Future of Electronics In Aviation

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.

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-

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

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-

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

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.

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-

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.

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!!!)

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.