Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I must ask then, if one were to look at a typical GA aircraft, in the
year 2100, in your opinion, will it be as devoid of electro-mechanical
controls as it is today?

What will it look like?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In less than 100 years we went from the first plane the Wrights built to
the Space Shuttle, the F22 and more importantly for this conversation
the Cirrus SR-22. For over half of that century we've told out kids
through magazines like "Popular Science" that flying cars are about 10
years away. I personally think you have bought into the "Popular
Science" mindset and if you aren't a 15 year old kid (which I'm not
really sure that you aren't) you will probably grow out of it.

Will there be electro-mechanical controls in future GA aircraft? Of
course there will be. The 601XL I'm building has electro-mechanical in
it running the elevator and aileron trim. Will the entire wire or
push-rod system be replaced? If the parts get to the point where they
are of equal or less weight AND the system is as reliable AND cost is
equal or less than what is used now the answer is yes.

If the Wright brothers were to come back to life today they could look
at the SR-22 or the other aircraft I mentioned and understand why they
fly how they do. They could probably fly the Cirrus with no more check
out than is required of the average guy who is transitioning from a 172.

There is a reason for this. Airplanes work the way they do because they
are flying in the same environment they were in 1903. They have to
overcome the same gravity and they need to be as light as possible for a
given job.

You have all these grand ideas that replacing everything with
electronics will make aircraft easier to fly and cheaper. Yet you have
never really told us your idea. You just keep saying things like, "Well,
my design will get around that problem."

I know you think that there is all this open source software and
electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
fix. BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.

Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.

I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
available today it can't be made.

In article ,
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I must ask then, if one were to look at a typical GA aircraft, in the
year 2100, in your opinion, will it be as devoid of electro-mechanical
controls as it is today?

What will it look like?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In less than 100 years we went from the first plane the Wrights built to
the Space Shuttle, the F22 and more importantly for this conversation
the Cirrus SR-22. For over half of that century we've told out kids
through magazines like "Popular Science" that flying cars are about 10
years away. I personally think you have bought into the "Popular
Science" mindset and if you aren't a 15 year old kid (which I'm not
really sure that you aren't) you will probably grow out of it.

Will there be electro-mechanical controls in future GA aircraft? Of
course there will be. The 601XL I'm building has electro-mechanical in
it running the elevator and aileron trim. Will the entire wire or
push-rod system be replaced? If the parts get to the point where they
are of equal or less weight AND the system is as reliable AND cost is
equal or less than what is used now the answer is yes.

If the Wright brothers were to come back to life today they could look
at the SR-22 or the other aircraft I mentioned and understand why they
fly how they do. They could probably fly the Cirrus with no more check
out than is required of the average guy who is transitioning from a 172.

There is a reason for this. Airplanes work the way they do because they
are flying in the same environment they were in 1903. They have to
overcome the same gravity and they need to be as light as possible for a
given job.

You have all these grand ideas that replacing everything with
electronics will make aircraft easier to fly and cheaper. Yet you have
never really told us your idea. You just keep saying things like, "Well,
my design will get around that problem."

I know you think that there is all this open source software and
electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
fix. BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.

Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.

I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
available today it can't be made.

I'm still waiting for the rocket backpacks they promised...

On Jun 20, 1:47*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I know you think that there is all this open source software and
electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
fix. *BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.

Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.

I am glad we agree about the desirability of a PAV. As for why it has
not been done yet, I think the answer has more to do with managerial
dynamics than technology. Ten years from now, someone will invent a
system, software or otherwise, that will be herald as a
"breakthrough". The fundamental components that are required to build
that system most likely exist today, in 2008, especially in the case
of software. What changes in 10 years that makes the breakthrough
able to occur later than sooner?

I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
available today it can't be made.

I disagree with this. There is a difference between cannot and has
not.

If the truth were always "cannot", there would never be any
breakthroughs.

If you say that there will be breakthroughs, but it will be done by
Boeing, Cessna, or Cirrus, then NASA should take the CAFE/PAV award
and give it to engineers inside those companies directly.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I know you think that there is all this open source software and
electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
fix. BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.

Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.

I am glad we agree about the desirability of a PAV. As for why it has
not been done yet, I think the answer has more to do with managerial
dynamics than technology. Ten years from now, someone will invent a
system, software or otherwise, that will be herald as a
"breakthrough". The fundamental components that are required to build
that system most likely exist today, in 2008, especially in the case
of software. What changes in 10 years that makes the breakthrough
able to occur later than sooner?



I don't agree that it is desirable. I said that, don't you think that if
the aviation companies would like to increase their market share 1000 fold?

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 want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
available today it can't be made.

I disagree with this. There is a difference between cannot and has
not.

If the truth were always "cannot", there would never be any
breakthroughs.

If you say that there will be breakthroughs, but it will be done by
Boeing, Cessna, or Cirrus, then NASA should take the CAFE/PAV award
and give it to engineers inside those companies directly.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

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.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to
be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming
a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft.

Your premise is simply incorrect. You took this post as support for your
premise:

On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote:
The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is
just an obsession with electronics and computers.

And basically misunderstood what it was objecting to.

A fair number of homebuilts and certified GA aircraft are now being
outfitted with autopilots anyway, so I'm not sure your premise has any
merit even absent your misunderstanding of the post in question.

On Jun 19, 1:11*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hi All,

What do you think?

1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics?
2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics?
3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?
4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year
2108?
5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108?
6. Any other thoughts...


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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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-

"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.

"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...

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-