If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I must ask then, if one were to look at a typical GA aircraft, in the year 2100, in your opinion, will it be as devoid of electro-mechanical controls as it is today? What will it look like? According to my inside source at Spacely Sprockets, it'll look like this : http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n...nrider/jet.gif John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via AviationKB.com http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200806/1 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: The material cost of software is $0. Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous. Market capitalization of Textron: $13.2US billion. Market capitalization of Garmin $9.2US billion. There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead cost, etc. How horrendous can it be? -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name. Probably. *But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. *Which of these do we believe? Nope. Only arm chair physicists disagree. There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3 premier educators in aviation. If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic Newtonian physics, I disagree. Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually exists. That, I cannot do, until it actually exists. Which is why: Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle craft. So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets, rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic Newtonian physics is a settled issue? -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: If history is any indicator, technology becomes cheaper as time moves forward, so whatever it is, it will probably be smaller, cheaper, faster, more reliable, better-featured, disposable (it breaks, no reason to cry as much), etc. None of the technology involved in building airplanes has gotten much cheaper in real dollars since airplanes were invented. There are only so many existing materials you can build an airplane from and they are all mature. The only significant difference is the avionics does more for the same cost. Which implies that, if it does the same (if doing the same is an option), then the cost is less. Perhaps true commoditization has not penetrated the aviation market. There are many ground-based vehicles (cars) that technologically more sophisticated than a new low-end Cessna but cost much less. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name. Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. ?Which of these do we believe? Nope. Only arm chair physicists disagree. There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3 premier educators in aviation. And probably a couple of particle physicists as well. If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic Newtonian physics, I disagree. Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually exists. That, I cannot do, until it actually exists. Which is why: Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle craft. So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets, rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic Newtonian physics is a settled issue? Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle craft. Get it yet? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: The material cost of software is $0. Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous. Market capitalization of Textron: $13.2US billion. Market capitalization of Garmin $9.2US billion. Irrelevant to the cost of software. There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead cost, etc. One more time and I'll type slowly, the cost of reliability testing is not zero. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: If history is any indicator, technology becomes cheaper as time moves forward, so whatever it is, it will probably be smaller, cheaper, faster, more reliable, better-featured, disposable (it breaks, no reason to cry as much), etc. None of the technology involved in building airplanes has gotten much cheaper in real dollars since airplanes were invented. There are only so many existing materials you can build an airplane from and they are all mature. The only significant difference is the avionics does more for the same cost. Which implies that, if it does the same (if doing the same is an option), then the cost is less. It isn't an option. There is no market for 12 channel comm radios. There are many ground-based vehicles (cars) that technologically more sophisticated than a new low-end Cessna but cost much less. And cars are not built in quatities of a few hundred tops a year nor does every little piece in them have to be certified. Well, there are a couple of low volume cars that cost about the same as a low end Cessna, to be totally accurate. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 7:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name. Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. ?Which of these do we believe? Nope. Only arm chair physicists disagree. There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3 premier educators in aviation. And probably a couple of particle physicists as well. If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic Newtonian physics, I disagree. Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually exists. That, I cannot do, until it actually exists. Which is why: Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle craft. So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets, rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic Newtonian physics is a settled issue? Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle craft. Are you 100% certain of this? -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote: Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle craft. Are you 100% certain of this? An airplanes flys because it is moving through the air. The only existing way to cause an airplane to move through the air and continue to move through the air is to accelerate gas. There are a limited number of existing ways to accelerate gas: 1) Rockets: Not practical for aircraft 2) Propellors: Currently widely used. 3) Turbines: Not practical for GA aircraft, widely used on bigger aircraft 4) Ion wind: Not practical for anything What turns the propellor is irrelevant. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In article ,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote: I agree. Safety is paramount. Computers, with proper discipline on behalf of the designer, can be programmed to speak up when they are sick or think there is a chance that they could be sick. They can even help in complaining about potential future faults in mechanical components. For example, using raw data such as temperture, humidity, pressure, fuel mixture, and power-output, a computer very easily can calculate probability of carb icing. There is an essentially unlimited number of things that a computer can assisst with in flying that comes at no real material cost beyond having put the computer in place in the first place. What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering, has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be developed "with proper discipline"? -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |