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.

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.

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-

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.

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-

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.

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-

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.

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
...
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?

By then it will be anti-gravity or we wont need to fly we will travel
through the internet and there will be no planes.

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