Fly-by-Wireless Plane Takes to the Sky 376
galactic_grub writes to tell us that engineers in Portugal have built and flown a plane with no wires or mechanical connections between the major systems, only a wireless network. From the article: "Tests flights carried out in Portugal have shown that the system works well. Cristina Santos, at Minho University in Portugal, who developed the plane, says the aim is primarily to reduce weight and power requirements. 'Also, if you do not have the cables then the system is much more flexible to changes,' she says."
Holy Crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
PS - I note the next story on the front page is "IT: Wireless Security Attacks and Defenses." Coincidence? I think not
Do we really need this? (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 Neat, -1 Impractical (Score:5, Insightful)
That's also my concern. A high powered transmitter is a lot easier to attack a plane with than a shoulder mounted rocket. (Which simply doesn't have the same range as a high powered transmitter.) A truck with a few generators in series would make for an excellent jamming platform.
There's also the concern of an onboard terrorist using implementation flaws to hack the airplane. The crew would have a deuce of a time trying to understand why they're locked out of their controls.
Some planes, such as the Boeing 777 even use optical fibres, which can carry multiple signals through a single cable.
IMNO, this makes a lot more sense. Optical busses between the necessary components are fast, lightweight, and easy to install. I can't see wireless saving more than a few kilograms over fibre connections.
That being said, in-flight entertainment systems might save weight if they weren't wired up. Running fibre for such systems results in a lot of unnecessary wiring and weight. Since the entertainment system is effectively a low-security system, airplane makers can feel free to use these linkages as long as the control systems remain wired.
She also admits that stringent aviation regulations may mean the technology first appears in cars rather than planes.
That makes even less sense. AFAIK, the horrid nests of wires that previously ran all of a car's electronics have been replaced by more standardized busses. The remaining wiring merely hooks a cars features into the power system. Unless I missed something, Bluetooth can not wirelessly provide power to accessories. Which means that they can't replace the wiring in cars anyway.
Hopefully we'll see this technology help with UAVs and other super-light aircraft. But I have no desire to fly on a plane that has its key systems hooked up through a technology that can be potentially interfered with by the cellphones the passengers are carrying.
Security concerns (Score:3, Insightful)
Securing the network should be doable, but preventing jamming may be the problem that prevents this from becoming a real system.
no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that every RF technology I've ever worked with has been imperfect, I'd hesitate to ride (or even fly) a wireless network controlled plane.
Here are some of the wireless technologies I know:
She states she is working on the reliability problem. I wonder if it's possible to solve (any EEs out there to chime in?). I used to work for a telcom, and they always had an interesting poster up describing what 99.99% accuracy meant. The most interesting representation: if commercial jets took off and landed at that rate of effieciency, there would be a failure every 10,000 landings/takeoffs. For the sake of simplifying, if there were 5,000 flights a day, that would be 10,000 landings plus takeoffs implying a statistical expectation of failure each day.
I don't know to what level RF can be perfected without some backup system (also RF) that would guarantee perfection but if they ever start flying those suckers, I'm going to wait a while before I board one.
Re:Holy Crap! (Score:2, Insightful)
Composites (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have to run power lines anyway, then just string the fiber along with the power line. Fiber isn't significantly affected by EMI, so what would it matter...
You have brought up an additional point though... If a plane needs to have power in both the front and back, then what is someone going to do without wires? Batteries located everywhere power is needed? That pretty much trashes the whole "weight saving" aspect of this project.
Or maybe some sort of microwave transmission of power from the front of the plane to the back... The upside to that is that anyone sitting in the middle of the plane wouldn't need a blanket to stay warm.
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Could actually improve safety (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you have a physical connection from point A to point B, it is vulnerable to the most brute-force of DOS attacks: cut the connection and it's lost. A wireless link between the pilot and the control surfaces, on the other hand, can't be cut by a fire in the cargo hold, or even by a shoulder-fired missle (as long as it missed the kablooie stuff).
In a real-world application, I'd expect both wired/optical links *and* wireless backup links. Such a fully redundant system would work both as a sanity check (both systems should be reporting the same results) and as a backup (wired works when wireless is jammed, wireless works when wire is cut).
Plus, I can hardly wait for the netstumbler/kismet folks to write a monitor program to let me monitor things from the comfort of my tray table (on the emergency exit row, of course).
Re:Composites (Score:3, Insightful)
I fly RC airplanes, on the net I hang out at rcgroups.com, wattflyer.com, and just generally browse here and there for info.
I'm a little lazy to look it up ATM, but one of the things folks that build rc planes use is carbon fiber rods to stiffen the wings. One of the drawbacks to CF though is it blocks RF. So when you're running your antenna wire, it's best to run it as far away from your CF rod as possible to avoid blackout areas.
The idea of an RF control system inside of a CF plane is scary. Especially after how many horror stories i've heard from my fellow RC pilots about their RX suddenly cutting out because they didn't take proper precautions with the CF.
Re:Worst. Idea. Ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought most production wired systems had (triple?) redundancy. If you could replace at least some of the "backup" wires with a wireless system, you might still save some weight.
Great Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course if you have the kind of damage that would cut electrical lines, you'll probably have lost hydraulics as well which isn't going to be fixed with a wireless network.
Re:+1 Neat, -1 Impractical (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid solution, but going in right direction (Score:3, Insightful)
What they are doing, however, is separating the concept of control system from a bunch of wires down to a single signal containing a data stream.
When they figure out how vulnerable this is (and trust me, they will), they will try to figure out some other ways to deliver the data packets to the rest of the plane--at this point the design of microcontrollers at every interface point will have been completed and so all it will take is simply modifying the transport mechanism.
They will probably, at this point, figure out that a few fiber cables (say between 2 and 8 in redundant loops that each connect to every system like SONET) can deliver the signal just as easily and with little additional weight over wireless, and on top of that is virtually unhackable without physical access--even safer than copper.
Just give 'em time.
Re:Composites (Score:2, Insightful)
did i miss something here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could actually improve safety (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose you could have small batteries at every control surface, but that would increase weight and add to maintenance costs.
So let me get this straight: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do we really need this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, a signal cable in an aircraft really does weigh 'that much'. A signal cable must be protected; fuel, weather and physical damage are all problems for signaling mediums in aircraft. Solution? Conduits, seals and other bulk. The armor needed to protect cables (optical or otherwise) is substantial; a length of fiber optic cable may not simply rattle around in the fuselage or wing like it might in your premises wiring plenums.
I doubt this is viable for passenger aircraft. The risk of interference is simply too high; commercial airliners are expected to take lightning strikes as they fly in and near electrical storms. Military aircraft must tolerate hostile attacks on signaling systems, particularly radio systems.
On the other hand, there are a large and growing number of UAV applications for which this is probably well suited. UAV loiter time is a high priority; less weight translates directly to better performance. UAV maintenance and repair could be greatly simplified by eliminating signal cables throughout the vehicle.
Don't forget about... (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't respect old mechanical controls, but they have one enviable attribute in that wear can be detected and measured before a failure occurs. All it requires is that someone pays attention. My JD-2 is wide open and I can inspect anything with nothing more than a hand mirror taped to a stick. Electric controls might be lighter than the 1"x.065 4130 tube running the length of the plane, but I'd never be able to feel the play increasing in a joystick.