Free plans? Open source plans?

[Oliver Arend]

The first question is really simple: Are there any free plans for
homebuilt aircraft on the web? It should have an engine and be able to
carry a person, apart from that I'm just interested in seeing what's
out there, if any...

The second question/idea is a bit far out: Are there any "open source"
projects? It's obviously extremely difficult to exchange parts of
airplanes across the web, but people could develop something together
and everyone builds his or her own plane from the plans that come out
of this (and even those not building could bring in their expertise).
I know this is not computer software (even for a model airplane it
could work well), but has something like this been undertaken? Is it
feasible?

Oliver

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:48:28 -0800 (PST), Oliver Arend >
wrote:

> The first question is really simple: Are there any free plans for
> homebuilt aircraft on the web? It should have an engine and be able to
> carry a person, apart from that I'm just interested in seeing what's
> out there, if any...

Texas Parasol, courtesy of our own Richard Lamb:

/

> The second question/idea is a bit far out: Are there any "open source"
> projects? It's obviously extremely difficult to exchange parts of
> airplanes across the web, but people could develop something together
> and everyone builds his or her own plane from the plans that come out
> of this (and even those not building could bring in their expertise).
> I know this is not computer software (even for a model airplane it
> could work well), but has something like this been undertaken? Is it
> feasible?

One of the RAH folks was part of a group of 13 people who built fourteen
examples of a given plans-built design at the same time. There were people who
were designated decision-makers, but everyone still tried to go their own way
and make changes, "improve" portions, and generally go against the rest of the
group. The fall of Saigon sounds like it had been quieter.

Couldn't imagine trying to actually *design* an airplane in such an environment.
You'll end up with folks pushing their own versions, with no knowledge of their
qualifications to do the design or even whether they've tried it themselves.
For a small airplane, for good or for bad, you need *one* designer. If you
don't like the way he does it, you're free to change it, but you don't get the
opportunity to push your version in front of his. Compared to a software
product, an airplane is a very long-term affair. Bad decisions early can lead
to death years later.

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

> The second question/idea is a bit far out: Are there any "open source"
> projects? It's obviously extremely difficult to exchange parts of
> airplanes across the web, but people could develop something together
> and everyone builds his or her own plane from the plans that come out
> of this (and even those not building could bring in their expertise).
> I know this is not computer software (even for a model airplane it
> could work well), but has something like this been undertaken? Is it
> feasible?
>
> Oliver

If open source airplane designs worked like open source software I
wouldn't go near the end product -- because my life would depend on
it.

And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

wrote:
>>The second question/idea is a bit far out: Are there any "open source"
>>projects? It's obviously extremely difficult to exchange parts of
>>airplanes across the web, but people could develop something together
>>and everyone builds his or her own plane from the plans that come out
>>of this (and even those not building could bring in their expertise).
>>I know this is not computer software (even for a model airplane it
>>could work well), but has something like this been undertaken? Is it
>>feasible?
>>
>>Oliver
>
>
> If open source airplane designs worked like open source software I
> wouldn't go near the end product -- because my life would depend on
> it.
>
> And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
> systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.


Almost ALL experimental Amateur built airplanes would qualify as open
source...

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> cavalamb himself wrote:
>>
>> Almost ALL experimental Amateur built airplanes would qualify as open
>> source...
>
>
> Truer words have never been spoken.
>
> I don't know what sockpuppet61 has against enthusiast checking over and
> correcting each other's work, improving it and sharing their
> improvements, but he obviously hasn't a clue what can be accomplished in
> this way. I'm a full-time, won't-touch-Windows-any-more, Linux man. I
> use it for both work and play, and it's performance is stellar. The
> point is that if something goes wrong, I can (and have) go into the
> source code and fix it.
>
> Now, socketpuppet61 may not be able to, because he probably isn't a
> software engineer, but the fact is that it can be done. I would trust
> open-source that I could audit long before closed-source. As a matter
> of fact, I'm doing exactly that. My engine controller will be a
> Megasquirt unit that comes as a kit with open source software. It was
> designed for cars, so I will be modifying it to make it more appropriate
> for airplane use (mostly just making it simpler).
>
> Amateur built airplanes are the same way. You have the plans. You can
> change anything you like. The whole RV line began, because VanGrueson
> had an airplane that he liked...except for a few handling issues. Can't
> remember the name of the predecessor, and I think I mangled Van's name,
> but he had the education, training, skill AND opportunity to fix what
> he thought were the problems. The result is the all-time most
> successful line of kit built airplanes.
>
> As Ron mentioned, the problem with having people sit down and draw up a
> design is that you don't know who's qualified and the end result won't
> be seen for years. (With software, the end result can be produced in
> minutes.) We do have open-source, though, in that you can cruise down
> the homebuilt line at the fly-ins and take pictures of what you consider
> good ideas. Talk to the builders and get their opinion of how their
> modifications worked out. Maybe click through their web logs to see
> what they're doing, and how they're doing it. You'll still need to get
> a set of plans for the overall design, but you'll never be limited to
> JUST what is in that one set of plans.


Ernest,

If I could find a comfortable CAD program for Linux, I'd join ya.

Richard

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:48:28 -0800 (PST), Oliver Arend
> wrote:

>The first question is really simple: Are there any free plans for
>homebuilt aircraft on the web? It should have an engine and be able to
>carry a person, apart from that I'm just interested in seeing what's
>out there, if any...
>
>The second question/idea is a bit far out: Are there any "open source"
>projects? It's obviously extremely difficult to exchange parts of
>airplanes across the web, but people could develop something together
>and everyone builds his or her own plane from the plans that come out
>of this (and even those not building could bring in their expertise).
>I know this is not computer software (even for a model airplane it
>could work well), but has something like this been undertaken? Is it
>feasible?
>
>Oliver

oliver your innocence has hidden something important from you.
the paper drawing is merely an implementation of a design.
what you must have and understand for designs that you build from
anonymous sources is the design calculations. these match the material
strengths and the structural layout to the predicted flight loads.
without these you have no idea what you are building.

if you are interested in a design then ask whether there were design
calculations. if there arent you need to develop the understanding
needed to do reverse engineering calcs for your self.

Stealth Pilot

[BobR]

On Jan 25, 7:13*pm, wrote:
> > The second question/idea is a bit far out: Are there any "open source"
> > projects? It's obviously extremely difficult to exchange parts of
> > airplanes across the web, but people could develop something together
> > and everyone builds his or her own plane from the plans that come out
> > of this (and even those not building could bring in their expertise).
> > I know this is not computer software (even for a model airplane it
> > could work well), but has something like this been undertaken? Is it
> > feasible?
>
> > Oliver
>
> If open source airplane designs worked like open source software I
> wouldn't go near the end product -- because my life would depend on
> it.
>
> And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
> systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.

I would sooner fly with open source software running my aircraft than
anything put out by Microsoft or Apple. Nothing would put the fear of
flying into me more than thinking that I was dependent on anything put
out by those to companies.

[BobR]

On Jan 25, 10:16*pm, cavalamb himself > wrote:
> wrote:
> >>The second question/idea is a bit far out: Are there any "open source"
> >>projects? It's obviously extremely difficult to exchange parts of
> >>airplanes across the web, but people could develop something together
> >>and everyone builds his or her own plane from the plans that come out
> >>of this (and even those not building could bring in their expertise).
> >>I know this is not computer software (even for a model airplane it
> >>could work well), but has something like this been undertaken? Is it
> >>feasible?
>
> >>Oliver
>
> > If open source airplane designs worked like open source software I
> > wouldn't go near the end product -- because my life would depend on
> > it.
>
> > And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
> > systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.
>
> Almost ALL experimental Amateur built airplanes would qualify as open
> source...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
source since it began. All the advancements in aviation design have
been largely improvements on prior designs. Hell, even Rutans designs
are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"BobR" > wrote

When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
source since it began. All the advancements in aviation design have
been largely improvements on prior designs. Hell, even Rutans designs
are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.

That's putting it a bit too simplistic, don't you think?

Wright brothers didn't use a stiff outer skin of cloth and resin to carry
the loads, did they? How about a feathering tail on a spaceship?

If you want to put it that way, Leonardo Da Vinci was copied by the Wright
Brothers.
--
Jim in NC

[Oliver Arend]

> oliver your innocence has hidden something important from you.

Not exactly, as I've been studying aerospace engineering for about 5
years now. I know, unfortunately that's no proof of knowledge,
experience or wisdom...

> what you must have and understand for designs that you build from
> anonymous sources is the design calculations.

This could easily be integrated into an open source aircraft project,
don't you think? You take the structural members of the wing, the
flaps, whichever component (I know it becomes very tricky for certain
parts), do the calcs, and if it holds up you draw up the plan. If it
doesn't, back to the design.
This way the other participants could at least theoretically verify
what one has designed. And if you have a decent number of
participants, there will hardly be any points missed. Imagine an open-
source plane flying as well as Wikipedia compares to "regular"
encyclopedias like the Enc. Britannica or the Brockhaus.

Oliver

[BobR]

On Jan 26, 11:40*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "BobR" > wrote
>
> When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
> source since it began. *All the advancements in aviation design have
> been largely improvements on prior designs. *Hell, even Rutans designs
> are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.
>
> That's putting it a bit too simplistic, don't you think?
>
> Wright brothers didn't use a stiff outer skin of cloth and resin to carry
> the loads, did they? *How about a feathering tail on a spaceship?
>
> If you want to put it that way, Leonardo Da Vinci was copied by the Wright
> Brothers.
> --
> Jim in NC

A bit simplistic maybe but not inaccurate. The canard design is not
that far removed from the Wright Brothers tail first design. Aviation
once proven possible has been largely evolutionary throughout its
development with the major breakthroughs being made in the early
years. Technology has allowed us to refine the designs but the basics
have not changed. The feathering tail on a spaceship is interesting
but hardly revolutionary.

[Blueskies]

"Bryan Martin" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If open source airplane designs worked like open source software I
>> wouldn't go near the end product -- because my life would depend on
>> it.
>>
>> And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
>> systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.
>
> You'd rather fly an airplane with systems running in Windows rather than
> Unix? I don't think you have a clue.
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL, Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive.



Here: http://www.lynuxworks.com/solutions/milaero/arinc-653.php

[[email protected]]

> Amateur built airplanes are the same way. *You have the plans. *You can
> change anything you like.

You paid for your airplane plans (or not) -- change them all you want.

You *might* have paid for your Linux distribution. You can change it
all you want.

You can fly in airplanes running open source software for their
control systems and avionics. And you can change that software too.

I have *nothing* against anyone building any contraption they like to
fly in (as long as it doesn't fall on me or mine).

But I value my skin too much to fly in or build just anything some
random amateur has designed. Software, that's one thing. If your Linux
kernel crashes because you you have a dangling pointer somewhere, so
what? Just reboot. Unless that software is controlling your
elevator ...

And aircraft? Anyone who's spent a little time reading even the basics
of aircraft design should realize it's very tricky biz.

Hat's off to you, though. I'm all for the experimental category.

[[email protected]]

> > And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
> > systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.
>
> I would sooner fly with open source software running my aircraft than
> anything put out by Microsoft or Apple. *Nothing would put the fear of
> flying into me more than thinking that I was dependent on anything put
> out by those to companies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I wouldn't fly with any software by them either.

In fact I don't like software controlling aircraft at all. Written by
anyone. The more software gets involved in aircraft control, the more
major crashes will be traced back to a "software glitch." It's
happened already.

I won't be surprised if the 777 at Heathrow won't be some kind of
software glitch.

F0k that.

[[email protected]]

> When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
> source since it began. *All the advancements in aviation design have
> been largely improvements on prior designs. *Hell, even Rutans designs
> are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think you know what open source means.

Most aviation advances have been held strictly secret, either by
companies or by governments. Nobody advertises their advances to their
potential adversaries.

Open source DEMANDS that it's a fundamental right to know how
something works.

Anybody wants to give their ideas away, fine by me.

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:
>> When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
>> source since it began. All the advancements in aviation design have
>> been largely improvements on prior designs. Hell, even Rutans designs
>> are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't think you know what open source means.
>
> Most aviation advances have been held strictly secret, either by
> companies or by governments. Nobody advertises their advances to their
> potential adversaries.

The Wright brothers took to the air on wings that had an airfoil that
had evolved from the experiments of Otto Lilienthal, which they read
about from Lilienthal's own writings. Their wire and strut braced wing
evolved from early experiments and designs of Octave Chanute, who not
only freely shared his discoveries with the Wrights, he visited them at
least once. In fact, Chanute organized an international conference to
share information on aeronautics. The Wright brothers were keen to
patent their advancements, not keep them secret. It is pretty hard to
keep something secret when it is in plain sight for all to see, like for
example Bleriot's modern tractor design which quickly eclipsed flying
bedsteads like the Curtiss and the Wright flyer. After World War one,
when the US realized any lead they had in aviation was not only history
but they were now way outclassed, people like Gugenheim and the US
government (through NACA), went out of their way to foster open sharing
of information. Guggenheim did it by bringing top flight theorists to
the US (students of Rankine, Prandtl and Froude) to teach and NACA did
it by systematic experimentation and dissemination of the results. This
pretty much continued up until WWII. In fact, I have papers and
books from US efforts during WWII that not only reference the pre war
work of Japanese researchers, but laud them.

Charles

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 12:02*am, Charles Vincent > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
> >> source since it began. *All the advancements in aviation design have
> >> been largely improvements on prior designs. *Hell, even Rutans designs
> >> are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't think you know what open source means.
>
> > Most aviation advances have been held strictly secret, either by
> > companies or by governments. Nobody advertises their advances to their
> > potential adversaries.
>
> The Wright brothers took to the air on wings that had an airfoil that
> had evolved from the experiments of Otto Lilienthal, which they read
> about from Lilienthal's own writings. *Their wire and strut braced wing
> evolved from early experiments and designs of Octave Chanute, who not
> only freely shared his discoveries with the Wrights, he visited them at
> least once. *In fact, Chanute organized an international conference to
> share information on aeronautics. *The Wright brothers were keen to
> patent their advancements, not keep them secret. *It is pretty hard to
> keep something secret when it is in plain sight for all to see, like for
> example Bleriot's modern tractor design which quickly eclipsed flying
> bedsteads like the Curtiss and the Wright flyer. *After World War one,
> when the US realized any lead they had in aviation was not only history
> but they were now way outclassed, people like Gugenheim and the US
> government (through NACA), went out of their way to foster open sharing
> of information. *Guggenheim did it by bringing top flight theorists to
> the US (students of Rankine, Prandtl and Froude) to teach and NACA did
> it by systematic experimentation and dissemination of the results. *This
> pretty much continued up until WWII. * * *In fact, I have papers and
> books from US efforts during WWII that not only reference the pre war
> work of Japanese researchers, but laud them.
>
> Charles

Was NACA and Guggenheim paying these people to collaborate?

If so, how is that open source like the open source software movement?
No one is getting paid to share their knowledge in open source. You
have to share your knowledge without compensation -- that's how it
works. You don't sell your hard won knowledge. You give it away so
others can benefit from it.

What about WWII and after? Sharing open source super sonic secrets?

Anyway that's a lot of ******** and besides the point.

Open source software projects are often poorly tested pieces of half
working junk written ad hoc and often by very immature, inexperience
developers. The Linux kernel is an exception. Apache is an exception.
For each of these there are 10 thousand pieces of crap.

You're free to share and collaborate all you want. Go for it.

[Charles Vincent]

wrote:
> Was NACA and Guggenheim paying these people to collaborate?
>
> If so, how is that open source like the open source software movement?
> No one is getting paid to share their knowledge in open source. You
> have to share your knowledge without compensation -- that's how it
> works. You don't sell your hard won knowledge. You give it away so
> others can benefit from it.

IBM, HP and Sun are a few corporate contributors to open source efforts.
Their employees do get paid. For that matter, so do the employees of
Redhat and Xandros.

>
> What about WWII and after? Sharing open source super sonic secrets?

Stanford, and other benefactors of Guggenheim are still publishing their
work as well, and much of it can be accessed for free through libraries,
and sometimes the universities themselves. NASA is still publishing
materials and they are still free. Much of the post WWII material
covers supersonic flight and the engineering challenges it presents. Do
you know of many super sonic homebuilts?

>
> Anyway that's a lot of ******** and besides the point.

Inconvenient facts is a better description.

>
> Open source software projects are often poorly tested pieces of half
> working junk written ad hoc and often by very immature, inexperience
> developers. The Linux kernel is an exception. Apache is an exception.
> For each of these there are 10 thousand pieces of crap.

Homebuilt aircraft are often poorly tested pieces of half
working junk designed ad hoc and often by very immature, inexperience
builders. So what. There are plenty of exceptions there too.

>
> You're free to share and collaborate all you want. Go for it.

Isn't that the purpose of this group? And the EAA for that matter.


Charles

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-29, > wrote:
> If so, how is that open source like the open source software movement?
> No one is getting paid to share their knowledge in open source.

Wrong. There are lots of folks getting paid to work on open source software.
I've occasionally even been one of them.

> Open source software projects are often poorly tested pieces of half
> working junk written ad hoc and often by very immature, inexperience
> developers. The Linux kernel is an exception. Apache is an exception.
> For each of these there are 10 thousand pieces of crap.

That 99% of everything is crap doesn't make the stuff that isn't any less
good. Some of the best software available today is open source. Don't reject
any software because it's open source (or not). Pick, or reject, it because
of how good it is.

(Yeah, I'm biased a bit, as I'm the project manager of a piece of open
source software that's a leader in its field. I'll proudly stand Hercules up
against anything else.)
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wrote:
>>> And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
>>> systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.
>> I would sooner fly with open source software running my aircraft than
>> anything put out by Microsoft or Apple. Nothing would put the fear of
>> flying into me more than thinking that I was dependent on anything put
>> out by those to companies.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I wouldn't fly with any software by them either.
>
> In fact I don't like software controlling aircraft at all. Written by
> anyone. The more software gets involved in aircraft control, the more
> major crashes will be traced back to a "software glitch." It's
> happened already.
>
> I won't be surprised if the 777 at Heathrow won't be some kind of
> software glitch.
>
> F0k that.


Like there were no crashes before software got involved. The question is
how many accidents didn't happen because of software intervention.
Unfortunately we will never know.

[BobR]

On Jan 28, 10:22*pm, wrote:
> > When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
> > source since it began. *All the advancements in aviation design have
> > been largely improvements on prior designs. *Hell, even Rutans designs
> > are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't think you know what open source means.
>
> Most aviation advances have been held strictly secret, either by
> companies or by governments. Nobody advertises their advances to their
> potential adversaries.
>
> Open source DEMANDS that it's a fundamental right to know how
> something works.
>
> Anybody wants to give their ideas away, fine by me.

No, I know exactly what open source means and have been a participant
in some limited areas. I am not talking about the corporate and
government worlds of super high tech development systems but general
aviation. In that realm, the developments have largely been by
experimentation based on designs and ideas gained from others. That
may not be "open source" in the strictest sense of todays software
development model but is in reality the same type of development.
Don't know of anybody that has any patents on NACA wing designs for
example.

[BobR]

On Jan 29, 12:19*am, wrote:
> On Jan 29, 12:02*am, Charles Vincent > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > >> When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
> > >> source since it began. *All the advancements in aviation design have
> > >> been largely improvements on prior designs. *Hell, even Rutans designs
> > >> are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't think you know what open source means.
>
> > > Most aviation advances have been held strictly secret, either by
> > > companies or by governments. Nobody advertises their advances to their
> > > potential adversaries.
>
> > The Wright brothers took to the air on wings that had an airfoil that
> > had evolved from the experiments of Otto Lilienthal, which they read
> > about from Lilienthal's own writings. *Their wire and strut braced wing
> > evolved from early experiments and designs of Octave Chanute, who not
> > only freely shared his discoveries with the Wrights, he visited them at
> > least once. *In fact, Chanute organized an international conference to
> > share information on aeronautics. *The Wright brothers were keen to
> > patent their advancements, not keep them secret. *It is pretty hard to
> > keep something secret when it is in plain sight for all to see, like for
> > example Bleriot's modern tractor design which quickly eclipsed flying
> > bedsteads like the Curtiss and the Wright flyer. *After World War one,
> > when the US realized any lead they had in aviation was not only history
> > but they were now way outclassed, people like Gugenheim and the US
> > government (through NACA), went out of their way to foster open sharing
> > of information. *Guggenheim did it by bringing top flight theorists to
> > the US (students of Rankine, Prandtl and Froude) to teach and NACA did
> > it by systematic experimentation and dissemination of the results. *This
> > pretty much continued up until WWII. * * *In fact, I have papers and
> > books from US efforts during WWII that not only reference the pre war
> > work of Japanese researchers, but laud them.
>
> > Charles
>
> Was NACA and Guggenheim paying these people to collaborate?
>
> If so, how is that open source like the open source software movement?
> No one is getting paid to share their knowledge in open source. You
> have to share your knowledge without compensation -- that's how it
> works. You don't sell your hard won knowledge. You give it away so
> others can benefit from it.
>
> What about WWII and after? Sharing open source super sonic secrets?
>
> Anyway that's a lot of ******** and besides the point.
>
> Open source software projects are often poorly tested pieces of half
> working junk written ad hoc and often by very immature, inexperience
> developers. The Linux kernel is an exception. Apache is an exception.
> For each of these there are 10 thousand pieces of crap.
>
> You're free to share and collaborate all you want. Go for it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you are telling us that ALL SOFTWARE on the market today is open
source? Nobody has said that all aviation advances were open source
either. That does not mean that open source has not played a large
part in the advances in aviation. The fact is that even open source
is being supported by companies who have paid staff contributing to
the product.

[BobR]

On Jan 28, 10:20*pm, wrote:
> > > And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
> > > systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.
>
> > I would sooner fly with open source software running my aircraft than
> > anything put out by Microsoft or Apple. *Nothing would put the fear of
> > flying into me more than thinking that I was dependent on anything put
> > out by those to companies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I wouldn't fly with any software by them either.
>
> In fact I don't like software controlling aircraft at all. Written by
> anyone. The more software gets involved in aircraft control, the more
> major crashes will be traced back to a "software glitch." It's
> happened already.
>
> I won't be surprised if the 777 at Heathrow won't be some kind of
> software glitch.
>
> F0k that.

Computers and the software that we run on them are TOOLS and should be
used to supplement the capabilities of those using them. The TOOLS
should not be in charge for the simple reason that they can not reason
and make decisions on anything not previously programmed into them.
When we allow those TOOLS to override our requests, we are at the
mercy of our lack of ability to anticipate all possible events.

[BobR]

On Jan 29, 10:39*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> wrote:
> >>> And if I ever find out open source software is running aircraft
> >>> systems I won't fly on it. But of course that will never happen.
> >> I would sooner fly with open source software running my aircraft than
> >> anything put out by Microsoft or Apple. *Nothing would put the fear of
> >> flying into me more than thinking that I was dependent on anything put
> >> out by those to companies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I wouldn't fly with any software by them either.
>
> > In fact I don't like software controlling aircraft at all. Written by
> > anyone. The more software gets involved in aircraft control, the more
> > major crashes will be traced back to a "software glitch." It's
> > happened already.
>
> > I won't be surprised if the 777 at Heathrow won't be some kind of
> > software glitch.
>
> > F0k that.
>
> Like there were no crashes before software got involved. The question is
> how many accidents didn't happen because of software intervention.
> Unfortunately we will never know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Excellent point!

[[email protected]]

> > Like there were no crashes before software got involved. The question is
> > how many accidents didn't happen because of software intervention.
> > Unfortunately we will never know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Excellent point!-

If we will never know how can that be an excellent point?

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 11:07*am, BobR > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:22*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > When you get right down to it....the aviation industry has been open
> > > source since it began. *All the advancements in aviation design have
> > > been largely improvements on prior designs. *Hell, even Rutans designs
> > > are throwbacks to the Wright Brothers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't think you know what open source means.
>
> > Most aviation advances have been held strictly secret, either by
> > companies or by governments. Nobody advertises their advances to their
> > potential adversaries.
>
> > Open source DEMANDS that it's a fundamental right to know how
> > something works.
>
> > Anybody wants to give their ideas away, fine by me.
>
> No, I know exactly what open source means and have been a participant
> in some limited areas. *I am not talking about the corporate and
> government worlds of super high tech development systems but general
> aviation. *In that realm, the developments have largely been by
> experimentation based on designs and ideas gained from others. *That
> may not be "open source" in the strictest sense of todays software
> development model but is in reality the same type of development.
> Don't know of anybody that has any patents on NACA wing designs for
> example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fair to say.

[[email protected]]

> That 99% of everything is crap doesn't make the stuff that isn't any less
> good. Some of the best software available today is open source. Don't reject
> any software because it's open source (or not). Pick, or reject, it because
> of how good it is.

I don't. I use some open source products.

[[email protected]]

> Wrong. There are lots of folks getting paid to work on open source software.
> I've occasionally even been one of them.
>

I should clarify: most of the bad experience I've had with open source
is a result of people NOT being paid to work on it. Therefore there is
no motivation to create a really good product, generally.

I have objections to copyleft.

I have no objections to collaboration.

I don't like bad software. I don't like software running aircraft.

I'd prefer a live human being to make mistakes than a software program
to run an airplane into the ground. Which has happened before and will
happen again.

[Charles Vincent]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Like there were no crashes before software got involved. The question is
> how many accidents didn't happen because of software intervention.
> Unfortunately we will never know.

You could say everytime an F22 or F117 take off and land it is a crash
averted by software.

Charles

[BobR]

On Jan 29, 12:39*pm, wrote:
> > > Like there were no crashes before software got involved. The question is
> > > how many accidents didn't happen because of software intervention.
> > > Unfortunately we will never know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Excellent point!-
>
> If we will never know how can that be an excellent point?

Ever try to prove a negative? We can extrapolate on probabilities
based on the improved safety of the airlines in spite of an ever
greater number of flights with more complex aircraft. If the software
were not involved, could that safety margin have been maintained? I
seriously doubt it but we will never know.

[BobR]

On Jan 29, 12:54*pm, wrote:
> > Wrong. There are lots of folks getting paid to work on open source software.
> > I've occasionally even been one of them.
>
> I should clarify: most of the bad experience I've had with open source
> is a result of people NOT being paid to work on it. Therefore there is
> no motivation to create a really good product, generally.
>
> I have objections to copyleft.
>
> I have no objections to collaboration.
>
> I don't like bad software. I don't like software running aircraft.
>
> I'd prefer a live human being to make mistakes than a software program
> to run an airplane into the ground. Which has happened before and will
> happen again.

As I said elsewhere, computers and software are tools for the Pilot
and should be used accordingly. Either by themselves may have flaws
that in combination could be eliminated.

[[email protected]]

>
> As I said elsewhere, computers and software are tools for the Pilot
> and should be used accordingly. *Either by themselves may have flaws
> that in combination could be eliminated.-

Fair to say.

The space shuttle can't be landed without software. There are modern
bombers/fighters that are apparently too difficult to control without
software making minor corrections to flight inputs (I've read. I
haven't flow, so I don't know but from heresay and magazine articles).

My prejudice is working 10 years in software and seeing for myself how
small flaws can be missed by even extraordinary testing regimes and
not detected by even the best of developers.

For experimental aircraft and small GA aircraft in particular I prefer
cables and pulleys and turnbuckles to software activated electric
motors.

I wouldn't have thought that an offhand crude comment about open
source software could have so thoroughly hijacked this thread.

[BobR]

On Jan 29, 8:21*pm, wrote:
> > As I said elsewhere, computers and software are tools for the Pilot
> > and should be used accordingly. *Either by themselves may have flaws
> > that in combination could be eliminated.-
>
> Fair to say.
>
> The space shuttle can't be landed without software. There are modern
> bombers/fighters that are apparently too difficult to control without
> software making minor corrections to flight inputs (I've read. I
> haven't flow, so I don't know but from heresay and magazine articles).
>
> My prejudice is working 10 years in software and seeing for myself how
> small flaws can be missed by even extraordinary testing regimes and
> not detected by even the best of developers.
>
> For experimental aircraft and small GA aircraft in particular I prefer
> cables and pulleys and turnbuckles to software activated electric
> motors.
>
> I wouldn't have thought that an offhand crude comment about open
> source software could have so thoroughly hijacked this thread.

I have over 43 years of developing software and would consider myself
among the best in my field but even I have been known to miss the
occasional bug. <BFG> Software development and testing have come a
long long way in the last 40 years but as long as man is doing the
development, there will be things that we never anticipated.

The beauty of open source, be it software or aviation is the
combination of knowledge and forsight from multiple inputs. Those
billion dollar military fighters that require software to make them
controlable required the input of many developers and testers along
with years of refinement. Even then, there will eventually come a
combination of events that everybody thought to be impossible and the
software will fail. Hopefully, there will be someone at the controls
who despite the imperfections of man will find a way to overcome the
problem.