From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Pinpoint
To: lml
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:54:27 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1026529@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <006101c641f4$9202a3b0$0501a8c0@highrf.com>
References: <006101c641f4$9202a3b0$0501a8c0@highrf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>:

  So here's a couple of thots on this topic.
  
  A) John, I somehow get confused each time I read your, what I would call
  negative (at least against the concept of D2A changing horses and against
  Pinpoint) comments.  You have a 420 and a Chelton right?  And you are given
  the option of staying with what you have, or switching to the pinpoint
  right?  So, based upon your comments, you have the best of both worlds and
  simply have to make a decision.  Perhaps your negative comments, telegraph
  what that decision will be? :)
  
  B) as it relates to why D2A did what they did, they must have had very good
  reason after all this is going to cost them some pretty big money.
  
  C) (warning all conjecture on my part) Would it surprise anyone to think
  that maybe there is/was a contract in place between D2A and Xbow?  Would it
  further surprise anyone to think that that contract may have had an
  exclusivity clause in it?  Further, would it be a surprise to think that in
  order for D2A to find an "alternative" to Xbow and the 42x, they would have
  had to do it very carefully and the "new" company may have had to be
  "cloaked" in order to protect themselves and D2A from the above exclusivity
  issues?
  
  D) Think about it - To think that a "new" ARHS would just "show up" all of a
  sudden and to have "roots in Military, Commercial....".  Just isn't
  plausible.  Lead times on enclosure design, electrical design, software
  development, etc are measured in years around these types of things.  Based
  upon this, the pinpoint design has been around for lots longer than the few
  weeks since it's public debut.   I suspect this (pinpoint) is a  "well
  respected" company that has been around for some time, and most like
  provides commercial certified systems to the likes of Boeing, Airbus, etc.
  But in order to provide product and avoid litigation, created a subsidiary
  to do so for D2A. (remember, I'm just speculating)
  
  E) As for the GADAHRS, yes I do believe a new acronym is needed.  The Xbow
  is just that an "altitude and heading reference system".  This new one
  combines that with an Air data computer (it takes Pitot/Static where the
  Xbow does not).  This means that the Pinpoint has the ability to provide a
  much better, and more accurate position solution than the xbow, it also has
  the ability to internally "fail over" to other internal algorithms if it
  detects "out of norm" conditions.  I also believe that the external
  Magnetometer is a much better solution than the "built in" version of the
  Xbow.  From the little prelim wiring information that I've been provided as
  I work on my wiring and panel design.  It also appears that the MSU
  (magnetometer) and the GADAHRS both require 5a fused inputs and that the
  AHRS can support dual inputs and may have the ability to "fail over" from
  one buss to another if an electrical failure were to occur.
  
  Just my .02,
  Alan
  
[the xbow 500-222 accepts airspeed data from CFS v4.1 or higher
via rs232 -Rob]