Makerplane Aims To Create the First Open Source Aircraft 100
cylonlover writes "MakerPlane plans to do for the aviation industry what Firefox and Linux did for computers. By adopting open source design and digital manufacturing, MakerPlane's founder John Nicol hopes to overcome the frustration and disappointment that most kit plane builders encounter. Over 60 percent of all kitplanes started end up collecting dust and those that are finished must overcome the challenges of complicated plans, the need for special tools and thousands of hours of labor with little or no manufacturer support. Nicol believes that a more community-oriented design approach will overcome many of these obstacles. Israel-based aeronautical engineer Jeffrey Meyer is leading the MakerPlane charge to develop a safe, inexpensive kitplane that can be built at home or at a 'makerspace' through the efforts of people volunteering their efforts and ideas. MakerPlane intends to make the plans and avionics software for the plane available for free, but will sell parts and support services to fund the project."
EAA (Score:5, Informative)
There's a group called the Experimental Aviation Organization [eaa.org]. They have a whole bunch of local chapters full of people who are obnoxiously willing to help you build an airplane. There are dozens of kitplane manufacturers out, including my favorite Airdrome Aeroplanes [airdromeaeroplanes.com] which has an awesome kit for building a replica (full size or scale) of the Red Baron's DR-1 [airdromeaeroplanes.com] among others. The build time is on the order of 400 hours, vice 2000-3000 for the modern composite designs, and this design needs no tools beyond those from Harbor Freight.
Enjoy
Re:Making airplanes is all about regulation (Score:4, Informative)
Making airplanes isn't about technology, it is all about regulation and certification of components and complete product. Open sourcing wont help you with that.
Not necessarily in the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration [faa.gov] "... does not certify, certificate, or approve aircraft kits. Also, the FAA does not approve kit manufacturers." Though I'm sure there are regulations for the person piloting the aircraft.
Did they learn the lessons of OpenEZ? (Score:4, Informative)
Going for open source avionics is a waste of time - you can get a full 6-pack (equivalent) from Dynon for $1500 and install it as a unit.
Kits have been getting better all the time. I know many many people with different backgrounds who built and fly kits from Vans [vansaircraft.com]. There are many plans [aircraftspruce.com] and kits [velocityaircraft.com] available from other sources [murphyaircraft.com] as well - many with support forums and such. If you want a successful open source plane it will have to be easier and/or cheaper to build than anything out there and you will have to build and fly one first. Open source or "free" plans are not the issue. More time and money is spent on parts, supplies, and actually building the thing. For plans-built planes, the cost of an engine usually dwarfs the cost of tried-and-true plans.
So how is this going to be better than what you get from your local EAA [eaa.org] chapter [eaa.org]
Re:Problems (Score:3, Informative)
Solutions:
- Experimental-Amateur-Built
- Sport-Pilot
- EAA.org
(and your favorite search engine)
Re:Problems (Score:5, Informative)
Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places. I do recommend some training though, and leaving design to professionals
Home building is where aviation started, and it's alive and well. [eaa.org]
Re:Problems (Score:4, Informative)
Hopefully it wont slow them down because none of it is true, just your own personal assumptions, which are, thankfully, pretty much all false. It is different for different countries... but you mention the FAA, so I assume that you think that you're commenting on how it is in the USA... but that said...
1) anyone can make a plane if they have the skill and the knowledge, and nobody would bother them. it happens all the time, it's happening right now all over the country by aircraft enthusiasts.
2) you don't have to alert authorities about it at all, and it does NOT need to be certified by the FAA if it's under weight guidelines.
3) it's perfectly legal to fly whatever you want, whenever you want as long as you keep it under weight specifications for "ultra-light" aircraft. Seriously, if you lack the skills to build, you can go buy an ultra-light, find some dude who can fly to teach you to fly it... and fly it whenever you want, all legally, all without telling any authority or regulating body. You can actually make an ultralight that can carry a passenger and nobody will bother you.
The most hilarious part of the post is "I wont even go into the requirements" because it's pretty clear that you don't even remotely know what they are let alone well enough to "go over them". Seriously, anyone (at least in the USA) can make a plane and go fly it whenever they want as long as it meets the rules for ultralights. You don't need a license, you don't need to tell a soul and it's still perfectly legal. It's recommended that if you build a plane that you get proper training and have your plane looked over by an engineer, but that's only because people in general don't want others to hurt themselves and give a bad name to aviation. But anyone telling you that you can't do this has no clue about what they're talking about.
So bad was the ignorance of your post that you failed to bring up the most basic of sources that would inform you about ultralight aviation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation
It's actually pretty cool that it's still legal for people to be able to commit and risk their own lives in the pursuit of invention and flying machines just like it was 1900. ...wikipedia, it's a pretty cool resource to check things before you say dumb things on the internet.
Re:Making airplanes is all about regulation (Score:2, Informative)
Not 51% by one person. 51% by amateur builder. Hired help / factory cannot build majority of the plane, but there is nothing stopping you from making a party of the build experience with as many of your friends and family as you can gather, joining in on the build.
You can also purchase a partially completed plane, and finish it up, as long as you nor the previous owner used professional assistance to build the majority of the plane. Here, you may run into issues with being able to do your own annuals, if you did not do the majority of the work.
There is also a new category (only one kit that I know of, by Van's in this category). It allows you to build a kit to the exact specifications of the manufacturer (there are other rules about HP, no constant speed props, no retractable landing gear, max weight, etc. that apply to all LSAs), and get a plane where a buyer can do his own annuals etc. and it modifies the 51% rule too.
Re:the problem a lot of people will have (Score:4, Informative)
Actually for boats the requirements are quite rigorous and enforced mainly because you can usually pile more people on a boat than a home built aircraft.
You don't know what you're talking about (Score:4, Informative)
2. IFR has NOTHING to do with built up and urban areas. This may surprise you but the big jets you see landing at a major international airport are often operating in VFR. VFR is visual flight rules, it means the pilot is responsible for see and avoid, as well as being required to be able to see at least x miles, which is different between countries and jurisdictions. VFR pilots can operate in controlled airspace, except class A which is 18,000 and above.
3. Ultralights are not limited to under 100 feet. Do you realize how low that really is? Yes you can not usually fly them over congested areas, but congested does not mean IFR. Ultralights may fly in controlled airspace, both class B and C, with prior permission. Ultralights typically fly out of a farm field or grass strip and generally those are in uncontrolled airspace, class G. For the type of flying one usually does with an ultralight, this is generally fine since they go slow and have a small payload. They are really for recreation anyways. I don't know why you would think anyone would WANT to fly an ultralight in IFR conditions. First of all you need expensive instruments which won't likely even fit on the instrument panel in an ultralight. Second, IFR conditions are usually cloud, rain, snow, ice, etc. and ultralights are extremely light weight(duh) and a lot are open cockpit. So what's the issue here? Ultralights fit many people's needs for recreational flying and are quite cheap to build and operate.
4. Experimental aircraft are making great strides forward compared to the FAA certified aircraft such as Cessna, etc. The engines are using half the fuel(such as the Rotax) compared to the certified aircraft engines(Lycoming, Continental). The reliability is also on par with certified aircraft engines. The same thing is happening with avionics. Kit planes are often built with full glass panel cockpits and much cheaper cost than doing it with certified avionics. They are just as reliable as the certified avionics. Having everything require certification makes the price 2-4 times as much and slows down the progress. For commercial operations, I can see the need for certification, and the piece of mind it gives people. But the EAA has shown for non commercial and personal flight, the certification does not give you much if any benefit.
Re:Making airplanes is all about regulation (Score:3, Informative)
That just isn't true; you still need a flightworthiness certificate from the FAA in order to register and (legally) fly the plane. The exceptions are for ultralights, sport aircraft, and aircraft which remain tethered to the ground (see: moller Skycar) or never leave ground effect (see: hovercraft and ground effects planes such as the Ekranoplane - which would be registered as boats).
That isn't certification, though. A certified aircraft (anything factory-built, basically) has to meet very particular standards for performance, function, reliability, etc. That takes a lot of paperwork and testing (I know this because I am an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer). It also requires very tight control of the manufacturing process, and requires that any modifications or deviations be approved.
Homebuilt aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, but that is expressly not a certification. There's a little formality to it, but it's basically a quick check to make sure you didn't do something horribly obviously wrong (like forget to hook up your controls, or leave a wing off, or forget your basic instruments). You're also required to perform some level of test-flying. And even after that's done, you can't carry passengers or cargo for hire, or use the airplane for any commercial purpose (like banner towing or aerial photography).
With a certified light airplane, you get a guarantee that the aircraft meets certain performance and safety standards, a proven flight envelope, greater flexibility with use, and a wider resale market. However, you have to pay a licensed mechanic for all your maintenance (including annual inspections) past things like changing your oil, you have to follow the manufacturer's maintenance program, and making changes or modifications (or even buying replacement parts) can be very expensive.
A homebuilt airplane will generally give you better performance for your money in terms of range, speed, payload, maneuverability, etc., and there are many more options to choose from than on the certified market. It is also much more customizable (you can fit any equipment to it that you want), and the maintenance is much cheaper because you can do it all yourself, even if the airplane is secondhand (except for the annual inspection--you can only do that yourself if you were the primary builder). Homebuilts also tend to have newer, fancier "stuff" than certified airplanes, because you don't have to go through lengthy certification processes to add those things.
On the negative side, homebuilts do not come with that guarantee of performance or safety standards. That doesn't mean that they don't meet them (many do), just that they aren't proven to have done so. They are also subject to varying degrees of build quality--some builders produce amazing stuff, others I wouldn't trust to build a Lego kit properly. Designs with many flying examples (or those from established kit makers) are generally less risky than one-offs; airplanes built closely to plans generally have less risk than those with drastic modifications or unusual engine installations. You also lose flexibility with use; you can't use the airplane for commercial purposes, and your resale market is much smaller--fewer people are willing to buy used homebuilts. And finally (obviously), you have to invest the build time--something that's enjoyable to some, and a nightmare to others.
My dad and I (along with a little help from the rest of the family) built an airplane while I was in high school. I'm now looking to build one myself (albeit a smaller, more affordable one) as soon as I finish saving up the money for the kit.