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: (Score:1)
Well, the article uses all the language you'd expect in a, "look we're doing the open source thing" post. "3d printing", "CNC", "community", etc. They say the idea is to reduce build time and expense by using CNC and 3d print, but these manufacturing techniques are already being used for kit planes. And there are already vibrant hobby communities of owners for each of them. They're also very inexpensive, considering you're going to have to buy yourself a little Rotax engine either way. So what problem i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what you get when your politicians are in the pocket of Big Kitplane. The little guy gets screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked with the EAA in Oshkosh for several years, and we built most of a plane each summer from raw materials. Wood and fabric, all the way. Last one I worked on was an AcroSport II [eaa.org].
Making airplanes is all about regulation (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually kit built airplanes have to be 51% built by one person. It's the main governing rule in the space. Already it's being skirted with quick build kits and with factory assistance where you build the plane using the factory's space and tools, but it's likely been pushed about as far as it's going to go.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily in the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration "... 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.
The FAA is in charge of certifying all planes for flight. Your own direct quote doesn't say they don't do the very thing their name implies they do, it says they won't do it for kit planes. No kit plane will ever be certified by the FAA. Now I haven't read the law too closely, and maybe you can get a license to fly a sports plane, or some kind of personal-use plane, but anything that carries passengers or cargo? Forget it.
Re: (Score:1)
Not to mention that most of us live near some controlled airspace.
The legal places you can fly a kit plane are the same you can legally fly an rc plane. And I imagine we are only 1 accident away from even THAT changing.
Piloting is one of the few vestiges of the feudal system left in the egalitarian world. When the common masses start flying, the "big sky, small plane" theory will get regulated away.
Re: (Score:1)
They... can and do fly into the most restrictive airspace in the country.
Would it be too much to ask if they could take some better pictures than this one [lazygranch.com]? :)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope.
Basically, when you complete a kit plane, you get it certified by the FAA as an experimental aircraft. Those can be flown anywhere that's permitted by their equipment and your licensing; for instance, the plane has to have its minimum equipment list to fly at all and navigational aids to fly in IFC. The major restriction on an experimental aircraft special airworthiness certificate is that it can't be used for commercial cargo or passenger operations.
FAA bureaucrats have restricted experimental craft (Score:3)
Nope.
Basically, when you complete a kit plane, you get it certified by the FAA as an experimental aircraft. Those can be flown anywhere that's permitted by their equipment and your licensing; for instance, the plane has to have its minimum equipment list to fly at all and navigational aids to fly in IFC. The major restriction on an experimental aircraft special airworthiness certificate is that it can't be used for commercial cargo or passenger operations.
Unless an FAA bureaucrat feels otherwise:
"The Van Nuys Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) has prohibited experimental flight tests and normal operations (Phase 1 and Phase 2 flights) at Burbank, Van Nuys, Whiteman, and Santa Barbara airports."
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060118experimental.html [aopa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Chapter 16.32 UNLICENSED AIRCRAFT
Such as ultralights.
Re: (Score:3)
Only Ultralights are restricted to E and G airspaces. Kit planes, particularly the sleek, modern, fast ones, are used in normal airspace all the time. I have flown the EAA's Vans RV-6A around Whitman quite a bit, and that is full-on class C airspace, even taking off from Pioneer Field.
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re: (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 certificatio
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, I have right here in my grungy little hands, "FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate". Section II has check marks in B,4 and 2 for "Special Airworthiness Certificate", "Experimental", and "Amateur Built".
In the US, it is illegal to lift out of ground effect without this form being accepted by the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read the direct quote as "the FAA won't pre-approve an aircraft kit or kit manufacturer, as the quality of the build is paramount in the certification process - the FAA will approve built aircraft".
There's no point in approving a kit or a kit manufacturer if the kit is being built by someone who has no idea what they are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
They dont approve kits. They do have to approve the finished airplane before you fly it. And you do have to be licensed, although the 'light sport' licensing is significantly easier.
None of this is specific to this particular project. People have been selling, building, and flying kit planes for many decades now.
Kits planes are heavily regulated by FAA (Score:2)
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 "... 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.
I think all that quote is saying is that the normal certification and approval process does not apply. My understanding is that kit airplanes fall under the category of experimental aircraft and a different large body of regulations do apply. Including regulations limiting where an experimental aircraft can be flown. Of course things may be quite different from long ago when I became acquainted with such things.
Re: (Score:1)
My understanding is that kit airplanes fall under the category of experimental aircraft and a different large body of regulations do apply. Including regulations limiting where an experimental aircraft can be flown.
The limitations on where you can fly have been eliminated, at least once you are out of the flight-test phase (7 hours for E-LSA, 25 for E-AB with certified engines, 40 for E-AB with non-certified engines). The prohibition on flying for commercial purposes is still in place.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that kit airplanes fall under the category of experimental aircraft and a different large body of regulations do apply. Including regulations limiting where an experimental aircraft can be flown.
The limitations on where you can fly have been eliminated, at least once you are out of the flight-test phase (7 hours for E-LSA, 25 for E-AB with certified engines, 40 for E-AB with non-certified engines). The prohibition on flying for commercial purposes is still in place.
When googling around last night I found that regional FAA officials can and have prohibited normal operations in certain areas.
"The Van Nuys Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) has prohibited experimental flight tests and normal operations (Phase 1 and Phase 2 flights) at Burbank, Van Nuys, Whiteman, and Santa Barbara airports."
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060118experimental.html [aopa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA actually does certify the aircraft in the form of an airworthiness certificate and aircraft license/tail number, but only once you have assembled the kit. The aircraft needs to be inspected many times throughout the construction of the aircraft so they can see and sign off that it is being built properly. The experimental/kit planes cannot be mass-produced and sold(as complete aircraft). They can, however, be built one-off and flown by the builder or any appropriately-licensed pilot they certify to
Re: (Score:2)
Open source people don't like regulation, because it confines the creative process.
You're trolling pretty hard there. Many open source licenses depends on regulation. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright law. So no, regulation by itself doesn't confine the creative process; Bad regulation does.
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
They've been trying, but every time they drop an apple it lands on the ground instead of the ceiling. They've tried threatening the apple with a lawsuit, they've tried applying intellectual property laws saying things landing on the floor is prohibited by law, but the damn apple keeps landing on
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity is also inconvenient and confining. We need to rally the people to overturn this law.
Repeal the first (or even only the second) law of thermodynamics and we'd get enough energy to beat gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws of thermodynamics speak of observations in a closed systems. We still cannot prove the universe is or isn't a closed system and if in fact there is an infinite multiverse, then all bets are off. A great story along these lines if Asimov's "The Gods Themselves [wikipedia.org]". So a more powerful engine than matter-antimatter might be two closely spaced portals to two universes, a universe about to become a big bang, and a universe on the verge of heat death. You could harness huge flows of energy from both portals
Re: (Score:2)
Making an airplane is about not killing yourself.
Contributors will get sued ... (Score:3)
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.
Making planes is also about getting sued. Lawsuits destroyed the private light aircraft market in the U.S.
You do not even have to make an error to lose a lawsuit. A lawyer merely needs to convince a jury that a "better" design choice could have been made. Your choice may have been the better choice in a broad overall sense but the lawyer just needs to argue that in a specific narrow sense something else would have been better. For example a fuel injected engine vs a carbureted engine. In a specific narro
Re: (Score:3)
For experimental aircraft (of which homebuilts/kit builts/etc are a part of) the regulations are far more lax - basically it's just a sequence of inspections to make sure you're doing things "the right way" and avoiding obvious faults. I.e., you plane has a decent chance of flying and you used parts that are strong enough to withstand the rigors of s
Re: (Score:2)
For experimental aircraft (of which homebuilts/kit builts/etc are a part of) the regulations are far more lax - basically it's just a sequence of inspections to make sure you're doing things "the right way" and avoiding obvious faults. I.e., you plane has a decent chance of flying and you used parts that are strong enough to withstand the rigors of such flight.
The inspection requirements are no longer enforced; though, highly recommended. There is only one official one at the end.
After that, it's mostly hands off - you build it how you think it should be built. It's basically anything goes to encourage innovation in aircraft. You're allowed to design your own completely from scratch, buy a set of plans and build it yourself (following as much or as little of the plans as you desire), buy a kit and build it, etc.
It is nothing at all about encouraging innovation; though, it does do that. It is about freedom. Do I get to live and die as I choose? Or does the government get to direct my every step to "protect" me? In this particular case, liberty won.
Definitely not sure what open-sourcing gives over traditional experimental plane building. Other than perhaps you don't have to buy a set of plans and can instead download them? Or are forced to document all your modifications and publish them?
Open source adds nothing. I bought my set of plans for $250. A small price to pay the designer/engineer who put literally YEARS into creating t
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Nothing you listed is a problem.
Um, yes, yes it is. You say it isn't a problem, then go on to confirm every single point I made...
As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world.
Citation needed. At least 95 to be exact, enough to cover half the countries you're claiming this for.
In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt.
Which still require certification, even if it is only a "technical counselor" of the Experimental Aircraft Association or a "Designated Airworthiness Representative". You cannot simply print a plane out, take it to an airstrip, and yell "Yippie kai-yay!" and bolt into the air. Even the guy who decided to strap
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.
Bzzt (Score:2)
You can take paying passengers in a Cessna or other small aircraft. Sea plane tours come to mind as a practical example. They are also used for training
Re: (Score:2)
Er, with a cessna, if you have a license you can take on passengers. Not paying passengers, but you can have them. A license to fly your experimental plane does not cover that. You need to get the plane certified to take passengers up in it, and a kit plane will never get that certification. The FAA has even said as much.
Why, oh why, did I built a 4-seater experimental airplane, when girlintraining says I can't ever have passengers? And why does Bob Barrows keep selling plans for that six-seater Bearhawk? Maybe, girlintraining just needs more training?
Re: (Score:2)
I assume that doesn't include the pilot?
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: (Score:2)
Wow, this is like the worst AC ever. How the hell this got modded to +5 is beyond me.
Protip: the plane under discussion is a LSA, not an ultralight.
Protip: ultralight is one word, and it's a legitimate word so you do not need to wrap it in quotes.
Protip: when the entirety of your knowledge on a subject comes from reading some Wikipedia articles (very evident from your post), you are not an expert. Don't jump in a discussion among people who actually build and fly airplanes and spout "check things before you
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There's a few problems with your argument. Firstly, you cannot fly whatever you want. The requirements for ultralights are basically down to cardboard-and-aluminum style construction. They must weight less than 254 lbs empty, carry less than 5 gallons of fuel, meet certain speed requirements, and obey some serious restrictions compared to regular light sport or private pilot aircraft. Furthermore, it can only carry one person when piloted without a license. If you use a tandem(two-seater) ultralight, the pi
Does this apply to drones? (Score:1)
Saying you need FAA approval to prototype an airplane is a bit misleading. Do you need FAA approval to fly a model airplane or a drone? Because that is how you prototype an airplane on the presumably open source budget that the project will start with, unless they can get someone like Mark Shuttleworth to sponsor them.
Maybe I'm wrong about the drone part. Still I find it hard to believe that attaching a motor to some flat pieces of wood or fiberglass I'd soon get the Feds knocking on my door and not just th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually planes and helis will get you VIP seating just about anywhere. A good friend of mine has a buddy who trades in helicopters and planes. He in fact built the helicopter for the movie "Blue Thunder" (a film from the 80s starring Roy Scheider if anyone cares.) Anyway we were working in Torrance at the time working for Epson America and he gave the entire crew a bunch of touch and goes around the PV peninsula from a pad just outside what was the 94th Aero-Squadron Cafe next to the Torrance Airport (a ti
Check out the EAA (Score:2)
Having built my own plane (https://sites.google.com/site/tomscozypage/) it is something ANYONE can do. Well, not anyone, especially anyone who would rather tell us all that they can't do stuff, but anyone who is willing to spend a couple years out in their garage, basement, or whatever workshop you have getting stuff done. It is not a risky venture, if you either follow the plans, or do reasonable engineering (if you know that discipline) when designing your own.
Any avocation can be expensive. Sure you can
Re: (Score:2)
The kit itself isn't certified as airworthy by the FAA, just the actual put-together plane. In this regard, if you want to buy a bunch of spruce and build your own plane from your own plans from scratch, you are more than able to do so. Just keep in mind, if you want that FAA dude to sign off on your plane, there is a massive bible-sized tome of regulations your plane will need to adhere to. Some of them are easy, like it has to have a minimum speed below some certain point, so you don't get a bunch of prop
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who is currently studying to be a pilot (22 hours of flight time so far) and who has been around all sorts of airplanes all my life, including ultralights, LSAs (as long as they have been around), classics, homebuilts, kitplanes, original designs, warbirds, etc. I'm as close as you can get to being an expert in this field without being part of the FAA.
First point, homebuilt, kitplanes, and original designs are all under the "experimental" class of aircraft, this means it can't be used for commerc
If... (Score:2)
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:Did they learn the lessons of OpenEZ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Their not doing anything Bernie Pierenpol wouldn't have done if he had a 3D printer and CNC machine.
+1 for good intentions, 999,999 to go till you reach the high score.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting the CNC mill from?
I spent 6 months building and learning to use my low budget one based on EMC2 and stepper motors. That is added into my 10yr build time for my airplane. I used it to carve my propeller.
Re: (Score:2)
Printable parts, neat idea.
What else you got?
I've been going to Oshkosh for 25 years (Dad dragged the family there when I was 5). Printable parts is a step forward for homebuilders, but its just a step.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
so soon? so the manuals are written? Tell me ... (Score:2)
Not to burst you bubble (Score:1)
Having spent many years envolved in building experimental aircraft I will agree that open source could potentially solve some problems. One barrier still remains however. An inexpensive engine. Any engine manufacturer that has any plans for remaining in business very long will have to insure themselves for liability. This ends up being almost half the cost of the engine. I am not award of an open source solution for greedy stupid people and their lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
And whatever you do, don't make the wingtips rounded and paint it white.
the problem a lot of people will have (Score:2)
...will be getting their build past CAA inspection, which is mandatory before you even get to roll the aircraft onto the apron. Then you got static avionics tests, static engine tests at idle and full power, then you got taxiing tests, takeoff-circle-approach-waveoff-approach-landing and testing systems all the while, while making sure you don't wrap yourself around a building... you'll probably spend more time running tests to satisfy the inspector than you will have done building the thing (IIRC there's a
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Engines are the tough part. You cannot manufacture them yourself and they have to be reliable
How much do those Subaru conversions cost? They seem like the sweet deal. Those motors are fantastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the CAA was shut down in the 1950's, I guess that will be an issue.
The rest of what you typed is completely misinformed nonsense.
If builders built airplanes... (Score:2)
There's an old saying, "If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."
Buildings, at least, don't fly. You won't catch ME in that airplane!
Re: (Score:2)
And somehow you assume it's Open Source programmers that make this. As someone involved in the Ultimaker, which is partial OpenSource 3D printer. This 3D printer is developed not by software engineers, but by mechanical engineers. This might sound odd to you, but OpenSource (or OpenDesign) extends beyond software, and thus beyond the software profession.
similar 103 legal open source project (Score:3, Interesting)
I am building a RV-8 (Score:2)
I wish this effort well, but I don't think it answers any problems. I don't believe I would be tempted. Building an airplane is just too damn much work to not be certain of the results.
There are many excellent kits to choose from. Like anything else, you have to finish the project to reap the rewards. If your main goal is to fly (and not to build) then just buy a nice used airplane. I expect to have spent over $100K (plus labor) to complete my RV8. In the current depressed market, $100K will buy a very n
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How are we going to keep this open technology away from the Muzzies?
Realistically the Muzzies are more likely to steal a light aircraft if they need one or hijack an airliner than spend hours building an open source one.
Gyrobee, anyone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
You forgot "Nae Underpants".
Re: (Score:1)
Does Not Say They Are Building The First OS Plane (Score:1)
The Mountain Goat (Score:2)
Has anyone here flown or know anything about the Mountain Goat? Stall speed 26 mph, top cruising speed over 175 mph, and able to take off on flat ground in less distance than the length of a 747. That and able to carry over half a ton in cargo safely. I just want to know this isn't too good to be true. I saw a film of this thing flying over cow pastures on the Monterey Coast at about 20 feet, then floating at about 2,500 ft. as it hovered over a hilltop in a 30 mph headwind. Weirdest thing I've ever seen a