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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
Hi All,
I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft. There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely underutilized. The electronics that are used are mostly employed in an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc. There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed, as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical, analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost, reliability, controllability, etc. Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. I have not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of aviation. What do you think? 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics? 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics? 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? 4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year 2108? 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? 6. Any other thoughts... -Le Chaud Lapin- Here is an excerpt from a concurrent thread, where the conversation seems to be turning toward Electronics-Or-Not: On Jun 19, 11:16 am, wrote: On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote: On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote: The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws, seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer, but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on? Austin has its village idiot. Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just an obsession with electronics and computers. The idea that electric power is green is another falsehood; where does most electricity come from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys), coal (dirty), natural gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource), nuclear (dangerous and waste problems), and so on. Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked well and were affordable, require hydrogen, which requires the electrolysis of water, which needs vast amounts of electricity. Other methods of storage involve heavy metals and their dangers. The idea that a helicopter is easy to build (with biplane blades, yet, which was tried in the early years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer knows nothing of the problems that gyroscopic precession present to all rotating components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA and airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so). Dan Here is a frightening thought. If Le Chaud is in fact an engineer, someone is paying him money for his lack of knowledge of basics, like the power demand to keep a something with a specific gravity greater than its environment suspended there. Well, that may be second term physics. Lift ferries indeed. I wonder how long it would take me to understand his true worth -- I do make mistakes in hiring, but rarely in discharging. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
What do you think? I think you are off-topic for rec.aviation.student Please do not crosspost to non-relevant groups. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 12:40*pm, Jim Stewart wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote: What do you think? I think you are off-topic for rec.aviation.student Please do not crosspost to non-relevant groups. Both groups begin with "rec", which means "recreation" to mean, which applies at least a minimal amount of amusement. And since students possess brains, ideas, and opinions, just as do licensed pilots, they might find the post just as amusing as pilots. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hi All, I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft. There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely underutilized. The electronics that are used are mostly employed in an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc. There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed, as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical, analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost, reliability, controllability, etc. Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. I have not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of aviation. What do you think? 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics? 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics? 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? 4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year 2108? 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? 6. Any other thoughts... 1. Real things cost real money. 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up, the outcome probably won't be as benign. 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem". 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft? 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft? 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 1:05*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Hi All, I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft. There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely underutilized. *The electronics that are used are mostly employed in an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc. There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed, as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical, analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost, reliability, controllability, etc. Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. *I have not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of aviation. What do you think? 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics? 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics? 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? 4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year 2108? 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? 6. Any other thoughts... 1. Real things cost real money. 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of * *the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up, * *the outcome probably won't be as benign. 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along * *the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten * *thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem". 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft? 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft? 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control * *forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable * *aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft. 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? -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft. Your premise is simply incorrect. You took this post as support for your premise: On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote: The idea that electronics can somehow make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just an obsession with electronics and computers. And basically misunderstood what it was objecting to. A fair number of homebuilts and certified GA aircraft are now being outfitted with autopilots anyway, so I'm not sure your premise has any merit even absent your misunderstanding of the post in question. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:05?pm, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Hi All, I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft. There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely underutilized. ?The electronics that are used are mostly employed in an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc. There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed, as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical, analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost, reliability, controllability, etc. Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. ?I have not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of aviation. What do you think? 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics? 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics? 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? 4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year 2108? 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? 6. Any other thoughts... 1. Real things cost real money. 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of ? ?the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up, ? ?the outcome probably won't be as benign. 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along ? ?the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten ? ?thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem". 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft? 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft? 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control ? ?forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable ? ?aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft. 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? Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no advantage, what do you think? What will it look like? Like they do now. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 1:35*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: On Jun 19, 1:05?pm, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: Hi All, I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft. There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely underutilized. ?The electronics that are used are mostly employed in an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc. There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed, as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical, analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost, reliability, controllability, etc. Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. ?I have not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of aviation. What do you think? 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics? 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics? 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? 4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year 2108? 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? 6. Any other thoughts... 1. Real things cost real money. 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of ? ?the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up, ? ?the outcome probably won't be as benign. 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along ? ?the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten ? ?thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem". 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft? 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft? 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control ? ?forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable ? ?aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft. 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? Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no advantage, what do you think? I think the opposite. What will it look like? Like they do now. I guess that's reasonable. It is conceivable that typical Cessna willl look the same in 2108 as it does in 2008. How about 2508? Will the typical Cessna (or whatever dominant GA manufacturer make) look roughly the same in 2508 as it does in 2008, using essentially the same mechanical controls (wires, pulleys, bellcranks, etc.) -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 1:11*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hi All, What do you think? 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics? 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics? 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? 4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year 2108? 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? 6. Any other thoughts... I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own: which is a more reliable mode of transportation, a 1964 Mustang or a 1994 Mustang? If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go, which one would you pick? I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics. Those kinds of planes have additional concerns that don't really affect GA; things like cost efficiency, payload, range, etc. Given that GA planes can be asked to sit, unflown, in a hangar for extended periods and then be called on to fly a cross country trip, I think that absolute reliability is the #1 factor over all else when it comes to making choices about the powerplant and control surfaces that keep the plane off the ground. As pointed out above, if something goes wrong in the air you can't just coast over to the side of the road when something fails at FL65. Something else that is extremely significant is that in the analog, physical world, most things don't fail out of the blue and when they do, they don't usually fail completely. You start to get indications from the plane that something is having a problem long before it actually fails. Computers, on the other hand can go from 100% to 0% in the blink of an eye without warning. I have no problems with all the avionics in the world helping me do my job of flying the plane; radar, strike finders, WAAS, GPS, IFR, XM Weather but to keep GA in the hands of everyday pilots fly-by-wire needs to remain in the world of a different kind of plane and pilot. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
What do you think? 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics? Not at all. Basic airplanes used for aerobatics, recreation, crop dusting and other cross-country activities don't need all the crap, and the extra weight involved with all it reduces performance and creates potential issues. I had an electric window wire catch fire in my old Chevy Blazer one time. What the hell? I don't need electric windows any more than I need a fire in my door. 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics? Not really. GA is a broad spectrum, and things like GPS and glass panels are huge workload relievers for cross-country operations and things like that. You wouldn't want all that crap in an ultralight--although NWPilot has a kickass electronic kneeboard--but for larger, faster or more navigation-oriented aircraft it's good to have. 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? I'd hate to be reliant on an electrical system and have an electrical fire or fuses blowing. For comparison, I couldn't roll down the window in my Chevy until I fixed the wiring. That really sucked. 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? Can't wait to find out. Hopefully we'll still be able to afford to fly them. -c |
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 |