Future of Electronics In Aviation

Hi All,

I have noticed that each time this subject is broached, there seem to
be many who are perturbed by the idea of electronics/software assuming
a primary role (control, stabilization, etc.) in GA aircraft.

There are some who believe that electronics and software are sorely
underutilized.  The electronics that are used are mostly employed in
an ancillary role, like providing data to a pilot, etc.

There are others who feel that electronics should be fundamentally
integral to the design of the aircraft from the start, meaning that
any potential op****tunity for use of electronics should be employed,
as it is almost always the case that digital version of a mechanical,
analog part is better on many axes, including weight, cost,
reliability, controllability, etc.

Ken Tucker mentioned a rotary wing aircraft for his project.  I have
not specified what type of propulsion mechanism I have in mind for my
project. Both of us feel that electronic, fly-by-wire is the future of
aviation.

What do you think?

1. Do you think that current GA aircraft use not enough electronics?
2. Do you think that current GA aircraft use too much electronics?
3. Do you think electronics should retain a peripheral role ? (Garmin,
etc) but not be used in control paths (fly-by-wire)?
4. What role will electronics play in aicraft designed in the year
2108?
5. What will the aircraft look like in 2108?
6. Any other thoughts...

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Here is an excerpt from a concurrent thread, where the conversation
seems to be turning toward Electronics-Or-Not:

On Jun 19, 11:16 am, papp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:40 am, Dan_Thomas_nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 7:26 am, papp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > > The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
> > > seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an
engineer,
> > > but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
> > > density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
> > > Austin has its village idiot.
>
> >      Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
> > make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
> > an obsession with electronics and computers. The idea that electric
> > power is green is another falsehood; where does most electricity come
> > from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys), coal (dirty), natural
> > gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource), nuclear (dangerous and
> > waste problems), and so on. Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked
> > well and were affordable, require hydrogen, which requires the
> > electrolysis of water, which needs vast amounts of electricity. Other
> > methods of storage involve heavy metals and their dangers. The idea
> > that a helicopter is easy to build (with biplane blades, yet, which
> > was tried in the early years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer
> > knows nothing of the problems that gyroscopic precession present to
> > all rotating components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA
> > and airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
> > flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
> > after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).
>
> >       Dan
>
> Here is a frightening thought. If Le Chaud is in fact an engineer,
> someone is paying him money for his lack of knowledge of basics, like
> the power demand to keep a something with a specific gravity greater
> than its environment suspended there. Well, that may be second term
> physics. Lift ferries indeed.

> I wonder how long it would take me to understand his true worth -- I
> do make mistakes in hiring, but rarely in discharging.