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.
Autopilots have had processors in them for a long time.
What is your new idea?
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?
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.
My approach would be an extreme proclivity to use commoditized components.
Where one would use a radio stack, I would use software defined radio.
Where one would use proprietary plane-to-plane comms, I would use Wi-Fi or something similar.
Where one would use expensive stereo system, I would use something for < 0US.
I would use commoditize sensors and actuators throughout.
My method of linkage from CPU to actuator/sensor would be a commoditized serial interface.
I would use quad-redunancy for computer system, 4 motherboards, for < 00.
I would use commoditized operating system. [Yes, Linux, Yes, MS Windows, yescouple others].
Computer systems would communicate using commoditized network switch, etc.
I would use quad-redundant display, 1 large LCD for 0, and 3 smaller ones.
I would make pressurization mandatory.
I would use low-cost, easily-replacebale LEDs for all light system, including interior.
I would have a very bare minimum of essential mechanical controls (compass, etc).
I would use semi-commoditized jostick controls. [Use a company that makes them.]
I would use commoditized digital cameras, at least 8, for all- around visibility.
I would use commoditized variable-opacity panes (for long trips).
I would use commoditized wheels, struts, etc. Not aviation, but kind made by auto-parts manufactures.
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.
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 is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components anywhere in the world.
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.
There is nothing proprietary proprietary about aircraft communications, it is an international standard.
Airplanes don't normally have stereo systems. Have you ever heard of an iPod?
It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components anywhere in the world.
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.
That is triple redundancy and it would be required if it were going to control the airplane even as a home built experimental.
Why would you have an operating system at all other than you obviously have no clue how to build something without one?
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.
That's triple redundant.
Glass panel airplanes already have redundant displays; nothing new here.
Pressurization is heavy and expensive no matter how you look at it, and not needed at the altitudes most GA aircraft fly.
This is already being done; nothing new here.
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?
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.
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.
Have you ever heard of sunglasses?
It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components anywhere in the world.
It is not legal to build an airplane for sale out of commodity components anywhere in the world.
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.
It appears you also don't know what the word "commodity" means or that the price of commodities fluctuate on a daily basis.
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.
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.
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.
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.;)
Have you ever tried to get any agency of the federal government to approve a design, or a design change?
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you\'re crazy.
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].
For experimental?
A product and conform to a standard and be proprietary simultaneously.
Yes, they are the reason that automobile manufacturers no longer include stereo systems in cars.
Experimental.
Using technology that is too expensive, whether certified or not.
Experiemental.
Would not bother me. After all, 4 motherboards would cost less than one mid-range Garmin gadget with far fewer features.
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.
Experimental.
????
I have designed radios in the past, so I hope you also speak from experience.
My guess is that the cost of all is not < $1000US.
Computers would be happier with it. And pressurization is not inherently expensive [like gold, uranium]. It is expensive because of the dynamic that exists.
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.
Control, instrument.
??
s?
Yes, and very cheap too.
Experimental.
At such low prices, does not hurt. If anything, could be used to record view of flight from beneath plane on 1TB hard disk.
Experimental.
Yes, but for cost of a few pair of such "aviator" sunglasses beging to approach cost of low-end panes.
Experimental.
Experimental.
Hmm...I thought the same thing, but I realized that I must be mistaken, since the prices were outrageous, certification or not.
Experimental.
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.
That would be a great start to at least illustrating that it is technically feasible.
at
Umm...sorry (really).
A pedant would disagree (electrodynamics+other matter), etc. But yes, I agree hear.
Disagree.
Disagree. And no I cannot say much more about this at this time.
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.
Actually, just the FCC for an experimental, but yes, the radio would have to be FCC accepted.
Yet another English lesson is in order I see.
proprietary adj.
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.
Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital.
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.
Funny, I just bought a new car and it has a stereo AM/FM radio, CD deck and an external input.
You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.
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.
You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.
Now all you have to add is 4 GPS receivers and get 4 copies of the GIS data somewhere.
Once again, why would you have an operating system at all other than you obviously have no clue how to build something without one?
You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.
Not a clue, much as I suspected.
About 45 years of it.
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.
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.
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.
More babble, you've shown nothing.
You wouldn't know a systemic approach from a peach cobbler.
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.
I thought you wanted to replace all that mechanical stuff; which is it?
You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.
Wearing a belt and suspenders does not hurt, it just gets you laughed at.
You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.
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.
The price is outrageous because so few of them are made.
You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.
The price may well triple tomorrow.
The price of commodities is whatever the price is at the moment.
Illustrate what?
Just about everything you've "proposed" has already been done.
Then you are a kook.
Because anything else is kook fantasy.
Whoopee.
No, you don't think, you just arm wave and babble.
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?
I never said I would market it. [Repeat this sentence several times.]
I never said I would sell it.
I never said I would sell it. [Repeat as many times as necessary.]
Ok, sooo? That's obvious.
r
So basically, it is possible for a particular radio to be proprietary.
Sarcasm.
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.
Insult.
More insult.
One must wonder why you and others challenge it as if it is.
y.
Frightening.
Trying to find the meat of your argument.
Trying to find the meat of your argument.
Very expensive to be standard.
Trying to find the meat of your argument.
Trying to find the meat of your argument.
s
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.
One must wonder why you and others challenge it as if it is.
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.
Good for you, you recognized it.
Gee, that's wonderfull.
Now where do you get the aviation specific data?
An observation of the obvious.
Yet another observation of the obvious.
You are babbling again.
The thought of clueless naif like you building a pressurized airframe?
Yes, it is frightening.
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?
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?
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.
It is essentially that you are clueless.
Congratulations, you just reinvented the glass panel.
How original of you.
I'm not "challenging" you over most of this stuff, I'm laughing at how naive and clueless you are.
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?
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 have a little experience with RPV (remotely piloted vehicle) electronics. To the best of my limited knowledge, few or none have force feedback controls.
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.
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.
Anything you walk away from is considered a good landing.
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.
--
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
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.
nd
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.
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.
However, there's no mention of any feedback issues or implimentation.
This is slightly better:
The first 5 paragraphs are very relevent. Then it drifts into automobile fly-by-wire.
Still digging...
--
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
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:
formatting link
"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.
formatting link
Today we use chips that, contrary to what Joseph wrote, can do absolutely incredible things at low-cost and extremely low weight and footprint.
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.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.