We have less problems with USB-Serial devices using FTDI chips than
those based on the Prolific ones.
Especially when sending short messages back and forth between PC and
device, sometimes the Prolific ones need special setups buried way down
in the Windoze serial comms control system.

http://www.dontronics-shop.com/product.php?productid=16493&cat=265&page=1
is the device I prefer, based on 20-30 supplied to customers.

Thanks for the mention. Got myself a pda/gps for Christmas, found it
works fine from the window seat of a commercial jet at 35K feet, however
the Points Of Interest, or anything else for that matter, between Alice
Springs and Darwin are few and far between.

Don McKenzie wrote:


Thanks for the mention. Got myself a pda/gps for Christmas, found it
works fine from the window seat of a commercial jet at 35K feet,
however the Points Of Interest, or anything else for that matter,
between Alice Springs and Darwin are few and far between. :-)

Airline crews told me in the US its illegal to use on board. Also I know
for a fact that it will not work itside the cockpit of a 747 as the
heater wires block the signal.

Ian Singer

Ian Singer wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:


Thanks for the mention. Got myself a pda/gps for Christmas, found it
works fine from the window seat of a commercial jet at 35K feet,
however the Points Of Interest, or anything else for that matter,
between Alice Springs and Darwin are few and far between. :-)

Airline crews told me in the US its illegal to use on board. Also I
know for a fact that it will not work itside the cockpit of a 747 as
the heater wires block the signal.

Ian Singer


It is certainly not illegal in the sense that there is a law against
their use. Some airlines have rules that prohibit the use of a GPS in
flight but there are also many airlines that permit it above 10000 feet.

http://gpsinformation.net/airgps/gpsrfi.htm

I doubt if a GPS receiver in an airliner will work at all; you would
need line-of-sight from the GPS antenna to at least three satellites
through a window, and that seems unlikely. But Ian is correct, there is
not a law against it. However individual airlines are fee to make up
their own rules about use of electronics onboard their aircraft, and
those policies then have the force of law on board those particular
flights.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45a93717$0$9572$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

I doubt if a GPS receiver in an airliner will work at all; you would
need line-of-sight from the GPS antenna to at least three satellites
through a window, and that seems unlikely. But Ian is correct, there is
not a law against it. However individual airlines are fee to make up
their own rules about use of electronics onboard their aircraft, and
those policies then have the force of law on board those particular

Be interested in others results during flights.
Perhaps an external antenna with a window suction cup may be an idea.

What would Qantas say?

I doubt if a GPS receiver in an airliner will work at all; you would need line-of-sight from the GPS antenna to at
least three satellites through a window, and that seems unlikely. But Ian is correct, there is not a law against it.
However individual airlines are fee to make up their own rules about use of electronics onboard their aircraft, and
those policies then have the force of law on board those particular flights.

John Navas wrote:

Were you using older Prolific driver versions? I've now run a fair
number of torture tests against my Prolific PL-2303 with the Windows XP
driver 2.0.2.1, and all were passed successfully. If you're got
something legitimate that you think will cause it to fail, I'd be happy
to try it. (My posting email address is valid.)

I cant give you specific driver versions, most of the problems were
reported from remote customers, and may not even have been with XP. We
deal with people who use anything from '98 up. All I can say is that
when we suggested they buy adapters using FTDI chips, most of the
problems ceased.
The Prolific units I tested personally could be got to work, by
adjusting the timeouts and buffer sizes in the comms setup, but I am not
certain some customers followed our recommendations.
However we may have had a special case, since we were sending short
binary packets in both directions. Typical GPS use, where its just one
data stream in one direction is not likely to cause much problem.

Adrian Jansen wrote:
John Navas wrote:

Were you using older Prolific driver versions? I've now run a fair
number of torture tests against my Prolific PL-2303 with the Windows XP
driver 2.0.2.1, and all were passed successfully. If you're got
something legitimate that you think will cause it to fail, I'd be happy
to try it. (My posting email address is valid.)

I cant give you specific driver versions, most of the problems were
reported from remote customers, and may not even have been with XP. We
deal with people who use anything from '98 up. All I can say is that
when we suggested they buy adapters using FTDI chips, most of the
problems ceased.
The Prolific units I tested personally could be got to work, by
adjusting the timeouts and buffer sizes in the comms setup, but I am not
certain some customers followed our recommendations.
However we may have had a special case, since we were sending short
binary packets in both directions. Typical GPS use, where its just one
data stream in one direction is not likely to cause much problem.

My "torture tests" were considerably more rigorous than that, and
exhibited no problems. Again, I'd be happy to run additional tests if
you think you've got something legitimate that you think will cause it
to fail.

Best regards,
John Navas

I cant easily extract a test sequence out of what I used, it relies on a

JNavas wrote:

My "torture tests" were considerably more rigorous than that, and
exhibited no problems. Again, I'd be happy to run additional tests if
you think you've got something legitimate that you think will cause it
to fail.

I cant easily extract a test sequence out of what I used, it relies on a
PC at one end and a dedicated instrument at the other. The PC side is
easy enough, but reproducing what the instrument sends and expects, at
the same timing, would be quite difficult. But basically if you sent
message frames of around 20-40 bytes at 38400 baud ( including nulls )
backwards and forwards between two PCs, with a USB adapter in the chain,
at about 10 frames per second, and never lost a byte, then I would
regard that as a pretty good test.