k-hawinkler Posted January 25, 2013 Share #61 Posted January 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here M-240 28/2/13?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanJW Posted January 25, 2013 Share #62 Posted January 25, 2013 My dealer, who is conservative and generally pretty accurate about camera delivery dates, says probably late February fo M-240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 25, 2013 Share #63 Posted January 25, 2013 A very different story would be if there should still be bugs they don't know about.Then I would conclude their testing methodoly needs improvement. The idea was to have a highly diverse group of beta testers so there’s a good chance someone will stumble upon a bug if it exists. But then of course there can never be a guarantee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 25, 2013 Share #64 Posted January 25, 2013 The idea was to have a highly diverse group of beta testers so there’s a good chance someone will stumble upon a bug if it exists. But then of course there can never be a guarantee. Understood. Of course, testing by a large number of diverse humans with their unpredictability is essential. In addition, however, it would also make sense to set up a testing lab in which a larger number of cameras and lenses can be put automatically and systematically through all the different parameter combinations that the camera offers. Run down batteries, iffy memory cards, etc need to be part of that effort to insure a proper shutdown of the camera when required. Such an effort in other technologcal areas, that I am familiar with, also typically requires specifically designed test equipment for a comprehensive effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 25, 2013 Share #65 Posted January 25, 2013 In addition, however, it would also make sense to set up a testing lab in which a larger number of cameras and lenses can be put automatically and systematically through all the different parameter combinations that the camera offers. Run down batteries, iffy memory cards, etc need to be part of that effort to insure a proper shutdown of the camera when required. Such an effort in other technologcal areas, that I am familiar with, also typically requires specifically designed test equipment for a comprehensive effort. Yeah, and even with all that testing, how's that working for Boeing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 25, 2013 Share #66 Posted January 25, 2013 Yeah, and even with all that testing, how's that working for Boeing? Lemme guess? The Dreamliner should have been given to a few, select, LUF forum members to *really* test properly. Right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 26, 2013 Share #67 Posted January 26, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah, and even with all that testing, how's that working for Boeing? Hi Rick, Well, the Dreamliner is how many orders of magnitude more complex than the M240? I would say several orders of magnitude! Price-wise comparison $100,000,000 over $10,000. So a factor of 10,000 is probably a pretty good guess. The Dreamliner has shown problems in a very specific area that absolutely need to get addressed before it's put back in the air. Thankfully nobody got hurt or killed so far and I hope it stays that way. Interestingly the problem seems to be with a novel component - a battery I hear in the news - sounds all too familiar. Let's hope Leica does much better with their novel components. Luckily for Leica their risk level is much lower. At most they potentially could piss off some of their loyal customers or go broke! You are correct though in the assumption that Leica may be able to get way with lower standards of quality control. However, for their lenses Leica has a stellar quality control track record, despite some few imperfect lenses now and then. So, why not for Leica to go after a similar stellar quality track record for their digital cameras? After all, they did pull it off for their mechanical ones, didn't they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 26, 2013 Share #68 Posted January 26, 2013 k-hawinkler - That plane is assembled just a few miles from where I live so, it is a big story here. It seems the lithium batteries are heating up and catching fire. Of course, the batteries are not made by Boeing. But, some of the greater questions the NTSB is asking now (besides why are they going thermal) is why the plane's systems are not venting the smoke out of the plane effectively and why the plane's systems aren't trying to put out the fires. Apparently, according to the TV news reporter I listened to last night, he claimed that fires on commercial airplanes while they are in the air are a big deal. No kidding. These engineers are smart people and they will understand every single bit of every piece of minutia. They will sort it out. It really is an amazing airframe. Meanwhile, Boeing will keep cranking out 737 airframes to the tune of 38/month! They will be up to 40+ sometime this year off of one rolling assembly line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 26, 2013 Share #69 Posted January 26, 2013 Thanks Rick. That's very reassuring that the resources have been committed to remedy the problems ASAP. Of course, all those planes coming off the assembly line may have the issues as well... I was once on a flight where the right engine caught fire. No big deal. They simply cut off the fuel. The other still working engine got us to the airport safely. However, having fire and smoke in the fuselage is a totally different matter and becomes life threatening extremely fast. It would be interesting to read the final NTSB report what caused the problem and how it got eventually fixed. Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2013 Share #70 Posted January 26, 2013 k-hawinkler - That plane is assembled just a few miles from where I live so, it is a big story here. It seems the lithium batteries are heating up and catching fire. Of course, the batteries are not made by Boeing. But, some of the greater questions the NTSB is asking now (besides why are they going thermal) is why the plane's systems are not venting the smoke out of the plane effectively and why the plane's systems aren't trying to put out the fires. Apparently, according to the TV news reporter I listened to last night, he claimed that fires on commercial airplanes while they are in the air are a big deal. No kidding. These engineers are smart people and they will understand every single bit of every piece of minutia. They will sort it out. It really is an amazing airframe. Meanwhile, Boeing will keep cranking out 737 airframes to the tune of 38/month! They will be up to 40+ sometime this year off of one rolling assembly line. This is a bit of a concern...they saved maybe 50kg for the two batteries in question to convert from the standard NiMHd to LiOn ....on this size of a plane not an issue. The recent fire in Japan supposedly was not due to overcharge of the battery. Historically, LiOn batteries have been problematic if there is any contaminant in their construction...more likely to melt down. This will all probably be a moot issue in 12 months as they identify and rectify the source of the problem...also sounds like it will probably only occur during recharge from an external source...ie on the ground. Big FUBAR...were this APPLE heads would roll and people would be reassigned...interesting to watch from a safe distance. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 26, 2013 Share #71 Posted January 26, 2013 Bob - The fires occurred when the batteries were not charging. k-hawinkler - I have a friend that is an Alaska Air Pilot. He told me a story a couple of years ago about a landing into Anchorage Alaska. This is a true story. Apparently the passengers heard a loud explosion and one of the engines caught fire and then quite. The captain (my friend Casey) came on the intercom and explained that he had some bad news, they had lost the starboard engine. Then, he explained that he had good news; the plane was designed to land just fine with only one engine. Then, he said he had some more good news; this last week it was his turn in the simulator and he spent the weekend practicing simulated one engine landings. Then, he explained that he had more good news; the airport picked for his simulation was Anchorage. Then, he explained that he had more good news; his co-pilot for the simulation was Captain Conrad who just by luck happens to be paired with him on this flight and is sitting next to him right now going through the landing check-list. Then, he told the passengers that there is even more good news; he and Captain Conrad scored no lower than 97% on any landing they simulated over the weekend! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 26, 2013 Share #72 Posted January 26, 2013 Bob - The fires occurred when the batteries were not charging. k-hawinkler - I have a friend that is an Alaska Air Pilot. He told me a story a couple of years ago about a landing into Anchorage Alaska. this is a true story. Apparently the passengers heard a loud explosion and one of the engines caught fire and then quite. The captain (my friend Casey) came on the intercom and explained that he had some bad news, they had lost the starboard engine. Then, he explained that he had good news; the plane was designed to land just fine with only one engine. Then, he said he had some more good news; this last week it was his turn in the simulator and he spent the weekend practicing simulated one engine landings. Then, he explained that he had more good news; the airport picked for his simulation was Anchorage. Then, he explained that he had more good news; his co-piolet for the simulation was Captain Conrad who just by luck happens to be paired with him on this flight and is sitting next to him right now going through the landing check-list. Then, he told the passengers that there is even more good news; he and Captain Conrad scored no lower than 97% on any landing they simulated over the weekend! Hi Rick, Thanks. Very funny. Now those are my kind of pilots. You got to love 'em! I was once on a small commuter plane, Boston - New York - Washington, D.C to catch a flight to Albuquerque. It was dark, windy, and raining cats and dogs. The plane was pretty empty. I was sitting in the first row and could listen in to the pilots' conversation through the open cockpit door at the airport in New York. Says one of the pilots: "I hate flying in these conditions!" Oh well, what a cheerful thought. But we made it to D.C. without incident, the ride was just a little bumpy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted January 26, 2013 Share #73 Posted January 26, 2013 The idea was to have a highly diverse group of beta testers so there’s a good chance someone will stumble upon a bug if it exists. But then of course there can never be a guarantee. I hope this is not like Donald Rumsfeld's approach, which was something like "There are things we know, and there are unknowns. There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns." I might add that the known unknowns may have known solutions and unknown solutions but the unknown unknowns can't possibly have known solutions until the unknown becomes known. Everybody got that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 26, 2013 Share #74 Posted January 26, 2013 I especially like the unknown unknowns in an unknown camera! :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.