▲ 58 points
back
19 comments
A different type of WASP than I was thinking!
Another aviation-related WASP program was the essential WWII-era Women Airforce Service Pilots, which ran from 1942-44. These women "became trained pilots who tested aircraft, ferried aircraft and trained other pilots [including towing firing practice targets]. Their purpose was to free male pilots for combat roles during World War II."[0]
They were recently awarded the Congressional Gold Medal and granted internment rights at Arlington.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots
The article mentioned that the operator has both hands tied up in order to control the craft, so there isn't much else they can do other than observe. Seems that could be taken care of these days by using computer controlled fly by wire.
The other big problem is high noise. So no that usable for reconnaissance. But with a half hour of flight time, and if it could be made to hold a couple passengers, it looks like something that would be useful for field evacuation use.
For a fun dive into the wild days that were early-50s aeronautical research, check out the Hiller Flying Platform [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_VZ-1_Pawnee]. It was basically the segway of the skies. Bay-area folks can actually go see the original at the Hiller museum next to the San Carlos airfield.
There are some better (where better==lighter, cheaper, less training) systems for field evacuation such as the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery...
I'm sure a modern version of this system could solve the tied up hands problem, as you mention. Maybe it'd be a useful system for maintenance on a large craft like an aircraft carrier.
Needing to use both hands to control it seems like a problem that could be solved with some foot controls. Hardly a showstopping problem. Just have a little bike seat on a gimbaled pole that the operator sits on and a couple of pedals to control throttle and yaw.
Of course it still has the problem of what you do with an expensive tiny platform that can't carry much if any cargo, makes a horrible racket, and is much easier to spot than a guy on the ground in a jeep.
> ... other than observe. Seems that could be taken care of these days by using computer controlled fly by wire.
not to mention that trigger buttons could easily allow more than just 'observation'...
Why bother? Drone evacuation would serve the same purpose.
If you like this sort of technology check out the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos, California. Stanley Hiller's company did a lot of early work for the US Department of Defense including helicoptors.
The aircraft on display are amazing. The mid-20th century had some incredible aircraft designers.
More recently, there's Flyboard Air[1] and EZ-Fly[2], though pricing and availability are unclear. Water jet Flyboards[3] and packs are a few $k.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UbOG0ERCwM [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAY2kYvkpQ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjvm5kO6ILA
Thanks for sharing this! It's something I've been confused by the absence of, for years. This seems exceedingly worthy. It will be very interesting to see them make progress with the fuel and distance limitations. I hope they are more than successful.
> This seems exceedingly worthy.
Well, perhaps, though running several jet turbines... aside from the amazingly loud noise, that seems a lot of maintenance and fuel? EZ-fly's 5 engines, 280 lb payload, and 12 minutes duration, suggests something vaguely like JetCat P400-PRO 89 lb thrust engines. So say $3/min fuel. Running near max, so maybe low/mid-order 100hrs for minor/major teardowns? A $10k engine. So about the same cost/min for maintenance? Swap out an engine each shift. So several hundred dollars per hour operating cost? So like a light helicopter? But louder.
A similar but jetpack form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh1x6q21-HU
Thus all the attention on electric and hybrid, and winged VTOL.
I confess, I'm waiting for an Xjet/WASP III. Can't help it. I do agree that there is room for improvement, notably with efficiency. Do you have any estimate of the decibel level of the WASP?
:)
Any estimate? Well... WASP was apparently a turbofan, and thus likely quieter than these small turbines - less high-frequency noise from shear. Quick googling turns up [1], which has a CJR900 small airliner as 78 SEL dBA @ 400 ft @ low 1k lb taxi thrust. So perhaps take that as a low bound. And [2] suggests an upper bound of 120 db at 9 ft for one of those small turbines. So...?
I was going to say "No idea, sorry", but when encouraging estimation and rough quantitative reasoning, I argue that one should never say "no idea", because its almost always untrue - one can almost always get some bounds. And surprisingly often, they are satisficingly narrow. Though perhaps not these.
One notable thought from [2] was the high-frequency noise attenuates rapidly with distance.
[1] https://www.nap.edu/read/22606/chapter/6#19 [2] https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9317226-need-de...
Calling Dick Tracy: https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0616/13/dick-tr...
I have to dive deeper into my aerospace history. Whenever I think I have an overview, something like this crops up.
I recall that this became possible due to the development of a small jet engine for cruise missiles.
it really pains me how much good content on the gawker network of sites/kinja legacy sites is still actively ruined by great hill partners