Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 23, 10:36*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.

I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.

I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.

What do you mean by "current technology"?

Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.

A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
$50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
possibility of pre-built aircraft.

So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
would obviate many other expensive components.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 23, 12:33 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.

I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.

I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.

What do you mean by "current technology"?

Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.

A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
$50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
possibility of pre-built aircraft.

So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
would obviate many other expensive components.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

It's likely computer assisted controls would allow ga airplanes to be
flown safely with center of lift and center of gravity coincident. For
airplanes with otherwise existing technology that might be as much as
a 10% improvement in range. There's another few percent, but only
that, with pusher propellers. Both of these 'improvements' have not
overcome serious counter arguments.


Start with people who are concerned with most effective/efficient
airplane configurations, those beautiful things called gliders. Long
small chord wings, laminar everything, and if you want instant
funding, talk to them. Give them a 30% reduction in drag and money
will flow in.

But you can't do that. You're all type, you have given no evidence you
can do more than that,

I've done some serious research -- REAL research -- on pilotless
extended range airplanes flying at 500 km/hr or less, and can't find
anything that approaches a 20% improvement over the drones the air
force is flying now. Maybe a new Skunkworks is out there doing
something (or maybe Scaled Composites is -- now that is serious
competition!!) but a maybe EE from maybe Austin (there is a Paris in
Texas) who has demonstrated no skills is not where I'd choose to place
my bet.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.

I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.


Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.


I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.

What do you mean by "current technology"?

Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.


Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.


No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.


A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
$50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
possibility of pre-built aircraft.

So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
would obviate many other expensive components.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

What are you going to replace the ICE with? And don't forget. It is
going to have to be MANY, MANY times for efficient because unlike
aircraft you are going to have to make this thing street legal which
means weight.

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.

I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.


Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.


I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.

What do you mean by "current technology"?

Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.


Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.


No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.

The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.

Assume $50k for the engine and controls.

Assume $40k for the avionics.

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 23, 2:55*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:





Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft..
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.

I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.

Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.
I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.

What do you mean by "current technology"?
Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.

Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. *As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.

No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.

The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.

Assume $50k for the engine and controls.

Assume $40k for the avionics.

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Then I'll ask you again. What will the engine be?

And I'll agree that there is no reason other than the cost of
certification that the price of avionics can't be lower. Happens already
all the time.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:55?pm, wrote:


The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.

Assume $50k for the engine and controls.

Assume $40k for the avionics.

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
issue.

All you have to do is magically find a cheap engine that doesn't
exist to power it and cheap materials and assembly processes that don't
exist to build the airframe.

Note that the airframe is by far the most expensive component and
airframe parts and skin can't be made from recycled microprocessors.

If you have a magic wand, it is all trivial.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 23, 4:35*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
issue.

I recently read that an upgrade to the G1000 for syntethic terrain was
$10,000. Does this seem right? Just curious.

All you have to do is magically find a cheap engine that doesn't
exist to power it and cheap materials and assembly processes that don't
exist to build the airframe.

Note that the airframe is by far the most expensive component and
airframe parts and skin can't be made from recycled microprocessors.

Thanks.

If you have a magic wand, it is all trivial.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:35?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
issue.

I recently read that an upgrade to the G1000 for syntethic terrain was
$10,000. Does this seem right? Just curious.

What makes you doubt that price?

When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.

There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
yet-to-be-invented avionics. What seems silly and quite pointless is
arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
might cost.