Anyone else thinks that in 50 years time, bluetooth will be used instead of
FBW for the engine and flap controll?
How much weight would one save if all the FBW was taken out of a B744 and
replaced with bluetooth?
Link www.bluetooth.org
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20367
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Hmmmm.
Nope, don't see it.
Server environments don't use wireless technologies either, because they are subject to interference.
Nope, don't see it.
Server environments don't use wireless technologies either, because they are subject to interference.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Surely not mature, yet. But 50 years is a long time, especially in the aviation
industry.
industry.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20367
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Ok, never say never, but I still don't see it. Wireless is too easy to disrupt. What could happen is wireless optical signaling, but even there, fiberoptics are cheap and easy.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Just found this, ABB is developing a system called Wisa for robots, could cut
down on, maintaince, production cost and weight?
Link to Wisa http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&url=/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/574AED82D6569121C1256DF9004C60C2!OpenDocument
down on, maintaince, production cost and weight?
Link to Wisa http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&url=/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/574AED82D6569121C1256DF9004C60C2!OpenDocument
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Right now the hackers in Europe are messing with viruses that infect bluetooth enabled phones, and this has just come over to the US. Until the system can be completely protected from the antics of some 19 year old anarchist with a computer and a phone, we need to keep the avionics and control systems self-contained. I don't see how we can keep the nuts off the net in a free society, nor am I willing to go to a police state, so there we are. Keep the things fibre optic or electronic.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
DI021, perhaps it could first be used on cargo planes, so you avoid passengers with cell-phones that interfere the new technology?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9307
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
For one thing, I'd be suprised if Bluetooth is still around in ten years. I have both a laptop and a cellphone with Bluetooth, and I've never seen the use in it. Maybe if I buy an Acura TL I'd get some use out of the cellphone Bluetooth, but I'm not holding my breath.
How much weight would one save if all the FBW was taken out of a B744 and
replaced with bluetooth?
Well... the Boeing 747-400 isn't a FBW aircraft. It uses mechanical/hydraulic signaling like its predicesor. The only Boeing aircraft with full FBW at this time is the 777. Some aircraft, like the 767, has electronically controled airleons, but not full FBW.
As it is, FBW is incredibly light. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the IFE system weights more than the FBW system. Wireless IFE wouldn't be a stretch, and we could see it in the 7E7, it would also make seat instillation a snap: just plug in a power cord and the seat-back unit wirelessly connects to the aircraft intranet.
Ok, never say never, but I still don't see it. Wireless is too easy to disrupt.
Yeah I agree, fiber optics is probably the way to go for FBW. Fly by light
How much weight would one save if all the FBW was taken out of a B744 and
replaced with bluetooth?
Well... the Boeing 747-400 isn't a FBW aircraft. It uses mechanical/hydraulic signaling like its predicesor. The only Boeing aircraft with full FBW at this time is the 777. Some aircraft, like the 767, has electronically controled airleons, but not full FBW.
As it is, FBW is incredibly light. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the IFE system weights more than the FBW system. Wireless IFE wouldn't be a stretch, and we could see it in the 7E7, it would also make seat instillation a snap: just plug in a power cord and the seat-back unit wirelessly connects to the aircraft intranet.
Ok, never say never, but I still don't see it. Wireless is too easy to disrupt.
Yeah I agree, fiber optics is probably the way to go for FBW. Fly by light
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
I forgot, the A320 flew first time in 1988 and B744 in 1989, mixed them up.
It´s not only the FBW that are replaced by the ABB system, power also (guess
Nicola Tesla wasn´t wrong?). So I still think there´s weight to be saved.
Safety issue is the main problem, probably cargo operations first?
It´s not only the FBW that are replaced by the ABB system, power also (guess
Nicola Tesla wasn´t wrong?). So I still think there´s weight to be saved.
Safety issue is the main problem, probably cargo operations first?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
alessandro Cargo planes fall just as quick as pax planes. I was talking about the ability to hack into wireless systems in general, not just cell phones.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Lots of people use Bluetooth. Half of them don't even realize it.
In any event, the range and security are insufficient for control systems. I have heard of the idea of wireless systems possibly being used for IFE or in-flight Internet access, but that's a different matter entirely.
In any event, the range and security are insufficient for control systems. I have heard of the idea of wireless systems possibly being used for IFE or in-flight Internet access, but that's a different matter entirely.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
-Donny Miller
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
So car factories risk their expensive robots with this technology, does it show that the technology is getting more mature? Surely cargo planes fall as fast as passenger planes, but less people are allowed to get near cargo planes than
passengerp planes...
passengerp planes...
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
So car factories risk their expensive robots with this technology, does it show that the technology is getting more mature?
I don't see the comparison between car factories and aircraft.
Car factories are in a fixed location. The technology doesn't have to deal with a constantly changing environment as it would if it were installed on an airplane.
If a bluetooth system were to fail or suffer from interference in a factory yes that would lead to expensive delays but not nearly as costly as the results of an airline crash taking with it 300+souls.
Car factories are not nearly as likely to be a target of sabotage as an airliner or, a cargo aircraft for that matter. Again no deaths would result at the car factory only economic losses.
Some form of wireless control (bluetooth doesn't have the range) on AC is technically feasible but I don't think the safety factor is acceptable for use on AC.
Surely cargo planes fall as fast as passenger planes, but less people are allowed to get near cargo planes than
passengerp planes...
This is true, but I doubt it is of much comfort to those who have been killed by crashing cargo planes.
Dl757md
I don't see the comparison between car factories and aircraft.
Car factories are in a fixed location. The technology doesn't have to deal with a constantly changing environment as it would if it were installed on an airplane.
If a bluetooth system were to fail or suffer from interference in a factory yes that would lead to expensive delays but not nearly as costly as the results of an airline crash taking with it 300+souls.
Car factories are not nearly as likely to be a target of sabotage as an airliner or, a cargo aircraft for that matter. Again no deaths would result at the car factory only economic losses.
Some form of wireless control (bluetooth doesn't have the range) on AC is technically feasible but I don't think the safety factor is acceptable for use on AC.
Surely cargo planes fall as fast as passenger planes, but less people are allowed to get near cargo planes than
passengerp planes...
This is true, but I doubt it is of much comfort to those who have been killed by crashing cargo planes.
Dl757md
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
During the early days of FBW namely the 1980ies and the A320, a lot of people where against it and 2 horrible crashes happened. Nowadays it´s accepted, so I guess only time will
tell, but as long as weight and maintaince savings are possible I think new
technology will be implemented in commercial aircrafts.
tell, but as long as weight and maintaince savings are possible I think new
technology will be implemented in commercial aircrafts.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
FBW was developed and widely implemented successfully in military AC before commercial AC. I don't know of any current experiments in FBWireless let alone widespread implementation.
To give you my answer on your original post, I think that FBL(fly by light) using a grid of fibre optic filaments incorporated as structural fibers in the composite structure of an AC is what we'll see in 50 years. Same weight and MX savings as FBWireless with no possibility of outside interference.
Perhaps we may see a combination of the two backing each other up? Hmmmm
BTW Alessandro, I love your country. I spent a week in Falun at the 1986 Junior World Biathlon Championships. Beautiful country. Great people.
To give you my answer on your original post, I think that FBL(fly by light) using a grid of fibre optic filaments incorporated as structural fibers in the composite structure of an AC is what we'll see in 50 years. Same weight and MX savings as FBWireless with no possibility of outside interference.
Perhaps we may see a combination of the two backing each other up? Hmmmm
BTW Alessandro, I love your country. I spent a week in Falun at the 1986 Junior World Biathlon Championships. Beautiful country. Great people.
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20367
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
For one thing, I'd be suprised if Bluetooth is still around in ten years. I have both a laptop and a cellphone with Bluetooth, and I've never seen the use in it
Guess it depends who you are. I use it every day when I travel, so I can surf using GPRS in my phone linked with Bluetooth. I also do SMS and dial and surf on my Palm with Bluetooth. Loooooove Bluetooth. I can have my phone at the other end of the room and still surf. I know it sounds silly, but it's amazing how spoiled you become with wireless technology.
Anyway, I think Bluetooth is here to stay. It's coming in cars and other things. However, I agree that in 10 years BT will be superceded.
I guess signaling (at least for less critical systems) may change towards a bus model, like in computers or some cards. Instead of dedicated circuits for every system, the signals will share a bus.
But considering the amount of money to change from a tried and true system (just look at the time it took to get FBW into the mainstream) this will take a long time.
Guess it depends who you are. I use it every day when I travel, so I can surf using GPRS in my phone linked with Bluetooth. I also do SMS and dial and surf on my Palm with Bluetooth. Loooooove Bluetooth. I can have my phone at the other end of the room and still surf. I know it sounds silly, but it's amazing how spoiled you become with wireless technology.
Anyway, I think Bluetooth is here to stay. It's coming in cars and other things. However, I agree that in 10 years BT will be superceded.
I guess signaling (at least for less critical systems) may change towards a bus model, like in computers or some cards. Instead of dedicated circuits for every system, the signals will share a bus.
But considering the amount of money to change from a tried and true system (just look at the time it took to get FBW into the mainstream) this will take a long time.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Never heard about FBL before, thanks for the info.
So it´s only the electricity cord that would be saved then with ABBs Wisa system, still a bit of cord and weight but perhaps not worth it?
I think first flight with FBW was back in 1972 by the USAF?
So it´s only the electricity cord that would be saved then with ABBs Wisa system, still a bit of cord and weight but perhaps not worth it?
I think first flight with FBW was back in 1972 by the USAF?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
So it´s only the electricity cord that would be saved then with ABBs Wisa system, still a bit of cord and weight but perhaps not worth it?
To quote from the ABB website "The Heidelberg installation is proof of the excellence of the technology – and strong motivation for ABB to continue ridding plants and process facilities around the world of annoying cables."
So, yes the cables are the only savings in FBWireless. That's not a trivial amount of weight for an aircraft though and the technology should be pursued, it's just that wireless security issues(of which FBL has none) may not be able to be overcome.
Dl757md
To quote from the ABB website "The Heidelberg installation is proof of the excellence of the technology – and strong motivation for ABB to continue ridding plants and process facilities around the world of annoying cables."
So, yes the cables are the only savings in FBWireless. That's not a trivial amount of weight for an aircraft though and the technology should be pursued, it's just that wireless security issues(of which FBL has none) may not be able to be overcome.
Dl757md
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Not so fast with Bluetooth. As a wireless technology it is inherently less secure than wired technology.
Next time flying DTW-NRT on a new "Bluetooth enabled B744", one migh find a new piece of HW installed on the notebook. See
Next time flying DTW-NRT on a new "Bluetooth enabled B744", one migh find a new piece of HW installed on the notebook. See
The Widget Air Line :)
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
For one thing, I'd be suprised if Bluetooth is still around in ten years. I have both a laptop and a cellphone with Bluetooth, and I've never seen the use in it
Bluetooth is the next thing. EVERYTHING will use bluetooth in the future...
...but not an airliner's control system.
Firstly, Bluetooth hasn't enough range to cover a whole large airliner.
Secondly, Bluetooth and personal wireless technologies are not suitable for guaranteed delivery, real time data upon which people's lives are dependent, without a wired backup available (i.e. hospitals). Even a solar flare would disrupt Bluetooth to the point of possible signal degradation.
If you have a wired backup, you lose the advantage of going wireless in the first place when you're talking about saving weight on an aircraft.
N
Bluetooth is the next thing. EVERYTHING will use bluetooth in the future...
...but not an airliner's control system.
Firstly, Bluetooth hasn't enough range to cover a whole large airliner.
Secondly, Bluetooth and personal wireless technologies are not suitable for guaranteed delivery, real time data upon which people's lives are dependent, without a wired backup available (i.e. hospitals). Even a solar flare would disrupt Bluetooth to the point of possible signal degradation.
If you have a wired backup, you lose the advantage of going wireless in the first place when you're talking about saving weight on an aircraft.
N
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
If you have a wired backup, you lose the advantage of going wireless in the first place when you're talking about saving weight on an aircraft.
Wireless could be used for redundancy. One wired path and one wireless path is still lighter than two wired paths. But I agree in it's present form bluetooth or any other wireless technology currently available is too unreliable for AC control use, even as a backup.
Dl757md
Wireless could be used for redundancy. One wired path and one wireless path is still lighter than two wired paths. But I agree in it's present form bluetooth or any other wireless technology currently available is too unreliable for AC control use, even as a backup.
Dl757md
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9307
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Bluetooth is the next thing. EVERYTHING will use bluetooth in the future...
With the way protocol's change overnight, can you say that with certainty? I have a Dell Pocket PC with WiFi 802.11b, and before the damn thing arrived 802.11g was the next big thing. No worries as they are backwards compatible.. but it proves a point. What's to say Wireless USB won't stamp Bluetooth of the face of the earth?
A wireless FBW system would save next to zero weight. You still need a processing unit in some part of the aircraft, you need a transmitter, and you need a reciever. Fiber optic cable weighs very little, and wireless equipemnt powerful enough to garuntee redundancy and provide jam resistence wouldn't exactly weigh a feather.
And isn't Bluetooth short-ranged? I was under the impression a Bluetooth signal had a range of about 30 feet max. WiFi on the other hand, has a range of a hundred feet or more.
With the way protocol's change overnight, can you say that with certainty? I have a Dell Pocket PC with WiFi 802.11b, and before the damn thing arrived 802.11g was the next big thing. No worries as they are backwards compatible.. but it proves a point. What's to say Wireless USB won't stamp Bluetooth of the face of the earth?
A wireless FBW system would save next to zero weight. You still need a processing unit in some part of the aircraft, you need a transmitter, and you need a reciever. Fiber optic cable weighs very little, and wireless equipemnt powerful enough to garuntee redundancy and provide jam resistence wouldn't exactly weigh a feather.
And isn't Bluetooth short-ranged? I was under the impression a Bluetooth signal had a range of about 30 feet max. WiFi on the other hand, has a range of a hundred feet or more.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Bluetooth is the next thing. EVERYTHING will use bluetooth in the future...
...but not an airliner's control system.
Unreliable, very slow, shit compatability and poor range? Unless there's a dramatic change, Bluetooth won't get beyond mobile phones.
...but not an airliner's control system.
Unreliable, very slow, shit compatability and poor range? Unless there's a dramatic change, Bluetooth won't get beyond mobile phones.
Your bone's got a little machine
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
77236ER
Unless there's a dramatic change, Bluetooth won't get beyond mobile phones.
Looks to me like it's already made it beyond mobile phones.
http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&url=/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/574AED82D6569121C1256DF9004C60C2!OpenDocument
I do agree with you that we won't see it in an airplane's control system any time soon if ever.
Dl757md
Unless there's a dramatic change, Bluetooth won't get beyond mobile phones.
Looks to me like it's already made it beyond mobile phones.
http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/abbzh/abbzh250.nsf&v=553E&e=us&url=/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/574AED82D6569121C1256DF9004C60C2!OpenDocument
I do agree with you that we won't see it in an airplane's control system any time soon if ever.
Dl757md
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
-
- whitehatter
- Posts: 5180
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Unreliable, very slow, shit compatability and poor range? Unless there's a dramatic change, Bluetooth won't get beyond mobile phones.
One good thunderstorm and you are either swimming or parachuting!
In aircraft for control systems? Somehow I think not!
One good thunderstorm and you are either swimming or parachuting!
In aircraft for control systems? Somehow I think not!
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
-
- scottysair
- Posts: 6441
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Yes, if the weather is bad into the cities and you must wait for another flight with connecting on their flight.
-
- VirginFlyer
- Posts: 5571
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
As for the weight issue, I recently read about work being done to integrate fibreoptic cables with composite structures. What this means is that the structure of the aircraft could double as the data path for a Fly-by-Light system. This would certainly be an advance in terms of weight - though servicing it could be tricky...
V/F
V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
though servicing it could be tricky...
What I've read about this actually makes it sound as though service would hardly be necessary. Rather than having a single "cable" you would have a net(think fishing net not ethernet)of fibers throughout the entire structure. The entire net would be connected so that all signals would be transmitted to all points on the net through every possible path. If a fiber were to break - no big deal. You would have an almost infinite number of paths remaining for the signal to get through on. So short of a catastrophic structural failure, control would be maintained. And if perhaps all the fibers degraded over time and the net performance degraded to a certain level, a repair could be accomplished using tape with fiberoptics embedded into it.
There really are an amazing amount of possibilities in applying fly by light.
Dl757md
What I've read about this actually makes it sound as though service would hardly be necessary. Rather than having a single "cable" you would have a net(think fishing net not ethernet)of fibers throughout the entire structure. The entire net would be connected so that all signals would be transmitted to all points on the net through every possible path. If a fiber were to break - no big deal. You would have an almost infinite number of paths remaining for the signal to get through on. So short of a catastrophic structural failure, control would be maintained. And if perhaps all the fibers degraded over time and the net performance degraded to a certain level, a repair could be accomplished using tape with fiberoptics embedded into it.
There really are an amazing amount of possibilities in applying fly by light.
Dl757md
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
-
- Alessandro
- Posts: 4961
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Hmm, I always thought that cutting down on wires would make maintaince easier on an airplane? How much wiring are they on a big plane?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Yeah, imagine booting up your "Windows 2052" notebook when suddenly the message pops-up:
New Bluetooth device found "Boeing 797" Do you want to run auto-configuration now?
[YES] [NO] [CANCEL]
Off course only windows is affected as Apple installed a special "aircraft identification module" on their Powerbook with MacOS XXII preventing these fatal errors
Mario
LH526
New Bluetooth device found "Boeing 797" Do you want to run auto-configuration now?
[YES] [NO] [CANCEL]
Off course only windows is affected as Apple installed a special "aircraft identification module" on their Powerbook with MacOS XXII preventing these fatal errors
Mario
LH526
Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20367
- Joined:
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
"Hmm, I always thought that cutting down on wires would make maintaince easier on an airplane? How much wiring are they on a big plane?"
Hundreds of kilometers. It's pretty amazing.
As for Bluetooth, I find it extremely useful, and it works just fine.
Hundreds of kilometers. It's pretty amazing.
As for Bluetooth, I find it extremely useful, and it works just fine.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
This has to be a joke. Bluetooth range is crap, security is crap, bandwidth is crap.
One of the main aims of Bluetooth was to have something that would be extremely cheap.
Build a $150M plane and spend $3 on a bluetooth transmitter?
Bluetooth is nice for a handsfree kit or synchronizing contacts, but the day they use it to control planes is the day I stop flying, and watch large objects fall from the sky.
To me this whole thread just sounds like a couple of people over-impressed with their new cell phone.
One of the main aims of Bluetooth was to have something that would be extremely cheap.
Build a $150M plane and spend $3 on a bluetooth transmitter?
Bluetooth is nice for a handsfree kit or synchronizing contacts, but the day they use it to control planes is the day I stop flying, and watch large objects fall from the sky.
To me this whole thread just sounds like a couple of people over-impressed with their new cell phone.
RE: Bluetooth Instead Of FBW?
Boeing WILL use wireless technology on the 7E7, although only for non essential things like IFE, lighting controls and PA systems, and not bluetooth.
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 757236, 8herveg, AC_B777, American 767, anymaninfc, Areopagus, B757Forever, Baidu [Spider], bluestreak, BoeingGuy, CALMSP, catdaddy63, Cboyle, ChrisNH38, concordeforever, dallas6940, Delta350, durangomac, Edax, f18raider, FGITD, FluidFlow, gdavis003, georgiabill, gregn21, GSP psgr, gte439u, Harry1301, hoons90, hummingbird, ilovepabst, iluvairplanes99, Ishrion, Jetty, kbmiflyer, Kiwiandrew, kpotennis, lajaca, leo777, LightChop2Chop, MCOAviationFan, Meff56, mjzair, MonAmQB, n6238p, njeinaz, NWADTWE16, paullam, phatfarmlines, qf2048, RedTailDTW, rjbesikof, RJMAZ, Rock3tman, Ronaldo747, sagechan, santi319, Sascha81, SkyLife, SteelChair, supersonicsiggy, timberwolf24, TrafficCop, USPIT10L, vhtje, WAC, Wingtips56, yyztpa2, ZK-NBT and 243 guests