Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?

Morgans wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

Since the fuel gauage shown is being sold for 99 british pounds, I
don't think it would be too difficult to compete on a cost basis.

From your posts:

show altitude, IAS, TAS, average velocity, average acceleration, etc.
* show stress all over aircraft as colors correlated to degree of
[snippage]
* show air pressure, humidity, etc.
So that puts your system (before computer or displays) at 2800 pounds?

Humm.

That's just it. Most of the things I listed would cost far less than
$99 (let's switch to dollars for convenience). The reason that they
cost $99 or greater *now* is precisely because of the nature of the
supply chain.

Each component has a mechanical sensor and a display of some sort. The
mechanical sensor is unavoidable. But all of those displays can be
consolidated into one unit. The real question is, "How cheaply can
USB-based sensors of various sorts be manufactured?" I think the answer
is "very cheaply".

The problem is economics. Demand is relatively low, so the
manufacturers have to price units to make the effort worthwhile. But
as soon as the devices become truly commoditized, the prices will
become so low that the devices will become almost disposable. This has
already happened in electronics, were you can buy a 100Mb/s ethernet
adapter for $15. When you think about the technology that is involved
in creating a 100-meg ethernet adapter, it's simply incredible that you
can get one for less than cost of a meal for two.

I'd like to see the same thing happen in aviation. I'd like to see
commoditization of the sensors and controls. I'd like to see someone
make a USB-based humidity sensor, make it right, make it reliable, make
it cheap, and get out of the way. I'd like to see this done for all
the sensors.

If the manufactures did this, there would be other people who could
take care of the rest.

-Le Chaud Lapin-