Future of Electronics In Aviation

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-

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.

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-

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.

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-

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.

"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

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

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-

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.