[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



Sorry it took so long to get back (it's a JOB thing that got in the way).

>Are you sure either the Sierra or Archangel systems are actually running
>two separate programs in the two screen mode? The impression ...

What I was saying is that these systems are NOT running two separate 
programs and this is exactly the root of the problem.

I agree with your thought on not needing redundancy just because you have 
electronic instruments.  There is every indication that these devices are 
every bit as robust and reliable as their older counterparts (or maybe I 
should say delicate and UNreliable?).  But FWIW, when I decided I was going 
to fly my Dakota in IMC on a regular basis I decided to install electric 
backups of all of the vacuum equipment.  While the single AI may be good 
enough for the typical 172 VFR-type of flying (I look at is being a backup 
for the pilot who inadvertently ventures into IMC... because an AI isn't 
necessary for VFR).  I'm not comfortable with betting my life on one 
instrument in any airplane I use extensively for commuting (it's bad enough 
that there is only one engine).

At this moment, I am in the process of (re)evaluating what is available 
regarding different manufactures and configurations.  My fear is that I 
will wind up repeating the mistake I've apparently made on the Dakota, and 
paying a lot of money for a super-IFR panel that potential buyers won't 
appreciate (or at least be willing to pay hard cash for).  I guess it's 
like buying a house; you build/buy what suits you and to hell with what 
potential buyers think.

Which brings us back to the TSO subject & "marketing":
>Having FAA certification is great for marketing though, you must admit.
>Its says: "we're serious", "we're in this for the long haul", and  "our
>system must be good, since the FAA likes it". Not to mention the fact
>that now all those people with a lot of money can double the cost (forget

Installing the redundant systems necessary to make a capable, solid IFR 
aircraft is a pretty good indication that a builder is "serious".  I 
basically believe that anyone who can afford the $150K+ as a potential 
buyer of this class of airplane has enough on-the-ball to recognize the 
"smoke-&-mirrors" argument for TSO'd equipment (look what going on in the 
GPS world).

The avionics market is changing so rapidly that, like the rest of the 
electronics and computer markets, in three years nothing will be the same. 
 Am I willing to pay an extra $10K for an inferior piece of equipment in 
today's market, just because it has an FAA TSO?  Chances are really good 
that 3+ years from now (assuming I am selling) a potential buyer is going 
to tell me, "I don't care what you paid for the panel, I'm going to upgrade 
with the latest equipment anyway... so it isn't worth ANYTHING to me". 
 Hell, three years from now my $7,000 TSO'd, IFR-approved KLM 89-B won't 
even be worth as much as the 35-year-old ADF it replaced (unlike the ADF, 
it doesn't even weigh enough to make a good boat anchor <g>)!

So, I guess I'll go off and do my homework and see what I can come up 


Joe Stack