Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 1163490 for rob@logan.com; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:21:19 -0400 Received: from babbler.bmc.com ([198.207.223.231]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:35:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3ALhAr24150 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:43:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pdavis (pdavis@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g3ALdYq12154 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:39:34 -0500 Message-Id: <200204102139.g3ALdYq12154@localhost.localdomain> Pgp-Action: PGP/MIME-signclear; rfc822=off; originator="Paul Davis " From: "Paul Davis" Reply-to: "Paul Davis" Reply-to: lancair.list@olsusa.com To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: Re: Ritchie Electronic Compass In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Apr 2002 04:21:55 PDT." <3CB02BD3.20100@nidlink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:39:33 -0500 Sender: pdavis@pdavis.bmc.com X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I think this is only my second post, so you don't know me or my writing style well. I ask for your patience. I'm not trying to be nasty or argumentative. That said: Hamid> You can have low cost hardware or you can have reliable Hamid> hardware. You can have either, but not both. As I said Hamid> earlier, the choice is yours. Though there is some truth to what you say, I don't think it is the whole truth. And I don't know that you're going to convert this audience. After all, the only reason we're here is that we believe you're wrong and we *can* have both lower cost and more reliable (or at least better performing) hardware. If you're right (to the level of natural "law" you're arguing) then are we all fools for not sticking with certificated aircraft? Hamid> Before I continue, let me do the usual disclaimers regarding Hamid> my affiliation with Sierra Flight Systems. Brent Regan and Hamid> I have designed the hardware for the Sierra Flight Systems' Hamid> EFIS products and are working on the certification program Hamid> for the EFIS. Again, not that there isn't some truth to what you say, you clearly have a financial interest in convincing people that the more expensive system you work on is the only "reasonable" option. This can do amazing things to one's objectivity. :-) I don't say that disparagingly. None of us is immune. And though we should certainly consider the negative points you raise, they certainly don't merit elevation to some sort of natural and inescapable "law". Hamid> That, Matt, is the whole issue. You can have low cost or you Hamid> can have high quality, but not both. I sure hope you're wrong or I've made a horrible mistake by buying this kit. I think there are a few things you might be overlooking or at least minimizing. Off the top of my head I can think of: economies of scale competitive pressure Moore's law certification... Any commercially available, certificated, purpose-built aircraft device or component will have a limited potential market compared to a similar device or component intended for a broader (e.g. automotive or marine) market. Economies of scale don't seem to exert a great deal of downward price pressure on any segment of the aviation market -- at least as far as I can see. That's arguably the major reason that even entry level production aircraft cost as much as the average new single-family home. To benefit from economies of scale it seems likely that devices or at least some of their components (like processors) will need to be COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf), and by definition, non-certificated. The (relatively) limited size of the aviation market also means there isn't nearly as much competition among suppliers simply because the market won't support more than a very few in each niche. BTW, that's one of the major reasons we bought a Lancair. There are only a couple of kit suppliers I'd be willing to bet will still be in business in 10 years -- and obviously Lancair is one of them. Moore's law says that chip density doubles about every 18 months. What this implies -- as has been demonstrated by the marketplace for the past 30 years without noticeable interruption -- is that the rough cost of computing has approximately halved every 18 months. Turns out that this isn't a bad yardstick for most things electronic. We can quibble about the rate, but unarguably prices continue to decrease as quality and reliability increase -- the very things you say can't happen. Finally there is that certification issue. Is a certificated device more likely to be immune to RF interference? Well, I sure hope so. Else the certification system is more broken than even I think. But since the certification procedure is so time consuming it almost guarantees that by the time a product makes its way to market, superior technology at a lower cost is available. And the certification process is expensive. That cost must be recovered, increasing the price even more. Now, don't go ballistic, but what isn't so certain is whether or not the difference in reliability is critical. Can I make a non-certificated (or non-aviation or COTS) device perform reliably "enough" -- whatever *I* judge that to be -- by shielding it or other devices, or by physically separating devices "enough" or by installing a backup device? Maybe. Am I ever even going to experience a problem? Uncertain. And reliability aside and for reasons already stated, there is every chance that the non-certificated device will give better performance as well as costing less. That, in essence, is likely why all of us are here in the first place -- even those of us who think we're here because of performance, not price. The reasons you can't get this kind of performance elsewhere at any price are, IMHO, economic. Guess my bottom line for avionics is that I'm willing to take a little risk if I think I have some understanding of that risk, can do something to mitigate it and have done "enough" testing to convince myself it's safe to launch into the clag. If I agreed with your assessment and stuck with certificated equipment the cost of the panel I want would likely exceed the cost of the kit, engine and propeller combined. p.s. I'm not so willing to take this sort of risk with engines. Paul Davis INTP pdavis@bmc.com Phone (713)918-1550 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore assist with the management of the LML. Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>