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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote: In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote: snip old crap Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no advantage, what do you think? I think the opposite. GA aircraft are neither unstable (nor can they be by regulation) nor are they big enough to have large control forces. So what's the advantage? What will it look like? Like they do now. 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. The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is immutable. Electric staplers are real products that one can buy, however how many people buy them when the problem at hand is to staple a couple of sheets of paper every once in a while? Whiz bang electronic doodads on airplanes are just the same; they are only bought where there is a justification for the added cost and complexity. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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. Just last week, a mechanic was telling me about how 1996 1997 model Jeep Grand Cherookees have problem with alternator generating kick-back current into the electronic transmission control model, causing premature slapping of plates. A simple diode fixes the problem. He also said that it took him forever to find out what the issue was, which make sense. My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer should have known that." This is the other thesis of these posts - there is opportunity for joint development. When I was at university, as I mentioned before, there were multiple programs promulgated by faculty (and even a dean of engineering) for inter-departmental developed. The proponents were serious, launching extensive campaigns to get research scientists to "interbreed". I did not see the point. I thought that correlating roles with competenticies was obvious, but it turns out that that is not the case, in general. Often what happens is hoarding - one designer/ researcher will be an expert in say, mechanical engineering, and will need help in specialized area of chemistry, but will refuse to walk two buildings over to ask a real chemist, so as to mainting total propietorship of his/her baby. Sometimes the mechanical engineer is brilliant, and is capable (with sufficient) time in demonstrating expert judgement in multiple fields. Sometimes this does not happen, and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of experienced, bright, electrical engineer. I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics. Those kinds of planes have additional concerns that don't really affect GA; things like cost efficiency, payload, range, etc. *Given that GA planes can be asked to sit, unflown, in a hangar for extended periods and then be called on to fly a cross country trip, I think that absolute reliability is the #1 factor over all else when it comes to making choices about the powerplant and control surfaces that keep the plane off the ground. 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. As pointed out above, if something goes wrong in the air you can't just coast over to the side of the road when something fails at FL65. True. Some type of fall back is necessary, in any system. Something else that is extremely significant is that in the analog, physical world, most things don't fail out of the blue and when they do, they don't usually fail completely. *You start to get indications from the plane that something is having a problem long before it actually fails. *Computers, on the other hand can go from 100% to 0% in the blink of an eye without warning. Sensors+computers can help here. Even a something like inexpensive digital strain gauage can help. The idea is to collect much information from the aircraft, using cheap (throw-away) sensors in redundant configuration, and let the software do what software is good at. I have no problems with all the avionics in the world helping me do my job of flying the plane; radar, strike finders, WAAS, GPS, IFR, XM Weather but to keep GA in the hands of everyday pilots fly-by-wire needs to remain in the world of a different kind of plane and pilot. I have a feeling that the day will come where people will regard FBW in the same way they currently regard mechanical controls: something that works and can, more or less, be taken for granted as being relatively safe. If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts, propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at temperatures exceeding 4000F, attached to the machine not far from massive quantities of said liquid, and she'd be told to sit next to one of these devices for 15 hours straight while flying over the Pacific Ocean, with sharks, etc., trusting that machine would not come apart, and that two men the front of the machine would use a combination of their own training, self-discipline, and computers, each containing millions of little things call transistors, the failure of one of which might cause whole computer to fail, to not crash the machine upon landing on three sets of relatively small wheels, themselves pressurized and prone to explosion if punctured... ...she might reasonably claim that the whole idea is just too risky. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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. 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? 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). 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. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
news:42217a97-d754-4162-b4fa- I am an electrical engineer, so it bothers me not to see carbeurators replaced by fuel-injection. I've had several electronic failures that rendered my car unusable. Crank Position Sensor (Jeep), 2 Ford Electronic Control Modules, and one GM ECM. None of these failures gave any warning. The engines simply quit. I prefer mechanical points in my plane, thank you. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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. I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics. On the contrary - those are the planes that need electronics least. Those planes can demand a higher workload, since they are flown by professional crews, and they can demand more finicky maintenance, since it can effectively be required. You want electronics to reduce workload and skill requirements, both in flight and maintenance. I think it's absolutely abysmal that modern (as in - built this century) airplanes don't have idiot lights and do have things like cowl flap, mixture, and prop controls, EGT's, CHT's, etc. But with what it costs to certify anything new, well, it's no surprise. 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. *Given that GA planes can be asked to sit, unflown, in a hangar for extended periods and then be called on to fly a cross country trip, I think that absolute reliability is the #1 factor over all else when it comes to making choices about the powerplant and control surfaces that keep the plane off the ground. Sure - and reliability at reasonable cost comes only from technology. If the cost is not reasonable, it hardly matters how reliable it is - because it won't get manufactured in any reasonable quantity, the fleet will shrink with the pilot population, and in the end there won't be any GA left. Oh, wait... Something else that is extremely significant is that in the analog, physical world, most things don't fail out of the blue and when they do, they don't usually fail completely. *You start to get indications from the plane that something is having a problem long before it actually fails. *Computers, on the other hand can go from 100% to 0% in the blink of an eye without warning. Yet somehow in the automotive world, you get lots of wanring that your computer-controlled engine is failing. Like idiot lights. And those engines are now far more reliable than they were in the analog days. to keep GA in the hands of everyday pilots fly-by-wire needs to remain in the world of a different kind of plane and pilot. Actually, I agree with you about FBW - it's not terribly useful for a light airplane. Not for reliability reasons, but for cost reasons it's not terribly practical. But fully electronic engine controls and full time autopilots really ought to be standard on a XC machine. Michael |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote
[I am an electrical engineer] Don't take this wrong but do you have any practical experience? [simple diode fixes the problem.] Not necessarily. [My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer should have known that."] My first thought is "the engineers probably knew this, so why didn't they use a diode?" [Sometimes this does not happen, and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of experienced, bright, electrical engineer.] Right, and we all know that the auto manufacturers do not have any experienced and bright electrical engineers. [If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts, propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at temperatures exceeding 4000F....snip......she might reasonably claim that the whole idea is just too risky] Well of course she would - that didn't become possible until the 1960s... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 3:13*pm, Michael wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:58*pm, es330td 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. If this is true, then this is a real problem. What is there reason? If one where computerize the sensor-monitor pair, meaning, instead of paying $100 each for separate cockpit mechanical monitors, replace all of them with software winodws on a conventional PC connected to sensors via cables, would this be considered by FAA? What is likelihood of rejection outright? Yet somehow in the automotive world, you get lots of wanring that your computer-controlled engine is failing. *Like idiot lights. *And those engines are now far more reliable than they were in the analog days. Actually, I agree with you about FBW - it's not terribly useful for a light airplane. *Not for reliability reasons, but for cost reasons it's not terribly practical. *But fully electronic engine controls and full time autopilots really ought to be standard on a XC machine. I agree. I should also add that, by "electronic", I mean "computer", meaning that, in fact, there are very little electronics to speak of. The sensors and actutors will certainly have electronic aspect, but the idea is to get away from all kinds of hardware, both mechanical and electronic, and into the software realm as quickly as possible. The material cost of software is $0. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 2:08*pm, gatt wrote:
Not really. GA is a broad spectrum, and things like GPS and glass panels are huge workload relievers for cross-country operations and things like that. *You wouldn't want all that crap in an ultralight--although NWPilot has a kickass electronic kneeboard--but for larger, faster or more navigation-oriented aircraft it's good to have. Link? I'd like to see it. 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin, etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)? I'd hate to be reliant on an electrical system and have an electrical fire or fuses blowing. *For comparison, I couldn't roll down the window in my Chevy until I fixed the wiring. *That really sucked. 5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108? Can't wait to find out. *Hopefully we'll still be able to afford to fly them. 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. In 1970, 1GB RAM would have cost almost a 1 billion $US. Today, if one accidentally destroys 1GB memory stick, it is merely an inconvenience. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
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? 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. 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. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 19, 3:16*pm, "BDS" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote [I am an electrical engineer] Don't take this wrong but do you have any practical experience? About average. [simple diode fixes the problem.] Not necessarily. [My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer should have known that."] My first thought is "the engineers probably knew this, so why didn't they use a diode?" Good question. I would be curious to hear what the engineer responsible for employing the diode has to say. [Sometimes this does not happen, and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of experienced, bright, electrical engineer.] Right, and we all know that the auto manufacturers do not have any experienced and bright electrical engineers. Well, certainly they have enough to know when to employ a 10-cent diode to prevent massive recall 1000's of vehicles. [If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts, propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at temperatures exceeding 4000F....snip......she might reasonably claim that the whole idea is just too risky] Well of course she would - that didn't become possible until the 1960s... Which is the crux of the question: What makes something possible in the future, but not the present? -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 |