Cellphone via headset ?

[Christian]

In some occations it might be handy to use the cellphone in the airplane,
but the noisy atmosphere makes it somewhat difficult.

I found an ad for an interesting "box" that connects a handphone to the
intercom/headset allowing for better quality communications.
http://www.flightcell.co.nz/flightcellcom/flighcell.html

Any experience out there regarding the Flightcell IV, that also allows for
plugin of a handheld comm-set that might be handy in case of a radio
failure?

I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for plug-in of
cellphones.

--
Christian
ENZV

[Newps]

$349 is a ridiculous price. I have the cellset. www.cellset.com Many
headsets now have an interface built right in.



Christian wrote:

> In some occations it might be handy to use the cellphone in the airplane,
> but the noisy atmosphere makes it somewhat difficult.
>
> I found an ad for an interesting "box" that connects a handphone to the
> intercom/headset allowing for better quality communications.
> http://www.flightcell.co.nz/flightcellcom/flighcell.html
>
> Any experience out there regarding the Flightcell IV, that also allows for
> plugin of a handheld comm-set that might be handy in case of a radio
> failure?
>
> I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for plug-in of
> cellphones.
>

[John T]

Christian wrote:
>
> I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for
> plug-in of cellphones.

This is the version I have experience with and it works quite well. One of
my headsets has a cell phone adapter that I've used for picking up
clearances and such.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Peter MacPherson]

I have a Lightspeed 30 3G which has a cell phone adapter built in.
I use it to pick up clearances and it works like a charm.

Pete



"Christian" > wrote in message
...
> In some occations it might be handy to use the cellphone in the airplane,
> but the noisy atmosphere makes it somewhat difficult.
>
> I found an ad for an interesting "box" that connects a handphone to the
> intercom/headset allowing for better quality communications.
> http://www.flightcell.co.nz/flightcellcom/flighcell.html
>
> Any experience out there regarding the Flightcell IV, that also allows for
> plugin of a handheld comm-set that might be handy in case of a radio
> failure?
>
> I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for plug-in of
> cellphones.
>
> --
> Christian
> ENZV
>

[Cockpit Colin]

You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> $349 is a ridiculous price. I have the cellset. www.cellset.com Many
> headsets now have an interface built right in.
>
>
>
> Christian wrote:
>
> > In some occations it might be handy to use the cellphone in the
airplane,
> > but the noisy atmosphere makes it somewhat difficult.
> >
> > I found an ad for an interesting "box" that connects a handphone to the
> > intercom/headset allowing for better quality communications.
> > http://www.flightcell.co.nz/flightcellcom/flighcell.html
> >
> > Any experience out there regarding the Flightcell IV, that also allows
for
> > plugin of a handheld comm-set that might be handy in case of a radio
> > failure?
> >
> > I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for plug-in
of
> > cellphones.
> >

[Cockpit Colin]

You might be interested to know of flightcells entry-level product -
Flightcell2Go at $199 USD.


"Christian" > wrote in message
...
> In some occations it might be handy to use the cellphone in the airplane,
> but the noisy atmosphere makes it somewhat difficult.
>
> I found an ad for an interesting "box" that connects a handphone to the
> intercom/headset allowing for better quality communications.
> http://www.flightcell.co.nz/flightcellcom/flighcell.html
>
> Any experience out there regarding the Flightcell IV, that also allows for
> plugin of a handheld comm-set that might be handy in case of a radio
> failure?
>
> I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for plug-in of
> cellphones.
>
> --
> Christian
> ENZV
>
>

[NW_PILOT]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.


Ohh don't go there, I have reverse engineered many electronics devices in my
9 years being an E.E. I know the cost of electronics devices quality of
PCB's and components & workmanship. None of the cell phone adapters would
cost over $5.00ea to have mass produced and that is a high estimate using
good parts with tolerances of 1-2% not 5 to 10% and for $300.00 I could
build 20 of them using US supply houses.

[Cockpit Colin]

Um - actually I work with the chap runs the flightcell company, and have
been privvy to a lot of "behind the scenes" info. I'm afraid to say, you
couldn't be further from the truth. Additionally, if you can supply all the
components for less than $5 (same quality) I'm sure we could get you a 100%
margin and make you a very rich person.

It's not just the components - it's the research and development - the
marketing - the wages - the rent - hell, even a bit of profit (and not as
much as you're thinking). The mould for the case alone cost over $5,000 USD.

Interestingly the USAF took a look at them and have bought over 1200 of
them, with more to follow. Only cell phone interface endorsed by Bose too.

(PS: I've been involved in electronics / avionics for 26 years)

Just my 10c worth.



"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.
>
>
> Ohh don't go there, I have reverse engineered many electronics devices in
my
> 9 years being an E.E. I know the cost of electronics devices quality of
> PCB's and components & workmanship. None of the cell phone adapters would
> cost over $5.00ea to have mass produced and that is a high estimate using
> good parts with tolerances of 1-2% not 5 to 10% and for $300.00 I could
> build 20 of them using US supply houses.
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Cockpit,

> You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.
>

You're kidding, right? If one company can produce a full ANR headset
with a cell phone adapter for what another company charges for the cell
phone adapter alone, one of the two is ripping its clients off.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Christian,

> I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for plug-in of
> cellphones.
>

Yep. Works real well with all of the Lightspeed headsets. And the boxes cost
more than many of the Lightspeed models.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Cockpit Colin wrote:

> You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.

If it costs them that much then they don't know what they're doing.
There are two companies making these that I'm aware of that don't come
close to this cost and several headset manufacturers that add them to
their headsets.

[Cockpit Colin]

I suggest you take a look at the product first - you're not comparing apples
with apples. For starters the headset one is more than likely a simple
analog input whereas the flightcell is fully microprocessor controlled - has
built in intercom - satelite input/output - individual gain control on all
channels - interferance rejection etc. Honestly, it't not just a case of
twisting a few wires and throwing in a few resistors.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Cockpit,
>
> > You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.
> >
>
> You're kidding, right? If one company can produce a full ANR headset
> with a cell phone adapter for what another company charges for the cell
> phone adapter alone, one of the two is ripping its clients off.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[OtisWinslow]

Why do you need a connection to your headset? I just slide
the earpiece of my flip phone under the headset earpiece
and it works just fine.


"Christian" > wrote in message
...
> In some occations it might be handy to use the cellphone in the airplane,
> but the noisy atmosphere makes it somewhat difficult.
>
> I found an ad for an interesting "box" that connects a handphone to the
> intercom/headset allowing for better quality communications.
> http://www.flightcell.co.nz/flightcellcom/flighcell.html
>
> Any experience out there regarding the Flightcell IV, that also allows for
> plugin of a handheld comm-set that might be handy in case of a radio
> failure?
>
> I am also aware that some of the newer ANR headsets allows for plug-in of
> cellphones.
>
> --
> Christian
> ENZV
>

[Cockpit Colin]

> If it costs them that much then they don't know what they're doing.
> There are two companies making these that I'm aware of that don't come
> close to this cost and several headset manufacturers that add them to
> their headsets.

That was my (uninformed) opinion too - unfortunately I had to eat humble pie
when I started asking the designers some "pointed" questions. For starters,
as I said in a previous post, you have to compare apples with apples. Show
me the microprocessor in the headset interface - show me the intercom - show
me the seperate satelite phone connection - show me the individual controls
over input / output levels for all of the above. Show me how some of the
competing products raise the mic bias level to actually make an incompatible
headset compatible (and is fine tuned even more by adjustment of the mic
volume).

And as with many things in life, you get what you pay for - you can pay $3
for a set of unshielded leads - or $8 for a set of quality ones from a
quality manufacturer - these things, like a lot of things in aviation get
the **** kicked out of them - processing warrenty claims on things like that
is the kind of thing that can easily kill a product if you start out with
typical "local electronics store" components.

It's like accusing Toyota of ripping people off because a Lada also has a
car with 4 doors and a steering wheel - it's not a fair comparison. For
those who don't need all that flightcell does - and only want a simple
cellphone interface then (after my constant nagging to the owner :) they
produced flightcell2go - at a similar price to other products.

I can't say too much more without breaking confidences - but I can say that
after looking at all the units on the market the US Airforce has to date
bought over 1200 flightcells (with a lot more military things in the
pipeline than I can tell you) - even Bose selected them for a partner
product. Hopefully that tells you something about the quality of the
product.

I started my Avionic training in the military back in 1978 - so it's
probably fair to say I know a think or two about avionics too - and when I
wanted a cell phone interface I thought it would be a simple thing to
design - you know "twist a few wires around a few resisters thrown in for
impedance matching) - and to a point it is - but to try and do the job
properly is a different story - trying to get one product to work with a
diverse range of cell phones and headsets is a nightmare. Things that you
don't think of initially - for example the unit comes with (off memory) 5
adaptors for the most popular types of phones on the market - and whereas
the adaptors take care of the physical connectivity one flightcell design
that works well with, say, AMPS type cell phone technology had the
interferance render it useless with the interferance generated by CDMA
phones - all issues that had to be solved in the design. Some headsets need
a 6 volt mic biad to work best - others need 9 volts or more. If you don't
get these issues solved you end up with a whole bunch of returns and a lot
of people saying the product is crap.

Then you start to get into other areas people just don't think of - they're
not making millions of these things - they're not assembled by robots -
staff need wages - production lines cost money - freight on parts needs to
be paid - the mould for the case alone was over $5000 USD - money is spent
on sales staff commissions - web site design - travel / food / accommodation
/ booths at places like OshKosh. I've been privvy to a lot of these costs in
general terms - believe me the guy running the show isn't stupid - has been
doing this for a lot of years - and when I saw the rough figures on how they
got to the retail price I had to admit it was quite reasonable.

[Cockpit Colin]

Just in from the creator ...

Quote ...

There is no component in Flightcell with more than 1% tolerance.
There are in excess of 180 components on the PCB. The connectors cost

minimum $10 USD each and there are up to 4 of those. Add to this 5 digital

pots at $12 each and already you can see ...

AND ...

If he signs a NDA, we will send him all the drawings. If he can make it

cheaper than we can without any reduction in quality then we will send all

our production to him. How's that for challenge. This is a serious offer!!!!

[END QUOTE]

So, is anyone going to take him up on the offer?


"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.
>
>
> Ohh don't go there, I have reverse engineered many electronics devices in
my
> 9 years being an E.E. I know the cost of electronics devices quality of
> PCB's and components & workmanship. None of the cell phone adapters would
> cost over $5.00ea to have mass produced and that is a high estimate using
> good parts with tolerances of 1-2% not 5 to 10% and for $300.00 I could
> build 20 of them using US supply houses.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I have a friend from New Zealand who says that they "require" you to have a
cell phone interface wired through the audio panel. Anybody from NZ with
details?

Mike
MU-2


"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> Just in from the creator ...
>
> Quote ...
>
> There is no component in Flightcell with more than 1% tolerance.
> There are in excess of 180 components on the PCB. The connectors cost
>
> minimum $10 USD each and there are up to 4 of those. Add to this 5 digital
>
> pots at $12 each and already you can see ...
>
> AND ...
>
> If he signs a NDA, we will send him all the drawings. If he can make it
>
> cheaper than we can without any reduction in quality then we will send all
>
> our production to him. How's that for challenge. This is a serious
> offer!!!!
>
> [END QUOTE]
>
> So, is anyone going to take him up on the offer?
>
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > You'd probably think differently if you knew what it cost to make it.
>>
>>
>> Ohh don't go there, I have reverse engineered many electronics devices in
> my
>> 9 years being an E.E. I know the cost of electronics devices quality of
>> PCB's and components & workmanship. None of the cell phone adapters would
>> cost over $5.00ea to have mass produced and that is a high estimate using
>> good parts with tolerances of 1-2% not 5 to 10% and for $300.00 I could
>> build 20 of them using US supply houses.
>>
>>
>
>

[Cockpit Colin]

No foundation to that one.

[NW_PILOT]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
> Just in from the creator ...
>
> Quote ...
>
> There is no component in Flightcell with more than 1% tolerance.
> There are in excess of 180 components on the PCB.

Ok well they can talk but until they start giving manufacture part #'s and
if surface mount reel #'s and lot #'s I would say they are using the
cheapest parts their contract mfg can get their hands on.

>
> The connectors cost minimum $10 USD each and there are up to 4 of those.
Add to this 5 digital

Yea Right!!!! Provide a Part #

>
> pots at $12 each and already you can see ...

Still no part #'s to back up their claim

>
> AND ...
>
> If he signs a NDA, we will send him all the drawings. If he can make it

Sign a non disclosure agreement hahaha why would I want to do that I would
just buy one take it apart get all the part #'s values & redraw the pcb with
minor changes & improvements being sure not to infringe on their intlectual
property. Or use a schmetaic capture and redraw the PCB from a schematic
then make some changes thicken a trade here and there add a layer ect.. The
only real expensive thing would be the injection molds & molding to house
the device but could get that down to a reasonable price if production
quantity was sufficient.

Ohh and if I signed an NDA and found out they were using substandard parts I
could not say anything becuse of the NDA.

>
> cheaper than we can without any reduction in quality then we will send all
>
> our production to him.

I Humm tempting but NO, not with a NDA. Better yet why dont they try a few
places below and outsource it themselves I would do it but I require
customers to make schematics publicaly avaiable due to liability reasons.
The PCB mfg's below are some of the major players in the asian market today
some can do up to 24 layer poly-u boards and most have their own contract
mfg facilitys.

Onpress Printed Circuits Limited
http://www.onpress.com.hk

Three Sun Enterprise Co Ltd
http://www.three-sun.com

Shenzhen Shennan Circuits Co Ltd
http://www.shennancircuits.com

Xing Da Printed Circuit Board Manufacturer
http://www.zsxingda.com

Global Expert Technologies Ltd
http://www.getpwb.com

Evergreen PCB Fty Ltd
http://www.evergreenpcb.com

I Have about 100 More Contract MFG's & PCB MFG's on my list that I use.
These are a few top players in Asia. Please Fwd this to who ever tell them
to have fun but no MFG's will even touch their Gerber Files or Drill Data
with an NDA as they may have to subcontract the work.

>How's that for challenge. This is a serious offer!!!!
>

Not to serious of an offer with a NDA how could it be outsourced with a NDA

> [END QUOTE]
>
> So, is anyone going to take him up on the offer?

As I said above No MFG's will even touch their Gerber Files or Drill Data
with an NDA as they may have to subcontract the work. I take that offer a as
insult and so would other's. You will see when dealing with Asian Corporate
Businessmen they expect to be treated with trust and respect it's a totally
different set of business ethics not like the U.S. market ware it needs to
be earned no wonder their production costs are high. Most contract mfg's
will not disclose your details anyway unless it kills someone.

NW_Pilot
PP-ASEL

[Newps]

OtisWinslow wrote:

> Why do you need a connection to your headset? I just slide
> the earpiece of my flip phone under the headset earpiece
> and it works just fine.

Because that way it's a handsfree operation.

[Newps]

Cockpit Colin wrote:

>>If it costs them that much then they don't know what they're doing.
>>There are two companies making these that I'm aware of that don't come
>>close to this cost and several headset manufacturers that add them to
>>their headsets.
>
>
> That was my (uninformed) opinion too - unfortunately I had to eat humble pie
> when I started asking the designers some "pointed" questions. For starters,
> as I said in a previous post, you have to compare apples with apples. Show
> me the microprocessor in the headset interface - show me the intercom - show
> me the seperate satelite phone connection - show me the individual controls
> over input / output levels for all of the above. Show me how some of the
> competing products raise the mic bias level to actually make an incompatible
> headset compatible (and is fine tuned even more by adjustment of the mic
> volume).

That's called overkill. I have no idea what's in my cellset. Don't
care. The cellphone volume is the same as the radio volume, you don't
realize how important that is until you use a unit that doesn't do that.
Unit works flawlessly, it rings in my headset and people on the other
end cannot tell I'm in the plane. If I didn't tell them that I was
flying they would never know it. I built a little L shaped stand that
is velcroed to my windshield so the phone antenna is always looking
outside, always get a signal and makes it easy to dial while in flight.


>
> And as with many things in life, you get what you pay for

And sometimes, as in this example, you get less than what you pay for.


>
> I can't say too much more without breaking confidences - but I can say that
> after looking at all the units on the market the US Airforce has to date
> bought over 1200 flightcells

Apples and Oranges to compare the US Air Force with a spam can.


>
> I started my Avionic training in the military back in 1978 - so it's
> probably fair to say I know a think or two about avionics too - and when I
> wanted a cell phone interface I thought it would be a simple thing to
> design - you know "twist a few wires around a few resisters thrown in for
> impedance matching) - and to a point it is - but to try and do the job
> properly is a different story - trying to get one product to work with a
> diverse range of cell phones and headsets is a nightmare. Things that you
> don't think of initially - for example the unit comes with (off memory) 5
> adaptors for the most popular types of phones on the market - and whereas
> the adaptors take care of the physical connectivity one flightcell design
> that works well with, say, AMPS type cell phone technology had the
> interferance render it useless with the interferance generated by CDMA
> phones - all issues that had to be solved in the design. Some headsets need
> a 6 volt mic biad to work best - others need 9 volts or more. If you don't
> get these issues solved you end up with a whole bunch of returns and a lot
> of people saying the product is crap.

I have used my cellset with 7 different phones. One analog only
Motorola Star Tac and 6 various other phones, all digital/analog. They
all sound the same and work as expected. All use the same standard
plug, 2.5mm maybe, I forget.


>
> Then you start to get into other areas people just don't think of - they're
> not making millions of these things - they're not assembled by robots -
> staff need wages - production lines cost money - freight on parts needs to
> be paid - the mould for the case alone was over $5000 USD - money is spent
> on sales staff commissions - web site design - travel / food / accommodation
> / booths at places like OshKosh. I've been privvy to a lot of these costs in
> general terms - believe me the guy running the show isn't stupid - has been
> doing this for a lot of years - and when I saw the rough figures on how they
> got to the retail price I had to admit it was quite reasonable.

Well whatever. When you're $150 more than the competition and the
public sees the units as equal you're screwed.

[Peter Duniho]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>> If he signs a NDA, we will send him all the drawings. If he can make it
>
> Sign a non disclosure agreement hahaha why would I want to do that I would
> just buy one take it apart get all the part #'s values & redraw the pcb
> with
> minor changes & improvements being sure not to infringe on their
> intlectual
> property. Or use a schmetaic capture and redraw the PCB from a schematic
> then make some changes thicken a trade here and there add a layer ect.

"part #'s values", "intlectual", "schmetaic", trade", "ect." (and of
course, a near-complete lack of punctuation)

Heh. Somehow, the thought of someone who writes like that "infringing on
intellectual property rights" is, um...funny.

Why are you so scared to sign an NDA? If you are seriously thinking of
competing with the guys, just have them put in writing what they already
told Colin: that they'll outsource production to you if you find their
claims to be false. If you are not seriously thinking of competing with the
guys, then so what if you sign an NDA?

Either way, there's no reason not to sign the NDA. Looks to me like what
you're really scared of is being proved wrong.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Cockpit,

> For starters the headset one is more than likely a simple
> analog input whereas the flightcell is fully microprocessor controlled - has
> built in intercom - satelite input/output - individual gain control on all
> channels - interferance rejection etc.
>

Which gives you exactly what in added functionality with regard to the OP's
request, namely using a cell phone in flight?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[NW_PILOT]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> If he signs a NDA, we will send him all the drawings. If he can make it
> >
> > Sign a non disclosure agreement hahaha why would I want to do that I
would
> > just buy one take it apart get all the part #'s values & redraw the pcb
> > with
> > minor changes & improvements being sure not to infringe on their
> > intlectual
> > property. Or use a schmetaic capture and redraw the PCB from a
schematic
> > then make some changes thicken a trade here and there add a layer ect.
>
> "part #'s values", "intlectual", "schmetaic", trade", "ect." (and of
> course, a near-complete lack of punctuation)
>
> Heh. Somehow, the thought of someone who writes like that "infringing on
> intellectual property rights" is, um...funny.
>
> Why are you so scared to sign an NDA? If you are seriously thinking of
> competing with the guys, just have them put in writing what they already
> told Colin: that they'll outsource production to you if you find their
> claims to be false. If you are not seriously thinking of competing with
the
> guys, then so what if you sign an NDA?
>
> Either way, there's no reason not to sign the NDA. Looks to me like what
> you're really scared of is being proved wrong.
>
> Pete
>
>

Hey I admit my spelling and punctuation is bad WHO THE **** CARES it is
usenet !!!!!!!

Why would they want to have some one sign a NDA before giving them parts
info??? maybe to hide something!!!!! I am not scared of being proved wrong
that's why I responded asking for proof as in part #'s. I really have no
desire to broker out their product to small of an industry. We are trying to
justify their cost for their product's vs. other peoples products. You
proubaluly did not even care to read the entire thread just responded to
point out that my spelling and punctuation is bad.

Well this is Usenet and yes my spelling and punctuation is bad and only
loser ass-holes rub it in. Don't bother responding unless its in person!! I
am replacing the filter I had set to stop downloading your posts from the
server. I suggest you do the same with my posts unless you are so pathetic
you have to pick on people for their spelling and punctuation problems.

If you have that big of a problem be a man and deal with me in person and
don't hide behind your keyboard like a split tail, chicken ****,
fagot.........

please leave me alone and get some mental help!!!!!

[John T]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message

>
> Hey I admit my spelling and punctuation is bad WHO THE **** CARES it
> is usenet !!!!!!!

Actually, while occasional spelling/punctuation errors are easily
overlooked, constantly having to figure out where one logical thought ends
and the next one begins is very tiring and leads to people simply skipping
over posts by certain authors. You're not the first to display this habit,
but it's a fallacy to believe that you shouldn't pay attention to such
things just because "it is USENET".

> Why would they want to have some one sign a NDA before giving them
> parts info??? maybe to hide something!!!!!

Maybe because you've admitted to spending years reverse engineering
electronics? If they gave you the list of parts and you had a copy of their
product, wouldn't that make your job significantly easier? Also, part of
their offer was providing you with complete schematics of the product. You
should know the value of that intellectual property so why is it any
surprise they'd ask for an NDA before showing it to a professed reverse
engineer looking for a cheaper production?

> We are trying to justify their cost for their product's vs.
> other peoples products.

Actually, "we" are not justifying their cost. A) If the market will bear
it, more power to them. B) If their margins are too large, the market will
correct that by limiting their sales. C) If you can provide a similar
product for similar quality and lower cost, I'm sure the market would make
room for you.

> Well this is Usenet and yes my spelling and punctuation is bad and
> only loser ass-holes rub it in. Don't bother responding unless its in
> person!! I am replacing the filter I had set to stop downloading your
> posts from the server. I suggest you do the same with my posts unless
> you are so pathetic you have to pick on people for their spelling and
> punctuation problems.
>
> If you have that big of a problem be a man and deal with me in person
> and don't hide behind your keyboard like a split tail, chicken ****,
> fagot.........
>
> please leave me alone and get some mental help!!!!!

It's a bit ironic that your best spelling and punctuation show up in this
section of your post. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John Clonts]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cockpit Colin wrote:
>
> >>If it costs them that much then they don't know what they're doing.
> >>There are two companies making these that I'm aware of that don't come
> >>close to this cost and several headset manufacturers that add them to
> >>their headsets.
> >
> >
> > That was my (uninformed) opinion too - unfortunately I had to eat humble
pie
> > when I started asking the designers some "pointed" questions. For
starters,
> > as I said in a previous post, you have to compare apples with apples.
Show
> > me the microprocessor in the headset interface - show me the intercom -
show
> > me the seperate satelite phone connection - show me the individual
controls
> > over input / output levels for all of the above. Show me how some of the
> > competing products raise the mic bias level to actually make an
incompatible
> > headset compatible (and is fine tuned even more by adjustment of the mic
> > volume).
>
> That's called overkill. I have no idea what's in my cellset. Don't
> care. The cellphone volume is the same as the radio volume, you don't
> realize how important that is until you use a unit that doesn't do that.
> Unit works flawlessly, it rings in my headset and people on the other
> end cannot tell I'm in the plane. If I didn't tell them that I was
> flying they would never know it. I built a little L shaped stand that
> is velcroed to my windshield so the phone antenna is always looking
> outside, always get a signal and makes it easy to dial while in flight.
>

What cellphone and service are you using, and what sort of success have you
had in doing that (altitudes, coverage)?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Peter Duniho]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> If you have that big of a problem be a man and deal with me in person and
> don't hide behind your keyboard like a split tail, chicken ****,
> fagot.........

Says the person posting behind an assumed name, using a free email account,
badmouthing a company and product you know nothing about.

I'm easy to find. If you want to deal "in person", feel free. I've got
nothing to hide, and I'd welcome the opportunity to explain face to face why
it is you clearly aren't really interested in seeing whether the cost of the
product in question is reasonable or not.

[OtisWinslow]

I take a large shoestring and tie it to my face.

;-)

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> OtisWinslow wrote:
>
>> Why do you need a connection to your headset? I just slide
>> the earpiece of my flip phone under the headset earpiece
>> and it works just fine.
>
> Because that way it's a handsfree operation.

[Newps]

I have Verizon. Originally it was Commnet, that turned into Airtouch
which then turned into Verizon. I never fail to get a signal if I am at
1000 AGL, unles I am deep in the mountains. I may have to get to the
ridge tops then. I have been in the middle of north central South
Dakota and the phone has rung and it worked great, other person couldn't
tell I was in the air. Right now I use a Kyocera 7135. Replaced the LG
4400 which overall worked great. Before that I had the Motorola T720,
that was probably the worst phone I've ever had, although having nothing
to do with its in flight qualities. I have found Motorola phones to
have the worst receivers. My wife has a Kyocera 414 after just
replacing the Kyocera 3135. All work great in the plane and in fringe
areas on the ground.

John Clonts wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Cockpit Colin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If it costs them that much then they don't know what they're doing.
>>>>There are two companies making these that I'm aware of that don't come
>>>>close to this cost and several headset manufacturers that add them to
>>>>their headsets.
>>>
>>>
>>>That was my (uninformed) opinion too - unfortunately I had to eat humble
>
> pie
>
>>>when I started asking the designers some "pointed" questions. For
>
> starters,
>
>>>as I said in a previous post, you have to compare apples with apples.
>
> Show
>
>>>me the microprocessor in the headset interface - show me the intercom -
>
> show
>
>>>me the seperate satelite phone connection - show me the individual
>
> controls
>
>>>over input / output levels for all of the above. Show me how some of the
>>>competing products raise the mic bias level to actually make an
>
> incompatible
>
>>>headset compatible (and is fine tuned even more by adjustment of the mic
>>>volume).
>>
>>That's called overkill. I have no idea what's in my cellset. Don't
>>care. The cellphone volume is the same as the radio volume, you don't
>>realize how important that is until you use a unit that doesn't do that.
>> Unit works flawlessly, it rings in my headset and people on the other
>>end cannot tell I'm in the plane. If I didn't tell them that I was
>>flying they would never know it. I built a little L shaped stand that
>>is velcroed to my windshield so the phone antenna is always looking
>>outside, always get a signal and makes it easy to dial while in flight.
>>
>
>
> What cellphone and service are you using, and what sort of success have you
> had in doing that (altitudes, coverage)?
>
> Thanks,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
>
>

[NW_PILOT]

I use T-Mobile GSM, Samsung E-715 Phone works only in populated areas up to
about 1,500' to 2000' AGL then falls on its face.


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> I have Verizon. Originally it was Commnet, that turned into Airtouch
> which then turned into Verizon. I never fail to get a signal if I am at
> 1000 AGL, unles I am deep in the mountains. I may have to get to the
> ridge tops then. I have been in the middle of north central South
> Dakota and the phone has rung and it worked great, other person couldn't
> tell I was in the air. Right now I use a Kyocera 7135. Replaced the LG
> 4400 which overall worked great. Before that I had the Motorola T720,
> that was probably the worst phone I've ever had, although having nothing
> to do with its in flight qualities. I have found Motorola phones to
> have the worst receivers. My wife has a Kyocera 414 after just
> replacing the Kyocera 3135. All work great in the plane and in fringe
> areas on the ground.
>
> John Clonts wrote:
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Cockpit Colin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>If it costs them that much then they don't know what they're doing.
> >>>>There are two companies making these that I'm aware of that don't come
> >>>>close to this cost and several headset manufacturers that add them to
> >>>>their headsets.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That was my (uninformed) opinion too - unfortunately I had to eat
humble
> >
> > pie
> >
> >>>when I started asking the designers some "pointed" questions. For
> >
> > starters,
> >
> >>>as I said in a previous post, you have to compare apples with apples.
> >
> > Show
> >
> >>>me the microprocessor in the headset interface - show me the intercom -
> >
> > show
> >
> >>>me the seperate satelite phone connection - show me the individual
> >
> > controls
> >
> >>>over input / output levels for all of the above. Show me how some of
the
> >>>competing products raise the mic bias level to actually make an
> >
> > incompatible
> >
> >>>headset compatible (and is fine tuned even more by adjustment of the
mic
> >>>volume).
> >>
> >>That's called overkill. I have no idea what's in my cellset. Don't
> >>care. The cellphone volume is the same as the radio volume, you don't
> >>realize how important that is until you use a unit that doesn't do that.
> >> Unit works flawlessly, it rings in my headset and people on the other
> >>end cannot tell I'm in the plane. If I didn't tell them that I was
> >>flying they would never know it. I built a little L shaped stand that
> >>is velcroed to my windshield so the phone antenna is always looking
> >>outside, always get a signal and makes it easy to dial while in flight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What cellphone and service are you using, and what sort of success have
you
> > had in doing that (altitudes, coverage)?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John Clonts
> > Temple, Texas
> > N7NZ
> >
> >
> >

[Cockpit Colin]

> > That was my (uninformed) opinion too - unfortunately I had to eat humble
pie
> > when I started asking the designers some "pointed" questions. For
starters,
> > as I said in a previous post, you have to compare apples with apples.
Show
> > me the microprocessor in the headset interface - show me the intercom -
show
> > me the seperate satelite phone connection - show me the individual
controls
> > over input / output levels for all of the above. Show me how some of the
> > competing products raise the mic bias level to actually make an
incompatible
> > headset compatible (and is fine tuned even more by adjustment of the mic
> > volume).
>
> That's called overkill. I have no idea what's in my cellset. Don't
> care. The cellphone volume is the same as the radio volume, you don't
> realize how important that is until you use a unit that doesn't do that.
> Unit works flawlessly, it rings in my headset and people on the other
> end cannot tell I'm in the plane. If I didn't tell them that I was
> flying they would never know it. I built a little L shaped stand that
> is velcroed to my windshield so the phone antenna is always looking
> outside, always get a signal and makes it easy to dial while in flight.

If it's overkill for your needs than that's not the model for you - as I've
mentioned - if all you want to do is make a call then they have a cheaper
model that does that. If you appreciate more of the bells and whistles then
the flightcell might be your cup of tea. Eg how you can cut air traffic
comms down to 1/2 volume while you're on the phone - use it as an intercom -
adjust volume levels to compensate for various things within your avionics -
rechargeable batteries - chargers - connectors/adaptors etc

I've spent many hours talking with John (the creator) about it - like some
here he too thought it would be a 1 hour project on a Saturday afternoon -
but as he got into it and through the various revisions more and more things
had to be taken into account (more "bells and whistles") - I can't say if
it's the right product for any particular person - I can say however that
it's a VERY high-quality product that covers many more areas than competing
products that I know of. I use one and can personally testify that it does
what it should.

I could go back to John and get part numbers etc to prove a point, but to be
honest, I've really got more important things to do with my day - and I have
a feeling that once some peoples minds are made up they're not going to
change them at any cost. All I can say is I thought that way once too -
until I got to know a lot of the behinds the scenes things - at which point
I had to admit that they people that built it weren't idiots and aren't
ripping people off - if folks choose to question my integrity when I say
that, then so be it - I can live with it :) I don't always agree with John's
marketing techniques - but that's something we continue to have healthy
debates over.

Like many things in life it's very easy to reach a conclusion when you don't
have all the information - unfortunately, it's often the wrong concludion.

> Well whatever. When you're $150 more than the competition and the
> public sees the units as equal you're screwed.

Well then I guess he's lucky enough that enough members of the public have
done their homework, and don't see them as equal. If you want to meet the
maker call into the Flightcell booth at the next Oshkosh - John usually
flies across to be at each one (even though his youngest daughter is
starting to wonder who he is!)

[Cockpit Colin]

I'm using an old AMPS / Digital dual mode band phone - but to be honest, I
don't use it a lot in the air. For me, the advantage of the flightcell was
to boost the mic bias and levels on my Bose headset so that the tower could
hear me a little easier (the Bose tend to be a bit on the quiet side, and I
tend to speak a bit too softly).

[Cockpit Colin]

> > For starters the headset one is more than likely a simple
> > analog input whereas the flightcell is fully microprocessor controlled -
has
> > built in intercom - satelite input/output - individual gain control on
all
> > channels - interferance rejection etc.
> >
>
> Which gives you exactly what in added functionality with regard to the
OP's
> request, namely using a cell phone in flight?

Not a lot - which is why it's probably an overkill product for what he
wants - which is why I suggested the entry-level alternative
"flightcell2go".

[Cockpit Colin]

> Why would they want to have some one sign a NDA before giving them parts
> info???

Um, possibly for the same reason everybody else does - to protect their
commercial interests. Same reason some of the technology is patented.

Sorry folks, I'm not going to be feeding this troll anymore - this is just
getting ridiculous.

[Newps]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
Eg how you can cut air traffic
> comms down to 1/2 volume while you're on the phone

Cellset does that. Phone conversation takes precedence over the radio.


- use it as an intercom -

I have an intercom. Perhaps useful for the non owner pilot.


> adjust volume levels to compensate for various things within your avionics -
> rechargeable batteries - chargers - connectors/adaptors etc

Don't have any level problems, again probably only useful for renters.


>
> I could go back to John and get part numbers etc to prove a point, but to be
> honest, I've really got more important things to do with my day

Part numbers mean exactly nothing to me.


- and I have
> a feeling that once some peoples minds are made up they're not going to
> change them at any cost. All I can say is I thought that way once too -
> until I got to know a lot of the behinds the scenes things - at which point
> I had to admit that they people that built it weren't idiots and aren't
> ripping people off - if folks choose to question my integrity when I say
> that, then so be it - I can live with it :) I don't always agree with John's
> marketing techniques - but that's something we continue to have healthy
> debates over.

Having used my cellset for about 700 hours now I can't imagine how you
could improve on it except make it smaller.

[Newps]

Cockpit Colin wrote:

> I'm using an old AMPS / Digital dual mode band phone - but to be honest, I
> don't use it a lot in the air. For me, the advantage of the flightcell was
> to boost the mic bias and levels on my Bose headset so that the tower could
> hear me a little easier (the Bose tend to be a bit on the quiet side, and I
> tend to speak a bit too softly).

You mean for a grand the Bose mic isn't adjustable? Geez, there's a pot
on my Lightspeed and a pot on my Narco com and a panel selectable mic
gain on my Apollo SL40. The last place I need to adjust my mic is my
telephone interface.

[Cockpit Colin]

Thanks for all that - but sorry, I really don't get your point.

I'm not trying to sell you a flightcell - From the website it looks like
cellset does what you describe for $189.95 and flightcell2go does the same
thing for $199.95 - similar features - so go with whichever spins your prop
on the day.


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cockpit Colin wrote:
> Eg how you can cut air traffic
> > comms down to 1/2 volume while you're on the phone
>
> Cellset does that. Phone conversation takes precedence over the radio.
>
>
> - use it as an intercom -
>
> I have an intercom. Perhaps useful for the non owner pilot.
>
>
> > adjust volume levels to compensate for various things within your
avionics -
> > rechargeable batteries - chargers - connectors/adaptors etc
>
> Don't have any level problems, again probably only useful for renters.
>
>
> >
> > I could go back to John and get part numbers etc to prove a point, but
to be
> > honest, I've really got more important things to do with my day
>
> Part numbers mean exactly nothing to me.
>
>
> - and I have
> > a feeling that once some peoples minds are made up they're not going to
> > change them at any cost. All I can say is I thought that way once too -
> > until I got to know a lot of the behinds the scenes things - at which
point
> > I had to admit that they people that built it weren't idiots and aren't
> > ripping people off - if folks choose to question my integrity when I say
> > that, then so be it - I can live with it :) I don't always agree with
John's
> > marketing techniques - but that's something we continue to have healthy
> > debates over.
>
> Having used my cellset for about 700 hours now I can't imagine how you
> could improve on it except make it smaller.
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Cockpit,

> For me, the advantage of the flightcell was
> to boost the mic bias and levels on my Bose headset so that the tower could
> hear me a little easier (the Bose tend to be a bit on the quiet side, and I
> tend to speak a bit too softly).
>

Nothing a decent intercom wouldn't do. And those 100 $ for the Bose seem to
have been too much, as well...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Thomas,

> And those 100 $ for the Bose seem to
> have been too much, as well...
>

1000, of course

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Isn't it against FCC regulations to use a Cell phone in the air?

John
student pilot




Newps > wrote in message >...
> I have Verizon. Originally it was Commnet, that turned into Airtouch
> which then turned into Verizon. I never fail to get a signal if I am at
> 1000 AGL, unles I am deep in the mountains. I may have to get to the
> ridge tops then. I have been in the middle of north central South
> Dakota and the phone has rung and it worked great, other person couldn't
> tell I was in the air. Right now I use a Kyocera 7135. Replaced the LG
> 4400 which overall worked great. Before that I had the Motorola T720,
> that was probably the worst phone I've ever had, although having nothing
> to do with its in flight qualities. I have found Motorola phones to
> have the worst receivers. My wife has a Kyocera 414 after just
> replacing the Kyocera 3135. All work great in the plane and in fringe
> areas on the ground.
>
> John Clonts wrote:
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Cockpit Colin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>If it costs them that much then they don't know what they're doing.
> >>>>There are two companies making these that I'm aware of that don't come
> >>>>close to this cost and several headset manufacturers that add them to
> >>>>their headsets.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That was my (uninformed) opinion too - unfortunately I had to eat humble
> >
> > pie
> >
> >>>when I started asking the designers some "pointed" questions. For
> >
> > starters,
> >
> >>>as I said in a previous post, you have to compare apples with apples.
> >
> > Show
> >
> >>>me the microprocessor in the headset interface - show me the intercom -
> >
> > show
> >
> >>>me the seperate satelite phone connection - show me the individual
> >
> > controls
> >
> >>>over input / output levels for all of the above. Show me how some of the
> >>>competing products raise the mic bias level to actually make an
> >
> > incompatible
> >
> >>>headset compatible (and is fine tuned even more by adjustment of the mic
> >>>volume).
> >>
> >>That's called overkill. I have no idea what's in my cellset. Don't
> >>care. The cellphone volume is the same as the radio volume, you don't
> >>realize how important that is until you use a unit that doesn't do that.
> >> Unit works flawlessly, it rings in my headset and people on the other
> >>end cannot tell I'm in the plane. If I didn't tell them that I was
> >>flying they would never know it. I built a little L shaped stand that
> >>is velcroed to my windshield so the phone antenna is always looking
> >>outside, always get a signal and makes it easy to dial while in flight.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What cellphone and service are you using, and what sort of success have you
> > had in doing that (altitudes, coverage)?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John Clonts
> > Temple, Texas
> > N7NZ
> >
> >
> >

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
om...
> Isn't it against FCC regulations to use a Cell phone in the air?

hoo boy...here we go again...

[John T]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> hoo boy...here we go again...

No kidding. How many hours has it been since this was discussed here?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[G.R. Patterson III]

John T wrote:
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > hoo boy...here we go again...
>
> No kidding. How many hours has it been since this was discussed here?

437.278

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Cockpit Colin]

I'd give my right arm for a decent intercom on most of the aircraft I fly :(

I tend to get hit 3 ways - the Bose requires a little bit more mic bias - I
speak a little bit softly - and most of the intercoms I have the
dis-pleasure of having to use should have been buried with the arc - so for
me, the flightcell works well.

Big debate over Bose pricing - I heard through the grapevine that they sell
something like 600 or 6000 a month and are struggling to keep up with
production - I've got 2 sets now - I used to be a DC fan but just had too
many problems with their latest ANR models (H10-13XL). I'll grab 2 more Bose
when I can afford them (for Pax) - they're light - less clamping force -
solid ANR - readily adjustable for kids - only downside(s) are a touch more
'delecate' (I wouldn't just throw them in a flightbag) - and more emphasis
on ANR rather than passive (which is more of an issue in theory because I
always have ANT turned on (and carry a spare battery)).

By the way - the Bose are $2500 in our currancy :(




"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Cockpit,
>
> > For me, the advantage of the flightcell was
> > to boost the mic bias and levels on my Bose headset so that the tower
could
> > hear me a little easier (the Bose tend to be a bit on the quiet side,
and I
> > tend to speak a bit too softly).
> >
>
> Nothing a decent intercom wouldn't do. And those 100 $ for the Bose seem
to
> have been too much, as well...
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>