![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |