Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com,
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:
No. That's the point of the PC solution. Many of the features I
listed add no weight to the aircraft because they are implemented in
software along with the other 40 or 50 features.

not no but yes. many of the "features" require hardware (seat warmer, massage,
big flat panel displays, digital cameras, laser mount).


Yes, this is true. I mixed hardware and software, since I wanted to
say essentially the same thing about hardware (I was a EE in previous
existence).

Since we're talking about hardware, I when I look at the cockpit of a
Cessna, almost everything is a candidate for roughing. Most of the
controls and indicators can be made soft. And if I chose the hardware
and wrote the code (or reviewd it), I would have no qualms about
letting a computer run my craft.

A computer at the center of control would probably end up reducing the
overall weight.

My gut feeling is that there are other opportunites for optimization
elsewhere in the craft.

It's too bad that no one forms a team of people at the leading edge of
each of their respective fields (energy, mechanics, electrical,
software, aero/astro) to design a new type of craft that makes a clean
break with the run-of-the-mill single-prop planes we are seeing today.

I'm not saying that it is easy but it's not like designing a nuclear
weapon.

Now where is that Flying Car?


-Chaud Lapin-