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

Cirrus' "Failing Instruments In Rapid Succession"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 16th 04, 05:41 PM
ArtP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 16 Apr 2004 07:08:26 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

Fix it or get rid of it.


I got rid of it.

  #22  
Old April 17th 04, 07:47 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 AM.


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