X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:42:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from HQEMGATE03.nvidia.com ([216.228.112.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 946837 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 16 May 2005 22:46:23 -0400 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.228.112.143; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net Received: from hqemfe02.nvidia.com (Not Verified[172.16.227.92]) by HQEMGATE03.nvidia.com id ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:49:11 -0700 Received: from thelma.nvidia.com ([172.16.228.84]) by hqemfe02.nvidia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 16 May 2005 19:45:37 -0700 Received: from ccaselt (cvpn2-4-106.nvidia.com [10.2.4.106]) by thelma.nvidia.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA08925 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:45:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <01df01c55a8a$8300c6a0$7104020a@nvidia.com> From: "colyncase on earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Airplane Construction Philosophy X-Original-Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:45:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01DA_01C55A4F.D5DFB010" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Original-Return-Path: colyncase@earthlink.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2005 02:45:37.0399 (UTC) FILETIME=[81774070:01C55A8A] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01DA_01C55A4F.D5DFB010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tim writes, Working in the computer field I was wondering why so much time in = the aircraft industry is concerned with minimizing the mean time between = failure (MTBF) on a single component Tim, I'm also in the computer business.....and that is part of the reason = there is no chelton efis in my airplane. but I digress. I may not be addressing your point directly but I think the cost of = making an airworthy part is not just about MTBF against the original = design. I think more of it is figuring out if the part as designed = works properly before it breaks. e.g. does your de-ice system really = de-ice when it IS working? does your alternate air source actually not = clog when you need it? does your only landing gear extend when you need = it? 18 months ago I was pretty disillusioned with the whole = certification business but now I am much more appreciative of it. It = does somewhat improve the probability that the stuff works in the first = place. Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_01DA_01C55A4F.D5DFB010 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tim writes,

Working in the = computer=20 field I was wondering why so much time in the aircraft industry is = concerned with minimizing the mean time between failure (MTBF) on a = single=20 component

Tim,

I'm also in the = computer=20 business.....and that is part of the reason there is no chelton efis in = my=20 airplane. but I digress.

I may not be = addressing your=20 point directly but I think the cost of making an airworthy part is not = just=20 about MTBF against the original design. I think more = of it is=20 figuring out if the part as designed works properly before it=20 breaks. e.g. does your de-ice system really de-ice when it = IS=20 working? does your alternate air source actually not clog = when you=20 need it? does your only landing gear extend when you need = it? =20 18 months ago I was pretty disillusioned with the whole certification = business=20 but now I am much more appreciative of it. It does somewhat = improve=20 the probability that the stuff works in the first place.

Colyn

------=_NextPart_000_01DA_01C55A4F.D5DFB010--