In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


snip old crap


Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no
advantage, what do you think?

I think the opposite.

GA aircraft are neither unstable (nor can they be by regulation) nor
are they big enough to have large control forces.

So what's the advantage?

What will it look like?

Like they do now.

I guess that's reasonable. It is conceivable that typical Cessna willl
look the same in 2108 as it does in 2008.

How about 2508?

Like they do now.

Will the typical Cessna (or whatever dominant GA manufacturer make)
look roughly the same in 2508 as it does in 2008, using essentially
the same mechanical controls (wires, pulleys, bellcranks, etc.)

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
immutable.

Electric staplers are real products that one can buy, however how
many people buy them when the problem at hand is to staple a couple
of sheets of paper every once in a while?

Whiz bang electronic doodads on airplanes are just the same; they
are only bought where there is a justification for the added cost
and complexity.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.