Electric airplane

Yes, I noticed this perception among pilots. They regard the computerization of the airplane as attaching expensive, low-volume electronic monitoring systems to what is essentially a glorified lawn- mower. I think part of the problem is that the monitors (instrumentation) are becoming fancier while that which they monitor remains antiquated.

I have a feeling that that difference will become less prevalent as time passes. A competent electro-mechanical engineer will be far less perturbed by the notion of fly-by-wire than the average pilot, IMO. When qualifying the safety of such system, one has to consider exactly who is making the qualification. Most brain surgeons are not perturbed by the idea of having to pick pieces of metal from a persons brain, for example, but the average person would not think of it.

Ether that, or the attitudes have changed. PC's have been cheap for quite a while, almost 20 years in my book.

This is where I find the most irony in pilots. If one mentions electronics, etc..they shriek. Yet at the same time, they cannoy stop talking about the latest gadget from Garmin. It's hypocritical. It's almost as if they are saying, "yes, we want it, but we want it to come to us in a certain way that takes into consideration that we are pilots who have earned the right to want it this way."

That's part of the problem. There is no comparison between what a computer+electro-mechanical actuator can do versus human with cables and pulleys.

They fly just fine *if* the goal is to not change anything. But it is still impractical for the average consumer to buy and fly an airplane. Eventually, something will happen where such consumers can participate. When that happens, naturally, the aircraft will problably not be constructed like a C182.

????

I can think of many reasons.

Autopilots driving 75-year-old technology. It's the equivalent of using a PC to control a lawn-mower with flaps.

All of these problems start with an unnecessary presumption: "The basic system model of the aircraft will be the same as it has been for

75 years." I think make this presumption makes the argument moot. I would prefer to start anew with the objective in mind, without consideration for the status quo, then ask whether it is feasible to meet those objective if one did not have to accommodate the status quo. If the answer is "maybe", then we proceed. If it is "no", then we abort. But you limit the possibiities immediately when you say, "Oh, by the way, it will need cables and pulleys and lots of metal."

I would use a standard $500 PC, in experimentaal aircraft, to prove at least that it could be done.

Circuitous. Yes, FAA requires approval. But for non-critical items do not require approval. For example, if I want to take my iPod aboard, I do not need FAA approval. If I make a mount in the aircraft that can hold my iPod, how much will that cost?

The industry itself has created this situation. Let's face it - owning an aircraft is not just a matter of cost, it's a matter of convenience. The antiquated technology is a big part of the inconvenience. The propeller alone is a problem. It's dangerous.

It's a risk/reward ratio. A lot of problems with computers are software-related. The hardware is not perfect, but for what it does, it does well. The computer I am using to type this message has been running 24x7 for over a year, without any cleaning. The CPU "machine" does it's job 2.4 billion times a second and does not require an oil change. Ever. These devices, if properly employed in redundant configuration, can offer far more benefit than detriment.

A century from now, there will be a PAV that would be far beyond what we are discussing now.

And there will be some pilot somewhere, uttering those words.

"The way it is is the way it should be and will be."

And then another 100 years will pass.

Change is inevitable, and if history is any indication, it _will_ happen that a PAV will be composed of ultra-advanced technology. The idea that computers and electro-mechanical actuators are not employed will be absurd.

The key question we should be asking ourselves today is whether it has not happened because the technology is not available, or because of the intransigence of those most closely associated with the industry.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

(snip)

If you aren't a pilot, why do you think you can define what GA should do?

If I'm just out for a sight seeing flight and decide I want to do Dutch Rolls just for the hell of it, I don't want a computer to do them for me. If I want to do stall/spin exercises, I want to "do" them, not have the electronics do them.

I don't need a computer to trim out the plane for maximum efficiency, so why pay the cost of a computer to do it.

Private flying is expensive. Don't load it up with unnecessary electronics. What's "necessary" is up to each pilot based on their skills and how they use their plane. An ultralight and a handheld GPS and transceiver satisfies many who can no longer afford to rent a plane. I can't quite imagine someone flying theirs using their laptop cursor keys.

On a sunny day (Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:08:25 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Le Chaud Lapin wrote in :

Well, I hope you are lucky, and I hope you do not use it to control anything essential, even the temperature of your coffee :-) think vibration (especially in a propeller plane), your remark below '1 year 24/7' may well become '5 minutes', before the thing falls apart. There are other issues too, memory with parity check, redundant systems..

I have had plenty of problems with 'computers' in the widest sense of the word. Even with a real bug creeping in one and causing random errors. That will hit you bad up there. Software in a way is simpler to test, and usually always crashes at the same point.

This server is up since 2001, oldest hard disk is say 7 years 24/7. Cleaned it many times, replaced fans several times, replaced processor heat sink for bigger one.. replaced PCI cards for newer / lower power ones... [Preventive] maintenance is important. Still I would not want to use it for fly by wire, although it is one of the most expensive motherboards (Tyan).

It isn't perception, it is reality.

The instruments are all the nav instruments, gyros, airspeed indicator, etc. including the engine system monitors such as the tach, oil pressure, fuel level, etc.

The controls are the yoke, rudder pedals, flaps, landing gear, cowl flaps and engine controls.

Learn the difference or continue to be laughed at by pilots.

You really don't get it, do you?

There are lots of fly-by-wire aircraft and *NO ONE* is perturbed by the notion of fly-by-wire.

However, the idea of putting a fly-by-wire systm is laughed at by anyone that knows anything about real airplanes because it is more expensive, complex, and weighs more than existing systems and entirely unnecessary in GA aircraft.

Wrong, they laugh when you propose the microprocessor controlled wooden #2 pencil.

That may be true for an airplane that weighs in at over 20,000 pounds or is a high perfomance fighter with marginal to no aerodynamic stability, but it flat ass false for GA aircraft.

Just because you can't muster the coordination necessary to land a Cessna 172 without requiring major airframe repairs doesn't mean the rest of can't.

The goal of airplanes is to fly.

And 99.99% of that is cost and the dedication of time required to learn how to fly.

Babbling nonsense as you haven't a clue what is in the current generation of airplanes.

You seem to be about the only one with that presumption. The manufacturers of todays airplanes seem to have a different attitude.

Everyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells know it can be done.

Once again you show your aviation ignorance.

EVERYTHING that attaches to a certified airplane requires approval.

And yes, the stupid little sheet metal mounting bracket for my handheld GPS costs more than one for a car because it is approved.

And if I want the power hard wired into the airplane instead of the cigarette lighter outlet, that has to be done by an approved repair station with a form 337 filed with the FSDO.

Wrong.

Airplane crashes have caused this situation.

Right or wrong the purpose of the certification requlations is to try to prevent further deaths by establishing safety criteria for certified airplanes.

If you want to go build an experimental registered airplane out of Lowes hardware store material and consumer electronics, go ahead and do it.

Let us know how that works out for you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I can quite imagine the fossil fuel version of the future - Star Trek, with Captain Kirk/Picard occasionally going below to watch the greasy spanner monkeys stoking the warp engines with coal or fuel oil.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Well, technically speaking, though I am inexperienced, the FAA does reserve a category for me: "student pilot", since I have completed ground school and have flown as a student.

why

This the #1 response I hear from many pilots.

I think their concerns are legitimate, but for them onlythem. There are others who might prefer an alternative. For example, I would never buy a motorcycle or a sports car with an automatic transmission. I find the very idea viscerally repulsive. But others like automatic transmissions. So we have both.

nics.

This is another very common response.

I strongly suspect that, using commoditized components, I could, along with help from my aero/astro friends from college, design an experimental aircraft electronics that outperforms an equivalently- sized aircraft that is a lot cheaper for features offered. Somethings are obvious, like using software-radio to get rid of radio stack. Other things, which I am not prepared to discuss, is the propulsion system. I think there might be a new method that has heretofore been overlooked. But it's only specualtion at this point. But if it worked, the prop would not be necessary, there would be zero vibration, and extremely little noise.

I just happened to return from a dinner meeting tonight with a person who sells $2.5 million to $40 million aircraft for living and have sold quite a few. After meeting over drinks, I discussed the concept of the PAV with him and several others in attendance (pilots). Most of them were quiet. At the end, the salesman said, "Well, it remains to be seen whether it will be done, but if you do it, I only have one request - don't skimp on luxury. Pay attention to the details. You might as well make it comfortable."

sfies

That's a good point. My point is that it is OK if existing pilots would scoff at something like a PAV, as long as they recognize that there are people who might prefer the electronics over cables and pulleys.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

I doubt that many pilots would scoff at anything. Not wanting a particular plane doesn't mean there aren't aspects of it to like. I like planes that are stressed for at least some acrobatics. Some pilots do not want to intentionally stall and spin. To each his own.

There are already many groups of preferences for aircraft and their appointments. At the top end, you can load up a plane with electronics that can double the price of the package. To each his own.

Get your private, fly a while, and get in some hanger talk before you think you know what pilots want.

Yet you still know next to nothing about aviation, much less modern aviation as this post once again shows.

Because it reflects reality.

Why add weight, complexity, and cost for an system that isn't needed and adds nothing to the capability?

If you don't want to or can't fly an airplane, go buy a 3-axis autopilot and the new Lycoming FADEC; no fly-by-wire needed.

Because it is true.

Certified airplanes are not, and can not, be legally built with commodity components.

If you want to build an experimental airplane with Chinese screws and bolts from Ace Hardware, go ahead.

The advantage of sofware defined radio is the ability to easily and quickly change the specifications of the radio.

Aviation radio specifications are cast in international treaty concrete and are NOT going to change.

Most of the functions of modern radios are already in LSI chips.

A software defined aviation radio would be bigger and heavier than the LSI radio it replaced.

So our budding genius has invented the impulse engine?

The only way known to science to move an object in the air is to accelerate gas. The acceleration of the gas itself generates LOTS of noise.

Translation: Such a thing would cost a fortune to build, thus only the really rich will be able to afford such a thing and they want leather seats.

Yep, and if talking about something like a 4 place GA airplane, those people are called puerile.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

ular

hat

that

nk

From what I seen, pilots do not want what I am offering. But as I have stated repeatedly, I am not offering it to pilots. I am offering to all the other people who think it would be a good idea.

It's the pilots who hear this and claimm that it is a bad idea, even though the people who might want it are not present to say otherwise.

It's almost as if the pilots are speaking to this other class of people.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

That would be you and who exactly?

Bad is the wrong word; naive and childish is more like it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If you are "offering" this to non-pilots, how does this generate a market?

If these others were present and said they want what you offer, would they just park it in their driveway to be admired, or put it on Ebay, trying to flip it to a pilot?

I'm lost.

I only know a small subset of these people, obviously, but typically, they tend to be young, educated, motivated by advance technology. Many of them are engineers or mathematicians. A few work in publishing industry.

Fact is, in 100 years from now, people will not be flying around in things that are essentially 2008 Cessna's with new paint and the latest Garmins. All those who think that it is naive and childish will most likely be dead. But there will be a new group of pilots, comfortable with what might be considered beyond bleeding edge today, saying the same thing that you are now, about the not-yet-hear futuristic technology.

Technology will not stand still for anyone, no matter how hard they wish it would.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

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.

Childish, fantasy nonsense.

To make that happen would require the technology of Star Trek impulse engines and anti-gravity to be invented.

There is a slim chance for electric power, but that won't change how airplanes look or fly.

More childish nonsense.

No one in aviation wishes techonology to stand still.

You, however, are wishing for cartoon and TV show technology to magically appear.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sounds interesting. Rocket powered hang glider? VTOL ducted fan? Lighter than air balloon? Anti-gravity?

I've been there in a small way. I designed some marine electronics that required a few changes solely due to the companies lack of experience with USCG operation. Trial and error is a very effective, but also expensive way to get things done. I suspect you have an order and sequence problem. Get your license, fly everything you can afford, learn, observe, ask, and then start designing.

Also, do a patent search for your ideas. Lots of really strange and wonderful ideas have been patented. Reinventing the wheel is a good learning experience but not very productive.

Some interesting flying quotes:

I'll make it simple for you. Take two flying machines. One is made from under the counter components, costs $1,000, and has a 1% probability of falling out of the sky at an inconvenient moment. The other costs about 5 times as much, is mired in bureaucratic safety regulations, and has a 0.0000001% chance of falling out of the sky. Which would you buy or fly? If you were in charge of public safety, which would you license. If you were a flight insurance company, which would you insure?

Some light reading, especially the first part where prototype #1 crashed on takeoff:

Ummm.... see:

Literally all of them are certified as experimental aircraft. Paul Moller has been working on that problem since the 1960's:

Don't hold your breath, but they're claiming it will be FAA certified by the end of the year. There's also substantial effort being put into personal aircraft, allegedly to eliminate road traffic congestion:

These are quite distinct from general aviation.

Do you seriously think you can improve safety by automating the aircraft? It's one thing to design an RPV (remote piloted vehicle) which carry a weapons system and have a fairly short operational lifetime. Last time I checked, nobody makes RPV or land vehicles that operate without driver or pilot assistance. Even automated trains have operators.

No need for the future. Methinks the Concord had a TV screen to see the runway on landing because the nose was too high for the pilot to see the ground. The B2 and others with a high nose wheel have the same feature. Virtual instrumentation (glass cockpit) is off the shelf (although expensive). I'll spare you my comments about what's behind the instrument panel on most small airplanes. Here's an example of a partial conversion using a Fujitsu tablet PC:

Note that the tablet PC is NOT an intergral part of the instrument panel of a home built Rutan Quickie Q200.

Drivel: Build your own flight simulator:

(examples)

Maybe, from your point of view. What I see is that whenever anything goes wrong in the air or on the ground, everyone runs to the FAA for help, advice, support, standards, enforcement, etc. The equation is simple. One "oops" is equal to a huge number of innovative ideas.

There's plenty wrong with the FAA. I have my own laundry list. However, I would prefer to have a broken bureaucracy than living with broken and unsafe aircraft. As long as the FAA finds its way to produce safety for everyone involved, I can live with the muddle, sloth and incomprehensible regulations.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

by

aft

That is all I am saying. There should be room for both.

On the contrary. Even though _I_ will not buy a sport car with automatic transmission, if such things had not existed, and someone proposed it, I would have had no problem with it.

The pilots I have spoken to are not saying that about airplanes. They are speaking for both themselves as well as the other people who might want something different from what they have.

I have no issue with someone wanting to fly an old 1930s bi-plane in

2108.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Except for the part about insurance, I disagree.

This whole thread is not so much about piloting. It's more about egineering.

I have seen enough of the engineering aspect of airplanes to know that there are many things, both inside the cockpit and out, that can be done to make the planes cost a lot less than they do, and still fly under and experimental category.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

So, how much real world experience in design and manufacture to government specifications do you have that leads you to that conclusion?

And, with your vast piloting experience, name some things that a fly-by-wire Cessna 172 could legally do that a cable and pulley Cessna 172 could not.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.