[Icom] Re: ICOM 2720 Servicing/Alignment Software/Information?

[Paul Tabatschkow]

Thanks for the comments Bill,
I do understand and appreciate the complexities of building old and 
now the new software defined radios. I so wish I had been an 
electrical engineer than a chemist/physicist turned software engineer 
at times. I would maybe feel more satisfied professional and have 
more fun building radios than payroll/web programs.
Some 30+ years software engineering work now including embedded work 
and a long time electronics hobbyist. I do like my software defined 
radios like the Ten Tec Jupiter, ICOM 756ProII and the ICOM 2720 
under discussion. 

My main point was that I should be freely allowed to acquire such 
service "tools" for them as I can for old radios. I do deserve to 
lose warranty rights if I "modify" the radio without manufacturer 
supervision. That is quite acceptable to me. I want the choice to 
have the relevant tools if i wish to pay a fair price for them, not 
just be summarily blocked from obtaining them. 

I do also want to be able to self-check/tune-up the new style radios 
I buy like I did with the old ones and hence service tools are not 
just for "service" but for keeping them "fit" and also learning about 
the new design methodologies. 

Also, several ham friends are having a heck of a time getting their 
out of warranty radios (not ICOM btw) "tuned" back up to their 
designed/new parameters after they have aged a bit and I do not wanto 
to have the same grief that they now have, ... so I want to 
premptively obtain the relevant ICOM service information/tools for my 
radios prior to a need for them. I assume that the modern "software" 
service tools, like most service manuals have in the past, will 
provide proper tune-up and alignment instructions, etc. so i do 
not "hurt" myself or my radio if using them.


Regards, and thanks again for your comments.
73 Paul
N3UD(ex-WE3NUD)
===============




---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:06:04 -0500
>From: "William Lambing" <W0LPQ9@msn.com>  
>Subject: Re: ICOM 2720 Servicing/Alignment Software/Information?  
>To: <icom@mailman.qth.net>
>Cc: <pault@pault.org>
>
>
> Paul, I cannot speak for Icom.  However, I recently retired from 
Collins
>(ok.Rockwell Collins) after 30+ years in Avionics Field Service.
>
>To address your concerns about software defined radios, I know that 
from a
>Collins standpoint, unless you are an avionics dealer, you repair at 
your
>own risk and that risk includes blowing any warranty.  Software 
defined
>radios are not cheap.  There is design, test, retest, retest and 
make it
>work.  Oh.then you gotta pass the FCC qualifications.  Software
>qualifications are a real pain, but a necessary part of life.  The 
software
>design is probably as complex as the design of a radio.  Making a 
radio work
>at aircraft VHF Comm frequencies and turning around and making the 
radio (by
>software) work as an aircraft Nav receiver is not easy.  Costs now 
run quite
>high, thanks in part to all of the qualifications necessary and . .
>documentation of that software design and the actual design of the 
radio.
>
>I do not disagree with your request for having the latest acceptable
>software and manuals to "repair" your radio.  However, to do so, you 
need
>specialized test equipment, which again is not cheap.
>
>It is almost, as some would say, coming to a throw away radio.  
Given in
>part to the costs of some of the handhelds nowadays, it is in reality
>cheaper to buy a new one than repair the old one.  When you factor 
in labor
>rates, parts, test equipment and so on..no wonder they are throw 
away.  No
>one, not even some OEM's want to mess with it.
>
>I know it is hard to compare avionics stuff with the amateur market, 
but
>some of the same equations apply to both.  The more complex radios 
become,
>the more difficult it is to work on them. Bill Diamond, WR0T 
recently made a
>basket case IC-761 work.  But, if you were to take his time and 
apply a
>standard labor rate to this time, you would find he spent more 
dollars in
>time, than the radio was/is worth.  For us (like Bill) who are 
retired, this
>time becomes a moot point.  It is the love of amateur radio with 
which we
>repair.  But...that being said, the more complex, the more difficult 
it is
>to repair.
>
>Again Paul, I am not trying to compare apples to oranges, but wanted 
to
>maybe give you a little idea from whence some of these guys come 
from.
>
>73
>
>Bill, W0LPQ
>Collins Avionics Field Service, Retired.!