Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 21, 6:43*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ...
On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote:

Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.

Hmm..are you sure?

There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:

* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player

The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

That is true for many commodity products.

It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products
starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought
to market.

The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who
purchase the product.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Except for the Pet Rock, which putatively had a low developement cost,
everything on your list had a presumed market more than two orders of
magnetude greater than general aviation. *Further, all are physical
products--so that most of the cost is ongoing materials, production, and
packaging--and most are consumable or disposable products which are sold
multiple times to each customer. *No credible comparison can be drawn
between software and any product on your list--it is like comparing oranges
to sawdust!

I was not making a comparison between software and the products that I
listed.

I was merely pointing out that, if a product is made, before anyone
knows what it is, they will still buy it if they like it, which
obviously can only occur after it has been made and made public.

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I was merely pointing out that, if a product is made, before anyone
knows what it is, they will still buy it if they like it, which
obviously can only occur after it has been made and made public.

If it is trivially cheap compared to income.

And it took years for microwave ovens to become commodity items as
opposed to a toy for the well off.

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

Yeah, the overwhelming sound of "It costs WHAT!!!" and "Are you out
of your mind?".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
...

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Not from me; and from what I have read on this thread, the possible market
in this newsgroup can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Of that small
number, you would be the only one willing to spend money--presuming that you
are willing to do so.

Personally, for the foreseeable future and without any regard for which
costs more money or less, I will continue to be more satisfied with cables
and tie rods than with any plausible firmware and servo solution. The idea
of software on general purpose, or multipurpose, hardware is just too
dangerous to consider--having done a bit of professional maintenance on
workstations, including some on networks, I don't even want to be in the
same county!

Peter

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death multiple times over the last
decade. So, in the event that you are not just trolling, a little effort
with a search engine will yeild a lot of good information.

On Jun 21, 7:58*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ...

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Not from me; and from what I have read on this thread, the possible market
in this newsgroup can be counted on the fingers of one hand. *Of that small
number, you would be the only one willing to spend money--presuming that you
are willing to do so.

Which is why I said what I said in my OP.

Looking at all the links on the web, there is an enormous interest in
PAV's, and a lot of the interest comes from researchers at respected
universities, industry, EAA, DARPA, FAA, DOT, NASA, government-funded
think-tanks, and especially the general public. If a PAV were created
that met the objectives outlined by CAFE, and were low-cost,
automobile, many would buy one.

Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.

Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?

[Also, if anyone knows, is the overall sentiment in r.a.p. toward
PAV's representative of GA pilots as a whole?]

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.


Yet none of them have built such a PAV.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


Is affordable one of the criteria?

On Jun 23, 11:44*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Is affordable one of the criteria?

Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.

A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Is affordable one of the criteria?

Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.

A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

Not ones that make money anyway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 23, 1:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Is affordable one of the criteria?
Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.
A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

Some of the greatest changes in technology were driven people who did
just that.

Not ones that make money anyway.

Many of them turn out to be worth quite a bit.

Also, "managed innovation" is quite expensive.

The most efficient advancements in technologies have historically been
achieved not by entire organizations, but a highly-focused
individuals.

The Internet started that way. At the time, many said that the notion
of packet-based communication vs circuit-based was stupid/inefficient/
risky, etc.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:45?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Is affordable one of the criteria?
Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.
A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

Some of the greatest changes in technology were driven people who did
just that.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

Not ones that make money anyway.

Many of them turn out to be worth quite a bit.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

Also, "managed innovation" is quite expensive.

The most efficient advancements in technologies have historically been
achieved not by entire organizations, but a highly-focused
individuals.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

The Internet started that way. At the time, many said that the notion
of packet-based communication vs circuit-based was stupid/inefficient/
risky, etc.

The Internet started as a government/university project and involved
a LOT of rather large organizations and a HUGE number of people.

Let's add history to the list of things you know nothing about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.