Future of Electronics In Aviation

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-

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.

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-

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.

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-

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.

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-

"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.

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.

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/n...nrider/jet.gif

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

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