This Skyward post was contributed by George Kiefer, vice president of Avionics, North America for GE Aviation

Today is an exciting day for any aviation fan as Boeing marks its first delivery of the 787 Dreamliner to ANA. GE Aviation supplies the common core system and the landing gear actuation, indication and nose wheel steering systems on the 787 delivered to ANA today.

GE Aviation’s common core system (CCS) provides the primary computing environment for the Dreamliner.  The remote data concentrators (RDC) are designed to consolidate inputs from the aircraft’s systems and sensors and distribute it via the aircraft’s avionics full duplex switched Ethernet network. GE developed the common core system on the Wind River VxWorks 653 partitioned operating environment. The CCS is designed, manufactured and tested at GE’s facilities in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cheltenham, UK.

GE’s integrated landing gear system controls the deployment and retraction of the aircraft landing gears, including the nose landing gear steering. In addition to the normal package of mechanical hardware, GE provides the flight deck interfaces and local control electronics.  The program is supported by GE’s facilities in Washington State and in the UK.

This is only the beginning for Boeing 787 customers and their passengers to experience the greatest technology and improved passenger comfort on the most advanced aircraft in the world.  We are eager to support 787 customers for many years as passenger traffic increases and we help airlines grow their fleets.

Best,
George

As I mentioned in my first post, aircraft health management systems have enjoyed much attention in the recent past. One particular trend within those systems that has become even more apparent lately is the need to extract the aircraft data seamlessly and…oh yes, in real-time.

Needless to say that in today’s world we’ve become very much accustomed to obtaining data (news, songs, videos, etc…) with the snap of our fingers. One need only think of the last time that we *didn’t* have access to the internet to realize just how much our individual expectations for obtaining data “now” have changed.

However, the aviation world has somewhat suffered from a lack of viable offerings from the standpoints of coverage and speed. Sure, 3G, 4G and Wi-Fi are all great, but you won’t have access to any of those at Flight Levels. On one of my recent outings, I was able to get a couple of bars on my cell phone while flying at 700ft AGL, but I would hardly qualify that as a ubiquitous service. So the question is: how do we harness the full power of today’s diagnostics and prognostics solutions by transferring the data to the ground in real time, even when flying at 30000ft? That’s where hybrid installations come into play: these solutions essentially rely on 3G, 4G and Wi-Fi while the aircraft is on ground, while letting air links do the heavy lifting when the aircraft is flying. Hopefully we’re all familiar with the former technologies; whereas the latter ones may merit some discussions.

Air link solutions come in two broad categories:

• Satellite solutions: a handful of industrious operators are offering satellite constellations for use in everything from downloading weather information to, yes, uploading aircraft data. To date, satellite offerings lag far behind home high speed connections (we’re still talking kbps at best, in case you’re wondering), so you won’t be streaming any YouTube^TM videos on those pipes, but for the transmission of key aircraft data they have proven to be remarkably efficient channels.
• Air-to-ground (ATG) solutions: For most people flying commercially over the continental United States, this is likely what they have witnessed if they decided to take advantage of internet access on their flights. These connections are much faster and, to simplify the concept a bit, they essentially boil down to cell phone-like towers pointing upwards: you connect to a wireless router located in the aircraft and that router then retransmits the information to ground-based towers. Speeds are much higher, but here’s the downside: they are air-to-ground solutions, with emphasis on “ground”. This is great if you’re flying from, say, Chicago to Indianapolis. Not so much if you’re flying from NYC to Heathrow, where the majority of your flight will be spent over an ocean with no transmitting/receiving tower beneath you.

Due to each solution’s shortcomings (coverage, speed), the industry appears to be trending towards installing hybrid solutions where both ground- and air-based solutions are installed on the same aircraft. But there is one more reason for that: financial. Satellite and ATG solutions may be available at 30000ft, but they are not cheap. Granted, prices have dropped significantly in the last decade, but I would argue that they are still not within reach of the broader GA population. Bizjets and commercial aviation may have the means to absorb the costs, but on an uneventful flight is it really necessary to download Kb or Mb of data while the aircraft is flying, or can it wait until the aircraft is at an FBO and within reach of a cheaper 3G signal? The question of course is rhetorical: the market has already answered it by adopting the aforementioned hybrid solution – Satellite or ATG links to transmit critical data while flying, Wi-Fi or 3G/4G to transmit the rest of the data while on ground.

Regardless, I think that some of the developments in real-time aircraft communications have been nothing short of remarkable. I am particularly excited about the relatively recent announcements of Ku- and Ka-band technologies that promise to revolutionize the way we think about real-time in aircraft applications.

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject. Have you had any experience with in-flight connectivity? What do you think of the adoption of hybrid solutions for aircraft health management?

Cheers,

Raf.

No doubt the US and other countries are increasing their quantities and capabilities of UAV fleets. What’s striking to me is how quickly the convergence is happening between the total fleet sizes of traditional tactical aircraft (e.g., USN F/A-18 “Hornet”) and larger UAVs (e.g., MQ-9 “Reaper”).  In a presentation given earlier this year, Hal Chrisman (Principal, AeroStrategy) points out that this convergence is forecasted to occur by 2020 (link to source).

Figure 1: US fighter and UAV fleet growth[1]

The quantities of aircraft used in the comparison are as “apples-to-apples” as possible (micro UAVs are excluded, for example), though one could still argue that no current UAV can match the capabilities of any tactical manned aircraft in our inventory. However, I think the point is more around the focus that aviation leadership in our armed forces has in preparing for the future military strategies. Clearly, a much greater emphasis is being placed now, and will continue to be placed in the future, on developing UAV capabilities that will both supplement and compete with traditional manned tactical aircraft.

An argument could even be made that the forecasted convergence may in fact occur earlier than 2020. With Congress set to reduce the Pentagon’s budget by $330B over the next 10 years and the possibility of an additional $500B if the super committee cannot reach an agreement by the end of this year, certain military programs will undoubtedly feel the pinch. One program clearly in the crosshairs is JSF. A very probable outcome is that the US and our partner countries will procure less F-35s than previously thought, thus accelerating the convergence as F-35 alternatives (i.e., UAVs) fill the gap.

It will be incumbent upon military and industry leadership alike to ensure overall capabilities are not in any way compromised by uncertainty around JSF procurement. I, for one, am confident we will find a solution, regardless of when and how the convergence happens. Someday in the not-too-distant future, my kids will be amazed that their father actually flew inside a fighter.

Fly safe,

Marc

[1] Excludes micro-UAVs

As the Boeing 787 gets ready to enter service at All Nippon Airways (ANA) in September, Let’s take a look at this “more electric” aircraft.

Over the years, the demand for electrical power increases as new technologies such as fly-by-wire (FBW), digital avionics, and in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems are introduced.  This is in addition to other power demand increases, such as the on-going change from hydraulic and pneumatic systems to electrically powered systems. When you look at 787, which is a replacement for a Boeing 767-sized aircraft, it’s amazing to see that it will generate five times the electrical power than its predecessor!

The source for the electrical power data is from Frost & Sullivan

When Boeing started designing the 787, they decided to depart from the traditional architecture and go with a “no-bleed” design. Boeing claims that the new system would provide improved fuel consumption, reduced maintenance costs, improved reliability, and reduced number of components

Boeing achieved this by removing bleed air extraction from the engine (making it more efficient!), and instead driving the environmental control system (ECS) and anti-ice system electrically. Boeing also removed air turbines that traditionally drive part of the hydraulic system, so the hydraulic system is all electrically driven. Finally the auxiliary power units (APUs) on the 787 provide only electricity, as opposed to pneumatic and electrical power from other APU’s.

It is interesting to note that when Airbus launched the A350 XWB, they decided not to follow suit and retained the more conventional bleed architecture. Did Boeing make the right decision by adopting the no-bleed system, or did Airbus make the right move by staying with the current system? Given that both Airbus and Boeing have decided to re-engine rather than design a new narrowbody aircraft, we will have to wait to see the verdict.

For more details, you can take a look at this article form Boeing.

-Jimmy