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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and some significant disadvantages). Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than others). Some engines are also available with FADEC. -- From the sunny Isle of Man. Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In article ,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote: 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- And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting software intensive system is adequately safe? I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to find it, the odds of proving anything useful are pretty small. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
... On Jun 19, 9:54 pm, Bob Noel wrote: In article , Le Chaud Lapin wrote: ---------paragraph snipped---------- 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- There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we are using to send these messages. Peter |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
"Michael" wrote in message
... 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. -----snip----- Sorry to post this without reading the rest of the thread. It appears that your experience with the 64½ Mustang is fairly recent. There was indeed a maintenance schedule for your car, which IIRC was approximately quarterly after an initial visit that took place a little earlier. A number of items on the list were semi-annual, annual, and bi-annual and the cars were quite reliable when maintained in accordance with the maintenence schedule. I also once had a car that seemed to need constant tuning--a 70 MGB--untill I rebuilt the carbs and ignition using the complete and correct parts kits. After that, it ran perfectly for so long that I nearly forgot how to work on it. Peter |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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. From the perspective of dealing with software development for about a quarter century now, all I can say is that it is obvious you know **** from shinola about software development, reliability, and testing. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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. Speakers don't generate thrust genius. PS:Tucker is a babbling idiot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and some significant disadvantages). Exactly. Lapin seems to be fixated on using technology simply because it exists, as opposed to using technology to solve an existing problem or to make life easier. He also seems to be incapable of understanding that roughly zero people will spend extra for something who's cost doesn't provide the benefits to justify that cost. Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than others). Some engines are also available with FADEC. Yep, and as in general they aren't needed but rather just make life easier, there are only a small percentage of people willing to pay for them. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 20, 6:07*am, Bob Noel
wrote: In article , And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting software intensive system is adequately safe? The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test software. I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small. Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software (or any system). -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 20, 8:40*am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
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- There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we are using to send these messages. Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who authored it. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 20, 5:16*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and some significant disadvantages). I disagree. For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces dynamically. A computer can take any of many objectives defined by pilot: 1. Minimum time in flight. 2. Minimum fuel consumption. 3. Altitude stabilization. 4. Minimum susceptibility to turbulence. 5. Maximum visibility of surroundings. etc... And make the flight conform to those requirements, and warn if it can not. That very same computer could communicate flight plan to ground, store minute details of entire flight on hard disk and automatically move them to home computer for recap.... Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than others). Some engines are also available with FADEC. These systems are massively expensive, and there is much redundancy. For example, the entire radio stack could be eliminated by a software radio, which controls fed through LCD monitor. The software radi costs $1000. The computer would be one of same 2 computers used for other functions. The possibilities are essentially endless. GA is at the beginning, not the end, of discovering them. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
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 |