Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 1:11 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@**********> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> 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...
>

I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
which is a more reliable mode of transportation, a 1964 Mustang or a
1994 Mustang? If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
which one would you pick?

I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown
frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics.
Those kinds of planes have additional concerns that don't really
affect GA; things like cost efficiency, payload, range, etc. Given
that GA planes can be asked to sit, unflown, in a hangar for extended
periods and then be called on to fly a cross country trip, I think
that absolute reliability is the #1 factor over all else when it comes
to making choices about the powerplant and control surfaces that keep
the plane off the ground.

As pointed out above, if something goes wrong in the air you can't
just coast over to the side of the road when something fails at FL65.

Something else that is extremely significant is that in the analog,
physical world, most things don't fail out of the blue and when they
do, they don't usually fail completely. You start to get indications
from the plane that something is having a problem long before it
actually fails. Computers, on the other hand can go from 100% to 0%
in the blink of an eye without warning.

I have no problems with all the avionics in the world helping me do my
job of flying the plane; radar, strike finders, WAAS, GPS, IFR, XM
Weather but to keep GA in the hands of everyday pilots fly-by-wire
needs to remain in the world of a different kind of plane and pilot.

On Jun 19, 1:58 pm, es330td <es33...@**********> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:11 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@**********> wrote:
> I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
> which is a more reliable mode of transportation, a 1964 Mustang or a
> 1994 Mustang?  If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
> turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
> which one would you pick?

I would ask my mechanic first. ;)

I am an electrical engineer, so it bothers me not to see carbeurators
replaced by fuel-injection. Just last week, a mechanic was telling me
about how 1996 1997 model Jeep Grand Cherookees have problem with
alternator generating kick-back current into the electronic
transmission control model, causing premature slapping of plates. A
simple diode fixes the problem. He also said that it took him forever
to find out what the issue was, which make sense.

My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer
should have known that."

This is the other thesis of these posts - there is opportunity for
joint development.

When I was at university, as I mentioned before, there were multiple
programs promulgated by faculty (and even a dean of engineering) for
inter-departmental developed. The proponents were serious, launching
extensive campaigns to get research scientists to "interbreed".

I did not see the point. I thought that correlating roles with
competenticies was obvious, but it turns out that that is not the
case, in general. Often what happens is hoarding - one designer/
researcher will be an expert in say, mechanical engineering, and will
need help in specialized area of chemistry, but will refuse to walk
two buildings over to ask a real chemist, so as to mainting total
propietorship of his/her baby. Sometimes the mechanical engineer is
brilliant, and is capable (with sufficient) time in demonstrating
expert judgement in multiple fields. Sometimes this does not happen,
and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about
kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of
experienced, bright, electrical engineer.

> I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown
> frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics.
> Those kinds of planes have additional concerns that don't really
> affect GA; things like cost efficiency, payload, range, etc.  Given
> that GA planes can be asked to sit, unflown, in a hangar for extended
> periods and then be called on to fly a cross country trip, I think
> that absolute reliability is the #1 factor over all else when it comes
> to making choices about the powerplant and control surfaces that keep
> the plane off the ground.

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.

> As pointed out above, if something goes wrong in the air you can't
> just coast over to the side of the road when something fails at FL65.

True. Some type of fall back is necessary, in any system.

> Something else that is extremely significant is that in the analog,
> physical world, most things don't fail out of the blue and when they
> do, they don't usually fail completely.  You start to get indications
> from the plane that something is having a problem long before it
> actually fails.  Computers, on the other hand can go from 100% to 0%
> in the blink of an eye without warning.

Sensors+computers can help here. Even a something like inexpensive
digital strain gauage can help.

The idea is to collect much information from the aircraft, using cheap
(throw-away) sensors in redundant configuration, and let the software
do what software is good at.

> I have no problems with all the avionics in the world helping me do my
> job of flying the plane; radar, strike finders, WAAS, GPS, IFR, XM
> Weather but to keep GA in the hands of everyday pilots fly-by-wire
> needs to remain in the world of a different kind of plane and pilot.

I have a feeling that the day will come where people will regard FBW
in the same way they currently regard mechanical controls: something
that works and can, more or less, be taken for granted as being
relatively safe.

If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be
flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts,
propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at
temperatures exceeding 4000F, attached to the machine not far from
massive quantities of said liquid, and she'd be told to sit next to
one of these devices for 15 hours straight while flying over the
Pacific Ocean, with sharks, etc., trusting that machine would not come
apart, and that two men the front of the machine would use a
combination of their own training, self-discipline, and computers,
each containing millions of little things call transistors, the
failure of one of which might cause whole computer to fail, to not
crash the machine upon landing on three sets of relatively small
wheels, themselves pressurized and prone to explosion if punctured...

...she might reasonably claim that the whole idea is just too risky.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibuduvin@**********> wrote in message
news:42217a97-d754-4162-b4fa-

>I am an electrical engineer, so it bothers me not to see carbeurators
>replaced by fuel-injection.

I've had several electronic failures that rendered my car unusable. Crank
Position Sensor (Jeep), 2 Ford Electronic Control Modules, and one GM ECM.
None of these failures gave any warning. The engines simply quit.

I prefer mechanical points in my plane, thank you.

"Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibuduvin@**********> wrote

[I am an electrical engineer]

Don't take this wrong but do you have any practical experience?

[simple diode fixes the problem.]

Not necessarily.

[My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer
should have known that."]

My first thought is "the engineers probably knew this, so why didn't they
use a diode?"

[Sometimes this does not happen,
and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about
kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of
experienced, bright, electrical engineer.]

Right, and we all know that the auto manufacturers do not have any
experienced and bright electrical engineers.

[If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be
flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts,
propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at
temperatures exceeding 4000F....snip......she might reasonably claim
that the whole idea is just too risky]

Well of course she would - that didn't become possible until the 1960s...

On Jun 19, 3:16 pm, "BDS" <skyh...@************> wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibudu...@**********> wrote
>
> [I am an electrical engineer]
>
> Don't take this wrong but do you have any practical experience?

About average.

> [simple diode fixes the problem.]
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> [My first thought when hearing stories like this is...."that engineer
> should have known that."]
>
> My first thought is "the engineers probably knew this, so why didn't they
> use a diode?"

Good question. I would be curious to hear what the engineer
responsible for employing the diode has to say.

> [Sometimes this does not happen,
> and the result is a missing diode because s/he did not think about
> kickback induction, something would immediately come to mind of
> experienced, bright, electrical engineer.]
>
> Right, and we all know that the auto manufacturers do not have any
> experienced and bright electrical engineers.

Well, certainly they have enough to know when to employ a 10-cent
diode to prevent massive recall 1000's of vehicles. ;)

> [If you had told a mother of 3 that, in the year 1700, she would be
> flying at 10,000 meters, in a machine pressurized with air, at 500kts,
> propelled by two devices that burn a combustible liquid at
> temperatures exceeding 4000F....snip......she might reasonably claim
> that the whole idea is just too risky]
>
> Well of course she would - that didn't become possible until the 1960s...

Which is the crux of the question:

What makes something possible in the future, but not the present?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 20, 1:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE**********>
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 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-

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@**********> wrote:


I do not know what your profile is with regard to engineering and years
of experience, but you really should do some independent research on the
topics you have proposed and learn what has actually already been done.

Following that, come back here and propose something new that will solve
the problems that were found to be obstacles to the ideas you propose.

Burt Rutan used an early Apple Powerbook in the early/mid-1990's to
control the engine of his homebuilt Catbird research aircraft.

On Jun 20, 3:32 pm, John Smith <jsm...@net.net> wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@**********> wrote:
>
> I do not know what your profile is with regard to engineering and years
> of experience, but you really should do some independent research on the
> topics you have proposed and learn what has actually already been done.

> Following that, come back here and propose something new that will solve
> the problems that were found to be obstacles to the ideas you propose.
>
> Burt Rutan used an early Apple Powerbook in the early/mid-1990's to
> control the engine of his homebuilt Catbird research aircraft.

Very nice!

-Le Chaud Lapin-

The Le Chaud kid is a classic case of a solution looking for a
problem. He claims to be an EE, so it's not a shock (pun intended)
that he sees software as the solution to all problems. If all you have
is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@**********> wrote:
> One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
> be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
> indemnification.

Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to
lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on
the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self.

Furthermore, the owner often isn't the pilot - or even always a person.
(such as when a pilot rents a corporate or LLC owned aircraft).