Calvin Watrich writes:

<<The Prime Directive of the experimental aviation category was set out for people to build, learn and enjoy their aircraft at their own leisure.>>

I don't know who this guy is but I think he has been playing with a Phaser on "Stun". Kirk Hammersmith and Capt. James Tiberius Kirk are two different people, and one is fictional.

As one of the engineers who is responsible for the EFIS-2000 I know first hand that Kirk is no pushover. He steadfastly demanded that we would have to SHOW him a system with all the features WORKING in a REAL airplane. His admiration for the Chelton (formerly Sierra) hardware was EARNED. I was there. Kirk was as generous with BM as Chelton. He spent many hours of his time giving the new products the opportunity to prove themselves. He was frustratingly honest about the results and it was that honesty that helped drive the perfection of the system.

Kirks posting was not critical, it was factual. The writer seems to be making the argument that as members of the experimental community we should be kind to struggling companies so that they can perfect their products. What next, sitting in a big circle holding hands and singing "We are the World"? Balderdash! How will they know what to improve?

The "Prime Directive" of the free market demands that you will either demonstrate your claims or perish. In the case of avionics it is critical that the facts relating to performance are made public. Lives are at stake. Many try and few succeed but there are lessons to be learned from all. We did learn from Archangel. We learned "Don't do it that way"!

BTW Gordon is the marketing director at Chelton and was not responsible for writing the EFIS-2000 application.

Step back a moment and look at things in perspective. You can go out and buy a Rockwell Collins EFIS multi screen system for about $500K. For only about 10% you can buy a comparable system from Chelton. For those who say that still isn't cheap enough I would counter that just the component cost (ICs, capacitors, connectors etc.) of the Chelton system is greater than the retail price of the BM system. Are all those parts needed? Only if your want to meet the operational requirements for aircraft service (temperature, EMI, HIRF, vibration etc).

Can you buy a system with the performance and specifications of the EFIS-2000 for 20% the cost? I don't know. Can you buy a new car for $2000? Would you want to drive around in it?

Chelton was selected by the FAA for the Capstone program, beating out ALL the other avionics companies, even the ones that received federal funds to develop just such a system. Imagine that. The feds gave millions of your tax dollars to companies to develop the next generation of avionics and then, when it came to picking one to buy, they chose Chelton, who hadn't taken a dime.

Kirk and his ilk were and are critical to the process that brings the world new and innovative products that actually work. When they demand that you perform as advertised you should take their opinions it to heart, quit your whining, go back to the lab and GET IT RIGHT. When you find out that it takes more time and money than you expect and you have to raise the price to stay in business you will be rewarded by gripes that your product is too expensive. It will be your turn to listen to those who are ignorant of the full scope of the problem pontificate on your greed. At least then you will have the satisfaction of knowing you beat the odds.

Been there, done that, got the gray hairs (the few that are left) to prove it!

BTW Gordon is the marketing director at Chelton and was not responsible for writing the EFIS-2000 application.

Regards
Brent Regan