Car manufacturers and tech companies love touting new technologies that they say were inspired by aviation. Usually, this kind of talk is applied to some sort of new tech that replaces something mechanical with something digital. Or, if you’re in the RV world, perhaps it’s a manufacturer claiming that their coach is built like a plane. But as cool as it sounds to have airplane-inspired tech, there is one caveat.
The first commercial airliner to take to the skies with a digital fly-by-wire system was the Airbus A320 narrowbody in 1987 (the earlier Concorde had an analog fly-by-wire system). The Airbus system not only enables pilots to fly with a digital stick, but also has baked-in protections programmed to keep the aircraft within a safe envelope. Boeing launched its own system very soon after with the 777 widebody. It’s really cool technology that has proven quite reliable.
The auto industry has seen its own digital control enhancements from drive-by-wire throttle to Tesla’s steer-by-wire system. Now, as Thomas writes, Brembo’s Sensify and ZF’s EMB tease a future of brake-by-wire in cars. I think -Tom- has a helpful reminder about these technologies:
Engineer here,
People always like to point to airplanes as an excuse to do fly-by-wire stuff. What they dont consider is that airplanes make Landcruisers look like unreliable turds. The engineered lifespan, REQUIRED service intervals, and redundancy to make these as reliable as they would be on airplanes would make them entirely unaffordable on cars.
IF we can treat them like planes and ground cars that havent been serviced, then I’d be all for it. Unfortunately, that wont happen.
This is true. Airplanes have fascinating and ridiculous levels of redundancies and strict maintenance. Planes basically have redundancies for their redundancies!
Sid Bridge brings a more silly take:
Brakes are vital to your car’s safety and one failure could mean a pretty dramatic death. That’s why you should trust your braking needs to experts at Lucas Electronics.
Today, Mark Tucker has asked you to make a choice between a 1992 BMW 850i that overheats or a 1984 Bitter SC that may never run again. Along with Martin, Dutch Gunderson, Lana and Sally Decker says:
Nope. I’m not choosing between stepping on a LEGO or stepping on a LEGO with my other foot.
I’m not going to lie, I excitedly clicked on today’s Shitbox Showdown thinking Mark found a terrific deal on an 850i. No, he only found a down payment to future misery.
Finally, we get a lot of silly emails in our inbox and Jason just had to write a hilarious post about the forklift warning light market. Username Loading…. thinks something is suspicious:
This just seems like propaganda by big forklift warning light.
Beto O’Kitty:
Or The Deep Light State!
Username Loading….:
Maybe the illumin-ati.
Have a great evening, everyone!
Top graphic image: depositphotos.com
Cleetus McFarland bought an abandoned helicopter and had it restored. The process was on an entirely different level than having a car restored. If you’re into aircraft, it’s a really awesome series of videos and totally worth watching.
Came up through the steel and specialty metals industry. The quality, etc… documentation needed by the car industry is intense, more so for aerospace. Don’t even start on the nuclear…
Tom is absolutely right. I’ve seen components for both the automotive and aerospace industries and the difference is stark. A component that provides the same basic functionality can cost 100x for the aerospace version vs. the automotive. Some of that is just economies of scale (aircraft might require 100s to low thousands of a component, autos can be millions) but most of it is down to the documentation, testing, and other requirements that just aren’t needed on a car.
You could build a car using aircraft grade systems, but no one outside of a few billionaires would pay for it.
I dunno… the York A/C compressor on a Jillion cars is the same as the York A/C compressor in a bunch of Lear Jets, except the Lear Jet part has an FAA sticker on it and a price commensurate to an aircraft part. And it will be a rebuilt part if being replaced.
Liability
It sounds like you have a good knowledge of aviation like I do (A+P plus DC3,DC-9 B747-100/200 type ratings)and we all know everything in aviation requires a traceability to know who and what to blame if something happens.Hence the signatures on everything from anything maintenance related to flight releases for each 121 flight.
A lifelong fascination with flight and aircraft, but I only got as far as my solo. I did, however, frequent the same bar as some airport rats. We got to swap stories about how out of touch aircraft owners and car owners seemed to be.
The best story I got out of them was about a Lear Jet owner doing maintenance that he legally could. The guy did a wheel bearing repack with regular auto wheel bearing grease, with no consideration for ambient temps at altitude. Upon landing, the wheels wouldn’t spin, the tires blew out and a big bunch of damage was done… but he saved money for a short time.
The last half of the last sentence says it all.
Congrats on your solo flight,are you going to take it up again?
That was in the late ’70’s. I’m kinda aged out now, but still watching what goes on with Ultra Light and Light Sport. Age also brought The Generational Transfer of Wealth, so things are actually somewhat affordable.
Probably 42 cents
(A+P plus DC3,DC-9 B747-100/200 type ratings)
Oh my gosh, that might be one of the coolest resumes I’ve ever read on this website.
Oh I’m sure there’s some crossover on non-critical systems like that. But I’m talking about stuff that’s safety critical. For safety critical system on an aircraft there are multiple redundancies, and critical components of it have traceability all the way back to where the raw material came from. There are stacks of qualification reports, test data, etc. to back it all up, which all costs time and money to produce.
Auto grade parts don’t do that. In your example Lear likely flowed down a bunch of reporting requirements and other stuff to the compressor maker to comply with aerospace quality standards. The compressor manufacturer priced doing all that into the part cost, which Lear then likely marks up quite a bit for spares.
The auto version likely has different documentation and test requirements, but doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an inferior part.
It does depend on the application to some extent -for instance jet engine shafts typically have requirements to only be made on specifically approved individual pieces of equipment – and getting approval for say, a new vacuum re-melting furnace can take years.
Not to mention the software controlling these systems. There’s no DO-178B requirement for the software in cars. It costs a TON of money (money well spent IMHO) to accomplish the requirements traceability, testing, and audits needed for flight critical software in aviation.
I wonder if Eldolf – “move fast and break things” Musk subscribes to the process?
“Planes basically have redundancies for their redundancies!”
Except for the MCAS in the 737 Maxes, which took its readings from a single AoA vane, and we all know how that ended.
If I am not wrong, Boeing made the system that would provide assistance on the MCAS an option. It is a matter of time until they figure out the subscription model in the same way automakers do today.
Along with the fuel surcharge, you’ll start to see the crash avoidance insurance surcharge to your ticket.
“Would you like your flight to avoid slamming into the side of a mountain? That’ll be extra”
No, they made an angle of attack readout in the cockpit an option.
Ah, good point! Well, at least now the MAX planes no longer read from just one vane. You’d think that after a century of aviation safety written in blood this wouldn’t have been a problem, but here we are…
“We can save 0.5% of the build cost eliminating redundancy. After all, we haven’t had an issue in decades!”
It’s like that dipshit who ran OceanGate. “All these regulations are too burdensome! There has been a submarine failure in forever.”
Gonna be some fingerpointing when one of Eldolfs Roman candles roasts a crew or bystander. Hard to blame that on the other guy … but they’ll try.
Iirc there was a question about how far i would have to drive before opting for a flight…
The issue was that MCAS as originally designed did not have enough control authority to cause much of an issue. It was originally JUST meant to counter the slightly stronger pitch-up under throttle that the larger engines could cause under certain conditions, and the aerodynamic effects of them that caused non-linear control feel (a certification issue, if defintiely not a problem for any pilot qualified to fly one in the first place). But somewhere along the line it was decided that they could ALSO use it to implement something like the stall protection that Airbus’ FBW has natively. Which required MUCH more control authority. But never went back to consider that adding that additional authority required adding MUCH more redundancy to the system. And nobody caught that (or at least nobody did anything about it).
All fixed now, but another lesson written in blood.
My rule of thumb is ~500 miles one way. At $0.70/mile, drive every time.
Does Tom’s approach work given that Toyotas are already grounded to the ground?
I could never even aspire to make COTD… so many witty folks around here!
Have a little Pride –
Maybe go to the Festiva?
SHO them the ways.