Comments on: Meet the "Puffin," NASA's One-Man Electric Plane

By: steve

steve — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:42:12 +0000

As the navy found out the problem will tail sitting aircraft is that the pilot can’t see to land it. That’s why they never made it past the proto-type stage.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:23:59 +0000

Although I washed out of the army warrant officer pilot program in late 1964 after seven months, I have a decades long fascination with aviation. When I was around nine in 1951 I recall a cover of Popular Science or Mechanics with a commuter getting ready to fly to work in his personal helicopter. If the Puffin ever became available at a reasonable price I would try it out! I think Arsenio has a point–the Chinese will probably steal the concept and market it for less! One of many things I liked about Avatar was the advanced helicopter gunships besides showing the quasi-flying dinosaurs (pterosaurs) taking off without having to run off a cliff, as was the prevailing opinion among ‘dinosaur’ authorities for decades.

By: Arsenio

Arsenio — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:44:27 +0000

A terrorist’s dream vehicle. Also look for China to steal the vehicle concept and market it for less, and saying they invented it with superior communist know-how.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:16:05 +0000

In the human process of continuous self-reflection, for photovoltaic power generation that was so clean and direct forms of energy have become more cordial, china-solarwaterheaters.com not only in space applications, in many areas also show off their capabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:27:11 +0000

I think people should lay off Eric, as it seems that he’d rather have a positive outlook on things rather than a negative view. Poeple who are willing to stretch what they know as impossible often are the ones who change what we consider possible. Such as the Wright Bros.

I like the planes concept, but I see a barrier as far as the human element goes. I see government/law issues, and plenty of opposition to the idea…

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:26:13 +0000

I have to say I’m pretty down on this concept too. There are flaws in the whole design that are glaring.

1). Batteries are heavy and do not have very high energy densities as a rule. This is tolerable in a land vehicle, but an aircraft? Weight is everything in aviation design!

2). “…range could be increased as batteries improve over the coming years…” Batteries have been stuck in neutral for a long, long, LONG time! The only way they’ve gotten better is by commercial scale implementations of designs that were already known about for years. Plus, batteries have all kinds of weird usage requirements otherwise you ruin their energy storage capability. Batteries really haven’t gotten much better and it seems a vain hope to suggest that suddenly they will.

3). VTOL aircraft have safety problems. It’s an unavoidable side-effect of their design. Just take a look at the safety record of the Harrier, the Osprey, and numerous experimental vehicles. While in hover mode these vehicles have almost no safety margin and they are very touchy about the transition from hover to flight (and back again).

By: WKRP Turkey drop

WKRP Turkey drop — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:02:34 +0000

Eric forgot his meds.

Price point is everything. If they can get the price down to 60k I’d get one (after the bank heist). As for wreckless drivers, a little bit of Social Darwinism is just the ticket for our diminished gene pool. Now if I could just get my hands on Judy Jetson! She’s 19, right?

By: Leo

Leo — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:52:36 +0000

Problem seems to be the speed: so wide rotors would produce big thrust and if this helicraft is intended to really substitute cars, how many training hours to be an average driver?
If rotors are oriented in the direction driver wants to go, what will be the minimum speed to allow wings sustain the weight?
Anyway: how many chances to survive in case of air crash with another one or in case of land crash, due to high minimum speed?

Why not make the rotors remain oriented through sky, allowing the craft to hover or to gently and slowly slide horizontally in the air, at 2-3 km/h? This will make long flights more confortable (pilot remains in erected position instead of lying) and lower speed (until zero, if pilot needs to hover) will decrease damages in case of crash.

By: John Moore

John Moore — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:02:42 +0000

From what I’ve read about the new systems are pretty anti-crash oriented. I too had reservations about a bunch of witless folks who can’t navigate a city map much less plan a flight plan. The vehicle that first got my attention was something very similar to this and has several “fail safes” built in to prevent someone from flying erratically, running out of fuel/energy and then crashing, etc. The system they are reffering to establishes 3-d “tunnels” demarked for travel in various directions at various speeds so you wouldn’t have everybody flying in everydirection.

By: Michael Brennan-Perez

Michael Brennan-Perez — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:55:39 +0000

My only “skepticism” concerning this recent development in personal flight regards the ideology of people like Eric, whose own pre-determined notions of “progress” and “economic growth,” continues to drive decisions among leveraged business interests intent on pursuing narrow agendas contributing to environmental degradation. Without a biologically sustainable environment there is no point in national security.