They’re only really useful in established high (by lightplane standards) altitude cruise. They might save you starting from 4000 AGL, but probably not. There’s no hope in a traffic pattern.
The Diamond Katana, which is based on a motorglider design, has castering gear steered by differential breaking. How do I know this? I flew one for a bit. Interesting airplane, definitely different than the standard Cessnas and Pipers. Introduced in the early 1990’s, so far as I know they’re still being made.
Depends on the airframe, really, for a ballistic chute that’s launched via rocket - for light planes such as overgrown UL’s and “sport plane” types, as well as the very light end of GA, the general rule is you want to be 400 feet or higher so actually a good part of an airport pattern you’ve got a usable chute. There have been “saves” from as low as 100 feet. However, one should keep in mind the distinction between survivable and comfortable. On the lower end of the parachute altitudes you have a decent chance of surviving the landing but you’ll likely hit with some force and broken bones are not unknown.
I’ve known a number of people who have pulled the big red handle. The ride down isn’t fun, getting at least bruises is the norm, sometimes bits of you break. I’ve known people who walked away but even best case scenario it’s like walking away from a car wreck - you might be “unhurt” but you’re still going to be sore and hurting for a couple days afterward.
The heavier the airframe the higher up you need to be before the parachute is a viable option, and the harder it is to secure a gentle landing.
I’m missing something here. The plane looks like it would glide roughly as well as most small craft. It’s a bit oddly shaped but otherwise a fairly ordinary plane if you ignore the articulation. I’m sure it could glide at 8:1 or so.
As for a more serious answer about “how do you keep the wings from folding in”, they could add a manual latch of some kind that prevents it–something that can only be accessed on the ground, and which would have an interlock with other systems that make it impossible to fly without engaging it.
Thanks for the update. My first-hand GA knowledge is getting so ancient I completely forget about manufacturers, such as Diamond, that have sprung up after the ~1980s. I need to learn to shut up about that stuff. Or do more research.
Hey, you know more about big iron, I know more about the lighter side. It’s all good.
Here are the new rules; perhaps someone could summarize?
I read the executive summary of your last cite. Overall FAA is taking a common-sense approach. If the Powered Lift vehicle (“PLV” & my term not theirs) can fly like a helo at low speed & hover, it will be treated for bad weather ops more or less the same as a helo. If not then itll be treated as an airplane. So far so sensible.
They anticipate each PLV make and model to be pretty bespoke, with a flight control system and interface very different from any of the others. So the rule demands that each PLV type have a type rating and the pilots must be type rated in that PLV type to fly it. Again fairly common sense. Not popular with the entrepreneurs hoping to make a quick killing, but TS on them.
There are semi-sensible rules on the transition from zero qualified people or instructors to a functioning pilot and instructor ecosystem. Which is not greatly different from what is done in the airline biz now when we introduce a new fleet type. IOW: “How can anyone gain experience, when you need experience to be able to fly the new jets and nobody has that experience to be able to fly?”
Having said that, the initial experience requirements to carry passengers in PLV are a joke as I read it. Aviation and the atmosphere remain as unchanged and terribly unforgiving as always. Assuming I did not misunderstand (a tall order), at least the initial cadre of the PLV pilots will require very little experience in any piloting role (PLV or otherwise) before being able to fly passengers. If my understanding is correct, that’s dumb and will bite them in the ass promptly.
You probably aren’t wrong, and yet… it looks like most of these are designed to only need a warm body in the pilot’s seat. As I’ve speculated elsewhere, they’re going to be designed so that you push the joystick in some direction and the aircraft maybe does that if it’s deemed safe. It doesn’t let you do anything sufficiently dumb, and that includes anything that would take the craft outside of its flight envelope. Archer’s craft at least works this way.
So I guess my thinking is that this gets you most of the way there to fully autonomous craft. It’s unlikely that the “pilot” is actually adding anything, but until people get comfortable with having no pilot at all, this is a reasonable intermediate step.
As to direct aircraft control I agree that is about to go the way of the elevator operator. OTOH …
I have long said to my cow-orkers that the largest guarantor of needing pilots in the cockpit UFN is the presence of weather: thick cloud, violent winds, heavy precip, and turbulence. The industry depends on being able to reliably avoid the worst of it, accurately determine what is flyable-thoughable vs what is not, and being able to do either skillfully without undue risk.
So far sensor tech is poor compared to eyeballs, and the ineffable judgement and experience seeems to come only from experience as an apprentice / FO doing this under supervision.
A big issue with certificating the training if PLVs is they are all designed frm the git-go for one pilot; soon to be zero. How does the one pilot gain experience safely when there is simply no provision for a second pilot with their own set of controls?
In my years of being the elder Captain flying with newbie FOs, none of whom were new to aviation, I prevented a metal-bending crunch more than once with quick hands and a discerning eye. And I’m nobody special in that regard. With PLVs, all that learning will come without a safety pilot on board.