Follow this blog:
RSS

A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes

By | September 14, 2010, 11:48 PM PDT

NASA’s Green Flight Challenge is already scheduled for next summer — nine teams are competing to design an aircraft that can fly 200 passenger miles on a gallon of fuel for a $1.65 million prize.

But in a paper made public today, Dr. Brien Seeley, who’s the president of CAFE, the foundation that’s running the challenge, asks NASA to add two more contests over four more years so teams can create a new class of aircraft — “Green, Quiet, vertical or extremely short take off and landing aircraft” — the GQ V/ESTOL aircraft — that would operate out of very small airports situated within walking distance of offices and homes.

Seeley argues that our current aviation system has hit gridlock, and that the technology required to create these small electrical aircraft — which would be very quiet, carry up to six passengers, run on small amounts of power, and operate at a “pocket airport” about the size of a football field, with runways shorter than 400 feet — is within reach.

Such planes would require a much more sophisticated air traffic control system, but NASA and the FAA are already working on that. Here’s how Seeley thinks a pocket airport could work:

As our NextGen [air traffic control] system becomes implemented, higher density operations at pocket airports could be enabled. One possible future operational model for the pocket airport is that of the virtual “portal”. Each pocket airport could have both a departure and an arrival portal. Upon landing, an aircraft close to the airport would be flown by its human pilot through the arrival portal, at which point full automation would complete a pinpoint landing. Likewise, take off and climb out would proceed automatically until the aircraft passed through the departure portal, at which point the human pilot would assume control and fly a prescribed 4D trajectory (space plus time) to the destination airport’s arrival portal. In the more distant future, as greater understanding of the ideal human-machine interface comes online, an alternative ratio of piloting and automation might supervene.

Small planes would also be superior to flying cars, Seeley points out, because the cars are heavy and can’t land in your driveway — you’d have to drive them home from the airport.

Seeley is looking for comments on his paper, which you can get here. It has much more detail on the proposed advantages of his scheme and on the technology needed to pull it off. If I reach Seeley or NASA, I’ll update this post.

The plane in the picture, by the way, is called the Puffin — it’s NASA engineer Mark Moore and his team’s idea of a personal electric vehicle. Here’s an animation of the Puffin from Discovery News:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Deborah Gage

About Deborah Gage

Deborah Gage was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet in 2010.

Deborah Gage

Deborah Gage

Contributing Editor, Technology

Deborah Gage has written for the San Francisco Chronicle, Minnesota Public Radio, Baseline and various magazines and newspapers. She is based in San Francisco.

Follow her on Twitter.

Deborah Gage

Deborah Gage

I pride myself on being an independent journalist. My reporting and writing are not influenced by any financial holdings, and I have no business affiliations with companies other than the publishers I write for as a journalist.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
22
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
I know, I know, what we need is green leaded gasoline. Because you see, when you put the word "green" in front of any other words, the concept is automatically superior to any other idea, even if that idea is a colossal WOMBAT (Waste Of Brains, Money And Time).

Flying people around is the least energy efficient mode of transportation possible. Meanwhile Trains remain the most efficient transportation on earth. Perhaps, here in the Unites States, we should focus our "green-ness" on trying to get our train technologies up to the standards of the third world before pretending that flying super rich people in little tiny airplanes is actually going to solve any real world energy problems.
Posted by mrmaps
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
This concept is a security nightmare. I agree with the train concept. Trains are the future, IMHO.
Posted by ITOdeed
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
Living large and living green aren't mutually exclusive. I love trains. I take them whenever I can. I just finished reading the actual engineering analysis for a light rail system in my hometown, est cost $1.3B . I also love planes, I owned one for twenty years. Only three hours portal-to-portal from my home to Martha's Vineyard or the ski slopes in Maine. High speed trains are a practical and green method for high volume inter-city routes. These ultra-small, light planes would be an excellent solution for suburb to core or suburb to suburb commutes. Contrary to some thinking, the bulk of the suburbs will never be on a rail line. A simple, twenty mile light rail system built on a pre-existing rail right of way in flat countryside would cost the public roughly $2B. Sure it would carry a lot of people but only those who live close by and would not be self supporting on a fare basis. Being green isn't about being elite, it's about living well and not damaging the planet.
Posted by BogMeadow
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
I already own a tiny airplane that can land in a football field; It's called an ultralight. I have often wished I could fly it to work but I'm sure I would be met by the cops and have it confiscated. It is a common misconception that an electric powered aircraft would be silent, actually most of the noise comes from the propeller, not the engine. Counter-rotating propellers working hard enough to produce hover thrust will be especially loud. Counter-rotating props make a particular snarling sound. (Listen to a Cessna skymaster fly over.) I applaud this guy's imagination, and I'm sure his model airplane will fly great. I am familiar with the power capabilities of Li-Po batteries and brushless motors. The prone pilot position will be very fatiguing, I know from my years of experience with flying hang gliders, that holding your head up gets very tiring. I think the flying car concept (actually "roadable aircraft") makes more sense because the general aircraft airport infrastructure is already in place. (Though it is fighting for its life.) Check out the Terrafuga flying car. you can buy one right now for about 200 grand! Jeff.
Posted by Jeff Cardinal
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
Oh, by the way my tiny airplane will be "green" as soon as I get it re-covered. Right now it is blue and white. Jeff.
Posted by Jeff Cardinal
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
There's a nearby company that's been trying to perfect & market a mini-V/STOL aircraft for many years. So the topic has come up in conversation before here. This might not be for wage earners like me but, instead, high speed transport for those who can afford it - the local version of the Concorde. The idea only "flies" if the traffic control is in place up front. Even then, you wonder what the consequences will be when you have signficant numbers breaking down in mid-air & falling on houses below.
Posted by hoodedswan
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
As a former private pilot, who locked away his license and
logbook when work and family commitments made it impossible to
maintain flight proficiency with any reasonable safety margins, I
find this concept appalling.

The takeoff and landing phases of flight require the most skill and
concentration; en-route flight is easy by comparison. Automating
the planning, takeoff and landing, and then handing the controls
to someone chatting on their cell phone who can't be bothered to
develop the skills required for safe flight is rather like teaching
someone to hunt deer by handing them a high-powered rifle,
after having a trained marksman first pull the trigger.

Forget "Not In My Back Yard" - now we've got to wonder if we
should shout "Not Over My House". Maybe there is an advantage
to living under O'Hare's TCA (with its flight restrictions) after all.

Takeoff and landing "portals"?

I think we used to call them "standard traffic patterns".

I could go on, but I'm sure I'm not the only curmudgeon in the
crowd.

George Jetson's flying car in a briefcase is a fantasy. Get used to
it.
Posted by BaapidMakwa
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
I am so claustrophobic that once I saw the little man-face in the little plane it was over for me. I mean over. A flying casket, even for a few minutes, is not happening for me.

I will just go saddle up one of the horses and spend the afternoon glad that I have alternatives.
Posted by IMWeira
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
Trains are the solution, it is proven in other countries. However
America has missed the boat (train) by many decades in not
building the railroads. Also, the rest of the world has accepted that
a railroad system has to be paid for with tax money, it will never be
profitable.
As America is loosing out in many social developments, infra
structure will become more and more a bottleneck for prosperity.
Posted by jackvandijk
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
I love planes, trains and sport cars. The concept of this plane gives me a thrill. I would love to have one and I'm only an 85 year old female. I hate that I probably won't live to learn how to fly one of these planes, but I'd sure like to. For now though, guess I'll stay with my car and taking the train. Still, I do like the idea that some day. . .
Posted by claves1@...
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
6 People, well that's 1200 pounds of explosives. That'll make a nice bang when it hits it's target.
Posted by sberr34039@...
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Trains can not work
Note th costs that have already been given. In a place like Houston where I live the distances and the very horizontal nature of the area mean that literally hundreds of miles of track would be required to serve the area. Even assuming that buses could supplant part of that requirement we still have many billions of dollars required. The cost of acquiring and operating the buses would be very high as well. Today I live 65 miles from my work. No public transportation within 15 miles of my house and 5 miles of my work. Even assuming new train transportation and a full bus system how long would the commute be? How many hours each way. No, public transportation is not an answer and trains so much less.
Posted by kdjkdj@...
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
The FAA has actually spent time evaluating the air control issues!!! When car accidents are routine in rush hour traffic. In bumper to bumper traffic at 70mph I glanced over at the driver in the car next to me and he was reading a newspaper. Road rage in 3 dimensions.....can't wait. Reinvent the subway. It works and can be controlled by a laptop.
Posted by graham641
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
I agree - making trains work in areas that were developed in
sprawl in the absence of transportation infrastructure is a
challenge.

The U.S. cities and communities of 50 years ago were built
around transportation infrastructure. The systems worked well.

Add to the mix the over-subsidy of air transport and personal
transportation, and community development based upon 5-year
financial returns rather than 20, 50 and 100-year plans...

Well, yes. We've got a mess. A big one.

That doesn't mean we should not try to fix it.

Good golly. If you had fast, reliable public transportation walking
distance from your door and half the end-user cost per mile of a
compact car, wouldn't you use it?
Posted by BaapidMakwa
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
Lying down while flying with the monotonous drone of engines
nearby. Yeah, that seems like a good idea. zzzzzzzzzzzz!
Posted by pastorsam
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Tiny Airports would be great. but....
not for personal craft. What would be great is for VTOL
planes to one day be the way the large jetliners fly. It's incredible the space required for our current runways. I'm sure in the future they will figure a way for plane to vertically lift, then proceed on their journey.
Posted by vbprgrmr@...
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
Cities better enlarge their cemeteries. Because they are going to need them.
Posted by blackjack861@...
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
Seems to me that the helicopter already does this and is a technology that has many million hours experience in the book. A vertical take off vehicle is unsafe, uneconomical, unnecessary, and unwise.
Posted by fw32
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Trains and other options are better than individual flight.
There is one concept for urban/suburban travel that would be built on a low cost monorail system using suspended pods built like the cockpit of gliders. The pods would hold 2 to 4 people or cargo.

Riders would hop in a pod at a local station and select a destination from a touch screen. IP routing logic would route people over the least congested routes between points. Air bags would make the pods safe even from a 30-foot fall. Collision avoidance radar in each pod would prevent collisions with disabled pods or pods merging at points in the system.

If a station ran out of the pods the system would automatically route pods to it from a holding area or a nearby station. If the number of arriving cars at a station exceeds the capacity of the station the system would route empty cars to nearby staging points or other stations.

Traffic monitoring would allow the creation of staging areas in places where excess cars could be held to help the system cope with rush hour use.

Major business parks could have the light monorails run right up to the building where employees could access the system, but it also makes it possible for automated pods to deliver packages and mail to and from UPS, FEDX or USPS which would all be on the system.

Compared to any light rail system the cost to build such a system would be peanuts.

There is one concept for urban/suburban travel that would be built on a low cost monorail system using suspended pods built like the cockpit of gliders. The pods would hold 2 to 4 people or cargo.

Riders would hop in a pod at a local station and select a destination from a touch screen. IP routing logic would route people over the least congested routes between points. Air bags would make the pods safe even from a 30-foot fall. Collision avoidance radar in each pod would prevent collisions with disabled pods or pods merging at points in the system.

If a station ran out of the pods the system would automatically route pods to it from a holding area or a nearby station. If the number of arriving cars at a station exceeds the capacity of the station the system would route empty cars to nearby staging points or other stations.

Traffic monitoring would allow the creation of staging areas in places where excess cars could be held to help the system cope with rush hour use.

Major business parks could have the light monorails run right up to the building where employees could access the system, but it also makes it possible for automated pods to deliver packages and mail to and from UPS, FEDX or USPS which would all be on the system.

Compared to any light rail system the cost to build such a system would be peanuts.
There is one concept for urban/suburban travel that would be built on a low cost monorail system using suspended pods built like the cockpit of gliders. The pods would hold 2 to 4 people or cargo.

Riders would hop in a pod at a local station and select a destination from a touch screen. IP routing logic would route people over the least congested routes between points. Air bags would make the pods safe even from a 30-foot fall. Collision avoidance radar in each pod would prevent collisions with disabled pods or pods merging at points in the system.

If a station ran out of the pods the system would automatically route pods to it from a holding area or a nearby station. If the number of arriving cars at a station exceeds the capacity of the station the system would route empty cars to nearby staging points or other stations.

Traffic monitoring would allow the creation of staging areas in places where excess cars could be held to help the system cope with rush hour use.

Major business parks could have the light monorails run right up to the building where employees could access the system, but it also makes it possible for automated pods to deliver packages and mail to and from UPS, FEDX or USPS which would all be on the system.

Compared to any light rail system the cost to build such a system would be peanuts. It would also be a greater feeder into a regional rail system.
Posted by Hates Idiots
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
We really need to get off this "trains fix everything" kick.
It's a complete myth that trains are significantly more "green" per
passenger mile than any other mode of transportation. The only
place in the world where they are is Japan, and only then because
they literally pack in the passengers like sardines; a situation that
would hardly be found acceptable here.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A new flight challenge: tiny airports for tiny planes
Telecommuting, especially with video-phones would be less costly, greener and safer than all of the solutions listed above. Granted, we cannot all accomplish our daily tasks over the internet, but I would bet that the majority of people commuting to work from the suburbs (near and/or far), do indeed accomplish their daily tasks on some kind of computer on some kind of network. Then again, we might want to consider moving out of our energy glutton McMansions back into cities. Then we can walk to our jobs and start solving the obesity epidemic, which has its roots in commuting.
Posted by scott.f.birnbaum@...
20th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The Roads Can't be Controlled or Perfected
so this would be very troubling. Flying coffins that would drop from the sky and cause massive carnage on the ground too.
Posted by donnydo77@...
4th Oct 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!