Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 23, 10:49*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It's a Catch-22. *The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.

You just named three government agencies and a non-profit. By all their
very nature they are designed to blow smoke up the publics collective
ass. Winning the X-Prize isn't what motivated SpaceShipOne into
sub-orbital flight. It was a nice bonus though. The $250,000 prize CAFE
is offering won't even buy and fly one copy of what they are trying to
replace.

You cannot blame them for trying. After all, when DARPA allocates $3
million award for a company or organization to solve a problem, and
the problem is not solved, it is the organization's fault, generally.
The alternative is to fund nothing at all, which will not work,
because someone will come up with the brilliant idea that government
agencies should provide stimulus funding for innovation.

The $300,000 being offered by NASA/CAFE is not a huge amount, true. I
regard it as NASA's way of saying, "if you do your part, we will do
ours."

Last year, the entries into the PAV Challenge were embarrassingly
unimaginative, but the funds were still allocated. I suspect that, if
someone were to actually enter something that looked more like a PAV,
NASA would not be the only agency providing funding. DARPA would
join, etc.

They are waiting for innovators in aviation to do more than introduce
slightly-modified LSA's.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:49 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It's a Catch-22. The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.
You just named three government agencies and a non-profit. By all their
very nature they are designed to blow smoke up the publics collective
ass. Winning the X-Prize isn't what motivated SpaceShipOne into
sub-orbital flight. It was a nice bonus though. The $250,000 prize CAFE
is offering won't even buy and fly one copy of what they are trying to
replace.

You cannot blame them for trying. After all, when DARPA allocates $3
million award for a company or organization to solve a problem, and
the problem is not solved, it is the organization's fault, generally.
The alternative is to fund nothing at all, which will not work,
because someone will come up with the brilliant idea that government
agencies should provide stimulus funding for innovation.

The $300,000 being offered by NASA/CAFE is not a huge amount, true. I
regard it as NASA's way of saying, "if you do your part, we will do
ours."

Last year, the entries into the PAV Challenge were embarrassingly
unimaginative, but the funds were still allocated. I suspect that, if
someone were to actually enter something that looked more like a PAV,
NASA would not be the only agency providing funding. DARPA would
join, etc.

They are waiting for innovators in aviation to do more than introduce
slightly-modified LSA's.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


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. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
to some guy in a 172. And for best handling no less.

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.

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

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting 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.

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

Like what, make the tires out of gummy bears?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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?