Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I must ask then, if one were to look at a typical GA aircraft, in the
year 2100, in your opinion, will it be as devoid of electro-mechanical
controls as it is today?

What will it look like?


According to my inside source at Spacely Sprockets, it'll look like this :

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n...nrider/jet.gif

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200806/1

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-

On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.
Probably. *But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. *Which
of these do we believe?

Nope.

Only arm chair physicists disagree.

There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
premier educators in aviation.

If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
Newtonian physics, I disagree.

Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
exists.
That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

Which is why:

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
Newtonian physics is a settled issue?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 19, 4:15*pm, wrote:
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.

Which implies that, if it does the same (if doing the same is an
option), then the cost is less.

Perhaps true commoditization has not penetrated the aviation market.

There are many ground-based vehicles (cars) that technologically more
sophisticated than a new low-end Cessna but cost much less.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.
Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. ?Which
of these do we believe?

Nope.

Only arm chair physicists disagree.

There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
premier educators in aviation.

And probably a couple of particle physicists as well.

If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
Newtonian physics, I disagree.

Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
exists.
That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

Which is why:

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
Newtonian physics is a settled issue?

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

Get it yet?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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.

Irrelevant to the cost of software.

There is something very special about $0 material cost, $0 overhead
cost, etc.

One more time and I'll type slowly, the cost of reliability testing is
not zero.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
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.

Which implies that, if it does the same (if doing the same is an
option), then the cost is less.

It isn't an option.

There is no market for 12 channel comm radios.

There are many ground-based vehicles (cars) that technologically more
sophisticated than a new low-end Cessna but cost much less.

And cars are not built in quatities of a few hundred tops a year
nor does every little piece in them have to be certified.

Well, there are a couple of low volume cars that cost about the same
as a low end Cessna, to be totally accurate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 19, 7:45*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.
Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. ?Which
of these do we believe?

Nope.

Only arm chair physicists disagree.
There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
premier educators in aviation.

And probably a couple of particle physicists as well.





If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
Newtonian physics, I disagree.

Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
exists.
That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

Which is why:

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.
So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
Newtonian physics is a settled issue?

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

Are you 100% certain of this?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:45?pm, wrote:

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

Are you 100% certain of this?

An airplanes flys because it is moving through the air.

The only existing way to cause an airplane to move through the air
and continue to move through the air is to accelerate gas.

There are a limited number of existing ways to accelerate gas:

1) Rockets: Not practical for aircraft

2) Propellors: Currently widely used.

3) Turbines: Not practical for GA aircraft, widely used on bigger aircraft

4) Ion wind: Not practical for anything

What turns the propellor is irrelevant.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I agree. Safety is paramount. Computers, with proper discipline on
behalf of the designer, can be programmed to speak up when they are
sick or think there is a chance that they could be sick. They can
even help in complaining about potential future faults in mechanical
components. For example, using raw data such as temperture, humidity,
pressure, fuel mixture, and power-output, a computer very easily can
calculate probability of carb icing. There is an essentially
unlimited number of things that a computer can assisst with in flying
that comes at no real material cost beyond having put the computer in
place in the first place.

What makes you think that software engineering, or system engineering,
has progressed to the point that a software intensive system would be
developed "with proper discipline"?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)