The CAFE Green Flight Challenge Program (CGFCP)

Brien A. Seeley M.D.* CAFE Foundation, Santa Rosa, California, 95404

The consensus future predicted by the expert faculty at NASA’s 2010 Aviation Unleashed Conference, i.e., ubiquitous, fast, on-demand, point-to-point distributed transporting of people and goods by autonomous , will demand specialized new small aircraft capabilities. To be sustainable, these capabilities will necessarily include emission- free, ultra-quiet electric propulsion, autonomous flight, and extremely short take off and landing (ESTOL). The Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency Foundation (“CAFE”), host of the 2011 Green Flight Challenge, has adopted the name “Sky Taxi” to describe electric- powered aircraft that combine these capabilities. The CAFE Green Flight Challenge Program (CGFCP) is a concerted, five-year prize matrix to efficiently bring forth such Sky Taxis. This paper describes the background, feasibility and metrics for each of the CGFCP prize competitions, CAFE’s rationale for point-to-point Sky Taxi operations at pocket airports, and the potential economic and societal benefits of such operations. The CGFCP aligns with the goals of the DOE, OSTP, NASA, FAA, EPA, NSF, and IPCC.

Nomenclature 4D = a three dimensional path along which each point has a defined specific clock time 6’ = 6 feet, with apostrophe indicating feet Ad = flat plate drag area at zero lift AFS = autonomous flight system AGL = height above ground level ATC = air traffic control BHP = brake horsepower BMS = battery management system CAFE = CAFE Foundation, Inc., an all volunteer, 501c3 non-profit educational foundation CAS = calibrated airspeed Cdo = zero lift drag coefficient CCW = circulation controlled wing CGFCP = CAFE Green Flight Challenge Program CGFC = CAFE Green Flight Challenge II, III, IV, V or VI CLmax = maximum lift coefficient CNEL = community noise equivalent level CO2 = carbon dioxide CTOL = conventional take off and landing dBA = decibel noise level, A-weighted scale EAA = Experimental Aircraft Association EMAS = engineered materials arresting system EMI = electro-magnetic interference ESTOL = extremely short take off and landing eta = propeller efficiency G = the force of gravity at sea level on Earth GA = general aviation GFC I = the 2011 Green Flight Challenge sponsored by Google and prize-funded by NASA GPS = global positioning system kg = kilogram kWh = kilowatt hour kW = kilowatt ______*President, CAFE Foundation, 4370 Raymonde Way, [email protected], Senior Member AIAA. 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

lb = pound m = meter mic = microphone MMW = millimeter wave MPG = miles per gallon, typically referenced to 87 unleaded auto fuel mph = miles per hour MSL = above mean sea level, describing elevation or altitude on a standard day NAS = National Airspace System NFL = National Football League NOTAM = notice to airmen NTSB = National Transportation Safety Board OSTP = Office of Science and Technology Policy PAS = propeller acoustics simulator pKmPG = passenger kilometers per gallon PSI = pounds per square inch RAS = runway acceleration simulator RITS = runway-in-the-sky, a virtual airport runway situated in the airspace ROI = return on investment RPM = revolutions per minute STEM = science, technology, engineering and mathematics education STS = Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport STZ = simulated traffic zone TFR = temporary flight restriction UPS = United Parcel Service, a leading freight hauling company UV = ultra-violet V = volt VMT = vehicle miles traveled VTOL = vertical take off and landing Vmax = maximum velocity Vso = minimum velocity at 1 G at which an aircraft in landing configuration stalls

I. Introduction The Obama Administration’s new “COMPETES” Program and its Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation, as announced by the President’s OSTP report in March 2012, authorizes all federal agencies to use the technology prize mechanism as a legitimate alternative to research grants and procurement contracts to fulfill agency goals and needs.1 The authorizing report cites the all-volunteer CAFE Foundation’s conduct of the 2011 Green Flight Challenge (GFC I) as exemplary and recognizes the foremost advantage of such prizes as their leveraged stimulus to substantial private investments in diverse, concurrent, sophisticated, innovative approaches to goals that can benefit society. NASA officials labeled the achievements of the electric powered aircraft in the September 2011 GFC I as a “Lindbergh Moment” because it inaugurated the age of quiet, emission-free flight in practical electric aircraft. In January 2010, CAFE realized from its Electric Aircraft Symposia and from the electric aircraft designs that it had registered to compete in the upcoming GFC I, that electric propulsion could enable a new class of aircraft. That new aircraft could uniquely combine ultra-quiet propulsion with ESTOL performance and autonomous flight capabilities to enable operations at pocket airports as small as 1 hectare. In May 2010, CAFE presented a formal colloquium at NASA Langley Research Center describing how such an aircraft, which CAFE has named the Sky Taxi, could transform transportation and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In October, 2010, the assembled expert faculty of NASA engineers, scientists and respected industry futurists at NASA’s Aviation Unleashed Conference jointly concluded that aviation’s future would be one of ubiquitous, fast, on-demand, point-to-point distributed transporting of people and goods by autonomous aircraft.2 In November 2011, CAFE designed the CGFCP as five stepwise, inter-dependent technology prizes (“missions”) necessary to bring forth the Sky Taxi. All missions of the CGFCP can be completed in 68 months from its announcement date. The core CGFCP missions are:

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

MISSION: SPECIFIC FLIGHT CAPABILITY: GFC I: Speed and MPG: Electric aircraft (“Lindbergh Moment of 2011”) CGFC II: 2013, Wheel Motors for Extremely Short Take Off and Landing (ESTOL) CGFC III: 2014, Ultra-Quiet Propulsion CGFC IV: 2015, Autonomous Personal Flight (with Safety pilot) CGFC V: 2016, Fast ESTOL (Vmax with ESTOL) CGFC VI: 2017, The Sky Taxi: Quiet, Autonomous Personal Flight with Fast ESTOL

The competition rules for all CGFCP missions are to be published at the outset in order to launch concurrent progress toward their goals and to maximize the time available for teams to prepare. Each mission brings forth one or more of the breakthrough air vehicle capabilities necessary for Sky Taxis to transform aviation and transportation. Those essential capabilities and thresholds to be demonstrated are as follows:

1. take off distances of less than 128 meters (420 feet) over a 38.1 meter (125 foot) obstacle (i.e., ESTOL); 2. take off noise emissions of less than 65 dBA at a 38.1 meter (125 feet) sideline distance; 3. directed, autonomous flight with 4D navigation and ATOL (automatic take off/landing); 4. cruise speed of at least 193.12+ kph (120+ mph) combined with ESTOL capability; 5. energy efficiency better than 321.8 pKmPG (200 pMPG); 6. electric propulsion; 7. range of at least 200 statute miles; 8. at least two seats with 200 lb per seat payload capability; 9. all of the above combined into a Sky Taxi whose reliability can rival that of the airlines.

The CGFCP matrix of technology prize competitions can achieve its ultimate goals:

• in ideal conjunction with NASA’s mission to bring forth innovations “for the good of all”; • in ideal conjunction with FAA’s priorities for green, quiet, sustainable advances that enhance airspace capacity and safety; • for much less cost than a conventional procurement contract mechanism; • with a guaranteed, multi-fold return on invested public dollars; • with shorter lead-times than other contracting strategies; • with more transparency and publicity than other private contracting strategies; • while harnessing a maximally diverse pool of innovation talent; • with a natural stimulus to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education

Each future CGFC mission is designed to assure that its practical performance breakthroughs are safely demonstrated in fair, accurately measured competitions without loopholes. The CGFCP has been called a ‘moonshot for aviation’ that, like NASA’s Apollo Program, needs assured funding at its outset for all of its concerted, inter- dependent missions because no single mission alone is sufficient to produce the ultimate goal.

The CGFCP encompasses a ‘technological feast’ because it demands that teams excel in all of these technology areas:

• electric motors—quiet, reliable, lightweight, regenerative and vibration-free; • precise and reliable motor control technology; • energy storage density, management systems, cycle life and burst power capability; • solar energy capture, photovoltaics; • ideal traction—tire pressure, compounding, profile, and grip; • advanced structures including nano-; • ultra-quiet propulsion including ANR and synchro-phasing; • high lift devices including powered lift, vectored thrust and CCW; • high L/D and high pMPG sailplane technology; • CFD guided drag reduction, laminar flow, and Goldschmied propulsion; • vehicle parachutes; • motor-in-wheel acceleration, braking, steering, and navigating;

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

• computerized flight decks with machine intelligence; • advanced sensor systems and wireless communication/navigation; • fast-acting servo flight controls effective at low slight speeds—”stability enhancers.”

II. The 2011 Green Flight Challenge Sponsored by Google The CAFE Foundation designed and conducted the 2011 Green Flight Challenge sponsored by Google (GFC I) at its CAFE Flight Test Center at Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport in September 2011. The electric aircraft in the competition were recharged using CAFE’s first-ever Electric Aircraft Charging Station, powered entirely by fossil-free geo-thermal energy. GFC I produced breakthrough performances in both high MPG and low noise emissions. The achievement of 403.5 passenger miles per gallon at 107 mph by Team PipistrelUSA.com’s all-electric Taurus G4 aircraft (Image 1.) and the achievement of full power take off noise emission of only 65 dBA at a 125 foot sideline by the all-electric e- Genius aircraft (Image 2.) comprise the ‘deliverables’ of the GFC I. Team Embry Riddle Aeronautical University’s Eco-Eagle (Image 3.) marked the world’s first hybrid powered aircraft. The CGFCP is expected to yield similar breakthroughs. The G4 flew the competition at a direct operating cost of less than $0.01 per passenger mile and was selected as a finalist for the 2011 Collier Trophy. The G4 Team Leader Dr. Jack Langelaan was awarded by NASA Centennial Challenges with aviation’s largest ever cash prize, $1.35M. More than 20 graduate students built their theses on the GFC I.

Image 1. PipistrelUSA.Com Taurus G4 Image 2. The e-Genius

Image 3. Embry Riddle Aeronautical University’s Eco-Eagle, the world’s first hybrid powered aircraft.

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The batteries used to achieve the 200 mile range in the G4 were approximately 200 wh/kg. IBM Laboratories announced at the 2012 CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposium that their future Lithium-Air battery would likely exceed 1000 wh/kg within 5 years time. The inner half circle in Image 4 shows a 200 statute mile radius from Santa Rosa, California, the range achieved in GFC I, while the outer half-circle depicts the projected 1000 mile radius of range that would obtain in the case of 1000 wh/kg batteries.

Image 4. Electric Aircraft Range. Inner circle is 200 Image 5. GFC I Campus Banner. statute miles.

Image 6. Taurus G4 Propeller Planform. Image 7. Electric Aircraft Charging Station.

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

III. Benefits of the CGFCP The CGFCP will build upon the GFC I and could bring important and valuable educational, environmental, industry, and public benefits that include the following:

1. reduce air pollution and emissions of CO2, thereby reducing climate change; 2. substantially alleviate surface gridlock and the waste that it entails; 3. bring forth new green industries with thousands of new green jobs; 4. stimulate STEM education and provide post-graduate degrees for several students in practical STEM areas. 5. reduce dependency on foreign oil; 6. spur progress in electric vehicles, energy storage, and renewable energy sources; 7. rejuvenate GA and its airports and stimulate growth of UAVs and the NextGen air traffic system; 8. enhance aviation safety as well as airspace and surface transportation capacity; 9. enable air taxi service that surpasses by 3-fold the door-to-door trip speed of other forms of transportation; 10. reduce the need for expensive new highway construction; 11. improve access to and from underserved remote areas; 12. improve access to and from areas of natural disaster; 13. improve access to and from existing metro hub airports and America’s 5000+ CTOL airports; 14. quadruple the daily reach of personal travel; 15. extend personal flight from today’s ~590,000 pilots to a potential 245 million Sky Taxi users. 16. give a 20 fold increase in the service area of tertiary centers; 17. enable Sky Taxi one way trips of between 25 and 500 miles; 18. benefit telecommuters by making more remote living accessible.

IV. Alignment With DOE Missions/Goals The CGFCP will advance clean energy science and bring forth technological innovations that substantially improve the energy security and energy independence of the United States. These innovations will improve the quality of life and mobility freedom for all Americans, grow green jobs, stimulate the clean energy economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, reduce the cost of transportation and its infrastructure, and save enormous amounts of energy that are currently wasted in surface gridlock.

V. Alignment With NASA Goals The CGFCP missions align closely with all of the aeronautics goals as outlined in the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan. Specifically, these goals are:

Strategic Goal 4: Advance aeronautics research for societal benefit 4.1 Develop innovative solutions and advanced technologies through a balanced research portfolio to improve current and future air transportation 4.2 Conduct systems-level research on innovative and promising aeronautics concepts and technologies to demonstrate integrated capabilities and benefits in a relevant flight and/or ground environment. Strategic Goal 6: Share NASA with the public, educators, and students to provide opportunities to participate in our Mission, foster innovation, and contribute to a strong national economy 6.1 Improve retention of students in STEM disciplines by providing opportunities and activities along the full length of the educational pipeline. 6.2 Promote STEM literacy through strategic partnerships with formal and informal organizations. 6.3 Engage the public in NASA’s missions by providing new pathways for participation. 6.4 Inform, engage, and inspire the public by sharing NASA’s missions, challenges, and results.

The CGFCP missions are expressly aimed at the consensus aviation future predicted by the assembled experts at NASA’s 2010 Aviation Unleashed Conference. These include ubiquitous, fast, on-demand, point-to-point distributed air delivery of people and goods by autonomous aircraft. Such aircraft, Sky Taxis, will inherently be small aircraft due to the highly diverse, distributed, point-to-point destinations that they can service with near-silent ESTOL capabilities. Sky Taxis will transform our transportation system into one of sustainable, efficient personal mobility that is freed from surface gridlock.

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

VI. Alignment With OSTP Goals The CGFCP missions align with those of the OSTP by advancing Science, Technology, Environment and Energy in many ways. It will demand the convergence of several advanced technologies into transformative new green vehicles that do not require roads. Travel in these vehicles will be affordable and available to all citizens in a coordinated computerized air traffic system that offers travel safer than by . By its focus on extreme efficiency in batteries, capacitors, controllers, propellers, motors, aerodynamics, and vehicle structure as well as its demand for safe, autonomous, redundant precision electronic control systems, the CGFCP will provide a strong stimulus to STEM education along with Masters and PhD degrees for the university students assigned to each CGFCP mission.

VII. Alignment With EPA Goals The CGFCP missions align with those of the EPA by taking action on climate change, improving air quality and cleaning up our communities by diminishing gridlock and requirements for road, rail, and bridge building.

VIII. Alignment With FAA Research Areas The CGFCP missions align with several of the FAA Research Areas in FAA Order 9550.7 and its Program Solicitation 12-01 and offer a cost-efficient way to rapidly advance those Areas by harnessing a diverse pool of innovation talent in an age of web-accelerated information exchange. Specifically, the CGFCP will advance these Research Areas:

1. Capacity and Air Traffic Control Technology: As popular demand for travel in quiet, autonomous ESTOL Sky Taxis grows, a multi-fold expansion of airspace traffic will occur. That expansion, along with maturation of autonomous flight capabilities developed by CGFC IV, will drive societal and Congressional support for growing capacity with NextGen air traffic control and new pocket airports. Extending point-to-point flying in autonomous Sky Taxis to all people avoids the need for expensive and challenging pilot training that has severely limited the number of GA flying operations relative to capacity.

2. Communication, Navigation and Surveillance: CGFC IV autonomous aircraft will demonstrate Autonomous Flight Systems that can process and execute up-loadable, NextGen compatible 4D trajectories with precision autonomous navigation, sense and avoid capabilities for traffic and obstacles, pinpoint ESTOL landings and taxiing plus autonomous envelope protection.

4. Airports. By not requiring a pilot, Sky Taxis will have an immediate effect of boosting flight operations at the 5000+ public use airports in America. However, it is their unique quiet ESTOL capabilities that make them suitable for operating at newly constructed, close-in pocket airports as small as 1 hectare. The close-in proximity of the pocket airport to destination doorstep is what confers its great advantage in door-to-door trip speed compared to a CTOL airport. Moreover, a pocket airport can be situated within a larger metro hub airport campus below its traffic pattern and greatly improve the door-to-door trip speed and comfort of commercial air travel. Pocket airports may include sound walls that also serve as engineered materials arresting systems (EMAS) suited to the sub-40 kph landing speeds of Sky Taxis. Ultimately, pocket airports could be located on moored barges on bodies of water near major cities. Solar and wind energy capturing devices could help make pocket airports energy self-sufficient. By offering unprecedented, low-cost, on-demand, autonomous electric Sky Taxi operations the pocket airport could transform not only transportation, but land use planning as well.

5. Aircraft Safety Technology. All CGFC aircraft will incorporate ballistic parachutes into their airframes. In CGFC IV and VI, Sky Taxis will be required to have envelope protection flight controls as well as sense and avoid capabilities that cope with both un-cooperative traffic and terrain obstacles. Fully automated pinpoint ESTOL landing capability coupled with autonomous landing at the nearest airport will also be demonstrated in CGFC IV. Electric motors can offer as much as a twenty-fold improvement in maintenance costs and reliability compared to internal combustion engines. Wheel motors on landing gear will eliminate the use of propellers during ground operations, greatly improving ramp safety to passengers and pedestrians.

6. Human Factors and Aviation Medicine. A survey of noise impacts and Audible Detection Range (ADR) from the ultra-quiet propellers of CGFC III and the fully operational aircraft of CGFC V and VI will be made to gauge the separation distance necessary to avert noise complaints from neighbors living near pocket airports or from hikers in nature areas. Noise induced passenger hearing loss will not occur with the ultra-quiet cabin of the electric Sky Taxi. 7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

7. Environment and Energy: Every mission in the CGFCP will be performed by electric aircraft whose batteries will be charged at CAFE’s Electric Aircraft Charging Station using clean geothermal energy (fossil-free energy). Teams will be encouraged to develop and use on their aircraft more advanced energy storage devices, more rapid charging capabilities, quick-change battery systems, safe and efficient battery containment systems, and renewable energy harvesting devices such as high efficiency wing-mounted solar panels. The CGFCP’s ultra-quiet propulsion requirements will dramatically cut noise pollution from aircraft. ESTOL capabilities will drastically reduce both the land use requirements for airports and the need for new surface transportation infrastructure. Close-in pocket airports will improve community walkability and decrease car use, and will save billions of gallons of fuel wasted in surface gridlock.

8. The CGFCP aligns with Public Law 101-604 to accelerate implementation of technologies and procedures to counteract terrorist acts against civil aviation. Two seat electric-powered air taxis are inherently not effective nor attractive as weapons for terrorists, particularly when equipped with a ballistic parachute that could, with appropriate authorities tracking all flight paths, be remotely activated in the event of terrorist threat.

IX. Graduate Student Involvement in the CGFCP

The members of teams that competed in the GFC I included over 20 university graduate students whose theses were devoted to the technologies of efficient electric aircraft. This represents an incalculable bonus return on the ‘procurement’ prize funding invested in the GFC I. As technology prizes are increasingly adopted by all federal agencies, their leverage can be extended by having sponsoring universities create specialized new STEM educational opportunities in the particular fields that relate to each prize. These fields will be exactly those in which such education is most needed—disruptive technologies. To create those opportunities, CAFE intends to closely couple its operation of the CGFCP with accredited universities that are interested in the particular field(s) of research relevant to one or more of the diverse CGFCP missions. Such coupling can create another win-win feature of the CGFCP. The ultimate level of breakthrough performance achieved in each CGFC can be enhanced by continuous, pro- active dissemination of pertinent and new technologic information to all competing teams. A comprehensive literature review of relevant topics and innovations at the level of those performed in Doctoral Dissertations should be timely compiled and shared equally with all teams that enroll in a CGFCP challenge. Periodic reports that update that review as well as reports on the progress of each team as they prepare for the challenge can further enhance their achievements. In return and by team agreement, after each challenge is completed, a retrospective compilation of the scores, performances, innovations, and public domain intellectual property employed by challenge teams should be written, posted on the Internet and included in the final challenge report. Such compilations and reports represent multi-year, sophisticated academic projects in imminently practical areas of research and should constitute theses worthy of a Masters or Doctoral degree in STEM education for the graduate students selected for such projects at the sponsoring universities. Unlike many dissertations that end up ‘on the shelf’, the CGFCP dissertations would be seminal and highly useful source materials for future designers and manufacturers. Such graduate students could use their respective university campus laboratories to augment their thesis by engaging in focused research in key areas of inquiry useful to the challenge teams. In this role, the graduate student would act as a valuable technical support person to all teams on an equal basis—a kind of ambassador/technical steward of the challenge. This role would provide the student with automatic, unprecedented access to and innovations from a global talent pool (‘crowd sourcing’), as well as valuable personal contact with leading engineers and prospective corporate employers. The CGFCP research areas have substantial overlap with the automotive and military vehicle design industries. Within the restraints of the teams’ non-disclosure agreements, the student’s research and reporting could include site visits to team headquarters to compile more detailed information about each team’s progress and innovations. The matrix of missions for the CGFCP offers an abundance of academic STEM educational opportunities, comprising either a potential Masters or PhD degree according to their respective university’s guidelines:

1. CGFC II: Wheel Motors: At least two separate areas of research are involved here. Area One is the physical mechanical and electric motor design, including its packaging, nano-magnets, advanced structures such as ironless design, reliability, gearing, clutch interfacing, wheel/tire component including traction, and compounding. Area Two is the precision electronic design of such motors including controller circuitry, sensors, software, EMF shielding, regenerative braking, steering with precision ground navigation, anti- slip, and anti skid sensors. Two graduate students. 8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2. CGFC III: Ultra-Quiet Propulsion: Two separate areas of research are involved here. Area One is the mechanical design, sizing, and durability of the propeller. This includes the aeroacoustic and mechanical effects of propeller blade thickness, twist, stiffness, tip shape, advance ratio, chord and section, spanwise lift distribution, number and distribution of blades, counter-rotation, and other blade inter-actions. Area Two concerns the interactive components of automatic noise-cancellation, external counter-noise measures (ANR), synchro-phasing, speed control, thrust reversal, and after-body interactions. Two graduate students. 3. CGFC IV: Autonomous Personal Flight: Three separate areas of research are involved here. Area One is primary in being that of optimized sensor and software driven precision autonomous flight controls, including envelope protection, pinpoint landings, self-diagnostics, and ground operations. Area Two is that of ergonomics, passenger protection, and the human-machine interface with autonomous controls. Area Three is the integration of high volume flight operations of such autonomous aircraft into a safe and efficient air traffic system in a design that is compatible with NextGen. Three graduate students. 4. CGFC V: Fast ESTOL: All of the disciplines of aeronautical engineering apply here, including drag reduction, laminar flow, high lift devices, powered lift, propulsive efficiency, control at low speed, structural efficiency, etc. Three graduate students including at least two in aeronautics and one in advanced energetics. 5. CGFC VI: The Sky Taxi: All ten of the graduate students from CGFC’s II-V would participate.

The public sharing of each graduate student’s Master’s Theses or PhD Dissertations would increase the return on investment in the CGFCP missions by publicizing their breakthroughs on the global stage. This would, in turn, likely accelerate the adoption, refinement, and implementation of not just the winner’s but many of the team innovations from each mission into useful products and/or vehicles. In addition, the graduate students’ insights would help CAFE in both the planning and conduct of each challenge. There are many universities that could potentially partner with CAFE to arrange graduate student projects in the CGFCP’s several areas of research. Many of these universities are already engaged in aviation research through the FAA’s Center of Excellence Programs. Universities that so partner with CAFE in conducting the CGFCP should not be excluded from also fielding teams that compete in the CGFCP, because their teams could substantially extend the number of STEM education theses opportunities at such universities.

X. Economic Impact NASA invested $1.47M on the 2011 GFC I prize purse, an event for which the combined private expenditures of teams totaled $7.6M, representing a 500+% leverage of NASA’s investment. NASA's chief technologist, Joseph Parrish stated that "The Green Flight Challenge was one of our smallest expenditures yet one of our biggest achievements last year.”3 NASA’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Dennis Bushnell, has stated that the future distributed, autonomous, on-demand system of air travel will represent “a potential Trillion dollar market.” History shows a consistent link between expansion of mobility and prosperity. Examples include Lincoln’s Transcontinental Railroad, after which booming growth followed, opening the West. Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway Act 1956 also enabled economic prosperity across the nation. The CGFCP and its expansion of mobility freedom can likewise help stimulate economic recovery and benefit green industries, transportation, aviation, environment, productivity, electrification of vehicles, and STEM education. The full expression of the Sky Taxi system with pocket airport accessibility would afford enormous cost savings on rail and highway infrastructure costs. Such major societal and environmental benefits clearly merit support and the CGFCP would deliver these for far less than the typical subsidies given to transit, rail, and highway development. In order to grow and to be sustainable, the Sky Taxi system must develop a level of safety that surpasses that of automobile travel and rivals that of airline travel. From the outset, the safety of cross-country flight in well-designed autonomous civil aircraft should equal or better that of the current GA fleet. And if its autonomous flight capabilities eliminate the 83% of GA fatal accidents historically found to be due to pilot error, then the Sky Taxi’s safety record would surpass that of airline travel. Eliminating those accidents with computer-controlled flight will take time and dedication but, according to the expert consensus at NASA’s Aviation Unleashed Conference, is not only feasible but also inevitable. Creating the necessary safety of the system is eased somewhat by the fact that all Sky Taxi operations will be expressly and simply set as direct, known flight paths from point A to point B. CGFC IV is designed to bring forth computer and sensor technologies to publicly and safely demonstrate the autonomous capabilities of the Sky Taxi, a crucial step in initiating trust in its routine use. That trust will grow as Sky Taxis placed in service initially are used for routine, safe, same day freight hauling. As the safety record

9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

accumulates, the Sky Taxi’s superior door-to-door speed and low cost will induce increasing numbers of people to demand it as a mode of personal travel.

XI. The Business Case for Sky Taxis

The business case for on-demand Sky Taxis can be made based upon their substantial time, fuel, and maintenance savings, plus the extended reach that they can provide. The value of time is increasing. Time is a non- renewable resource and is the scarcest commodity for an increasing portion of our ever-busy population. Time is an essential component in the value proposition of any mode of transportation. On trips of less than 350 miles, the Sky Taxi could deliver a door-to-door trip speed that is twice that of a bizjet and more than three times that of a car. While the early adopters of travel by Sky Taxi will likely be those who place the highest value on their time, extending to all citizens the affordable availability of on-demand travel that is faster than a bizjet will make Sky Taxis enormously popular. Unlike the bizjet, the user market for the Sky Taxi will not be merely corporate CEOs. It will not be limited to the 590,000 licensed pilots in America. Rather, as its popularity grows, it will become affordable enough for the near 245,000,000 Americans who are at least 15 years old. The dollar value of the time saved by using a Sky Taxi depends upon the user and the circumstance. For corporate CEOs, the value may be $500 per hour. An informal survey of a cross section of suburban California workers indicated that, on average, people attach a value of about $200 per hour to giving up their leisure time to fulfill obligations that do not benefit themselves. The lowest assumed value for an hour of time may be that of the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s national average hourly wage of $21.74 (May 2011). Thus, each hour of time saved by using a Sky Taxi instead of a car, bus or airliner could at least be assigned a value of $21.74. If the fare to use the Sky Taxi is the same or less than that for car, bus or airliner, and preliminary information indicates that it can be, and its safety surpasses them all, then the user’s choice of mode will be clear. The direct operating cost of a Sky Taxi may be inferred from that experienced by the winner of the GFC I, which demonstrated an energy cost of less than $0.01 per passenger mile. This compares to approximately $0.23 per passenger mile for a typical Ford Crown Victoria , which currently requires a cab driver whose annual salary averages about $32,000. The Sky Taxi would not require such a salaried ‘driver’. Assuming the Sky Taxi averages 100 mph rather than the 25 mph for the car in metro areas, the Sky Taxi could complete 4 fare-generating trips of 25 miles in the same 1-hour time interval that a taxicab completes just one such trip. Electric propulsion can offer major advantages in both cost and reliability. According to the DOE, the average service life of an electric motor is 20 years. In clean conditions and within temperature limits, electric motors can operate continuously for more than 60,000 hours between bearing replacements, and unlike piston engines, require no oil changes, spark plug replacement, tune-ups, hose replacements or compression testing. The NEMA standard for premium efficiency for electric motors is 90.2%, compared to less than 30% for internal combustion engines. The cost per horsepower of a 200 BHP electric motor is less than 20% that of a new 200 BHP certificated aircraft piston engine. These factors all favor electric propulsion as a reliable and affordable alternative to internal combustion propulsion for small aircraft. The special batteries necessary to power a Sky Taxi are a high cost item at the time of this writing. However, as electric vehicles are popularized and battery technology advances with government subsidies, the growth in battery production volume and increase in their energy density will ease this cost. The structural airframe material and production costs of the Sky Taxi can become relatively small with modern mass production methods. With appropriate user pre-authorizations, it is anticipated that the user of a Sky Taxi will be able to simply sweep his or her credit card in a slot on the instrument panel of the aircraft to activate its touchscreen map’s menu of destinations. After selecting a destination and authorizing payment for the fare, the Sky Taxi will conduct that flight entirely autonomously. The fare to ride such a Sky Taxi will likely be judged to be very affordable compared to the value of the time it can save and to the extremely high cost of owning, maintaining and flying in a business jet or turbine . That fare will become more affordable as Sky Taxis are popularized. Unlike that demand ‘hands on wheel’, Sky Taxis can offer the user continuous productive time for reading or laptop computer use that includes use of the Internet. As the Sky Taxi system reduces or eliminates the need for operating, parking, maintaining or owning a car, it will offer users additional savings. The first step toward such benefits must be the development of the Sky Taxi itself through the CGFCP stimulus. The marked contraction of the CTOL GA market in America in the last 20 years, as shown in APPENDIX C, begs for such a stimulus, yet lacks its own resources to provide it. Even before any pocket airports are built, on-demand

10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Sky Taxi operations, in concert with appropriate ATC adaptations, could rapidly become popular at any of America’s 5000+ public use CTOL airports.

XII. Budget Justification NASA officials called the GFC I a “Lindbergh Moment” because it inaugurated the Age of Electric Flight. Significantly, the GFC I winner became a finalist for the 2011 Collier Trophy, losing only to the nearly $12 billion 787 project. For its funder, the CGFCP can be viewed as the ideal next step from GFC I; it could in effect rapidly create a dedicated, talented, global research and development department that will attract substantial private investment in diverse innovations that are all aimed toward maximally surpassing each CGFC mission’s practical requirements. The rich array of intellectual property and innovation so induced offers the funder a very attractive return on investment (ROI). When viewed as an investment that can rejuvenate civil aviation, transform transportation, save thousands of lives, clean the air, stimulate STEM education, grow new jobs in a new trillion- dollar market, and substantially help the environment, the ultimate ROI for the CGFCP may prove to be one of the largest ever achieved—and with the potential to favorably affect the lives of every person. This extraordinary potential ROI is driven by the current synchronicity of needs, opportunities, and advanced technologic capabilities and is the principal reason that CGFCP merits adoption as one of America’s Grand Challenges. Its ROI is amplified by these special contributing factors:

1. the CAFE Foundation’s all-volunteer contribution of expertise, dedication, trustworthiness, and fairness; 2. the CAFE Foundation’s extant equipment and facilities ideally suited for these competitions; 3. the re-use by CAFE of the special test equipment for several successive and related missions; 4. the STEM post-graduate degrees for the several university students assigned to the CGFCP missions; 5. the relatively small size (2 seats) of the aircraft that enable on-demand personal mobility freedom; 6. the intense dedication and determination that teams bring to technology prize competitions; 7. the relatively rapid timeline on which the CGFCP can bring forth Sky Taxis; 8. the ‘viral’ public dissemination of CGFCP breakthroughs by planned multi-media/online; 9. the urgencies of climate change, surface gridlock, recession, and energy independence; 10. the Obama Administration’s authorization of technology prizes for all federal agencies

The expected high leverage, diversity of innovations, and guaranteed performance of winning team vehicles justifies the prize purse (‘procurement’) portion of the budget expenditures. In order to attract several competing teams, the prize amount offered must be substantially larger than the investment required by a team to win, particularly when the prize purse is to be split among several top achievers. To assure teams that the promised prize amount will indeed be available at the conclusion of their expensive and arduous efforts, that funding needs to be secured into an escrowed deposit at the time that CGFCP is publicly announced as an event open for registration. To ensure success, the non-prize portion of the funding necessary for CAFE to conduct the CGFCP, including specialized equipment, sub-contract labor, travel, flight tests, promotional, media, event costs, campus set-up, insurance, supplies, and services must likewise be secured at its outset. The recurring event costs for the CGFCP represent the actual costs incurred by CAFE during the GFC I. To the extent possible, the CGFCP detailed budget enumerates the known costs of the special equipment items needed for its missions. High precision, traceable measurement equipment is needed in order to conduct high-stakes competitions. Fortunately, the same equipment can serve several CGFCP missions. Equipment costs are further minimized because CAFE team members themselves will design and build the main test cart vehicles known as the Runway Acceleration Simulator and the Propeller Acoustics Simulator (RAS and PAS). Besides the RAS and PAS, the CAFE-built equipment includes a low-cost, 2-seat, electric-powered test-bed kit experimental electric aircraft essential for CAFE to conduct these challenges. That conduct includes but is not limited to video documentation, traffic simulation, EMI/eTotalizer tests, data acquisition, telemetry and antenna testing, BMS troubleshooting, ADS- B, noise, autopilot, avionics, voice-recognition, wheel motor, and line-following pre-competition testing. The costs in this program budget include those associated with its multi-media promotion and documentation in order to create maximal public awareness of the breakthrough achievements. All work performed by the CAFE Foundation Board Members during this program’s 68 month period is volunteer work whose total cost sharing value is estimated at $1,800,000. This, along with CAFE’s reputability, equipment and facilities, provides substantial savings to the total program cost. The very high administrative cost experienced with previous government-administered challenges (e.g., DARPA Grand Challenge) underscores the high degree of administrative efficiency that can be obtained with CAFE operation of the CGFCP.

11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

XIII. Comparison of the Sky Taxi to the Flying Car Flying cars have inherently been limited to conventional take off and landing (CTOL) at large, usually remote airports. Thereby, CTOL flying cars, like all CTOL GA aircraft, are subject to the travel delays due to surface gridlock, which often ruin the speed advantage of flying. Unlike CTOL aircraft, the electric-powered ESTOL Sky Taxi will be quiet enough to land at close-in pocket airports that are within walking distance of doorstep destination. This close-in proximity of the pocket airport is the key to the Sky Taxi’s 3-fold trip speed advantage and obviates the need for the Sky Taxi to be a “freeway-legal” car. This, in turn, frees the Sky Taxi from the onerous, expensive, heavy, performance robbing, complex regulatory and equipment burdens of licensure as a car. Those burdens are the very reason that all flying cars to date have been both poorly performing cars and poorly performing aircraft. Though some Sky Taxis may develop future versions with the option to detach their wings and empennage and transform into “golf-cart-like” surface vehicles, such options will likely be unnecessary at pocket airports as electric car cabs, autonomous rentable Smart-Carts, or other DOT 500-compliant surface vehicles emerge to fulfill the need for intermodal travel. Rapid progress is being made in such surface vehicles.4

XIV. Technology Prize Methodology Technology prizes have many advantages. The Obama Administration has recently recognized this and authorized the use of technology prize competitions by all federal agencies.5 The growing use of technology prizes is in part due to the information-accelerating effects of the Internet and ‘crowd-sourcing’, the urgency to find solutions to global problems such as energy needs and climate change, and the increasing demand for greater return on investments in research. The CAFE Foundation’s administration of the GFC I demonstrated that the technology prize competition method can safely and rapidly bring forth diverse innovations for new vehicle capabilities that far surpass the required performance thresholds. The foremost advantage of the technology prize is its inducement of simultaneous diverse competing approaches to the goal. Such diversity is inherently valuable in rapidly evolving ideal solutions. That diversity is usually lacking in development or procurement efforts waged by ‘in-the-box’ or ‘business as usual’ thinking at a single entity, government agency or corporation. Technology prizes offer such entities a valuable solution to their “Innovator’s Dilemma”6 and can be an effective mechanism to rapidly and efficiently outsource specific research and development. That outsourcing can include the off-loading to a separate hosting organization all liabilities that relate to the prize competition itself. A second advantage of the technology prize is its leverage. Several teams will invest large amounts of time and money toward winning a single prize purse. Such teams will use the Internet to recruit talent and expert consulting from around the globe. Competiveness compels teams to apply passionate dedication and determination to their efforts, greatly increasing the effective leverage beyond mere expenditure of funds. This leverage and the diversity advantage are maximized when all teams are assured a chance to compete for the prize, a feature that is lost if the prize were offered as a “first-to-demonstrate” competition. A third advantage of technology prize competitions is created by appropriate efforts at outreach and publicity. Such efforts, greatly augmented by the reports created by the graduate students assigned to each challenge, increase the public and entrepreneurial awareness of the demonstrated breakthrough capabilities. This speeds investment in ventures that further the development of those technologic capabilities and their implementation. This deliberate transparency of technology prize competitions greatly enhances their potential to stimulate STEM education and grow new jobs in both research and manufacturing. It also provides added incentive to teams to win on the ‘global stage’. A fourth advantage is that technology prizes can be tailored to deliver exactly the breakthrough performance capabilities necessary to open up new markets, frontiers, industries or paradigms of utility. The achievement of such breakthrough performance embodies the ‘deliverable’ for the technology prize just as if it were a procurement contract. Because the prize money will not be paid unless the breakthrough is achieved, the deliverable is thus guaranteed. Astute calculation of the known physical limits on materials and their potential performance, along with respect for absolute limits in human physiology (e.g. noise, oxygenation, bladder capacity, and G forces) must inform such tailoring. The hurdle must not be set too high relative to the timeline offered for its achievement. Indeed, achieving the goals for urgently needed breakthroughs in time for a near-term, date-certain competition is itself an accomplishment worthy of reward. Practical thresholds of performance can be set to establish the acceptable balance between conflicting capabilities, such as high cruise speed and short runway capabilities. Loopholes must be avoided and constraints should be limited to those that are essential to practical and safe results. The measurements of performance in prize competitions must be accurate and verifiable and should be 12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

entrusted to organizations with well-established reputations for integrity, safety and freedom from bias. Those organizations must have or be provided with the specialized test equipment and support necessary to conduct the competitions accurately and with substantial promotion and publicity. The lead-time in months from the time of the announcement of a technology prize competition to the date of the competition needs to respect the difficulty of the task being undertaken. The size of the prize must respect the costs necessary for each team to create the breakthrough innovation. Careful attention to orchestrating the dates-certain for each mission’s breakthrough can, as with the CGFCP, allow the scheduling of a succession of complementary technology prizes that concurrently build toward a transformative final result in the shortest possible time. To some degree, increasing the size of the prize can shorten the allowable lead-time. However, prizes that are too large will become subject to domination by one or two major corporate teams, quashing the hoped for diversity of teams. Finally, a natural and intangible camaraderie naturally develops amongst the teams at a technology prize competition. This enhances the exchange of ideas and can foster new alliances and start-up ventures that transcend cultural, economic, and political boundaries, and favors allowing participation by team members from outside the USA. Such global teamwork exemplifies the very kind of collaboration that must be developed in order to solve problems such as global warming and population control. As technology prize competitions increasingly become employed to advance research across all federal agencies, those agencies must guarantee prize funding at the outset that is sufficient to both the competition’s prizes and their fair and successful conduct. Otherwise, early commitment of major investment and effort by both teams and competition organizers would be jeopardized.

XV. Guaranteed Funding Mechanism An innovative and advantageous way to guarantee funding for technology prize competitions would be to use a trust or escrow instrument. This instrument would stipulate that the full amount of prize funds (the ‘procurement funds’) be placed into a U.S. Treasury Bill or Note of appropriate maturity date, in the name of the Allied Organization that is to conduct the prize competitions, and that those funds be used ONLY for the prize awards to teams that fulfill the subject competition’s required performance breakthroughs and achievements. If those breakthroughs and achievements are not fulfilled, the competition may be restaged 1 year later. If the achievements are still not fulfilled 1 year later, then the prize funds are redeemed from the Treasury instruments and the principal is returned to the granting government agency or corporation, while the interest earned on that principal is used to defray the extra expenses incurred by the Allied Organization in repeating the competition(s), as under item # 631 in Order 9550.7 as “Additive alternative.” This method of securing the funding would offer these advantages: 1. Funds granted for multi-year or multi-part competitions would be secured at the outset against annual budget revisions and could thereby be dedicated to long-range goals. 2. Funds would only be paid out if the deliverable performs beyond the required performance thresholds (“Guaranteed Performance”). 3. Allied Organizations and Teams could both be confident that the funds are really 'there'. 4. Allied Organizations could expect funding of their incurred event expenses from earned interest in the event that a competition had to be repeated. 5. The bonds mechanism would securely reinvest the funds in our own government.

XVI. Background: Environment And Aviation Land Use In the last 140 years, global industrialization has polluted earth’s atmosphere, land, and water, and is now widely accepted as a cause of climate change. In recent years, a global movement toward green transportation has brought forth electric-powered cars. GFC I demonstrated that small electric-powered aircraft could deliver useful performance in terms of their speed and range. Progress in battery energy density promises a multi-fold improvement to that level of performance. Unlike the electric car, the Sky Taxi does not require roads and is immune to being stuck in surface gridlock. The Sky Taxi’s multi-fold speed advantage over all forms of transportation, including general aviation CTOL aircraft, derives from its ultra-quiet propulsion, ESTOL capability, and safe, pilot-less autonomous flight. After 109 years of aviation, flying machines have far surpassed the flight speed and range of birds. That achievement has required high wing loadings on airliners that cause them to need more than a country mile to land. Such airliners also require very high power levels whose inherently loud noise emissions can only be tolerated at airports that occupy several thousand hectares. Land parcels of thousands of hectares seldom exist near where people live and work. This causes hub airports to be remote from most travelers’ doorstep destinations.

13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

An airport land parcel must be large enough to assure that aircraft noise levels of 60 dB CNEL are not exceeded at its boundaries. This requirement respects the noise footprints of aircraft that operate at such airports. An ultra- quiet aircraft could enable airports that are extremely small, on the order of 1 hectare. However, for runway lengths of less than 500 feet, such as those at pocket airports, such ultra-quiet aircraft must add ESTOL performance to their capabilities. Thus there is an interrelationship between aircraft noise emissions, ESTOL capabilities, land parcel size and the ground distance (and time) that one must travel to or from an airport. The CGFCP performance thresholds are predicated on this interrelationship, which is likely to have threshold effects that favor pocket airports with runway lengths of no more than 500 feet. This concept is shown in Figure 1. Migration to urban areas, exponential population growth, and suburban sprawl have caused ever-worsening surface gridlock, which, when coupled with the remoteness of hub airports, squander aviation’s speed advantage. The expectation that regional and smaller airports would somehow help solve this problem appears to be unrealistic in light of the OIG’s September 24, 2012 Report on Aviation Industry Performance7, which indicates 2 ominous findings; a 36% reduction in general aviation operations and a 24% reduction in short-haul airline flights in the last 4 years. These findings suggest that only with pocket airports can the speed and utility of GA travel be restored. Surface gridlock wastes time and fuel and exacts enormously expensive public expenditures on freeway expansions, rail infrastructure, and transit subsidies. The Sky Taxi pocket airport system could substantially ease these problems. Though it will not replace other travel systems, it will save time and reduce congestion in them, thus improving their flow efficiency as well as reducing the need to build new freeway lanes.

Figure 1. Airport Proximity Concepts.

XVII. Surface Gridlock—The Common Enemy Beyond its awful effects on ground transportation, surface gridlock regularly prevents commercial aviation from fulfilling its mission of providing “fast travel without roads.” Every day, people become stuck for hours in surface gridlock after landing in an 804.6 kph (500+ mph) aircraft. According to NASA, on trips of less than 402.3 km (250 miles), commercial air travel in 804.6 kph (500+ mph) aircraft delivers an average door-to-door trip speed of only 88.5 kph (55 mph). Gridlock tends to worsen each year as the population grows and as a greater proportion of it moves to urban areas. The 2009 annual amount of fuel wasted due to surface traffic congestion was 3.9 Billion gallons; this represents a four-fold increase since 1982. Attempting to solve gridlock by adding more single-file surface byways is an unsustainable and exceedingly expensive approach to the problem. New freeway lanes cost an average of $20M per mile. U.S. road building used 190M barrels of asphalt and road oil in 2008 alone, roughly 1/19th of the total barrels of petroleum required that year.8 The combined federal, state, and local government expenditures on transportation for the 5-year period of 2003 through 2007 totaled $1.2 Trillion. In spite of such spending, worsening traffic congestion has caused the U.S. to have 53.9 kph (33.5 mph) average door-to-door trip speeds for surface transportation. In addition, when schedule deadlines are involved, the FHWA.DOT recommends allowing 43% extra time to cope with the uncertainties that 14 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

affect surface travel in metro areas, uncertainties such as work zones, breakdowns, crashes, weather, special events, stalled vehicles, “rubber-neckers”, toxic spills, ambulance intrusions, and fallen trees or power lines. This extra time lowers commuter trips speeds to just 36 kph (22.4 mph). Other than occasional weather delays, such uncertainties would largely not apply to the Sky Taxi-based system of close-in pocket airports. Definitive studies on traffic congestion confirm these figures. 9,10

XVIII. The Transportation Niche For Sky Taxis

The Green Flight Challenge I demonstrated electric-powered aircraft with cruise speeds of over 209.2 kph (130 mph). In urban/suburban population centers, traveling in a 193.12 kph (120+ mph) Sky Taxi operating at close-in pocket airports is the only sustainable way to achieve faster door-to-door speed for trips of more than 40.23 km (25 miles). When the delays due to gridlock and the uncertainty of surface travel time are included, the trip speed advantage potentially available by Sky Taxi (formerly called SAV or “Suburban Air Vehicle”) travel is found to be up to 4 times faster than that by car, as shown in Fig. 2. As shown by the Red “X” marks in Fig. 2, within the limits of the widely accepted11 100 minute Daily Travel Time Budget, the daily one-way reach of the Sky Taxi SAV is 144.8 km (90 miles), compared to only 32.2 km (20 miles) for the car. This represents a 20-fold increase in a person’s area of daily operation and in the market area served by any hub metro center. This would mean a 20-fold extension of opportunities in educational, employment, medical care, entertainment, security, and gene pool, for the millions of people who live in areas outlying metro centers. Such extended reach gives access to sophisticated products and services not available locally, such as tertiary healthcare, museums, hubs for mainline transit, and air transportation, performing arts such as opera, ballet and musical concerts, professional sports events, amusement parks, tourist attractions, and specialized product vendors.

Figure 2. Door-to-Door Trip Speeds: Sky Taxi vs. Car

15 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Sky Taxis could provide the 245 million Americans who are over age 15 with safe, fast, reliable, on-demand, emission-free air travel on sub-400 mile trips between the 5000+ public use airports in the USA. This would have an immediate and strong rejuvenating effect on civil aviation. It would allow airlines to abandon unprofitable short- haul routes without sacrificing the hub-feeder function of those routes, for pocket airports are small enough that they could be sited on the existing ramp areas of hub airports. Increasing demand for travel in Sky Taxis would induce the rapid proliferation of pocket airports, just as mobile phones rapidly induced the building of hundreds of thousands of cell phone towers. Pocket airports placed within the boundaries of large, existing metro hub airports could serve as a valuable transit link to long range flights from those hubs. Compared to the usual ordeal of ground transportation to and from such metro hub airports, the pocket airport would save enormous amounts of time and fuel, and restore the attractiveness of airline travel. It could allow U.S. travelers to walk from their home to a nearby pocket airport, and then fly to arrive within walking distance of their departure gate for London or Tokyo. It could accomplish this in just 20% of the time spent on conventional ground transportation to that hub airport. Fig. 3 portrays the multi-fold advantage of the Sky Taxi in door-to-door trip speed relative to that of the airliner and the car:

Figure 3. Trip Speed, Sky Taxi vs. Airliner. Mutual support within extended families is an important ‘glue’ for societal stability. Beyond holiday trips to Grandma’s house, more regular trips to visit relatives can enable families to provide significant mutual support and comfort that reduces the local demand for community health care and safety net services. Families have tended to disseminate across a geographic region in our highly mobile society. The extended reach of the Sky Taxi could make it much easier to maintain valuable connections for extended families. In the beginning, Sky Taxis could use replaceable battery cartridges much like today’s portable drills. Unlike personally owned cars, which spend 99% of their time parked or garaged, the Sky Taxi fleet could be kept on the move, in order to minimize the need for expensive parking spaces. After delivering its passengers or freight at a less- used or remote pocket airport, the Sky Taxi could either fly empty to the nearest pocket airport at which its next fare was waiting or autonomously return itself to the busiest nearby pocket airport where it would use its wheel motors to autonomously position itself to join the queue of Sky Taxis in the loading zone. The electric motor’s characteristic of having essentially just one moving part along with its 50,000 hour time between bearing replacements would make electric Sky Taxis especially well suited for being constantly on the move. The 200 mile demonstrated range of electric aircraft with the approximately 200 wh/kg energy density batteries employed in the GFC I, is expected to substantially increase as future energy materials breakthroughs emerge. Presentations at the CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposia in 2011 and 2012 have indicated that advances in batteries 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

that make use of lithium-air, porous graphene sheets and nano-wire anodes will soon enable 1000+ wh/kg batteries. Such advances would enable Sky Taxis to achieve 1000-mile range on a single battery charge, as shown in the map above. Considering that a sub-500 mile trip length is the ideal niche for the Sky Taxi’s speed advantage, and that 4 hours is a reasonable maximum interval between bathroom visits, it is fortuitous that a 4-hour duration flight at 120 mph yields a 480-mile flight. The projected 1000 mile future range capability thus seems more than sufficient. When pocket airports become ubiquitous, people will access them with a 6-minute walk or a short ride in a weatherproof “DOT 500 compliant”, 40.23 kph (25 mph) electric ‘SmartCart’. Such carts, like the Sky Taxi, could be autonomous and could be summoned with an on-demand Smartphone application such as to come to one’s house via residential streets from the nearest pocket airport. SmartCarts could likewise use replaceable battery cartridges to avoid having to allocate airport parking spaces while the cart recharged. Upon arriving in a Sky Taxi, people would find SmartCarts available at curbside, and the mere swipe of a credit card in the cart’s side mirror slot would make it available for their use.12 After dropping off passengers at their destination doorstep (e.g. ‘Grandma’s house’), the SmartCart could autonomously return itself to the nearest pocket airport; perhaps fetching another networked fare on its way. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics website shows that 85.6% of people in the U.S. travel to work by car and only 5% use public transportation.13 The Sky Taxi could dramatically change that. With mature computerized flight controls, vehicle parachutes, and precision 4D navigation, the electric powered Sky Taxi could achieve a safety record that surpasses that of all other modes of travel. A sizable fleet of shared public-use on-demand Sky Taxis could augment public transit, though it might be operated as a private entity. Unlike scheduled busses or trains, the Sky Taxi would afford the user anytime travel with valued privacy of personal space. Pocket airports, unlike the often resented single user heli-port, will be a shared community asset available to all, and demand only slightly more land area than a heli-port. They will offer opportune locations for coffee houses (Starbuck’s) shipping services (FedEx, UPS), small neighborhood grocery markets, etc. helping neighborhoods become more walkable and self- contained and reducing VMT. Pocket airports can thus help implement the ideal urban environmental plans for public spaces.14 Pocket airports epitomize the realtor’s maxim “location, location, location.” Those arriving in Sky Taxis at pocket airports will not use freeways; rather, they will tend to make short ground trips that distribute onto nearby residential streets to complete their last-mile connections. This is much more efficient than the scenario in which masses of travelers converge at remote hub airports and then congest a single, already-crowded freeway that connects the hub airport to its metro area. Sky Taxi use could thus reduce the enormous infrastructure cost of freeways and railways, and circumvent their extremely limited route structure and tendency to gridlock. Road and parking lot construction in America’s National Parks, National Forests and other nature areas could also be reduced if those areas are made accessible with pocket airports. Hikers and campers could set out to explore nature areas from pocket airports. The noise emitted by ultra-quiet Sky Taxis when overflying nature areas at more than 152.4 meters (500 feet) above the ground would be imperceptible to hikers. Road building is simply not possible in some poor countries and in remote rugged areas. With the building of a

Image 8. Evacuation from Hurricane Rita

17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

small, 1-hectare pocket airport, Sky Taxis could provide valuable and affordable access to such areas for purposes of supply, med-evac, and other aid. Natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes often disable modes of surface transportation. Climate change is forecast to markedly increase the frequency of severe storms. During the evacuation of Houston from Hurricane Rita, (Image 8.) when all lanes of all freeways exiting town became gridlocked, thousands of people were placed in peril. A high capacity network of pocket airports, with a nearly unlimited number of ‘lanes’ to evacuate an area, or to bring it relief, could save lives in many disaster scenarios. Mobile computing with portable devices that provide anywhere web connectivity is rapidly surpassing desktop computing in terms of hours spent. The autonomous flight capability of the Sky Taxi can enable productive mobile computing while en route.

XIX. Sky Taxi System Capacity The potential capacity of the air transportation system to accommodate thousands of Sky Taxis has been studied under a NASA contract.15 The study confirms that three dimensional space offers a practically unlimited number of ‘lanes’ compared to single-file surface transportation. Even with today’s, human-in-the-loop ‘see-and-avoid’ traffic avoidance, the sky offers more than enough capacity for the Sky Taxi travel paradigm to substantially benefit the entire transportation system. This is true even when Sky Taxi travel is restricted to the non-oxygen-requiring airspace below 2438.4 meters (8000 feet) MSL. With the full future expression of a redundant tracking network of electronically de-conflicted precision 4D flight paths and sophisticated ‘detect and avoid’ sensor technologies, the sub-2438.4 meter (8000 foot) airspace can accommodate any reasonably foreseeable Sky Taxi traffic volume. The capacity of each lane of a freeway is accepted to be 2000 cars per hour or about 34 cars per minute. Just 2 extra cars above this, a traffic flow of 36 cars per minute, begins to cause a freeway to become gridlocked. A single 1 hectare pocket airport, whose paving cost would be about $400,000, could provide 2 Sky Taxi operations per minute or 120 ops per hour. (For reference, Chicago’s OHare Airport averages 100 flight operations per hour.) Thus, a network of busy pocket airports could unburden freeway gridlock and spare having to build extra lanes on the freeway, at a cost savings of nearly $20M per mile.

XX. Will Sky Taxis Be VTOL? Surveys of people who live near airports have consistently shown that community-acceptable noise levels at the airport boundary need to be below a CNEL of about 65 dBA.16 A high traffic volume of take offs and landings drives this dBA value even lower. Noisy aircraft will simply not be allowed to use pocket airports and will thereby forfeit the fundamental utility advantage so offered. The history of VTOL aircraft is replete with examples whose high noise emissions subverted their utility and market. The City of San Francisco, for example, has banned the use of all heli-ports in its downtown area mainly due to helicopter noise. The CGFCP, on the other hand, aims to bring about fixed-wing Sky Taxis that achieve extraordinary quietness during their take offs and landings. The take off noise emissions of aircraft are inherently related to their take off power requirement. For aircraft of equivalent weight, the take off power requirement can be several-fold less for fixed-wing aircraft equipped with high lift devices than for VTOL aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft likewise have much lower power requirements during landing. Wheel motor technology can dramatically reduce the noise and take off power requirement of fixed-wing aircraft, while enabling them to have a take off ground roll only slightly greater than the diameter of a heli-pad. The CGFCP anticipates that Sky Taxis will have to be small, 2-seat fixed-wing aircraft with wheel motors and very high CLmax capabilities in order to be able to fulfill the absolute and stringent noise limits necessary to operate at pocket airports. If a VTOL aircraft can be developed to fulfill the extreme low noise requirements of a pocket airport, it will need to also rival the fixed-wing Sky Taxi in both reliability and cruise speed/energy efficiency in order to win a market.

XXI. Urgency To Launch The CGFCP The need for green jobs and a new green industry around electric powered vehicles, the recent recession, worsening gridlock, the U.S. dependency on foreign oil, and the ever-increasing urgency of global warming17 can all be cited as urgencies that beg for the emergence of the Sky Taxi travel paradigm. Moreover, as shown in APPENDIX C, general aviation is undergoing an alarming decline in the U.S.A. over the last 10 years, as evidenced by FAA airport operation statistics from regional GA airports. Yet, if the CGFCP is promptly launched, the talents of a talented generation of small aircraft innovators and the resources of waning GA industries can yet be harnessed into creating the necessary breakthroughs. 18 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Rail planners and other transportation industry leaders need to awaken now to the prospects of future pocket airports. A public demonstration of the combined vehicular capabilities that enable travel using pocket airports can help governments rethink their pursuit of ‘in-the-box’ gridlock solutions and could potentially save some enormously expensive rail and transit system expenditures. In light of the foregoing, and the escalating global awareness of the promise of electric flight resulting from the GFC I, the CGFCP should be launched as soon as possible.

XXII. The CGFCP Competition Metrics and Feasibility Sky Taxi flight operations at close-in pocket airports will demand these capabilities:

1. take off distances of less than 128 meter (420 feet) over a 38.1 meter (125 foot) obstacle (i.e., ESTOL); 2. take off noise emissions of less than 65 dBA at a 38.1 meter (125 feet) sideline distance; 3. directed, autonomous flight with 4D navigation and ATOL (automatic take off/landing); 4. cruise speed of 193.12+ kph (120+ mph) combined with ESTOL capability; 5. energy efficiency better than 321.8 pKmPG (200 pMPG); 6. electric propulsion; 7. ballistic vehicle parachute 8. range of at least 200 statute miles; 9. at least two seats with 200 lb per seat payload capability; 10. all of the above combined into one Sky Taxi with reliability that rivals that of the airlines.

GFC I has already demonstrated items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above, though not combined with ESTOL and fully autonomous flight. Information gleaned from the GFC I, as well as the 6 years of CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposia, and other sources, provides clear evidence that the necessary combined Sky Taxi capabilities can be achieved in the future by a phased program of well-aimed, concurrent technology prize competitions that should:

1. offer a prize amount that is commensurate with the urgency, investment cost, and importance of the achievement and sufficient to rapidly bring forth several serious and sophisticated team efforts in full-scale, people-carrying aircraft; 2. be arranged in a logical and correct sequence that allows concurrent progress; 3. be allocated appropriate but not excessive lead-times; 4. be announced as a committed, concerted program as soon as possible; 5. be operated by a trustworthy and reputable organization that can perform them safely, fairly, and accurately; 6. be coupled with post-graduate students performing Masters and PhD theses in mission-related areas.

XXIII. Prize Design Experience from GFC I suggests that the prize purses for each CGFC should be shared according to the magnitude by which the team’s achievement surpasses the required thresholds of performance. Those teams that fail to fulfill the thresholds would be ineligible for any prizes. This funding strategy will help assure that a substantial group of competitors persevere in their efforts to compete, meet the deadlines necessary for a date-certain calendared event and assure by advance testing that their entry can surpass the required thresholds. It is apparent from past challenges that all teams that fulfill the thresholds do bring forth valuable innovations that merit the prospect of a reward. An impressively large prize will attract more teams and will encourage those teams to invest in cutting edge technologies. In general, the prize should be awarded for the most singularly important and essential performance capability rather than be sub-divided among less important capabilities. Setting thresholds of adequacy for a limited set of non-primary but necessary capabilities helps assure that achievements in the primary capability represent realistic progress. The primary capabilities also need a threshold of adequacy in order to limit the field to serious contenders. Though rules changes are to be avoided whenever possible, CAFE must reserve the right to amend the required performance thresholds for CGFC VI (up or down) based upon the levels of performance achieved in CGFCs II through V.

XXIV. CAFE Foundation Resources The CAFE Foundation is a unique national asset with an impeccable safety record that spans 30 years of testing experimental aircraft. During its 10 years of conducting the annual CAFE 400 Flight Efficiency Races, CAFE 19 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

earned a solid reputation as a fair and non-biased agency for conducting competitions. During CAFE’s 12 years of flight testing for Aircraft Performance Reports ((APRs) for EAA, no serious accident or injury occurred. CAFE’s APRs remain the gold standard for trustworthy flight evaluation of experimental personal aircraft. CAFE has successfully designed, organized, and conducted three NASA Centennial Challenges without any accidents or protests. This experience informs CAFE’s design of the numerous safeguards that are built into the CGFCP. CAFE’s reputation for accuracy and fairness will endow the CGFCP with those essential ingredients. The CAFE Flight Test Center is uniquely equipped to test and re-charge electric-powered aircraft. The CAFE Barograph, designed and built by its members, has been specified by the FAA as the industry standard for flight certification. The diverse combined skills and experience of the CAFE Foundation team as well as the cost savings from their all-volunteer labor make CAFE the ideal organization to conduct the CGFCP. CAFE’s team is especially expert at finding, assembling, testing, and implementing specialized flight test equipment. They have the support of the local airport administration and FAA tower management. Their campus is adjacent to that of EAA Chapter 124 with its dozens of volunteer members, who afford CAFE the manpower for conducting flight competitions. Each CGFC competition will be fully insured and will be designed to minimize the chance of an accident or injury. Resumes of the CAFE Board are available online.18

XXV. CGFC II: Wheel Motors for Extremely Short Take Off and Landing (ESTOL) Due to the electric motor’s characteristic of having large amounts of torque available at very low RPM, electric powered drag racers have demonstrated extremely rapid and quiet acceleration. The legendary “Killacycle”, for example, is able to accelerate from zero to 96.6 kph (60 mph) in 1 second and in less than 18.3 meters (60 feet). To operate at pocket airports, the ultra-quiet Sky Taxis must reach 72.4 kph (45 mph) with a take off roll of less than 36.58 meters (120 feet). Due to their inefficiencies at low airspeed, propellers alone are likely not sufficient to achieve this level of rapid initial acceleration. However, small electric wheel motors with high torque could enable Sky Taxis to accomplish the brisk take off acceleration necessary while emitting much lower noise than if the take off were entirely dependent on the propeller’s thrust. Wheel motors could enable Sky Taxis to quickly pass through the realm of marginal flight control at sub-63 kph (~40 mph) airspeeds. Upon reaching 72.4 kph (45 mph), the dynamic pressure becomes sufficient for effective elevator, aileron and rudder authority, and propeller efficiency becomes sufficient to deliver enough thrust for the remainder of the Sky Taxi’s necessarily steep climb out. Because wheel motors will provide all propulsion during ground operations during autonomous Sky Taxi operations, passengers, and ramp pedestrians need no longer be exposed to the hazard of rotating propellers. During take off, the propeller will only begin to rotate as the Sky Taxi rolls toward lift-off speed, when the passengers are safely inside its cabin. Likewise, the propeller will stop as soon as the landing Sky Taxi turns off the runway. With future enhancements, wheel motors can provide auto-steering, anti-skid, anti-lock braking, regenerative braking, tire advance spool-up, and self retracting landing gear while displacing not much more than the weight of a disc brake and landing gear retraction system. These advantages favor wheel motors becoming standard equipment on future Sky Taxis. Wheel motors must be lightweight enough to fit the landing gear of small aircraft, yet have high enough torque and power to provide extreme acceleration and braking. The additional known constraint of frontal area drag for any fixed-gear aircraft applies practical limits to the size of aircraft wheel motors. For practical purposes, the outermost dimensions of a 15x6:0-6 size aircraft wheel, tire and its external disc brake are used as guidelines to define a rectangular box into which a CGFC II competing team’s wheel motor plus tire/rim must fit. That box will be 16.5” tall x 16.5” long x 9” wide. The known weight of a conventional aircraft wheel, tire, disc brake, and axle is about 18 pounds. To allow sufficient mass to produce the necessary torque, yet keep the total landing gear weight within reasonable limits, teams in CGFC II must provide wheel motor units whose total weight including tire, wheel, and axle is ≤ 28 pounds. This 10 pound allowance for the motor offers a significant design challenge that will require a motor whose 5 second rating is better than 3 BHP per pound in order to propel the GFC II’s 300 kg Runway Acceleration Simulator (RAS) to 72.4 kph (45 mph) in less than 36.58 meters (120 feet). (The acceleration time required for each run is expected to be less than 5 seconds.)

20 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Image 9. Pancake Motor, 7 BHP in 1.4 lb. According to faculty industry experts at the 6th Annual CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposium, such high-power, lightweight motors are feasible. A Launchpoint Technologies Halbach Array pancake motor of 5.22 kW (7 BHP) in .635 kg (1.4 lb) is shown in Image 9. The CGFC II “Wheel Motor Competition” will require that teams supply wheel motors and controllers that can be quickly installed onto the rear suspension swing-arm of the CAFE-supplied RAS, a specialized 300 kg test cart. The CAFE RAS will supply high C rate battery power of 400 Volts and 5 kWh for each team’s wheel motor. The winning team will be the one whose motor demonstrates that it can accelerate the cart to 72.4 kph (45 mph) in the shortest distance. The RAS will be adjusted to have identical weight and weight distribution during all competition attempts, which will be made on the same strip of airport asphalt. The table below shows the torque, motor air gap shear, G’s of acceleration, and ground roll distance in feet to reach 45 mph for a 10.5 inch diameter x 1.75 inch wide wheel motor suitable for Sky Taxi.

Table 1. Wheel Motor Torque, Shear, G’s and Ground Roll.

Torque, N m 100 200 300 400 500 600 Shear PSI 3.61 7.22 10.83 14.44 18.04 21.65 G's of acceleration 0.16 0.32 0.49 0.65 0.81 0.97 Feet to 45 mph 416 208 139 104 83 69

Figure 4. Wheel Motor Torque vs. Air Gap Shear. 21 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Current state-of-the-art electric motors (e.g. SkyStream) have achieved 10 PSI motor gap shear stress in continuous operation. The Sky Taxi wheel motor will require only very brief (5 s) operation at high torque, which can enable substantially higher gap shear PSI levels without overheating. Note that the ground roll shown in Fig. 4 ignores the propeller thrust that will be added to the wheel motor thrust during takeoff, meaning that the actual ground roll of the Sky Taxi will be substantially shorter than those shown. The Runway Acceleration Simulator (RAS) will be a custom-built 3-wheel vehicle that will test a single non- steerable midline wheel motor for its acceleration performance. The RAS will weigh 300 kg, half the 600 kg weight of a Light Sport Aircraft, since it is anticipated that there will eventually be 2 wheel motors driving a 600 kg Sky Taxi. The RAS has a rear swing-arm rear suspension and with steering and conventional braking by the 2 front wheels as needed. Teams will mount their motor controllers on the RAS chassis rather than on their wheel motor. Passive anti-slip and anti-lock sensors, if not integral to the wheel motor, are permitted to be mounted elsewhere RAS. The RAS swing-arm’s mounting flange geometry will provide the “Type 2” standard aircraft axle bolt pattern as the attachment point for each team’s tire/rim/motor/axle unit. See drawing in APPENDIX A.

Summary of CGFC II Requirements: 1. team’s motor/wheel unit must fit inside a .4191 x .4191 x .2286 meter box; 2. (16.5 x 16.5 x 9 inch box); 3. 12.7 kg (28 lb) maximum combined weight of tire/rim/motor/axle unit; 4. 453.6 kg (1000 lb) static test load by CAFE without structural damage; 5. 400V at 200 amps max power allowed. (80 kW input); 6. design freeze once competition begins; 7. no solvents or substances applied to tires prior to runs; 8. one button operation: hit “Go” and controller takes over; 9. 0 kph to 72.42 kph (45 mph) acceleration ground roll distance ≤ 120 feet; 10. (prize scoring rewards the shortest ground roll distance(s)); 11. 3 runs in the same direction, dry pavement with no wind; 12. no substituting or changing tires: same tire for ALL runs; 13. inflation PSI not mandated, but will be recorded; 14. no tire durometer limits, but measured and recorded at room temperature; 15. standard bolt flange for cart’s swing-arm mount, “Type 2” bolt pattern; 16. pneumatic tire of any profile/sidewall that fits in the box; 17. separate motor controller must weigh ≤ 9.07 kg (20 lb); 18. Runway Acceleration Simulator (RAS) total weight = 300 kg.

XXVI. CGFC III: Ultra-Quiet Propulsion In CGFC III, a specialized ground test vehicle built by CAFE and known as the Propeller Acoustic Simulator (PAS), will accurately and safely measure the noise emissions of several different ultra-quiet electric-powered propulsion systems suitable for use on small aircraft. The PAS will be a steerable, 600 kg, four-wheel cart with a 400-volt battery pack to power the propulsion systems being tested. The 600 kg weight of the PAS matches the gross weight limit for Light Sport Aircraft because future 2-seat Sky Taxis are expected to be of similar weight. Competing teams will supply propulsion systems consisting of propellers, propeller spinners, propeller shaft extensions, motors, support struts, span-wise mounting structure, and controllers whose combined weight is ≤ 135 kg and that can be quickly installed onto the specified bolt pattern/mounting points on the PAS. Because propeller noise is proportional to power, to conduct a fair low-noise propeller competition demands that the noise of each team’s propulsion system be measured at a prescribed level of power under realistic and relevant conditions. This can be accomplished by the following sequence of steps:

1. Define 0.3 G’s and 72.4-88.5 kph (45-55 mph), respectively, as the minimum acceleration and speed at which all competing propulsion systems’ noise will be measured. (These figures are commensurate with the expected “Sky Taxi Take Off Requirements” described below.) 2. In succession, mount each team’s propulsion system onto the PAS. 3. The PAS will be ballasted on the CAFE Scales to have identical weight during all competition attempts, which will be made on Runway 19 at STS in winds not to exceed 8 kph (5 mph).

22 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4. Use the GFC II Wheel Motor competition’s quiet, electric-powered Runway Acceleration Simulator (RAS) to push the PAS up to a speed of 64.4 kph (40 mph) on the airport runway. At the proper moment, aggressively apply brakes on the RAS to release the rolling PAS as its propeller activates to accelerate the PAS into the 72.4-88.5 kph (45-55 mph) speed interval. Position this release point such that the PAS reaches the 72.4-88.5 kph (45-55 mph) speed interval during its pass through the runway array of noise measurement microphones. 5. Verify that the PAS achieved and maintained ≥ 0.3 G’s throughout its 72.4-88.5 kph (45-55 mph) run within the microphone array zone. 6. Average the peak dBA readings from each pair of microphones that are symmetrically located on opposite sides of the runway and use the loudest of these averages to determine that team’s dBA level at the 38.1 meter (125 foot) distance. 7. Convert the dBA level at 38.1 meter (125 foot) into the distance at which the noise would have measured 65 dBA. That 65 dBA distance is the team’s score, and the shorter the distance the better.

Image 10. Runway 19 STS Microphone Array.

The microphone array will consist of calibrated, identical, traceable noise measurement microphones, each placed on a tripod symmetrically situated at 4 stations on both sides of the runway at sideline distances of either

Figure 5. Propeller Acoustics Simulator.

23 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

19.05 (62.5 feet) or 38.1 meter (125 feet) from the centerline of Runway 19 at STS. See Image 10. Calculations show that a steady acceleration of 0.30 G will accelerate the PAS from 72.4 kph (45 mph) to 88.5 kph (55 mph) in 1.035 seconds over a distance of 15.8 meters (51.75 feet). If the PAS weighs 600 kg, such acceleration will also enable the necessary climb performance for a pocket airport and will require 104.6 kW if we assume 70% propeller efficiency and 94% efficiency for both motor and controller. The PAS battery pack will be capable of providing up to 160 kW of power for periods of about 10 seconds, a duration that should be sufficient for all teams. Two identical PASs will be used. This allows one PAS to be fitted and weighed with the next team’s propulsion system while the other PAS is on the runway being noise-tested. Each PAS can have a spare battery pack undergoing recharging while it performs its noise runs. These packs will supply high C-rate battery power of 400 Volts and 15 kWh for each team’s propulsion system. Low Propeller Noise Feasibility: Analysis of propeller noise theory predicts that ultra-quiet propellers are possible. See Fig. 6.

Figure 6. Propeller Noise and Thrust. It is anticipated that future Sky Taxis will have their initial take off acceleration from 0 kph to 72.4 kph (45 mph) be driven by nearly silent electric wheel motors rather than by propeller thrust. Such wheel motors are the goal of GFC II. Sky Taxis are expected to have stall speeds of just 51.5 kph (32 mph) CAS and to have take off lift-off speeds of 72.4 kph (45 mph). However, as the Sky Taxi reaches 72.4 kph (45 mph) and then becomes airborne, its propeller(s) must maintain its ultra-quiet noise level while delivering the excess thrust necessary to climb at a steep angle. This is the reason that no less than 0.3 G’s of continuous acceleration from 72.4 kph (45 mph) to 88.5 kph (55 mph) is demanded during GFC III noise tests. The noise of two opposite 19.05 meter distance (62.5 foot) mics will be averaged, as will the noise of the two opposite 38.1 meter distance (125 foot) mics. The loudest of these opposing mic noise averages from the 4 mic stations along the runway length will determine the official noise score for each team. In order to be eligible to win any of the CGFC III prize money, a team’s propulsion unit must emit ≤ 65 dBA average noise at all of the microphones at the 38.1 meter (125 foot) sideline.

Summary of CGFC III Requirements: 1. total weight of team’s propulsion unit must be ≤ 135 kg; 2. team’s unit must satisfy CAFE safety and load testing prior to competing; 3. team’s unit must fit inside a box that is 3.35 m (11’) tall x 6.4 m (21’) span x 1.83 m (6’) deep; 4. 400V at 400 amps max power allowed. (160 kW input); 5. design freeze once competition begins; no later modifications to propeller; 6. one button operation: hit “Go” and controller takes over prop’s operation;

24 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

7. score according to equivalent noise distance as derived from average of peak dBAs; 8. noise ≤ 65 dBA at all of the 125 foot sideline mics; 9. two runs in the same direction, dry pavement with wind ≤ 8 kph (5 mph); 10. 0.3048 m (12 inch) propeller tip ground clearance required; 11. 3.048 m (10 foot) maximum diameter for any propeller(s); 12. multiple propellers allowed, including ducted fans, co-axial, counter-rotating; 13. standard bolt pattern for mounting team units to PAS.

XXVII. CGFC IV: Autonomous Sky Taxis Autonomous flight technology already exists in military use, and is becoming cheaper, lighter, more miniaturized, and more precise each year. In CGFC IV, small civil aircraft will be required to perform autonomously (without any physical intervention by the Safety Pilot(s)) a series of tasks essential to safe operations at pocket airports. Points will be given for each task in proportion to its difficulty and the precision with which it is performed. These tasks are chosen because they are the ones that GA accident statistics (e.g., Nall Report, NTSB) indicate as most subject to human error, and/or are those that future Sky Taxis must perform routinely. The tasks include:

1) autonomous navigation; 2) autonomous taxiing, take off, and pin-point landing; 3) automated enhanced vision capable of ‘detect and avoid’ for ground and air traffic; 4) envelope protection; 5) precision 4D trajectory management with fly-by-wire throttle; 6) precision simulated ‘engine-out’ landing at a virtual airport (“Runway-in-the-Sky” or RITS).

Team aircraft will be required to use an “autonomous flight system” (AFS) to accomplish these tasks and will have a mechanical stick and rudder control system that allows either of its on-board Safety Pilots to override the AFS. The planned sequence for the performance of the essential tasks of GFC IV, which may be modified as technologies advance in the next 4 years, is as follows:

1. CAFE will supply each team with a defined 4D required trajectory that is in a pre-published, digital data format. Teams must be able to easily upload this file to their AFS, which must then use its coordinates and instructions to perform the flight tasks below while following that trajectory. 2. Each aircraft will be equipped with a CAFE-supplied GPS track recording system whose clock time is synchronized to those of CAFE officials, pilots of official simulated traffic aircraft and the CAFE video recorders mounted on-board each aircraft. 3. A NOTAM and/or TFR for the airspace to be used for the GFC IV’s 4D trajectory corridor will be placed in effect for the period of time during which GFC IV flights are conducted. 4. In day VFR conditions and after pre-flight inspection, each team’s two Safety Pilots will board their team aircraft and fasten their seatbelts. Their aircraft will be towed to the hold bars of the prescribed runway at STS to await further instructions. 5. After CAFE obtains FAA tower clearance for take off, CAFE officials will guide the team Safety Pilot(s) to manually position their aircraft at an exact starting ‘position and hold’ location on the runway. The official CAFE Flagman there on the side of the runway will signal by waving a large Green flag the moment at which the pilots must push a single button to launch their team aircraft into its autonomous prescribed 4D trajectory. Take off precision will be graded. (4 pts) 6. After take off, team aircraft will then autonomously fly the prescribed 4D trajectory. That trajectory will include turns, climbs, and descents that are to be performed at specific prescribed times relative to the time of brake release and based upon the known speed envelope of the team aircraft (a 4D path). Precision will be graded. (12 pts) 7. Next, the aircraft will enter a Simulated Traffic Zone (STZ) in which it must use on-board electronic sensors, receivers and avionics to detect and autonomously avoid one or more converging, non-cooperative air traffic arranged by CAFE. If the AFSs automated avoidance maneuvers do not produce and maintain ≥ 0.4 km (0.25 mile) separation, the Safety Pilots must intervene to produce that separation. The on-board sensors may include any, including radar, ADS-B, camera, MMW, UV scanner, etc. Deliberate traffic encounters in the STZ will be announced on the CAFE aircraft communications frequency as traffic advisories so that Safety Pilots can know where to look for the traffic. Maximum credit in points score will

25 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

be for automatic detection and avoidance with ≥ 610 meter (2000 foot) horizontal and ≥ 152.4 meter (500 foot) vertical separation without any Safety Pilot intervention. (8 pts) 8. Perform a ‘pinpoint’ landing as close as possible to a location of known lat-lon that is marked with a “T” on the runway of a nearby, non-tower controlled airport. Credit in proportion to landing precision. The overall average speed from take off brake release to this actual landing touchdown must be ≥ 144.8 kph (90 mph). (8 pts) 9. After landing and turning off of the runway, perform a precision autonomous taxiing to the terminus of the prescribed 4D trajectory at the specified lat-lon point on the parking ramp of the non-tower airport and autonomously shut down the aircraft’s propulsion unit. (4 pts). Upload a new 3D trajectory file to the aircraft’s AFS at this time. 10. In accordance with the new 3D trajectory file, autonomously taxi to the prescribed hold bar point near the runway assigned in that 3D trajectory and await take off clearance from the CAFE Ground Crew and Flagman. (4 pts) 11. The CAFE Flagman will indicate by waving a large Green flag the moment at which the pilots must, by pushing just one button, launch their team aircraft into its new autonomous 3D trajectory. (4 pts) 12. Upon reaching the 1219 meters (4000 feet) AGL portion of the new 3D trajectory, perform a simulated landing including a downwind, base-leg and final approach to the prescribed virtual “Runway-in-the-Sky” (RITS). Terminate this landing attempt when 50 feet above the virtual runway by performing a simulated “go-around” maneuver. (8 pts) 13. Upon re-attaining the 1219 meters (4000 feet) AGL altitude, perform a simulated ‘engine-out’ landing on the same RITS, including turning off the aircraft’s propulsion system during the downwind portion of the pattern. Complete this virtual landing with a power-off ‘landing flare’ without stall at exactly the known altitude of the virtual RITS. Precision will be graded. Re-attain 1219 meters (4000 feet) AGL after this virtual landing. (12 pts) 14. Safety Pilot will deliberately intervene to place the aircraft into an unusual attitude (e.g. a 60° steep climbing turn that would lead to a stall if not corrected) and then release the manual controls and allow the aircraft’s envelope protection automation recover the aircraft to straight and level flight. (4 pts) 15. Proceed back to STS in accordance with the 3D trajectory and, after the Safety Pilot obtains landing clearance from the STS tower, perform an autonomous pinpoint landing as close as possible to the exactly specified lat-lon that is marked with a “T” on the runway at STS. (8 pts) 16. During precision-graded taxiing to return to the CAFE Flight Test Center in daylight, detect and avoid a simulated obstacle on the taxiway; (4 pts) 17. Repeat runway ground obstacle avoidance at night; (8 pts) 18. Perform engine shutdown autonomously upon stopping at a precise lat-lon location at CAFE. (2 pts)

In order to be eligible for the prize money, team aircraft must achieve ≥ 50% of points credit for each of the above task numbers 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Maximum points credit for each task is shown in parenthesis. Maximum possible total points = 90 pts.

Summary of CGFC IV Requirements: 1. electric propulsion only (CAFE eTotalizer installed); 2. ballistic parachute; 3. FAA licensed aircraft beyond Phase I Experimental; 4. two seats side-by-side with 90.7 kg (200 lb) per seat payload; 5. surface obstacle detection and avoidance; 6. precision autonomous navigation, both in air and on ground; 7. uncooperative airborne traffic detection and avoidance by any of several means (camera, radar, ADS-B, MMW, laser-scanning, etc.); 8. dual stick and rudder mechanical flight controls that can over-ride autonomous controls with automatic re- engagement of autonomous control; 9. two Safety Pilots aboard; 10. no threshold requirements for take off distance, noise or MPG; 11. autonomously fly a prescribed course in 3D and 4D; 12. 160.9 km (100 mile) range at cruise power with 30 min reserve; 13. average speed of ≥ 144.8 kph (90 mph) for the 4D trajectory flight; 14. cockpit dual videocam recording of pilot actions; 26 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

15. AFS capable of up-loading and executing prescribed 4D and 3D trajectories.

XXVIII. CGFC V: Fast-ESTOL Historically, fixed-wing aircraft that can fly at just 51.5 kph (32 mph) have been aircraft with very low wing loadings and large wetted areas, which have constrained them to rather slow cruising speeds. Exceptions that achieve high cruising speeds while still being capable of flying at just 51.5 kph (32 mph) have typically demanded very high power, which has made them very noisy aircraft that would be unacceptable at pocket airports. Yet results from the GFC I suggest that ultra-quiet fast-ESTOL performance is possible in electric-powered aircraft if high technology is applied to their structure and lift augmentation systems. See Fig. 7.

Figure 7. Stall Speed (Vso) vs. CLmax. The red X in the graph above indicates that a low-drag aircraft that achieves a maximum lift coefficient (CLmax) of 4.4 will be able to deliver both a 32 mph stall speed and a 165 mph top speed. In CGFC V, small, ultra-quiet, electric-powered aircraft will be required to demonstrate level controlled flight at 51.5 kph (32 mph) CAS and then compete according to their maximum level flight speed, as demonstrated on a 3 km NAA sanctioned course. The purpose of this competition is to bring forth ultra-quiet aircraft that optimally combine these two inherently conflicting capabilities (slow flight and high speed) because such combined capabilities are essential for Sky Taxis to operate at pocket airports. Because slow-flight operations close to the ground can be hazardous, the GFC V demonstration of slow flight at 51.5 kph (32 mph) CAS will be conducted at 1219.2 meters (4000 feet) AGL by aircraft equipped with ballistic recovery parachutes and that have with 2 qualified pilots aboard. To assure that such slow flight is not achieved with unacceptable noise emissions, team aircraft in GFC V will also be required to perform low-noise fly-bys over the runway at 72.4 kph (45 mph) CAS during which their noise must remain below 65 dBA as measured 38.1 meters (125 feet) below the aircraft. This margin of 20.9+ kph (13+ mph) above their demonstrated 51.5 kph (32 mph) minimum speed is considered safe for fly-by operation at 38.1 meters (125 feet) AGL. The aircraft must also be able to repeatedly reproduce any necessary configuration changes that are used for its transition from slow flight to maximum speed flight.

Summary of CGFC V Requirements: 1. electric propulsion only (CAFE eTotalizer installed); 2. ballistic parachute; 3. FAA licensed aircraft beyond Phase I Experimental; 4. two seats side-by-side with 90.7 kg (200 lb) per seat payload; 5. no requirements for range, take off distance or MPG;

27 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

6. 30 minute flight endurance; 7. two Safety Pilots on board during flight attempts; 8. demonstrate level flight at ≤ 51.5 kph (32 mph) CAS while performing a 360° turn; 9. demonstrate ≤ 65 dBA noise emission at 38.1 meters (125 feet) radius in 72.4 kph (45 mph) CAS fly-by; 10. maximum level flight speed of ≥ 193.1 kph (120 mph).

XXIX. CGFC VI: The Sky Taxi In CGFC VI, the finale in Sky Taxi development, small, ultra-quiet, electric-powered Sky Taxis from competing teams will be required to demonstrate the combined capabilities essential for them to operate at pocket airports. The GFC VI demonstration flights will be conducted in day VFR conditions at 4000 feet AGL by aircraft equipped with ballistic recovery parachutes and that have with two qualified safety pilots aboard. After qualifying, each Sky Taxi will perform 2 flight attempts—the first to achieve maximum “passenger kilometers per gallon” (pKmPG) while still achieving an average speed of ≥ 193.1 kph (120 mph), and the second flight to achieve maximum kph while still achieving ≥ 321.8 pKmPG. To help assure that such flights are safely conducted, a NOTAM and/or TFR will be issued for the flight area. To be eligible to win, team aircraft must fulfill all of the below listed requirements. The score of each team’s Sky Taxi will be computed by the following formula, the same one used for the successful GFC I, using its maximum achieved average speed and energy efficiency from its 2 flight attempts:

1/((1/kph) + (2/pKmPG)) Eq. (1)

Summary of CGFC VI Requirements: 1. electric propulsion only (CAFE eTotalizer installed); 2. ballistic vehicle parachute; 3. FAA licensed aircraft beyond Phase I Experimental; 4. two seats side-by-side with 90.7 kg (200 lb) per seat payload; 5. average flight speed of ≥ 193.1 kph (120 mph) on both flight attempts; 6. range: ≥ 321.8 km (200 statute miles) on both flight attempts; 7. take off distance of ≤ 128 m (420 feet) over a 38.1 m (125 foot) obstacle; 8. energy efficiency: ≥ 321.8 pKmPG (200 pMPG) on both flight attempts; 9. noise emissions on take off: ≤ 65 dBA at 38.1 m (125 foot) sideline distance; 10. fully autonomous 4D flight (taxiing, take off, and landing) on both flight attempts; 11. two Safety Pilots on board during each flight attempt.

XXX. Maximizing Participation And Progress Team membership policy: CAFE conducted three NASA Centennial Challenges with the NASA-established policy that the Team Leader must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident of the U.S., while Team Members could be foreign nationals from any country. CAFE believes that this is a good policy, for the following reasons:

1. To limit Team Membership exclusively to U.S. citizens would likely cause European and/or Asian nations to conduct a similarly closed event to whose designs and ideas America would have no access. 2. The GFC I showed that foreign efforts in piloted electric aircraft are more advanced than those in the USA. CAFE would not have compiled the valuable information about these pioneering foreign aircraft if they or their team members had been prohibited from competing in the GFC I. 3. The best and fastest evolution takes place when the gene pool is the most diverse. The same applies to ideas and technology. 4. The U.S. should seize the opportunity to become the hub of aviation’s future for the same reason that countries compete strenuously to be the one country that gets to host the Olympics. 5. Welcoming foreign participants to the collegial environment that commonly occurs at technology prize competitions such as GFC I is an effective way to develop world cooperation and education. 6. If foreign nationals had not been allowed to participate in GFC I, there would have been no eligible aircraft in the competition and no winners to demonstrate the historic breakthrough in electric flight.

28 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

XXXI. Budget Summary Of CGFCP

Table 2. CGFCP Proposed Budget

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Procurement CGFCP Budget CAFE CAFE CAFE CAFE CAFE CAFE purse Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses Expenses GFC II Wheel Motor 1,000,000 482,441 0 0 0 0 482,441 GFC III Ultra Quiet 2,000,000 283,002 239,787 0 0 0 522,789 Propulsion GFC IV Autonomous Flight 3,000,000 259,200 0 239,787 0 0 498,987 GFC V Fast-ESTOL 3,000,000 0 0 0 239,787 0 239,787 GFC VI Sky Taxi: The finale 4,500,000 0 0 0 0 239,787 239,787 TOTALS 13,500,000 1,024,643 239,787 239,787 239,787 239,787 1,983,791

Ea. 500,000 400,000 300,000 150,000 500,000 1,850,000 Grad Students Support 50,000/yr. CAFE cost sharing 1,800,000 contribution Total CAFE expenses 1,983,791 Ave. annual CAFE expenses 396,759

Annual event cost of CGFCP 239,787

XXXII. Timeline It is of the utmost importance that all CGFCP missions be guaranteed funding at the outset in order to stimulate timely and concurrent development of complex later stage achievements. The timeline for the CGFCP necessarily depends upon how soon it can be funded. Ideally, if funded by promptly, CGFC II, can take place 16 months after CGFCP rules are published and each subsequent mission of the CGFCP could then take place 1 year later.

XXXIII. Conclusion The CGFCP offers a unique opportunity to rapidly advance America’s future transportation system with a well- conceived, concerted technology prize program that aligns with DOE, OSTP, NASA, EPA, IPCC, and FAA goals and the NASA-predicted future of aviation. Global environmental, and economic conditions compel urgency in launching the CGFCP. The all-volunteer CAFE Foundation has the experience, personnel, facilities, record of safety, industry connections, and commitment uniquely suited to complete the important and valuable missions of the CGFCP within 68 months of its announcement. The thresholds of breakthrough performance demanded by each of those missions appear feasible. The economic impact and business case favoring a Sky Taxi system of transportation both appear reasonable according to previous experience with technology prizes and historical instances of the emergence of new, faster modes of affordable transportation. Several valuable graduate theses in STEM fields can be an integral part of the CGFCP. The 18 listed potential benefits of the CGFCP are of both national and global significance and emphasize its extremely high return on investment, making it worthy of consideration as one of America’s Grand Challenges.

29 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Commemoration On The CAFE Green Flight Challenge Trophy

Each of the CGFCP mission First Place winners will be worthy of a place on the CAFE Green Flight Challenge Trophy, whose photo is shown above with Professor Jack Langelaan, winner of the GFC I.

APPENDIX A: RAS, Axle Bolt Pattern, Wheel Motor

30 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

APPENDIX B: Sample Pocket Airports

A land parcel as small as 1 hectare (2.47 acres) can provide the necessary 128 meter (420 foot) long runway for Sky Taxis, and such parcels can be readily found close-in to developed areas. Pocket airports could be fit into the noise buffer areas at large hub airports, and, thanks to Sky Taxi quietness, could host operations that stayed entirely beneath the established approach and departure paths at those hubs. FAA airport noise studies indicate a need to keep CNEL below 60 dBA at the airport’s boundary.19

The image below indicates the places in San Francisco where Sky Taxis could use one of ten potential pocket airports to deliver passengers to within 2 miles of their destination doorstep.

31 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

APPENDIX C: General Aviation in Decline FAA statistics for medium-sized regional airports over the period of 1991 to 2010 have shown a marked reduction in the number of GA flight operations. The graphs below indicate this trend and are consistent with the broader findings of the September 24, 2012 OIG report on Civil Aviation, which indicates a 36% reduction in GA activity in the last 4 years. Companies in China have purchased America’s core GA manufacturers Piper, Cirrus and Beechcraft while Mooney Aircraft has ceased production of its M20 series of aircraft. America’s 5000 or more public use airports are starkly underutilized.

General Aviation's Rapid Decline General Aviation's Rapid Decline FAA OPSNET data FAA OPSNET data 180 90000

150 B B B 80000 B B B B B B 160 58.3% drop B B B B 70000 130 B 140 B 60000 B B B B 56% B B B B BDrop 110 B B 50000 B B B B 120 B B 40000 B B 90 B 100 B 30000 B 20000 B Flight Operations, x 1000 Flight Operations, x 1000 70 80

B 10000 Population Growth B B 60 0 50 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Year Year Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field Sonoma County Airport, California

Acknowledgments B.A.S. author is particularly indebted to the following CAFE Foundation Board members for their ideas, research, advice and innovations that contributed to this paper: Dr. Larry Ford, Stephen Williams, Johanna Dempsey, Mike Fenn, Alan Soule, John Palmerlee, Wayne Cook, Bruno Mombrinie and Kevin Quirk. Valuable editing was provided by Anne E. Seeley. The name “pocket airport” was originated by Ellen Seeley. Significant contributions were also made by the late Dr. Paul MacCready of Aerovironment, Damon Seeley of Electroland.net, Dean Sigler, Alfred Scott of Sequoia Aircraft and his Benchmark software, NASA Chief Scientist Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA Langley’s Ken Goodrich and the late NASA aeroacoustician Feri Farassat, Climate Scientist Dr. Ben Santer, David Calley of Planet-Rider, Mike Ricci of Launchpoint Technologies, Dr. Case Dam of UC Davis, George Happ of Matco Wheels, Bill Dube and Eva Hakansson of Killacycle, Blaine Rawdon of Boeing, Google, Inc., several employees of the FAA and NASA and Dr. Werner Wilcke of IBM labs. Information and inspiration was drawn from all of the teams that competed in the GFC I and the many esteemed faculty who have participated in the CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposia I-VI.

References And Bibliography 1 Kalil, Thomas, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Grand Innovation Challenges of the 21st Century”, April 2012, URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/12/grand-challenges-and-what-if 2Hodges, James, “An Unleashed Look at Aviation”, NASA Researcher News, October 10, 2010, URL: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_avunleashed.html All workgroups at NASA’s Aviation Unleashed Conference in October 2010 agreed that new air vehicles will emerge that will offer personal, air-taxi and air-freight service that is safer than present-day airliners and that can provide “intra-urban and intra-city transportation to avoid ground congestion”. These will necessarily operate at close-in pocket airports where ultra-quiet, extremely short take off, and landing (ESTOL) capabilities will be absolute requirements. 3Eggers, William D., and Baker, Laura, Governing, “Intentionally Unreasonable Government”, March 14, 2012, URL: http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/col-government-transformation-disruptive-hypothesis.html

32 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4Farivar, Cyrus, Arstechnica, May 7, 2012, “Google gets license to test drive autonomous cars on Nevada roads”, URL: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/google-gets-license-to-test-drive-autonomous-cars-on-nevada-roads/ 5Kalil, Tom, and Dorgelo, Cristin, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy “Identifying Steps Forward in Use of Prizes to Spur Innovation”, April 10, 2012, URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/10/identifying-steps-forward-use- prizes-spur-innovation 6Christenson, C.M., The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business, Harper Collins Publishers, N.Y., 2011, page xiv-xiv. 7OIG’s September 24, 2012 Report on Aviation Industry Performance, URL: http://www.oig.dot.gov/node/5948 8U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Highway Profile, 2012, URL: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_highway_profile.html 9U.S. DOT FHWA, Traffic Congestion and Reliability, 2012, URL; http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter3.htm 10U.S. DOT FHWA, Traffic Congestion Trends, 2012, URL: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter3.htm 11Wikipedia, “Marchetti’s Constant”, May, 2012, URL: This figure is now 100 minutes, URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti%27s_constant 12Keaten, Jamey, Yahoo News, December 5, 2011, “Paris to Launch Electric Car Sharing Program”, URL: http://news.yahoo.com/paris-launch-electric-car-sharing-program-151608561.html 13U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, RITA, 2012, URL: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/ 14Urban Times, Principles, Project for Public Spaces, September, 2012, URL: http://urbantimes.co/2012/09/10-ways-to- improve-your-city-through-public-space/ 15NASA PAV Simulation Effort, RhinoCorps Ltd. Study, September 2005, URL: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_tech/SATS.demographs/PAV.RhinoCorps.Simulation.pdf 16FAA FICAN Study, 2011, Appendix B, URL: http://www.fican.org/pdf/faa/ResearchWorkshopSynthesis_Report.pdf 17Scherer, Glenn, and DailyClimate.org, Scientific American, “Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative”, December 6, 2012, URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative 18CAFE Foundation Board Members’ resumes, URL: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/aboutcafe_main.php 19Ibid. 16 above.

33 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics