Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Pipistrel channel crossing attempt thwarted by Airbus

All previous firsts – including that cri-cri – were one-offs.

Pipistrel and Airbus are creating electric aircraft they are trying to sell in number as a viable trainer or means of transport and earn money with.

So the real first was “crossing the channel in an aircraft you could actually buy and fly regularly”, and that is quite valuable. Hence the no-gloves fisticuffs.

Biggin Hill

At least the propellers should be more or less identical, so I do believe there is some photographic distortion.

As for the “who was first” issue, it is strange that nobody mentions the Solar Challenger that performed a crossing from France to UK back in 1981, powered by PV cells with even no batteries. What are they bickering about now?

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

That electric Cri-Cri sure has some weird looking propellers! I first thought it’s shutter effect, but one can see the shadow of the left prop blade on the wing O_o

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/electric-english-channel-crossing-who-was-really-first

I find the idea of being the first across the English Channel in an ele3ctric powered aircraft pales into insignificance compared to what has been going on over the Pacific in recent days – that really is something to shout about.

There is a significative difference between both achievements.
The Solar Impulse II is a curiosity for the amusement of two adventurous characters, and maybe it’s good as a technology demonstrator, with no real utility (80 meter wingspan, 30 knots cruise…)
The E-Fan is a real and practical aircraft, which first serial units should be being delivered in two years from now (normal size, almost 100 kts cruise, familiar hamdling qualities, etc)

Last Edited by Coolhand at 13 Jul 19:08
LECU - Madrid, Spain

You can see which AFTN address transmitted the cancel message – IF that is what happened.

However this guy might have needed some special permission to do this – the piggy back launch is not exactly IAW the Type Certificate – and that might have been what actually got pulled.

It will be interesting to find out what happened.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Anybody with AFTN access can cancel any flight plan.

Hm, interesting. If once the flight plan had been filed (VFR!) all legal requirements had been met, I should think? A flight plan must be filed 30 minutes before EOBT, then opened/activated as soon as practically possible after take-off? Even if the flight plan was later cancelled, obviously by a third party, there can be no blame on the pilot for continuing the flight as planned and declared?

Technically: can it be traced back WHO cancelled the flight plan? (If that is indeed what happened)
If yes, somebody’s going to bite sour grapes.
If not , the system must be considered broken.
But feel it could at most be determined from what station the cancellation came, no personal signatures in the AFTN system AFAIU. There ought to be.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

Who issued the disrespected blocking order?

Anybody with AFTN access can cancel any flight plan. You might have to answer questions later over the unauthorised cancellation but who is going to sue these players? Siemens paid out a little bribery fine without much trouble. And the other one?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

On that subject, I would like to have a ‘like’ button.

Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:

“The motor was not certified to fly over water” – whoever thought of that at Siemens should be fired for being way over the legal allowance for stupidity.

If this site had a ‘Like’ button I would have pressed it now !!

“The motor was not certified to fly over water” – whoever thought of that at Siemens should be fired for being way over the legal allowance for stupidity.

30 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top