How many electric motors can an airframe have under MOSAIC?

[NorthEast Ohio]

• Northern Californian company Aska showed this prototype of a flying car during Monterey Car Week that it hopes to produce within two to three years.
• The Aska A5 flying vehicle can take off both vertically and horizontally, an improvement on the "flying car" idea.
• The plan is to use these planes as rentals or taxis, priced at around $800,000, and 100 prospective buyers have already placed reservations

Source: Aska Resurrects the Promise of a Flying Car

 

[MooneyDriver78]

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Under the MOSAIC proposal, an aircraft can have multiple engines if it uses a "simplified control system" and if the loss of power does not result in a loss of directional control. Multicopters get mentioned specifically in the discussion.

But nowhere in the MOSAIC proposal is any method for a sport pilot to get multi engine class privileges - at least not as far as I can find.

 

[Salty]

Under the MOSAIC proposal, an aircraft can have multiple engines if it uses a "simplified control system" and if the loss of power does not result in a loss of directional control. Multicopters get mentioned specifically in the discussion.

But nowhere in the MOSAIC proposal is any method for a sport pilot to get multi engine class privileges - at least not as far as I can find.

What point is a multi rating is the control system is simplified? Learning the special prayer to say if something goes wrong?

 

[Samuel Seidel]

I’m curious if something with inline thrust will require a multi license. I know now that that Cessna airplane does require but maybe things will change in that regard.

 

[Warlock]

I assume like a helicopter..no multi endorsement, but must admit it was nice when they gave us a second engine and an apu…

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

What point is a multi rating is the control system is simplified?

No point at all. But if your endorsement/certificate specifically says "Single Engine" - how does that work?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I assume like a helicopter..no multi endorsement

Does your helicopter rating say "Single Engine"?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Think.....powered lift.

 

[Warlock]

Rotorcraft Helicopter…is the only rating also Instrument Helicopter is defined

 

[Paul V]

For helicopter you can legally fly a multi-engine turbine up to and including a Sikorsky s76 as a 40 hr private pilot with no additional ratings or endorsements. Getting insurance on the other hand…..

 

[Datadriver]

20 minutes of power woo hoo!

 

[Palmpilot]

I’m curious if something with inline thrust will require a multi license. I know now that that Cessna airplane does require but maybe things will change in that regard.

I suspect that inline-thrust twins require training in how to determine which engine to feather.

 

[Clip4]

Right now many of the airplanes I fly have up to 3 electric motors - the starter, the turn coordinator, flaps and a ventilation fan.

 

[popPilot]

FYI: There is an Advisory Circular for the Type Certification of Powered-Lift

 

[X3 Skier]

I wonder how many G's the landing gear/drive wheels / whatever they are called are stressed for?

 

[flyingron]

I like like the little propeller on the rear. Reminds me of the "cox" in Radio Flyer.

 

[Salty]

Another year has gone by for another “gonna change the world” design.

 

[Bell206]

I wonder how many G's the landing gear/drive wheels / whatever they are called are stressed for?

Aircraft certification has been moving toward a performance-based/fault-tolerant standard vs a "hard limit" standard for a number of years. The Part 23 rewrite in 2017 is one example.

For example, the Sikorsky S-92 landing gear has frangible components so it will fail in a specific manner and absorb more energy vs being certified to resist a specific load (Gs) which ultimately is transmitted into the pax cabin structure.

So in the case of powered-lift certification, by using these performance standards it will allow OEMs more latitude to meet the ultimate goal of crew/pax survivability vs all OEMs requiring a 10G limit on their landing gear. If that makes sense.

 

[wanttaja]

I like like the little propeller on the rear. Reminds me of the "cox" in Radio Flyer.

Isn't that a uAvionix Tailbeacon ADS-B out system?

You *can* get thrust from it, but only for a millisecond or so if you feed 1,000 volts into it....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flyingron]

Ah, I thought it was a tiny propeller like for a wind generator or something.

 

[X3 Skier]

Aircraft certification has been moving toward a performance-based/fault-tolerant standard vs a "hard limit" standard for a number of years. The Part 23 rewrite in 2017 is one example.

For example, the Sikorsky S-92 landing gear has frangible components so it will fail in a specific manner and absorb more energy vs being certified to resist a specific load (Gs) which ultimately is transmitted into the pax cabin structure.

So in the case of powered-lift certification, by using these performance standards it will allow OEMs more latitude to meet the ultimate goal of crew/pax survivability vs all OEMs requiring a 10G limit on their landing gear. If that makes sense.

Yes it does. I was looking at the fear and it didn't seem to the the most robust arrangement. I then wonder it has to meet both FAA and NTSA standards for crash loads. I suppose it will have to meet the toughest of either a Head On / Side / Rear Highway crash or a FAA crash landing.

 

[Bell206]

I then wonder it has to meet both FAA and NTSA standards for crash loads. I suppose it will have to meet the toughest of either a Head On / Side / Rear Highway crash or a FAA crash landing.

Except performance standards are specific to the end result: prevent injury or death of the crew or pax. So while testing the “crash loads” ultimately provides protection for the crew/pax, a performance standard could be as simple as shown below. How the OEM achieves this is wide open.