Future of Electronics In Aviation

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Hi All,

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.

There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
underutilized. The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.

There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
reliability, controllability, etc.

Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. I have
not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
aviation.

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...

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Here is an excerpt from a concurrent thread, where the conversation
seems to be turning toward Electronics-Or-Not:

On Jun 19, 11:16 am, wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
>
> > > The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
> > > seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
> > > but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
> > > density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
> > > Austin has its village idiot.
>
> > Lots of guys like that. 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. The idea that electric
> > power is green is another falsehood; where does most electricity come
> > from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys), coal (dirty), natural
> > gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource), nuclear (dangerous and
> > waste problems), and so on. Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked
> > well and were affordable, require hydrogen, which requires the
> > electrolysis of water, which needs vast amounts of electricity. Other
> > methods of storage involve heavy metals and their dangers. The idea
> > that a helicopter is easy to build (with biplane blades, yet, which
> > was tried in the early years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer
> > knows nothing of the problems that gyroscopic precession present to
> > all rotating components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA
> > and airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
> > flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
> > after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).
>
> > Dan
>
> Here is a frightening thought. If Le Chaud is in fact an engineer,
> someone is paying him money for his lack of knowledge of basics, like
> the power demand to keep a something with a specific gravity greater
> than its environment suspended there. Well, that may be second term
> physics. Lift ferries indeed.

> I wonder how long it would take me to understand his true worth -- I
> do make mistakes in hiring, but rarely in discharging.

[Jim Stewart]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> What do you think?

I think you are off-topic for rec.aviation.student

Please do not crosspost to non-relevant groups.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 12:40*pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > What do you think?
>
> I think you are off-topic for rec.aviation.student
>
> Please do not crosspost to non-relevant groups.

Both groups begin with "rec", which means "recreation" to mean, which
applies at least a minimal amount of amusement.

And since students possess brains, ideas, and opinions, just as do
licensed pilots, they might find the post just as amusing as pilots.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Hi All,

> 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.

> There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
> underutilized. The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
> an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.

> There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
> integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
> any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
> as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
> analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
> reliability, controllability, etc.

> Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. I have
> not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
> project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
> aviation.

> 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...

1. Real things cost real money.

2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of
the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up,
the outcome probably won't be as benign.

3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along
the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten
thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem".

4. Have you seen a current production aircraft?

5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft?

6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control
forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable
aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 1:05*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
> > 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.
> > There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
> > underutilized. *The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
> > an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.
> > There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
> > integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
> > any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
> > as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
> > analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
> > reliability, controllability, etc.
> > Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. *I have
> > not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
> > project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
> > aviation.
> > 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...
>
> 1. Real things cost real money.
>
> 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of
> * *the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up,
> * *the outcome probably won't be as benign.
>
> 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along
> * *the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten
> * *thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem".
>
> 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft?
>
> 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft?
>
> 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control
> * *forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable
> * *aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft.

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-

[Jim Logajan]

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.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:05?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > > 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.
> > > There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
> > > underutilized. ?The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
> > > an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.
> > > There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
> > > integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
> > > any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
> > > as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
> > > analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
> > > reliability, controllability, etc.
> > > Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. ?I have
> > > not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
> > > project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
> > > aviation.
> > > 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...
> >
> > 1. Real things cost real money.
> >
> > 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of
> > ? ?the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up,
> > ? ?the outcome probably won't be as benign.
> >
> > 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along
> > ? ?the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten
> > ? ?thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem".
> >
> > 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft?
> >
> > 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft?
> >
> > 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control
> > ? ?forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable
> > ? ?aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft.

> 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?

Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no
advantage, what do you think?

> What will it look like?

Like they do now.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 1:35*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 1:05?pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > Hi All,
> > > > 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.
> > > > There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
> > > > underutilized. ?The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
> > > > an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.
> > > > There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
> > > > integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
> > > > any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
> > > > as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
> > > > analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
> > > > reliability, controllability, etc.
> > > > Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. ?I have
> > > > not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
> > > > project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
> > > > aviation.
> > > > 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...
>
> > > 1. Real things cost real money.
>
> > > 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side of
> > > ? ?the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up,
> > > ? ?the outcome probably won't be as benign.
>
> > > 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes along
> > > ? ?the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten
> > > ? ?thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem".
>
> > > 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft?
>
> > > 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft?
>
> > > 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control
> > > ? ?forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable
> > > ? ?aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft.
> > 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?
>
> Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no
> advantage, what do you think?

I think the opposite.

> > 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?

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.)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[es330td]

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.

[gatt[_5_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> What do you think?
>
> 1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics?

Not at all. Basic airplanes used for aerobatics, recreation, crop
dusting and other cross-country activities don't need all the crap, and
the extra weight involved with all it reduces performance and creates
potential issues. I had an electric window wire catch fire in my old
Chevy Blazer one time. What the hell? I don't need electric windows
any more than I need a fire in my door.

> 2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics?

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.

> 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.

-c

[[email protected]]

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.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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]

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-

[Steve Foley]

"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.

[Michael[_1_]]

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

[BDS[_2_]]

"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...

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[[email protected]]

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.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:58?pm, es330td > wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 1:11?pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
> > which is a more reliable mode of transportation, a 1964 Mustang or a
> > 1994 Mustang? ?If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
> > turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
> > which one would you pick?

> I would ask my mechanic first. ;)

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

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

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

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

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



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 3:45*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2:45?pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
> > > > I guess that's reasonable. It is conceivable that typical Cessna willl
> > > > look the same in 2108 as it does in 2008.
> > > > How about 2508?
>
> > > Like they do now.
>
> > > > Will the typical Cessna (or whatever dominant GA manufacturer make)
> > > > look roughly the same in 2508 as it does in 2008, using essentially
> > > > the same mechanical controls (wires, pulleys, bellcranks, etc.)
>
> > > Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> > > gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> > > Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> > > craft.
> > Or jet engines.
>
> So you think small GA aircraft will look like jet engines?

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

> The jet engine was invented over 50 years ago and there are jet engines
> in production from the giant ones that power the Airbus all the way
> down to tiny little ones for model airplanes.
>
> If you knew anything about the typical GA aircraft mission and how
> engines actually work, you would know why a turbine of any kind would
> be the worst possible choice for most GA aircraft of any engine
> currently in production.
>
> > > The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
> > > control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
> > > immutable.
> > The physics of what?
>
> Subsonic, propellor driven flight.
>
> > There is physics, and there is propellor-driven aircraft.
> > If you mean physics-physics is immutable I agree (Newtonian physics).
> > If me mean that physics of propellor-driven aircraft is mostly
> > understood, I would have to agree (with some exception).
>
> Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.

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

> > If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
> > contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
> > Newtonian physics, I disagree.
>
> Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
> exists.

That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> The material cost of software is $0.

Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

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

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

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 3:45?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 19, 2:45?pm, wrote:
> > > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, wrote:
> > > > > I guess that's reasonable. It is conceivable that typical Cessna willl
> > > > > look the same in 2108 as it does in 2008.
> > > > > How about 2508?
> >
> > > > Like they do now.
> >
> > > > > Will the typical Cessna (or whatever dominant GA manufacturer make)
> > > > > look roughly the same in 2508 as it does in 2008, using essentially
> > > > > the same mechanical controls (wires, pulleys, bellcranks, etc.)
> >
> > > > Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> > > > gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> > > > Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> > > > craft.
> > > Or jet engines.
> >
> > So you think small GA aircraft will look like jet engines?

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

> > The jet engine was invented over 50 years ago and there are jet engines
> > in production from the giant ones that power the Airbus all the way
> > down to tiny little ones for model airplanes.
> >
> > If you knew anything about the typical GA aircraft mission and how
> > engines actually work, you would know why a turbine of any kind would
> > be the worst possible choice for most GA aircraft of any engine
> > currently in production.
> >
> > > > The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with aerodynamic
> > > > control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
> > > > immutable.
> > > The physics of what?
> >
> > Subsonic, propellor driven flight.
> >
> > > There is physics, and there is propellor-driven aircraft.
> > > If you mean physics-physics is immutable I agree (Newtonian physics).
> > > If me mean that physics of propellor-driven aircraft is mostly
> > > understood, I would have to agree (with some exception).
> >
> > Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.

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

Nope.

Only arm chair physicists disagree.

> > > If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
> > > contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
> > > Newtonian physics, I disagree.
> >
> > Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
> > exists.

> That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

Which is why:

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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

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

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

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

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

Just curious.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
> failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
> somewhere to get it fixed.
>
> I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
> 4 years.

Ah, anecdotes!

Well then, as to mechanical failures:

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

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

As to electrical failures:

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

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

* Dead batteries a couple times though.

I'm still driving the '99 Integra.

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > In fact, in about 45 years of driving, I can't think of a mechanical
> > failure other than a flat tire that kept the car from limping to
> > somewhere to get it fixed.
> >
> > I've had 3 electronic failures that required a tow truck in the past
> > 4 years.

> Ah, anecdotes!

> Well then, as to mechanical failures:

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

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

> As to electrical failures:

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

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

> * Dead batteries a couple times though.

> I'm still driving the '99 Integra.

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

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

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

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

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



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

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

Sorry, so you did.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

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?
>

According to my inside source at Spacely Sprockets, it'll look like this :

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n178/flynrider/jet.gif

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200806/1

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > The material cost of software is $0.
>
> Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
> cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.

Market capitalization of Textron: $13.2US billion.

Market capitalization of Garmin $9.2US billion.

There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead
cost, etc.

How horrendous can it be?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.
> > Probably. *But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
> > some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. *Which
> > of these do we believe?
>
> Nope.
>
> Only arm chair physicists disagree.

There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
premier educators in aviation.

> > > > If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
> > > > contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
> > > > Newtonian physics, I disagree.
>
> > > Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
> > > exists.
> > That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.
>
> Which is why:
>
> Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> craft.

So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
Newtonian physics is a settled issue?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > If history is any indicator, technology becomes cheaper as time moves
> > forward, so whatever it is, it will probably be smaller, cheaper,
> > faster, more reliable, better-featured, disposable (it breaks, no
> > reason to cry as much), etc.
>
> None of the technology involved in building airplanes has gotten
> much cheaper in real dollars since airplanes were invented.
>
> There are only so many existing materials you can build an airplane from
> and they are all mature.
>
> The only significant difference is the avionics does more for the same
> cost.

Which implies that, if it does the same (if doing the same is an
option), then the cost is less.

Perhaps true commoditization has not penetrated the aviation market.

There are many ground-based vehicles (cars) that technologically more
sophisticated than a new low-end Cessna but cost much less.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > > Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.
> > > Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
> > > some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. ?Which
> > > of these do we believe?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Only arm chair physicists disagree.

> There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
> premier educators in aviation.

And probably a couple of particle physicists as well.

> > > > > If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
> > > > > contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
> > > > > Newtonian physics, I disagree.
> >
> > > > Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
> > > > exists.
> > > That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.
> >
> > Which is why:
> >
> > Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> > gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> > Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> > craft.

> So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
> rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
> Newtonian physics is a settled issue?

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.

Get it yet?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > The material cost of software is $0.
> >
> > Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
> > cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.

> Market capitalization of Textron: $13.2US billion.

> Market capitalization of Garmin $9.2US billion.

Irrelevant to the cost of software.

> There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead
> cost, etc.

One more time and I'll type slowly, the cost of reliability testing is
not zero.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > If history is any indicator, technology becomes cheaper as time moves
> > > forward, so whatever it is, it will probably be smaller, cheaper,
> > > faster, more reliable, better-featured, disposable (it breaks, no
> > > reason to cry as much), etc.
> >
> > None of the technology involved in building airplanes has gotten
> > much cheaper in real dollars since airplanes were invented.
> >
> > There are only so many existing materials you can build an airplane from
> > and they are all mature.
> >
> > The only significant difference is the avionics does more for the same
> > cost.

> Which implies that, if it does the same (if doing the same is an
> option), then the cost is less.

It isn't an option.

There is no market for 12 channel comm radios.

> There are many ground-based vehicles (cars) that technologically more
> sophisticated than a new low-end Cessna but cost much less.

And cars are not built in quatities of a few hundred tops a year
nor does every little piece in them have to be certified.

Well, there are a couple of low volume cars that cost about the same
as a low end Cessna, to be totally accurate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 7:45*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > > > Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.
> > > > Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
> > > > some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. ?Which
> > > > of these do we believe?
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > Only arm chair physicists disagree.
> > There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
> > premier educators in aviation.
>
> And probably a couple of particle physicists as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
> > > > > > contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
> > > > > > Newtonian physics, I disagree.
>
> > > > > Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
> > > > > exists.
> > > > That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.
>
> > > Which is why:
>
> > > Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> > > gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> > > Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> > > craft.
> > So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
> > rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
> > Newtonian physics is a settled issue?
>
> 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.

Are you 100% certain of this?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote:

> > 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.

> Are you 100% certain of this?

An airplanes flys because it is moving through the air.

The only existing way to cause an airplane to move through the air
and continue to move through the air is to accelerate gas.

There are a limited number of existing ways to accelerate gas:

1) Rockets: Not practical for aircraft

2) Propellors: Currently widely used.

3) Turbines: Not practical for GA aircraft, widely used on bigger aircraft

4) Ion wind: Not practical for anything

What turns the propellor is irrelevant.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> 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.

What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering,
has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be
developed "with proper discipline"?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 9:15*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Are you 100% certain of this?
>
> An airplanes flys because it is moving through the air.
>
> The only existing way to cause an airplane to move through the air
> and continue to move through the air is to accelerate gas.

This I agree with 100%. Law of conservation of momentum is conserved,
even in the quantum.

> There are a limited number of existing ways to accelerate gas:
>
> 1) Rockets: Not practical for aircraft
>
> 2) Propellors: Currently widely used.
>
> 3) Turbines: Not practical for GA aircraft, widely used on bigger aircraft
>
> 4) Ion wind: Not practical for anything
>
> What turns the propellor is irrelevant.

I am glad that you make a distinction between 1, 2 and 3, because
technically, I could play devils advocate and go one step further and
say that I will not be able to design any viable aircraft that uses
any principle beyond Newtonian physics, and specifically, will not
make any contraption that relies on anything other than Newton's Law
of Reciprocity of Force. But every method you have identified relies
on Reciprocity of Force. Therefore, if you had not made the
distinction, I would be left with no real options.

But fortunately, you do make a distinction between 1, 2, and 3. You
are saying that rockets are sufficiently different from propellers,
which, in turn, are sufficiently different from turbines, which, in
turn are sufficiently different from ion wind accelerators that they
warrant being recognized as distinct categories in their own right.

That said, I claim that there is very likely another method, which,
naturally, relies on Reciprocity of Force, that is like 1, or 2, or 3,
but sufficiently different from 1, 2, or 3, to warrant recognition as
a propulsion method in its own right. In other words, when you look
at the alternative method, you will see neither propeller, nor jet
engine, nor turbine. In fact, you will have a very hard time finding
the engine at all.

Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but at least we have
made clear that there are distinctions.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Aluckyguess]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 1:35 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 1:05?pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > Hi All,
> > > > 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.
> > > > There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
> > > > underutilized. ?The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
> > > > an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.
> > > > There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
> > > > integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
> > > > any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
> > > > as it is almost always the case that digital version of a
> > > > mechanical,
> > > > analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
> > > > reliability, controllability, etc.
> > > > Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. ?I have
> > > > not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for
> > > > my
> > > > project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future
> > > > of
> > > > aviation.
> > > > 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...
>
> > > 1. Real things cost real money.
>
> > > 2. If some gizmo in an automobile goes tits up, you coast to the side
> > > of
> > > ? ?the road and call AAA. If some gizmo in an airplane goes tits up,
> > > ? ?the outcome probably won't be as benign.
>
> > > 3. There's an old aerospace saying about certain people that goes
> > > along
> > > ? ?the lines of "He always seems to be able to come up the the ten
> > > ? ?thousand dollar solution to the 98 cent problem".
>
> > > 4. Have you seen a current production aircraft?
>
> > > 5. Have you seen the price tag of a current production aircraft?
>
> > > 6. Fly by wire was invented to solve the problems of huge control
> > > ? ?forces in big airplanes and instability in highly manueverable
> > > ? ?aircraft such as fighters. Neither problem exists in GA aircraft.
> > 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?
>
> Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no
> advantage, what do you think?

I think the opposite.

> > 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?

By then it will be anti-gravity or we wont need to fly we will travel
through the internet and there will be no planes.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 9:54*pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering,
> has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be
> developed "with proper discipline"?

That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.

However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in
Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has
Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide.
His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with
that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of
engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious".

I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any
software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know
a few people who studied aero/astro at university.

In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
architecture for free.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 19, 7:45*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > The material cost of software is $0.
>
> > > Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
> > > cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.
> > Market capitalization of Textron: $13.2US billion.
> > Market capitalization of Garmin $9.2US billion.
>
> Irrelevant to the cost of software.
>
> > There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead
> > cost, etc.
>
> One more time and I'll type slowly, the cost of reliability testing is
> not zero.

But not prohibitive for a business that builds software systems for
aviation.

Garmin is doing very well selling hardware/software systems that they
have tested for reliability.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:15?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > Are you 100% certain of this?
> >
> > An airplanes flys because it is moving through the air.
> >
> > The only existing way to cause an airplane to move through the air
> > and continue to move through the air is to accelerate gas.

> This I agree with 100%. Law of conservation of momentum is conserved,
> even in the quantum.

> > There are a limited number of existing ways to accelerate gas:
> >
> > 1) Rockets: Not practical for aircraft
> >
> > 2) Propellors: Currently widely used.
> >
> > 3) Turbines: Not practical for GA aircraft, widely used on bigger aircraft
> >
> > 4) Ion wind: Not practical for anything
> >
> > What turns the propellor is irrelevant.

> I am glad that you make a distinction between 1, 2 and 3, because
> technically, I could play devils advocate and go one step further and
> say that I will not be able to design any viable aircraft that uses
> any principle beyond Newtonian physics, and specifically, will not
> make any contraption that relies on anything other than Newton's Law
> of Reciprocity of Force. But every method you have identified relies
> on Reciprocity of Force. Therefore, if you had not made the
> distinction, I would be left with no real options.

> But fortunately, you do make a distinction between 1, 2, and 3. You
> are saying that rockets are sufficiently different from propellers,
> which, in turn, are sufficiently different from turbines, which, in
> turn are sufficiently different from ion wind accelerators that they
> warrant being recognized as distinct categories in their own right.

> That said, I claim that there is very likely another method, which,
> naturally, relies on Reciprocity of Force, that is like 1, or 2, or 3,
> but sufficiently different from 1, 2, or 3, to warrant recognition as
> a propulsion method in its own right. In other words, when you look
> at the alternative method, you will see neither propeller, nor jet
> engine, nor turbine. In fact, you will have a very hard time finding
> the engine at all.

> Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but at least we have
> made clear that there are distinctions.

No, everything you said is the pure, unadulterated, babble of a naive
daydreamer living in a comic book fantasy world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting aluckyguess > wrote:

> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jun 19, 1:35 pm, wrote:

> > Since electro-mechanical adds cost, complexity, and weight with no
> > advantage, what do you think?

> I think the opposite.

Then I have a 5 hp, microprocessor controlled bottle opener to sell you.

> > > 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?

> By then it will be anti-gravity or we wont need to fly we will travel
> through the internet and there will be no planes.

If you have anti-gravity, you don't need wings to provide lift and it
is not an airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > > > The material cost of software is $0.
> >
> > > > Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
> > > > cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.
> > > Market capitalization of Textron: $13.2US billion.
> > > Market capitalization of Garmin $9.2US billion.
> >
> > Irrelevant to the cost of software.
> >
> > > There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead
> > > cost, etc.
> >
> > One more time and I'll type slowly, the cost of reliability testing is
> > not zero.

> But not prohibitive for a business that builds software systems for
> aviation.

> Garmin is doing very well selling hardware/software systems that they
> have tested for reliability.

My god you are either thick headed or dumber than a box full of hammers.

I bet you could fall in a barrel of titties and come out sucking your
thumb.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Pennino has been hitting on everyone analysing
future technology, now below he's gone sexual,
**** him, tell him he's fired!!!

Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

The computer can be switched off and the pilot has
direct analog control, or, instead of farting around
with nav, trims etc, he sets, altitude 4000@120 knots,
heading 250 into the computer , and he sits back and
rests to enjoy the scenerary....and he can even set-up
a wake-up call.
Ken
PS:Pennino is an annoying wop.

On Jun 19, 10:15 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > > > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > > > The material cost of software is $0.
>
> > > > > Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
> > > > > cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.
> > > > Market capitalization of Textron: $13.2US billion.
> > > > Market capitalization of Garmin $9.2US billion.
>
> > > Irrelevant to the cost of software.
>
> > > > There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead
> > > > cost, etc.
>
> > > One more time and I'll type slowly, the cost of reliability testing is
> > > not zero.
> > But not prohibitive for a business that builds software systems for
> > aviation.
> > Garmin is doing very well selling hardware/software systems that they
> > have tested for reliability.
>
> My god you are either thick headed or dumber than a box full of hammers.
>
> I bet you could fall in a barrel of titties and come out sucking your
> thumb.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > The material cost of software is $0.

This is like making reference to "Free health care".

Not in this world.

> Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
> cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 19, 11:43 pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > The material cost of software is $0.
>
> This is like making reference to "Free health care".
>
> Not in this world.
>
> > Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
> > cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is horrendous.

Lapin is a f**king genious.
I was watching eagles soaring over my property
today, and their feathers twitch, as a result of a
fine tuned central nervous system that has evolved
over millions of years. Now that ability is beyond
mechanics, but is readilly possible with a computer,
that may duplicate that flight ability, complete
with feedback, such that, the control surface also
does a measurment.
Birds work that all the time.
I'm still in.
Ken

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
> etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?

Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
some significant disadvantages).

Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> > What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering,
> > has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be
> > developed "with proper discipline"?
>
> That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
> allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
> on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.
>
> However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in
> Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has
> Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide.
> His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with
> that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of
> engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious".
>
> I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any
> software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know
> a few people who studied aero/astro at university.
>
> In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
> imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> architecture for free.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
software intensive system is adequately safe?

I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
find it, the odds of proving anything useful are pretty small.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Peter Dohm]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 9:54 pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
---------paragraph snipped----------
>
> What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering,
> has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be
> developed "with proper discipline"?

That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.

However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in
Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has
Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide.
His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with
that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of
engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious".

I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any
software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know
a few people who studied aero/astro at university.

In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
architecture for free.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
are using to send these messages.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
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.

-----snip-----

Sorry to post this without reading the rest of the thread.

It appears that your experience with the 64½ Mustang is fairly recent.

There was indeed a maintenance schedule for your car, which IIRC was
approximately quarterly after an initial visit that took place a little
earlier. A number of items on the list were semi-annual, annual, and
bi-annual and the cars were quite reliable when maintained in accordance
with the maintenence schedule.

I also once had a car that seemed to need constant tuning--a 70 MGB--untill
I rebuilt the carbs and ignition using the complete and correct parts kits.
After that, it ran perfectly for so long that I nearly forgot how to work on
it.

Peter

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > ?Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering,
> > has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be
> > developed "with proper discipline"?

> That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
> allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
> on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.

> However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in
> Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has
> Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide.
> His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with
> that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of
> engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious".

> I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any
> software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know
> a few people who studied aero/astro at university.

> In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
> imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> architecture for free.

From the perspective of dealing with software development for about
a quarter century now, all I can say is that it is obvious you know
**** from shinola about software development, reliability, and testing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> Pennino has been hitting on everyone analysing
> future technology, now below he's gone sexual,
> **** him, tell him he's fired!!!

> Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
> we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
> our speaker system...for about 100 years.
> You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
> controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
> and cheap.

> The computer can be switched off and the pilot has
> direct analog control, or, instead of farting around
> with nav, trims etc, he sets, altitude 4000@120 knots,
> heading 250 into the computer , and he sits back and
> rests to enjoy the scenerary....and he can even set-up
> a wake-up call.
> Ken
> PS:Pennino is an annoying wop.

Speakers don't generate thrust genius.

PS:Tucker is a babbling idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
> > etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?

> Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
> adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
> pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
> helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
> have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
> some significant disadvantages).

Exactly.

Lapin seems to be fixated on using technology simply because it exists,
as opposed to using technology to solve an existing problem or to make
life easier.

He also seems to be incapable of understanding that roughly zero
people will spend extra for something who's cost doesn't provide
the benefits to justify that cost.

> Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
> they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
> others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.

Yep, and as in general they aren't needed but rather just make life
easier, there are only a small percentage of people willing to pay for
them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 6:07*am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
> software intensive system is adequately safe?

The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
software.

> I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
> as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
> find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.

Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
(or any system).

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 8:40*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> important. *And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. *I would
> imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> architecture for free.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
> are using to send these messages.

Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
authored it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 5:16*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
> > etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?
>
> Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
> adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
> pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
> helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
> have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
> some significant disadvantages).

I disagree.

For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
dynamically.

A computer can take any of many objectives defined by pilot:

1. Minimum time in flight.
2. Minimum fuel consumption.
3. Altitude stabilization.
4. Minimum susceptibility to turbulence.
5. Maximum visibility of surroundings.

etc...

And make the flight conform to those requirements, and warn if it can
not.

That very same computer could communicate flight plan to ground, store
minute details of entire flight on hard disk and automatically move
them to home computer for recap....

> Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
> they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
> others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.

These systems are massively expensive, and there is much redundancy.
For example, the entire radio stack could be eliminated by a software
radio, which controls fed through LCD monitor. The software radi
costs <$1000. The computer would be one of same 2 computers used for
other functions.

The possibilities are essentially endless. GA is at the beginning,
not the end, of discovering them.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 6:07?am, Bob Noel >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
> > software intensive system is adequately safe?

> The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
> software.

> > I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
> > as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
> > find it, the odds of proving ?anything useful are pretty small.

> Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
> would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
> experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
> (or any system).

Blue Screen of Death (BSOD).

Do I need to say more?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> > important. ?And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> > the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. ?I would
> > imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> > architecture for free.
> >
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
> >
> > There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
> > are using to send these messages.

> Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
> all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
> authored it.

Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document,
controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an
airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive
excitement to life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Stewart]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
> efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
> during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
> turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
> dynamically.

Can you actually cite some numbers and studies
or are you just making this stuff up?

It was proven back in the 30's or 40's that after
an airplane flies into a pocket of turbulence,
it's too late for either a pilot or a computer
to make much difference. The *only* way to fix
the problem is with a 20-30 foot boom ahead of
the aircraft structure that can sense and react
to the turbulence ahead of time.

As to fuel economy, perhaps you can tell me how
a computer could tune the radio and get winds
aloft readings and pick the best altitude for
cruise? Since it can't, it is unlikely that it
could do a better job than a pilot. OTOH, if
you have some concrete evidence to the contrary,
I'd love to see it.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 5:16?am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2008-06-19, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
> > > etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?
> >
> > Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
> > adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
> > pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
> > helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
> > have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
> > some significant disadvantages).

> I disagree.

Because apparently you know nothing about real flying.

> For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
> efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
> during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
> turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
> dynamically.

> A computer can take any of many objectives defined by pilot:

> 1. Minimum time in flight.
> 2. Minimum fuel consumption.
> 3. Altitude stabilization.
> 4. Minimum susceptibility to turbulence.
> 5. Maximum visibility of surroundings.

Total, utter nonsense.

> etc...

> And make the flight conform to those requirements, and warn if it can
> not.

> That very same computer could communicate flight plan to ground, store
> minute details of entire flight on hard disk and automatically move
> them to home computer for recap....

> > Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
> > they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
> > others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.

> These systems are massively expensive, and there is much redundancy.
> For example, the entire radio stack could be eliminated by a software
> radio, which controls fed through LCD monitor. The software radi
> costs <$1000. The computer would be one of same 2 computers used for
> other functions.

Yeah, for one Amateur Radio grade software radio with you supplying
the computer.

> The possibilities are essentially endless. GA is at the beginning,
> not the end, of discovering them.

Especially for someone who gets their ideas from comic books.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 11:35*am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> > > important. ?And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> > > the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. ?I would
> > > imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> > > architecture for free.
>
> > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > > There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
> > > are using to send these messages.
> > Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
> > all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
> > authored it.
>
> Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document,
> controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an
> airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive
> excitement to life.

Every machine can fail.

What matters so much is not whether the machine is a computer or
something else, but the probability of failure of that component, and
the probability of failure of the overall system as a result.

I read on regular basis about ICE's that failed for whatever reason.
But people still use ICE's.

One should look at the math of each situation and do what is necessary
to make likelihood of system failure at least equivalent.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel >
>> wrote:
[...]
>> > What makes you think that software engineering, or system
>> > engineering, has progressed to the point that a software intensive
>> > system would be developed "with proper discipline"?
>
>> That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
>> allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
>> on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.
[...]
>> In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
>> important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
>> the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
>> imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
>> architecture for free.
>
> From the perspective of dealing with software development for about
> a quarter century now, all I can say is that it is obvious you know
> **** from shinola about software development, reliability, and
> testing.

Well I've been programming for 35 years and been getting paid to do it for
30, so by your own metric I am presumably in some sort of authoritative
position to judge your counter arguments to Lapin re software development.
But I somehow doubt you really want to know what I think of your arguments.
;-)

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
wrote:

> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel >
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > ?Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering,
> > > has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be
> > > developed "with proper discipline"?
>
> > That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
> > allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
> > on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.
>
> > However, there are some engineers out there. There is a young man in
> > Nederlands, for example, whose work I have had a glimpse of. He has
> > Ph.D. in crystallography, but is breadth of knowledge is very wide.
> > His knowledge of mathematics and computer science is competitive with
> > that of Ph.D's in computer science and mathematics. His style of
> > engineering gives new meaning to the word "fastidious".
>
> > I would think 15 people like him should be sufficient to tackle any
> > software problem that might arise in the design of a PAV. I also know
> > a few people who studied aero/astro at university.
>
> > In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> > important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> > the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
> > imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> > architecture for free.
>
> From the perspective of dealing with software development for about
> a quarter century now, all I can say is that it is obvious you know
> **** from shinola about software development, reliability, and testing.

I would have phrased it a bit more delicately, but yes.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> On Jun 20, 6:07*am, Bob Noel >
> wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
> > software intensive system is adequately safe?
>
> The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
> software.

And exactly what level of reliability do you think you'll need to have?

Note that the cost can rise enormously for fairly small increases in end
product reliability.

And so far we haven't said much about what the lawyers will bring to
your nifty new product. (Trust me, it won't be something to make you
emit small cries of joy.)

> > I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
> > as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
> > find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.
>
> Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
> would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
> experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
> (or any system).

You *really* don't know what is involved in developing verifiably
correct software systems, either in time or money.

It's *very* difficult and expensive.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:35?am, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 20, 8:40?am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > > In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> > > > important. ?And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> > > > the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. ?I would
> > > > imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> > > > architecture for free.
> >
> > > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
> >
> > > > There excellent counterexamples all around us--including the computers we
> > > > are using to send these messages.
> > > Think how boring the world would be if the opposite were true, that
> > > all software quality were the same (good or bad), no matter who
> > > authored it.
> >
> > Having your computer die while in the middle of writting a document,
> > controlling a power plant, running a subway system, or flying an
> > airplane are not events most people look upon as providing positive
> > excitement to life.

> Every machine can fail.

True but irrelevant.

> What matters so much is not whether the machine is a computer or
> something else, but the probability of failure of that component, and
> the probability of failure of the overall system as a result.

And establishing that probablility is generally an extremely
expensive process.

> I read on regular basis about ICE's that failed for whatever reason.
> But people still use ICE's.

Irrelevant

> One should look at the math of each situation and do what is necessary
> to make likelihood of system failure at least equivalent.

Already been done. It is called FAA certification requirements.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 12:01*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel >
> >> wrote:
> [...]
> >> > What makes you think that software engineering, or system
> >> > engineering, has progressed to the point that a software intensive
> >> > system would be developed "with proper discipline"?
>
> >> That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
> >> allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
> >> on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.
> [...]
> >> In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> >> important. *And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> >> the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. *I would
> >> imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> >> architecture for free.
>
> > From the perspective of dealing with software development for about
> > a quarter century now, all I can say is that it is obvious you know
> > **** from shinola about software development, reliability, and
> > testing.
>
> Well I've been programming for 35 years and been getting paid to do it for
> 30, so by your own metric I am presumably in some sort of authoritative
> position to judge your counter arguments to Lapin re software development.
> But I somehow doubt you really want to know what I think of your arguments..
> ;-)

Please, do tell.

Being in software field, you know that there are people who have been
programming for 40 years whom you would not trust to design a flight
control computer that relies on advanced mathematics.

Obviously not saying that you are in that category. I'm merely saying
that I would look for other personal attributes beyond experience that
makes an engineer/designer predisposed to not make a mess, someone who
is acutely aware of the potential outcome of bad engineering. That
person might or might not have 35 years of experienece, but if I had
to choose between the Dutch guy mentioned above, who probably has
12-15 years experience,, and a random senior engineer with 40 years
experience, I would not hesitate to choose the Dutch guy, simply
because I already know that he possesses these attributes.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> That very same computer could communicate flight plan to ground, store
> minute details of entire flight on hard disk and automatically move
> them to home computer for recap....

Glass panel systems are already on the market that have those capabilities
today (except the "auto move" stuff), such as Dynon products:

http://www.dynonavionics.com/

Whatever capabilities you think aren't there yet, you can rest assured that
avionics makers are already working on fully integrated systems.

> On Jun 20, 5:16*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
>> they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
>> others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.
>
> These systems are massively expensive, and there is much redundancy.
> For example, the entire radio stack could be eliminated by a software
> radio, which controls fed through LCD monitor.

That's already being done. I think you need to review what is already
available.

> The software radi
> costs <$1000. The computer would be one of same 2 computers used for
> other functions.

The software development costs for such systems run into the millions of
dollars but the number of unit sales is, at best, under a hundred thousand
- I suspect more typically a few thousand units. Add in the hardware costs
and such equipment can rarely be sold for under a couple thousand.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 12:06*pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> > Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
> > would indeed know what to look for. *Also, peer-review (by other
> > experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
> > (or any system).
>
> You *really* don't know what is involved in developing verifiably
> correct software systems, either in time or money.
>
> It's *very* difficult and expensive.

Which is why so many researchers the world over spend time trying to
find mechanized approaches to proving that software is good, or that
it satisfies some definition of correctness, etc. Each of these
researchers seek what they regard as the holy grail of software
engineering - a machine that can help good engineers be better by
looking at what they make.

As far as FAA certification, if it turned out that verification were
prohibitively expensive (greater than $100US million), that would be a
problem.

In any case, because the material cost of software is $0, the cost of
verification would have to be very high indeed before a point would
reached, beyond which, it did not make sense to make the software
because the market could not support it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 9:54?pm, Bob Noel >
> >> wrote:
> [...]
> >> > What makes you think that software engineering, or system
> >> > engineering, has progressed to the point that a software intensive
> >> > system would be developed "with proper discipline"?
> >
> >> That's fair enough. Software, perhaps more than any other discpline,
> >> allows engineers to place themselves where they are most comfortable
> >> on the spectrum of intellectual discipline.
> [...]
> >> In any case, while process is important, the end result is most
> >> important. And the end result would be seen by many people, before
> >> the aircraft is flown, so most defects would be recognized. I would
> >> imagine that there would be people who would criticize the
> >> architecture for free.
> >
> > From the perspective of dealing with software development for about
> > a quarter century now, all I can say is that it is obvious you know
> > **** from shinola about software development, reliability, and
> > testing.

> Well I've been programming for 35 years and been getting paid to do it for
> 30, so by your own metric I am presumably in some sort of authoritative
> position to judge your counter arguments to Lapin re software development.
> But I somehow doubt you really want to know what I think of your arguments.
> ;-)

Have you ever known reliablility and correctness testing to be either
easy or cheap, particularly when dealing with life critical systems?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 20, 10:06 am, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 6:07 am, Bob Noel >
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
> > > software intensive system is adequately safe?
>
> > The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
> > software.
>
> And exactly what level of reliability do you think you'll need to have?
>
> Note that the cost can rise enormously for fairly small increases in end
> product reliability.
>
> And so far we haven't said much about what the lawyers will bring to
> your nifty new product. (Trust me, it won't be something to make you
> emit small cries of joy.)
>
> > > I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
> > > as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
> > > find it, the odds of proving anything useful are pretty small.
>
> > Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
> > would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
> > experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
> > (or any system).
>
> You *really* don't know what is involved in developing verifiably
> correct software systems, either in time or money.
>
> It's *very* difficult and expensive.

I find writing process control software easy.
Can be time consuming...yes, but a good
consultant knows *tricks*.
Below is a program I wrote that no has ever
figured out how it works, it was an exercize
is "snug code"...try it, it's fun.
Ken


==================================================
Ken Tucker (who often posts here) has asked me to post the following
little BASIC program that he wrote with his son, Travis, some 15 years
ago. It was written in some old dialect of BASIC, with line numbers,
but works okay in QBasic, and probably others. What it does is to draw
an image of a sphere floating in a starry sky, and then show the
sphere
being bombarded with meteors, producing craters. After a while, the
image does look passably like the moon, or some similar body.

If nothing else, it is pretty, and is far more interesting to watch
than most screen-savers.

Please direct any questions to Ken. I'm just the messenger, as far as
this is concerned.

dow

-------------------------------------------------------

5 ' Craters. Ken and Travis Tucker. Approx 1988.
10 CLEAR : SCREEN 7, 0, 0, 0: KEY OFF: CLS
12 PCOPY 0, 1: PCOPY 0, 2: PCOPY 0, 3: VIEW PRINT 1 TO 25
21 C = 1: GOSUB 22: C = 9: GOSUB 22: GOTO 25
22 FOR A = 1 TO 100: X = RND * 320: Y = RND * 200
23 PSET (X, Y), C: NEXT A: RETURN
25 DR = 3.141592 / 180: R = 10
30 RANDOMIZE TIMER
35 DIM X(500), Y(500)
40 CIRCLE (160, 100), 90, 8
45 PAINT (160, 100), 4, 8: PAINT (160, 100), 8, 8
100 R = INT(RND * RND * RND * RND * 20) + 1: LO = RND * 170 - 85
105 LA = RND * 140 - 70: C = 8
110 X0 = 90 * SIN(DR * LO) * COS(DR * LA) + 160
112 Y0 = 76 * SIN(LA * DR) + 100
115 GOSUB 300: IF R = 1 THEN PSET (X0, Y0), 14: GOTO 100
120 C = 12: GOSUB 130: PAINT (X0, Y0), 4, 12: GOSUB 600:
125 PAINT (X0, Y0), 7, 12: GOSUB 400: GOSUB 500: GOTO 180
130 N = 0: S = 36 / R: FOR A = 1 TO 360 STEP S: N = N + 1
140 U = R * SIN(A * DR) + LO: V = R * COS(A * DR) + LA
150 X = 90 * SIN(DR * U) * COS(DR * V) + B: Y = 76 * SIN(V * DR)
155 X(N) = X: Y(N) = Y
160 PSET (X + 160, Y + 100), C
170 NEXT A: RETURN
180 PSET (X0, Y0), 15
200 GOTO 100
300 PCOPY 0, 1: DX = X0 - 160: DY = Y0 - 100
305 LINE (DX * 10, DY * 10)-(X0, Y0), 14: GOSUB 600: PCOPY 1, 0
310 FOR A = 1 TO R * 4: X1 = X0 + RND * 4 * R - 2 * R
315 Y1 = Y0 + 4 * RND * R - 2 * R
320 LINE (X0, Y0)-(X1, Y1), 4: NEXT A: GOSUB 600: PCOPY 1, 0: RETURN
400 FOR A = 1 TO N: X = X(A): Y = Y(A)
410 IF X = 0 OR Y = 0 THEN 420
412 PSET (X + 160 + X / ABS(X), Y + 100 + Y / ABS(Y)), 0
420 NEXT A: RETURN
500 FOR A = 1 TO N: X = X(A): Y = Y(A)
510 PSET (X + 160, Y + 100), 14
520 NEXT A: RETURN
600 FOR DE = 1 TO 5: T = TIMER: WHILE TIMER = T: WEND: NEXT: RETURN

---------------------------------------------------------

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 12:27*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > That very same computer could communicate flight plan to ground, store
> > minute details of entire flight on hard disk and automatically move
> > them to home computer for recap....
>
> Glass panel systems are already on the market that have those capabilities
> today (except the "auto move" stuff), such as Dynon products:
>
> http://www.dynonavionics.com/

> Whatever capabilities you think aren't there yet, you can rest assured that
> avionics makers are already working on fully integrated systems.

Great! I am going to go out on a limb and speculate that this tendency
toward more electronics, not only in the cockpit, but throughout the
aircraft, will continue. ;)

> > On Jun 20, 5:16*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> >> Control electronics does exist for GA, it's called an autopilot, and
> >> they've been around for a long time (some more sophisticated than
> >> others). Some engines are also available with FADEC.
>
> > These systems are massively expensive, and there is much redundancy.
> > For example, the entire radio stack could be eliminated by a software
> > radio, which controls fed through LCD monitor.
>
> That's already being done. I think you need to review what is already
> available.

Someone posted that link above almost a year ago.

> > *The software radi
> > costs <$1000. *The computer would be one of same 2 computers used for
> > other functions.
>
> The software development costs for such systems run into the millions of
> dollars but the number of unit sales is, at best, under a hundred thousand
> - I suspect more typically a few thousand units. Add in the hardware costs
> and such equipment can rarely be sold for under a couple thousand.

Only millions?

Under the assumption that a PAV could be driven by a general consumer,
as outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV program, millions, or even hundreds of
millions, would be an agreeable cost.

As far as hardware, I would use commoditized components (< $1000
PC's). The sensors and actuators would be separate. Dynon might have
to sell their units as high as they do because of low volume - they
are not selling aircraft, but systems that a pilot might integrate
after aircraft is bought. I would instead focus on the entire system,
designing to avoid, as much as possible, predisposition toward
particular accessory vendor.

The idea would be that user chould be able to use $30 Logitech headset
if s/he so chooses (actually 2, since they are so cheap), Viewsonic 15-
inch LCD panel, Bose or Infinity sound system. With computers so
cheap, it would not be unreasonable to have quad-redundancy: 4
motherboards per PAV.

Yes, I am sure many experimentalists are and have been doing this for
a long time, but there is the burden of the initial design of the
aircraft. If the intial cost of the aircraft is $50,000, then no
matter what is done, the final cost, after these accessories, will be
some amount > $50,000.

What I am saying is that the entire system, from the outset, should be
designed to be low-cost, with the components interchangeable, so that
the net cost, with a more-than-modest set of accessories, is <
$50,000, from the start.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Have you ever known reliablility and correctness testing to be either
> easy or cheap, particularly when dealing with life critical systems?

No.

I now think I probably shouldn't have entered this thread. My own ideas
about system development don't appear to agree with either the idealistic
and inexperienced/naive views expressed by Le Chaud Lapin or necessarily
with your hard earned cynicism. Well, cynicism doesn't quite contain the
nuanced meaning that your real position probably entails, so forgive me
that it doesn't characterize your full position.

I think I might have argued from a different perspective than you, or at
least used a different set of arguments, not that I nessarily disagree with
your general thrust. I wouldn't, for example, have used some the anecdotes
you used - which for some reason bothered me, but in retrospect it isn't
like any of us get paid to insure every post is rigorously logical!

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 11:41*am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
> > efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
> > during flight. *A computer can also minimize the effects of
> > turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
> > dynamically.
>
> Can you actually cite some numbers and studies
> or are you just making this stuff up?

Not sure what you mean. I haven't given any numbers, so there are no
numbers to site. :)

If you are asking if I could show that a computer can do a better job
of increasing fuel efficient, that is intuitively obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_by_wire#Fly-by-wire

If you Google "fly by wire fuel efficiency stability", there will be
many links saying the same thing - a computer can do a much better job
than human pilot for these things.

> It was proven back in the 30's or 40's that after
> an airplane flies into a pocket of turbulence,
> it's too late for either a pilot or a computer
> to make much difference. *The *only* way to fix
> the problem is with a 20-30 foot boom ahead of
> the aircraft structure that can sense and react
> to the turbulence ahead of time.

Hmm...

Well, generally speaking, if a pilot possesses knowledge of how to
handle aircraft, that knowledge can be programmed into the control
computer, and whatever it is, a computer can react with greater speed
and precision than a pilot could, while remaining within specified
constraints. And a computer doesn't get nervous.

> As to fuel economy, perhaps you can tell me how
> a computer could tune the radio and get winds
> aloft readings and pick the best altitude for
> cruise? *Since it can't, it is unlikely that it
> could do a better job than a pilot. *OTOH, if
> you have some concrete evidence to the contrary,
> I'd love to see it.

I cannot not, because no one (that I know of, is doing that yet).

There are many ways to d this, using old technology, or the NextGen
stuff that FAA is raving about.

OLD TECHNOLOGY:

With a software radio of appropriate bandset, it is possible to tune
to any of tunable frequency of the radio stack. With some powerful
software radios, like the ones at http://www.vanu.com, it would is
possible to tune to all channels at once (and have power left over to
do whatever). COTS software could be used to sample the radio read-
back and convert to to digital form. This can be done not only for,
ATIS, but any radio source. Note that a software radio, because it
contains a DSP, can be used for most of the antiquated signls (VOR).
The signal processing power required to process such signals is not
suprisingly very low.

Once the information is digital form, the rest is easy.

But there is more.

1.Unlike a pilot, a computer will never become annoyed by sampling
winds aloft on XC flight to hunt for optimal altitude in real-time,
the whole time.

2. A computer can also take the information an put up a real-time 3D
rendering of such winds aloft on the $200 17-inch LCD panel that you
bought from Viewsonic for your cockpit.

3. A computer could also store all winds aloft data for past 5 years
of flying on massive 1TB hard disk, that , again, cost < $500.

4. A computer can take ATIS readings from local airport and
destination airport, plus METARs, etc...all over $20 USB Wi-Fi dongle,
one of 7 or 8 that you keep on board, simply because, at $20 a piece,
you can afford it.

5. A computer can give you spoken back conditions of target area,
remind you at 10-minute intervals with spoken voice fuel remaining in
both time and volume.

6. With new Wi-Fi equipment to be released soon, a computer can let
you talk to your grandaugther while in flight, via dash-mounted web-
cam, and of course, your $30 disposable-but-very-high-quality Logitech
headset.

7. A computer would let you take another $40 detachable web cam, and
mount it with sucition cups, or more permanently, as you prefer, so
you godaughter and son can see what you see as you fly over ground.

8. Some pilots might mount several such cameras around aircraft for
various views to help with boredom in flight, or other reasons.

There are 100's, if not 1000's of features, that a general-purpose
computer + inexpensive, commoditized accessories, can add to flying.

What is notable is that the cost of the $1000 PC does not increase.
Only the software and accessories change.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> Which is the crux of the question:
>
> What makes something possible in the future, but not the present?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Are you really this stupid?

If you have an idea patent it and then tell us about it. Or just shut
the hell up.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Have you ever known reliablility and correctness testing to be either
> > easy or cheap, particularly when dealing with life critical systems?

> No.

> I now think I probably shouldn't have entered this thread. My own ideas
> about system development don't appear to agree with either the idealistic
> and inexperienced/naive views expressed by Le Chaud Lapin or necessarily
> with your hard earned cynicism. Well, cynicism doesn't quite contain the
> nuanced meaning that your real position probably entails, so forgive me
> that it doesn't characterize your full position.

I'm a bit on edge at the moment as I am deeply involved in testing a
system due to go live in a couple of days which if it goes tits up
will embarass a lot of people and cost me a lot of money and if it
works means a huge amount of follow on work.

So while test cases run I have a far amount of thumb twiddling time
to play USENET.

> I think I might have argued from a different perspective than you, or at
> least used a different set of arguments, not that I nessarily disagree with
> your general thrust. I wouldn't, for example, have used some the anecdotes
> you used - which for some reason bothered me, but in retrospect it isn't
> like any of us get paid to insure every post is rigorously logical!

Exactly, not to mention the fact that anything past the most simplistic
of arguements and examples are going to fly right over the head of
Le Chaud Lapin.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> There are 100's, if not 1000's of features, that a general-purpose
> computer + inexpensive, commoditized accessories, can add to flying.

I want to know which aircraft components can be
"commoditized," and what that means. Does it mean that ordinary
industrial or automotive bits are used in building the airplane? Where
can I get such commoditized cheap parts for my airplane? It needs new
wheels and brakes, which can't be replaced by car brakes because
they're all too big and heavy, it needs a new engine but that engine
has to weigh 178 pounds or less, it needs new radios that can tune in
aircraft fequencies. Can I buy those at JC Penney or Canadian Tire?
>
> What is notable is that the cost of the $1000 PC does not increase.
> Only the software and accessories change.

Of course, since billions of them are out there and many,
many millions more are sold every year. Not like airplanes at all.

We have some 172s and a 182 and a couple of Citabrias. These
airplanes all came with electromechanical voltage regulators, where a
small electromagnet pulls open the field current contacts to limit
alternator output. The 172s and 182 are all 1970s models and ran for
years and years and thousands of hours on those primitive make-and-
break buzzer-type regulators, and when they did quit we'd buy new
ones.
Now, the manufacturer makes regulators that look the same
and have the same part number, but the make-break contact setup has
been replaced with an electronic control circuit. No moving parts. And
those regulators last as little as a week and no more than a year or
two and cost every bit as much as the old style. What did we gain
there?
We fly in Canada where it can get really, really cold. The
epoxy cases on computer chips or transistor cases contract and crack
at -40 and moisture from the air gets in there and shorts them and
they're dead. Finished. This can happen when the unit is parked
outside, as they often are. Next time the pilot goes to use his
airplane the radio doesn't want to work right because the synthesized
tuner, which replaced a bank of switched crystals, is wandering all
over the place because its frequency counter chip is pooched. What did
we gain there? That radio weighs as much as the old crystal unit did
and lasted one fifth as long as the old one. What else would we use to
encapsulate a chip that wouldn't shrink and crack at -40? The LCD
displays on these things quit at -25 degrees. The liquid crystal
freezes. Useless. Narco uses a special gas discharge display in many
of their avionics, and that stupid thing burns out regularly. $350 for
each side of a NavComm. The old mechanically tuned radios keep on
going. What did we gain there?
I'm not against electronics. I've worked on electronic
devices since I was 14 years old, which was 41 years ago. It's just
that the "advances" we've been sold aren't ready yet and cost MORE
than the older ones did and are LESS reliable. We really haven't moved
ahead much at all and I would not trust my primary flight controls to
a single set of FBW controls. Airliners use three systems, just like
heavy trucks have three separate braking systems (but only one drum/
shoe per wheel) and such redundancy adds a lot of cost and weight.
Those 1/8" cables and their pulleys are going to be around for a long
time yet, believe me, and it's not because we don't want electronics,
it's because we can't trust them that much. My Power Mechanics teacher
in high school told us kids that 90% of all car problems would be
electrical, and in those many years since he's been proven right over
and over again.
The FAA is not against innovation and improvement. In the
early '70s a guy named Ken Rand took a set of Taylor Monoplane
blueprints (I once had one of those airplanes) and made some changes
and came up with the KR-1. It was the same size but much lighter and
slicker and went 50% faster, all using styrofoam and polyester fabric
and epoxy resins, and the idea caught on and Burt Rutan refined it and
built some astounding airplanes, paving the way for a host of new
designs. Lots of folks thought is was crap, and the composite airplane
still has lots of shortcomings (hard to repair, temperature extremes
are hard on it, resins are toxic, and lightning passing through it
tends to blow it to tiny bits) but we now have certified airplanes
like the Cirrus and composite propellers and composite tails on
airliners along with composite flaps and so forth, and the new 787 is
almost all composite. The FAA is happy with it and the 787, due to its
enormous strength, will have much better differential pressure for
higher cruise altitudes with lower cabin altitudes, so that its worst
fuel mileage will be better than the A380's best.
Stop dreaming about alternate propulsion methods and fancy
FBW systems and go invent and build them and if they make sense
they'll sell and you'll become rich and famous. Aviation is as market-
driven as anything else, and we're not resistant to innovation that
saves us money or makes us safer. But we WON'T buy something that
doesn't work as well as what we have now. Period.

Dan

[Steve Hix]

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...

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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-

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> I'm a bit on edge at the moment as I am deeply involved in testing a
> system due to go live in a couple of days which if it goes tits up
> will embarass a lot of people and cost me a lot of money and if it
> works means a huge amount of follow on work.

Sounds like fun. ;-) Seriously though, I wish you good success.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 2:17*pm, wrote:
> * * * * *We have some 172s and a 182 and a couple of Citabrias. These
> airplanes all came with electromechanical voltage regulators, where a
> small electromagnet pulls open the field current contacts to limit
> alternator output. The 172s and 182 are all 1970s models and ran for
> years and years and thousands of hours on those primitive make-and-
> break buzzer-type regulators, and when they did quit we'd buy new
> ones.
> * * * * * *Now, the manufacturer makes regulators that look the same
> and have the same part number, but the make-break contact setup has
> been replaced with an electronic control circuit. No moving parts. And
> those regulators last as little as a week and no more than a year or
> two and cost every bit as much as the old style. What did we gain
> there?

A poorly designed switching regulator, a component so common in
electrical design that it is often given as a project to
undergraduates in electrical engineering [http://www.rason.org/
Projects/swregdes/swregdes.htm]. You could go over to
sci.electronics.design and ask the other EE's what they think about
botching a switching regulator and see what they say. ;)

> * * * * * *We fly in Canada where it can get really, really cold. The
> epoxy cases on computer chips or transistor cases contract and crack
> at -40 and moisture from the air gets in there and shorts them and
> they're dead. Finished. This can happen when the unit is parked
> outside, as they often are. Next time the pilot goes to use his
> airplane the radio doesn't want to work right because the synthesized
> tuner, which replaced a bank of switched crystals, is wandering all
> over the place because its frequency counter chip is pooched. What did
> we gain there? That radio weighs as much as the old crystal unit did
> and lasted one fifth as long as the old one. What else would we use to
> encapsulate a chip that wouldn't shrink and crack at -40? The LCD
> displays on these things quit at -25 degrees. The liquid crystal
> freezes. Useless. Narco uses a special gas discharge display in many
> of their avionics, and that stupid thing burns out regularly. $350 for
> each side of a NavComm. The old mechanically tuned radios keep on
> going. What did we gain there?

Bad designs. I have a spare deactivated cell phone that I keep in my
Jeep for 911 emergencies. It sat in my Jeep for years. Every time I
have connected it to power outlet, it works, without a problem. True,
-25 is extreme, but not so extreme that reliable components could not
be made for those temperature. The point here is that it is not the
devices fault. If it breaks, it is because it was not engineered
properly for that environment.

> * * * * * I'm not against electronics. I've worked on electronic
> devices since I was 14 years old, which was 41 years ago. It's just
> that the "advances" we've been sold aren't ready yet and cost MORE
> than the older ones did and are LESS reliable.

I think this happens in aviation (and automotive industry in general).
This is what I meant about inter-discipline engineering. The Dean at
my university had launched a program that essentially asked, for
example, the mechanical engineering department to allow the electrical
engineers more freedom in designing those aspects of ME devices that
required electronics, and vice versa, the idea being that, if the EE's
are allowed to do the EE part, and the ME's are allowed to do the ME
part, the the overall system will be cheaper, more reliable, etc,
because each department would be exercising their natural
competencies. There were multiple programs like this at my
university, so many that one would have to conclude that this type of
development was not occurring.

> We really haven't moved
> ahead much at all and I would not trust my primary flight controls to
> a single set of FBW controls. Airliners use three systems, just like
> heavy trucks have three separate braking systems (but only one drum/
> shoe per wheel) and such redundancy adds a lot of cost and weight.
> Those 1/8" cables and their pulleys are going to be around for a long
> time yet, believe me, and it's not because we don't want electronics,
> it's because we can't trust them that much. My Power Mechanics teacher
> in high school told us kids that 90% of all car problems would be
> electrical, and in those many years since he's been proven right over
> and over again.

Well, as you mentioned, change is going to happen some day.

What will change to allow these things to happen? It most likely will
not be new materials. Faults in electronics are generally due bad
design of the system, not the components themselves. What will have
changed when the day comes where you can trust the system?

[snipped]

> * * * * * *Stop dreaming about alternate propulsion methods and fancy
> FBW systems and go invent and build them and if they make sense
> they'll sell and you'll become rich and famous. Aviation is as market-
> driven as anything else, and we're not resistant to innovation that
> saves us money or makes us safer. But we WON'T buy something that
> doesn't work as well as what we have now. Period.

Well, something that makes sense would be something that is lighter,
cheaper, easier to fix, etc than what we have, which would mean it
would be imprudent, to say, spend $50,000 on a base plane, and add a
$5000 of extra equipment to it. That would not make sense.

In any case, my focus is only in the propulsion system. If that
failed, there would be no point for me, personally, to continue, as it
is very difficult, if not impossible, to improve upon the tractor
model to satisfy requirements outlined by CAFE/PAV.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Le Chaud Lapin > posted:
[...]
>
> In any case, because the material cost of software is $0, the cost of
> verification would have to be very high indeed before a point would
> reached, beyond which, it did not make sense to make the software
> because the market could not support it.
>
I tried to resist jumping in, but having read through many of the posts
only to see you wind up where you began is incredible. if one more voice
saying that you are grossly missing the fundamental costs involved in
software development helps to move you from this position, then perhaps it
won't be wasted effort.

GA is a small market. Too small to warrant specialized development of much
of anything, which is why most of the components are either used or
spin-offs from other areas of aviation. Comparing it to the _general_
automotive market is completely off-base, as even a single model of a
single brand in a single year will have more units in the market than all
of GA.

So, to think that a body of expert programmers will somehow collaborate on
systems that, at best will be less reliable than the pulley and wire that
they replace is an unrealistic fantasy.

BTW - if you think that "the material costs of software is $0", let me
know where you're getting your language compilers and hardware to create
and test your code. And, don't tell me about "Open Source" options,
either, unless you want to increase your development costs by a factor of
100 or so.

Neil

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 4:27*pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> GA is a small market. Too small to warrant specialized development of much
> of anything, which is why most of the components are either used or
> spin-offs from other areas of aviation. Comparing it to the _general_
> automotive market is completely off-base, as even a single model of a
> single brand in a single year will have more units in the market than all
> of GA.

It's a Catch-22. The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.

> So, to think that a body of expert programmers will somehow collaborate on
> systems that, at best will be less reliable than the pulley and wire that
> they replace is an unrealistic fantasy.

A bit of a stretch.

> BTW - if you think that "the material costs of software is $0", let me
> know where you're getting your language compilers and hardware to create
> and test your code. And, don't tell me about "Open Source" options,
> either, unless you want to increase your development costs by a factor of
> 100 or so.

Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
create the system.

For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. It would not include
dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
equipment used to manufacture the product.

The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.

Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
of an iPod.

To determine what components are considered "material", move the
product over a large distance. Whatever components move with the
products, those components are considered material. Those that stay
behind are something else.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 3:32*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> I do not know what your profile is with regard to engineering and years
> of experience, but you really should do some independent research on the
> topics you have proposed and learn what has actually already been done.

> Following that, come back here and propose something new that will solve
> the problems that were found to be obstacles to the ideas you propose.
>
> Burt Rutan used an early Apple Powerbook in the early/mid-1990's to
> control the engine of his homebuilt Catbird research aircraft.

Very nice!

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'm a bit on edge at the moment as I am deeply involved in testing a
> > system due to go live in a couple of days which if it goes tits up
> > will embarass a lot of people and cost me a lot of money and if it
> > works means a huge amount of follow on work.

> Sounds like fun. ;-) Seriously though, I wish you good success.

Thanks.

A bunch of major tests just finished with zero problems.

Things are looking good...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 4:27?pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> > GA is a small market. Too small to warrant specialized development of much
> > of anything, which is why most of the components are either used or
> > spin-offs from other areas of aviation. Comparing it to the _general_
> > automotive market is completely off-base, as even a single model of a
> > single brand in a single year will have more units in the market than all
> > of GA.

> It's a Catch-22. The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
> are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
> if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.

> > So, to think that a body of expert programmers will somehow collaborate on
> > systems that, at best will be less reliable than the pulley and wire that
> > they replace is an unrealistic fantasy.

> A bit of a stretch.

> > BTW - if you think that "the material costs of software is $0", let me
> > know where you're getting your language compilers and hardware to create
> > and test your code. And, don't tell me about "Open Source" options,
> > either, unless you want to increase your development costs by a factor of
> > 100 or so.

> Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
> which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
> create the system.

> For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
> RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
> wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. It would not include
> dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
> equipment used to manufacture the product.

> The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
> cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.

> Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
> software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
> of an iPod.

> To determine what components are considered "material", move the
> product over a large distance. Whatever components move with the
> products, those components are considered material. Those that stay
> behind are something else.

Therefore you saying "the material costs of software is $0" is about as
usefull and insightfull as saying "watermelon has no bones".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jon Woellhaf]

> wrote

> A bunch of major tests just finished with zero problems.
>
> Things are looking good...

In my experience, a test that finishes with zero problems is a failure.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 4:55*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
> > which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
> > create the system.
> > For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
> > RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
> > wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. *It would not include
> > dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
> > equipment used to manufacture the product.
> > The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
> > cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.
> > Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
> > software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
> > of an iPod.
> > To determine what components are considered "material", move the
> > product over a large distance. *Whatever components move with the
> > products, those components are considered material. *Those that stay
> > behind are something else.
>
> Therefore you saying "the material costs of software is $0" is about as
> usefull and insightfull as saying "watermelon has no bones".

Not true.

Accountants define material cost as above becasue material cost is a
per-unit cost that cannot be amortized. It is a necessary evil of
selling a product.

Let's take an example:

I can buy a new Sony DVD player for about $50.
I can buy Microsoft Flight Simulator for about $50.
Let us say that the development cost for the DVD player is $2 million.
Let us say that the development cost for MSFS is $5 million.

Sony and Microsoft sell their respective products to make a profit.
Let us assume that the market for each, in terms of number of
consumers, is exactly 1 million in 1 year. In that case, each product
will generate gross revenue of $50 million. But there is a problem: in
addition to the development cost, there is a per unit material cost,
the cost that the Microsoft and Sony must pay for the components that
form the product.

In the case of the DVD player, we assume that the material cost,
including resistors, capacitor, laster, motor, stabilizers, cases,
manuals, and packaging, etc. is $35, yielding a per-unit profit margin
of $15.

In the case of MSFS, the per-unit material cost is due to the manuals
and packaging, which we conservatively say costs $5, yield a per-unit
profit margin of $45.

If the packaging is eliminated, as is often the case, then the
material-cost effectively goes to zero for MSFS as does the
distribution cost. The per-unit profit of the software then becomes
the entire $50. If the packaging is eliminated from the DVD player,
the profit only rises to $20.

If, upon release, 1 million units of DVD player are desired, Sony can
expect $20 million in revenue.

If, upon release, 1 million units of MSFS are desired, Microsoft can
expect $50 million in revenue.

If both companies determine through market research that $7 is the
magic price point for each product, where demand becomes effectively
unsatiable, meaning 100 million units,...

Microsoft can sell 100 million at $7 for $700 million in profit.

Sony will not be able to sell and units because $7 is below the price
they need to sell to avoid a loss.

This is why software companies succeed even with marginally-desirable
products. The material cost and distribution costs become close to
zero, allowing them to test demand/price elasticity over the full
domain of variables. Also, problems with suppliers are almost non-
existent, as the suppliers are only used to supply tools that make the
products, not components of the products themselves. This eliminates
opportunities for the suppliers to "ride the market", where they know
a priori that a component is only used in, say military applications,
and will charge exhorbitant fees for the part simply because they can.

Also, the "manufacturing" cost of software is essentially zero:

To make 1 million DVD players, there is a per-unit manufacturing cost
of operating the assembly machines (and people) is some number greater
than 0.

To make 1 million copies of software, the per-unit manufacturing cost
is essentially zero.

These facts becomes more clear when the software becomes downloadable.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 4:55?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
> > > which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
> > > create the system.
> > > For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
> > > RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
> > > wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. ?It would not include
> > > dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
> > > equipment used to manufacture the product.
> > > The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
> > > cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.
> > > Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
> > > software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
> > > of an iPod.
> > > To determine what components are considered "material", move the
> > > product over a large distance. ?Whatever components move with the
> > > products, those components are considered material. ?Those that stay
> > > behind are something else.
> >
> > Therefore you saying "the material costs of software is $0" is about as
> > usefull and insightfull as saying "watermelon has no bones".

> Not true.

> Accountants define material cost as above becasue material cost is a
> per-unit cost that cannot be amortized. It is a necessary evil of
> selling a product.

> Let's take an example:

> I can buy a new Sony DVD player for about $50.
> I can buy Microsoft Flight Simulator for about $50.
> Let us say that the development cost for the DVD player is $2 million.
> Let us say that the development cost for MSFS is $5 million.

> Sony and Microsoft sell their respective products to make a profit.
> Let us assume that the market for each, in terms of number of
> consumers, is exactly 1 million in 1 year. In that case, each product
> will generate gross revenue of $50 million. But there is a problem: in
> addition to the development cost, there is a per unit material cost,
> the cost that the Microsoft and Sony must pay for the components that
> form the product.

> In the case of the DVD player, we assume that the material cost,
> including resistors, capacitor, laster, motor, stabilizers, cases,
> manuals, and packaging, etc. is $35, yielding a per-unit profit margin
> of $15.

> In the case of MSFS, the per-unit material cost is due to the manuals
> and packaging, which we conservatively say costs $5, yield a per-unit
> profit margin of $45.

> If the packaging is eliminated, as is often the case, then the
> material-cost effectively goes to zero for MSFS as does the
> distribution cost. The per-unit profit of the software then becomes
> the entire $50. If the packaging is eliminated from the DVD player,
> the profit only rises to $20.

> If, upon release, 1 million units of DVD player are desired, Sony can
> expect $20 million in revenue.

> If, upon release, 1 million units of MSFS are desired, Microsoft can
> expect $50 million in revenue.

> If both companies determine through market research that $7 is the
> magic price point for each product, where demand becomes effectively
> unsatiable, meaning 100 million units,...

> Microsoft can sell 100 million at $7 for $700 million in profit.

> Sony will not be able to sell and units because $7 is below the price
> they need to sell to avoid a loss.

> This is why software companies succeed even with marginally-desirable
> products. The material cost and distribution costs become close to
> zero, allowing them to test demand/price elasticity over the full
> domain of variables. Also, problems with suppliers are almost non-
> existent, as the suppliers are only used to supply tools that make the
> products, not components of the products themselves. This eliminates
> opportunities for the suppliers to "ride the market", where they know
> a priori that a component is only used in, say military applications,
> and will charge exhorbitant fees for the part simply because they can.

> Also, the "manufacturing" cost of software is essentially zero:

> To make 1 million DVD players, there is a per-unit manufacturing cost
> of operating the assembly machines (and people) is some number greater
> than 0.

> To make 1 million copies of software, the per-unit manufacturing cost
> is essentially zero.

> These facts becomes more clear when the software becomes downloadable.


Therefore you saying "the material costs of software is $0" is about as
usefull and insightfull as saying "watermelon has no bones".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jon Woellhaf > wrote:
> > wrote

> > A bunch of major tests just finished with zero problems.
> >
> > Things are looking good...

> In my experience, a test that finishes with zero problems is a failure.

I never said it was the first set tests...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> > And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
> > software intensive system is adequately safe?
>
> The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
> software.

You don't have much training or experience with safety-critical software, right?


>
> > I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
> > as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
> > find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.
>
> Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
> would indeed know what to look for. Also, peer-review (by other
> experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
> (or any system).

The state-of-the-art for establishing/proving the safety of software-intensive
systems isn't particularly mature.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:41 am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > > For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
> > > efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
> > > during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
> > > turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
> > > dynamically.
>
> > Can you actually cite some numbers and studies
> > or are you just making this stuff up?
>
> Not sure what you mean. I haven't given any numbers, so there are no
> numbers to site. :)
>
> If you are asking if I could show that a computer can do a better job
> of increasing fuel efficient, that is intuitively obvious.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_by_wire#Fly-by-wire
>
> If you Google "fly by wire fuel efficiency stability", there will be
> many links saying the same thing - a computer can do a much better job
> than human pilot for these things.
>
> > It was proven back in the 30's or 40's that after
> > an airplane flies into a pocket of turbulence,
> > it's too late for either a pilot or a computer
> > to make much difference. The *only* way to fix
> > the problem is with a 20-30 foot boom ahead of
> > the aircraft structure that can sense and react
> > to the turbulence ahead of time.
>
> Hmm...
>
> Well, generally speaking, if a pilot possesses knowledge of how to
> handle aircraft, that knowledge can be programmed into the control
> computer, and whatever it is, a computer can react with greater speed
> and precision than a pilot could, while remaining within specified
> constraints. And a computer doesn't get nervous.
>
> > As to fuel economy, perhaps you can tell me how
> > a computer could tune the radio and get winds
> > aloft readings and pick the best altitude for
> > cruise? Since it can't, it is unlikely that it
> > could do a better job than a pilot. OTOH, if
> > you have some concrete evidence to the contrary,
> > I'd love to see it.
>
> I cannot not, because no one (that I know of, is doing that yet).
>
> There are many ways to d this, using old technology, or the NextGen
> stuff that FAA is raving about.
>
> OLD TECHNOLOGY:
>
> With a software radio of appropriate bandset, it is possible to tune
> to any of tunable frequency of the radio stack. With some powerful
> software radios, like the ones athttp://www.vanu.com, it would is
> possible to tune to all channels at once (and have power left over to
> do whatever). COTS software could be used to sample the radio read-
> back and convert to to digital form. This can be done not only for,
> ATIS, but any radio source. Note that a software radio, because it
> contains a DSP, can be used for most of the antiquated signls (VOR).
> The signal processing power required to process such signals is not
> suprisingly very low.
>
> Once the information is digital form, the rest is easy.
>
> But there is more.
>
> 1.Unlike a pilot, a computer will never become annoyed by sampling
> winds aloft on XC flight to hunt for optimal altitude in real-time,
> the whole time.
>
> 2. A computer can also take the information an put up a real-time 3D
> rendering of such winds aloft on the $200 17-inch LCD panel that you
> bought from Viewsonic for your cockpit.
>
> 3. A computer could also store all winds aloft data for past 5 years
> of flying on massive 1TB hard disk, that , again, cost < $500.
>
> 4. A computer can take ATIS readings from local airport and
> destination airport, plus METARs, etc...all over $20 USB Wi-Fi dongle,
> one of 7 or 8 that you keep on board, simply because, at $20 a piece,
> you can afford it.
>
> 5. A computer can give you spoken back conditions of target area,
> remind you at 10-minute intervals with spoken voice fuel remaining in
> both time and volume.
>
> 6. With new Wi-Fi equipment to be released soon, a computer can let
> you talk to your grandaugther while in flight, via dash-mounted web-
> cam, and of course, your $30 disposable-but-very-high-quality Logitech
> headset.
>
> 7. A computer would let you take another $40 detachable web cam, and
> mount it with sucition cups, or more permanently, as you prefer, so
> you godaughter and son can see what you see as you fly over ground.
>
> 8. Some pilots might mount several such cameras around aircraft for
> various views to help with boredom in flight, or other reasons.
>
> There are 100's, if not 1000's of features, that a general-purpose
> computer + inexpensive, commoditized accessories, can add to flying.
>
> What is notable is that the cost of the $1000 PC does not increase.
> Only the software and accessories change.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
things that distract you from paying attention so that you don't
collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
Super-complex airplanes operated by computers that allow the
dumbest and most inattentive people into the air are just a disaster
waiting to happen, and they'd be so expensive that none of us would be
flying if we had to buy them. We fly the airplanes we fly because we
can afford them and because we want to FLY, not play with computers
and pretend to be pilots. Piloting involves learning some challenging
skills, which is why most of us do it. Restoring an old car or truck
like I did also involves a wide range of skills, which is why I did
it. I could go buy a new car that has so many safety gimmicks, like
antiskid brakes, but that involves nothing more than spending money
and there's absolutely no challenge to that. Besides, things like
antskid brakes are well known to make dumber drivers who just stand on
the brakes and trust the vehicle to prevent a skid into the snowbank,
and soon enough that driver, because he no longer has to learn the
feel of the surface, gets onto a slippery-enough surface that the
system cannot save him and he crashes good and proper. Along the
freeways here during snowstoms the vehicles in the ditch or upside-
down are ALL newer cars and SUVs. The drivers of non-antiskid cars
have to watch what they're doing and it makes them more aware of the
conditions.
Safety systems, indeed. Computers still cannot replace the human brain
and won't be able to do all that that brain can do for a long time, if
ever.
So use your head. Go learn to fly and stop trolling just to
infuriate us. We'll be asking how the lessons are going.

Dan

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 20, 5:52*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

>
> Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
> we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
> our speaker system...for about 100 years.
> You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
> controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
> and cheap.

A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
problem.

Cheers

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote stuff:
>
> Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
> you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
> things that distract you from paying attention

That's my wife's job when we fly.

I'm too busy trying to stay ahead of the airplane, avoid traffic, and
get to where we're headed.

> so that you don't
> collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
> some other means of travel, like in an airliner.

When she gets her license, then I can take pictures.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
> > we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
> > our speaker system...for about 100 years.
> > You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
> > controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
> > and cheap.
>
> A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
> Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
> problem.
>
> Cheers

See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, <yawn>
It's simple for me.
Ken

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 7:48*pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > And what analysis techniques would be applied to prove that the resulting
> > > software intensive system is adequately safe?
>
> > The same techniques that employed, in general, by experts to test
> > software.
>
> You don't have much training or experience with safety-critical software, right?

No.

> > > I don't care how many "fastidious" people look at an architecture or the
> > > as-built system, if they don't know what they are looking for and how to
> > > find it, the odds of proving *anything useful are pretty small.
>
> > Well, assuming they are experts, each in their respective areas, they
> > would indeed know what to look for. *Also, peer-review (by other
> > experts) is a very good way to check structural integrity of software
> > (or any system).
>
> The state-of-the-art for establishing/proving the safety of software-intensive
> systems isn't particularly mature.

No argument here.

Every few years I meet someone who is doing research of proving
integrity of softare in general. In every case, the intellectual
effort involved in configuring the proving tool for the specific
application context is on par with the intellectual effort that would
have been employed to make the system correct in the first place.
When I point out this fact, the answer is generally, "Yes, we know,
but the idea is to eventually reach a point where the software can do
everything by itself."

Ahem.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 8:27*pm, wrote:
> * Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
> you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
> things that distract you from paying attention so that you don't
> collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
> some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
> * * * Super-complex airplanes operated by computers that allow the
> dumbest and most inattentive people into the air are just a disaster
> waiting to happen, and they'd be so expensive that none of us would be
> flying if we had to buy them. We fly the airplanes we fly because we
> can afford them and because we want to FLY, not play with computers
> and pretend to be pilots. Piloting involves learning some challenging
> skills, which is why most of us do it. Restoring an old car or truck
> like I did also involves a wide range of skills, which is why I did
> it. I could go buy a new car that has so many safety gimmicks, like
> antiskid brakes, but that involves nothing more than spending money
> and there's absolutely no challenge to that. Besides, things like
> antskid brakes are well known to make dumber drivers who just stand on
> the brakes and trust the vehicle to prevent a skid into the snowbank,
> and soon enough that driver, because he no longer has to learn the
> feel of the surface, gets onto a slippery-enough surface that the
> system cannot save him and he crashes good and proper. Along the
> freeways here during snowstoms the vehicles in the ditch or upside-
> down are ALL newer cars and SUVs. The drivers of non-antiskid cars
> have to watch what they're doing and it makes them more aware of the
> conditions.
> Safety systems, indeed. Computers still cannot replace the human brain
> and won't be able to do all that that brain can do for a long time, if
> ever.
> * * * *So use your head. Go learn to fly and stop trolling just to
> infuriate us. We'll be asking how the lessons are going.

I think you post gets at the root of the matter.

I think many of the pilots who object to my point of view object on
the grounds that you outline above. Essentially, flying is a hobby
for them, and they take pleasure in the knobs, dials....

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

Then what? Will all the private pilots who like the feel of their
Bravo demand that state-of-art state remain stagnant?

Will you speak for those who might like a vehicle as outlined by NASA/
CAFE/PAV?

If some organization is successful in building such a vehicle, one
that relies mostly on computers, will you object? If the safety is not
as dire as indicated in this thread, on what ground will you object?
"Well, simply put Mr. Administrator, we do not like the idea of
someone flying a vehicle that is insufficiently complex and has too
few knobs and quite frankly is too cheap and does vibrate or make
enough noise or does not overheat or require hangar space or uses fly-
by-wire and has too much cockpit amusement and lends itself to highly-
commoditized components... you see, there is a process that one must
go throuhg, that requires years of hard work and financial
investment...and these new guys are cheating..."

None of these things have anything to do with technical feasibility.
It has more to do with how currents pilots feel about aviation.

At least it seems that way.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 20, 9:55*pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote stuff:
>
> > * Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
> > you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
> > things that distract you from paying attention
>
> That's my wife's job when we fly.
>
> I'm too busy trying to stay ahead of the airplane, avoid traffic, and
> get to where we're headed.
>
> > so that you don't
> > collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
> > some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
>
> When she gets her license, then I can take pictures.

I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the
scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me
to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change.

It should be possible to have it both ways - "flying" as Dan calls it,
or sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the scenery, with more
advanced form of auto-pilot, with multiple cameras streaming entire
flight to 1TB hard disk, of course.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:55?pm, Steve Hix >
> wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote stuff:
> >
> > > ? Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
> > > you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
> > > things that distract you from paying attention
> >
> > That's my wife's job when we fly.
> >
> > I'm too busy trying to stay ahead of the airplane, avoid traffic, and
> > get to where we're headed.
> >
> > > so that you don't
> > > collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
> > > some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
> >
> > When she gets her license, then I can take pictures.

> I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the
> scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me
> to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change.

> It should be possible to have it both ways - "flying" as Dan calls it,
> or sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the scenery, with more
> advanced form of auto-pilot, with multiple cameras streaming entire
> flight to 1TB hard disk, of course.

Pure fantasy.

Someone has to be looking out the window for the no radio, no transponder
and no flight following aircraft no matter how sophisticated the aircraft.

There is now way more realiable than a Mark I eyeball to detect a
typical no radio rag bag airplane.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
> inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
> will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
> federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.

Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
world.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 21, 12:45*am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
> > inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
> > will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
> > federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.
>
> People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
> which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.
>
> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
> exist anytime in the near future.
>
> You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
> world.

So basically you are saying that the FAA, NASA, EAA, AOPA, and Boeing,
are wasting their money sponsoring PAV?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 21, 3:43*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
> > > we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
> > > our speaker system...for about 100 years.
> > > You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
> > > controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
> > > and cheap.
>
> > A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
> > Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
> > problem.
>
> > Cheers
>
> See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, <yawn>
> It's simple for me.
> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
Look up servo and try to undersrand that it is closed loop, a
solenoid/speakers is not. Now do you understand?

Simple for you -oh yeh! LOL
Cheers

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the
> scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me
> to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change.

what? There isn't a flight I've made that I didn't have lots and lots
of time to enjoy the scenary as well as the rest of the flying experience.
(the exception are my flights in IMC or under the hood)

I've never heard one pilot complain about not having time to enjoy
the scenary. Not one.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Le Chaud Lapin > posted:
>
> I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
> inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
> will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
> federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.
>
Perhaps you haven't noticed that just the opposite is happening in the
real world? Or, perhaps you haven't realized that as GA systems become
more complex, the barrier to entry increases due to training and
certification costs? The only real-world reduction in requirements that
supports your fantasy is the introduction of the Sport Pilot category, so
perhaps you should look at those aircraft for a clue as to the direction
things are going for "the average person" and GA.

Neil

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
>>In any case, because the material cost of software is $0, the cost of
>>verification would have to be very high indeed before a point would
>>reached, beyond which, it did not make sense to make the software
>>because the market could not support it.
>
> There's a saying in the pharmaceutical industry that seems appropriate, here.
>
> "Sure we can make the pills for a dime each.......but the first one costs
> $150 million."

Very nice, and applies well to software too. Of course it's not true that
software has 0 marginal cost. There are support costs, which can be
significant.

But let's say that software really does have zero marginal cost. Well,
this is extremely *bad* news for the use of software in GA, not good news
as has been presented.

Why? Because software costs a *lot* of money to make. And with zero
marginal cost, the price is effectively the development cost divided by
the size of the audience.

GA is a pretty damn small audience. Why do you think you can buy a
perfectly capable car GPS, with a database full of every road in the
country, for under $200 but you'll spend ten times that much on something
that's significantly less capable for your airplane? Certification and
liability come into it, of course, but even ignoring those you would spend
what seems to be an unreasonable amount of money. This is just because the
development costs are fixed but the audience is microscopic.

To keep costs down, you want something with low development costs, even if
the material cost is significant. This mean proven designs, simple
mechanical linkages, etc. And guess what, that's what we have. Software
isn't going to save you any money unless you either find a way to make
multipurpose software that the public can also use, increase the GA pilot
population by an order of magnitude, or create a magical software-making
machine that can cut your development costs by an order of magnitude.

To extend the pharmaceutical analogy a bit, if you want cheap pills then
you'd better contract a really common disease or use a treatment which has
existed for a long time. If you want brand new treatment for a rare
disease then it's going to cost you a whole lot of money.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 12:45?am, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
> > > inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
> > > will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
> > > federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.
> >
> > People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
> > which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.
> >
> > Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
> > exist anytime in the near future.
> >
> > You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
> > world.

> So basically you are saying that the FAA, NASA, EAA, AOPA, and Boeing,
> are wasting their money sponsoring PAV?

Unless you have a computer that is the equivelant of Mr. Data from
Star Trek, there will never be an automatic airplane for every Joe
Sixpack.

Is that clear enough for you?

As to whether or not PAV is a waste of time, basic research generally
eventually results in something usefull, though not necessarily
resulting in the stated object of the original research.

And anyway, automatic airplanes already exist, they just don't carry
people.

Have you ever heard of a Preditor?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 21, 12:01 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 3:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
> > > > we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
> > > > our speaker system...for about 100 years.
> > > > You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
> > > > controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
> > > > and cheap.
>
> > > A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
> > > Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
> > > problem.
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, <yawn>
> > It's simple for me.
> > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> Look up servo and try to undersrand that it is closed loop, a
> solenoid/speakers is not. Now do you understand?
> Simple for you -oh yeh! LOL
> Cheers

Thanks Flaps.
I've designed, tested and built servos, complete
with the appropriate feedback damping, ugh.
I did one servo that worked great except for one
f**king thing, it was tuned to the local AM radio
station at some setting.
Funny, I'm in the lab, and I hear a radio playing,
the darn servo needle was going to the beat of
the music, a few caps solved that.
Ken

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 21, 10:47*am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
> > From: Le Chaud Lapin >

> Very nice, and applies well to software too. Of course it's not true that
> software has 0 marginal cost. There are support costs, which can be
> significant.

I said material cost, not marginal cost.

> But let's say that software really does have zero marginal cost. Well,
> this is extremely *bad* news for the use of software in GA, not good news
> as has been presented.
>
> Why? Because software costs a *lot* of money to make. And with zero
> marginal cost, the price is effectively the development cost divided by
> the size of the audience.
>
> GA is a pretty damn small audience. Why do you think you can buy a
> perfectly capable car GPS, with a database full of every road in the
> country, for under $200 but you'll spend ten times that much on something
> that's significantly less capable for your airplane? Certification and
> liability come into it, of course, but even ignoring those you would spend
> what seems to be an unreasonable amount of money. This is just because the
> development costs are fixed but the audience is microscopic.
>
> To keep costs down, you want something with low development costs, even if
> the material cost is significant. This mean proven designs, simple
> mechanical linkages, etc. And guess what, that's what we have. Software
> isn't going to save you any money unless you either find a way to make
> multipurpose software that the public can also use, increase the GA pilot
> population by an order of magnitude, or create a magical software-making
> machine that can cut your development costs by an order of magnitude.

It is my belief that a software-controlled PAV, with the features
outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV would allow an

increase the GA population by an order of magnitude (at least)

because the machine would be easier to fly, etc.

This is what the FAA, NASA, CAFE, DARPA, and aero/astro departments
all over the United States and elsewhere would like to see, not just
me. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the
> > scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me
> > to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change.
>
> what? There isn't a flight I've made that I didn't have lots and lots
> of time to enjoy the scenary as well as the rest of the flying experience.
> (the exception are my flights in IMC or under the hood)
>
> I've never heard one pilot complain about not having time to enjoy
> the scenary. Not one.

Same here; else flying would be a lot less interesting for me.

At the same time, I can't afford to get focused on photography while I'm
PIC.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> It is my belief that a software-controlled PAV, with the features
> outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV would allow an

> increase the GA population by an order of magnitude (at least)

> because the machine would be easier to fly, etc.

There is nothing particularly difficult about flying an GA aircraft VFR;
7 year old kids have learned to do it.

Lots of people want to fly but are put off by the cost, lots more than
are put off by any preceived difficulty in learning.

Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.

The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 21, 4:15*pm, wrote:
> Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
>
> Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
> reducing the pilot population.
>
> And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
> as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
> commodity.

Hmm..are you sure?

There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:

* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player

The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

> The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
> magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

That is true for many commodity products.

It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products
starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought
to market.

The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who
purchase the product.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Peter Dohm]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote:
> Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
>
> Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
> reducing the pilot population.
>
> And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
> as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
> commodity.

Hmm..are you sure?

There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:

* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player

The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

> The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
> magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

That is true for many commodity products.

It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products
starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought
to market.

The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who
purchase the product.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Except for the Pet Rock, which putatively had a low developement cost,
everything on your list had a presumed market more than two orders of
magnetude greater than general aviation. Further, all are physical
products--so that most of the cost is ongoing materials, production, and
packaging--and most are consumable or disposable products which are sold
multiple times to each customer. No credible comparison can be drawn
between software and any product on your list--it is like comparing oranges
to sawdust!

Peter

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 21, 6:43*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in ...
> On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
>
> > Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
> > reducing the pilot population.
>
> > And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
> > as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
> > commodity.
>
> Hmm..are you sure?
>
> There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
> even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
> by virtue of the product:
>
> * ball-point pen
> * sticky-notes from 3M
> * Sony Walkman, Discman
> * Atari game console
> * waverunner
> * Kevlar
> * Velcro
> * microwave oven
> * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
> frigidity
> * gasoline additives
> * mosquito repellant
> * baby wipes
> * polarized sunglasses
> * pet rock (came and went)
> * USB memory sticks
> * DVD player
>
> The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
> the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.
>
> > The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
> > magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.
>
> That is true for many commodity products.
>
> It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products
> starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought
> to market.
>
> The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who
> purchase the product.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Except for the Pet Rock, which putatively had a low developement cost,
> everything on your list had a presumed market more than two orders of
> magnetude greater than general aviation. *Further, all are physical
> products--so that most of the cost is ongoing materials, production, and
> packaging--and most are consumable or disposable products which are sold
> multiple times to each customer. *No credible comparison can be drawn
> between software and any product on your list--it is like comparing oranges
> to sawdust!

I was not making a comparison between software and the products that I
listed.

I was merely pointing out that, if a product is made, before anyone
knows what it is, they will still buy it if they like it, which
obviously can only occur after it has been made and made public.

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
> exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

[Peter Dohm]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
...

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Not from me; and from what I have read on this thread, the possible market
in this newsgroup can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Of that small
number, you would be the only one willing to spend money--presuming that you
are willing to do so.

Personally, for the foreseeable future and without any regard for which
costs more money or less, I will continue to be more satisfied with cables
and tie rods than with any plausible firmware and servo solution. The idea
of software on general purpose, or multipurpose, hardware is just too
dangerous to consider--having done a bit of professional maintenance on
workstations, including some on networks, I don't even want to be in the
same county!

Peter

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death multiple times over the last
decade. So, in the event that you are not just trolling, a little effort
with a search engine will yeild a lot of good information.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

wrote:
>> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
>> exist anytime in the near future.
>
>Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
>further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
>claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
>probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
>are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
>intended to accomplish:
>
>http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge


Here's a concept that should be pursued:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
Actual Hands-off Steering:
And Other Wonders of the Modern World

by Bob Bryant

This article discusses the demonstration of automated
highway system technologies by the National Automated Highway
System Consortium, in which the federal Highway Administration is
a partner; in San Diego, Calif., on Aug 7 to 10, 1997. See "Demo
'97: Proving AHS Works" of the July/August 1997 issue of Public
Roads for a general description of the demonstration, its
background, the demonstration scenarios, and the consortium

Eight car platoon demonstrates vehicles traveling as a unit.
In the platoon scenario, eight cars in a tight formation -
6.5 meters apart - at nearly 105 km/h traveled the demo
course as coordinated unit with the vehicles "communicating"
with each other 50 times per second.
(Photo courtesy of California PATH)
Demo '97

It's magic! Or so it seems -- cars driving themselves.

Well, we know, it's not magic. It's very technical and
explainable -- the logical culmination of years of study,
development, and testing. But that doesn't detract from the wonder
of it all.

It's like the tricks of the master magicians and
illusionists; you know that there is a logical explanation for all
the apparently supernatural feats, but it is still exciting.

You know the magician did not really saw the woman in half,
and the Statue of Liberty did not really disappear. But we're
still amazed. Even if it's not magic, the cars did drive
themselves -- at least without the help of human drivers.

I know that is true hecause I saw them. I even rode in three
of the automated vehicles at Demo '97, the demonstration of
automated high-way system (AHS) technologies in San Diego on Aug.
7 to 10, 1997. I rode in a car, a minivan, and a bus, and it was
exhilarating to barrel down that 12.2-km segment of the Interstate
15 high-occupancy-vehicle lanes at 105 km/h with the drivers' feet
tucked under their seats and their hands in their laps -- truly
"hands-off, feet-off" driving. Even though it is a very overused
cliche, I couldn't help thinking, "Look Ma, no hands -- or feet!"

Demo '97, -- put on by the National Automated Highway System
Consortium (NAHSC), an industry-government-academia collaboration
-- was a congressionally mandated demonstration to prove that it
is technically "feasible" to use these AHS technologies to
significantly alleviate several of the most enduring
transportation problems in the United States -- and in the rest of
the world as well.

AHS addresses three major concerns, explained Bill Stevens,
the NAHSC Program technical director. One is safety; second is
congestion; and the third is environmental problems.

Each year in the United States, more than 40,000 people are
killed and 5 million people are injured in automobile crashes.
Because human error is a leading factor in nine out of 10 crashes
and because AHS promises to significantly reduce the element of
human error, AHS offers a great potential for saving lives and
avoiding injuries.

AHS can reduce congestion and increase mobility in several
ways, but primarily, by being able to safely reduce the distance
between vehicles, AHS "can double or triple the capacity of our
roadways at today's legal speeds and make trips faster and trip
times more reliable by avoiding the backups due to stop-and-go
traffic and congestion," said Jim Rillings, former NAHSC program
manager. Congestion is another leading factor in automobile
crashes; so, reducing congestion will also have safety advantages.

Vehicles traveling in a tight, automated platoon with about
half a vehicle-length interval have a dramatic reduction in
aerodynamic drag that results in a 20-percent to 25-percent
improvement in fuel economy and emissions reduction. AHS will also
have great economic advantages. Today's vehicles are about as
crash-worthy as it is possible to make them within reasonable
cost. Therefore, the automobile companies, as well as the federal
government, are now turning to crash avoidance as a way of
avoiding injuries and death and also as way of saving economic
losses due to crashes, which amount to approximately $150 billion
per year. The economic losses due to highway congestion are in the
neighborhood of $50 billion per year. Adding those up, a sizable
amount of money is lost each year due to motor vehicle crashes and
congestion," Rillings said.

Different approaches to AHS were showcased in seven
different "scenarios" during the demo. Cutting-edge technologies
to provide adaptive cruise control, collision warning, obstacle
avoidance, lane departure warning, and lateral and longitudinal
control (steering and interval) were used to show variations on an
AHS of the future.

The 1,350 passengers who rode in the Demo '97 vehicles were
the first people to experience s...


It appears that it is being pursued by come capable folks:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/Videos/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> Hi All,
>
> 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.
>
> There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
> underutilized. The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
> an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.
>
> There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
> integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
> any potential opportunity for use of electronics should be employed,
> as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
> analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
> reliability, controllability, etc.
>
> Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project. I have
> not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
> project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
> aviation.
>
> 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...
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Here is an excerpt from a concurrent thread, where the conversation
> seems to be turning toward Electronics-Or-Not:
>
> On Jun 19, 11:16 am, wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote:
>> > On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
>>
>> > > The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation
>> > > laws, seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself
>> > > an engineer, but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts
>> > > like energy density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but
>> > > why go on? Austin has its village idiot.
>>
>> > Lots of guys like that. 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. The idea that
>> > electric power is green is another falsehood; where does most
>> > electricity come from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys),
>> > coal (dirty), natural gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited
>> > resource), nuclear (dangerous and waste problems), and so on.
>> > Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked well and were affordable,
>> > require hydrogen, which requires the electrolysis of water, which
>> > needs vast amounts of electricity. Other methods of storage involve
>> > heavy metals and their dangers. The idea that a helicopter is easy
>> > to build (with biplane blades, yet, which was tried in the early
>> > years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer knows nothing of
>> > the problems that gyroscopic precession present to all rotating
>> > components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA and
>> > airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
>> > flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
>> > after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).
>>
>> > Dan
>>
>> Here is a frightening thought. If Le Chaud is in fact an engineer,
>> someone is paying him money for his lack of knowledge of basics, like
>> the power demand to keep a something with a specific gravity greater
>> than its environment suspended there. Well, that may be second term
>> physics. Lift ferries indeed.
>
>> I wonder how long it would take me to understand his true worth -- I
>> do make mistakes in hiring, but rarely in discharging.
>
What do you care? You don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Pennino has been hitting on everyone analysing
> future technology, now below he's gone sexual,
> **** him, tell him he's fired!!!
>
> Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
> we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
> our speaker system...for about 100 years.
> You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
> controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
> and cheap.
>
> The computer can be switched off and the pilot has
> direct analog control, or, instead of farting around
> with nav, trims etc, he sets, altitude 4000@120 knots,
> heading 250 into the computer , and he sits back and
> rests to enjoy the scenerary....and he can even set-up
> a wake-up call.


God you're a fjukktard's fjukktard.




> Ken
> PS:Pennino is an annoying wop.

Classy.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:d76e8ea4-0850-
:

> On Jun 19, 11:43 pm, Steve Hix >
> wrote:
>> In article >, j...
@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin >
wrote:
>>
>> > > The material cost of software is $0.
>>
>> This is like making reference to "Free health care".
>>
>> Not in this world.
>>
>> > Material cost is zero, specification cost is modest, development
>> > cost is getting serious, and reliability testing cost is
horrendous.
>
> Lapin is a f**king genious.
> I was watching eagles soaring over my property
> today, and their feathers twitch, as a result of a
> fine tuned central nervous system that has evolved
> over millions of years. Now that ability is beyond
> mechanics, but is readilly possible with a computer,
> that may duplicate that flight ability, complete
> with feedback, such that, the control surface also
> does a measurment.
> Birds work that all the time.
> I'm still insane




I fixored your poast.



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:14e95d2b-6011-
:

> On Jun 21, 12:01 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 3:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" >
wrote:
>>
>> > > > Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
>> > > > we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
>> > > > our speaker system...for about 100 years.
>> > > > You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
>> > > > controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
>> > > > and cheap.
>>
>> > > A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
>> > > Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
>> > > problem.
>>
>> > > Cheers
>>
>> > See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, <yawn>
>> > It's simple for me.
>> > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Look up servo and try to undersrand that it is closed loop, a
>> solenoid/speakers is not. Now do you understand?
>> Simple for you -oh yeh! LOL
>> Cheers
>
> Thanks Flaps.
> I've designed, tested and built servos, complete
> with the appropriate feedback damping, ugh.


Modifying your sex toys doesn't count...





Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
> >
> > Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
> > reducing the pilot population.
> >
> > And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
> > as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
> > commodity.

> Hmm..are you sure?

Yes.

> There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
> even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
> by virtue of the product:

> * ball-point pen
> * sticky-notes from 3M
> * Sony Walkman, Discman
> * Atari game console
> * waverunner
> * Kevlar
> * Velcro
> * microwave oven
> * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
> frigidity
> * gasoline additives
> * mosquito repellant
> * baby wipes
> * polarized sunglasses
> * pet rock (came and went)
> * USB memory sticks
> * DVD player

> The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
> the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.

The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

You have convinced me of one thing though, you are a childish, naive,
idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> I was merely pointing out that, if a product is made, before anyone
> knows what it is, they will still buy it if they like it, which
> obviously can only occur after it has been made and made public.

If it is trivially cheap compared to income.

And it took years for microwave ovens to become commodity items as
opposed to a toy for the well off.

> Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
> one has made anything practical yet.

> If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

Yeah, the overwhelming sound of "It costs WHAT!!!" and "Are you out
of your mind?".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
> > exist anytime in the near future.

> Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
> further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
> claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
> probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
> are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
> intended to accomplish:

> http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

I work with Traffic Engineers, state DOT's and FHWA on a regular basis.

Automated traffic crap IS my area of expertise.

I'm well aware of what is out there and the experimental projects.

The statement stands.

If you believe it is just around the corner, somewhere I have a Popular
Mechanics from the 1930's that says the same thing you might like to read.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan >
> wrote in >:

> wrote:
> >> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
> >> exist anytime in the near future.
> >
> >Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
> >further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
> >claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
> >probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
> >are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
> >intended to accomplish:
> >
> >http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge


> Here's a concept that should be pursued:

> http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
> Actual Hands-off Steering:
> And Other Wonders of the Modern World

Yep, it was done then abandoned as being impractical to implement in the
real world.

It worked real good in a closed and monitored test area if you don't mind
spending a fortune.

The test area is now a reversible lane just north of San Diego.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 21, 10:05*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > > Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
>
> > > Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
> > > reducing the pilot population.
>
> > > And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
> > > as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
> > > commodity.
> > Hmm..are you sure?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
> > even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
> > by virtue of the product:
> > * ball-point pen
> > * sticky-notes from 3M
> > * Sony Walkman, Discman
> > * Atari game console
> > * waverunner
> > * Kevlar
> > * Velcro
> > * microwave oven
> > * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
> > frigidity
> > * gasoline additives
> > * mosquito repellant
> > * baby wipes
> > * polarized sunglasses
> > * pet rock (came and went)
> > * USB memory sticks
> > * DVD player
> > The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
> > the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.
>
> And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.
>
> The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
> of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.

In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-20, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> Fly by wire is pretty pointless on the kinds of planes we fly, it's
>> adding complexity where none is needed and steel cables and pulleys are
>> pretty reliable in airplanes, and pushrods to the swash plate in a
>> helicopter seem very reliable too. Changing those to electronics would
>> have pretty much zero benefit in a light airplane or helicopter (and
>> some significant disadvantages).
>
> I disagree.
>
> For XC flights, a computer can do a far better job optimizing fuel
> efficiency, for example, by controlling control surfaces dynamically
> during flight. A computer can also minimize the effects of
> turbulence, by reactively changing the same control surfaces
> dynamically.

But what you're describing is FADEC and autopilots, and they already
exist. You still don't need fly by wire; all you've described is a fancy
autopilot. I suspect it'll also have rather less effect on turbulence
than you expect, or Airbus would have done it.

> -Le Chaud Lapin-

....in French, meaning 'The sex maniac', literally 'the hot rabbit'. The
French have such a way with words!

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:15:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>I work with Traffic Engineers

You must know Jerry Crabill and Tramm Hartzog.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 21, 7:58*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in ...
>
> Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
> one has made anything practical yet.
>
> If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Not from me; and from what I have read on this thread, the possible market
> in this newsgroup can be counted on the fingers of one hand. *Of that small
> number, you would be the only one willing to spend money--presuming that you
> are willing to do so.

Which is why I said what I said in my OP.

Looking at all the links on the web, there is an enormous interest in
PAV's, and a lot of the interest comes from researchers at respected
universities, industry, EAA, DARPA, FAA, DOT, NASA, government-funded
think-tanks, and especially the general public. If a PAV were created
that met the objectives outlined by CAFE, and were low-cost,
automobile, many would buy one.

Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.

Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?

[Also, if anyone knows, is the overall sentiment in r.a.p. toward
PAV's representative of GA pilots as a whole?]

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:05?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 21, 4:15?pm, wrote:
> > > > Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
> >
> > > > Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
> > > > reducing the pilot population.
> >
> > > > And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
> > > > as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
> > > > commodity.
> > > Hmm..are you sure?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
> > > even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
> > > by virtue of the product:
> > > * ball-point pen
> > > * sticky-notes from 3M
> > > * Sony Walkman, Discman
> > > * Atari game console
> > > * waverunner
> > > * Kevlar
> > > * Velcro
> > > * microwave oven
> > > * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
> > > frigidity
> > > * gasoline additives
> > > * mosquito repellant
> > > * baby wipes
> > > * polarized sunglasses
> > > * pet rock (came and went)
> > > * USB memory sticks
> > > * DVD player
> > > The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
> > > the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.
> >
> > And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.
> >
> > The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
> > of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.

> But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
> will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
> still want it.

> In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
> want it.

No, that is not known, and to become a commondity the price has to get
down to the level of a microwave oven, which is never going to happen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 22, 10:55*am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
> > > of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.
> > But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
> > will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
> > still want it.
> > In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
> > want it.
>
> No, that is not known, and to become a commondity the price has to get
> down to the level of a microwave oven, which is never going to happen.

It would be hard, indeed, to bring cost of PAV too few hundred US
dollars.

But many people would be willing to pay the same for a PAV as they
would for their automobile.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
> will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
> still want it.
>
> In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
> want it.

Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?

Dan

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:55?am, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > > The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
> > > > of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.
> > > But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
> > > will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
> > > still want it.
> > > In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
> > > want it.
> >
> > No, that is not known, and to become a commondity the price has to get
> > down to the level of a microwave oven, which is never going to happen.

> It would be hard, indeed, to bring cost of PAV too few hundred US
> dollars.

> But many people would be willing to pay the same for a PAV as they
> would for their automobile.

A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
then it would be difficult to achieve.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 12:35 pm, wrote:
> A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
> one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
> it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
> number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
> then it would be difficult to achieve.

There is a way, but it involves two things: Simplicity and
personal responsibility. Simplicity of construction so that there
isn't a bunch of stuff that's not necessary to achieve safe flight,
and personal responsibility that accepts that there's personal risk in
flying and holds the manufacturer only to safe construction and
performance parameters, so he's not required to charge so much more
for an airplane than it's really worth just so that he can buy huge
amounts of insurance to protect himself from greedy lawyers and stupid
juries and incompetent pilots who blame everyone else for their own
mistakes.
There really isn't much to a basic airplane like a Citabria
or Cessna 150. Much of its value is tied up in the engine and
instruments, both necessary, and radios, some of which are not all
that necessary. The manufacturers of those things also have to charge
far more than the inherent value of these items because they get sued,
too . The mechanic has to buy lots of insurance, and so does the
airport operator and the fuel provider and so on. Costs get way beyond
reason. Until society gets fed up enough to do something concrete
about it, nothing will change, even with an "affordable PAV" which
itself would make things even worse just by allowing even more
incompetent people into the air. Just look at the deaths of people
using jet-skis or Quads and how their manufacturers have to insure
themselves.
If we can buy a brand-new automobile, a vehicle that is far
more complex than a Cessna 150, for around $15K, we should be able to
buy the much simpler airplane for the same price. But we can't because
airplanes kill the unwary much more readily and their owners or
passengers or the survivors of the owners are qick to capitalize on
the losses. Technology is not the answer to lowering costs; simplicity
and responsibility are.

Dan

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
> On Jun 22, 12:35 pm, wrote:
> > A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
> > one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
> > it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
> > number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
> > then it would be difficult to achieve.

> There is a way, but it involves two things: Simplicity and
> personal responsibility. Simplicity of construction so that there
> isn't a bunch of stuff that's not necessary to achieve safe flight,
> and personal responsibility that accepts that there's personal risk in
> flying and holds the manufacturer only to safe construction and
> performance parameters, so he's not required to charge so much more
> for an airplane than it's really worth just so that he can buy huge
> amounts of insurance to protect himself from greedy lawyers and stupid
> juries and incompetent pilots who blame everyone else for their own
> mistakes.
> There really isn't much to a basic airplane like a Citabria
> or Cessna 150. Much of its value is tied up in the engine and
> instruments, both necessary, and radios, some of which are not all
> that necessary. The manufacturers of those things also have to charge
> far more than the inherent value of these items because they get sued,
> too . The mechanic has to buy lots of insurance, and so does the
> airport operator and the fuel provider and so on. Costs get way beyond
> reason. Until society gets fed up enough to do something concrete
> about it, nothing will change, even with an "affordable PAV" which
> itself would make things even worse just by allowing even more
> incompetent people into the air. Just look at the deaths of people
> using jet-skis or Quads and how their manufacturers have to insure
> themselves.
> If we can buy a brand-new automobile, a vehicle that is far
> more complex than a Cessna 150, for around $15K, we should be able to
> buy the much simpler airplane for the same price. But we can't because
> airplanes kill the unwary much more readily and their owners or
> passengers or the survivors of the owners are qick to capitalize on
> the losses. Technology is not the answer to lowering costs; simplicity
> and responsibility are.

Well, I mostly agree with all that.

The LSA is about as unregulated and as simple as airplanes are going
to get and most of them are over a $100k delivered.

The automobile equivelant to a LSA costs about $15k delivered.

There is little that can be done about a litigious society past maybe
adopting the system that the loser pays the winners costs and limiting
the percentage the lawyers get.

And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
build.

With sufficient volume, you could possibly be able to cover the cost
of mechinery to automate composite structures and get the assembly
costs down, but that would imply that that one particular airfame
model is selling in huge numbers, which isn't going to happen.

If you are going to compare airplane manufacturing costs to automobile
manufacturing costs, you need to compare a car built like airplanes
are built, such as the Morgan, which isn't much of a car and starts
at about $80k US, not a Honda Civic.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 22, 1:14*pm, wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
> > will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
> > still want it.
>
> > In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
> > want it.
>
> * * * Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
> popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?

Not sure if they did. I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
in France) for a vehicle that moves slower than the average teenager
can run (~20km/h, 12.5mph) and requires 4-6 hours to charge for a
range of up to 40km.

By contrast, here is a machine that is 1/10 of the cost that does,
with some exceptions, the same thing. With this alternative, unlike
with the segway, the human actually has to balance himself/herself to
keep from falling:

http://urbanscooters.com/cgi-bin/urbanscooters/X-360.html?id=7wbs5GVf

The value proposition is a bit hard to swallow. Last year I paid $8100
for a VFR-800, a machine with top speed of 260km/hr, outrageously
generous fun during acceleration and cornering, able to carry a
passenger, and has essentially unlimited range with quick refueling.
It does not do well on cobblestone streets or on sidewalks in city
parks, but, when in such environments, I prefer to walk.

This is why objectivity in assessing the value of the product is
important.

If someone were to make a PAV that did not cost 10x that of a low-end
kit plane, but was roughly in line with cost of automobile, with all
the features outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV, consumers would respond with
purchases (or rentals at least).

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
>>Not sure if they did. I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
>>must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
>>The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
>>in France)
>
> I'll leave it to others to ponder the question "Why would someone who
> claims to live in Texas, and also claims NOT to be a "MX sockpuppet",
> be quoting the price of a Segway in France"?


I can't resist a good " told you so!"


Bertie
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 3:55 pm, wrote:

> And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
> machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
> them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
> build.

I dunno. When I learned to fly in the 1970s I asked the Cessna
dealer how much a new 172 cost. "Way too much," he said. "$21,000."
It WAS a lot, considering that I was making maybe $14000 a year, so it
would have cost me 1.5 years' salary.
Now a 172 costs well over $200k. What happened? $200K is a long way
past 1.5 times my salary.

Dan

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 22, 7:20*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> >Not sure if they did. *I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
> >must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
> >The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
> >in France)
>
> I'll leave it to others to ponder the question "Why would someone who claims
> to live in Texas, and also claims NOT to be a "MX sockpuppet", be quoting
> the price of a Segway in France"?

Because Wikipedia states that a Segway in France exceeds $10,000US.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Jun 22, 3:55 pm, wrote:
>
> > And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
> > machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
> > them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
> > build.
>
> I dunno. When I learned to fly in the 1970s I asked the Cessna
> dealer how much a new 172 cost. "Way too much," he said. "$21,000."
> It WAS a lot, considering that I was making maybe $14000 a year, so it
> would have cost me 1.5 years' salary.
> Now a 172 costs well over $200k. What happened? $200K is a long way
> past 1.5 times my salary.

Back in the early 70s the FBO I worked for bought a new Piper Fliteliner
(PA28-140) to use for instruction. $20K.

Two years later, they bought a basic new Warrior to help keep up with
the growing student load. That one was $107K.

I blame the lawyers, and the liability issues that followed in their
train.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 22, 9:44*pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 3:55 pm, wrote:
>
> > > And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
> > > machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
> > > them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
> > > build.
>
> > * * * * I dunno. When I learned to fly in the 1970s I asked the Cessna
> > dealer how much a new 172 cost. "Way too much," he said. "$21,000."
> > It WAS a lot, considering that I was making maybe $14000 a year, so it
> > would have cost me 1.5 years' salary.
> > * *Now a 172 costs well over $200k. What happened? $200K is a long way
> > past 1.5 times my salary.
>
> Back in the early 70s the FBO I worked for bought a new Piper Fliteliner
> (PA28-140) to use for instruction. $20K.
>
> Two years later, they bought a basic new Warrior to help keep up with
> the growing student load. That one was $107K.
>
> I blame the lawyers, and the liability issues that followed in their
> train.

Perhaps indeminfication of the manufacturer could become standard for
certain types of aircraft. States life California might not allow it,
but some states might.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 22, 8:10*pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> >Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
> >and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
> >understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
> >yet they still persist.
>
> >Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?

> 2) Most of us are aware that, eventually, systems will fail and a human
> will live or die because of his ability to handle the situation without a machine
> doing the "thinking".
>
> 3) We can imagine what it would be like if the average driver took to the skies.

These same statements could have been applied to automobiles at the
turn of the century, but eventually, average drivers were allowed
drive.

Certainly you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
have changed to allow them into the sky.

What will have changed?

Perhaps we underestimate the ability of humans to adapt to new types
of machines.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Stewart]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>>
>>> Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
>>> and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
>>> understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
>>> yet they still persist.
>>> Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?
>
>> 2) Most of us are aware that, eventually, systems will fail and a human
>> will live or die because of his ability to handle the situation without a machine
>> doing the "thinking".
>>
>> 3) We can imagine what it would be like if the average driver took to the skies.
>
> These same statements could have been applied to automobiles at the
> turn of the century, but eventually, average drivers were allowed
> drive.
>
> Certainly you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
> drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
> have changed to allow them into the sky.
>
> What will have changed?

Airliners and simulators

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 12:13*am, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 8:10 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> >>> Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
> >>> and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
> >>> understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
> >>> yet they still persist.
> >>> Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?
>
> >> 2) Most of us are aware that, eventually, systems will fail and a human
> >> will live or die because of his ability to handle the situation without a machine
> >> doing the "thinking".
>
> >> 3) We can imagine what it would be like if the average driver took to the skies.
>
> > These same statements could have been applied to automobiles at the
> > turn of the century, but eventually, average drivers were allowed
> > drive.
>
> > Certainly *you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
> > drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
> > have changed to allow them into the sky.
>
> > What will have changed?
>
> Airliners and simulators-

Airliners might see a decline in use as a result of PAV's, but
simulators might still be useful for training.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 20, 4:27 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> GA is a small market. Too small to warrant specialized development of much
>> of anything, which is why most of the components are either used or
>> spin-offs from other areas of aviation. Comparing it to the _general_
>> automotive market is completely off-base, as even a single model of a
>> single brand in a single year will have more units in the market than all
>> of GA.
>
> It's a Catch-22. The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
> are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
> if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.
>

You just named three government agencies and a non-profit. By all their
very nature they are designed to blow smoke up the publics collective
ass. Winning the X-Prize isn't what motivated SpaceShipOne into
sub-orbital flight. It was a nice bonus though. The $250,000 prize CAFE
is offering won't even buy and fly one copy of what they are trying to
replace.


>> So, to think that a body of expert programmers will somehow collaborate on
>> systems that, at best will be less reliable than the pulley and wire that
>> they replace is an unrealistic fantasy.
>
> A bit of a stretch.
>
>> BTW - if you think that "the material costs of software is $0", let me
>> know where you're getting your language compilers and hardware to create
>> and test your code. And, don't tell me about "Open Source" options,
>> either, unless you want to increase your development costs by a factor of
>> 100 or so.
>
> Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
> which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
> create the system.
>
> For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
> RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
> wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. It would not include
> dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
> equipment used to manufacture the product.
>
> The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
> cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.
>
> Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
> software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
> of an iPod.
>
> To determine what components are considered "material", move the
> product over a large distance. Whatever components move with the
> products, those components are considered material. Those that stay
> behind are something else.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-


But those things still have to be paid for and are figured into the cost
of the software so the cost of software is >zero.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:55 pm, Steve Hix >
> wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>>
>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote stuff:
>>> Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
>>> you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
>>> things that distract you from paying attention
>> That's my wife's job when we fly.
>>
>> I'm too busy trying to stay ahead of the airplane, avoid traffic, and
>> get to where we're headed.
>>
>>> so that you don't
>>> collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
>>> some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
>> When she gets her license, then I can take pictures.
>
> I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the
> scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me
> to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change.

Then you really need to be more careful with whom you are flying. There
is no reason a competent pilot shouldn't be able to enjoy the view
during the en-route portion of the flight.

>
> It should be possible to have it both ways - "flying" as Dan calls it,
> or sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the scenery, with more
> advanced form of auto-pilot, with multiple cameras streaming entire
> flight to 1TB hard disk, of course.
>
>

The technology has been around a long time to take in flight video. But
I want it in live 3D NOT on a TV screen after the flight.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 10:49*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > It's a Catch-22. *The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
> > are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
> > if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.
>
> You just named three government agencies and a non-profit. By all their
> very nature they are designed to blow smoke up the publics collective
> ass. Winning the X-Prize isn't what motivated SpaceShipOne into
> sub-orbital flight. It was a nice bonus though. The $250,000 prize CAFE
> is offering won't even buy and fly one copy of what they are trying to
> replace.

You cannot blame them for trying. After all, when DARPA allocates $3
million award for a company or organization to solve a problem, and
the problem is not solved, it is the organization's fault, generally.
The alternative is to fund nothing at all, which will not work,
because someone will come up with the brilliant idea that government
agencies should provide stimulus funding for innovation.

The $300,000 being offered by NASA/CAFE is not a huge amount, true. I
regard it as NASA's way of saying, "if you do your part, we will do
ours."

Last year, the entries into the PAV Challenge were embarrassingly
unimaginative, but the funds were still allocated. I suspect that, if
someone were to actually enter something that looked more like a PAV,
NASA would not be the only agency providing funding. DARPA would
join, etc.

They are waiting for innovators in aviation to do more than introduce
slightly-modified LSA's.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 20, 8:27 pm, wrote:
>> Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
>> you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
>> things that distract you from paying attention so that you don't
>> collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
>> some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
>> Super-complex airplanes operated by computers that allow the
>> dumbest and most inattentive people into the air are just a disaster
>> waiting to happen, and they'd be so expensive that none of us would be
>> flying if we had to buy them. We fly the airplanes we fly because we
>> can afford them and because we want to FLY, not play with computers
>> and pretend to be pilots. Piloting involves learning some challenging
>> skills, which is why most of us do it. Restoring an old car or truck
>> like I did also involves a wide range of skills, which is why I did
>> it. I could go buy a new car that has so many safety gimmicks, like
>> antiskid brakes, but that involves nothing more than spending money
>> and there's absolutely no challenge to that. Besides, things like
>> antskid brakes are well known to make dumber drivers who just stand on
>> the brakes and trust the vehicle to prevent a skid into the snowbank,
>> and soon enough that driver, because he no longer has to learn the
>> feel of the surface, gets onto a slippery-enough surface that the
>> system cannot save him and he crashes good and proper. Along the
>> freeways here during snowstoms the vehicles in the ditch or upside-
>> down are ALL newer cars and SUVs. The drivers of non-antiskid cars
>> have to watch what they're doing and it makes them more aware of the
>> conditions.
>> Safety systems, indeed. Computers still cannot replace the human brain
>> and won't be able to do all that that brain can do for a long time, if
>> ever.
>> So use your head. Go learn to fly and stop trolling just to
>> infuriate us. We'll be asking how the lessons are going.
>
> I think you post gets at the root of the matter.
>
> I think many of the pilots who object to my point of view object on
> the grounds that you outline above. Essentially, flying is a hobby
> for them, and they take pleasure in the knobs, dials....
>
> I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
> inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
> will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
> federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.
>
> Then what? Will all the private pilots who like the feel of their
> Bravo demand that state-of-art state remain stagnant?
>
> Will you speak for those who might like a vehicle as outlined by NASA/
> CAFE/PAV?
>

Again we are back to the "Popular Science" aircraft. It's been touted by
that magazine and others for years. There's a reason it hasn't been
built. Actually there are several



> If some organization is successful in building such a vehicle, one
> that relies mostly on computers, will you object? If the safety is not
> as dire as indicated in this thread, on what ground will you object?
> "Well, simply put Mr. Administrator, we do not like the idea of
> someone flying a vehicle that is insufficiently complex and has too
> few knobs and quite frankly is too cheap and does vibrate or make
> enough noise or does not overheat or require hangar space or uses fly-
> by-wire and has too much cockpit amusement and lends itself to highly-
> commoditized components... you see, there is a process that one must
> go throuhg, that requires years of hard work and financial
> investment...and these new guys are cheating..."
>
> None of these things have anything to do with technical feasibility.
> It has more to do with how currents pilots feel about aviation.
>
> At least it seems that way.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-


It's not the GA guys that will scream. It is the airlines. Just think
about what they are saying now and multiply it by what ever number you
think the sales will be of PAV.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 21, 12:45 am, wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>>> I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
>>> inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
>>> will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
>>> federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.
>> People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
>> which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.
>>
>> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
>> exist anytime in the near future.
>>
>> You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
>> world.
>
> So basically you are saying that the FAA, NASA, EAA, AOPA, and Boeing,
> are wasting their money sponsoring PAV?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Yes, if the outcome is a PAV as outlined by CAFE. That really isn't what
they are trying for though. Look at the prizes CAFE is giving out. They
are looking for evolutionary changes that can be brought into the
current fleet. Not revolutionary changes.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> wrote:
>> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
>> exist anytime in the near future.
>
> Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
> further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
> claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
> probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
> are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
> intended to accomplish:
>
> http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

Those aren't for road use. Remember what the D in DARPA stands for.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan >
> wrote in >:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
>>> exist anytime in the near future.
>> Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
>> further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
>> claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
>> probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
>> are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
>> intended to accomplish:
>>
>> http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge
>
>
> Here's a concept that should be pursued:
>
> http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
> Actual Hands-off Steering:
> And Other Wonders of the Modern World
>

And unless you replace the entire fleet of autos on the road all it
takes is one asshole in his old Chevy to screw the system.

Look how long it has taken the FCC to get around to cutting off analog
TV and all it takes to deal with that is s $40 converter box.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 10:36*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> 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 have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.

> 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.

What do you mean by "current technology"?

Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.

A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
$50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
possibility of pre-built aircraft.

So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
would obviate many other expensive components.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

Is affordable one of the criteria?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>
> Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
> and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
> understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
> yet they still persist.


Yet none of them have built such a PAV.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:05 pm, wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 21, 4:15?pm, wrote:
>>>> Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.
>>>> Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
>>>> reducing the pilot population.
>>>> And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
>>>> as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
>>>> commodity.
>>> Hmm..are you sure?
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
>>> even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
>>> by virtue of the product:
>>> * ball-point pen
>>> * sticky-notes from 3M
>>> * Sony Walkman, Discman
>>> * Atari game console
>>> * waverunner
>>> * Kevlar
>>> * Velcro
>>> * microwave oven
>>> * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
>>> frigidity
>>> * gasoline additives
>>> * mosquito repellant
>>> * baby wipes
>>> * polarized sunglasses
>>> * pet rock (came and went)
>>> * USB memory sticks
>>> * DVD player
>>> The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
>>> the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.
>> And all those products are free compared to the price of an airplane.
>>
>> The most expensive thing on your list of wonders is at least 3 orders
>> of magnitude less in price than an airplane ever could be.
>
> But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
> will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
> still want it.
>
> In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
> want it.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

It shows nothing of the sort. Most of those items were just new products
that evolved from older products. We could start a real long list of
products that didn't catch on.

I know many people who purchase high end cars that would never in a
million years buy the CAFE inspired PAV.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

wrote:
> On Jun 22, 12:35 pm, wrote:
>> A lot of people would buy an airplane if they could buy a brand new
>> one for $15k to $30K no matter whether it had electronic trickery in
>> it or not, but there is no way to get the price that low unless the
>> number of pilots increases by over two orders of magnitude and even
>> then it would be difficult to achieve.
>
> There is a way, but it involves two things: Simplicity and
> personal responsibility. Simplicity of construction so that there
> isn't a bunch of stuff that's not necessary to achieve safe flight,
> and personal responsibility that accepts that there's personal risk in
> flying and holds the manufacturer only to safe construction and
> performance parameters, so he's not required to charge so much more
> for an airplane than it's really worth just so that he can buy huge
> amounts of insurance to protect himself from greedy lawyers and stupid
> juries and incompetent pilots who blame everyone else for their own
> mistakes.
> There really isn't much to a basic airplane like a Citabria
> or Cessna 150. Much of its value is tied up in the engine and
> instruments, both necessary, and radios, some of which are not all
> that necessary. The manufacturers of those things also have to charge
> far more than the inherent value of these items because they get sued,
> too . The mechanic has to buy lots of insurance, and so does the
> airport operator and the fuel provider and so on. Costs get way beyond
> reason. Until society gets fed up enough to do something concrete
> about it, nothing will change, even with an "affordable PAV" which
> itself would make things even worse just by allowing even more
> incompetent people into the air. Just look at the deaths of people
> using jet-skis or Quads and how their manufacturers have to insure
> themselves.
> If we can buy a brand-new automobile, a vehicle that is far
> more complex than a Cessna 150, for around $15K, we should be able to
> buy the much simpler airplane for the same price. But we can't because
> airplanes kill the unwary much more readily and their owners or
> passengers or the survivors of the owners are qick to capitalize on
> the losses. Technology is not the answer to lowering costs; simplicity
> and responsibility are.
>
> Dan

That second item screws the idea all to hell.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan >
> > wrote in >:
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
> >>> exist anytime in the near future.
> >> Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
> >> further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
> >> claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
> >> probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
> >> are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
> >> intended to accomplish:
> >>
> >> http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge
> >
> >
> > Here's a concept that should be pursued:
> >
> > http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
> > Actual Hands-off Steering:
> > And Other Wonders of the Modern World
> >

> And unless you replace the entire fleet of autos on the road all it
> takes is one asshole in his old Chevy to screw the system.

Which is just one of the reasons the whole thing was abandoned as
impractical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> Perhaps indeminfication of the manufacturer could become standard for
> certain types of aircraft. States life California might not allow it,
> but some states might.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
>

Replace States with Countries and California with United States.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:14 pm, wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>>> But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
>>> will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
>>> still want it.
>>> In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
>>> want it.
>> Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
>> popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?
>
> Not sure if they did. I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
> must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
> The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
> in France) for a vehicle that moves slower than the average teenager
> can run (~20km/h, 12.5mph) and requires 4-6 hours to charge for a
> range of up to 40km.
>

The exact words used in the pre-launch hype surrounding the Segway were,
'Revolutionary and will change the way the world travels." Pretty much
exactly what you are saying about PAVs.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 12:33 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > 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 have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
>
> > 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.
>
> What do you mean by "current technology"?
>
> Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
> mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> cost less than $100,000.
>
> A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
> existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
> amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
> $50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
> possibility of pre-built aircraft.
>
> So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
> aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
> fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
> plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
> example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
> would obviate many other expensive components.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

It's likely computer assisted controls would allow ga airplanes to be
flown safely with center of lift and center of gravity coincident. For
airplanes with otherwise existing technology that might be as much as
a 10% improvement in range. There's another few percent, but only
that, with pusher propellers. Both of these 'improvements' have not
overcome serious counter arguments.


Start with people who are concerned with most effective/efficient
airplane configurations, those beautiful things called gliders. Long
small chord wings, laminar everything, and if you want instant
funding, talk to them. Give them a 30% reduction in drag and money
will flow in.

But you can't do that. You're all type, you have given no evidence you
can do more than that,

I've done some serious research -- REAL research -- on pilotless
extended range airplanes flying at 500 km/hr or less, and can't find
anything that approaches a 20% improvement over the drones the air
force is flying now. Maybe a new Skunkworks is out there doing
something (or maybe Scaled Composites is -- now that is serious
competition!!) but a maybe EE from maybe Austin (there is a Paris in
Texas) who has demonstrated no skills is not where I'd choose to place
my bet.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 11:44*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> > NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Is affordable one of the criteria?

Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria. ;)

A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 11:50*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> It shows nothing of the sort. Most of those items were just new products
> that evolved from older products. We could start a real long list of
> products that didn't catch on.
>
> I know many people who purchase high end cars that would never in a
> million years buy the CAFE inspired PAV.-

That does not mean that others would not.

Over the years I have bought my friends, nieces, nephews, and
godchildren various electronic gadgets like iPod's, XBOX's, Nintendo,
etc but it is very rare that I buy something like that for myself. But
they like it, and many people will like PAV's.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 11:55*am, wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> > > Here's a concept that should be pursued:
>
> > > * *http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
> > > * * Actual Hands-off Steering:
> > > * * And Other Wonders of the Modern World
>
> > And unless you replace the entire fleet of autos on the road all it
> > takes is one asshole in his old Chevy to screw the system.
>
> Which is just one of the reasons the whole thing was abandoned as
> impractical.

It is notable that aviation is not as prone to the all-or-nothing
dilema. Advanced PAV's would have to share the sky with convention
aircraft, but the danger of cohabitation is not as siginificant as
hands-of-steering.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 11:57*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 1:14 pm, wrote:
> >> On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> >>> But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
> >>> will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
> >>> still want it.
> >>> In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
> >>> want it.
> >> * * * Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
> >> popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?
>
> > Not sure if they did. *I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
> > must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
> > The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
> > in France) for a vehicle that moves slower than the average teenager
> > can run (~20km/h, 12.5mph) and requires 4-6 hours to charge for a
> > range of up to 40km.
>
> The exact words used in the pre-launch hype surrounding the Segway were,
> * 'Revolutionary and will change the way the world travels." Pretty much
> exactly what you are saying about PAVs

The difference is that there is already a market for PAV's. The
question is whether anyone (not just pilots in rec.aviation.pilot, but
anyone anyone), would want a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined
by NASA/CAFE.

My most expensive round-trip ticket to Paris cost $2016US. I sat next
to a couple who was angry for most of 10+ hour flight because I asked
them to relinquish my (pre-allocated) window seat, preventing them
from using it as a bed for their screaming child. :)

Many people already need to fly from one location to another, and
would be willing to pay $50,000 for ownership of a vehicle that could
get them to destination safely and comfortably (no headset). They
probably would not pay $500,000 for a the same machine, and certainly
not $1+ milllion, which is what is required for a near-equivalent of
B777 experience.

Some people might have paid $300-$500, maybe a bit less, for a machine
that barely moves faster than we walk, but not $5000.

Segway is is too expensive for what it offers.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
>>> exist anytime in the near future.
>>
>> Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before
>> making any further categorical statements like the above since you
>> appear to be making claims outside your realm of knowledge or
>> expertise. It appears you are probably unaware of current development
>> in this area. Autonomous vehicles are probably in the near future;
>> this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was intended to accomplish:
>>
>> http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge
>
> Those aren't for road use.

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to something so fundamentally at odds
with what has already been demonstrated (and prize money awarded). Or
perhaps you meant to suggest something else....

> Remember what the D in DARPA stands for.

Um, it started out as ARPA in 1958, changed to DARPA in 1972, then back to
ARPA in 1993, then changed back to DARPA in 1996. This is the same agency
that funded the ARPANET project in 1968, which lead to today's global
spanning Internet.

So IMHO, your objection or argument doesn't seem to hold any real substance
that I can see.

I do not claim expertise in the technologies that the Grand Challenge
participants employ. But I have been following it practically since it was
first announced because a friend asked me back in 2002 to do a technical
review of a proposal to generate funding for non-profit organization whose
goal was to jump-start autonomous vehicle research project. Turns out he
was unaware of the DARPA GC program, which had just been announced that
same year.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > > If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> > > NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
> >
> > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
> >
> > Is affordable one of the criteria?

> Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
> extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
> if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria. ;)

> A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
> there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

Not ones that make money anyway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:49 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>> It's a Catch-22. The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
>>> are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
>>> if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.
>> You just named three government agencies and a non-profit. By all their
>> very nature they are designed to blow smoke up the publics collective
>> ass. Winning the X-Prize isn't what motivated SpaceShipOne into
>> sub-orbital flight. It was a nice bonus though. The $250,000 prize CAFE
>> is offering won't even buy and fly one copy of what they are trying to
>> replace.
>
> You cannot blame them for trying. After all, when DARPA allocates $3
> million award for a company or organization to solve a problem, and
> the problem is not solved, it is the organization's fault, generally.
> The alternative is to fund nothing at all, which will not work,
> because someone will come up with the brilliant idea that government
> agencies should provide stimulus funding for innovation.
>
> The $300,000 being offered by NASA/CAFE is not a huge amount, true. I
> regard it as NASA's way of saying, "if you do your part, we will do
> ours."
>
> Last year, the entries into the PAV Challenge were embarrassingly
> unimaginative, but the funds were still allocated. I suspect that, if
> someone were to actually enter something that looked more like a PAV,
> NASA would not be the only agency providing funding. DARPA would
> join, etc.
>
> They are waiting for innovators in aviation to do more than introduce
> slightly-modified LSA's.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-


What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
easier. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
to some guy in a 172. And for best handling no less.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Certainly you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
> drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
> have changed to allow them into the sky.

Why not? I expect this. If people ever venture into the sky en masse it
will be in fully automated machines with all of the humans as mere
passengers.

The idea of millions of flying cars being driven around under the control
of average joes is a nice vision but I have no expectation that it will
ever happen.

Small aircraft under human control were, are, and will remain a travel
tool for wealthy people and recreation for the merely well-off.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
>>>> exist anytime in the near future.
>>> Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before
>>> making any further categorical statements like the above since you
>>> appear to be making claims outside your realm of knowledge or
>>> expertise. It appears you are probably unaware of current development
>>> in this area. Autonomous vehicles are probably in the near future;
>>> this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was intended to accomplish:
>>>
>>> http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge
>> Those aren't for road use.
>
> I'm at a loss as to how to respond to something so fundamentally at odds
> with what has already been demonstrated (and prize money awarded). Or
> perhaps you meant to suggest something else....
>


I didn't realize that the 2007 was done in a "Mock-Urbane Environment."
Did they have other cars on the road with real and automated drivers?



>> Remember what the D in DARPA stands for.
>
> Um, it started out as ARPA in 1958, changed to DARPA in 1972, then back to
> ARPA in 1993, then changed back to DARPA in 1996. This is the same agency
> that funded the ARPANET project in 1968, which lead to today's global
> spanning Internet.
>
> So IMHO, your objection or argument doesn't seem to hold any real substance
> that I can see.

There's really no objection at all. It's that the D stands for Defense.
And what ever they are spending they are spending to create things that
will enhance a combat or combat support mission. Not that there is
anything wrong with that.

If you get something that is usable in the non-military out of it great
but that isn't the aim of the program.

>
> I do not claim expertise in the technologies that the Grand Challenge
> participants employ. But I have been following it practically since it was
> first announced because a friend asked me back in 2002 to do a technical
> review of a proposal to generate funding for non-profit organization whose
> goal was to jump-start autonomous vehicle research project. Turns out he
> was unaware of the DARPA GC program, which had just been announced that
> same year.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 1:45*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> > > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > > > If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> > > > NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
>
> > > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > > Is affordable one of the criteria?
> > Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
> > extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
> > if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria. ;)
> > A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
> > there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.
>
> Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

Some of the greatest changes in technology were driven people who did
just that.

> Not ones that make money anyway.

Many of them turn out to be worth quite a bit.

Also, "managed innovation" is quite expensive.

The most efficient advancements in technologies have historically been
achieved not by entire organizations, but a highly-focused
individuals.

The Internet started that way. At the time, many said that the notion
of packet-based communication vs circuit-based was stupid/inefficient/
risky, etc.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:55 am, wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>>> Here's a concept that should be pursued:
>>>> http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
>>>> Actual Hands-off Steering:
>>>> And Other Wonders of the Modern World
>>> And unless you replace the entire fleet of autos on the road all it
>>> takes is one asshole in his old Chevy to screw the system.
>> Which is just one of the reasons the whole thing was abandoned as
>> impractical.
>
> It is notable that aviation is not as prone to the all-or-nothing
> dilema. Advanced PAV's would have to share the sky with convention
> aircraft, but the danger of cohabitation is not as siginificant as
> hands-of-steering.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

I don't know what you mean by "hands-of-steering." But, Think about what
surrounds the nation's largest cities. Let me help. The nation's busiest
airspace. Now guess what is on the ground in and around the nation's
largest cities? The nation's busiest roads.

Now think if all the things on the road started flying in the sky.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 2:02*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > Certainly *you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
> > drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
> > have changed to allow them into the sky.
>
> Why not? I expect this. If people ever venture into the sky en masse it
> will be in fully automated machines with all of the humans as mere
> passengers.
>
> The idea of millions of flying cars being driven around under the control
> of average joes is a nice vision but I have no expectation that it will
> ever happen.
>
> Small aircraft under human control were, are, and will remain a travel
> tool for wealthy people and recreation for the merely well-off.

I wonder if a similar statement was made about automobiles in 1900.

After all, cars can be dangerous too.

We must remember that there was a time when cars were being used
regularly while parents still took time to teach their children how to
ride horses with the expectation that horse-and-buggy would be the
primary means of travel for the foreseable future.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> 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 have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
>

Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.


>> 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.
>
> What do you mean by "current technology"?

Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.

>
> Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
> mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> cost less than $100,000.
>

No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.


> A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
> existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
> amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
> $50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
> possibility of pre-built aircraft.
>
> So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
> aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
> fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
> plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
> example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
> would obviate many other expensive components.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

What are you going to replace the ICE with? And don't forget. It is
going to have to be MANY, MANY times for efficient because unlike
aircraft you are going to have to make this thing street legal which
means weight.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:44 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>> If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
>>> NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
>>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>> Is affordable one of the criteria?
>
> Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
> extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
> if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria. ;)
>
> A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
> there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-


The cost of a LSA or any modern aircraft isn't that high because of the
things that go in to building it. A car that would cost $20,000 at
Honest Jim's Auto Sales would cost 10 times that if built in the numbers
of all the LSA and single engine GA aircraft combined.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:50 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> It shows nothing of the sort. Most of those items were just new products
>> that evolved from older products. We could start a real long list of
>> products that didn't catch on.
>>
>> I know many people who purchase high end cars that would never in a
>> million years buy the CAFE inspired PAV.-
>
> That does not mean that others would not.
>
> Over the years I have bought my friends, nieces, nephews, and
> godchildren various electronic gadgets like iPod's, XBOX's, Nintendo,
> etc but it is very rare that I buy something like that for myself. But
> they like it, and many people will like PAV's.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

So you are counting on the gift market to sell your PAV?

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 2:00*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
> PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
> done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
> features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
> easier.

How can it be current and advanced at the same time? The changes that
are asked for by NASA/CAFE implie so many differences between what
exists and what would be that the end result would hardly look like a
172.

> If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
> to some guy in a 172.

The money has to go somewhere. Since no one entered anything better,
they gave it to the 172.

Think what they would give if someone actually did something different
than a 172.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:57 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 1:14 pm, wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>>> But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
>>>>> will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
>>>>> still want it.
>>>>> In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
>>>>> want it.
>>>> Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
>>>> popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?
>>> Not sure if they did. I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
>>> must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
>>> The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
>>> in France) for a vehicle that moves slower than the average teenager
>>> can run (~20km/h, 12.5mph) and requires 4-6 hours to charge for a
>>> range of up to 40km.
>> The exact words used in the pre-launch hype surrounding the Segway were,
>> 'Revolutionary and will change the way the world travels." Pretty much
>> exactly what you are saying about PAVs
>
> The difference is that there is already a market for PAV's. The
> question is whether anyone (not just pilots in rec.aviation.pilot, but
> anyone anyone), would want a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined
> by NASA/CAFE.

No there isn't. But if you can at least support the statement.



>
> My most expensive round-trip ticket to Paris cost $2016US. I sat next
> to a couple who was angry for most of 10+ hour flight because I asked
> them to relinquish my (pre-allocated) window seat, preventing them
> from using it as a bed for their screaming child. :)
>
> Many people already need to fly from one location to another, and
> would be willing to pay $50,000 for ownership of a vehicle that could
> get them to destination safely and comfortably (no headset). They
> probably would not pay $500,000 for a the same machine, and certainly
> not $1+ milllion, which is what is required for a near-equivalent of
> B777 experience.
>

Those people who flew first class with you certainly aren't going to fly
their flying car to France.


> Some people might have paid $300-$500, maybe a bit less, for a machine
> that barely moves faster than we walk, but not $5000.
>
> Segway is is too expensive for what it offers.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

As opposed to your PAV which isn't and can't be offered.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 2:21*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:50 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> >> It shows nothing of the sort. Most of those items were just new products
> >> that evolved from older products. We could start a real long list of
> >> products that didn't catch on.
>
> >> I know many people who purchase high end cars that would never in a
> >> million years buy the CAFE inspired PAV.-
>
> > That does not mean that others would not.
>
> > Over the years I have bought my friends, nieces, nephews, and
> > godchildren various electronic gadgets like iPod's, XBOX's, Nintendo,
> > etc but it is very rare that I buy something like that for myself. But
> > they like it, and many people will like PAV's.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> So you are counting on the gift market to sell your PAV?

Hah...

I was thinking...a great enabler of the PAV market would be rentals,
just as today, but cheaper.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> >> 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 have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> > conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> > possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
> >

> Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
> But there are pushers out there as well.


> >> 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.
> >
> > What do you mean by "current technology"?

> Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
> sources.

> >
> > Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> > it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
> > mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> > something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> > cost less than $100,000.
> >

> No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
> want to build.

The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.

Assume $50k for the engine and controls.

Assume $40k for the avionics.

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:00?pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
> > What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
> > PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
> > done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
> > features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
> > easier.

> How can it be current and advanced at the same time? The changes that
> are asked for by NASA/CAFE implie so many differences between what
> exists and what would be that the end result would hardly look like a
> 172.

> > If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
> > to some guy in a 172.

> The money has to go somewhere. Since no one entered anything better,
> they gave it to the 172.

> Think what they would give if someone actually did something different
> than a 172.

Like what, make the tires out of gummy bears?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:02?pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > Certainly ?you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
> > > drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
> > > have changed to allow them into the sky.
> >
> > Why not? I expect this. If people ever venture into the sky en masse it
> > will be in fully automated machines with all of the humans as mere
> > passengers.
> >
> > The idea of millions of flying cars being driven around under the control
> > of average joes is a nice vision but I have no expectation that it will
> > ever happen.
> >
> > Small aircraft under human control were, are, and will remain a travel
> > tool for wealthy people and recreation for the merely well-off.

> I wonder if a similar statement was made about automobiles in 1900.

In 1900 working automobiles had been around for 12 years if you count the
1888 Benz Motorwagen.

In 2008 working airplanes have been around for over a hundred years.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:45?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > > > > If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> > > > > NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
> >
> > > > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
> >
> > > > Is affordable one of the criteria?
> > > Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
> > > extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
> > > if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria. ;)
> > > A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
> > > there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.
> >
> > Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

> Some of the greatest changes in technology were driven people who did
> just that.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

> > Not ones that make money anyway.

> Many of them turn out to be worth quite a bit.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

> Also, "managed innovation" is quite expensive.

> The most efficient advancements in technologies have historically been
> achieved not by entire organizations, but a highly-focused
> individuals.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

> The Internet started that way. At the time, many said that the notion
> of packet-based communication vs circuit-based was stupid/inefficient/
> risky, etc.

The Internet started as a government/university project and involved
a LOT of rather large organizations and a HUGE number of people.

Let's add history to the list of things you know nothing about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 11:44 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> >>> If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
> >>> NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.
> >>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
> >> Is affordable one of the criteria?
> >
> > Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
> > extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
> > if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria. ;)
> >
> > A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
> > there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.
> >
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-


> The cost of a LSA or any modern aircraft isn't that high because of the
> things that go in to building it. A car that would cost $20,000 at
> Honest Jim's Auto Sales would cost 10 times that if built in the numbers
> of all the LSA and single engine GA aircraft combined.

Yep, and a good example is the Morgan.

If mass produced it would probably go for $10k to $20k. The current
hand built model (like airplanes are built) goes for about $80k.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:00 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
>> PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
>> done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
>> features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
>> easier.
>
> How can it be current and advanced at the same time? The changes that
> are asked for by NASA/CAFE implie so many differences between what
> exists and what would be that the end result would hardly look like a
> 172.
>
>> If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
>> to some guy in a 172.
>
> The money has to go somewhere. Since no one entered anything better,
> they gave it to the 172.

No it didn't. They could have easily said nothing meets the standards we
have set.


>
> Think what they would give if someone actually did something different
> than a 172.
>

So why didn't someone do so?

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 2:55*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > wrote:
> > >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > >> 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 have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> > > conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> > > possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
>
> > Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
> > But there are pushers out there as well.
> > >> 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.
>
> > > What do you mean by "current technology"?
> > Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
> > sources.
>
> > > Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> > > it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. *As
> > > mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> > > something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> > > cost less than $100,000.
>
> > No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
> > want to build.
>
> The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.
>
> Assume $50k for the engine and controls.
>
> Assume $40k for the avionics.
>
> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>
> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>
> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>
> Lapin is a babbling idiot.

You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[BDS[_2_]]

> wrote

> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>
> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>
> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>
> Lapin is a babbling idiot.

I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.

There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
yet-to-be-invented avionics. What seems silly and quite pointless is
arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
might cost.

[Jim Logajan]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>> http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge
>>> Those aren't for road use.
>>
>> I'm at a loss as to how to respond to something so fundamentally at
>> odds with what has already been demonstrated (and prize money
>> awarded). Or perhaps you meant to suggest something else....
>
> I didn't realize that the 2007 was done in a "Mock-Urbane
> Environment." Did they have other cars on the road with real and
> automated drivers?

Yes. That is pointed out in the first paragraph of the darpa.mil link I
provided. Looks like I'd better quote the sentence here:

"This event was truly groundbreaking as the first time autonomous
vehicles have interacted with both manned and unmanned vehicle traffic in
an urban environment."

And just to be clear, farther down in that page it states:

"Thirty manned traffic vehicles were also released onto the course to
increase traffic density. This fleet of Ford Tauruses were retrofitted
with safety cages, race seats, fire systems, radios and tracking systems,
and were driven by professional drivers. In all, over 50 vehicles, both
manned and unmanned, were navigating the city streets simultaneously
during the final event."

Quoting further:

"...six robots eventually crossed the finish line, an astounding feat for
the teams and proving to the world that autonomous urban driving could
become a reality.

This event was not just a timed race however – robots were also being
judged on their ability to follow California driving rules."

(Not bad progress only 5 years after the challenge was first announced!)

> If you get something that is usable in the non-military out of it
> great but that isn't the aim of the program.

I don't think you fully understand - the entrants are all self-funded
civilian groups who own any technology they develop - and they only
needed a single American member to qualify, so some were developed in
other countries. Check out the info provided on the teams. The only thing
DARPA is putting up is the prize money. The military motivation is
essentially not relevant once the technology has been proven.

Give it another couple decades or so and I think the next barriers to
seeing AVs on public roads wont be technological, but cultural and legal
barriers.

It is hard to see how these advances would not eventually have some
impact on aviation.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

>
> You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
> not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
> it would be too expensive.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Then I'll ask you again. What will the engine be?

And I'll agree that there is no reason other than the cost of
certification that the price of avionics can't be lower. Happens already
all the time.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

BDS wrote:
> > wrote
>
>> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>>
>> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>>
>> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
>> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>>
>> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
>
> I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.
>
> There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
> yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
> yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
> yet-to-be-invented avionics. What seems silly and quite pointless is
> arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
> might cost.
>
>
>

Then you aren't reading his posts very closely. He thinks it can be done
with available technology.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 3:43*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> BDS wrote:
> > > wrote
>
> >> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>
> >> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>
> >> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> >> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>
> >> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
>
> > I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
> > yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
> > yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
> > yet-to-be-invented avionics. *What seems silly and quite pointless is
> > arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
> > might cost.
>
> Then you aren't reading his posts very closely. He thinks it can be done
> with available technology.-

I do, with the exception of the lift mechanism and the power source,
which, not suprisingly, influence the rest of the design of the
aircraft more than anything else.

Note: I have no ideas about power source beyond the obvious, though I
would be prediposed to get the entire machine into the electrical
domain as quickly as possible, which makes some options more
preferrable than others.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:55?pm, wrote:


> > The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.
> >
> > Assume $50k for the engine and controls.
> >
> > Assume $40k for the avionics.
> >
> > That leaves the airframe at $145k.
> >
> > Composite airframes are just as expensive.
> >
> > What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> > that cost, Chinese rice paper?
> >
> > Lapin is a babbling idiot.

> You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
> not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
> it would be too expensive.

You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
issue.

All you have to do is magically find a cheap engine that doesn't
exist to power it and cheap materials and assembly processes that don't
exist to build the airframe.

Note that the airframe is by far the most expensive component and
airframe parts and skin can't be made from recycled microprocessors.

If you have a magic wand, it is all trivial.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 3:43?pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
> > BDS wrote:
> > > > wrote
> >
> > >> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
> >
> > >> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
> >
> > >> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> > >> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
> >
> > >> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
> >
> > > I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.
> >
> > > There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
> > > yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
> > > yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
> > > yet-to-be-invented avionics. ?What seems silly and quite pointless is
> > > arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
> > > might cost.
> >
> > Then you aren't reading his posts very closely. He thinks it can be done
> > with available technology.-

> I do, with the exception of the lift mechanism and the power source,
> which, not suprisingly, influence the rest of the design of the
> aircraft more than anything else.

> Note: I have no ideas about power source beyond the obvious, though I
> would be prediposed to get the entire machine into the electrical
> domain as quickly as possible, which makes some options more
> preferrable than others.

Which does nothing for the airframe cost which is by far the biggest
cost of an airplane.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 23, 4:35*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
> > not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
> > it would be too expensive.
>
> You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
> issue.

I recently read that an upgrade to the G1000 for syntethic terrain was
$10,000. Does this seem right? Just curious.

> All you have to do is magically find a cheap engine that doesn't
> exist to power it and cheap materials and assembly processes that don't
> exist to build the airframe.
>
> Note that the airframe is by far the most expensive component and
> airframe parts and skin can't be made from recycled microprocessors.

Thanks.

> If you have a magic wand, it is all trivial.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:35?pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > > You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
> > > not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
> > > it would be too expensive.
> >
> > You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
> > issue.

> I recently read that an upgrade to the G1000 for syntethic terrain was
> $10,000. Does this seem right? Just curious.

What makes you doubt that price?

When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:02?pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > Certainly ?you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
>> > drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
>> > have changed to allow them into the sky.
>>
>> Why not? I expect this. If people ever venture into the sky en masse it
>> will be in fully automated machines with all of the humans as mere
>> passengers.
>>
>> The idea of millions of flying cars being driven around under the control
>> of average joes is a nice vision but I have no expectation that it will
>> ever happen.
>>
>> Small aircraft under human control were, are, and will remain a travel
>> tool for wealthy people and recreation for the merely well-off.
>
> I wonder if a similar statement was made about automobiles in 1900.

Quite possibly, but so what? Similar statements were probably made about
railroads too, and they would have been 100% correct. It's pointless to
talk about how wrong people might have been about cars, because that has
no bearing on how wrong people might be now about airplanes. To put it
differently, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

What's more, the comparison is completely bogus. In 1900, cars were new
curiosities that nobody really knew much about. In 2008, personal
airplanes have been available for 70+ years, and the airplane itself for
over 100. There is a lot of history and experience in airplane
construction and operation in 2008 that did not exist for cars in 1900.
And it all points toward no "flying cars" of the type where you strap in
behind some controls and fly yourself somewhere.

> After all, cars can be dangerous too.

It's not about danger, it's about rates of technological advancement.
Computer technology is advancing much faster than aviation technology, and
there is no reason for this to change anytime in the forseeable future.
The computer technology for an autonomous aircraft will occur (indeed,
already has occurred for aircraft with limited capabilities and
in limited situations) long before the aviation technology for cheap
personal aircraft.

If air travel ever becomes as commonplace as car travel is today, I expect
it to happen with smaller fleets of pooled autonomous aircraft acting as a
sort of taxi service. The aircraft will cost far more than an automobile
does today, but being autonomous they will be easily shared and this
brings the cost per user down to a reasonable level.

But for short ranges I really don't see any reason for air travel to
supplant ground travel, and long ranges are already reasonably handled
with current techniques.

> We must remember that there was a time when cars were being used
> regularly while parents still took time to teach their children how to
> ride horses with the expectation that horse-and-buggy would be the
> primary means of travel for the foreseable future.

And most likely that skill came in handy for them, so I don't really see
what your point is.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Jim Stewart]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 4:35?pm, wrote:
>>> In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>> You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
>>>> not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
>>>> it would be too expensive.
>>> You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
>>> issue.
>
>> I recently read that an upgrade to the G1000 for syntethic terrain was
>> $10,000. Does this seem right? Just curious.
>
> What makes you doubt that price?
>
> When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
> especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?

So why is everyone entertaining this troll?

If lapin wanted to do anything other than
argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
build a product. No job is too hard for
the man who doesn't have to do it.

Don't feed the trolls.

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart >
wrote:

>If lapin wanted to do anything other than
>argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
>build a product.

Or actually earn a certificate...

[Jim Stewart]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart >
> wrote:
>
>> If lapin wanted to do anything other than
>> argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
>> build a product.
>
> Or actually earn a certificate...

Thank you.

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:31:30 -0700, Jim Stewart >
wrote:

>B A R R Y wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If lapin wanted to do anything other than
>>> argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
>>> build a product.
>>
>> Or actually earn a certificate...
>
>Thank you.

Even a "pinch hitter" course would be a start. <G>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:31:30 -0700, Jim Stewart >
> wrote:
>
>>B A R R Y wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If lapin wanted to do anything other than
>>>> argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
>>>> build a product.
>>>
>>> Or actually earn a certificate...
>>
>>Thank you.
>
> Even a "pinch hitter" course would be a start. <G>

That's the problem with guys like Le Chaud/Mx - too much education for their
experience/common sense.

Either might well have the education to teach at most universities, but
still lack the experience or common sense, to pump gas anywhere.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:

> The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.
>
> Assume $50k for the engine and controls.
>
> Assume $40k for the avionics.
>
> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>
> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>
> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

>
> Lapin is a babbling idiot.

I have no idea why we keep arguing with him. Even if he quit
posting, someone else would take up the affordable PAV idea and make
themselves a pain with it.

Dan

[[email protected]]

The Le Chaud kid is a classic case of a solution looking for a
problem. He claims to be an EE, so it's not a shock (pun intended)
that he sees software as the solution to all problems. If all you have
is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 24, 9:45*am, wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
> * * * * Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
> set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
> involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
> third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
> doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
> irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

I would imagine that life-insurance actuaries would be happy to
receive $70,000 lump-sum in exchange for various life-insurance and
other policies.

I guess it all depends on how often pilots crash.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
> be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
> indemnification.

Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to
lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on
the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self.

Furthermore, the owner often isn't the pilot - or even always a person.
(such as when a pilot rents a corporate or LLC owned aircraft).

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 24, 9:45 am, wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
>> Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
>> set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
>> involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
>> third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
>> doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
>> irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.
>
> One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
> be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
> indemnification.

Nope because how are you going to get one signed by yet to be married
wives, not yet born children, second, third and 50th owners. Not to
mention every passenger who might ever fly in the plane.

So we have found yet another topic on which you are clueless. I really
think you are MX.

[Benjamin Dover]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:8b1893ba-2e4e-42fb-
:

> On Jun 24, 9:45*am, wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
>> * * * * Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes t
> oward
>> set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
>> involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
>> third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
>> doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
>> irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.
>
> One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
> be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
> indemnification.
>
> I would imagine that life-insurance actuaries would be happy to
> receive $70,000 lump-sum in exchange for various life-insurance and
> other policies.
>
> I guess it all depends on how often pilots crash.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

You don't know **** from shinola about aviation OR insurance OR anything
else, fjuktjard.

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote:

>In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 4:35?pm, wrote:
>> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> > > You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
>> > > not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
>> > > it would be too expensive.
>> >
>> > You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
>> > issue.
>
>> I recently read that an upgrade to the G1000 for syntethic terrain was
>> $10,000. Does this seem right? Just curious.
>
>What makes you doubt that price?
>
>When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
>especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?

Well, let's call a spade a spade. This is technology that's already
in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which
turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't
seen the SB for the SVI yet). Paying another $18,000 to get that
stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems
somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is
there whether it's turned on or not. It's not like we're talking
about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530
install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for
more than the VFR-only install.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark > wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote:
>>When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
>>especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?
>
> Well, let's call a spade a spade. This is technology that's already
> in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which
> turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't
> seen the SB for the SVI yet). Paying another $18,000 to get that
> stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems
> somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is
> there whether it's turned on or not. It's not like we're talking
> about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530
> install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for
> more than the VFR-only install.

This kind of thing is standard practice. Look at all of the "pro" software
out there with a "basic" or "home" counterpart. It actually takes
significantly *more* effort on the part of the software maker to create
these two distinct versions of the software, but they anticipate making
enough money to make it worthwhile because they're able to better extract
more revenue from people who can pay.

It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
wrote:

> The Le Chaud kid is a classic case of a solution looking for a
> problem. He claims to be an EE, so it's not a shock (pun intended)
> that he sees software as the solution to all problems. If all you have
> is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Or, if your aim's not so good, a thumb.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
> > be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
> > indemnification.
>
> Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to
> lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on
> the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self.

One example I recall followed a Bonanza pilot flying VFR into IMC, and
digging a hole somewhere in Kansas. Pilot error, no evidence that the
aircraft broke up for any reason other than majorly severed overstress.

The lawyer (or law firm) going for civil damages added everyone he/they
could think of, including Beechcraft. They were demanding something on
the order of $2B in damages. That "B" was intentional, not a typo.

And the suit wasn't laughed out of court by the presiding judge.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 24, 4:36*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote:
> >>When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
> >>especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?
>
> > Well, let's call a spade a spade. *This is technology that's already
> > in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which
> > turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't
> > seen the SB for the SVI yet). *Paying another $18,000 to get that
> > stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems
> > somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is
> > there whether it's turned on or not. *It's not like we're talking
> > about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530
> > install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for
> > more than the VFR-only install.
>
> This kind of thing is standard practice. Look at all of the "pro" software
> out there with a "basic" or "home" counterpart. It actually takes
> significantly *more* effort on the part of the software maker to create
> these two distinct versions of the software, but they anticipate making
> enough money to make it worthwhile because they're able to better extract
> more revenue from people who can pay.

Yep, price-stratification.

The ISP's are kicking themselves right now because they feel that
Internet-Access Service was commoditized and price-homongenized far
too prematurely. They know that some users would be willing to pay
much more than others, for certain patterns of usage, but it is
difficult for them to find a way to stratify the service, now that cat
is out of the bag. They are currently trying to come up with pitiful
excuses to justify the action, even thought it is no secret that the
utilization of existing cable plant is frighteningly low, so low that
companies like http://www.level3.com stays afloat by charging large,
somewhat indifferent customers between 10-100x what those customers
would pay with smaller vendor Level3 sees red on P&L statement every
quarter in hunreds of millions, with a glut of capacity.

Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke
about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a
large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply
was..."But it comes with mints!" :)

> It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
> haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
> extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
> all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
> for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
> without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.

I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
about $42,000. They discovered, long after market planning and device
design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. But
there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
lower-paying customers. Not very pretty, but it worked.

As the saying goes:

Customer: "How much does it cost?"
Vendor: "How much you got?"

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke
> about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a
> large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply
> was..."But it comes with mints!" :)

It's spelled "usury", and this is not it. Usury refers to the specific
practice of charging illegally high interest (orignially, to charging
interest at all) on loans.

>> It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
>> haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
>> extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
>> all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
>> for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
>> without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.
>
> I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
> back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
> their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
> about $42,000. They discovered, long after market planning and device
> design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
> customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. But
> there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
> seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
> machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
> shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
> insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
> lower-paying customers. Not very pretty, but it worked.

Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever
reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their
machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be,
and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice.

As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately
it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper,
if it weren't done.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 25, 7:35*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke
> > about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a
> > large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply
> > was..."But it comes with mints!" :)
>
> It's spelled "usury", and this is not it. Usury refers to the specific
> practice of charging illegally high interest (orignially, to charging
> interest at all) on loans.

Realized that just after I hit the ENTER key. dsloppy/dt > 0
definitely monotonically increasing function of t when it comes to
typing.

> >> It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
> >> haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
> >> extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
> >> all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
> >> for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
> >> without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.
>
> > I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
> > back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
> > their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
> > about $42,000. *They discovered, long after market planning and device
> > design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
> > customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. *But
> > there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
> > seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
> > machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
> > shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
> > insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
> > lower-paying customers. *Not very pretty, but it worked.
>
> Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever
> reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their
> machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be,
> and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice.
>
> As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately
> it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper,
> if it weren't done.

True.

I was just pointing out the highly desirable benefit of price
stratification from vendor's point of view, as even the marketing
people had not previously had any intention of addressing the newly-
sprung market, and at $30,000 they were still making a profit.

Incidentally, had dinner tonight with a friend who is salesman for
company that makes all kinds of electronic surveillance equipment. He
showed me a device that can be used to check if someone is spying on
you with a CCD camera.

He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
be mounted on GA aircraft, and it turns out that company has entire
line of cameras for aviation, including police surveillance. The
equipment is in excess of $1000, and in some several $1000's for what
was essentially the same $100-$200 unit. We got into discussion about
whether they were repackaging same equipment that they sell for cheap
(they are), and what justification for higher pricing, and in the end,
I said, "So basically, it's the same unit, same technology, made in
Taiwan, different case, different manual, and differnt power
connector, which probably costs less than $50 I'm guessing, and the
real reason that you are charging so much to pilots is because you
can."

And he says,

"Well..yeah, right, that's the idea, isn't it?"

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
> resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
> be mounted on GA aircraft

If it's small duct tape will do as a mounting :-) I've used a similar
camera (it's about the size of a large thing of lipstick, hence is
called a 'lipstick camera') on planes and racing motorcycles.

Some examples (although the quality will be somewhat degraded by
youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/user/74HC138

I also now have a completely self contained camera which cost (in US
money) about $70. Records to an SD card. It's not as good quality as the
lipstick camera, but it weighs only 35 grams and fits on a radio
controlled helicopter.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> >> It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
>> >> haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
>> >> extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
>> >> all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
>> >> for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
>> >> without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.
>>
>> > I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
>> > back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
>> > their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
>> > about $42,000. ?They discovered, long after market planning and device
>> > design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
>> > customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. ?But
>> > there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
>> > seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
>> > machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
>> > shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
>> > insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
>> > lower-paying customers. ?Not very pretty, but it worked.
>>
>> Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever
>> reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their
>> machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be,
>> and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice.
>>
>> As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately
>> it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper,
>> if it weren't done.
>
> True.
>
> I was just pointing out the highly desirable benefit of price
> stratification from vendor's point of view, as even the marketing
> people had not previously had any intention of addressing the newly-
> sprung market, and at $30,000 they were still making a profit.

Sure, I just wanted to point out the highly desirable benefit of price
stratification from the *buyer's* point of view. With this kind of
"underhanded" technique, the $30,000 buyers suddenly had a product.
Without it, they would not have had the opportunity to purchase it at all.
Net win for them.

Also, "still making a profit" is extremely misleading. In electronics, and
especially software, design costs are enormous. Those engineers don't come
cheap, but they get paid the same amount no matter how many units you
sell. It is entirely possible to make a profit on each unit but still lose
money overall.

> Incidentally, had dinner tonight with a friend who is salesman for
> company that makes all kinds of electronic surveillance equipment. He
> showed me a device that can be used to check if someone is spying on
> you with a CCD camera.
>
> He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
> resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
> be mounted on GA aircraft, and it turns out that company has entire
> line of cameras for aviation, including police surveillance. The
> equipment is in excess of $1000, and in some several $1000's for what
> was essentially the same $100-$200 unit. We got into discussion about
> whether they were repackaging same equipment that they sell for cheap
> (they are), and what justification for higher pricing, and in the end,
> I said, "So basically, it's the same unit, same technology, made in
> Taiwan, different case, different manual, and differnt power
> connector, which probably costs less than $50 I'm guessing, and the
> real reason that you are charging so much to pilots is because you
> can."
>
> And he says,
>
> "Well..yeah, right, that's the idea, isn't it?"

If you don't want to pay the outrageous price, come up with your own
mounting!

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 26, 6:05*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
> > resolution). *Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
> > be mounted on GA aircraft
>
> If it's small duct tape will do as a mounting :-) I've used a similar
> camera (it's about the size of a large thing of lipstick, hence is
> called a 'lipstick camera') on planes and racing motorcycles.
>
> Some examples (although the quality will be somewhat degraded by
> youtube):http://www.youtube.com/user/74HC138

74HC138? You EE too?

> I also now have a completely self contained camera which cost (in US
> money) about $70. Records to an SD card. It's not as good quality as the
> lipstick camera, but it weighs only 35 grams and fits on a radio
> controlled helicopter.

Well, I watched all your YouTube videos over breakfast this morning.

I guess you already know that you could have probably had a career as
a movie director.

Very very nice!

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> 74HC138? You EE too?

No, nothing so grand - merely a hobbyist, although I do some fairly
advanced hobbyist stuff (the current hardware project is an ethernet
card for one of my old 8 bit computers, the hardware is done and works -
all fine pitch SMD on a 4 layer PCB. But the real engineers did all the
hard work packaging a MAC and PHY in a chip, I just had to lay out the
PCB well enough, along with some glue logic and memory).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 26, 11:19*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > 74HC138? You EE too?
>
> No, nothing so grand - merely a hobbyist, although I do some fairly
> advanced hobbyist stuff (the current hardware project is an ethernet
> card for one of my old 8 bit computers, the hardware is done and works -
> all fine pitch SMD on a 4 layer PCB. But the real engineers did all the
> hard work packaging a MAC and PHY in a chip, I just had to lay out the
> PCB well enough, along with some glue logic and memory).

Hah...what a coincindence. I have been reading the 802.11-2007 spec
for past few nights.

I am about to buy this:
http://us.zyxel.com/web/product_family_detail.php?PC1indexflag=20040520161 256&CategoryGroupNo=PDCA2007080
Turns a PC into instant access point, which I will need to recreate a
DHCP-like server for new type of addressing scheme that is different
from IPv4 and IPv6 using a standard PC. Otherwise, would have to hack
WRT54G from Linksys and port my software to Linux or run two Wi-Fi
adapters in ad-hoc mode, which would have worked, but since would have
had to buy an adapter in addition to the one I already have...

Your computer sounds very compact. What are the specs? Which chip?
Zydas? Prism? OS? I am always interesed to see how spartan
requirements get for such devices.

I am particularly interested in knowing the delays for association and
reasociation. I read yesterday:

http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/webmaster/article.php/3600486

...that re-association from one acess point to another by a moving
node can be as low as 68 milliseconds, which is not bad, but
obviously, the lower the better. [This is for MAC/PHY only, not higher
layers like DHCP] I need ultra-low-handover-delay to help solve the
mobility problem in computer networking. ;) I will probably buy 5 of
these dongles, and set them up in a line spaced 100 meters apart, then
walk with laptop in hand and check that a streaming-video session from
hard disk of one of the computers is not broken as laptop moves 500
meters as it associates and reassociates with the 5 pseudo-access-
points.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Stewart]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
>> resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
>> be mounted on GA aircraft
>
> If it's small duct tape will do as a mounting :-) I've used a similar
> camera (it's about the size of a large thing of lipstick, hence is
> called a 'lipstick camera') on planes and racing motorcycles.
>
> Some examples (although the quality will be somewhat degraded by
> youtube):
> http://www.youtube.com/user/74HC138
>
> I also now have a completely self contained camera which cost (in US
> money) about $70. Records to an SD card. It's not as good quality as the
> lipstick camera, but it weighs only 35 grams and fits on a radio
> controlled helicopter.

Could you post a link? One of those would
probably fit inside the wing tiedown eyebolt
on my plane.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-26, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Could you post a link? One of those would
> probably fit inside the wing tiedown eyebolt
> on my plane.

It's called the FlyCamOne - you can probably get one at your nearest
hobby store that deals in RC. Google will find you a supplier on your
side of the world if you want to do it online; all my links for it are
European (I got it from http://www.heliguy.com)

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Your computer sounds very compact. What are the specs? Which chip?
> Zydas? Prism? OS? I am always interesed to see how spartan
> requirements get for such devices.

It's wired ethernet (100baseTX and 10baseT autonegotiation) rather than
wireless. The chip is the Wiznet W5100 which is aimed at 8 bit/embedded
applications. It includes a TCP/IP offload engine too - it's a pretty
flexible chip - it gives you the option of using as much of its inbuilt
stuff as you want - you can write your own stack and talk straight to
the MAC, or you can just use its IP layer, or use the whole thing.

The old 8 bit machine it's for is one of these, which were enormously
popular over here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zx_spectrum

Quite a lot of the work is software. It's different to write a DHCP
client in Z80 assembler :-)

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.