Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:35 AM - Re: Software in the cockpit (Brian Lloyd)
2. 04:02 AM - Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
3. 05:39 AM - Re: Software in the cockpit (Eric Ekberg)
4. 05:39 AM - Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
5. 05:54 AM - Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (Brian Lloyd)
6. 06:53 AM - Re: Software in the cockpit (David Chalmers)
7. 09:44 AM - Re: regulator per z-13/8 (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
8. 11:10 AM - Re: Software in the cockpit (Brian Lloyd)
9. 11:27 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 06/28/06 (Ernest Christley)
10. 11:50 AM - Re: Software in the cockpit (Kelly McMullen)
11. 01:00 PM - Re: Software in the cockpit (Kelly McMullen)
12. 01:32 PM - Unswitched Inputs to Audio Panel (dsvs@comcast.net)
13. 01:47 PM - Re: Unswitched Inputs to Audio Panel (dsvs@comcast.net)
14. 02:31 PM - Is there a color code convention for intercom wiring? ()
15. 03:36 PM - Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop) ()
16. 04:09 PM - Re: Is there a color code convention for intercom (Rick Lindstrom)
17. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop) (Robert Sultzbach)
18. 05:47 PM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop) (Brian Lloyd)
19. 09:19 PM - Test (BobsV35B@aol.com)
20. 10:25 PM - Re: Software in the cockpit (James Clark)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Software in the cockpit |
On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider
> <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> It's true,
>
> but it is the Windows Kernel only without any gimmicks like Windows
> and not overloaded with all this 1 million function which have bugs
> to the end of the road.
I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of
promise in the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not
Microsoft. Originally it was called OS2.) The basic microkernel
architecture is a good one in that it embodies the concept I was
espousing -- small, simple, and testable modules that have well
defined interfaces with little interaction. I have worked with
several and prefer them to monolithic kernels like Linux. But any
good thing can be made bad as Windows XP demonstrates.
> The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only
> basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as
> used in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is
> the overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan)
> trust on that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which
> have a very good reputation.
I agree. I was just joking about the MX-20. (I should have put in a
smilie in my original post.) It seems to be a reliable device.
It is interesting to see that the kind of problem we were talking
about, i.e. "creeping featurism" increasing complexity and reducing
reliability, has struck the certified EFIS world. The Garmin 1000 has
been struck with a plethora of software updates reminiscent of
Windows. A couple of avionics shops I have spoken/dealt with have
complained to me of the problems they have had with that unit. This
brings us back to the original discussion about the desirability of
dedicated devices with clearly defined and straightforward
functionality.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternator failure. Info provided |
Hmm. Good ?
I would say its about a wash at this point. Since Im measuring against 2
planes and since I do not know what the failure rates are on the B&C.
Lets suppose this. Lets suppose I only care about the money, which
practically speaking I do.
Lets say the the B&C should last as long as an automotive device should.
If I were to assume the average car today made it 100,000 miles on an
alternator (which I think is low ball since I have 2 cars with combined
300,000 miles with no alternator change). And I assume average
36mph(that's what my car says I average). That's 2777 hours of operation
before failure. My MTBF of the 4 replacements has been 500 hours. That
means I would be by buying 5.5 units to make 2777 hours of operation.
@$118 per unit that's $650 worth of alternators to make the 2777 hours.
I really need the failure rate of the B&C now to make a comparison.
Mike
Do not archive
_____
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:26 PM
On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
No.
First 3 were the old vans 35 amp alt. . 79 Honda Civic was the
application as I recall.
Next 2 were the 14684 ND ones.
So, in terms of time and trouble, do you think that maybe the B&C
alternator and controller would be cheaper in the long run?
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Software in the cockpit |
It is possible to make a software system safe. Major avionics companies do
it all the time. There are software assurance standards as well for "how
safe" it needs to be. The safter the software needs to be the more
expensive it is to make.
Same goes for the ground and space based navaids. Ever flown an ILS
approach in IMC? If you did, chances are you just trusted your life to a
computer. The FAA evaluates all safety critical navaids for what is called
Hazardous Misleading Information (HMI). HMI is when the ILS tells your
plane that it is 500 AGL when it is really 200 AGL and about to fly into a
hill.
I love the experimental EFIS's out there and plan on having a few in my
plane. However, I don't trust these companies or their products any farther
than I can throw them. Just assume that the device is going give you HMI,
and have backups (more than one) that you can use to validate the device in
IMC.
do not archive
Eric
RV-10 (hopefully someday)
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided |
I know that it is really a bummer to have alternator problems. Almost all
of these problems are due to excessive temperature.
Even a 35 amp alternator would last a lot longer (probably at least a 1000
hours) if it had a decent cooling fan. Even one turning the wrong direction
would be a lot better than none at all. Alternators are only about 50 percent
efficient so there is a lot of heat to get rid of. If you're going to count
on only the blast tube, make a good shroud for the back of the alternator.
There is a lot of this information in the archives, so do not archive.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided |
On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
> Hmm. Good ?
>
> I would say its about a wash at this point. Since Im measuring
> against 2 planes and since I do not know what the failure rates are
> on the B&C.
>
> Lets suppose this. Lets suppose I only care about the money, which
> practically speaking I do.
>
> Lets say the the B&C should last as long as an automotive device
> should. If I were to assume the average car today made it 100,000
> miles on an alternator (which I think is low ball since I have 2
> cars with combined 300,000 miles with no alternator change). And I
> assume average 36mph(that=92s what my car says I average). That=92s
> 2777 hours of operation before failure. My MTBF of the 4
> replacements has been 500 hours. That means I would be by buying
> 5.5 units to make 2777 hours of operation. @$118 per unit that=92s
> $650 worth of alternators to make the 2777 hours.
>
>
> I really need the failure rate of the B&C now to make a comparison.
If Bill Bainbridge of B&C is to be believed, the failure rate of B&C
alternators is very close to zero. When I first talked to him 7-8
years ago he claimed that the only failures had been the result of
misinstallation and not from outright mechanical or electrical
failure. I am sure there have been some failures but barring the
customer doing something wrong with it, there have been precious few.
(And before I really stick my foot in my mouth I have to state again
that my conversation with Bill on this is many years old and could
very well be wrong. OTOH, I have never heard anyone complain about
B&C alternators failing, only that they cost a lot of money.)
So you are at a wash on cost for the alternator but what about time
and any costs incurred by being caught out somewhere else while
fixing it, e.g. hotel room, taxi or car rental, restaurant, etc.? It
is amazing how much the total cost of even a simple failure while on
the road can add up.
There are pretty much three options for the CJ6A: the stock Russian
or Chinese generator, a Delco truck alternator with a modifed shaft
and adaptor plate, or a B&C alternator. I am going to go with a B&C
alternator. I prefer flying to fixing and anything I can do to make
the airplane more reliable is what I am going to do.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Software in the cockpit |
This has nothing to do with electrics but I worked on both OS/2 and
Windows NT at Microsoft and Windows NT was not based on OS/2 and not
written by IBM. Windows NT was new code - a clean sheet design and very
stable. Of course they later slapped all the old Windows code on top of
it which dragged it down.
Dave Chalmers
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:28 AM
On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <
glastar@gmx.net>
It's true,
but it is the Windows Kernel only without any gimmicks like Windows and
not overloaded with all this 1 million function which have bugs to the
end of the road.
I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of promise
in the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not Microsoft.
Originally it was called OS2.) The basic microkernel architecture is a
good one in that it embodies the concept I was espousing -- small,
simple, and testable modules that have well defined interfaces with
little interaction. I have worked with several and prefer them to
monolithic kernels like Linux. But any good thing can be made bad as
Windows XP demonstrates.
The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only
basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as used
in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is the
overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan) trust on
that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which have a very good
reputation.
I agree. I was just joking about the MX-20. (I should have put in a
smilie in my original post.) It seems to be a reliable device.
It is interesting to see that the kind of problem we were talking about,
i.e. "creeping featurism" increasing complexity and reducing
reliability, has struck the certified EFIS world. The Garmin 1000 has
been struck with a plethora of software updates reminiscent of Windows.
A couple of avionics shops I have spoken/dealt with have complained to
me of the problems they have had with that unit. This brings us back to
the original discussion about the desirability of dedicated devices with
clearly defined and straightforward functionality.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: regulator per z-13/8 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
An earlier version of Z-13/8 included the B&C regulator with built-in OVP,
and warning lights. Not sure why the change - perhaps to provide a less
expensive option, and/or to avoid appearances of B&C favoritism?
Regardless, the B&C regulator is an option worth considering.
Erich Weaver
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Software in the cockpit |
On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote:
> It is possible to make a software system safe. Major avionics
> companies do it all the time. There are software assurance
> standards as well for "how safe" it needs to be. The safter the
> software needs to be the more expensive it is to make.
I agree with all your points.
> Same goes for the ground and space based navaids. Ever flown an
> ILS approach in IMC? If you did, chances are you just trusted your
> life to a computer. The FAA evaluates all safety critical navaids
> for what is called Hazardous Misleading Information (HMI). HMI is
> when the ILS tells your plane that it is 500 AGL when it is really
> 200 AGL and about to fly into a hill.
The beauty of ILS is that the LOC and GS signals are generated by
their respective antennas. (Phased array.) The transmitters are very
simple continuous-wave, AM modulated (basically 1930's radio
technology) and either work or they don't. There is no computer and
no software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable. About the worst
thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently intercepts the GS
too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is pretty obvious
because it happens way too high but I understand that people have
done it.
I suppose someone could cut one of the feedlines to the antenna array
but I suspect that without one or the other of the two tones the
receiver uses to determine whether you are in the blue or yellow
sector, the receiver would flag the signal. Again, no computer
involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I dearly love.)
> I love the experimental EFIS's out there and plan on having a few
> in my plane. However, I don't trust these companies or their
> products any farther than I can throw them. Just assume that the
> device is going give you HMI, and have backups (more than one) that
> you can use to validate the device in IMC.
I actually expect to trust my PFD at least as much as I trust my iron
gyros. I know that it has the potential to be much more reliable
(several orders of magnitude), modulo the quality of the software.
Think about it -- while we are talking about how bad the software can
be, I think most of us who have flown significant IFR have had to fly
with a failed gyro. That said, I think that I will have an ASI, an
altimeter, and an electromechanical T&B in the panel too. But then
there is that neat little instrument from Tru-Trak ... <sigh>
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 06/28/06 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>
>Time: 07:29:12 AM PST US
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Software in the cockpit
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
>
> I'm not suggesting that "fully validated" software
> is a bad or unnecessary goal to strive for . . . but
> in the OBAM aircraft world, it's unlikely that were going to see
> a DO-178, Level A qualification on ANY offerings.
> I'll suggest that building a firewall between simple
> save-your-life and the more complex but convenient,
> dish-washing-silver-polishing system is easy, prudent
> and greatly reduces risks.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Good design direction, Bob. You isolate the piece that is actually
manipulating controls into a tiny box that will need only a few hundred
lines of code. An easily verifiable amount of code. More importantly,
you strictly limit the numbers of inputs to be guarded and sanity
checked. But I don't believe it to be the best that we can do.
Let me suggest the simple idea that the autopilot be allowed to talk to
the glitzy, high-res PocketPC, but not the other way around. There is
no way humanly possible to verify all the code in that thing, and the
people wouldn't let you see their code is it were possible. Don't give
it the chance to whisper in your autopilot's ear without you being in
the loop. You work around that requirement with multiple autopilots
watching over one another, but that can get really complicated, really
fast. How about the PC listens to the autopilot and tells the real
pilot when it is time to turn. The pilot will then have to validate it
with other instruments, but he is much more likely to do the validation
BEFORE the turn is started. Let the PC listen and make all sorts of
pretty pictures, but don't give it a modicum of control. With the
autopilot to keep the plane straight and level, the pilot should have
plenty of resources to watch multiple instruments and point the ship in
the proper direction. The PocketPC as a control element becomes an
unecessary (but potentially dangerous) convenience.
At this point, we're getting close to counting the number of angels on
the head of a pin. My earlier post concerned how I would select a
company to provide an EFIS. The simple ideas I have today are for how
to write software code for a cockpit:
- keep the code short enough that every path can be mapped
- keep the number of inputs extremely limited (making it possible to map
every path).
- guard EVERY input such that it is limited to pre-declared limits
(making it possible to map every path).
- have the code reviewed by a disinterest 'coder'. If it takes him/her
more than a 1/2 hour to understand the flow...rewrite it. If it isn't
clear and obvious to them, it won't be clear and obvious to you three
weeks from now. Having 'inherited' codebases that had passed through
many hands, let me testify that code that must be maintained but isn't
well understood gets badly munged really fast.
As for the comments made by others about suing Bill Gates...that is
silly and irrelevant. I use Linux and before that I used OS/2, after
having found Windows to be an unstable toy on top of an unstable
operating system. I only work with Microsoft products when forced to
through Microsoft foisting so many proprietary and incompatible file
formats on the world. People seem to like spending their money on that
marginally useful stuff because it has lots of glitz and widgets, and
sometimes I choose to interact with those people. Thanks to OpenOffice,
I rarely must do that any more. Personally, I prefer to spend my money
on things that bring me value. BUT NOBODY CARES!! It has nothing to do
with what should be in the cockpit. I would not care to fly behind a
PFD that was based on Windows, any more than one based on Workplace
Shell, KDE or Gnome. NONE of them are appropriate. The question is not
"What operating system is best?", the question is "What design
philosophy is best for a limited function, life-critical software system?"
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Software in the cockpit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Was not the original NT largely based on the Unix code rather than a
clean sheet?
Quoting David Chalmers <David@ChalmersFamily.com>:
> This has nothing to do with electrics but I worked on both OS/2 and
> Windows NT at Microsoft and Windows NT was not based on OS/2 and not
> written by IBM. Windows NT was new code - a clean sheet design and
> very stable. Of course they later slapped all the old Windows code
> on top of it which dragged it down.
>
> Dave Chalmers
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:28 AM
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider < glastar@gmx.net>
>
>
> It's true,
>
>
> but it is the Windows Kernel only without any gimmicks like Windows
> and not overloaded with all this 1 million function which have bugs
> to the end of the road.
>
>
> I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of
> promise in the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not
> Microsoft. Originally it was called OS2.) The basic microkernel
> architecture is a good one in that it embodies the concept I was
> espousing -- small, simple, and testable modules that have well
> defined interfaces with little interaction. I have worked with
> several and prefer them to monolithic kernels like Linux. But any
> good thing can be made bad as Windows XP demonstrates.
>
>
> The kernel (I thinks it's even 3.51) is quite stable as it has only
> basic functionality and it is tested out also very well as well as
> used in many other processor driven parts. What is full of bugs is
> the overhead put on top, so I would (even if I'm not a Gates fan)
> trust on that product, as well as it was done from Apollo which have
> a very good reputation.
>
>
> I agree. I was just joking about the MX-20. (I should have put in a
> smilie in my original post.) It seems to be a reliable device.
>
>
> It is interesting to see that the kind of problem we were talking
> about, i.e. "creeping featurism" increasing complexity and reducing
> reliability, has struck the certified EFIS world. The Garmin 1000
> has been struck with a plethora of software updates reminiscent of
> Windows. A couple of avionics shops I have spoken/dealt with have
> complained to me of the problems they have had with that unit. This
> brings us back to the original discussion about the desirability of
> dedicated devices with clearly defined and straightforward
> functionality.
>
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> ? Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Software in the cockpit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Right. The FAA simply installs a monitoring receiver at a fixed
location from the transmitter, and as long as the signal gives a
result within tolerance on an analog type meter, the ILS stays
on-line. If it doesn't get a good signal, it trips an alarm at the
monitoring facility...usually the tower cab, and they can flip a
switch to shut down the transmitter. They are sensitive enough that
snow of a certain depth in front of the transmit antenna, espec glide
slope will cause the system to alarm.
Ex-tower controller
Quoting Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>:
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote:
>
>> It is possible to make a software system safe. Major avionics
>> companies do it all the time. There are software assurance
>> standards as well for "how safe" it needs to be. The safter the
>> software needs to be the more expensive it is to make.
>
> I agree with all your points.
>
>> Same goes for the ground and space based navaids. Ever flown an
>> ILS approach in IMC? If you did, chances are you just trusted your
>> life to a computer. The FAA evaluates all safety critical
>> navaids for what is called Hazardous Misleading Information
>> (HMI). HMI is when the ILS tells your plane that it is 500 AGL
>> when it is really 200 AGL and about to fly into a hill.
>
> The beauty of ILS is that the LOC and GS signals are generated by
> their respective antennas. (Phased array.) The transmitters are very
> simple continuous-wave, AM modulated (basically 1930's radio
> technology) and either work or they don't. There is no computer and no
> software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable. About the worst
> thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently intercepts the GS
> too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is pretty obvious
> because it happens way too high but I understand that people have done
> it.
>
> I suppose someone could cut one of the feedlines to the antenna array
> but I suspect that without one or the other of the two tones the
> receiver uses to determine whether you are in the blue or yellow
> sector, the receiver would flag the signal. Again, no computer
> involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I dearly love.)
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Unswitched Inputs to Audio Panel |
Listeners,
My audio panel (Garmine) has three (3) unswitched inputs. I have five (5) devices
that I would like to attach to these inputs. Is it a simple case of paralelling
two sets or will I need to do anything else for this to work? Thanks in
advance. Don
Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252
<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space;
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Jun 29, 2006, at
8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote:</DIV><BR
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV>It is
possible to make a software system safe.- Major avionics companies do
it all the time.- There are software assurance standards as well for
"how safe" it needs to be.- The safter the software needs to be the
more expensive it is to make.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I agree with all your
points.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Same
goes for the ground and space based navaids.- Ever flown an ILS
approach in IMC?- If you did, chances are you just trusted your life
to a computer.- The FAA evaluates all safety critical navaids for what
is called Hazardous Misleading Information (HMI).- HMI is when the ILS
tells your plane that it is 500-AGL when it is really 200 AGL and
about to fly into a hill.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>The beauty of ILS is that the
LOC and GS signals are generated by their respective antennas. (Phased
array.) The transmitters are very simple continuous-wave, AM modulated
(basically 1930's radio technology) and either work or they don't. There
is no computer and no software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable.
About the worst thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently
intercepts the GS too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is
pretty obvious because it happens way too high but I understand that
people have done it.</DIV><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I suppose someone could cut
one of the feedlines to the antenna array but I suspect that without one
or the other of the two tones the receiver uses to determine whether you
are in the blue or yellow sector, the receiver would flag the signal.
Again, no computer involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I
dearly love.)</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I love the experimental EFIS's out there and plan on having a few
in my plane.- However, I don't trust these companies or their products
any farther than I can throw them.- Just assume that the device is
going give you HMI, and have backups (more than one)-that you can use
to validate the device in IMC.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I actually expect to trust my
PFD at least as much as I trust my iron gyros. I know that it has the
potential to be much more reliable (several orders of magnitude), modulo
the quality of the software. Think about it -- while we are talking
about how bad the software can be, I think most of us who have flown
significant IFR have had to fly with a failed gyro. That said, I think
that I will have an ASI, an altimeter, and an electromechanical T&B
in the panel too. But then there is that neat little instrument from
Tru-Trak ... <sigh></DIV>-<BR><DIV> <SPAN
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Courier;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto;
-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px;
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Courier;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto;
-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px;
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Courier;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto;
-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px;
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>Brian Lloyd--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -361 Catterline
Way<DIV>brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com - -- -- -Folsom, CA
95630</DIV><DIV>+1.916.367.2131 (voice)-- - - - -
--+1.270.912.0788 (fax)</DIV><DIV><BR style="; font-family:
Courier; "></DIV><DIV>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny
of petty things . . .</DIV><DIV>=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry</DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR style="; font-family:
Courier; "></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1--
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Unswitched Inputs to Audio Panel |
-------------- Original message ----------------------
> Listeners,
> My audio panel (Garmine) has three (3) unswitched inputs. I have five (5)
> devices that I would like to attach to these inputs. Is it a simple case of
> paralelling two sets or will I need to do anything else for this to work?
> Thanks in advance. Don
>
That should read 3 unswitched and one aux audio inputs.
Content-Type: Multipart/mixed;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27547_1151613850_1"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27547_1151613850_1
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=WINDOWS-1252
<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space;
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Jun 29, 2006, at
8:32 AM, Eric Ekberg wrote:</DIV><BR
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV>It is
possible to make a software system safe.- Major avionics companies do
it all the time.- There are software assurance standards as well for
"how safe" it needs to be.- The safter the software needs to be the
more expensive it is to make.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I agree with all your
points.</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Same
goes for the ground and space based navaids.- Ever flown an ILS
approach in IMC?- If you did, chances are you just trusted your life
to a computer.- The FAA evaluates all safety critical navaids for what
is called Hazardous Misleading Information (HMI).- HMI is when the ILS
tells your plane that it is 500-AGL when it is really 200 AGL and
about to fly into a hill.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>The beauty of ILS is that the
LOC and GS signals are generated by their respective antennas. (Phased
array.) The transmitters are very simple continuous-wave, AM modulated
(basically 1930's radio technology) and either work or they don't. There
is no computer and no software involved. That is why ILS is so reliable.
About the worst thing that can happen is if the pilot inadvertently
intercepts the GS too high and tries to follow a side lobe. This is
pretty obvious because it happens way too high but I understand that
people have done it.</DIV><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I suppose someone could cut
one of the feedlines to the antenna array but I suspect that without one
or the other of the two tones the receiver uses to determine whether you
are in the blue or yellow sector, the receiver would flag the signal.
Again, no computer involved. (Well, there is the DSP in my SL-30 which I
dearly love.)</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I love the experimental EFIS's out there and plan on having a few
in my plane.- However, I don't trust these companies or their products
any farther than I can throw them.- Just assume that the device is
going give you HMI, and have backups (more than one)-that you can use
to validate the device in IMC.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I actually expect to trust my
PFD at least as much as I trust my iron gyros. I know that it has the
potential to be much more reliable (several orders of magnitude), modulo
the quality of the software. Think about it -- while we are talking
about how bad the software can be, I think most of us who have flown
significant IFR have had to fly with a failed gyro. That said, I think
that I will have an ASI, an altimeter, and an electromechanical T&B
in the panel too. But then there is that neat little instrument from
Tru-Trak ... <sigh></DIV>-<BR><DIV> <SPAN
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Courier;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto;
-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px;
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Courier;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto;
-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px;
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN
class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate;
border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Courier;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto;
-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px;
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>Brian Lloyd--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -361 Catterline
Way<DIV>brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com - -- -- -Folsom, CA
95630</DIV><DIV>+1.916.367.2131 (voice)-- - - - -
--+1.270.912.0788 (fax)</DIV><DIV><BR style="; font-family:
Courier; "></DIV><DIV>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny
of petty things . . .</DIV><DIV>=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry</DIV><BR
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR style="; font-family:
Courier; "></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_1133_1151612953_1--
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27547_1151613850_1--
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Is there a color code convention for intercom wiring? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Listers,
I am preparing to wire up my FlightCom 403d intercom. This is a stereo unit which
requires 3 leads to both the headphone jacks and microphone jacks. I am using
22500 22AWG shielded wire for these connections. I have wire with two different
color codes. One style of wire contains red/blue/yellow leads. The other
style uses white/white with blue/white with orange color coded leads.
I was wondering if there is an accepted color code convention for wiring these
jacks? I had planned to use one color style to wire the microphone jacks and
the other color style to wire the headphone jacks. I feel that this will aid in
avoiding confusion for future troubleshooting.
Charlie Kuss
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop) |
>From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>After 250 hours my 14684 ND alternator finally gave way.
Well you got some questionable advice for professionals?
14684 is a standard Lester number everyone knows.
A quick search or auto part store web sites like
Rockauto.com and others sites the 14684.
It is common on the
1988-87) Chevrolet Sprint 1.0L
(1995-86) Suzuki Samurai 1.3L
(1989) Suzuki Sidekick 1.3L
14870? I might believe a #14937 as an alternator but what
is a 14870?
As far as finding parts for a 14684, parts are available, however
I would not let them work on it. To be honest you are better
trading it in and getting another unit. It does have core value.
Local rebuilds by local shops I have found in my experience are
not to great. You can't beat a lifetime warranty from the parts
store on a rebuild. You can get it rebuilt (by a shop that knows
how to buy parts) but I would get an estimate and good guarantee.
By the time a local auto electrics buys the part, marks it up
2 or 4 times and charges labor, it will be cheaper and better
to get a rebuild from Pop Boys or Auto Zone. Not all rebuilds
from auto stores are good either. I would suggest investing
in a Plane Power alternator ($375)
Don't feel bad about finding a replacement on the road. You
should have much less problem but it is worse with a B&C
unit for example. That can not be field replace or repaired,
since it is a custom unit.
I am surprised the stator is fried, what ever that means.
***FIELD WIRE IS NOT ON YOUR UNIT***
ALSO, Please don't cycle the ALT switch (power to the
IGN wire) On and Off on the alternator while it is spinning,
i.e., making power.
Field Wires are for alternators with external voltage regulators,
period. FIELD refers to changing the voltage of the field to provide
control of the output voltage. The field is the rotor windings. So
the more voltage in the rotor winding to more output. THIS IS
not how the internal regulator control wire works in a ND alternator.
The wire on a ND with I-VR is an on off signal only.
You do have a field but it is all internal to the unit.
The ND alternator does not have FIELD wire, it's a IGN wire. The
function is to tell the alternative to wake up, to go to work or
go to sleep after you turn the engine off. IT'S NOT made to turn it
ON and OFF while under load. Does you car have a ALT switch?
NO. You will burn the regulator out eventually if you keep that
operation up. The IGN lead is a low current ON and OFF signal
and nothing more. The current is low, unlike a true field wire
which might have 5 amps or more going thru it.
You do have a field but it is all internal to the unit.
There is no reason cycle the alternator ON/OFF. MASTER
and ALT on one DPST switch is a good idea so you are not
tempted to do this.
Since you IGN wire (which only needs well under 1 amp) is
protected with a pull-able CB (or should be), you can pull the
CB if you need to for a non-normal situation where you want
to remove power from the IGN wire with the MASTER ON.
Again alternator on before engine start and remains on until
the engine stops turning.
Here are the Niagara instructions which will help. As I said
make the CB's pull-able. The Niagara unit is a similar ND
alternator.
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
Cheers George M.
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Is there a color code convention for intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Hi, Charlie.
Casting my mind back to my audio technician life, most stereo headphones
use black, red, and white as the three conductors. Black is ground, red
is right channel, and white is left channel.
In real life, however, electrons really don't care what color the
insulation around the conductor is.
I'd vote for red=right, yellow=left, and blue=ground which is pretty
close...
Rick
chaztuna@adelphia.net wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
>Listers,
> I am preparing to wire up my FlightCom 403d intercom. This is a stereo unit which
requires 3 leads to both the headphone jacks and microphone jacks. I am using
22500 22AWG shielded wire for these connections. I have wire with two different
color codes. One style of wire contains red/blue/yellow leads. The other
style uses white/white with blue/white with orange color coded leads.
> I was wondering if there is an accepted color code convention for wiring these
jacks? I had planned to use one color style to wire the microphone jacks and
the other color style to wire the headphone jacks. I feel that this will aid
in avoiding confusion for future troubleshooting.
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
Hi George,
After reading your post I was left wondering why
bother having a field switch at all in this type of
alternator. Is there a reason to have a field switch?
Bob Sultzbach
--- gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> >From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
> >After 250 hours my 14684 ND alternator finally gave
> way.
>
>
> Well you got some questionable advice for
> professionals?
>
> 14684 is a standard Lester number everyone knows.
>
> A quick search or auto part store web sites like
> Rockauto.com and others sites the 14684.
>
> It is common on the
> 1988-87) Chevrolet Sprint 1.0L
> (1995-86) Suzuki Samurai 1.3L
> (1989) Suzuki Sidekick 1.3L
>
> 14870? I might believe a #14937 as an alternator but
> what
> is a 14870?
>
> As far as finding parts for a 14684, parts are
> available, however
> I would not let them work on it. To be honest you
> are better
> trading it in and getting another unit. It does have
> core value.
>
> Local rebuilds by local shops I have found in my
> experience are
> not to great. You can't beat a lifetime warranty
> from the parts
> store on a rebuild. You can get it rebuilt (by a
> shop that knows
> how to buy parts) but I would get an estimate and
> good guarantee.
>
> By the time a local auto electrics buys the part,
> marks it up
> 2 or 4 times and charges labor, it will be cheaper
> and better
> to get a rebuild from Pop Boys or Auto Zone. Not all
> rebuilds
> from auto stores are good either. I would suggest
> investing
> in a Plane Power alternator ($375)
>
> Don't feel bad about finding a replacement on the
> road. You
> should have much less problem but it is worse with a
> B&C
> unit for example. That can not be field replace or
> repaired,
> since it is a custom unit.
>
> I am surprised the stator is fried, what ever that
> means.
>
>
> ***FIELD WIRE IS NOT ON YOUR UNIT***
>
> ALSO, Please don't cycle the ALT switch (power to
> the
> IGN wire) On and Off on the alternator while it is
> spinning,
> i.e., making power.
>
> Field Wires are for alternators with external
> voltage regulators,
> period. FIELD refers to changing the voltage of the
> field to provide
> control of the output voltage. The field is the
> rotor windings. So
> the more voltage in the rotor winding to more
> output. THIS IS
> not how the internal regulator control wire works in
> a ND alternator.
>
> The wire on a ND with I-VR is an on off signal
> only.
>
> You do have a field but it is all internal to the
> unit.
>
>
> The ND alternator does not have FIELD wire, it's a
> IGN wire. The
> function is to tell the alternative to wake up, to
> go to work or
> go to sleep after you turn the engine off. IT'S NOT
> made to turn it
> ON and OFF while under load. Does you car have a ALT
> switch?
>
>
> NO. You will burn the regulator out eventually if
> you keep that
> operation up. The IGN lead is a low current ON and
> OFF signal
> and nothing more. The current is low, unlike a true
> field wire
> which might have 5 amps or more going thru it.
>
> You do have a field but it is all internal to the
> unit.
>
> There is no reason cycle the alternator ON/OFF.
> MASTER
> and ALT on one DPST switch is a good idea so you
> are not
> tempted to do this.
>
>
> Since you IGN wire (which only needs well under 1
> amp) is
> protected with a pull-able CB (or should be), you
> can pull the
> CB if you need to for a non-normal situation where
> you want
> to remove power from the IGN wire with the MASTER
> ON.
>
> Again alternator on before engine start and
> remains on until
> the engine stops turning.
>
> Here are the Niagara instructions which will help.
> As I said
> make the CB's pull-able. The Niagara unit is a
> similar ND
> alternator.
>
> http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
>
>
> Cheers George M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small
> Business.
__________________________________________________
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (stop) |
On Jun 29, 2006, at 6:30 PM, <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
<gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By the time a local auto electrics buys the part, marks it up
> 2 or 4 times and charges labor, it will be cheaper and better
> to get a rebuild from Pop Boys or Auto Zone. Not all rebuilds
> from auto stores are good either. I would suggest investing
> in a Plane Power alternator ($375)
>
> Don't feel bad about finding a replacement on the road. You
> should have much less problem but it is worse with a B&C
> unit for example. That can not be field replace or repaired,
> since it is a custom unit.
But the point is moot if the B&C unit doesn't fail.
>
> I am surprised the stator is fried, what ever that means.
Fried means "burned up". I have seen many fried stators. Most
alternators will burn themselves up if operated at or near their
ratings for any length of time. The stator overheats because it
really isn't designed to deliver 100% output. (Sustained output
greater than about 50% seems to do in most automotive-type
alternators.) The result is that the insulation melts/burns and the
stator windings short to the case. This is a very common failure mode.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
=97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Test
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Software in the cockpit |
Comment below ...
On 6/29/06, Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> <<SNIP>>
>
> I suspected that was probably the case. Windows NT had a lot of promise in
> the beginning. (It was originally written by IBM and not Microsoft.
> Originally it was called OS2.)
>
<<SNIP>>
NT ("New Technology") and OS/2 are/were very different.
As I recall :-) ... NT was influenced/designed/developed more so by
Microsoft people from DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation for the young
bloods) than from IBM. THe IBM product was **competition**!!!!. I won't try
to go into the history here.
James
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|