Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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?

Yes.

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.

And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.

The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

You have convinced me of one thing though, you are a childish, naive,
idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 21, 10:05*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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?

Yes.





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.

And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.

The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.

In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:05?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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?

Yes.





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.

And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.

The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.

In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

No, that is not known, and to become a commondity the price has to get
down to the level of a microwave oven, which is never going to happen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 22, 10:55*am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.
But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.
In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

No, that is not known, and to become a commondity the price has to get
down to the level of a microwave oven, which is never going to happen.

It would be hard, indeed, to bring cost of PAV too few hundred US
dollars.

But many people would be willing to pay the same for a PAV as they
would for their automobile.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:55?am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.
But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.
In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

No, that is not known, and to become a commondity the price has to get
down to the level of a microwave oven, which is never going to happen.

It would be hard, indeed, to bring cost of PAV too few hundred US
dollars.

But many people would be willing to pay the same for a PAV as they
would for their automobile.

A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
then it would be difficult to achieve.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 22, 12:35 pm, wrote:
A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
then it would be difficult to achieve.

There is a way, but it involves two things: Simplicity and
personal responsibility. Simplicity of construction so that there
isn't a bunch of stuff that's not necessary to achieve safe flight,
and personal responsibility that accepts that there's personal risk in
flying and holds the manufacturer only to safe construction and
performance parameters, so he's not required to charge so much more
for an airplane than it's really worth just so that he can buy huge
amounts of insurance to protect himself from greedy lawyers and stupid
juries and incompetent pilots who blame everyone else for their own
mistakes.
There really isn't much to a basic airplane like a Citabria
or Cessna 150. Much of its value is tied up in the engine and
instruments, both necessary, and radios, some of which are not all
that necessary. The manufacturers of those things also have to charge
far more than the inherent value of these items because they get sued,
too . The mechanic has to buy lots of insurance, and so does the
airport operator and the fuel provider and so on. Costs get way beyond
reason. Until society gets fed up enough to do something concrete
about it, nothing will change, even with an "affordable PAV" which
itself would make things even worse just by allowing even more
incompetent people into the air. Just look at the deaths of people
using jet-skis or Quads and how their manufacturers have to insure
themselves.
If we can buy a brand-new automobile, a vehicle that is far
more complex than a Cessna 150, for around $15K, we should be able to
buy the much simpler airplane for the same price. But we can't because
airplanes kill the unwary much more readily and their owners or
passengers or the survivors of the owners are qick to capitalize on
the losses. Technology is not the answer to lowering costs; simplicity
and responsibility are.

Dan

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:35 pm, wrote:
A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
then it would be difficult to achieve.

There is a way, but it involves two things: Simplicity and
personal responsibility. Simplicity of construction so that there
isn't a bunch of stuff that's not necessary to achieve safe flight,
and personal responsibility that accepts that there's personal risk in
flying and holds the manufacturer only to safe construction and
performance parameters, so he's not required to charge so much more
for an airplane than it's really worth just so that he can buy huge
amounts of insurance to protect himself from greedy lawyers and stupid
juries and incompetent pilots who blame everyone else for their own
mistakes.
There really isn't much to a basic airplane like a Citabria
or Cessna 150. Much of its value is tied up in the engine and
instruments, both necessary, and radios, some of which are not all
that necessary. The manufacturers of those things also have to charge
far more than the inherent value of these items because they get sued,
too . The mechanic has to buy lots of insurance, and so does the
airport operator and the fuel provider and so on. Costs get way beyond
reason. Until society gets fed up enough to do something concrete
about it, nothing will change, even with an "affordable PAV" which
itself would make things even worse just by allowing even more
incompetent people into the air. Just look at the deaths of people
using jet-skis or Quads and how their manufacturers have to insure
themselves.
If we can buy a brand-new automobile, a vehicle that is far
more complex than a Cessna 150, for around $15K, we should be able to
buy the much simpler airplane for the same price. But we can't because
airplanes kill the unwary much more readily and their owners or
passengers or the survivors of the owners are qick to capitalize on
the losses. Technology is not the answer to lowering costs; simplicity
and responsibility are.

Well, I mostly agree with all that.

The LSA is about as unregulated and as simple as airplanes are going
to get and most of them are over a $100k delivered.

The automobile equivelant to a LSA costs about $15k delivered.

There is little that can be done about a litigious society past maybe
adopting the system that the loser pays the winners costs and limiting
the percentage the lawyers get.

And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
build.

With sufficient volume, you could possibly be able to cover the cost
of mechinery to automate composite structures and get the assembly
costs down, but that would imply that that one particular airfame
model is selling in huge numbers, which isn't going to happen.

If you are going to compare airplane manufacturing costs to automobile
manufacturing costs, you need to compare a car built like airplanes
are built, such as the Morgan, which isn't much of a car and starts
at about $80k US, not a Honda Civic.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:35 pm, wrote:
A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
then it would be difficult to achieve.

There is a way, but it involves two things: Simplicity and
personal responsibility. Simplicity of construction so that there
isn't a bunch of stuff that's not necessary to achieve safe flight,
and personal responsibility that accepts that there's personal risk in
flying and holds the manufacturer only to safe construction and
performance parameters, so he's not required to charge so much more
for an airplane than it's really worth just so that he can buy huge
amounts of insurance to protect himself from greedy lawyers and stupid
juries and incompetent pilots who blame everyone else for their own
mistakes.
There really isn't much to a basic airplane like a Citabria
or Cessna 150. Much of its value is tied up in the engine and
instruments, both necessary, and radios, some of which are not all
that necessary. The manufacturers of those things also have to charge
far more than the inherent value of these items because they get sued,
too . The mechanic has to buy lots of insurance, and so does the
airport operator and the fuel provider and so on. Costs get way beyond
reason. Until society gets fed up enough to do something concrete
about it, nothing will change, even with an "affordable PAV" which
itself would make things even worse just by allowing even more
incompetent people into the air. Just look at the deaths of people
using jet-skis or Quads and how their manufacturers have to insure
themselves.
If we can buy a brand-new automobile, a vehicle that is far
more complex than a Cessna 150, for around $15K, we should be able to
buy the much simpler airplane for the same price. But we can't because
airplanes kill the unwary much more readily and their owners or
passengers or the survivors of the owners are qick to capitalize on
the losses. Technology is not the answer to lowering costs; simplicity
and responsibility are.

Dan

That second item screws the idea all to hell.

On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.

In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?

Dan

On Jun 22, 1:14*pm, wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.

In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

* * * Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?

Not sure if they did. I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
in France) for a vehicle that moves slower than the average teenager
can run (~20km/h, 12.5mph) and requires 4-6 hours to charge for a
range of up to 40km.

By contrast, here is a machine that is 1/10 of the cost that does,
with some exceptions, the same thing. With this alternative, unlike
with the segway, the human actually has to balance himself/herself to
keep from falling:

http://urbanscooters.com/cgi-bin/urb...ml?id=7wbs5GVf

The value proposition is a bit hard to swallow. Last year I paid $8100
for a VFR-800, a machine with top speed of 260km/hr, outrageously
generous fun during acceleration and cornering, able to carry a
passenger, and has essentially unlimited range with quick refueling.
It does not do well on cobblestone streets or on sidewalks in city
parks, but, when in such environments, I prefer to walk.

This is why objectivity in assessing the value of the product is
important.

If someone were to make a PAV that did not cost 10x that of a low-end
kit plane, but was roughly in line with cost of automobile, with all
the features outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV, consumers would respond with
purchases (or rentals at least).

-Le Chaud Lapin-