Electric airplane

[Le Chaud Lapin]

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.

[snip of the vision I have been trying to convey]

Finally someone understands what I am saying.

I have yet to meet a pilot, with the exception of the owner of my
flight school, who listened to my proposal, and immediate pressumed
that what I was proposing was to essentially take an extant model and
tweak it with expensive computer/electro-mechanical equipment.

I never proposed doing anything like that. What I have in mind,
relatively speaking, is so different from a Cessna/tractor model, that
all of the assumptions that the pilots keep stating are irrelevant.

Take for example vibration. It would cause a lot of problems with my
$500 PC motherboard model.

But the very word , "vibration", presume that the plane will be
constructed so that the amount of vibration existing in Cessna would
essentially remain the same.

The same could be said for balance, visibility,...instruments, the
kind that cost $300 when the inherent value in software, at scale, is
< $5.

Nothing I have proposed is economically feasible unless a systemic
approach is taken toward the redesign.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

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.

[snip of the vision I have been trying to convey]

Finally someone understands what I am saying.

Autopilots have had processors in them for a long time.

What is your new idea?

I never proposed doing anything like that. What I have in mind,
relatively speaking, is so different from a Cessna/tractor model, that
all of the assumptions that the pilots keep stating are irrelevant.

If not a tractor design, that only leaves pushers and pushers have
been around since the Wright brothers.

So what exactly do you have in mind that doesn't require Star Trek
technology to build?

Take for example vibration. It would cause a lot of problems with my
$500 PC motherboard model.

It would cause a lot of problems in real airplanes, which is why
engines and props are balanced, but what does this have to do with
what you have in mind, if anything other than arm waving and avoiding
the question?

You have proposed nothing so far other than to re-invent the autopilot.

Let's hear it in a couple of short sentences that are on point as to
what your "new" idea is.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Autopilots have had processors in them for a long time.
What is your new idea?

My approach would be an extreme proclivity to use commoditized
components.

1. Where one would use a radio stack, I would use software defined
radio.
2. Where one would use proprietary plane-to-plane comms, I would use
Wi-Fi or something similar.
3. Where one would use expensive stereo system, I would use something
for < $100US.
4. I would use commoditize sensors and actuators throughout.
5. My method of linkage from CPU to actuator/sensor would be a
commoditized serial interface.
6. I would use quad-redunancy for computer system, 4 motherboards, for
< $1000.
7. I would use commoditized operating system. [Yes, Linux, Yes, MS
Windows, yescouple others].
8. Computer systems would communicate using commoditized network
switch, etc.
9. I would use quad-redundant display, 1 large LCD for $250, and 3
smaller ones.
10. I would make pressurization mandatory.
12. I would use low-cost, easily-replacebale LEDs for all light
system, including interior.
13. I would have a very bare minimum of essential mechanical controls
(compass, etc).
14. I would use semi-commoditized jostick controls. [Use a company
that makes them.]
15. I would use commoditized digital cameras, at least 8, for all-
around visibility.
16. I would use commoditized variable-opacity panes (for long trips).
17. I would use commoditized wheels, struts, etc. Not aviation, but
kind made by auto-parts manufactures.
18. I would use commoditized seat, as feasible.

* So the strategy is very simple. I would build the plane by using
parts that have aleady been commoditized so that the manufacturer
cannot justify a hike. The aircraft would be experimental so that the
excuses about certification would not be useable. I would, after
extensive testing and (my) peer review, fly in it myself, and let the
general public decide for themselves whether the risk is justified by
the reduction in cost.

If not a tractor design, that only leaves pushers and pushers have
been around since the Wright brothers.

So what exactly do you have in mind that doesn't require Star Trek
technology to build?

You are going to (rightfully) cry foul to my answer: I have something
else in mind, which stemmed from my exploration about whether backwash
causes lift. It is only speculation right now, but if it worked, the
ICE+prop combination would not be necessary. But again, it is only
speculation.

I *DO* admit that, if it turned out my speculation was wrong, and all
that was left was the ICE+prop, then all bets are off, because the
engine itself would already bee too expensive.

It would cause a lot of problems in real airplanes, which is why
engines and props are balanced, but what does this have to do with
what you have in mind, if anything other than arm waving and avoiding
the question?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

My approach would be an extreme proclivity to use commoditized
components.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

1. Where one would use a radio stack, I would use software defined
radio.

We've been through this already. The specifications for aircraft radios
are cast in international treaty concrete and are NOT going to change,
thus having a software defined radio is of no advantage and radios
are already build with LSI.

You also would need to get the radios accepted by the FCC and the FAA.

2. Where one would use proprietary plane-to-plane comms, I would use
Wi-Fi or something similar.

There is nothing proprietary proprietary about aircraft communications,
it is an international standard.

3. Where one would use expensive stereo system, I would use something
for < $100US.

Airplanes don't normally have stereo systems. Have you ever heard of
an iPod?

4. I would use commoditize sensors and actuators throughout.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

5. My method of linkage from CPU to actuator/sensor would be a
commoditized serial interface.

Data exchange in airplanes is already serial.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

6. I would use quad-redunancy for computer system, 4 motherboards, for
< $1000.

That is triple redundancy and it would be required if it were going to
control the airplane even as a home built experimental.

7. I would use commoditized operating system. [Yes, Linux, Yes, MS
Windows, yescouple others].

Why would you have an operating system at all other than you obviously
have no clue how to build something without one?

8. Computer systems would communicate using commoditized network
switch, etc.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

Establishing a RFI free environment so NAV/COM works is going to be
a bitch.

9. I would use quad-redundant display, 1 large LCD for $250, and 3
smaller ones.

That's triple redundant.

Glass panel airplanes already have redundant displays; nothing new here.

10. I would make pressurization mandatory.

Pressurization is heavy and expensive no matter how you look at it, and
not needed at the altitudes most GA aircraft fly.

12. I would use low-cost, easily-replacebale LEDs for all light
system, including interior.

This is already being done; nothing new here.

13. I would have a very bare minimum of essential mechanical controls
(compass, etc).

A compass isn't a control.

Do you know what the words "mechanical" and "control" mean?

Since the technology to plug directly into the nervous system doesn't
exist, the only kind of control you can have HAS to be mechanical.

Do you understand that keyboards and touch screens are mechanical controls?

14. I would use semi-commoditized jostick controls. [Use a company
that makes them.]

Joysticks in airplanes are normally nothing more than a short piece
of steel tubing and it is hard to get much cheaper than that.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

15. I would use commoditized digital cameras, at least 8, for all-
around visibility.

There are only six directions to look and looking out the windscreen
takes care of one of them.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

16. I would use commoditized variable-opacity panes (for long trips).

Have you ever heard of sunglasses?

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

17. I would use commoditized wheels, struts, etc. Not aviation, but
kind made by auto-parts manufactures.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

18. I would use commoditized seat, as feasible.

Most seats are little more than some sheet metal or tubing with a web
and a cushion.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

* So the strategy is very simple. I would build the plane by using
parts that have aleady been commoditized so that the manufacturer
cannot justify a hike.

It appears you also don't know what the word "commodity" means or that
the price of commodities fluctuate on a daily basis.

The aircraft would be experimental so that the
excuses about certification would not be useable. I would, after
extensive testing and (my) peer review, fly in it myself, and let the
general public decide for themselves whether the risk is justified by
the reduction in cost.

The only way you would be able to register and fly it would be as an
experimental, which IS a certification category.

You will be able to build 1 airplane.

You are going to (rightfully) cry foul to my answer: I have something
else in mind, which stemmed from my exploration about whether backwash
causes lift. It is only speculation right now, but if it worked, the
ICE+prop combination would not be necessary. But again, it is only
speculation.

The ONLY way to move an aircraft in the air is to accelerate air.

The ONLY way to accelerate air in sufficient volume is with a fan.

Your choices are a big fan (prop) or a bunch of little fans (jet).

Ion drives don't move enough air.

I *DO* admit that, if it turned out my speculation was wrong, and all
that was left was the ICE+prop, then all bets are off, because the
engine itself would already bee too expensive.

All bets are off.

So far you've rambled at length and all you've come up with is a
home built airplane built out of hardware and auto store materials.

THAT'S your great idea? Gee, I'm impressed.

And you have yet to answer the question of what your fly-by-wire GA
airplane will be able to do that any modern airplane like a Cirrus SR22
can't do.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

   Four would only be triple redundant.  Redundant = N+1.  Try to get
cheap chinese motherboards past the FAA.

Yeah, they would reject them along with everything else. And the plane
just might indeed be prone to crash. But it would be cheap, and for
any product, there comes a point where people start asking a very
important question:

"Is is possible to make it more reliable while still using these
commoditized components?"

That would be my objective. Those driven by potential financial gain
would probably come up with clever way to make the answer to that
question "yes".

But it has to be done first, which admittedly, would be very, very
hard.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Yeah, they would reject them along with everything else. And the plane
just might indeed be prone to crash. But it would be cheap, and for
any product, there comes a point where people start asking a very
important question:

"Is is possible to make it more reliable while still using these
commoditized components?"

That would be my objective. Those driven by potential financial gain
would probably come up with clever way to make the answer to that
question "yes".

But it has to be done first, which admittedly, would be very, very
hard.

Nonsense.

People have been making their own airplanes with hardware store stuff
since the Wright brothers.

Where have you been the last hundred years?

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

But you could if it is experimental.

We've been through this already. The specifications for aircraft radios
are cast in international treaty concrete and are NOT going to change,
thus having a software defined radio is of no advantage and radios
are already build with LSI.

Smaller/cheaper. Being an electrical engineer, it is exceedingly
difficult to accept the prices I see in catalogues for conventional
radio stacks. I know what is in those devices, down to the level of PN
junctions. FAA certification or not, those radios are priced far
beyond their intrisic value [as a commodity].

You also would need to get the radios accepted by the FCC and the FAA.

For experimental?

There is nothing proprietary proprietary about aircraft communications,
it is an international standard.

A product and conform to a standard and be proprietary simultaneously.

Airplanes don't normally have stereo systems. Have you ever heard of
an iPod?

Yes, they are the reason that automobile manufacturers no longer
include stereo systems in cars.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experimental.


Data exchange in airplanes is already serial.

Using technology that is too expensive, whether certified or not.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experiemental.


That is triple redundancy and it would be required if it were going to
control the airplane even as a home built experimental.

Would not bother me. After all, 4 motherboards would cost less than
one mid-range Garmin gadget with far fewer features.

7. I would use commoditized operating system. [Yes, Linux, Yes, MS
Windows, yescouple others].

Why would you have an operating system at all other than you obviously
have no clue how to build something without one?

The combination of commoditized hardware/OS opens up an enormous range
of possibilities. Many proprietary devices can be subsumed by such a
system. With 4GB of RAM each and terabytes of data, at low
cost...should be obvious.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experimental.

Establishing a RFI free environment so NAV/COM works is going to be
a bitch.

????

I have designed radios in the past, so I hope you also speak from
experience.

That's triple redundant.

Glass panel airplanes already have redundant displays; nothing new here.

My guess is that the cost of all is not < $1000US.

Pressurization is heavy and expensive no matter how you look at it, and
not needed at the altitudes most GA aircraft fly.

Computers would be happier with it. And pressurization is not
inherently expensive [like gold, uranium]. It is expensive because of
the dynamic that exists.

This is already being done; nothing new here.

Yes, someone will take $300,000 aircraft and add $100 in LED's
(probably more, since they would not be used commoditized components),
then have $300,100 aircraft.

Cost reduction will not be achieve by taking an existing airplane, and
tweaking it with products whose prices are greatly exaggerated by
producers who know that, if buyer can afford $300,000 aircraft, they
can probably pay 3x or 4x for a $25 product.

A systemic approach is necessary.

A compass isn't a control.

Control, instrument.

Do you know what the words "mechanical" and "control" mean?

Since the technology to plug directly into the nervous system doesn't
exist, the only kind of control you can have HAS to be mechanical.
??

Do you understand that keyboards and touch screens are mechanical controls?

Yes, and very cheap too.

14. I would use semi-commoditized jostick controls. [Use a company
that makes them.]

Joysticks in airplanes are normally nothing more than a short piece
of steel tubing and it is hard to get much cheaper than that.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experimental.

15. I would use commoditized digital cameras, at least 8, for all-
around visibility.

There are only six directions to look and looking out the windscreen
takes care of one of them.

At such low prices, does not hurt. If anything, could be used to
record view of flight from beneath plane on 1TB hard disk.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experimental.


Have you ever heard of sunglasses?

Yes, but for cost of a few pair of such "aviator" sunglasses beging to
approach cost of low-end panes.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experimental.


It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experimental.


Most seats are little more than some sheet metal or tubing with a web
and a cushion.

Hmm...I thought the same thing, but I realized that I must be
mistaken, since the prices were outrageous, certification or not.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.
Experimental.


It appears you also don't know what the word "commodity" means or that
the price of commodities fluctuate on a daily basis.

Yes, but when I go out to get some Munster cheese in about 10 minutes,
I doubt its price will have quadrupled. I will also have a notion of
"reasonable" price.

The only way you would be able to register and fly it would be as an
experimental, which IS a certification category.

You will be able to build 1 airplane.

That would be a great start to at least illustrating that it is
technically feasible.

Umm...sorry (really).

The ONLY way to move an aircraft in the air is to accelerate air.

A pedant would disagree (electrodynamics+other matter), etc. But yes,
I agree hear.

The ONLY way to accelerate air in sufficient volume is with a fan.
Disagree.

Your choices are a big fan (prop) or a bunch of little fans (jet).

Disagree. And no I cannot say much more about this at this time.

Ion drives don't move enough air.


All bets are off.

So far you've rambled at length and all you've come up with is a
home built airplane built out of hardware and auto store materials.
Yeah!

THAT'S your great idea? Gee, I'm impressed.

Me too. I think.

And you have yet to answer the question of what your fly-by-wire GA
airplane will be able to do that any modern airplane like a Cirrus SR22
can't do.

I did. Auto-stabilization of ride.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

But you could if it is experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

You can make one for your own use, then sell it later IF someone
will buy it.

You can't make a bunch of them and sell them.

We've been through this already. The specifications for aircraft radios
are cast in international treaty concrete and are NOT going to change,
thus having a software defined radio is of no advantage and radios
are already build with LSI.

Smaller/cheaper. Being an electrical engineer, it is exceedingly
difficult to accept the prices I see in catalogues for conventional
radio stacks. I know what is in those devices, down to the level of PN
junctions. FAA certification or not, those radios are priced far
beyond their intrisic value [as a commodity].

You also would need to get the radios accepted by the FCC and the FAA.

For experimental?

Actually, just the FCC for an experimental, but yes, the radio would
have to be FCC accepted.

A product and conform to a standard and be proprietary simultaneously.

Yet another English lesson is in order I see.

proprietary adj.

1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a
group: had proprietary rights; behaved with a proprietary air in his
friend's house.

2. Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital.

3. Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or
patent: a proprietary drug.

Aircraft communications are defined by international treaty and the
details are open to everyone in the world.

How a particular radio manufacturers a particular radio and the particular
parts and circuits in it may be proprietary, but the operating
specifications are freely available.

Yes, they are the reason that automobile manufacturers no longer
include stereo systems in cars.

Funny, I just bought a new car and it has a stereo AM/FM radio, CD
deck and an external input.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Using technology that is too expensive, whether certified or not.

You haven't a clue that serial is already used or what the technology
is.

Here's a hint; my GPS will talk to an autopilot and my laptop.

Experiemental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Would not bother me. After all, 4 motherboards would cost less than
one mid-range Garmin gadget with far fewer features.

Now all you have to add is 4 GPS receivers and get 4 copies of the
GIS data somewhere.

7. I would use commoditized operating system. [Yes, Linux, Yes, MS
Windows, yescouple others].

Why would you have an operating system at all other than you obviously
have no clue how to build something without one?

The combination of commoditized hardware/OS opens up an enormous range
of possibilities. Many proprietary devices can be subsumed by such a
system. With 4GB of RAM each and terabytes of data, at low
cost...should be obvious.

Once again, why would you have an operating system at all other than you
obviously have no clue how to build something without one?

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

????

Not a clue, much as I suspected.

I have designed radios in the past, so I hope you also speak from
experience.

About 45 years of it.

My guess is that the cost of all is not < $1000US.

Irrelevant, the idea is not new.

If you think you can build a certified glass panel display cheaper than
what's on the market, go for it. The market for glass panel retrofits
is hot right now.

Pressurization is heavy and expensive no matter how you look at it, and
not needed at the altitudes most GA aircraft fly.

Computers would be happier with it. And pressurization is not
inherently expensive [like gold, uranium]. It is expensive because of
the dynamic that exists.

Babbling nonsense.

Computers run just fine all the time at the altitudes most GA aircraft fly.

To pressurize the airplane, the thing has to be built as an airtight
pressure vessel with seals on everything.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Yes, someone will take $300,000 aircraft and add $100 in LED's
(probably more, since they would not be used commoditized components),
then have $300,100 aircraft.

More babbling nonsense.

First, there is nothing intrinsically difficult about replacing an
incandescent lamp, nor is a LED any easier to replace.

Second, things like light bulbs are standard items and not built
expressly for aircraft with the exception of landing lights.

And you might have noticed I didn't say anything about lights couldn't
be commodity lights because they are. The only restriction is the
replacement has to have the same part number as the original.

Cost reduction will not be achieve by taking an existing airplane, and
tweaking it with products whose prices are greatly exaggerated by
producers who know that, if buyer can afford $300,000 aircraft, they
can probably pay 3x or 4x for a $25 product.

More babble, you've shown nothing.

A systemic approach is necessary.

You wouldn't know a systemic approach from a peach cobbler.

Control, instrument.

So what would you do, replace the mechanical gyros with solid state
or laser gyros?

That was done decades ago, nothing new there, but you wouldn't know
that since you seem to know very little about airplanes.

Yes, and very cheap too.

I thought you wanted to replace all that mechanical stuff; which is it?

14. I would use semi-commoditized jostick controls. [Use a company
that makes them.]

Joysticks in airplanes are normally nothing more than a short piece
of steel tubing and it is hard to get much cheaper than that.

It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components
anywhere in the world.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

At such low prices, does not hurt. If anything, could be used to
record view of flight from beneath plane on 1TB hard disk.

Wearing a belt and suspenders does not hurt, it just gets you laughed at.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Yes, but for cost of a few pair of such "aviator" sunglasses beging to
approach cost of low-end panes.

Babble.

Real pilots don't wear "aviator" sunglasses.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Hmm...I thought the same thing, but I realized that I must be
mistaken, since the prices were outrageous, certification or not.

The price is outrageous because so few of them are made.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Yes, but when I go out to get some Munster cheese in about 10 minutes,
I doubt its price will have quadrupled. I will also have a notion of
"reasonable" price.

The price may well triple tomorrow.

The price of commodities is whatever the price is at the moment.

That would be a great start to at least illustrating that it is
technically feasible.

Illustrate what?

Just about everything you've "proposed" has already been done.

Umm...sorry (really).


A pedant would disagree (electrodynamics+other matter), etc. But yes,
I agree hear.



Disagree.

Then you are a kook.

Disagree. And no I cannot say much more about this at this time.

Because anything else is kook fantasy.

Whoopee.



Me too. I think.

No, you don't think, you just arm wave and babble.

I did. Auto-stabilization of ride.

No, you didn't.

The 3-axis autopilot in a Cirrus SR22 will "autostabilize" the ride
as best as can be done given the performance limitations.

You do understand that GA airplanes are not high performance fighters
with a thrust to weight ratio much greater than one with an airframe
built to endure extreme G loads and the pilots don't wear G suits?

Since you think you are going to be a pilot you have to know this;
upon encountering turbulence of any significance, what is the very
first thing you do and why?

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

I never said I would market it.
[Repeat this sentence several times.]

You can make one for your own use, then sell it later IF someone
will buy it.

I never said I would sell it.

You can't make a bunch of them and sell them.

I never said I would sell it.
[Repeat as many times as necessary.]

Actually, just the FCC for an experimental, but yes, the radio would
have to be FCC accepted.

Ok, sooo? That's obvious.

Aircraft communications are defined by international treaty and the
details are open to everyone in the world.

How a particular radio manufacturers a particular radio and the particular
parts and circuits in it may be proprietary, but the operating
specifications are freely available.

So basically, it is possible for a particular radio to be proprietary.

Funny, I just bought a new car and it has a stereo AM/FM radio, CD
deck and an external input.
Sarcasm.

Now all you have to add is 4 GPS receivers and get 4 copies of the
GIS data somewhere.

I have copy of largest repository of publically available GIS
information in US, all 55.6GB of it, less than 2 meters away, but that
would not be the way I would approach this problem.

Once again, why would you have an operating system at all other than you
obviously have no clue how to build something without one?
Insult.




Not a clue, much as I suspected.

More insult.

About 45 years of it.

Irrelevant, the idea is not new.

One must wonder why you and others challenge it as if it is.

Babbling nonsense.

Computers run just fine all the time at the altitudes most GA aircraft fly.

To pressurize the airplane, the thing has to be built as an airtight
pressure vessel with seals on everything.
Frightening.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

More babbling nonsense.

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

First, there is nothing intrinsically difficult about replacing an
incandescent lamp, nor is a LED any easier to replace.

Second, things like light bulbs are standard items and not built
expressly for aircraft with the exception of landing lights.

Very expensive to be standard.

And you might have noticed I didn't say anything about lights couldn't
be commodity lights because they are. The only restriction is the
replacement has to have the same part number as the original.

More babble, you've shown nothing.

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

You wouldn't know a systemic approach from a peach cobbler.

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

So what would you do, replace the mechanical gyros with solid state
or laser gyros?

I would maintain a minimum set of mechanical instruments for safety,
and use electro-mechanical sensors/actuators, and purely digitized
display for all else, through standard LCD screen connected to
standard computer.

That was done decades ago, nothing new there, but you wouldn't know
that since you seem to know very little about airplanes.

One must wonder why you and others challenge it as if it is.

I thought you wanted to replace all that mechanical stuff; which is it?

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Who said I would sell it?

Wearing a belt and suspenders does not hurt, it just gets you laughed at.



You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Who said I would sell it?

Babble.

Real pilots don't wear "aviator" sunglasses.



You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.



You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

Who said I would sell it?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

Ok, sooo? That's obvious.

Then why did you ask?

So basically, it is possible for a particular radio to be proprietary.

Yeah, XYX Company model 123 radio COULD be proprietary, but there is
NOTHING proprietary about aviation radio so your whole arguement about
using software defined radio to avoid proprietary radios is nonsense.

Sarcasm.

Good for you, you recognized it.

I have copy of largest repository of publically available GIS
information in US, all 55.6GB of it, less than 2 meters away, but that
would not be the way I would approach this problem.

Gee, that's wonderfull.

Now where do you get the aviation specific data?

Insult.

An observation of the obvious.

More insult.

Yet another observation of the obvious.

One must wonder why you and others challenge it as if it is.

You are babbling again.

Frightening.

The thought of clueless naif like you building a pressurized airframe?

Yes, it is frightening.

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

Because you have no clue how airframes, especially pressurized ones
are built.

What technology are you going to use to build this pressurized airframe and
it's aerodynamic surfaces?

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

Because you have no clue how airframes, especially pressurized ones
are built.

What technology are you going to use to build this pressurized airframe and
it's aerodynamic surfaces?

Very expensive to be standard.

Utter, ignorant, nonsense.

There is nothing special about the light bulbs in an airplane and
you can buy them from the local electronics dealer, which I do. Some
you can even get from Radio Shack.

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

It is essentially that you are clueless.

I would maintain a minimum set of mechanical instruments for safety,
and use electro-mechanical sensors/actuators, and purely digitized
display for all else, through standard LCD screen connected to
standard computer.

Congratulations, you just reinvented the glass panel.

How original of you.

One must wonder why you and others challenge it as if it is.

I'm not "challenging" you over most of this stuff, I'm laughing
at how naive and clueless you are.

Who said I would sell it?

You did several times in several different posts.

You have still to answer the question of what your fly-by-wire GA class
airplane could do that any modern airplane like the Cirrus SR22 can't
do?

You have still to answer the question of if you encounter turbulence
of any significance, what is the first thing you do and why?

The new question arises of what technology are you going to use to
build the airframe and flight surfaces of this pressurized airplane?

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Yeah, XYX Company model 123 radio COULD be proprietary, but there is
NOTHING proprietary about aviation radio so your whole arguement about
using software defined radio to avoid proprietary radios is nonsense.

I think you are not making a distinction between the physical radio
and the bands, protocols, modulation schemes, etc. When I say "a
proprietary radio, I mean the physical case", not FCC specifications.

It is the physical case that is far more expensive than it needs to
be, IMO.

What technology are you going to use to build this pressurized airframe and
it's aerodynamic surfaces?

No offense, but I am still wondering if you still believe that a
software radio could not be much less expensive than physical radio
stack.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

As I recall, the problem was called "pilot induced oscillations",
where the pilot had a tendency to overcompensate if force feedback was
absent.  I think the original tests were done in about 1970 and
without the benefits of computerized servo compensation.  Like
anything, some practice would have been necessary.  My guess(tm) is
that a pilot, familiar with the feel of a force feedback yoke, cable,
and pulley system, probably would have more trouble dealing with a fly
by wire system.  I also suspect that the alleged sloppy operations
might improve with practice.

I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about Blue Angels. One scene
showed an instructor teaching in classroom. The camera panned to the
whiteboard for maybe 400 ms, and on the board was a pole-zero plot and
several transfer functions. Undoubtedly, the lesson was about control
and stability.

The same issue arises on my motorcyle. Riders instinctively learn
that, if the bike starts rocking at low-speeds, or rider is about to
go over a bump, s/he should disengage the feedback path.

One rider (forget the name) tried to break motorcycle speed record in
dessert. Survived 1st crash but was seriously injured not long after
while making 2nd attempt. The bike vibrated wildly. I think it
should have been known that, if one is riding in straight line, doing
nothing special, and bike starts to vibrate wildly at over 200 mph,
some poles are not where they should be, and there is really nothing
one can do about it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

   Have you ever tried to get any agency of the federal government to
approve a design, or a design change?

No, but I have written software for hardware that was used in military
operations a long time ago. So yes, I know the requirements are quite
stringent.

OTOH, one day at dentist, an robotic X-Ray machine had malfunctioned
and started to crush my skull against the wall. It had been approved
by some government agency.

I think the FAA and other goverment organizations get a bad rap. For
example, long ago, as a child, I used to think that the FCC would be
overly stringent, so stringent that it was not worth the trouble
pursuing anything, definitely not in RF. I later discovered that the
opposite is true, that the rules are surprisingly reasonable, even to
the point where I felt a bit of guilt for having presumed that
insurmountable barriers existed.

I think the rules have to be stringent. If anything, it cuts down on
frivolous lawsuits because the rules were not stringent enough.

But again, I would *not* take a basic plane, kit or otherwise, tweak a
bit of it, and figure, "since this is only a tweak, FAA should approve
quickly." Quickly adds up quickly. I think that would be suicide.

I aim for all-at-once, consulting with FAA while moving along. I have
learned through my interaction with government agency that, while they
can be your worst nightmare, with the right type of collaboration,
they can also be good friend, even enthusiastic if they believe in
what you are doing.

After all, they are just people too, not devil-worshippers.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[[email protected]]

I think you are not making a distinction between the physical radio
and the bands, protocols, modulation schemes, etc. When I say "a
proprietary radio, I mean the physical case", not FCC specifications.

They are not FCC specifications, they are international specifications
that have been adopted by the FCC as the regulatory agency in the US.

It is the physical case that is far more expensive than it needs to
be, IMO.

Then take it up with the FCC.

No offense, but I am still wondering if you still believe that a
software radio could not be much less expensive than physical radio
stack.

No, I don't.

A software defined radio would be much more complex and have more parts
than today's simple, LSI based aviation radios, which in itself will
add cost.

All radios must be FCC accepted and the cost of FCC acceptance alone
is a significant part of the cost of ANY radio.

The one and only exception to this is a radio built by a licensed
amateur operator for personal operation in the amateur bands.

You can NOT get around FCC acceptance for any other radio service.

OK, now, what technology are you going to use to build this pressurized
airframe and it's aerodynamic surfaces?

What is it that your home built, fly-by-wire airplane will be able to
do that any modern airplane like the Cirrus SR22 can't do?

If you encounter turbulence of any significance, what is the first
thing you do and why?

 

[[email protected]]

As I recall, the problem was called "pilot induced oscillations",
where the pilot had a tendency to overcompensate if force feedback was
absent. I think the original tests were done in about 1970 and
without the benefits of computerized servo compensation. Like
anything, some practice would have been necessary. My guess(tm) is
that a pilot, familiar with the feel of a force feedback yoke, cable,
and pulley system, probably would have more trouble dealing with a fly
by wire system. I also suspect that the alleged sloppy operations
might improve with practice.

That obviously wasn't the conclusion came to by those that design such
systems.

I have a little experience with RPV (remotely piloted vehicle)
electronics. To the best of my limited knowledge, few or none have
force feedback controls.

Irrelevant; RPV's don't have passengers that would write nasty letters
or try to sue for hard landings. The are also expendable.

I once saw a remote controlled full size automobile (Jeep as I recall)
in the desert. I think they were practicing for a movie stunt. The
operators were using a standard Futaba radio control. No force
feedback. After some initial awkwardness, the vehicle appeared to
operate fairly normally.

Yeah, two dimensions is easy.

Another example is my (music) keyboard operation. I play piano,
organ, and synthesizer. Each of these have very different keyboard
actions and dynamics. When switching between keyboards, it takes me
about 3-5 minutes of pounding before I become accustomed to the
change. I suspect it would be the same with switching between a yoke
and joystick, and with/without feedback.

And I fly real airplanes. Have you any idea what goes on when making
a short field landing in gusty crosswinds?

Do you know how to trim an airplane?

Anything you walk away from is considered a good landing.

Yeah, if there are no passengers to bitch about the landing and you
don't have to pay for the extra maintenance due to hard landings.

I agree. Model airplane landings tend to look rather clumsy. Since
there's no pilot or passengers, there's no real reason for a graceful
and soft landing. Those that carry a fragile payload (camera or
sensors) sometime land in a rope net to prevent a ground loop.
However, gyro stabilized aircraft and helicopters fly and land very
smoothly.

Do the terms "short field landing" or "soft field landing" mean anything
to you?

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

A software defined radio would be much more complex and have more parts
than today's simple, LSI based aviation radios, which in itself will
add cost.

I designed my first analog radio when I was 20, using Colpitts
oscillator that oscillated on first run of components. My guess is
that I am more experienced in this area than you are. Your ideas
about SDR's are simply incorrect. You can read more here:

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

"In the long term, software-defined radio is expected by its
proponents to become the dominant technology in radio communications"

Also, I noticed that you keep writing "LSI". LSI is not something
that electrical engineers use anymore. Saying "LSI" is like saying "8-
track tapes". It does not make sense in 2008, really. Younger
engineers might not know what you mean. Not even "VLSI" is
appropriate.

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

Today we use chips that, contrary to what Joseph wrote, can do
absolutely incredible things at low-cost and extremely low weight and
footprint.

All radios must be FCC accepted and the cost of FCC acceptance alone
is a significant part of the cost of ANY radio.

Not true. There are radios, fully assembled, for less than $7 at local
supermarket. In any case, I have completed the actual application for
certain bands/classes from FCC. As I recall, the costs are not that
great. In some cases, it is not more than few thousand dollars. A
transceiver that I designed in mid 1990's would have cost < $10,000US.

http://www.ask-wi.com/certification.html

The one and only exception to this is a radio built by a licensed
amateur operator for personal operation in the amateur bands.

You can NOT get around FCC acceptance for any other radio service.

I never said I would.

OK, now, what technology are you going to use to build this pressurized
airframe and it's aerodynamic surfaces?

Proprietary.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Mike Monett]

]

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.

As I recall, the problem was called "pilot induced oscillations",
where the pilot had a tendency to overcompensate if force feedback
was absent. I think the original tests were done in about 1970 and
without the benefits of computerized servo compensation. Like
anything, some practice would have been necessary. My guess(tm) is
that a pilot, familiar with the feel of a force feedback yoke,
cable, and pulley system, probably would have more trouble dealing
with a fly by wire system. I also suspect that the alleged sloppy
operations might improve with practice.

Control force, or lack of it, is not apparent the first time you are
in a PIO. You are completely absorbed and terrified by what is
happening, and you are locked in a process that you cannot escape
from. It usually results in a crash.

I got into a PIO in 1957 while landing a Cessna 172. Most of my
flying up till then was in taildraggers, and I was not accustomed to
having a nosewheel. It hit the ground first and the aircraft pitched
up. I applied forward pressure to bring the nose back down, and the
nosewheel hit again. At that point, I was locked in a cycle that was
180 degrees out of phase with what the a/c was doing, and it was
only the quick action of the instructor that got us out of the
oscillation. Otherwise, I would have crashed the plane.

This pilot was able to get out of the oscillation by climbing to an
altitude where the rapidly-changing orientation of the runway was no
longer sufficient to keep him locked in the pio. He was very lucky:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/F-8DFBW/HTML/EM-0044-03.html

Here is a short segment of the 1992 crash of the prototype F-22
Raptor landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. This crash
was linked to actuator rate limiting, causing the pilot, Tom
Morgenfeld, to over-compensate for pitch fluctuations. You can see a
bit of overcontrol starting while he is coming in over the runway:

A thesis by Joel B. Witte, Major, USAF, analyzes the YF-22 crash in
more detail:

https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2004/afit/AFIT-GAE-ENY-04-
M16.pdf

From the introduction:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pilot-induced oscillations have been an aviation problem for over
100 years now.

The first incidence can be traced back to Wilbur and Orville Wright
in 1903. When the two brothers first took to the skies of Kitty
Hawk, North Carolina, they experienced `a mild longitudinal
oscillation of the Wright Flyer' (Duda, 1995:288). The PIO problem
had just begun.

PIO Defined

Before continuing with the century-long history of PIO, an
understanding of the term PIO is in order. A pilot-induced
oscillation can be described as `an inadvertent, sustained aircraft
oscillation which is the consequence of an abnormal joint enterprise
between the aircraft and the pilot' (McRuer, 1995:2). Elaborated, a
PIO is a complex interaction between a pilot and his active
involvement in an aircraft feedback system (Klyde and others,
1995:14). The United State Department of Defense (DoD) defines PIO
as `sustained or uncontrollable oscillations resulting from the
efforts of the pilot to control the aircraft' (MIL-HDBK-1797,
1997:151).

[...]

This is the recorded data of the YF-22A accident which occurred on
25 April 1992 during a planned go-around at low altitude. This
stripchart data depict a 180 degree phase difference between the
aircraft pitch attitude and stick input.

Figure 1-1. YF-22A Accident Sequence (Hodgkinson, 1999:128)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The moral of the story is a pio happens so quickly and unexpectedly
that most pilots will crash the plane.

Best Regards,

Mike Monett

 

[Richard Herring]

In message

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].

I'm not talking about practising hand-eye coordination to keep yourself
the right way up in zero visibility, important though that is, but about
the procedural stuff. Did your "simulator" require you to fly SIDs and
STARs and airways, holds and missed approaches? Did the simulator keep
issuing new levels and headings?

This is a software issue, IMO, and not something that is technically
insurmountable.

Sure. And in your universe, everything's a SMOP and all problems can be
solved by adding another level of indirection. And in that universe,
emergent complexity and scalability issues simply don't exist.

The issue I was alluding to is maintaining separation under IFR in IMC,
or, more colloquially, "pushing tin". Consider what happens to the
infrastructure that manages this if every airliner is replaced by
several hundred "safe, efficient, electric-powered single-seat,
ultra-long range aircraft", all of which have to be prevented from
colliding.

It's probably been done already in some other
context.

There are regular stories in comp.risks about failures of computerised
ATC systems under current levels of loading, let alone the hundredfold
increase you're suggesting.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

I designed my first analog radio when I was 20, using Colpitts
oscillator that oscillated on first run of components. My guess is
that I am more experienced in this area than you are. Your ideas
about SDR's are simply incorrect. You can read more here:

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

"In the long term, software-defined radio is expected by its
proponents to become the dominant technology in radio communications"

Also, I noticed that you keep writing "LSI". LSI is not something
that electrical engineers use anymore. Saying "LSI" is like saying "8-
track tapes". It does not make sense in 2008, really. Younger
engineers might not know what you mean. Not even "VLSI" is
appropriate.

I think everyone gave up when we reached ULSI more than a decade ago.

Dirk

 

[[email protected]]

There are stick-and-rudder folks that want to fly the airplane and there
are others that view the airplane as a transportation vehicle. The latter
crowd would want the airplane to fly a nice glide slope to touch down, no
slips allowed. The VLJs are not hand flown. Look at the Citation SP, you
have to have a working autopilot for single pilot operation. I had
the opportunity to fly jump seat on a 737 a few years back. From the
time the gear came up until on short final their hands did not touch
the yoke (nor feet the pedals). In fact, the only thing they touched
(other than their reading material) where the autopilot and radio knobs.

Yeah, it is possible and has been for a long time; so what's your point?

You obviously don't know why slips are performed.

There are two types, and without a lot of detail one is used to lose
altitude quickly without gaining airspeed and the other is used to
keep the airplane aligned with the runway in crosswinds.

Not following the glide slope tends to result in a bad landing or a
request to call the tower after landing or both.

Can you do something similar for GA, feet on the floor, hands on a simple
joy stick? I dont know. Could be. As long as you dont kill yourself
or anyone else and dont go broke, it's worth a try (actually the FAA will
gladly let you turn yourself into a smoking hole in the ground).

In calm air in a properly trimmed airplane it is not necessary to touch
any control.

Most of the time my feet are just resting on the rudder pedals and I
have two fingers on the yoke to null out minor bumps.

The big problem is, can you do this at the cost and level of safety
required. It would make for a very bad day if your computer system
decided up was now down while traveling along at 200+Kts.

It doesn't take a computer system or an autopilot.

All it takes is trimming out the airplane.

A lot of student pilots develop a death grip on the yoke and the cure
for that is to have them trim the airplane and fold their arms.

GA airplanes are required by law to be stable.