Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 9:15*pm, wrote:
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.

This I agree with 100%. Law of conservation of momentum is conserved,
even in the quantum.

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.

I am glad that you make a distinction between 1, 2 and 3, because
technically, I could play devils advocate and go one step further and
say that I will not be able to design any viable aircraft that uses
any principle beyond Newtonian physics, and specifically, will not
make any contraption that relies on anything other than Newton's Law
of Reciprocity of Force. But every method you have identified relies
on Reciprocity of Force. Therefore, if you had not made the
distinction, I would be left with no real options.

But fortunately, you do make a distinction between 1, 2, and 3. You
are saying that rockets are sufficiently different from propellers,
which, in turn, are sufficiently different from turbines, which, in
turn are sufficiently different from ion wind accelerators that they
warrant being recognized as distinct categories in their own right.

That said, I claim that there is very likely another method, which,
naturally, relies on Reciprocity of Force, that is like 1, or 2, or 3,
but sufficiently different from 1, 2, or 3, to warrant recognition as
a propulsion method in its own right. In other words, when you look
at the alternative method, you will see neither propeller, nor jet
engine, nor turbine. In fact, you will have a very hard time finding
the engine at all.

Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but at least we have
made clear that there are distinctions.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"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.

On Jun 19, 9:54*pm, Bob Noel
wrote:
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"?

That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.

However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in
Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has
Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide.
His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with
that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of
engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious".

I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any
software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know
a few people who studied aero/astro at university.

In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
architecture for free.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

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:

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.

But not prohibitive for a business that builds software systems for
aviation.

Garmin is doing very well selling hardware/software systems that they
have tested for reliability.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:15?pm, wrote:
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.

This I agree with 100%. Law of conservation of momentum is conserved,
even in the quantum.

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.

I am glad that you make a distinction between 1, 2 and 3, because
technically, I could play devils advocate and go one step further and
say that I will not be able to design any viable aircraft that uses
any principle beyond Newtonian physics, and specifically, will not
make any contraption that relies on anything other than Newton's Law
of Reciprocity of Force. But every method you have identified relies
on Reciprocity of Force. Therefore, if you had not made the
distinction, I would be left with no real options.

But fortunately, you do make a distinction between 1, 2, and 3. You
are saying that rockets are sufficiently different from propellers,
which, in turn, are sufficiently different from turbines, which, in
turn are sufficiently different from ion wind accelerators that they
warrant being recognized as distinct categories in their own right.

That said, I claim that there is very likely another method, which,
naturally, relies on Reciprocity of Force, that is like 1, or 2, or 3,
but sufficiently different from 1, 2, or 3, to warrant recognition as
a propulsion method in its own right. In other words, when you look
at the alternative method, you will see neither propeller, nor jet
engine, nor turbine. In fact, you will have a very hard time finding
the engine at all.

Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but at least we have
made clear that there are distinctions.

No, everything you said is the pure, unadulterated, babble of a naive
daydreamer living in a comic book fantasy world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting aluckyguess wrote:

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 1:35 pm, wrote:

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

I think the opposite.

Then I have a 5 hp, microprocessor controlled bottle opener to sell you.

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.

If you have anti-gravity, you don't need wings to provide lift and it
is not an airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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:

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.

But not prohibitive for a business that builds software systems for
aviation.

Garmin is doing very well selling hardware/software systems that they
have tested for reliability.

My god you are either thick headed or dumber than a box full of hammers.

I bet you could fall in a barrel of titties and come out sucking your
thumb.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Pennino has been hitting on everyone analysing
future technology, now below he's gone sexual,
**** him, tell him he's fired!!!

Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

The computer can be switched off and the pilot has
direct analog control, or, instead of farting around
with nav, trims etc, he sets, altitude 4000@120 knots,
heading 250 into the computer , and he sits back and
rests to enjoy the scenerary....and he can even set-up
a wake-up call.
Ken
PS:Pennino is an annoying wop.

On Jun 19, 10:15 pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:



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:

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.
But not prohibitive for a business that builds software systems for
aviation.
Garmin is doing very well selling hardware/software systems that they
have tested for reliability.

My god you are either thick headed or dumber than a box full of hammers.

I bet you could fall in a barrel of titties and come out sucking your
thumb.

--
Jim Pennino

In article ,
wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

The material cost of software is $0.

This is like making reference to "Free health care".

Not in this world.

Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.

On Jun 19, 11:43 pm, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

The material cost of software is $0.

This is like making reference to "Free health care".

Not in this world.

Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.

Lapin is a f**king genious.
I was watching eagles soaring over my property
today, and their feathers twitch, as a result of a
fine tuned central nervous system that has evolved
over millions of years. Now that ability is beyond
mechanics, but is readilly possible with a computer,
that may duplicate that flight ability, complete
with feedback, such that, the control surface also
does a measurment.
Birds work that all the time.
I'm still in.
Ken