Future of Electronics In Aviation

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.

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-

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.

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