[n_ermosh]

The core innovation here is the fly-by-wire/simplified control scheme. This doesn't exist in any GA aircraft.

As our system has been developed so far, it has negligible impact on the speed and usable load of a base TSi, costing $500k for everything.

[tass]

How do you deal with failures of the control scheme?

You mentioned elsewhere that redundancy means this is unlikely, but is there ever a reversion to "direct law"? Does the plane still have manual trim/rudder/throttle to deal with this, and are the pilots expected to periodically practice using the controls in "direct law"?

Do you have a working plane available for a test flight? :)

[n_ermosh]

You can revert to a "direct law" in an emergency should multiple faults occur that reduce the capability of the flight controller. However, there's a question of is that the right move--if a pilot isn't regularly practiced in flying in a direct control, its probably more dangerous to revert to direct law than to say, pull the parachute, so it would be up to the pilot to determine the best course of action. The system would still be fully "by wire" though, there isn't a mechanical link between the pilot and surfaces/throttle. But, in such a mode, the flight controller is bypassed and the yoke directly commands the actuators, reducing the number of fault points between the pilot's input and the actuator.

We've flown early versions in an test aircraft that we have and are currently integrating the latest version of Airhart Assist (seen in the video) into the Airhart Sling prototype to be flying and giving demos by the end of the year.

[tass]

Thanks for the reply. I'd love to try out the different modes at some point.