Why Not Use PC To Make Glass Cockpit?

In addition to high MTBF components, another consideration is that all
electronics should be HIRF protected.

Stubby wrote:

Now, I'm not sure how much improvement is really needed for an airplane.
Airplanes are extremely elegant because of their simplicity. If you
ask a mechanical engineer to design something that converts forward
motion into lift with no moving parts, I doubt that he will come up with
a wing.

Funny you mention that. I thought long and hard about what gives a
plane lift, relying on Maxwell's interpretation of fluid dynamics, and
though I'm not a mechanical engineer (I'm EE/comp sci), I get the
feeling that not even some pilots don't really know where the forces
come from. Sure, there's the blow over the paper, speed on top greater
than speed on bottom Bernoulli stuff, but unless I'm mistaken,
Maxwell's had a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics.

We have added a few things such as altimeters, airspeed indicators, etc.
These make flying easier and safer, but strictly speaking, do not
make the plane fly. Next, we add radios, transponders and the like.
Again, these help controllers on the ground with safety considerations,
but don't make the plane fly.

So what does a "central control" add?

1. reduced weight - get rid of superfluous mechanical/hydraulics
2. greater efficiency (computers compute things humans prefer not)
3. cost (software controls have essentially zero material incremental
cost)
4. finer control (the control theorists would have fun in this arear)
5. clearer self-diagonsis (devices tell you when they are sick, the
precise moment when they got sick [with ambient data], to what extent
they are sick, and effect on the aircraft performance);
6. safety (aircraft could actually monitor weather in real time and
advise - "rate of decrease in atmospheric pressure is extreme - use
caution" "conditions are prime for icing.." etc.
7. safety - "heavy aircraft heading relative (20, 110, 7) at relative
(8000, 400, 1400) proceed with caution"

There are so many things that one could code in software that would
make the flying experience more rewarding. I've never flown, but I
imagine that it takese focus and concentration.

But you're right: For all the fancy gadgetry, a 777 will still glide
down from 30,000 ft using 100-year-old technology.

-Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

......
1. reduced weight - get rid of superfluous mechanical/hydraulics
We operate just fine with the existing "6-pack", radios, transponder,
etc. Nothing will be gained by a few onces of weight reduction.

2. greater efficiency (computers compute things humans prefer not)
How do you meansure "efficiency"? What things need to be computed that
a human looking at standard flight indicators can't do?

3. cost (software controls have essentially zero material incremental
cost)
Using the word "cost" in a discussion of flying is absurd.

4. finer control (the control theorists would have fun in this arear)
"Finer Control" ? What does this mean? How is it measured? Compare
to standard flight instruments?

5. clearer self-diagonsis (devices tell you when they are sick, the
precise moment when they got sick [with ambient data], to what extent
they are sick, and effect on the aircraft performance);
The simple flight instruments are expected to fail, but very rarely.
Pilots are trained to cross-check among instruments and are required do
demonstrate their ability to function with failing instruments.

6. safety (aircraft could actually monitor weather in real time and
advise - "rate of decrease in atmospheric pressure is extreme - use
caution" "conditions are prime for icing.." etc.
If this were to be a problem, I would not conduct the flight.

7. safety - "heavy aircraft heading relative (20, 110, 7) at relative
(8000, 400, 1400) proceed with caution"
Again, the NOTAMS will advise me of flight conditions. I don't need a
computer to tell me.

There are so many things that one could code in software that would
make the flying experience more rewarding. I've never flown, but I
imagine that it takese focus and concentration.
My adivse it to get a private pilot license so you understand the
issues. You have a solution in search of a problem.

But you're right: For all the fancy gadgetry, a 777 will still glide
down from 30,000 ft using 100-year-old technology.
Actually, it's much older than that.

I looked at several of the links.. I didn't see anywhere that said it was
using those thinkpads for manuvering.
"Ted" wrote in message
ink.net...
Never the less, its a vehicle traveling at mach 25 and uses laptops as the
human interface to manage attitude, thrusters, environmental control and
life support, communications, electrical power and robotic systems.

Gig Giacona wrote in message ...
Well Ted, that's hardly a cockpit and I doubt the space station is going
to
have to navigate in the clouds anytime soon or with anybody on board.



The Space Station uses IBM 760xd laptops for their glass cockpit.


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...l/sts105-304-0
25.html


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../iss002e5478.h
tml


http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/.../iss003e5552.h
tml

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213


http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk65...study09186a008
00b53b6.shtml

wrote:

Not quite true. I've received the blue screen of death on an MX20. I
could not reboot after that. It required a software upgrade. Since that
time, Garmin AT has re-done their entire system, with new (3rd
iteration) display hardware and software. {I've had my display replaced
3 times now: I'm keeping my fingers crossed}

Discussions with Garmin AT engineers have led me to believe that
hardware-wise this ain't your mother's motherboard. For one thing, it
is (supposedly) able to withstand temperatures well over 100 F.

The more I hear of this type stuff, including similar problems in "high
end" biz jets, it seems only Boeing and Airbus have really gotten it right
for advanced displays and nav systems.

wrote:
The more I hear of this type stuff, including similar problems in "high
end" biz jets, it seems only Boeing and Airbus have really gotten it right
for advanced displays and nav systems.

Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!

Stubby wrote:
My adivse it to get a private pilot license so you understand the
issues. You have a solution in search of a problem.

Just as I read the last line of your sentence, I was about to pop my
favorite techno CD into my PC (which acts as the centerpiece of my home
sound system), and it occured to me that I was using a solution that
fixed a non-existent problem. So in the spirit you ole Stubby, i'm
going to put this CD back into the case and see if I can go find that
Kraftwerk cassette tape from the early 80's.

I'm pretty sure the cassette player still works just fine.

-Chaud Lapin-

john smith wrote:

wrote:
The more I hear of this type stuff, including similar problems in "high
end" biz jets, it seems only Boeing and Airbus have really gotten it right
for advanced displays and nav systems.

Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!

That was an anomoly. But, in any case, that was a auto-flight/flight controls
design and operations issue. My previous comment, as you can see, was about
flight instrument displays and navigation systems.

In article , wrote:

Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!

That was an anomoly. But, in any case, that was a auto-flight/flight controls
design and operations issue. My previous comment, as you can see, was about
flight instrument displays and navigation systems.

It might have been an anomoly, but it was not surprising given the history
of introducing new technology and the resulting discovery of new failure
modes.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , wrote:

Hmmm... you have never seen the video of the Airbus A320 flying through
the trees prior to crashing at the Paris Airshow several years ago, have
you. So much for advanced electronic nav and display systems!

That was an anomoly. But, in any case, that was a auto-flight/flight controls
design and operations issue. My previous comment, as you can see, was about
flight instrument displays and navigation systems.

It might have been an anomoly, but it was not surprising given the history
of introducing new technology and the resulting discovery of new failure
modes.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

I would certainly agree with that. Having said that, my comments in the context of
the thread were about flight instrument displays and navigation systems. There are
huge problems with this stuff from light aircraft panel mounts to high end biz
jets. In that context, both Boeing and Airbus have done far better to provide
robust flight instrument display and navigation platforms that the rest of the
industry.