New UAV Company

[spitfiremk9]

Anyone heard about the new UAV Company called
"Whisper Aerospace "? Here's the take
"Whisper Aerospace is a new company founded by a group of individuals with a very diverse range of technical skills, all working to create and bring to market the first Commercial/Civilian UAVs that will be able to fly in the NAS (National Airspace System). Our UAVs will feature reasonable payload capacity and operational performance, thereby offering clients considerable flexibility in solving their needs for an airborne platform that is not hampered by the relatively low performance and restricted operational capabilities of current systems. Multiple communications protocols and power sources will be available inside our standardized payload modules in order to make it easier to integrate client hardware. Our ground control systems will be very user-friendly and offer a wide range of options and customizable features."

[Tuner]

Jesus????
Ok ok no in all seriousness, why guess when you can tell us, right?

[airmcn_3]

Anyone heard about the new UAV Company called
"Whisper Aerospace "? Here's the take
"Whisper Aerospace is a new company founded by a group of individuals with a very diverse range of technical skills, all working to create and bring to market the first Commercial/Civilian UAVs that will be able to fly in the NAS (National Airspace System). Our UAVs will feature reasonable payload capacity and operational performance, thereby offering clients considerable flexibility in solving their needs for an airborne platform that is not hampered by the relatively low performance and restricted operational capabilities of current systems. Multiple communications protocols and power sources will be available inside our standardized payload modules in order to make it easier to integrate client hardware. Our ground control systems will be very user-friendly and offer a wide range of options and customizable features."
GUESS WHO'S ON THE BOARD!


Yes we have heard of them and yes you have a good group of individuals working together.

You’re Point?

You will still have to deal with regulations that have not been made yet as the rest of us that chose to go this wrought....

[tekrunner]

Yes we have heard of them and yes you have a good group of individuals working together.

You’re Point?

You will still have to deal with regulations that have not been made yet as the rest of us that chose to go this wrought....


It's the end users responsibility to obey the regulations. The UAV manufacturer has none short of stay below 400ft and stay within VLOS.

[airmcn_3]

It's the end users responsibility to obey the regulations. The UAV manufacturer has none short of stay below 400ft and stay within VLOS.


Not necessarily true. Believe me we know..... You have to have a way to test the aircraft in Auto and be able to prove the capabilities you claim to sell to the end user. In order to do so you would have to break the law as they consider even a company looking at the viable option of the UAV market with a functional prototype a commercial company, weather they make $ or not. And given they are not handing out COA's or CAA's in the USA for commercial operation that would mean you can’t develop legally and sell your aircraft.

You know the interesting thing about this group is you have Patrick Egan on the team, he has directly stated many times that there will be no legal commercial or hobby UAS operations in the near future. He is adamant that we can’t change their mind as well.......

[tekrunner]

Not necessarily true. Believe me we know..... You have to have a way to test the aircraft in Auto and be able to prove the capabilities you claim to sell to the end user. In order to do so you would have to break the law as they consider even a company looking at the viable option of the UAV market with a functional prototype a commercial company, weather they make $ or not. And given they are not handing out COA's or CAA's in the USA for commercial operation that would mean you can’t develop legally and sell your aircraft.

You know the interesting thing about this group is you have Patrick Egan on the team, he has directly stated many times that there will be no legal commercial or hobby UAS operations in the near future. He is adamant that we can’t change their mind as well.......


If Pat believes they will never be legal why is he starting a commercial UAV company?

[airmcn_3]

If Pat believes they will never be legal why is he starting a commercial UAV company?


I do not believe he is starting it I believe he was asked to be apart of it. I think it’s a great idea but it has proven itself that it takes a lot more then a room full of qualifications to get this type of venture going.... Maybe Pat was a part of the list prior to the suggested regulations being released.....

[patrickegan]

It is not that I don’t believe that they’ll (the rules) ever change; it will just take some hard work and participation by people from this segment. My problem is that there are no provisions for the amateur and that mom and pop will be in direct competition with the vendors. We as a group are self funded while the vendors dip into large overhead budgets for development of systems. I had a conversation with Ted Weirzbanowski yesterday and we had a laugh about the small group of people actually complying with the regulations.
I will say that I am encouraged by the direction that the European effort is taking. They are talking about science and not painting the industry with one broad brush.

[keithskye]

Hey, guys. I am the CEO of Whisper Aerospace, and one of Pat's partners in this business, and yes, it IS a business. We have not, nor will we ever break any current rules while developing and testing our products. We very recently had our first successful test of our own proprietary autopilot system, mounted in a large RC airplane and flown below 400' AGL on a remote dry lake bed in the southwestern US, and under direct RC control at all times (the autopilot system can move the servos through a priority switching circuit that can be over-ridden at any time by the RC system). Our proof of concept airframe design is progressing and when we are ready to begin flight testing with the autopilot system onboard, we will have the appropriate authorizations and safety protocols in place. The difference between us and most others attempting to develop a small UAS is that we are not limiting size. Our UAS is strictly PERFORMANCE based. Although I do not like giving up information to would be competitors, I will say this: successful type certification and operational authorization will be dependant on the UAS having sufficient equipment, of sufficient redundancy, and a level of performance (with all that equipment, as well as planned or projected payload) that will allow it to operate with a level of safety equal to or greater than that required of transport category aicraft. Yes, you heard me correctly. TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT. How you accomplish that is the challenge. And that is not all that will be required, either. There's more, but I'm not willing to share any of that here. Our team has a very clearly defined set of parameters and well thought out plans to achieve the parameters we know will be necessary to accomplish the goal. For some of us on the team, it's an idea, or set of ideas, that has been fermenting for some time (in my case - more than 10 years), and has only been waiting on certain technologies to mature to the point that they are small and light enough, as well as affordable enough (a hugely relative term!) in order to make this work. All the necessary ingredients are now available, as it were, and we hope that we will be the first to stir it all together into something that will be able to fly alongside manned aircraft in civilian airspace, carrying a payload in "revenue flight". Its an ambitious project, but it has great potential for success. I wish everyone the best of luck in the pursuit of their own projects, but I strongly believe that the coming regulations are going to be very restrictive for the small systems, and thus limit whatever commercial potential they have. Our company is in this to make money, so the ability to operate like a manned aircraft is of absolute necessity. Our goal is to have a UAS that looks like, acts like and communicates like a high performance (again a relative term) manned aircraft, at least to the air traffic controllers and other pilots who share the same airspace. I think we will succeed, but it won't be something you'll be reading about next week, or next month. In a year or so? Maybe, hopefully. We certainly are giving it our best effort, and that is substantial.

Keith McLellan
1st2fly@msn.com

[Gary Mortimer]

Size isn't everything

[CenTexFlyer]

Size isn't everything

What would rather pull your wagon? A Shetland pony or a Percheron? :cool:

[spitfiremk9]

Size isn't everything

Hahahahahahaha, very good

[Gary Mortimer]

You guys might still pull wagons in the colonies but we have moved on.

Oh hang on a minute car plants are closing across the world.

[clolson]

What would rather pull your wagon? A Shetland pony or a Percheron? :cool:

I want which ever one my government tells me I should use. :-)

[Gary Mortimer]

As the Percheron pull beer wagons (draught horses), I will have a Percheron please.

[airmcn_3]

As the Percheron pull beer wagons (draught horses), I will have a Percheron please.


LOL, Me too! :D

[patrickegan]

The food here in Paris (and the beer) is really good :) If I could only get a job here and get my socialism strait off the pipe :D

[airmcn_3]

The food here in Paris (and the beer) is really good :) If I could only get a job here and get my socialism strait off the pipe :D


Pat, are you at the airshow??????

[birdman11787]

Hey, guys. I am the CEO of Whisper Aerospace, and one of Pat's partners in this business, and yes, it IS a business.........

Well, that sure explains things for me and puts many years of "not understanding" into the "... now it all makes sense" folder.

[spitfiremk9]

Well, that sure explains things for me and puts many years of "not understanding" into the "... now it all makes sense" folder.
I think he's abused his post!

[Gary Mortimer]

What he does in his own hotel room is up to him

[patrickegan]

I'm at www.uas2009.org and yes, I will be attending the Paris air show. The Canadian government is having a special event for the UAV community next Thursday night. the UAS 2009 show is very informative from a regulatory point of view. I'll be blogging it over on the RCAPA site at some point.

[airmcn_3]

I'm at www.uas2009.org and yes, I will be attending the Paris air show. The Canadian government is having a special event for the UAV community next Thursday night. the UAS 2009 show is very informative from a regulatory point of view. I'll be blogging it over on the RCAPA site at some point.


Patrick,

Very cool! I am jealous....

Have a great time and I look forward to the blog on RCAPA.

Chris

[patrickegan]

I just posted it...

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/blog.php?u=7

[Gary Mortimer]

I see your integrated Patrick.... Fin at the end made me smile

[spitfiremk9]

Atta boy Paddy

[CenTexFlyer]

What he does in his own hotel room is up to him

OK, I'm really slow..... Now that I put the two comments together, this one made me laff out loud.....

[patrickegan]

Keith flew in to Le Bourget today and we had a chance to meet.

Get your Paris Air Show news one day early. (See pic)

[Gary Mortimer]

The French even put sex in the lampstands

[patrickegan]

Yes, it would appear that it's not just socialist dogma with them :)

[jglenn]

Will it be practical to fly a giant UAV in civilian airspace with all the junk
required for safety? That will cost a fortune, how will it pay for itself?

Won't pilots get mad and protest? All it takes is one accident.

How about just putting a TCAS 2 on your bird? How much could that cost?

:eek:

http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/TCAS.htm

[fly_boy99]

TCAS on a UAV... somewhat laughable since you can just use radar on the ground to get the same effect. That is if you can detect your own craft.

Good luck Pat and Keith, you are gonna need it.

And I mean "need" it.

B
Lockheed alum

[Gary Mortimer]

I might fit a modern transponder

http://www.trig-avionics.com/tt21.html

As fly_boy notes you can get ground based TCAS receiving solutions. All good when we are all forced to go mode S!

[patrickegan]

ADS-B shows a lot of promise, but they already have that screwed up. If it was easy everyone would be doing it. :)

[jglenn]

How did they mess it up?

http://www.ads-b.com/home.htm

Here are some pretty scary stories:

http://www.airsport-corp.com/adsb2.htm

He doesn't have access to ADS-B equipment, but that doesn't matter. It's a simple task to put a $100 GPS receiver from WalMart in the model plane, coupled to a readily available wireless LAN card. With a similar card in his laptop, he can monitor precisely where his aircraft is. Joe doesn't have a lot of test equipment either, and it might be time consuming to build a 1090 MHz ADS-B receiver from scratch. Instead, he simply takes the receiver from a DBS satellite system he purchased at the discount store for $199 cash. That receiver, half the size of a deck of cards, tunes from 950 to 1450 MHz which is precisely what he requires. All Joe needs to do is write a little software, and voila, he can monitor the exact position and identification of every airliner within 20 or 30 miles.

[Gary Mortimer]

What a load of rubbish.

I did'nt steal a cessna I bought one of these

http://www.airnavsystems.com/RadarBox/index.html

Its nonsense like that being propagated that will stop amateur UAS in the USA. Oh yeah it already is.

[CenTexFlyer]

It stated "in major metropolitan areas".... what happens out in Golf airspace? Didn't see a price on it, got any idea?

[Gary Mortimer]

Heres some prices

http://www.transair.co.uk/Category.asp?SID=1&Category_ID=2109

I have seen a couple in action, a few small ATC towers have them over here.

[patrickegan]

I could get one (ADS-B) not certified $200. We suggested putting them on the ground for the envelope(s) we've been given(proposed) AOPA doesn't want it because a certified for installation model is around $15,000, and they contend they won't get all of the benefits until the FAA lay's out some $.

[airmcn_3]

How did they mess it up?

http://www.ads-b.com/home.htm

Here are some pretty scary stories:

http://www.airsport-corp.com/adsb2.htm

He doesn't have access to ADS-B equipment, but that doesn't matter. It's a simple task to put a $100 GPS receiver from WalMart in the model plane, coupled to a readily available wireless LAN card. With a similar card in his laptop, he can monitor precisely where his aircraft is. Joe doesn't have a lot of test equipment either, and it might be time consuming to build a 1090 MHz ADS-B receiver from scratch. Instead, he simply takes the receiver from a DBS satellite system he purchased at the discount store for $199 cash. That receiver, half the size of a deck of cards, tunes from 950 to 1450 MHz which is precisely what he requires. All Joe needs to do is write a little software, and voila, he can monitor the exact position and identification of every airliner within 20 or 30 miles.


Ridiculous.....

[jglenn]

It might be hard to adapt a satellite rcvr? Some things can be hacked
and other things cannot. One could just use commercial eqpt designed
for the purpose, if light enough. Or just use visual or IR cues. I thought
the stories were a bit far out.

But then so is a group of guys with box cutters taking over a plane.

[airmcn_3]

It might be hard to adapt a satellite rcvr? Some things can be hacked
and other things cannot. One could just use commercial eqpt designed
for the purpose, if light enough. Or just use visual or IR cues. I thought
the stories were a bit far out.

But then so is a group of guys with box cutters taking over a plane.


I am sure they will push us this way but they are darn near useless if all aircraft are not equipped with them. All it takes is one......

It’s a rather simple thing. Under 3kg can not, will not and do not fly above 400' anywhere, within airport regulated distances not ever exceeding beyond VLOS and never in populated areas.
Make them laws and put strong fines and penalties on them. They give us the right to drink legally and yet some people still break the rules and drive, they get punished for it and in most cases with a very harsh sentence.

Why should UAS flight be any different?

Chris

[jglenn]

400' is high enough for the small planes I fly, have no need to break the rules,
can always go to an AMA site for that, they allow higher flights, right? I've
heard of sailplanes up 2000' or more, do they get a waiver?

Can you use a telescope or bino's to extend VLOS? Cheating?

[patrickegan]

You'll need to get a waiver or be a known field. Unaided besides glasses

[airmcn_3]

You'll need to get a waiver or be a known field. Unaided besides glasses


I see a line of new Super Glasses coming out :D :D :D ;)

[jglenn]

Thanks Patrick. How about night flying with a really bright strobe light?

That might work to a mile. Something tells me they won't like that, either.
What they are doing with VLOS is forcing people to build really big UAV's.

Like a full size sailplane! How am I going to hand launch that? :confused:

[airmcn_3]

Thanks Patrick. How about night flying with a really bright strobe light?

That might work to a mile. Something tells me they won't like that, either.
What they are doing with VLOS is forcing people to build really big UAV's.

Like a full size sailplane! How am I going to hand launch that? :confused:

They want the NAV light's either way.......

Again the key here, less then 3kg in weight, at that point if you fly anything above that weight autonomously without the proper COA you would be facing the same type of legal punishment.

They can do this where we still have our hobby but unfortunately a small group of people are willing to screw it up for us, this is not pointing a finger any one individual. It is know that there will always be the "outlaw" group of RC enthusiast.

Back to the subject of the Great big bad UAV company......

[jglenn]

Got it, a bit over 6LB. 400' max. Keep in site during autonomous.

Good luck with the new company, I am curious where the paying customers
will come from. All the red tape will really increase the costs. What will
a Piper pilot think when Robo-plane winds up next to him, or coming in at
12 O'clock high? Will the ATC be telling Robo-pilots to deflect their path and
altitude? Or will it be the responsibility of the UAV operator to keep it away
from all general aviation traffic? BTW, there is an interesting article in the
april 27 issue of Aviation Week on ADS-B. Some trial installations going on in
Louisville, KY. Cell tower looking things. They are saying it will be more
reliable than radar.

[airmcn_3]

Got it, a bit over 6LB. 400' max. Keep in site during autonomous.

Good luck with the new company, I am curious where the paying customers
will come from. All the red tape will really increase the costs. What will
a Piper pilot think when Robo-plane winds up next to him, or coming in at
12 O'clock high? Will the ATC be telling Robo-pilots to deflect their path and
altitude? Or will it be the responsibility of the UAV operator to keep it away
from all general aviation traffic? BTW, there is an interesting article in the
april 27 issue of Aviation Week on ADS-B. Some trial installations going on in
Louisville, KY. Cell tower looking things. They are saying it will be more
reliable than radar.


Its not my company nor am I affiliated with it in any way shape or form. Well I guess I do know a couple of the individuals on the group.

Great group of guys and a very ambitious group at that. There is a lot of knowledge there with many years of experience.

I wish them luck but as many have said they got a long hard road ahead of them. Unfortunately by the time they do get any aircraft sold they will be very deep into their pockets causing them to jack the price of the UAS up to recover their R&D.

Chris

[dag214]

Just my 2 cents:
I have seen over the last 25 years many companies started, some (few) have really had great success, many have failed. The ones that have fail is not because they didn’t have a great idea, or they didn’t have enough money, but because they got the wrong team at the wrong point of the companies development.

I knew an engineer once that wanted to start a company, he went out and found a guy the had run companies before and hired him as the President, then he went out and found a real mover and shaker CFO, a guy the banks knew, trusted, and had a history with him. Only companies with great CFO’s get thru the hard times when money is tight, or you need a loan. Then he went out and hired a team that made up basically the R&D/proof of concept team. He had made up his mind that he would put 1 million into the company and then sees if it truly was viable, 20 years later it is a 750 mil a year company. But everyone one on the R&D team had at least 10 years (some 30) experience in the industry. No rookies and all that he knew, or had friends recommend.

I see people all the time start companies, they think, wow, this is a way to make a boat load of money so I can throw it all on my bed and roll in. These people have missed the point; it will only be part of the future if paying customer wants to buy it from you. I see companies started that everyone gets their name on the credit cards, or on the list of partners not even knowing they have all excepted full financial responsibility for anything the company spends, or defaults on.

The regulations will get changed one day, not sure when and how. I find it very interesting that people are always saying, I am starting a new company, do you want to join me or be left behind? If they really have a plan, they won’t be advertising here on this site, they would already have that one person who knows how to build a team, especially in this economical landscape. There are so many aerospace types that are looking to be on a team of a new company, I know of 4 brilliant engineers that would make up a part of a design team. But in my very humble opinion, I just don’t see how a company can have a chance with no real movers and shakers from the aerospace industry. I know there are full scale pilots, and other really experienced people on these forms, and tons that are in the UAV business, but unless you have the right team you have zero chance.

I once knew a guy that had a great idea, got investors to give him 7 million bucks, over 3 years spent every dime of it, then in the end the product he was selling was not modern enough, cost 20% more then the competition, and now he, and his 30 plus investors have nothing.

Innovation sells, reputation sells, history sells, relationships sells, But with Grumman, Lockheed, and the other big boys out there I think people need to keep things in perspective, sure a small team can create a company, and might sell a few things, but to really enter the UAV industry will take a team of real aerospace types that have been doing it for many years, not just because they are trying to get rich, but love doing what they do. If it was really that easy, and there is that much money to be made, wouldn’t more high rollers be investing in it? Think about all the money being put into the green way of life, billions, wouldn’t you think if we are really that close to having viable systems to let UAV operate within the NAS system that more mover and shakers would be jumping on board? I have met Keith, and he is a great guy, I am sure he has great expectations of what he wants to do, but in the end you have to have a plan, a team with at least 10, if not 20 years experience in aerospace, or UAV industry, and a ton of luck. Because as soon as you have your product done, someone else has just finished theirs, and what if they have a 3 mil PR budget, then all that is left is great ideas.

Sorry for the big post, but I have been apart of many teams, invested some of my own money, and have seen 9 out of 10 companies fail that did not have the right team at the right time.

I wish Whisper all the best of luck.

DAG

[jglenn]

True advice, sorry tales. Business is tough enough without getting
the Federal gov involved. And a public scared of air accidents.

How about get Obama on your side? Email him, offer to name a plane
after his wife or something, that it will create jobs, be green, and...

Do need a bigwig to get the rules in order. The ATF essentially
ruined the amateur rocket hobby with regs. And we have 2 orgs
that successfully sued them and won. You guys need a new kind of
AMA for UAV's that has some teeth. Start now, in a decade ya might
get some results..

[keithskye]

TCAS on a UAV... somewhat laughable since you can just use radar on the ground to get the same effect. That is if you can detect your own craft.

Good luck Pat and Keith, you are gonna need it.

And I mean "need" it.

B
Lockheed alum

Brian,

If you are talking about TCAS in small UAVs, restricted to daytime VLOS operation, then I agree, but if you are talking about anything that is operated beyond VLOS, especially at night or in IMC, then I respectfully disagree, but we're all entitled to our opinions. Mine is based on experience gained from over 12,000 hours of professional flying experience, most of it with TCAS onboard, as well as owning and flying small GA airplanes for the last 28 years. On top of that, I also have an ongoing professional relationship with several FAA field offices (FSDOs), and several of my friends are current or recently retired "Feds".

After many discussions with these folks over the last ten years (including a couple other Lockheed alumni, my father being one of them), the general consensus among us is that if a UAV is going to operate from a civil airport, in civil airspace, over populated areas, it will, at the very least, need to be on an IFR flight plan, and have TCAS onboard, and the means to respond to TCAS alerts or resolution advisories. We have solved the integration, control and response issues for our system. Expensive? Oh, yes. But then we are not talking a small UAV, though that is a relative term. For a UAS to be commercially viable, the airframe needs to be large enough to carry the necessary equipment to comply with the regulatory requirements (which we believe we have a good handle on) and able to carry enough payload in weight and volume to make it attractive to any number of existing and potential clients, and yet small enough to be cost competitive against manned alternatives.

I still think of it as a small UAV when it is smaller than the size of a Cessna 172, for example. Just to give you an idea, our UAV will be roughly half the size and weight of a 172, and it will have TCAS II onboard (and a whole lot of other equipment). It is designed and intended to operate like any other aircraft from typical small airports. If we are successful in our endeavors, then quite likely our operations will be allowed only in baby steps - limited at first only to operations in Class D, E and G airspace, and possibly to and from non-primary airports within some Class C airspace on a case by case basis. I'm sure it will take years to get full approval to operate at will nearly anywhere (though I doubt that we'll ever be able to do that in Class B or A airspace). I have been involved in the approval/certification process of certain new technologies in the past, technology that is commonplace in the cockpit today. Getting something approved or certified by the FAA is not rocket science. It is a fairly straightforward process, though often a long and very tedious one, if you have the knowledge and experience to do so.

Our UAS, in my opinion, will be successful because we are not trying to change the "rules" or push the FAA and DOT into allowing us to do something that we want even though it may be in conflict with any number of their established safety and operational guidelines. I think we will be successful because instead, we are designing and building a system to meet already firmly established criteria for manned aircraft, and not at the minimal level, but rather at the highest level. I am not going to elaborate further on what I mean by that, as I feel I am giving away too much information already. Someone has to take the first step; open the first door. I intend for that to be us (Whisper Aerospace).

Keith McLellan
ATP, B-737, CL-60, CL-604, G-1159, G-IV
1st2fly@msn.com

[keithskye]

DAG214 is right on target - great post! I truly appreciate his observations, recommendations and insight. As he stated, we have met. He's a very sharp guy with a lot of talent. When he visited with me, we were literally only a few weeks old, and the whole business was still nothing more than an idea, really. We hadn't even legally formed the company nor settled on the name. Since that time, a lot of change, and progress, has been made, and things are moving forward.

One thing that I want to point out to everyone is this: we are not rushing into this. We do have a business plan, and anyone who owns and operates their own company knows that a business plan is a living document. It changes, evolves and grows as needed if it is used the way it should be. We are still putting the team and the company together. I agree with DAG that in order to be successful in such an endeavor as this, putting the right team together is absolutely necessary, with the right combination of business as well as technical acumen, and of course proper funding. We now have 3 principals with well over 10 years of experience in aerospace (I have over 25), including direct experience in the UAS industry, as well as consultant help and guidance from some highly involved and experienced UAS contractors.

At this point in time, a great deal of research has been done, certain conclusions have been drawn, and criteria have been established. With real, solid goals mapped out and a logical plan of action in place, work has started on operations protocols, airframe and systems design for the first proof of concept, and the first iteration of our own proprietary autopilot has successfully flown in a large RC model test bed. Other proprietary systems should be ready for flight test soon. On the business end, presentations are being readied for investors and a business management team is being put together.

Yes, our airframe will be much larger than what most here contemplate building and flying, and it will be very expensive as well, but that is also a relative term. Compared to manned aircraft of similar capabilities, our UAS should be a fraction of the cost. How big or small a fraction remains to be seen, but with some specific payloads and missions mapped out, we are confident that our systems will be very, very competitive.

There's plenty of room and a wide open market for civilian UAS, (again) at least in my opinion. I wish all of us luck and success in whatever part of it anyone cares to try to develop!

Keith

[Gary Mortimer]

Of course there is no future in large UAS, we all know that!!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/15/327998/paris-air-show-flying-robots-requests-cargo-uav-easa.html

[patrickegan]

Many UAV/UAS at the show. From Easy-gliders all the way up to global hawk.

[Gary Mortimer]

Well looking forward to all the photos on RCAPA Patrick!

[fly_boy99]

Comments inline...

Brian,

If you are talking about TCAS in small UAVs, restricted to daytime VLOS operation, then I agree, but if you are talking about anything that is operated beyond VLOS, especially at night or in IMC, then I respectfully disagree, but we're all entitled to our opinions. Mine is based on experience gained from over 12,000 hours of professional flying experience, most of it with TCAS onboard, as well as owning and flying small GA airplanes for the last 28 years. On top of that, I also have an ongoing professional relationship with several FAA field offices (FSDOs), and several of my friends are current or recently retired "Feds".

Yes I was speaking of small UAV's, we have not seen a very large indy one in this forum at all. Needless to say one the size of half a Cessna 172.


After many discussions with these folks over the last ten years (including a couple other Lockheed alumni, my father being one of them), the general consensus among us is that if a UAV is going to operate from a civil airport, in civil airspace, over populated areas, it will, at the very least, need to be on an IFR flight plan, and have TCAS onboard, and the means to respond to TCAS alerts or resolution advisories. We have solved the integration, control and response issues for our system. Expensive? Oh, yes. But then we are not talking a small UAV, though that is a relative term. For a UAS to be commercially viable, the airframe needs to be large enough to carry the necessary equipment to comply with the regulatory requirements (which we believe we have a good handle on) and able to carry enough payload in weight and volume to make it attractive to any number of existing and potential clients, and yet small enough to be cost competitive against manned alternatives.

I still think of it as a small UAV when it is smaller than the size of a Cessna 172, for example. Just to give you an idea, our UAV will be roughly half the size and weight of a 172, and it will have TCAS II onboard (and a whole lot of other equipment). It is designed and intended to operate like any other aircraft from typical small airports. If we are successful in our endeavors, then quite likely our operations will be allowed only in baby steps - limited at first only to operations in Class D, E and G airspace, and possibly to and from non-primary airports within some Class C airspace on a case by case basis. I'm sure it will take years to get full approval to operate at will nearly anywhere (though I doubt that we'll ever be able to do that in Class B or A airspace). I have been involved in the approval/certification process of certain new technologies in the past, technology that is commonplace in the cockpit today. Getting something approved or certified by the FAA is not rocket science. It is a fairly straightforward process, though often a long and very tedious one, if you have the knowledge and experience to do so.

Why not use ADS-B and save some dough. Probably has to do with the cert but I hear some promising things about ADS. I completely agree about your planned airspace usage.


Our UAS, in my opinion, will be successful because we are not trying to change the "rules" or push the FAA and DOT into allowing us to do something that we want even though it may be in conflict with any number of their established safety and operational guidelines. I think we will be successful because instead, we are designing and building a system to meet already firmly established criteria for manned aircraft, and not at the minimal level, but rather at the highest level. I am not going to elaborate further on what I mean by that, as I feel I am giving away too much information already. Someone has to take the first step; open the first door. I intend for that to be us (Whisper Aerospace).

Again, I wish you the best of luck and dag has hit the nail right on the head. I've seen companies funded with 20mil blow through it and be a complete washout. I've seen companies start with 500k and hit it big. The difference you ask?

Experience and and overall understanding of the marketplace you are trying to serve. Makes no difference if you can make the best product in the space if you cannot sell it. There is a lot of politics in selling to the government and if you can play that game then you are home free. I've seen very few independents that can pull that off though.

I think you might start to understand what I am saying.

B



Keith McLellan
ATP, B-737, CL-60, CL-604, G-1159, G-IV
1st2fly@msn.com