Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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.

No there isn't. But if you can at least support the statement.




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.


Those people who flew first class with you certainly aren't going to fly
their flying car to France.


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-

As opposed to your PAV which isn't and can't be offered.

On Jun 23, 2:21*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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-

So you are counting on the gift market to sell your PAV?

Hah...

I was thinking...a great enabler of the PAV market would be rentals,
just as today, but cheaper.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
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.


Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.


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"?

Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.


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.


No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.

The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.

Assume $50k for the engine and controls.

Assume $40k for the avionics.

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:00?pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
easier.

How can it be current and advanced at the same time? The changes that
are asked for by NASA/CAFE implie so many differences between what
exists and what would be that the end result would hardly look like a
172.

If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
to some guy in a 172.

The money has to go somewhere. Since no one entered anything better,
they gave it to the 172.

Think what they would give if someone actually did something different
than a 172.

Like what, make the tires out of gummy bears?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:02?pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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.

Why not? I expect this. If people ever venture into the sky en masse it
will be in fully automated machines with all of the humans as mere
passengers.

The idea of millions of flying cars being driven around under the control
of average joes is a nice vision but I have no expectation that it will
ever happen.

Small aircraft under human control were, are, and will remain a travel
tool for wealthy people and recreation for the merely well-off.

I wonder if a similar statement was made about automobiles in 1900.

In 1900 working automobiles had been around for 12 years if you count the
1888 Benz Motorwagen.

In 2008 working airplanes have been around for over a hundred years.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:45?pm, wrote:
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.

Some of the greatest changes in technology were driven people who did
just that.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

Not ones that make money anyway.

Many of them turn out to be worth quite a bit.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

Also, "managed innovation" is quite expensive.

The most efficient advancements in technologies have historically been
achieved not by entire organizations, but a highly-focused
individuals.

Name some from the last 50 years.

Just about all the easy stuff that could be discovered in a garage
was discovered over a hundred years ago.

The Internet started that way. At the time, many said that the notion
of packet-based communication vs circuit-based was stupid/inefficient/
risky, etc.

The Internet started as a government/university project and involved
a LOT of rather large organizations and a HUGE number of people.

Let's add history to the list of things you know nothing about.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


The cost of a LSA or any modern aircraft isn't that high because of the
things that go in to building it. A car that would cost $20,000 at
Honest Jim's Auto Sales would cost 10 times that if built in the numbers
of all the LSA and single engine GA aircraft combined.

Yep, and a good example is the Morgan.

If mass produced it would probably go for $10k to $20k. The current
hand built model (like airplanes are built) goes for about $80k.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:00 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that they aren't really expecting a
PAV as you describe because they do in fact understand why it can't be
done with present technology. What they will be happy with is design
features that make current technology safer, greener, faster and/or
easier.

How can it be current and advanced at the same time? The changes that
are asked for by NASA/CAFE implie so many differences between what
exists and what would be that the end result would hardly look like a
172.

If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be handing out the money
to some guy in a 172.

The money has to go somewhere. Since no one entered anything better,
they gave it to the 172.

No it didn't. They could have easily said nothing meets the standards we
have set.



Think what they would give if someone actually did something different
than a 172.


So why didn't someone do so?

On Jun 23, 2:55*pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:





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.

Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.
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"?
Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.

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.

No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.

The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.

Assume $50k for the engine and controls.

Assume $40k for the avionics.

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

wrote

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Lapin is a babbling idiot.

I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.

There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
yet-to-be-invented avionics. What seems silly and quite pointless is
arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
might cost.