Cost of Cockpit Instruments

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Nope. I just know that it will be a fixed cost. My guess is that it
would be under $100,000,000. If so, then those costs would be
recuperated.

100 Million USD? Really, you think it would be that high?

But let's say you are right. If every single aircraft registered in the US
added your widget that would be amortized to about $500/plane.

While I fully agree that anything sold to go into an aircraft costs more
than it should at least some of that cost is there for a reason.

I'll bet if you call Intel's OEM sales unit and ask for a price on 500 INTEL
Core 2 Duo E6300 which is selling for around $155.00 anywhere on the web and
told them that you were going to put it in a certified aviation application
the price would jump significantly if they would sell it to you at all.

Here's a question and answer from Blue Mountain Avionics' website. They make
a EIS for experimental aircraft. Keep inmind what they are talking about is
for something that will go in an experimental aircraft. They are just
talking about GPS IFR approach certification.

Q: Is EFIS/One certified for GPS approaches?

On the advice of our most trusted avionics dealer and partner, we have
decided not to pursue it. For what it will cost to do TSO C129A testing and
certification, we'd have to raise the price of the EFIS by more than the
cost of a high-volume certified unit. We think it's a better deal to have a
reasonably priced glass cockpit, and the interconnect available for those
who want to fly GPS approaches. If you have a certified GPS, you can plug
it in to drive the flight director and autopilot in approach mode.

On Sep 19, 9:52 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
100 Million USD? Really, you think it would be that high?

No, I just picked a number that I was pretty sure it would not
exceed.

But let's say you are right. If every single aircraft registered in the US
added your widget that would be amortized to about $500/plane.

While I fully agree that anything sold to go into an aircraft costs more
than it should at least some of that cost is there for a reason.

I think the "more" part is *significant*. See below:

I'll bet if you call Intel's OEM sales unit and ask for a price on 500 INTEL
Core 2 Duo E6300 which is selling for around $155.00 anywhere on the web and
told them that you were going to put it in a certified aviation application
the price would jump significantly if they would sell it to you at all.

Well, something has to be certified. After all, the people who make
glass cockpits have to get CPU's and SRAM from somewhere.

Here's a question and answer from Blue Mountain Avionics' website. They make
a EIS for experimental aircraft. Keep inmind what they are talking about is
for something that will go in an experimental aircraft. They are just
talking about GPS IFR approach certification.

Q: Is EFIS/One certified for GPS approaches?

On the advice of our most trusted avionics dealer and partner, we have
decided not to pursue it. For what it will cost to do TSO C129A testing and
certification, we'd have to raise the price of the EFIS by more than the
cost of a high-volume certified unit. We think it's a better deal to have a
reasonably priced glass cockpit, and the interconnect available for those
who want to fly GPS approaches. If you have a certified GPS, you can plug
it in to drive the flight director and autopilot in approach mode.

I guess it's true that if you are selling devices in low-volume,
certification is not worth the cost.

This illuminates the real problem, which is that the approach to
building aircraft monitor and control systems is not the same as for
building computers. One of the reasons that computers are so cheap is
that the almost demand interchangeability. IBM and other large
companies, for a long time, have been able to lock in customers with
proprietary hardware, but the PC market will not tolerate this. While
I am not saying that companies like Garmin are deliberately trying to
lock in customers, it does not appear to me that they are making any
effort to commoditize their systems either. I think there is enormous
opportunity for a company to break away from this mindset and start
down the path of total commoditization and interchangeability.
Simple, cheap, robust USB-base monitors and controls will go a long
way.

Let's take an example:

Jim Stewart noted in a response to my OP, noting that...

"A Lowrance 2000c gives you terrain, airspace,
VFR chart, airports and frequencies in a very
nice little package for about 700 USD on discount."

Here it is:

http://www.lowrance.com/Products/Aviation/AM2000C.asp

He's right, it's cheaper than $1800, but...$700? When I look at that
device, I see nothing more than a PDA, a database, and some software.

Continuing with this example, let's suppose I take my $700 instead and
buy a standard basic PC from Dell. The Inspiron 531S is selling for
$529US: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...=DDCWGC2&s=dhs.
Note that it comes with 17inch, LCD color monitor, $160GB hard drive,
"in-flight movie viewing system" (DVD drive and Windows Media
Player). I would want two of these machines in my airplane, so let's
say cost is $1058.

Now I look at the link that Jim Stewart gave:

http://www.dynonavionics.com

First, let me point out that my goal is not to criticize Dynon. [One
should commend them for trying to bring the price down.]

However, looking at the EFIS-D100 (http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/
D100_intro.html), which costs $2400, one reads:

"Dynon's EFIS-D100 is the most affordable large screen Electronic
Flight Information System on the market today. Based on the best-
selling EFIS-D10A, the 7" wide-screen display features large, easy to
read text and graphics and is capable of displaying multiple pages
side by side in a split-screen format. The instrument integrates
multiple flight instruments, including airspeed, altitude, gyro-
stabilized magnetic compass, turn rate, slip/skid ball, bank angle,
and vertical speed. Other useful functions include a clock/timer, g-
meter, voltmeter and density altitude/true airspeed calculator."

When I see this device, I see

1. My two Dell computers with 17" monitors
2. More software
3. USB-based devices everywhere. I don't see why some sensors like
pressure sensor should not cost $50US or less.

For instance, the clock-timer.....we need not discuss what value such
a thing has in a PC. It's essentially 0$. G-meter...at worst case,
that's a USB-base accelerometer. Voltmeter...again..$10 would be a
conservative cost for USB-based device. Attitude indication, same
thing. Also, since I'd be using PC with 160GB hard disks each, there
would be plenty of space for maps of entire planet.

So let's say that each USB-gadget costs $50 in quantity on average,
and there are 12 of them, so that's $1200 if I double-up each device
for redundancy. My total system cost, including two computers, and 24
USB-based gadgets without software, would be $2258, less than the one
device for $2400. One could throw in a software-radio, and get access
to the entire suite of aviation radio communications. The massive 320
GB of hard-disk space would make things like logging trip data,
including weather information, almost trivial.

So a different approach might be to stop making finished systems and
instead focus on components. Manufacturers would make controls in
sensors in wide variety, all conforming to USB standard. A (cheap)
commodity PC would be able to control everything. And (licensed)
software developers could do their part.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


So a different approach might be to stop making finished systems and
instead focus on components. Manufacturers would make controls in
sensors in wide variety, all conforming to USB standard. A (cheap)
commodity PC would be able to control everything. And (licensed)
software developers could do their part.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

That is where your problem is. It all has to be certified as a unit not as
individual components. Like it or not it isn't going to change with anything
short of an armed revolution.

Let me give you an example of FAA thinking.

I'm building and airplane, you can see it at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR.

When I'm done because I'm using a non certified prop and engine combination
I have to test fly it for 40 hours for phase one testing. If I was using an
engine and prop combination that had ever been paired up in a certified
aircraft I would only need to phase one test for 25 hours. Now here's the
kicker. Just because that certified engine and prop were mounted and flown
in an experimental they can never be considered certified again.

Another good example is the IFR GPS certification requirement even in an
experimental. I can install every single piece of electronics in my plane
and if one of those pieces happen to be a Nav/Com with Glide Slope I can fly
it IFR. For that matter I could even build the Nav/Com myself and the FAA
wouldn't care. (yes the FCC would but that is beside the point) But for a
GPS to be used IFR it has to meet the TSO requirements.

That Dynon unit you mentioned is what is going in my plane but even it can't
go into a certified aircraft without a metric butt load of paperwork.

I think deep down you know what the reasons for the cost are but if you
don't I'll tell you.

Volume: There really isn't that big a market.
Certification: Those Dell laptops would never pass the vibration tests
alone.
LIABILITY

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

Now here's the kicker. Just because that certified engine and prop were
mounted and flown in an experimental they can never be considered
certified again.

That is not consistant with what I have read.

If you keep the original data plate on the engine, and do all repair work
and follow all of the directives for the engine, and the work is done by an
A&P, then what you mount it in is not important. When you take it out, if
all work (engine maintenance and rebuilds) as been done up to FAA standards
by or supervised by an A&P, you can indeed put the engine back into a
certified plane. AS far as the prop goes, I am not up with the requirements
on them, but I "believe" the same standards apply for it.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

Now here's the kicker. Just because that certified engine and prop
were mounted and flown in an experimental they can never be
considered certified again.

That is not consistant with what I have read.

If you keep the original data plate on the engine, and do all repair
work and follow all of the directives for the engine, and the work is
done by an A&P, then what you mount it in is not important. When you
take it out, if all work (engine maintenance and rebuilds) as been
done up to FAA standards by or supervised by an A&P, you can indeed
put the engine back into a certified plane. AS far as the prop goes,
I am not up with the requirements on them, but I "believe" the same
standards apply for it.

The problem arises that if ANY alterations or work has been done to the
engine not by an A&P or supervised by one the certification is in doubt. In
the real world once it is in an experimental you'd be hard pressed to get
anyone to believe that it is still a certified engine.

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

When I see this device, I see

1. My two Dell computers with 17" monitors

You are dreaming, and talking out of your but, while doing so.

Your Dells are not bright enough to be direct sunlight readable, which an
airplane display must be.

Your Dell does not have hard drives capable of operating above 12,000 feet.
(or perhaps much lower)

Oh, and that software you mentioned is expensive.

How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps 2% of
your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.

How about profit for the investors? They will need some, spreading the cost
over not too many units.

I wish the stuff were not so expensive. Wishing will not make it so.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:


How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps
2% of your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.


2%, surly you jest. Try 0.02%

On Sep 19, 3:17 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Morgans wrote:

How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps
2% of your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.

2%, surly you jest. Try 0.02%

Actually, most laptop models sell around 10 million units a month, and
have a lifecycle of 2 years. That is a total of 240,000,000 units.

Most EFIS systems sell maybe 1000 to 2000 copies. For grins lets say
one is REALLY successful and sells 10,000 units.

10,000 divided by 240,000,000 is 0.004%

The market is absolutely TINY compared to consumer electronics.

That is the number 1 reason why everything is so expensive. That's
why even experimental equipment is much more expensive than consumer
electronics.

Number 2 is the cost of certification.

Number 3 is liability insurance.

On Sep 19, 5:01 pm, wrote:

Actually, most laptop models sell around 10 million units a month, and
have a lifecycle of 2 years. That is a total of 240,000,000 units.

Most EFIS systems sell maybe 1000 to 2000 copies. For grins lets say
one is REALLY successful and sells 10,000 units.

10,000 divided by 240,000,000 is 0.004%

The market is absolutely TINY compared to consumer electronics.

That is the number 1 reason why everything is so expensive. That's
why even experimental equipment is much more expensive than consumer
electronics.

Now *this* makes sense. This is what I suspected all along.

The problem is a catch 22. The planes are expensive because the
volume is relatively low. The volume is relatively low (partially)
because the planes are expensive.

I don't know how much the cost of an airplane is related to sensors,
controls, and monitoring equipment, but as an electrical/software
engineer, it's very difficult to spend $3000 for something you know
you could make for $150.

Number 2 is the cost of certification.

Number 3 is liability insurance.

I think if manufacturers where to build airplanes cheap (in cost),
Problems 2 and 3 will begin to fix themselves.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Morgans wrote:


How about overhead to make all of this stuff, for a market of perhaps
2% of your Dells. Same with the designing of the software.


2%, surly you jest. Try 0.02%

chuckle Yep, that is probably more like it.
--
Jim in NC