You have some good ideas and please accept the criticism in the spirit that it is intended.
I’m not sure why the mods decided that GD was the place for this rather Commercial Aviation. Perhaps they thought that GD had people in it that knew what they were talking about !

GD people certainly know what they are talking about…and I consider myself one of them.

Just think about it for a while…..Musculair II used 280 watts to move..little heavier Gossamer Penguin solar craft 540 watts. Why couldn’t a passenger ship with 3.3 – 4.45 kW ( 3300 – 4450 Watts ) per person be able to fly ?

Can you please explain ?

And that will take more than a little money to overcome.

I don’t think little money is going to cut it.

It was moved here because this is a fantasy thread.

Regarding your AEW craft, even if you offloaded the processing to a ground station (the russians do it for their naval AEW chopper, as it is too small to carry the necessary crew and equipment) with a secure (and resilient) data link, which would be the easiest way to disrupt such a system, you still need a LOT of electricity for the radar to work. Remember that you need power to cover 360° at a long range.

In other words, there is a little detail that contradicts your ideas… it is called physics. And that will take more than a little money to overcome.

Have fun with your forum.

Ok so electricity cannot be produced by electric solar aeroplane…and it is against physics ?

I will have fun with my forum…thank you very much.

You’re right. I do indeed find it impossible to comprehend how anyone can think that designing an aircraft only has to take speed and drag and power into consideration.
Do you have any idea how strong (and therefore heavy)it will have to be structurally to maintain a cabin of 8000ft at 80000ft altitude?
De-icing or anti-icing needs to work close to the ground as well as in free air -it needs to heat leading edges and propellers and pitots and static vents – all of which needs electricity.
How large do you think the landing gear will need to be to hold up something bigger than a Tu95 and how much power wil it take to retract it?
Maybe you can only fly on sunny days and take passengers who generate their own power by pedalling for 26hours. Good luck with that!

Right Derek..this is not intented to fly at nite…yes and I might use the passengers to retract the gear and produce power ( APU ). The power required is very low..so they don’t have to sweat and can take turns…but have no cramps…and stay fit ! Elderly and children don’t have to pedal.

In decent the props rotate to make energy even after sun has gone down !

I have already demostrated that a passenger room can be 1/8 of the present standard and still be manageable..less comfort..possibly. Easier to pressurize…using existing structures…yes !

Your design would have to comply with CS-25 otherwise it wouldn’t get a certificate of airworthiness. 40km/h stall speed or not.

I don’t think so…it is a political decision in the future to go to electric aircraft after we run outa options….CS-25 is large turbine aircraft certification.

No paying passenger will ever pedal…that is a certainty.

What if it is disguised as a GYM…and everyone pedalling there would pay extra..without knowing that they actually run the ships vital systems by pedalling ? :confused:

Firstly what you care to do when sailing with friends is totally irrelevant and secondly that assumption is just as likely to be wholly flawed as not, so hardly the basis for the viability of a serious project. I would suggest you test it before venturing much further, since it appears to stand or fall on passenger power.

It is possible..the pedal power is only 4.7 % of the total solar power…easily to be made with just extra batteries.

Topspeed ,in this thread alone ,you have gone from one type of plane use to another [military-passenger ] ,solar panel,batteries,human power and now rockets .Non of the aircraft you have shown could even sit on a runway in the weather conditions we are having now.
In 16 years you really ought to have alot more to show for it than you have,in 16 years time technology SHOULD make your designs obsolete,in 16 years time the majority of us on here will be dead or too old to pedal.

Well I got this spesific craft idea on the drawing board at around..3 days ago ( post # 98 )..the first pedal/solar powered passenger craft around 2011/2012 winter. I think this rocket ship using the first tank/stage could take off at any given weather…and get above clouds pretty quickly..to fly on solar alone.

Military ship came when someone said this is boring….there seems to be more people in the military thread…..:: )

Sorry, Topspeed, when you resort to ludicrous suggestions such as passenger pedal power I just cannot take you seriously – 16 years nor not. In any case if your proposals had any validity someone would have joined you on the road to realising the project. So I regard it is a fantasy pie in the sky and wish you well – another 16 years perhaps – but cannot be bothered to follow your progress – or lack of it!

Sorry Charlie..I didn’t understand that moving your feet is so arduous. I have cycled 327 km at best ( 2003 )…and last summer few 80 km legs…it really feels good. I myself would enjoy cycling if knew it might also be beneficial for the flight. Both..pedal power and solar energy have had many aircrafts flying in the past.

Musculair II is the most efficient of the pedal powered crafts;

http://www.skytec-engineering.de/musculair.htm

Needs only 280 watts to move…and has been flown with one passenger onboard too.

Sunseeker II on the other hand produces almost 10 fold power over pedal power;

Pure electric aircrafts have flown at fairly tramendous speed so far like the MC-15E;

Also a 4 engine Cri-Cri was made by EADS;