Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 19, 2:58=A0pm, es330td <es33...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I will answer your questions by starting with a question of my own:
> which is a more reliable mode of trans****tation, a 1964 Mustang or a
> 1994 Mustang? =A0If you had to pick one in which you got one chance to
> turn the key and it had to start and get you where you need to go,
> which one would you pick?

I don't know much about 94 Mustangs, but I know a lot about 64 and 04
models.  And the 04 is dramatically more reliable.  You can count on
it to start and run.  And it will do this with only a thrice-annual
visit to the shop for an oil change.

On the other hand, there is no maintenance schedule on a 64 Mustang.
You work on it all the time.  You see, all the electronics in the
thing - and there is a ton - make the 04 Mustang far more reliable.
What's more, it needs far less maintenance, and far less regular
maintenance.

> I think that electronics are great in airplanes that are flown
> frequently and checked over regularly by professional mechanics.

On the contrary - those are the planes that need electronics least.
Those planes can demand a higher workload, since they are flown by
professional crews, and they can demand more finicky maintenance,
since it can effectively be required.  You want electronics to reduce
workload and skill requirements, both in flight and maintenance.  I
think it's absolutely abysmal that modern (as in - built this century)
airplanes don't have idiot lights and do have things like cowl flap,
mixture, and prop controls, EGT's, CHT's, etc.  But with what it costs
to certify anything new, well, it's no surprise.

Go try selling the FAA on the idea of eliminating EGT, CHT, MP, Oil
Temp, Oil Pressure, and Tach in favor of a computer, and they will
simply throw FAR's at you.  EGT (really TIT) required for every
turbocharged engine.  MP required for engines with controllable
props.  CHT required for engines with cowl flaps.  Oil Temp and
Pressure and Tach always required.  By regulation.  That's all there
is to it.  You're not going to replace that with a %Power gauge and
idiot lights, but really you should be able to.  Then the idiot light
could tell you to land and check the engine.

>=A0Given
> that GA planes can be asked to sit, unflown, in a hangar for extended
> periods and then be called on to fly a cross country trip, I think
> that absolute reliability is the #1 factor over all else when it comes
> to making choices about the powerplant and control surfaces that keep
> the plane off the ground.

Sure - and reliability at reasonable cost comes only from technology.
If the cost is not reasonable, it hardly matters how reliable it is -
because it won't get manufactured in any reasonable quantity, the
fleet will shrink with the pilot population, and in the end there
won't be any GA left.  Oh, wait...

> Something else that is extremely significant is that in the analog,
> physical world, most things don't fail out of the blue and when they
> do, they don't usually fail completely. =A0You start to get indications
> from the plane that something is having a problem long before it
> actually fails. =A0Computers, on the other hand can go from 100% to 0%
> in the blink of an eye without warning.

Yet somehow in the automotive world, you get lots of wanring that your
computer-controlled engine is failing.  Like idiot lights.  And those
engines are now far more reliable than they were in the analog days.

> to keep GA in the hands of everyday pilots fly-by-wire
> needs to remain in the world of a different kind of plane and pilot.

Actually, I agree with you about FBW - it's not terribly useful for a
light airplane.  Not for reliability reasons, but for cost reasons
it's not terribly practical.  But fully electronic engine controls and
full time autopilots really ought to be standard on a XC machine.

Michael