A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Future of Electronics In Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 19th 08, 08:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


snip old crap


Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no
advantage, what do you think?


I think the opposite.


GA aircraft are neither unstable (nor can they be by regulation) nor
are they big enough to have large control forces.

So what's the advantage?

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?


Like they do now.

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.)


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.

The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
immutable.

Electric staplers are real products that one can buy, however how
many people buy them when the problem at hand is to staple a couple
of sheets of paper every once in a while?

Whiz bang electronic doodads on airplanes are just the same; they
are only bought where there is a justification for the added cost
and complexity.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #12  
Old June 19th 08, 08:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 1:58*pm, es330td wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:11*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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 would ask my mechanic first.

I am an electrical engineer, so it bothers me not to see carbeurators
replaced by fuel-injection. Just last week, a mechanic was telling me
about how 1996 1997 model Jeep Grand Cherookees have problem with
alternator generating kick-back current into the electronic
transmission control model, causing premature slapping of plates. A
simple diode fixes the problem. He also said that it took him forever
to find out what the issue was, which make sense.

My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer
should have known that."

This is the other thesis of these posts - there is opportunity for
joint development.

When I was at university, as I mentioned before, there were multiple
programs promulgated by faculty (and even a dean of engineering) for
inter-departmental developed. The proponents were serious, launching
extensive campaigns to get research scientists to "interbreed".

I did not see the point. I thought that correlating roles with
competenticies was obvious, but it turns out that that is not the
case, in general. Often what happens is hoarding - one designer/
researcher will be an expert in say, mechanical engineering, and will
need help in specialized area of chemistry, but will refuse to walk
two buildings over to ask a real chemist, so as to mainting total
propietorship of his/her baby. Sometimes the mechanical engineer is
brilliant, and is capable (with sufficient) time in demonstrating
expert judgement in multiple fields. Sometimes this does not happen,
and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about
kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of
experienced, bright, electrical engineer.

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.


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.

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.


True. Some type of fall back is necessary, in any system.

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.


Sensors+computers can help here. Even a something like inexpensive
digital strain gauage can help.

The idea is to collect much information from the aircraft, using cheap
(throw-away) sensors in redundant configuration, and let the software
do what software is good at.

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.


I have a feeling that the day will come where people will regard FBW
in the same way they currently regard mechanical controls: something
that works and can, more or less, be taken for granted as being
relatively safe.

If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be
flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts,
propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at
temperatures exceeding 4000F, attached to the machine not far from
massive quantities of said liquid, and she'd be told to sit next to
one of these devices for 15 hours straight while flying over the
Pacific Ocean, with sharks, etc., trusting that machine would not come
apart, and that two men the front of the machine would use a
combination of their own training, self-discipline, and computers,
each containing millions of little things call transistors, the
failure of one of which might cause whole computer to fail, to not
crash the machine upon landing on three sets of relatively small
wheels, themselves pressurized and prone to explosion if punctured...

...she might reasonably claim that the whole idea is just too risky.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
  #13  
Old June 19th 08, 08:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 2:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
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?


Like they do now.

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.)


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.


Or jet engines.

The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
immutable.


The physics of what?

There is physics, and there is propellor-driven aircraft.

If you mean physics-physics is immutable I agree (Newtonian physics).

If me mean that physics of propellor-driven aircraft is mostly
understood, I would have to agree (with some exception).

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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
  #14  
Old June 19th 08, 09:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Steve Foley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 563
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
news:42217a97-d754-4162-b4fa-

I am an electrical engineer, so it bothers me not to see carbeurators
replaced by fuel-injection.


I've had several electronic failures that rendered my car unusable. Crank
Position Sensor (Jeep), 2 Ford Electronic Control Modules, and one GM ECM.
None of these failures gave any warning. The engines simply quit.

I prefer mechanical points in my plane, thank you.


  #15  
Old June 19th 08, 09:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Michael[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 2:58*pm, es330td wrote:
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 don't know much about 94 Mustangs, but I know a lot about 64 and 04
models. And the 04 is dramatically more reliable. You can count on
it to start and run. And it will do this with only a thrice-annual
visit to the shop for an oil change.

On the other hand, there is no maintenance schedule on a 64 Mustang.
You work on it all the time. You see, all the electronics in the
thing - and there is a ton - make the 04 Mustang far more reliable.
What's more, it needs far less maintenance, and far less regular
maintenance.

I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown
frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics.


On the contrary - those are the planes that need electronics least.
Those planes can demand a higher workload, since they are flown by
professional crews, and they can demand more finicky maintenance,
since it can effectively be required. You want electronics to reduce
workload and skill requirements, both in flight and maintenance. I
think it's absolutely abysmal that modern (as in - built this century)
airplanes don't have idiot lights and do have things like cowl flap,
mixture, and prop controls, EGT's, CHT's, etc. But with what it costs
to certify anything new, well, it's no surprise.

Go try selling the FAA on the idea of eliminating EGT, CHT, MP, Oil
Temp, Oil Pressure, and Tach in favor of a computer, and they will
simply throw FAR's at you. EGT (really TIT) required for every
turbocharged engine. MP required for engines with controllable
props. CHT required for engines with cowl flaps. Oil Temp and
Pressure and Tach always required. By regulation. That's all there
is to it. You're not going to replace that with a %Power gauge and
idiot lights, but really you should be able to. Then the idiot light
could tell you to land and check the engine.

*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.


Sure - and reliability at reasonable cost comes only from technology.
If the cost is not reasonable, it hardly matters how reliable it is -
because it won't get manufactured in any reasonable quantity, the
fleet will shrink with the pilot population, and in the end there
won't be any GA left. Oh, wait...

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.


Yet somehow in the automotive world, you get lots of wanring that your
computer-controlled engine is failing. Like idiot lights. And those
engines are now far more reliable than they were in the analog days.

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.


Actually, I agree with you about FBW - it's not terribly useful for a
light airplane. Not for reliability reasons, but for cost reasons
it's not terribly practical. But fully electronic engine controls and
full time autopilots really ought to be standard on a XC machine.

Michael
  #16  
Old June 19th 08, 09:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
BDS[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

[I am an electrical engineer]

Don't take this wrong but do you have any practical experience?

[simple diode fixes the problem.]

Not necessarily.

[My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer
should have known that."]

My first thought is "the engineers probably knew this, so why didn't they
use a diode?"

[Sometimes this does not happen,
and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about
kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of
experienced, bright, electrical engineer.]

Right, and we all know that the auto manufacturers do not have any
experienced and bright electrical engineers.

[If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be
flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts,
propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at
temperatures exceeding 4000F....snip......she might reasonably claim
that the whole idea is just too risky]

Well of course she would - that didn't become possible until the 1960s...




  #17  
Old June 19th 08, 09:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 3:13*pm, Michael wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:58*pm, es330td wrote:
Go try selling the FAA on the idea of eliminating EGT, CHT, MP, Oil
Temp, Oil Pressure, and Tach in favor of a computer, and they will
simply throw FAR's at you. *EGT (really TIT) required for every
turbocharged engine. *MP required for engines with controllable
props. *CHT required for engines with cowl flaps. *Oil Temp and
Pressure and Tach always required. *By regulation. *That's all there
is to it. *You're not going to replace that with a %Power gauge and
idiot lights, but really you should be able to. *Then the idiot light
could tell you to land and check the engine.


If this is true, then this is a real problem. What is there reason?

If one where computerize the sensor-monitor pair, meaning, instead of
paying $100 each for separate cockpit mechanical monitors, replace all
of them with software winodws on a conventional PC connected to
sensors via cables, would this be considered by FAA? What is
likelihood of rejection outright?

Yet somehow in the automotive world, you get lots of wanring that your
computer-controlled engine is failing. *Like idiot lights. *And those
engines are now far more reliable than they were in the analog days.

Actually, I agree with you about FBW - it's not terribly useful for a
light airplane. *Not for reliability reasons, but for cost reasons
it's not terribly practical. *But fully electronic engine controls and
full time autopilots really ought to be standard on a XC machine.


I agree.

I should also add that, by "electronic", I mean "computer", meaning
that, in fact, there are very little electronics to speak of. The
sensors and actutors will certainly have electronic aspect, but the
idea is to get away from all kinds of hardware, both mechanical and
electronic, and into the software realm as quickly as possible.

The material cost of software is $0.

-Le Chaud Lapin-



  #18  
Old June 19th 08, 09:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 2:08*pm, gatt wrote:
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.


Link? I'd like to see it.

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.


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.

In 1970, 1GB RAM would have cost almost a 1 billion $US. Today, if one
accidentally destroys 1GB memory stick, it is merely an inconvenience.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
  #19  
Old June 19th 08, 09:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:45?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
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?


Like they do now.

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.)


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.


Or jet engines.


So you think small GA aircraft will look like jet engines?

The jet engine was invented over 50 years ago and there are jet engines
in production from the giant ones that power the Airbus all the way
down to tiny little ones for model airplanes.

If you knew anything about the typical GA aircraft mission and how
engines actually work, you would know why a turbine of any kind would
be the worst possible choice for most GA aircraft of any engine
currently in production.

The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
immutable.


The physics of what?


Subsonic, propellor driven flight.

There is physics, and there is propellor-driven aircraft.


If you mean physics-physics is immutable I agree (Newtonian physics).


If me mean that physics of propellor-driven aircraft is mostly
understood, I would have to agree (with some exception).


Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #20  
Old June 19th 08, 09:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 3:16*pm, "BDS" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

[I am an electrical engineer]

Don't take this wrong but do you have any practical experience?


About average.

[simple diode fixes the problem.]

Not necessarily.

[My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer
should have known that."]

My first thought is "the engineers probably knew this, so why didn't they
use a diode?"


Good question. I would be curious to hear what the engineer
responsible for employing the diode has to say.

[Sometimes this does not happen,
and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about
kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of
experienced, bright, electrical engineer.]

Right, and we all know that the auto manufacturers do not have any
experienced and bright electrical engineers.


Well, certainly they have enough to know when to employ a 10-cent
diode to prevent massive recall 1000's of vehicles.

[If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be
flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts,
propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at
temperatures exceeding 4000F....snip......she might reasonably claim
that the whole idea is just too risky]

Well of course she would - that didn't become possible until the 1960s...


Which is the crux of the question:

What makes something possible in the future, but not the present?

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.