Future of Electronics In Aviation

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-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:27 pm, wrote:
Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
things that distract you from paying attention so that you don't
collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
Super-complex airplanes operated by computers that allow the
dumbest and most inattentive people into the air are just a disaster
waiting to happen, and they'd be so expensive that none of us would be
flying if we had to buy them. We fly the airplanes we fly because we
can afford them and because we want to FLY, not play with computers
and pretend to be pilots. Piloting involves learning some challenging
skills, which is why most of us do it. Restoring an old car or truck
like I did also involves a wide range of skills, which is why I did
it. I could go buy a new car that has so many safety gimmicks, like
antiskid brakes, but that involves nothing more than spending money
and there's absolutely no challenge to that. Besides, things like
antskid brakes are well known to make dumber drivers who just stand on
the brakes and trust the vehicle to prevent a skid into the snowbank,
and soon enough that driver, because he no longer has to learn the
feel of the surface, gets onto a slippery-enough surface that the
system cannot save him and he crashes good and proper. Along the
freeways here during snowstoms the vehicles in the ditch or upside-
down are ALL newer cars and SUVs. The drivers of non-antiskid cars
have to watch what they're doing and it makes them more aware of the
conditions.
Safety systems, indeed. Computers still cannot replace the human brain
and won't be able to do all that that brain can do for a long time, if
ever.
So use your head. Go learn to fly and stop trolling just to
infuriate us. We'll be asking how the lessons are going.

I think you post gets at the root of the matter.

I think many of the pilots who object to my point of view object on
the grounds that you outline above. Essentially, flying is a hobby
for them, and they take pleasure in the knobs, dials....

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

Then what? Will all the private pilots who like the feel of their
Bravo demand that state-of-art state remain stagnant?

Will you speak for those who might like a vehicle as outlined by NASA/
CAFE/PAV?


Again we are back to the "Popular Science" aircraft. It's been touted by
that magazine and others for years. There's a reason it hasn't been
built. Actually there are several



If some organization is successful in building such a vehicle, one
that relies mostly on computers, will you object? If the safety is not
as dire as indicated in this thread, on what ground will you object?
"Well, simply put Mr. Administrator, we do not like the idea of
someone flying a vehicle that is insufficiently complex and has too
few knobs and quite frankly is too cheap and does vibrate or make
enough noise or does not overheat or require hangar space or uses fly-
by-wire and has too much cockpit amusement and lends itself to highly-
commoditized components... you see, there is a process that one must
go throuhg, that requires years of hard work and financial
investment...and these new guys are cheating..."

None of these things have anything to do with technical feasibility.
It has more to do with how currents pilots feel about aviation.

At least it seems that way.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


It's not the GA guys that will scream. It is the airlines. Just think
about what they are saying now and multiply it by what ever number you
think the sales will be of PAV.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 21, 12:45 am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.
People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.

Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
world.

So basically you are saying that the FAA, NASA, EAA, AOPA, and Boeing,
are wasting their money sponsoring PAV?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Yes, if the outcome is a PAV as outlined by CAFE. That really isn't what
they are trying for though. Look at the prizes CAFE is giving out. They
are looking for evolutionary changes that can be brought into the
current fleet. Not revolutionary changes.

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. Remember what the D in DARPA stands for.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

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


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.

Look how long it has taken the FCC to get around to cutting off analog
TV and all it takes to deal with that is s $40 converter box.

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.

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"?

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.

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-

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?

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.


Yet none of them have built such a PAV.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:05 pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 21, 4:15?pm, wrote:
Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.
And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.
Hmm..are you sure?
Yes.





There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:
* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player
The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.
And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.

The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.

In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

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.

wrote:
On Jun 22, 12:35 pm, wrote:
A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
then it would be difficult to achieve.

There is a way, but it involves two things: Simplicity and
personal responsibility. Simplicity of construction so that there
isn't a bunch of stuff that's not necessary to achieve safe flight,
and personal responsibility that accepts that there's personal risk in
flying and holds the manufacturer only to safe construction and
performance parameters, so he's not required to charge so much more
for an airplane than it's really worth just so that he can buy huge
amounts of insurance to protect himself from greedy lawyers and stupid
juries and incompetent pilots who blame everyone else for their own
mistakes.
There really isn't much to a basic airplane like a Citabria
or Cessna 150. Much of its value is tied up in the engine and
instruments, both necessary, and radios, some of which are not all
that necessary. The manufacturers of those things also have to charge
far more than the inherent value of these items because they get sued,
too . The mechanic has to buy lots of insurance, and so does the
airport operator and the fuel provider and so on. Costs get way beyond
reason. Until society gets fed up enough to do something concrete
about it, nothing will change, even with an "affordable PAV" which
itself would make things even worse just by allowing even more
incompetent people into the air. Just look at the deaths of people
using jet-skis or Quads and how their manufacturers have to insure
themselves.
If we can buy a brand-new automobile, a vehicle that is far
more complex than a Cessna 150, for around $15K, we should be able to
buy the much simpler airplane for the same price. But we can't because
airplanes kill the unwary much more readily and their owners or
passengers or the survivors of the owners are qick to capitalize on
the losses. Technology is not the answer to lowering costs; simplicity
and responsibility are.

Dan

That second item screws the idea all to hell.