Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:49 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It's a Catch-22. The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.
You just named three government agencies and a non-profit. By all their
very nature they are designed to blow smoke up the publics collective
ass. Winning the X-Prize isn't what motivated SpaceShipOne into
sub-orbital flight. It was a nice bonus though. The $250,000 prize CAFE
is offering won't even buy and fly one copy of what they are trying to
replace.

You cannot blame them for trying. After all, when DARPA allocates $3
million award for a company or organization to solve a problem, and
the problem is not solved, it is the organization's fault, generally.
The alternative is to fund nothing at all, which will not work,
because someone will come up with the brilliant idea that government
agencies should provide stimulus funding for innovation.

The $300,000 being offered by NASA/CAFE is not a huge amount, true. I
regard it as NASA's way of saying, "if you do your part, we will do
ours."

Last year, the entries into the PAV Challenge were embarrassingly
unimaginative, but the funds were still allocated. I suspect that, if
someone were to actually enter something that looked more like a PAV,
NASA would not be the only agency providing funding. DARPA would
join, etc.

They are waiting for innovators in aviation to do more than introduce
slightly-modified LSA's.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
easier. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
to some guy in a 172. And for best handling no less.

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Certainly you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
have changed to allow them into the sky.

Why not? I expect this. If people ever venture into the sky en masse it
will be in fully automated machines with all of the humans as mere
passengers.

The idea of millions of flying cars being driven around under the control
of average joes is a nice vision but I have no expectation that it will
ever happen.

Small aircraft under human control were, are, and will remain a travel
tool for wealthy people and recreation for the merely well-off.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.
Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before
making any further categorical statements like the above since you
appear to be making claims outside your realm of knowledge or
expertise. It appears you are probably unaware of current development
in this area. Autonomous vehicles are probably in the near future;
this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge
Those aren't for road use.

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to something so fundamentally at odds
with what has already been demonstrated (and prize money awarded). Or
perhaps you meant to suggest something else....



I didn't realize that the 2007 was done in a "Mock-Urbane Environment."
Did they have other cars on the road with real and automated drivers?



Remember what the D in DARPA stands for.

Um, it started out as ARPA in 1958, changed to DARPA in 1972, then back to
ARPA in 1993, then changed back to DARPA in 1996. This is the same agency
that funded the ARPANET project in 1968, which lead to today's global
spanning Internet.

So IMHO, your objection or argument doesn't seem to hold any real substance
that I can see.

There's really no objection at all. It's that the D stands for Defense.
And what ever they are spending they are spending to create things that
will enhance a combat or combat support mission. Not that there is
anything wrong with that.

If you get something that is usable in the non-military out of it great
but that isn't the aim of the program.


I do not claim expertise in the technologies that the Grand Challenge
participants employ. But I have been following it practically since it was
first announced because a friend asked me back in 2002 to do a technical
review of a proposal to generate funding for non-profit organization whose
goal was to jump-start autonomous vehicle research project. Turns out he
was unaware of the DARPA GC program, which had just been announced that
same year.

On Jun 23, 1:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Is affordable one of the criteria?
Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.
A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

Some of the greatest changes in technology were driven people who did
just that.

Not ones that make money anyway.

Many of them turn out to be worth quite a bit.

Also, "managed innovation" is quite expensive.

The most efficient advancements in technologies have historically been
achieved not by entire organizations, but a highly-focused
individuals.

The Internet started that way. At the time, many said that the notion
of packet-based communication vs circuit-based was stupid/inefficient/
risky, etc.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:55 am, wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Here's a concept that should be pursued:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
Actual Hands-off Steering:
And Other Wonders of the Modern World
And unless you replace the entire fleet of autos on the road all it
takes is one asshole in his old Chevy to screw the system.
Which is just one of the reasons the whole thing was abandoned as
impractical.

It is notable that aviation is not as prone to the all-or-nothing
dilema. Advanced PAV's would have to share the sky with convention
aircraft, but the danger of cohabitation is not as siginificant as
hands-of-steering.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

I don't know what you mean by "hands-of-steering." But, Think about what
surrounds the nation's largest cities. Let me help. The nation's busiest
airspace. Now guess what is on the ground in and around the nation's
largest cities? The nation's busiest roads.

Now think if all the things on the road started flying in the sky.

On Jun 23, 2:02*pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Certainly *you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
have changed to allow them into the sky.

Why not? I expect this. If people ever venture into the sky en masse it
will be in fully automated machines with all of the humans as mere
passengers.

The idea of millions of flying cars being driven around under the control
of average joes is a nice vision but I have no expectation that it will
ever happen.

Small aircraft under human control were, are, and will remain a travel
tool for wealthy people and recreation for the merely well-off.

I wonder if a similar statement was made about automobiles in 1900.

After all, cars can be dangerous too.

We must remember that there was a time when cars were being used
regularly while parents still took time to teach their children how to
ride horses with the expectation that horse-and-buggy would be the
primary means of travel for the foreseable future.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.

I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.


Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.


I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.

What do you mean by "current technology"?

Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.


Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.


No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.


A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
$50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
possibility of pre-built aircraft.

So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
would obviate many other expensive components.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

What are you going to replace the ICE with? And don't forget. It is
going to have to be MANY, MANY times for efficient because unlike
aircraft you are going to have to make this thing street legal which
means weight.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:44 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Is affordable one of the criteria?

Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.

A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


The cost of a LSA or any modern aircraft isn't that high because of the
things that go in to building it. A car that would cost $20,000 at
Honest Jim's Auto Sales would cost 10 times that if built in the numbers
of all the LSA and single engine GA aircraft combined.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:50 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It shows nothing of the sort. Most of those items were just new products
that evolved from older products. We could start a real long list of
products that didn't catch on.

I know many people who purchase high end cars that would never in a
million years buy the CAFE inspired PAV.-

That does not mean that others would not.

Over the years I have bought my friends, nieces, nephews, and
godchildren various electronic gadgets like iPod's, XBOX's, Nintendo,
etc but it is very rare that I buy something like that for myself. But
they like it, and many people will like PAV's.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

So you are counting on the gift market to sell your PAV?

On Jun 23, 2:00*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
easier.

How can it be current and advanced at the same time? The changes that
are asked for by NASA/CAFE implie so many differences between what
exists and what would be that the end result would hardly look like a
172.

If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
to some guy in a 172.

The money has to go somewhere. Since no one entered anything better,
they gave it to the 172.

Think what they would give if someone actually did something different
than a 172.

-Le Chaud Lapin-