Driver to drive?

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/11/08 10:55 AM, in article ak2op5-h6o.ln1@mail.specsol.com,
"jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com" <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
On 9/11/08 8:15 AM, in article g6pnp5-3bq.ln1@mail.specsol.com,
"jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com" <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:35:04 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:


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.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, heavier.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <0Q0yk.1028$1a2.942@trnddc04>,
przemek klosowski <przemek.klosowski@gmail.nospam> wrote:

You said that Web can't be counted as a valid spinoff--but it was a result
of a culture of openness and dependency on computer communication inherent
in science in general, and HEP had the most money, and the best graphics and
fastest networks, so they were best positioned to invent it. Remember late 80-s:
Prodigy, modems, 320x240 4-color graphics...that was the reality for most of us.

The web would have happened anyway.
NNTP that you are using here is a pure computer network product,
independent of HEP.

--
Michael Press

 

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/11/08 1:25 PM, in article rcbop5-4ml.ln1@mail.specsol.com,
"jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com" <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
On 9/11/08 10:55 AM, in article ak2op5-h6o.ln1@mail.specsol.com,
"jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com" <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:
On 9/11/08 8:15 AM, in article g6pnp5-3bq.ln1@mail.specsol.com,
"jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com" <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:35:04 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:


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.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, heavier.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

Mode C is a transponder reply that includes altitude information.

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics panteltje@yahoo.com wrote:

On 11 sep, 21:25, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Then he is a clueless idiot.

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

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 4:31?pm, pantel...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 11 sep, 21:25, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
As far as model airplanes go, I haven't seen many (actually none) landings
I'd call a greaser.

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

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

[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.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 5:35?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

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.

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?

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 6:52?pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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

? ?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.

Nonsense.

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

Where have you been the last hundred years?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 8:05?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals 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.

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.

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

Experiemental.

You can't market experimentals 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.

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?

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.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals anywhere in the world.

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

????

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

A compass isn't a control.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Babble.

Real pilots don't wear "aviator" sunglasses.

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.

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.

Experimental.

You can't market experimentals 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.

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.

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.

* 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.

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.

?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.

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.

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?

Umm...sorry (really).

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.

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.

Then you are a kook.

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.

Because anything else is kook fantasy.

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.

Yeah!

Whoopee.

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

Me too. I think.

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

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.

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?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080905/full/news.2008.1085.html
such as
0.00000000047 grams = total mass of protons circulating in the LHC
at any time.

362 megajoules = collective energy of LHC's protons at top speed.

low mass & big joules, lets you appreciate how fast they're going.

The catch is how that energy will interact with other particles. And how those
particles will interact with other matter..

Such large energies at such small scales breaks some barriers.
It's intentional ofcourse. But the effects can be a suprise

 

[B. Peg]

"mpm" wrote:
If American hires this woman, they totally get what they deserve.

If America hires Obama, the Muslim world will get what they want.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Mommar Kadaffi.

B~
_________________________________

-mpm

I must also say, for the first time in this Election cycle, I'm
concerned that the Republicans are finally getting some traction.
Maybe it will be termporary, but if the bounce holds through to the
election, they might actually have a winning shot... ??

It will be very interesting to see what happens in MN, OH and FL.

Hate to admit, I changed parties from the Dems to the Repubs - and I'm union
member of 25 years. Obama is not worthy of leadership. His qualifications
are the worst of the lot and his seeking the Clinton's on political advice
sickens me. He doesn't even know how many states are in the U.S. since he's
campaigned in all "57" of them.

B~

 

[B. Peg]

If American hires this woman, they totally get what they deserve.

Yes! - America gets more oil!

And the Muslim's don't get Obama.
Mommar Kaddafi will be quite upset since he's already addressed Obama as
"His Muslim brother." (Mommar's 8 minute speech is on YouTube). Other
countries who want him won't get him either.

Obama will keep the nukes from flying!

B~

 

[B. Peg]

hans wrote:
With her sarcastically caustic attitude and penchant for firing people
first (then maybe asking questions later), this could very well be a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

No matter. Hillary did far better with her Travel Gate firings and she
wasn't even a V.P.

Least Obama fired his racist Reverend Wright, although a little late. Good
thing the Dems secured his wife's racist thesis from Princeton from viewing
until after the election (it's on Snopes.com though).

B~

 

[Den]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:2Glyk.47$be.40@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

Our DVD player croaked, so ...

Most of the better ones now offer 1080 up-conversion but it seems they are
usually missing the HDMI cable. When I looked I was stunned. $40 (!) and
up. What is so special about an HDMI cable? Each electron personally
recordificated and certificated?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Try computer stores rather than hi-fi/tv places - the prices are 1/3 at
least in my part of the world!

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"mpm" <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a4268f94-c499-4486-ae05-5df3a338c9e6@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 7:12?pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com>

Just like all leftist weenies you miss that Obama purposefully dredged
that up to slam Sarah... trying to negate the "pit bull" amusement.

Honestly, (I probably shouldn't admit this...?)

I think Obama said it (it's a common expression everyone uses), AND
THEN IMMEDIATELY realized how it might be interpreted vis-a-vis Palin,
and tried to cover it with another analogy about wrapping old fish in
a newspaper called "change".
========

I don't know what his intentions were and I don't remember what first popped
in my mind when I heard it but I thought about it both ways.

BUT, obviously if he's such an intelligent guy he would have known better
and not used. So we can only gather he is not as intelligent as people want
to make him out to be.

I mean... it doesn't take much to see the commonality between "lipstick on a
pitbull" and "lipstick on a pig" specially when it was such a big punchline
and still in peoples minds.

So it's not so much if he intended it or not(and by the crowed laughing they
all got what he most likely was intending) but that he should have known
better. We'll never know what he was intending but we do know how it was
percieved... even by his own "people".

But since he said he didn't intend for it to be that way I think we would
have to take it as face value.... of course if it continues to do such
things over and over then he should be held accountable.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 11, 10:25?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Ok, sooo? That's obvious.

Then why did you ask?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

An observation of the obvious.

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

????

Not a clue, much as I suspected.

More insult.

Yet another observation of the obvious.

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

About 45 years of it.

Irrelevant, the idea is not new.

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

You are babbling again.

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

Frightening.

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

Yes, it is frightening.

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

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?

More babbling nonsense.

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?

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.

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.

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

Trying to find the meat of your argument.

It is essentially that you are clueless.

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

A compass isn't a control.

Control, instrument.

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.

Congratulations, you just reinvented the glass panel.

How original of you.

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

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.

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?

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?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 12, 12:15?am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[hank alrich]

Tony Weber <mycroftxxx@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote:

You said that you had never seen trailers in Alaska after someone called
Palin "Trailer Trash." Then what were you trying to imply?

Maybe he's blind.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

 

In sci.physics Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:25:04 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:29:38 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net
wrote:

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Mike Monett]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:25:04 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

[...]

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8

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

 

[Dr Ivan D. Reid]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:11:25 +1200, Gib Bogle <g.bogle@auckland.no.spam.ac.nz>
wrote in <48c6138c$1@news.auckland.ac.nz>:

RFI-EMI-GUY wrote:

When something gets blown to "smithereens", are those sub-atomic particles?

smitherinos

Are they the mitherinos' sparticles?

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".