Originally Posted by
wrench1
10 to 1 those conventional requirements like autorotation ability, or its equivalent, will not survive in the final eVTOL certification basis in lieu of other methods or revised criteria.
I'll be interested to see how that plays out. John Dixson has mentioned any number of times the mismatch between the early FBW development for rotary wing versus the capacity to figure out requirements for that among regulators (at least on the FAA side).
Originally Posted by
SplineDrive
Call me old fashioned, but running out of stored electrical or chemical energy in the air shouldn't result in everyone plummeting to their deaths. A survivable controlled emergency landing from a stored energy starved flight state isn't a bad requirement.
The future passengers of these new aircraft agree with you.
Originally Posted by
bellblade2014
the illusion of FBW is simplicity. It is imminently more complex than push pull or cable systems. Software is a vast ocean of possibilities and decisions with many hidden (and deadly) traps as evidenced by numerous complex failures from software based systems of the past.
Two that come to mind are the 609 (civilian tilt rotor) and the 525 (Bell). I am sure that there are others, to include the odd event with S-97 - WoW and fly by wire mode conflict - a few years ago at West Palm.
no one has certified a civil FBW rotorcraft or tiltrotor yet and it is not because of the workload.
Isn't Relentless (Bell 525) almost there?
it sure is a ton simpler to just use SAS/SCAS to reduce pilot workload while still preserving basic mechanical function in nearly all conditions. Mechanical failure is extremely rare in reality.
I agree. Sometimes I wonder if the "can" and "should" thinking fits the needs of the aircraft.