A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Future of Electronics In Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old June 24th 08, 07:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 23, 4:35?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
You have shown that, if one wants to make a PAV for $50,000; they will
not be able to use a conventional engine or conventional avionics be
it would be too expensive.

You can have VFR avionics for under $10k, so that isn't really an
issue.


I recently read that an upgrade to the G1000 for syntethic terrain was
$10,000. Does this seem right? Just curious.


What makes you doubt that price?

When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?


Well, let's call a spade a spade. This is technology that's already
in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which
turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't
seen the SB for the SVI yet). Paying another $18,000 to get that
stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems
somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is
there whether it's turned on or not. It's not like we're talking
about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530
install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for
more than the VFR-only install.
  #212  
Old June 24th 08, 10:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote:
When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?


Well, let's call a spade a spade. This is technology that's already
in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which
turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't
seen the SB for the SVI yet). Paying another $18,000 to get that
stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems
somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is
there whether it's turned on or not. It's not like we're talking
about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530
install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for
more than the VFR-only install.


This kind of thing is standard practice. Look at all of the "pro" software
out there with a "basic" or "home" counterpart. It actually takes
significantly *more* effort on the part of the software maker to create
these two distinct versions of the software, but they anticipate making
enough money to make it worthwhile because they're able to better extract
more revenue from people who can pay.

It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
  #214  
Old June 25th 08, 02:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.


Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to
lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on
the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self.


One example I recall followed a Bonanza pilot flying VFR into IMC, and
digging a hole somewhere in Kansas. Pilot error, no evidence that the
aircraft broke up for any reason other than majorly severed overstress.

The lawyer (or law firm) going for civil damages added everyone he/they
could think of, including Beechcraft. They were demanding something on
the order of $2B in damages. That "B" was intentional, not a typo.

And the suit wasn't laughed out of court by the presiding judge.
  #215  
Old June 25th 08, 05:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 24, 4:36*pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:15:05 GMT, wrote:
When will it get through your thick skull that avionics software, and
especially IFR avionics software isn't cheap?


Well, let's call a spade a spade. *This is technology that's already
in the G1000 system but Garmin/Cessna are selling "unlock chips" which
turn on the functions that are hiding ($7500 for TAWS-B, I haven't
seen the SB for the SVI yet). *Paying another $18,000 to get that
stuff on an aircraft that lists at $283,500 (for a Skyhawk SP) seems
somewhat hefty on Cessna/Garmin's part when that functionality is
there whether it's turned on or not. *It's not like we're talking
about another $1200 for a remote indicator to IFR certify a 430/530
install in those cockpits that need a remote indicator to qualify for
more than the VFR-only install.


This kind of thing is standard practice. Look at all of the "pro" software
out there with a "basic" or "home" counterpart. It actually takes
significantly *more* effort on the part of the software maker to create
these two distinct versions of the software, but they anticipate making
enough money to make it worthwhile because they're able to better extract
more revenue from people who can pay.


Yep, price-stratification.

The ISP's are kicking themselves right now because they feel that
Internet-Access Service was commoditized and price-homongenized far
too prematurely. They know that some users would be willing to pay
much more than others, for certain patterns of usage, but it is
difficult for them to find a way to stratify the service, now that cat
is out of the bag. They are currently trying to come up with pitiful
excuses to justify the action, even thought it is no secret that the
utilization of existing cable plant is frighteningly low, so low that
companies like http://www.level3.com stays afloat by charging large,
somewhat indifferent customers between 10-100x what those customers
would pay with smaller vendor Level3 sees red on P&L statement every
quarter in hunreds of millions, with a glut of capacity.

Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke
about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a
large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply
was..."But it comes with mints!"

It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.


I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
about $42,000. They discovered, long after market planning and device
design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. But
there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
lower-paying customers. Not very pretty, but it worked.

As the saying goes:

Customer: "How much does it cost?"
Vendor: "How much you got?"

-Le Chaud Lapin-
  #216  
Old June 26th 08, 01:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke
about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a
large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply
was..."But it comes with mints!"


It's spelled "usury", and this is not it. Usury refers to the specific
practice of charging illegally high interest (orignially, to charging
interest at all) on loans.

It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.


I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
about $42,000. They discovered, long after market planning and device
design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. But
there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
lower-paying customers. Not very pretty, but it worked.


Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever
reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their
machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be,
and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice.

As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately
it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper,
if it weren't done.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
  #217  
Old June 26th 08, 05:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 25, 7:35*pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Usery occurs at all levels, for both rich and poor. We used to joke
about customers shrieking at outrageously exhorbitant prices for a
large hardware company near Boston. Their salesman standard reply
was..."But it comes with mints!"


It's spelled "usury", and this is not it. Usury refers to the specific
practice of charging illegally high interest (orignially, to charging
interest at all) on loans.


Realized that just after I hit the ENTER key. dsloppy/dt 0
definitely monotonically increasing function of t when it comes to
typing.

It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.


I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
about $42,000. *They discovered, long after market planning and device
design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. *But
there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
lower-paying customers. *Not very pretty, but it worked.


Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever
reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their
machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be,
and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice.

As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately
it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper,
if it weren't done.


True.

I was just pointing out the highly desirable benefit of price
stratification from vendor's point of view, as even the marketing
people had not previously had any intention of addressing the newly-
sprung market, and at $30,000 they were still making a profit.

Incidentally, had dinner tonight with a friend who is salesman for
company that makes all kinds of electronic surveillance equipment. He
showed me a device that can be used to check if someone is spying on
you with a CCD camera.

He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
be mounted on GA aircraft, and it turns out that company has entire
line of cameras for aviation, including police surveillance. The
equipment is in excess of $1000, and in some several $1000's for what
was essentially the same $100-$200 unit. We got into discussion about
whether they were repackaging same equipment that they sell for cheap
(they are), and what justification for higher pricing, and in the end,
I said, "So basically, it's the same unit, same technology, made in
Taiwan, different case, different manual, and differnt power
connector, which probably costs less than $50 I'm guessing, and the
real reason that you are charging so much to pilots is because you
can."

And he says,

"Well..yeah, right, that's the idea, isn't it?"

-Le Chaud Lapin-
  #218  
Old June 26th 08, 12:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Dylan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 530
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
be mounted on GA aircraft


If it's small duct tape will do as a mounting :-) I've used a similar
camera (it's about the size of a large thing of lipstick, hence is
called a 'lipstick camera') on planes and racing motorcycles.

Some examples (although the quality will be somewhat degraded by
youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/user/74HC138

I also now have a completely self contained camera which cost (in US
money) about $70. Records to an SD card. It's not as good quality as the
lipstick camera, but it weighs only 35 grams and fits on a radio
controlled helicopter.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
  #219  
Old June 26th 08, 04:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It's grating when the functionality is there but disabled because you
haven't paid for activation, but on the other hand if they couldn't get
extra money for the fancier features then they might not develop them at
all. If they did, then they would probably simply charge the full price
for the unit so you'd be out the same amount of money in the end, just
without the option to spend less for fewer capabilities.


I heard frrom a friend who worked a Certain Computer Corporation that
back in the 1980's? they cleverly achieved price stratification for
their new line of mini-computers. They were selling each machine for
about $42,000. ?They discovered, long after market planning and device
design and just before release that there was an unanticipated market,
customers who wanted the machine at $30,000, but not much more. ?But
there were already customers willing to pay $42,000, and to make a
seperate product would have taken too long. Instead of redesigning the
machine, they sold the same $42,000 machine, but just before it was
shipped, opened each and filled some of the expansion slots with an
insulating undissolvable glue to prevent expansion-card upgrades by
lower-paying customers. ?Not very pretty, but it worked.


Now imagine if this option had not been available to them for whatever
reason. What would happen? Would the $30,000 customers still get their
machine? Not likely! Instead they would have simply left that market be,
and the $30,000 customers would have had less choice.

As I said, it's annoying and crappy when it's done to you, but ultimately
it results in more choice. The stuff would be more expensive, not cheaper,
if it weren't done.


True.

I was just pointing out the highly desirable benefit of price
stratification from vendor's point of view, as even the marketing
people had not previously had any intention of addressing the newly-
sprung market, and at $30,000 they were still making a profit.


Sure, I just wanted to point out the highly desirable benefit of price
stratification from the *buyer's* point of view. With this kind of
"underhanded" technique, the $30,000 buyers suddenly had a product.
Without it, they would not have had the opportunity to purchase it at all.
Net win for them.

Also, "still making a profit" is extremely misleading. In electronics, and
especially software, design costs are enormous. Those engineers don't come
cheap, but they get paid the same amount no matter how many units you
sell. It is entirely possible to make a profit on each unit but still lose
money overall.

Incidentally, had dinner tonight with a friend who is salesman for
company that makes all kinds of electronic surveillance equipment. He
showed me a device that can be used to check if someone is spying on
you with a CCD camera.

He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
resolution). Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
be mounted on GA aircraft, and it turns out that company has entire
line of cameras for aviation, including police surveillance. The
equipment is in excess of $1000, and in some several $1000's for what
was essentially the same $100-$200 unit. We got into discussion about
whether they were repackaging same equipment that they sell for cheap
(they are), and what justification for higher pricing, and in the end,
I said, "So basically, it's the same unit, same technology, made in
Taiwan, different case, different manual, and differnt power
connector, which probably costs less than $50 I'm guessing, and the
real reason that you are charging so much to pilots is because you
can."

And he says,

"Well..yeah, right, that's the idea, isn't it?"


If you don't want to pay the outrageous price, come up with your own
mounting!

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
  #220  
Old June 26th 08, 04:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 26, 6:05*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-06-26, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

He also showed me a miniature camera with 700+x400+ (forget exact
resolution). *Cost was about $100. I asked him if such a device could
be mounted on GA aircraft


If it's small duct tape will do as a mounting :-) I've used a similar
camera (it's about the size of a large thing of lipstick, hence is
called a 'lipstick camera') on planes and racing motorcycles.

Some examples (although the quality will be somewhat degraded by
youtube):http://www.youtube.com/user/74HC138


74HC138? You EE too?

I also now have a completely self contained camera which cost (in US
money) about $70. Records to an SD card. It's not as good quality as the
lipstick camera, but it weighs only 35 grams and fits on a radio
controlled helicopter.


Well, I watched all your YouTube videos over breakfast this morning.

I guess you already know that you could have probably had a career as
a movie director.

Very very nice!

-Le Chaud Lapin-
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation Mel[_2_] Aviation Marketplace 0 September 8th 07 01:37 PM
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation Derek Aviation Marketplace 0 September 3rd 07 02:17 AM
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation Jeff[_5_] Aviation Marketplace 0 September 1st 07 12:45 PM
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation Jon[_4_] Aviation Marketplace 0 August 24th 07 01:13 AM
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation Larry[_3_] Aviation Marketplace 0 August 6th 07 02:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.