| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
|
21-06-2008, 04:47 AM
|
#1
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> I must ask then, if one were to look at a typical GA aircraft, in the
> year 2100, in your opinion, will it be as devoid of electro-mechanical
> controls as it is today?
>
> What will it look like?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
In less than 100 years we went from the first plane the Wrights built to
the Space Shuttle, the F22 and more importantly for this conversation
the Cirrus SR-22. For over half of that century we've told out kids
through magazines like "Popular Science" that flying cars are about 10
years away. I personally think you have bought into the "Popular
Science" mindset and if you aren't a 15 year old kid (which I'm not
really sure that you aren't) you will probably grow out of it.
Will there be electro-mechanical controls in future GA aircraft? Of
course there will be. The 601XL I'm building has electro-mechanical in
it running the elevator and aileron trim. Will the entire wire or
push-rod system be replaced? If the parts get to the point where they
are of equal or less weight AND the system is as reliable AND cost is
equal or less than what is used now the answer is yes.
If the Wright brothers were to come back to life today they could look
at the SR-22 or the other aircraft I mentioned and understand why they
fly how they do. They could probably fly the Cirrus with no more check
out than is required of the average guy who is transitioning from a 172.
There is a reason for this. Airplanes work the way they do because they
are flying in the same environment they were in 1903. They have to
overcome the same gravity and they need to be as light as possible for a
given job.
You have all these grand ideas that replacing everything with
electronics will make aircraft easier to fly and cheaper. Yet you have
never really told us your idea. You just keep saying things like, "Well,
my design will get around that problem."
I know you think that there is all this open source software and
electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
fix. BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.
Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.
I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
available today it can't be made.
|
|
|
|
|
21-06-2008, 06:08 AM
|
#2
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
In article <g8WdnVVwJOZcZsbVnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiacona@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
> > I must ask then, if one were to look at a typical GA aircraft, in the
> > year 2100, in your opinion, will it be as devoid of electro-mechanical
> > controls as it is today?
> >
> > What will it look like?
> >
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> In less than 100 years we went from the first plane the Wrights built to
> the Space Shuttle, the F22 and more importantly for this conversation
> the Cirrus SR-22. For over half of that century we've told out kids
> through magazines like "Popular Science" that flying cars are about 10
> years away. I personally think you have bought into the "Popular
> Science" mindset and if you aren't a 15 year old kid (which I'm not
> really sure that you aren't) you will probably grow out of it.
>
> Will there be electro-mechanical controls in future GA aircraft? Of
> course there will be. The 601XL I'm building has electro-mechanical in
> it running the elevator and aileron trim. Will the entire wire or
> push-rod system be replaced? If the parts get to the point where they
> are of equal or less weight AND the system is as reliable AND cost is
> equal or less than what is used now the answer is yes.
>
> If the Wright brothers were to come back to life today they could look
> at the SR-22 or the other aircraft I mentioned and understand why they
> fly how they do. They could probably fly the Cirrus with no more check
> out than is required of the average guy who is transitioning from a 172.
>
> There is a reason for this. Airplanes work the way they do because they
> are flying in the same environment they were in 1903. They have to
> overcome the same gravity and they need to be as light as possible for a
> given job.
>
> You have all these grand ideas that replacing everything with
> electronics will make aircraft easier to fly and cheaper. Yet you have
> never really told us your idea. You just keep saying things like, "Well,
> my design will get around that problem."
>
> I know you think that there is all this open source software and
> electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
> raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
> fix. BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
> lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
> called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.
>
> Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
> companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
> want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
> size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.
>
> I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
> a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
> know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
> available today it can't be made.
I'm still waiting for the rocket backpacks they promised...
|
|
|
|
|
21-06-2008, 06:16 AM
|
#3
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 20, 1:47*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> I know you think that there is all this open source software and
> electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
> raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
> fix. *BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
> lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
> called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.
> Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
> companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
> want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
> size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.
I am glad we agree about the desirability of a PAV. As for why it has
not been done yet, I think the answer has more to do with managerial
dynamics than technology. Ten years from now, someone will invent a
system, software or otherwise, that will be herald as a
"breakthrough". The fundamental components that are required to build
that system most likely exist today, in 2008, especially in the case
of software. What changes in 10 years that makes the breakthrough
able to occur later than sooner?
> I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
> a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
> know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
> available today it can't be made.
I disagree with this. There is a difference between cannot and has
not.
If the truth were always "cannot", there would never be any
breakthroughs.
If you say that there will be breakthroughs, but it will be done by
Boeing, Cessna, or Cirrus, then NASA should take the CAFE/PAV award
and give it to engineers inside those companies directly.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 01:36 AM
|
#4
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 20, 1:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> I know you think that there is all this open source software and
>> electronic hardware that is available and cheap. And you have been
>> raised to think that there is not problem that a few silicon chips can't
>> fix. BUT I can pretty much assure you that there are a lot of people a
>> lot smarter than you in the world and some of them work for companies
>> called Lockheed and Boeing and even Cessna and Cirrus.
>
>> Tell me this. If it could be done cheaper why aren't any of these
>> companies doing it? It isn't like they are making all the money they
>> want and I'm sure any of them would be more than happy to increase the
>> size of the market for aircraft by 1000 fold.
>
> I am glad we agree about the desirability of a PAV. As for why it has
> not been done yet, I think the answer has more to do with managerial
> dynamics than technology. Ten years from now, someone will invent a
> system, software or otherwise, that will be herald as a
> "breakthrough". The fundamental components that are required to build
> that system most likely exist today, in 2008, especially in the case
> of software. What changes in 10 years that makes the breakthrough
> able to occur later than sooner?
>
I don't agree that it is desirable. I said that, don't you think that if
the aviation companies would like to increase their market share 1000 fold?
Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
done it.
>> I want the flying car I've been promised by "Popular Science" and so do
>> a lot of other people and Boeing and Cessna and Cirrus and the other
>> know it. They just don't know how to make it because with technology
>> available today it can't be made.
>
> I disagree with this. There is a difference between cannot and has
> not.
>
> If the truth were always "cannot", there would never be any
> breakthroughs.
>
> If you say that there will be breakthroughs, but it will be done by
> Boeing, Cessna, or Cirrus, then NASA should take the CAFE/PAV award
> and give it to engineers inside those companies directly.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
to prove a negative and we can't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 02:33 AM
|
#5
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 23, 10:36*am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
> your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
> 10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
> invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
> can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
> years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
> your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
> there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
> There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
> done it.
I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
> I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
> what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
> person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
> to prove a negative and we can't do that.
What do you mean by "current technology"?
Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
cost less than $100,000.
A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
$50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
possibility of pre-built aircraft.
So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
would obviate many other expensive components.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 03:02 AM
|
#6
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 23, 12:33 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
> > your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
> > 10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
> > invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
> > can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
> > years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
> > your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
> > there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
> > There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
> > done it.
>
> I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
>
> > I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
> > what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
> > person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
> > to prove a negative and we can't do that.
>
> What do you mean by "current technology"?
>
> Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
> mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> cost less than $100,000.
>
> A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
> existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
> amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
> $50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
> possibility of pre-built aircraft.
>
> So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
> aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
> fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
> plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
> example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
> would obviate many other expensive components.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
It's likely computer assisted controls would allow ga airplanes to be
flown safely with center of lift and center of gravity coincident. For
airplanes with otherwise existing technology that might be as much as
a 10% improvement in range. There's another few percent, but only
that, with pusher propellers. Both of these 'improvements' have not
overcome serious counter arguments.
Start with people who are concerned with most effective/efficient
airplane configurations, those beautiful things called gliders. Long
small chord wings, laminar everything, and if you want instant
funding, talk to them. Give them a 30% reduction in drag and money
will flow in.
But you can't do that. You're all type, you have given no evidence you
can do more than that,
I've done some serious research -- REAL research -- on pilotless
extended range airplanes flying at 500 km/hr or less, and can't find
anything that approaches a 20% improvement over the drones the air
force is flying now. Maybe a new Skunkworks is out there doing
something (or maybe Scaled Composites is -- now that is serious
competition!!) but a maybe EE from maybe Austin (there is a Paris in
Texas) who has demonstrated no skills is not where I'd choose to place
my bet.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 05:17 AM
|
#7
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
>> your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
>> 10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
>> invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
>> can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
>> years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
>> your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
>> there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
>> There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
>> done it.
>
> I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
>
Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
But there are pushers out there as well.
>> I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
>> what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
>> person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
>> to prove a negative and we can't do that.
>
> What do you mean by "current technology"?
Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
sources.
>
> Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
> mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> cost less than $100,000.
>
No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
want to build.
> A systemic approach must be taken, one that does not presume the pre-
> existence of the $100,000 aircraft as a base. A different dollar
> amount would have to be sought, perhaps something in the $40,000-
> $50,000 range. Naturally, this would automatically exclude the
> possibility of pre-built aircraft.
>
> So, if "current technology" does not mean the $100,000 tractor-model
> aircraft, but something else, which might or might not use the
> fundamental components of the $100,000 aircraft (steel, aluminum,
> plastic, gears, RAM, capacitors), software could help immensely. For
> example, one thing that could be done is to eliminate the ICE, which
> would obviate many other expensive components.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
What are you going to replace the ICE with? And don't forget. It is
going to have to be MANY, MANY times for efficient because unlike
aircraft you are going to have to make this thing street legal which
means weight.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 05:55 AM
|
#8
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiacona@removegmail.com> wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> >> Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think this is
> >> your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
> >> 10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
> >> invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
> >> can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next 10
> >> years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
> >> your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
> >> there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft.
> >> There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
> >> done it.
> >
> > I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> > conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> > possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
> >
> Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
> But there are pushers out there as well.
> >> I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
> >> what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
> >> person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
> >> to prove a negative and we can't do that.
> >
> > What do you mean by "current technology"?
> Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
> sources.
> >
> > Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> > it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. As
> > mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> > something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> > cost less than $100,000.
> >
> No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
> want to build.
The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.
Assume $50k for the engine and controls.
Assume $40k for the avionics.
That leaves the airframe at $145k.
Composite airframes are just as expensive.
What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?
Lapin is a babbling idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 06:12 AM
|
#9
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 23, 2:55*pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@removegmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > >> Software doesn't make airplanes fly. And as I mentioned I think thisis
> > >> your problem, you think it does. Might something be invented in the next
> > >> 10 years that makes PAV an option? Sure, I have no idea what might be
> > >> invented in the next 10 years. Somebody might invent Mr. Fusion. What I
> > >> can guarantee is that no SOFTWARE is going to be written in the next10
> > >> years or ever that is going to make current hardware able to fulfill
> > >> your idea of a PAV. There are a lot of very smart software people out
> > >> there and there are also a lot of folks who build homebuilt aircraft..
> > >> There is bound to be a subset in there of the two and none of them have
> > >> done it.
>
> > > I have scoured the web for these homebuilt craft, and most of them
> > > conform to the tractor model, which automatically precludes many
> > > possibilities, even the ones with folding wings.
>
> > Yes most do because we have found that it is very efficient and safe.
> > But there are pushers out there as well.
> > >> I'll repeat there is no way SOFTWARE could make current technology do
> > >> what you want to do. If you think I'm wrong prove it. It is up to the
> > >> person making the wild ass claims to do so. Otherwise your are asking us
> > >> to prove a negative and we can't do that.
>
> > > What do you mean by "current technology"?
> > Technology that is available today. Not warp drives or anti-matter power
> > sources.
>
> > > Do you mean taking a standard aircraft or kit and adding software to
> > > it? If so, I would agree that software will not help here. *As
> > > mentioned before, a $100,000 plane, it would be impossible to take
> > > something that already costs $100,000 and add more to it and make it
> > > cost less than $100,000.
>
> > No mean with the current technology there is no way to build what you
> > want to build.
>
> The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.
>
> Assume $50k for the engine and controls.
>
> Assume $40k for the avionics.
>
> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>
> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>
> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>
> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 06:14 AM
|
#10
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote
> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>
> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>
> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>
> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.
There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
yet-to-be-invented avionics. What seems silly and quite pointless is
arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
might cost.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 06:42 AM
|
#11
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
> You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
> not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
> it would be too expensive.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
Then I'll ask you again. What will the engine be?
And I'll agree that there is no reason other than the cost of
certification that the price of avionics can't be lower. Happens already
all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 06:43 AM
|
#12
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
BDS wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote
>
>> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>>
>> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>>
>> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
>> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>>
>> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
>
> I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.
>
> There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
> yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
> yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
> yet-to-be-invented avionics. What seems silly and quite pointless is
> arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
> might cost.
>
>
>
Then you aren't reading his posts very closely. He thinks it can be done
with available technology.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 06:57 AM
|
#13
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 23, 3:43*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
wrote:
> BDS wrote:
> > <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote
>
> >> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
>
> >> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
>
> >> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> >> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
>
> >> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
>
> > I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
> > yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
> > yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
> > yet-to-be-invented avionics. *What seems silly and quite pointless is
> > arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
> > might cost.
>
> Then you aren't reading his posts very closely. He thinks it can be done
> with available technology.-
I do, with the exception of the lift mechanism and the power source,
which, not suprisingly, influence the rest of the design of the
aircraft more than anything else.
Note: I have no ideas about power source beyond the obvious, though I
would be prediposed to get the entire machine into the electrical
domain as quickly as possible, which makes some options more
preferrable than others.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 07:35 AM
|
#14
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:55?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.
> >
> > Assume $50k for the engine and controls.
> >
> > Assume $40k for the avionics.
> >
> > That leaves the airframe at $145k.
> >
> > Composite airframes are just as expensive.
> >
> > What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> > that cost, Chinese rice paper?
> >
> > Lapin is a babbling idiot.
> You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
> not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
> it would be too expensive.
You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
issue.
All you have to do is magically find a cheap engine that doesn't
exist to power it and cheap materials and assembly processes that don't
exist to build the airframe.
Note that the airframe is by far the most expensive component and
airframe parts and skin can't be made from recycled microprocessors.
If you have a magic wand, it is all trivial.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
24-06-2008, 07:35 AM
|
#15
|
|
|
Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 3:43?pm, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVEgmail.com>
> wrote:
> > BDS wrote:
> > > <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote
> >
> > >> That leaves the airframe at $145k.
> >
> > >> Composite airframes are just as expensive.
> >
> > >> What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
> > >> that cost, Chinese rice paper?
> >
> > >> Lapin is a babbling idiot.
> >
> > > I wouldn't go that far - he just seems very naive and inexperienced.
> >
> > > There's nothing wrong with dreaming about an aircraft that will use
> > > yet-to-be-invented structural materials, a yet-to-be-invented power source,
> > > yet-to-be-invented controls, yet-to-be-invented lift devices, and
> > > yet-to-be-invented avionics. ?What seems silly and quite pointless is
> > > arguing about what may or may not be possible 100 years from now and what it
> > > might cost.
> >
> > Then you aren't reading his posts very closely. He thinks it can be done
> > with available technology.-
> I do, with the exception of the lift mechanism and the power source,
> which, not suprisingly, influence the rest of the design of the
> aircraft more than anything else.
> Note: I have no ideas about power source beyond the obvious, though I
> would be prediposed to get the entire machine into the electrical
> domain as quickly as possible, which makes some options more
> preferrable than others.
Which does nothing for the airframe cost which is by far the biggest
cost of an airplane.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:17 AM.
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The Travel Forum
|
|
|
|
