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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Apr 2004 07:08:26 -0700, (Michael) wrote:
Fix it or get rid of it. I got rid of it. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote
While I generally agree with your statements about old instruments, presumably the instruments in a Cirrus SR22 are not very old. There's a difference between a new instrument, and an instrument that was recently manufactured to an obsolete design. I've spent years designing instruments (not for aviation - no money there) and learned something interesting. No design is static - it either evolves or rots. When an instrument is first designed, there are inevitable growing pains in manufacturing. This is expected, and it's fairly typical for a design engineer to spend a fair amount of time in manufacturing to bring the production people up to speed. But that's not the end. In a normal environment, there are continuous changes. Upgrades are made. Production processes are streamlined. Lower cost vendors are found, and engineering asessments/changes are made to accomodate the lower cost parts. Subassemblies are outsourced, and invariably the outsourcing process turns up problems in the documentation. But even if you don't plan any changes, they happen anyway. Vendors change their products subtly, or discontinue them completely, or just go out of business. Design and production changes are made to accomodate this. Eventually the design ages to the point where too many parts are unavailable, better methods exists, and it's time to redesign from scratch. That's a normal product life cycle. In GA, the process is perverted. Any change triggers a paperwork avalanche, so changes are avoided at all costs. Engineering involvement with a product post-release is dramatically reduced. Life cycles are very long. As a result, when an unplanned change occurs, the product often gets worse. This is a well-documented phenomenon in aviation engines (when was the last time a large Continental jug made TBO?) but it's even more true for smaller products. This was a steam gauge Cirrus. The gauges in it were more than likely of relatively recent manufacture - and obsolete design. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cirrus SR22 Purchase advice needed. | Dennis | Owning | 170 | May 19th 04 04:44 PM |
New Cessna panel | C J Campbell | Owning | 48 | October 24th 03 04:43 PM |