Future of Electronics In Aviation

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.
Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge


Here's a concept that should be pursued:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
Actual Hands-off Steering:
And Other Wonders of the Modern World


And unless you replace the entire fleet of autos on the road all it
takes is one asshole in his old Chevy to screw the system.

Which is just one of the reasons the whole thing was abandoned as
impractical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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-



Replace States with Countries and California with United States.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:14 pm, wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.
In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.
Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?

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) for a vehicle that moves slower than the average teenager
can run (~20km/h, 12.5mph) and requires 4-6 hours to charge for a
range of up to 40km.


The exact words used in the pre-launch hype surrounding the Segway were,
'Revolutionary and will change the way the world travels." Pretty much
exactly what you are saying about PAVs.

On Jun 23, 12:33 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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 have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.

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.

What do you mean by "current technology"?

Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.

A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
$50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
possibility of pre-built aircraft.

So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
would obviate many other expensive components.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

It's likely computer assisted controls would allow ga airplanes to be
flown safely with center of lift and center of gravity coincident. For
airplanes with otherwise existing technology that might be as much as
a 10% improvement in range. There's another few percent, but only
that, with pusher propellers. Both of these 'improvements' have not
overcome serious counter arguments.


Start with people who are concerned with most effective/efficient
airplane configurations, those beautiful things called gliders. Long
small chord wings, laminar everything, and if you want instant
funding, talk to them. Give them a 30% reduction in drag and money
will flow in.

But you can't do that. You're all type, you have given no evidence you
can do more than that,

I've done some serious research -- REAL research -- on pilotless
extended range airplanes flying at 500 km/hr or less, and can't find
anything that approaches a 20% improvement over the drones the air
force is flying now. Maybe a new Skunkworks is out there doing
something (or maybe Scaled Composites is -- now that is serious
competition!!) but a maybe EE from maybe Austin (there is a Paris in
Texas) who has demonstrated no skills is not where I'd choose to place
my bet.

On Jun 23, 11:44*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Is affordable one of the criteria?

Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.

A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 23, 11:50*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It shows nothing of the sort. Most of those items were just new products
that evolved from older products. We could start a real long list of
products that didn't catch on.

I know many people who purchase high end cars that would never in a
million years buy the CAFE inspired PAV.-

That does not mean that others would not.

Over the years I have bought my friends, nieces, nephews, and
godchildren various electronic gadgets like iPod's, XBOX's, Nintendo,
etc but it is very rare that I buy something like that for myself. But
they like it, and many people will like PAV's.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 23, 11:55*am, wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Here's a concept that should be pursued:

* *http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
* * Actual Hands-off Steering:
* * And Other Wonders of the Modern World

And unless you replace the entire fleet of autos on the road all it
takes is one asshole in his old Chevy to screw the system.

Which is just one of the reasons the whole thing was abandoned as
impractical.

It is notable that aviation is not as prone to the all-or-nothing
dilema. Advanced PAV's would have to share the sky with convention
aircraft, but the danger of cohabitation is not as siginificant as
hands-of-steering.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 23, 11:57*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 22, 1:14 pm, wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:01 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

But at least it shows that, if someone builds something that consumers
will want, before the consumers know what it is, the consumers will
still want it.
In case of low-cost PAV, it is already known that the consumers will
want it.
* * * Just like the Segway. I have seen ONE of those things. Really
popular. Everybody wanted one, didn't they?

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) for a vehicle that moves slower than the average teenager
can run (~20km/h, 12.5mph) and requires 4-6 hours to charge for a
range of up to 40km.

The exact words used in the pre-launch hype surrounding the Segway were,
* 'Revolutionary and will change the way the world travels." Pretty much
exactly what you are saying about PAVs

The difference is that there is already a market for PAV's. The
question is whether anyone (not just pilots in rec.aviation.pilot, but
anyone anyone), would want a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined
by NASA/CAFE.

My most expensive round-trip ticket to Paris cost $2016US. I sat next
to a couple who was angry for most of 10+ hour flight because I asked
them to relinquish my (pre-allocated) window seat, preventing them
from using it as a bed for their screaming child.

Many people already need to fly from one location to another, and
would be willing to pay $50,000 for ownership of a vehicle that could
get them to destination safely and comfortably (no headset). They
probably would not pay $500,000 for a the same machine, and certainly
not $1+ milllion, which is what is required for a near-equivalent of
B777 experience.

Some people might have paid $300-$500, maybe a bit less, for a machine
that barely moves faster than we walk, but not $5000.

Segway is is too expensive for what it offers.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before
making any further categorical statements like the above since you
appear to be making claims outside your realm of knowledge or
expertise. It appears you are probably unaware of current development
in this area. Autonomous vehicles are probably in the near future;
this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

Those aren't for road use.

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to something so fundamentally at odds
with what has already been demonstrated (and prize money awarded). Or
perhaps you meant to suggest something else....

Remember what the D in DARPA stands for.

Um, it started out as ARPA in 1958, changed to DARPA in 1972, then back to
ARPA in 1993, then changed back to DARPA in 1996. This is the same agency
that funded the ARPANET project in 1968, which lead to today's global
spanning Internet.

So IMHO, your objection or argument doesn't seem to hold any real substance
that I can see.

I do not claim expertise in the technologies that the Grand Challenge
participants employ. But I have been following it practically since it was
first announced because a friend asked me back in 2002 to do a technical
review of a proposal to generate funding for non-profit organization whose
goal was to jump-start autonomous vehicle research project. Turns out he
was unaware of the DARPA GC program, which had just been announced that
same year.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:44?am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Is affordable one of the criteria?

Yes, which is why taking a common LSA and adding a computer and a few
extra mechanical controls to it is almost guanteed not to work, even
if it just so happened to satisfy a few of the other criteria.

A systemic approach is needed, one that starts with assumption that
there is a limit on cost that even lower than $80,000 LSA.

Most people don't start projects with unrealistic, naive assumptions.

Not ones that make money anyway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.