A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Future of Electronics In Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 19th 08, 09:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:58?pm, es330td wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:11?pm, Le Chaud Lapin 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 would ask my mechanic first.


I am an electrical engineer, so it bothers me not to see carbeurators
replaced by fuel-injection.


I am an EE with a real degree and like electronic doodads.

I've had many more cases of a car dropping dead because of the
electronic crap than I have had from mechanical failure.

In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
somewhere to get it fixed.

I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
4 years.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #22  
Old June 19th 08, 09:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 3:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:





On Jun 19, 2:45?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
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.

Or jet engines.


So you think small GA aircraft will look like jet engines?


No. I do not know what they will look like.

The jet engine was invented over 50 years ago and there are jet engines
in production from the giant ones that power the Airbus all the way
down to tiny little ones for model airplanes.

If you knew anything about the typical GA aircraft mission and how
engines actually work, you would know why a turbine of any kind would
be the worst possible choice for most GA aircraft of any engine
currently in production.

The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
immutable.

The physics of what?


Subsonic, propellor driven flight.

There is physics, and there is propellor-driven aircraft.
If you mean physics-physics is immutable I agree (Newtonian physics).
If me mean that physics of propellor-driven aircraft is mostly
understood, I would have to agree (with some exception).


Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.


Probably. But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. Which
of these do we believe?

If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
Newtonian physics, I disagree.


Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
exists.


That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

-Le Chaud Lapin-



  #23  
Old June 19th 08, 10:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #24  
Old June 19th 08, 10:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

If history is any indicator, technology becomes cheaper as time moves
forward, so whatever it is, it will probably be smaller, cheaper,
faster, more reliable, better-featured, disposable (it breaks, no
reason to cry as much), etc.


None of the technology involved in building airplanes has gotten
much cheaper in real dollars since airplanes were invented.

There are only so many existing materials you can build an airplane from
and they are all mature.

The only significant difference is the avionics does more for the same
cost.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #25  
Old June 19th 08, 10:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 3:45?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:





On Jun 19, 2:45?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
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.
Or jet engines.


So you think small GA aircraft will look like jet engines?


No. I do not know what they will look like.


The jet engine was invented over 50 years ago and there are jet engines
in production from the giant ones that power the Airbus all the way
down to tiny little ones for model airplanes.

If you knew anything about the typical GA aircraft mission and how
engines actually work, you would know why a turbine of any kind would
be the worst possible choice for most GA aircraft of any engine
currently in production.

The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
immutable.
The physics of what?


Subsonic, propellor driven flight.

There is physics, and there is propellor-driven aircraft.
If you mean physics-physics is immutable I agree (Newtonian physics).
If me mean that physics of propellor-driven aircraft is mostly
understood, I would have to agree (with some exception).


Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.


Probably. But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. Which
of these do we believe?


Nope.

Only arm chair physicists disagree.

If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
Newtonian physics, I disagree.


Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
exists.


That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.


Which is why:

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.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #26  
Old June 19th 08, 10:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 3:13*pm, Michael
wrote:
Go try selling the FAA on the idea of eliminating EGT, CHT, MP, Oil
Temp, Oil Pressure, and Tach in favor of a computer, and they will
simply throw FAR's at you. *EGT (really TIT) required for every
turbocharged engine. *MP required for engines with controllable
props. *CHT required for engines with cowl flaps. *Oil Temp and
Pressure and Tach always required. *By regulation. *That's all there
is to it. *You're not going to replace that with a %Power gauge and
idiot lights, but really you should be able to. *Then the idiot light
could tell you to land and check the engine.


I was just thinking... The FAA must be in a strange position.

On the one hand, they keep sponsoring programs like NextGen and things
related to it (CAFE/PAV), so it appears that they do want ultra-
advanced, low-cost aircraft that meet the metrics outlined by NASA/
CAFE for a PAV. On the other hand, if I understand correctly, there
is a tendency to reject even minor changes to standard GA systems.

If, by fortune, one were to make a PAV that satisfied the grand
challenges put forth by NASA/CAFE/FAA...what would the FAA do with it?
Reject it outright? Strip it down so that it looked more like a
Cessna? Put it in a hangard somewhere to wait?

At very least, CAFE would be obligated (and probably happy) to pay out
prize money for such a design, but what would FAA do?

Just curious.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
  #27  
Old June 19th 08, 11:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

wrote:
In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
somewhere to get it fixed.

I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
4 years.


Ah, anecdotes!

Well then, as to mechanical failures:

* I've had a steering tie rod break on one car (fortunately it failed when
I was traveling at low speed),
* the transmission give up the ghost on another (an '88 Acura Integra that
was at around 200k miles - lots of mountain driving too),
* a radiator thermostat fail on a third,
* a head cracked on a Chevy Vega.

* No flat tires - so far - on any of the cars I've ever owned.

As to electrical failures:

* The '88 Acura Integra had a electrical ignition gizmo fail while I was on
the freeway one day - engine just plain stopped working. Fortunately I was
able to pull over to the side without incident (light traffic, thankfully).
A cop showed up and helped - cool. Turns out the part that failed was part
of a recall that I hadn't been informed of.

* On my second ('99) Integra (hey, I liked the first one) the electrical
system eventually exhibited a short in one of the interior circuits due to
improperly run wires having their insulation rubbed away due to vibrations.
The outfit that fixed it had to remove the entire dash to get at the runs.

* Dead batteries a couple times though.

I'm still driving the '99 Integra.

I think you've been fortunate to not have any mechanical failures - in fact
I'm going to say that your anecdotes appear opposite of typical
expectations.
  #28  
Old June 20th 08, 12:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
somewhere to get it fixed.

I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
4 years.


Ah, anecdotes!


Well then, as to mechanical failures:


* I've had a steering tie rod break on one car (fortunately it failed when
I was traveling at low speed),
* the transmission give up the ghost on another (an '88 Acura Integra that
was at around 200k miles - lots of mountain driving too),
* a radiator thermostat fail on a third,
* a head cracked on a Chevy Vega.


* No flat tires - so far - on any of the cars I've ever owned.


As to electrical failures:


* The '88 Acura Integra had a electrical ignition gizmo fail while I was on
the freeway one day - engine just plain stopped working. Fortunately I was
able to pull over to the side without incident (light traffic, thankfully).
A cop showed up and helped - cool. Turns out the part that failed was part
of a recall that I hadn't been informed of.


* On my second ('99) Integra (hey, I liked the first one) the electrical
system eventually exhibited a short in one of the interior circuits due to
improperly run wires having their insulation rubbed away due to vibrations.
The outfit that fixed it had to remove the entire dash to get at the runs.


* Dead batteries a couple times though.


I'm still driving the '99 Integra.


I think you've been fortunate to not have any mechanical failures - in fact
I'm going to say that your anecdotes appear opposite of typical
expectations.


I forgot; I had a clutch linkage break in my old beater back in '71.

I never said I didn't have mechanical failures, I said I never had
a failure that prevented a limp to somewhere convenient, e.g. carburetor
failure where the car wouldn't go faster then about 20.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #29  
Old June 20th 08, 12:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On the one hand, they keep sponsoring programs like NextGen and things
related to it (CAFE/PAV), so it appears that they do want ultra-
advanced, low-cost aircraft that meet the metrics outlined by NASA/
CAFE for a PAV. On the other hand, if I understand correctly, there
is a tendency to reject even minor changes to standard GA systems.


Therein lies the problem, you don't correctly understand the situation.

Care to name a "minor change" that was successfully tested to meet
certification requirements that was rejected by the FAA?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.