges. Planes can achieve
substantially better fuel economy than land-based vehicles because of 2
factors:

1) More flexibility in body design. Cars must have 2/3/4 wheels with
reasonable clearance to maintain safe balance on the road surface, which
usually adds to drag. Planes can vary from tri-wing to tailless flying wing.

2) Low air resistance at high altitude. Planes, passenger jets especially,
capitalize on the reduced drag at high altitude for substantial fuel economy.
Cars are generally stuck at sea level most of the time.

~~~
lutorm
True, though it seems flexibility in body design is mostly limited by fashion.
Things like the Aptera (www.aptera.com) are road legal.

But I disagree it's apples to oranges. If the comparison is how to get from A
to B with the highest fuel efficiency, why should cars be protected from their
disadvantages? (Disregarding for a moment the chaos that would ensue if
everyone driving had their own plane...)

The 100mpg figure seems to apply to cruise flight _at_ 17500ft. Given that you
have to climb up there before you enjoy that advantage, it would be
interesting to know what the total trip mpg is for trips of different lengths.
How far do you have to go before you beat the cars in fuel efficiency?

~~~
zokier
And then there is the problem of getting to an airfield first, unless you just
happen to have one in your back yard.

------
futuremint
Awesome. I like seeing news about the private air industry here. I normally
wouldn't think this is hacker related, but knowing a few private pilots
they're definitely of the hacker mentality. And seeing this article here just
feels rights.

Also, the private pilot culture is definitely of the geeky variety, sans
computers (though some cockpit gadgets are pretty impressive now-days).

------
towndrunk
You just have to built it yourself...

~~~
run4yourlives
That's pretty common to help keep costs down and employ more experimental
designs.

------
vaksel
time for flying cars?

~~~
mhb
<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/flying-car-0319.html>

