Electric airplane

[JosephKK]

Zeppeling, could be nice, as long as filled with helium, not hydrogen,
like the Hindenburg was.
But is not Zeppelin a victim of wind and weather?
It would take good weather reports and navigation to cross the oceans with one.

Not only that they were not a lot faster then than ocean liners.

 

[Richard Herring]

In message

Someone is going to figure out a way to build a safe, efficient,
electric-powered single-seat, ultra-long range aircraft to elminate
all this hassle. In such an aircraft, I would probably make one stop
along the way in Nova Scotia, then fly directly to Montpellier, mostly
on hands-off auto-pilot,

Sure. Now design the infrastructure needed to maintain separation
between you and all the swarms of other people doing the same in zero
visibility. Done much instrument flying yet?

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

In message


Sure. Now design the infrastructure needed to maintain separation
between you and all the swarms of other people doing the same in zero
visibility. Done much instrument flying yet?

No. Not any in fact [except for simulator].

This is a software issue, IMO, and not something that is technically
insurmountable. It's probably been done already in some other
context.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[JosephKK]

I too, know pilots who are young, educated, and enjoy advanced technology.
Strangely, many are attorneys and small business owners. All fly because
they enjoy piloting a plane. Some of them fly for business purposes. The
latter group's planes are equipped with the latest and greatest IFR gear.


Real fact is that 100 years from now, 1950s airplanes will still be flown by
enthusiasts of the lifestyle, while the "upscale" pilots help their aircraft
computer drive their new aircraft around the skies. The rest of the
circa-2108 pilots will fly whatever they can afford irregardless of how
their plane is equipped, electronically.

Pilots will fly their planes, other's may allow their planes to transport
them.


Hmmmm...... And you will not own a sport car with an automatic
transmission. Hypocrite.

Very nice Don, i suspect you are wasting your time typing on an
audience that will not engage the thought of his own arrogant
ignorance.

 

[JosephKK]

It just keeps going right over the top of your head, doesn't it?

They are trying to get you to understand the realities of regulation,
science, engineering, and economics.

It doesn't matter if I or any other pilot likes the idea of a 4 place
GA aircraft with fly-by-wire controls.

The simple reality is that such an airplane would be heavier, more
complex to maintain, more expensive to build, purchase and insure,
and have no advantage over the same airplane with cable and pully
controls.

I have seen this many times from you, but the bottom line is that i am
going to cease buying off on heavier. Perhaps in a couple decades
digital fly by fiber (wire) will confer configurability and control
advantages affordable at the GA level of perhaps $150,000 normalized
to 2001. But i ain't betting on it.

 

[JosephKK]

Minimize effects of turbulence against aircraft bu utilizing
sophisticated digital filters against stochastic modeling of the
turbulence.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Seek out information on the current size, weight, electrical and
cooling requirements of computers that can do that task in real time
(as you are talking about here) today. They are probably rather
larger than a Cessna 172, are heavier that its maximum load (the
computer itself even heavier than gross maximum vehicle weight),
require more kW that the aircraft can supply, and need several tons of
AC equipment beyond that.

 

[[email protected]]

I have seen this many times from you, but the bottom line is that i am
going to cease buying off on heavier. Perhaps in a couple decades
digital fly by fiber (wire) will confer configurability and control
advantages affordable at the GA level of perhaps $150,000 normalized
to 2001. But i ain't betting on it.

Yeah, heavier.

You can't just bolt a motor shaft to a control surface.

You still have to have all the same cable and pulley stuff with
fly-by-wire, it just stops at wherever the motors are mounted
instead of going all the way to the yoke and peddles.

So you've replaced some number of feet of fairly light stainless
cable with three motors, their mounting hardware, the wiring to the
motors, the control system with it's wiring, the sensors on the
yoke and peddles and associated wiring, plus if you have any sense
at all, there is the extra backup power so the controls always work.

 

[[email protected]]

Seek out information on the current size, weight, electrical and
cooling requirements of computers that can do that task in real time
(as you are talking about here) today. They are probably rather
larger than a Cessna 172, are heavier that its maximum load (the
computer itself even heavier than gross maximum vehicle weight),
require more kW that the aircraft can supply, and need several tons of
AC equipment beyond that.

There are two effects of turbulance.

The airplane orientation is changed, or in simple terms, it gets
pointed it a direction other than what it should be.

A simple 2-axis autopilot, which have been around for about a half
century takes care of that; this part is trivial.

The airplane altitude is changed by vertical air movement, which
is what turbulance mostly is.

While a 3-axis autopilot will minimize altitude change, the simple
fact is that most altitude changing turbulence has a vertical
velocity that exceeds the climb capability of GA aircraft and
would exceed the stress limits in a dive.

The reality is that all you can do about turbulence once in it is to
keep the airplane straight and level while maintaining airspeed and
ride out the ups and downs.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

And don't forget that as the control surfaces are motor-moved (however
little) the pressure must be fed back to the pedals and yolk, requiring yet
more hardware.  Beginning students may not yet understand this, but most
flying is done by applying pressure, more than it is forcing movement.- Hide quoted text -

That is only true if there are pedals and a yoke.

It seems that it would be technically feasible to create a different
kind of control system where the pedals are eliminated and the yoke is
place with something that uses more plastic+wire+actuator than steel/
cables/pulley?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

That's "while trying to maintain minimum controllable airspeed." During the
bad stuff, you're frequently in and out of stalls and you're just focused on
keeping the plane flying. Keeping it straight and level becomes hopeless.
Sometimes it's almost even not fun anymore

Agreed.

Personally, I fly for fun and do not find anything much past light chop to
be any fun at all and do my planning to avoid such.

 

[[email protected]]

And don't forget that as the control surfaces are motor-moved (however
little) the pressure must be fed back to the pedals and yolk, requiring yet
more hardware. Beginning students may not yet understand this, but most
flying is done by applying pressure, more than it is forcing movement.

Ah, yes, I forgot to include the required feedback mechanisms.

FWIW, I read an article some time back on the development of such systems
and it was found early on that the best of the professional test pilots
had marginal control of the airplane in the absence of feedback.

 

[[email protected]]

That is only true if there are pedals and a yoke.

Wrong, presure feedback is an important part of flying and something
you will learn if you ever start actually doing it.

It seems that it would be technically feasible to create a different
kind of control system where the pedals are eliminated and the yoke is
place with something that uses more plastic+wire+actuator than steel/
cables/pulley?

Yeah, like what?

A human being has two hands and two feet.

One hand needs to be free for "other" stuff.

That leaves one hand and two feet to control the airplane.

What would you have other than a yoke or stick and pedals to provide
3 axis control?

Now you could allways cross couple the rudder and ailerons like in
an Ercoupe, and eliminate the rudder pedals but now you lost the ability
to slip, which if you ever start really flying, you will find is an
important ability to have and why the later Ercoupes had a rudder retrofit.

In a real fly-by-wire airplane the yoke/stick and pedals are usually
connected by a cable and pulley system to the sensor and feedback
force motor.

On some the system is hydraulic which eliminates some, but not all
of the cables required.

Again, you can't just bolt the stick/yoke to the motor shaft.

Why don't you put your puerile fantasies on hold until after you've
done a few crosswind landings in gusts and have learned what sort
of control inputs it takes to keep an airplane lined up on final?

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Wrong, presure feedback is an important part of flying and something
you will learn if you ever start actually doing it.

I never said that force-feedback was unnecessary. I simply said that
it might be a good idea to eliminate the pedals and yoke for something
that would be lighter than pedals and yoke, using electronics. The
same technology used in game controllers could be used airplanes, but
more rugged.

Yeah, like what?

Something similar to joystick. I'd use two instead of one, and place
them on the sides, so that view to (large) LCD panel is not obscured.

A human being has two hands and two feet.

Use the hands for flying. Feet for something else not yet discussed.

One hand needs to be free for "other" stuff.

That leaves one hand and two feet to control the airplane.

What would you have other than a yoke or stick and pedals to provide
3 axis control?

Two sticks, one on each side. There is also the matter of the
computer. There are somethings that can be done by a human, like
indicating what they want to happen, and others that could be done by
computer, like making it happen.

Now you could allways cross couple the rudder and ailerons like in
an Ercoupe, and eliminate the rudder pedals but now you lost the ability
to slip, which if you ever start really flying, you will find is an
important ability to have and why the later Ercoupes had a rudder retrofit.

I thought that design was mostly a mechanical change, not computer.

In a real fly-by-wire airplane the yoke/stick and pedals are usually
connected by a cable and pulley system to the sensor and feedback
force motor.

There are other ways of doing it that would eliminate cables, pulleys,
weight.

On some the system is hydraulic which eliminates some, but not all
of the cables required.

Again, you can't just bolt the stick/yoke to the motor shaft.

Never said I would do that.

There is a lot that can be done with localized feedback, a computer,
and light-weight wiring system, but not a wiring system where there is
a direct connection between the joystick and the surface it would
control. The connection would be between the joystick and a computer,
and between the computer and sensors/actuators.

Why don't you put your puerile fantasies on hold until after you've
done a few crosswind landings in gusts and have learned what sort
of control inputs it takes to keep an airplane lined up on final?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Force feedback to the joystick is nice but not really manditory. The
model airplane crowd have been flying for years using muliple
joysticks, pots, slide pots, and switched without the benfit of force
feedback. Presumably, a full size aircraft will have some manner of
sensors to prevent ripping the wings off.

Real world tests with professional test pilots in the early development
of fly-by-wire found that absent force feedback control of the airplane
was sloppy at best.

So yes, it is possible but you wouldn't want to do it.

As far as model airplanes go, I haven't seen many (actually none) landings
I'd call a greaser.

 

[[email protected]]

I never said that force-feedback was unnecessary. I simply said that
it might be a good idea to eliminate the pedals and yoke for something
that would be lighter than pedals and yoke, using electronics. The
same technology used in game controllers could be used airplanes, but
more rugged.

The yoke and pedals don't weigh much of anything and have to be strong
enough to stand up a panic application of force no matter what they
are hooked to.

Game controllers use sticks or yokes and pedals, so what you are really
saying is you want to replace sticks or yokes and pedal with sticks or
yokes and pedals.

Something similar to joystick. I'd use two instead of one, and place
them on the sides, so that view to (large) LCD panel is not obscured.


Use the hands for flying. Feet for something else not yet discussed.


Two sticks, one on each side. There is also the matter of the
computer. There are somethings that can be done by a human, like
indicating what they want to happen, and others that could be done by
computer, like making it happen.

So it would require two hands to control the airplane instead of one.

Now, how do you write down a clearance or transponder code from ATC?

How do you adjust the engine controls?

How do you open or close the cabin air vents, wipe your nose, clean
your glasses, open a chart, take a drink, or any of a number of things
you need a free hand to do while in flight?

I thought that design was mostly a mechanical change, not computer.

Yes, everything in the Ercoupe was mechanical, but that is irrelevant.

There are other ways of doing it that would eliminate cables, pulleys,
weight.

So name it.

The controls have to link to something to sense the input motion and
provide force feedback. That requires a motion sensor and a motor.

You can't just bolt a stick to a motor shaft.

Never said I would do that.

Then say how you would do it and quite avoiding the question.

There is a lot that can be done with localized feedback, a computer,
and light-weight wiring system, but not a wiring system where there is
a direct connection between the joystick and the surface it would
control. The connection would be between the joystick and a computer,
and between the computer and sensors/actuators.

Sheer babble.

You can't bolt a motor shaft directly to a flight surface or a stick.

How are you going to mechanically connect the stick and control surfaces
to their motors and sensors without a cable and pulley system?

And you have still not addressed the base question of what is it that
a fly-by-wire system could do in a GA aircraft that conventional
systems can not do.

 

[[email protected]]

You are talking about a pilotless aircraft then.

He has no clue what he is talking about.

 

[[email protected]]

I believe that without the feedback it would be too easy to over control.

I think that is what was found and that the flying was "sloppy" at best
and not something one would want to do with gusty crosswinds on final.

I've been trying to find the article, which I think it was a NASA historical
thing, but haven't found it yet.

 

[[email protected]]

I'll bet what it says is that the pilot gets behind what the plane is doing,
and gets into a catch=up mode, which would be hazardous.

What do they call the mode some BIG planes use to have the plane land
itself? Mode C?

Mode C is a transponder reply that includes altitude information.

In general they are called autoland systems and what you are probably
thinking of is that the airport has to have a Category III (or Cat 3)
approach.

 

[[email protected]]

In sci.physics Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:

As far as model airplanes go, I haven't seen many (actually none) landings
I'd call a greaser.

I see this a bit different.
In many model (toy ;-) ) airplanes you will find at least a solid
state giro.
In some model helicopters the giro is an inherent part of the design,
for example the Draganflyer, have a look here: http://www.draganfly.com/

So, I think that when Le Chaud Lapin talks about 'the next step', he
is
not proposing to control the wires, he must be proposing to control
the auto-pilot system.
It is the task of the auto-pilot system to make sure the stress limits
of the airplane are observed.
You tell it heading, altitude, and speed (which it can override, it
will know minimum airspeed).
One step further, and imagine even if 10 % of the people who use cars
now, will start
using airplanes, then the airways will be completely full.
There will be a plane ahead of you and one behind you all the time.
You get into the plane, type destination into the computer,
The computer will get the weather between where you are and your
destination,
tell you to take a train or car if it cannot find a safe route, it
will tell you
how much [nore] fuel you need, it will run all checklists, it will not
forget flaps
(the recent crash in Spain I did read may have been caused by that),
and it will
run the takeoff program.
Then it will run the navigation program, connect with ground to make
sure
it is in the right position relative to other aircraft, and at the
destination
it will run the landing checklists and program.
It will not forget to put the gear down....

So you - [computer - autopilot] airplane.

It is the only way there can be that much traffic.
With all manual controls except the destination field to type in gone,
sure some people will complain that that is not really 'flying'.
'.
For those the Cessna or Tiger Moth, or whatever, they can fly in
reserved areas,
like we now have race tracks for people who MUST break the speed
limit.

When something goes wrong, of course there is not much you can do, as
you cannot fly,
and even if you could there are no controls... A message will be
displayed:
'Kiss yourself goodbye', or if you are lucky : 'parachute under your
seat, jump now',
or 'any preference of farm you want to buy?'

This is not much different from a passenger jet, no parachutes
either... only
life vests, even if you fly over land....

 

[[email protected]]

I see this a bit different.
In many model (toy ;-) ) airplanes you will find at least a solid
state giro.

In a real airplane you will find several gyros, whether the airplane
has an autopilot or not.

So, I think that when Le Chaud Lapin talks about 'the next step', he
is
not proposing to control the wires, he must be proposing to control
the auto-pilot system.

Then he is a clueless idiot.

Autopilots and his "next step" have been around for better than half
a century.

Autopilots contain gyros as well as inputs from various sensors,
including altitude, airspeed, GPS, VOR/LOC, GS, etc. and yes, they
have processors in them.

Modern autopilots are more than capable of flying the airplane from
takeoff to landing, though that is seldom done for a whole bunch
of reasons.