Re: Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 3:45?pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 19, 2:45?pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > > > In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jun 19, 1:35?pm, j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > > > > I guess that's reasonable. It is conceivable that typical Cessna
willl
> > > > > look the same in 2108 as it does in 2008.
> > > > > How about 2508?
> >
> > > > Like they do now.
> >
> > > > > Will the typical Cessna (or whatever dominant GA manufacturer
make)
> > > > > look roughly the same in 2508 as it does in 2008, using
essentially
> > > > > the same mechanical controls (wires, pulleys, bellcranks, etc.)
> >
> > > > Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
> > > > gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
> > > > Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
> > > > craft.
> > > Or jet engines.
> >
> > So you think small GA aircraft will look like jet engines?

> No.  I do not know what they will look like.

> > The jet engine was invented over 50 years ago and there are jet
engines
> > in production from the giant ones that power the Airbus all the way
> > down to tiny little ones for model airplanes.
> >
> > If you knew anything about the typical GA aircraft mission and how
> > engines actually work, you would know why a turbine of any kind would
> > be the worst possible choice for most GA aircraft of any engine
> > currently in production.
> >
> > > > The basic problems of small, propellor driven aircraft with
aerodynamic
> > > > control surfaces were solved about 80 years ago and the physics is
> > > > immutable.
> > > The physics of what?
> >
> > Subsonic, propellor driven flight.
> >
> > > There is physics, and there is propellor-driven aircraft.
> > > If you mean physics-physics is immutable I agree (Newtonian
physics).
> > > If me mean that physics of propellor-driven aircraft is mostly
> > > understood, I would have to agree (with some exception).
> >
> > Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.

> Probably.  But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
> some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift.  Which
> of these do we believe?

Nope.

Only arm chair physicists disagree.

> > > If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
> > > contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
> > > Newtonian physics, I disagree.
> >
> > Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
> > exists.

> That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

Which is why:

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.



-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.