Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:00 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
easier.

How can it be current and advanced at the same time? The changes that
are asked for by NASA/CAFE implie so many differences between what
exists and what would be that the end result would hardly look like a
172.

If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
to some guy in a 172.

The money has to go somewhere. Since no one entered anything better,
they gave it to the 172.

No it didn't. They could have easily said nothing meets the standards we
have set.



Think what they would give if someone actually did something different
than a 172.


So why didn't someone do so?