Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 22, 3:55 pm, wrote:

And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
build.

I dunno. When I learned to fly in the 1970s I asked the Cessna
dealer how much a new 172 cost. "Way too much," he said. "$21,000."
It WAS a lot, considering that I was making maybe $14000 a year, so it
would have cost me 1.5 years' salary.
Now a 172 costs well over $200k. What happened? $200K is a long way
past 1.5 times my salary.

Dan

On Jun 22, 7:20*pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Le Chaud Lapin

Not sure if they did. *I remember there was a lot of interest, but one
must not confuse intellectual curiosity with inclination to purchase.
The average consumer simply does not have an extra $5000US ($10,000US
in France)

I'll leave it to others to ponder the question "Why would someone who claims
to live in Texas, and also claims NOT to be a "MX sockpuppet", be quoting
the price of a Segway in France"?

Because Wikipedia states that a Segway in France exceeds $10,000US.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In article
,
wrote:

On Jun 22, 3:55 pm, wrote:

And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
build.

I dunno. When I learned to fly in the 1970s I asked the Cessna
dealer how much a new 172 cost. "Way too much," he said. "$21,000."
It WAS a lot, considering that I was making maybe $14000 a year, so it
would have cost me 1.5 years' salary.
Now a 172 costs well over $200k. What happened? $200K is a long way
past 1.5 times my salary.

Back in the early 70s the FBO I worked for bought a new Piper Fliteliner
(PA28-140) to use for instruction. $20K.

Two years later, they bought a basic new Warrior to help keep up with
the growing student load. That one was $107K.

I blame the lawyers, and the liability issues that followed in their
train.

On Jun 22, 9:44*pm, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:55 pm, wrote:

And since it is doubtfull you could build an airplane with automated
machinery that inputs sheet steel, stamps out parts, and spot welds
them together, airplanes will likely always be labor intensive to
build.

* * * * I dunno. When I learned to fly in the 1970s I asked the Cessna
dealer how much a new 172 cost. "Way too much," he said. "$21,000."
It WAS a lot, considering that I was making maybe $14000 a year, so it
would have cost me 1.5 years' salary.
* *Now a 172 costs well over $200k. What happened? $200K is a long way
past 1.5 times my salary.

Back in the early 70s the FBO I worked for bought a new Piper Fliteliner
(PA28-140) to use for instruction. $20K.

Two years later, they bought a basic new Warrior to help keep up with
the growing student load. That one was $107K.

I blame the lawyers, and the liability issues that followed in their
train.

Perhaps indeminfication of the manufacturer could become standard for
certain types of aircraft. States life California might not allow it,
but some states might.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 22, 8:10*pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Le Chaud Lapin

Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.

Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?

2) Most of us are aware that, eventually, systems will fail and a human
will live or die because of his ability to handle the situation without a machine
doing the "thinking".

3) We can imagine what it would be like if the average driver took to the skies.

These same statements could have been applied to automobiles at the
turn of the century, but eventually, average drivers were allowed
drive.

Certainly you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
have changed to allow them into the sky.

What will have changed?

Perhaps we underestimate the ability of humans to adapt to new types
of machines.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:10 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Le Chaud Lapin

Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.
Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?

2) Most of us are aware that, eventually, systems will fail and a human
will live or die because of his ability to handle the situation without a machine
doing the "thinking".

3) We can imagine what it would be like if the average driver took to the skies.

These same statements could have been applied to automobiles at the
turn of the century, but eventually, average drivers were allowed
drive.

Certainly you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
have changed to allow them into the sky.

What will have changed?

Airliners and simulators

On Jun 23, 12:13*am, Jim Stewart wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:10 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Le Chaud Lapin

Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.
Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?

2) Most of us are aware that, eventually, systems will fail and a human
will live or die because of his ability to handle the situation without a machine
doing the "thinking".

3) We can imagine what it would be like if the average driver took to the skies.

These same statements could have been applied to automobiles at the
turn of the century, but eventually, average drivers were allowed
drive.

Certainly *you do not expect the sky to remain off-limits to average
drivers forever. It is very likely, eventually, that something will
have changed to allow them into the sky.

What will have changed?

Airliners and simulators-

Airliners might see a decline in use as a result of PAV's, but
simulators might still be useful for training.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I know you think that there is all this open source software and
electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
fix. BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.

Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.

I am glad we agree about the desirability of a PAV. As for why it has
not been done yet, I think the answer has more to do with managerial
dynamics than technology. Ten years from now, someone will invent a
system, software or otherwise, that will be herald as a
"breakthrough". The fundamental components that are required to build
that system most likely exist today, in 2008, especially in the case
of software. What changes in 10 years that makes the breakthrough
able to occur later than sooner?



I don't agree that it is desirable. I said that, don't you think that if
the aviation companies would like to increase their market share 1000 fold?

Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.




I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
available today it can't be made.

I disagree with this. There is a difference between cannot and has
not.

If the truth were always "cannot", there would never be any
breakthroughs.

If you say that there will be breakthroughs, but it will be done by
Boeing, Cessna, or Cirrus, then NASA should take the CAFE/PAV award
and give it to engineers inside those companies directly.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 4:27 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
GA is a small market. Too small to warrant specialized development of much
of anything, which is why most of the components are either used or
spin-offs from other areas of aviation. Comparing it to the _general_
automotive market is completely off-base, as even a single model of a
single brand in a single year will have more units in the market than all
of GA.

It's a Catch-22. The FAA, NASA, DARPA, CAFE, and other organizations
are trying to make it not a small market, so the assumption is that,
if a PAV were created, it would be created for a mass market.


You just named three government agencies and a non-profit. By all their
very nature they are designed to blow smoke up the publics collective
ass. Winning the X-Prize isn't what motivated SpaceShipOne into
sub-orbital flight. It was a nice bonus though. The $250,000 prize CAFE
is offering won't even buy and fly one copy of what they are trying to
replace.


So, to think that a body of expert programmers will somehow collaborate on
systems that, at best will be less reliable than the pulley and wire that
they replace is an unrealistic fantasy.

A bit of a stretch.

BTW - if you think that "the material costs of software is $0", let me
know where you're getting your language compilers and hardware to create
and test your code. And, don't tell me about "Open Source" options,
either, unless you want to increase your development costs by a factor of
100 or so.

Accountants define material cost to be the cost of the components from
which the system is synthesized, not from the tools used to design or
create the system.

For example, the material cost of an iPod would include its hard disk,
RAM, ROM, resistors, capacitors, dials, faceplace, battery holder,
wires, mounts, shock absorbers, etc. It would not include
dehumidifier, blower, oscilloscope, spectral analyzer, or other factor
equipment used to manufacture the product.

The material cost of software, if sold in a store, would include the
cost of manual, the disks, and the packaging.

Compilers and hardware do not factor into the material cost of
software any more than an oscilloscope factors into the material cost
of an iPod.

To determine what components are considered "material", move the
product over a large distance. Whatever components move with the
products, those components are considered material. Those that stay
behind are something else.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


But those things still have to be paid for and are figured into the cost
of the software so the cost of software is zero.

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.

Then you really need to be more careful with whom you are flying. There
is no reason a competent pilot shouldn't be able to enjoy the view
during the en-route portion of the flight.


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.



The technology has been around a long time to take in flight video. But
I want it in live 3D NOT on a TV screen after the flight.