|
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|