Bölkow airspeed indicators (some of them anyway) are interesting and intuitive: on approach the needle points straight up, in normal cruise the needle points to three o’clock, and Vne is straight down. The numbers themselves are truncated in some fashion so they can be bigger, 120 knots being displayed as 12 or something like that. It’s quite effective for the pilot.
I’m not convinced that flat panel displays can’t be made very intuitive, but most I’ve see are not. I imagine someday the industry will figure out what works best and more or less standardize the displays.
Michal wrote:
that´s the problem. Airlines are ok – flying long and stable approach a two heads there. But GA aircraft is sometimes doing shortcuts and brief look at the ASI is what you need – I guess this accident case study by AOPA is a good example. Hard to say if other aircraft would save this but Cirrus and glass did contribute for sure in my eyes. But on the other hand,it´s comfortable and roomy cabin together with cruise capability is important for some customer.
I fly single pilot and prefer glass. It isn’t just an airline thing. I am afraid the Melbourne, Fl accident is a stall spin on turn to final prob due to distraction with the other aircraft and ATC instructions. By definition they must have been too slow but that doesn’t mean an analog dial would have made any difference.
I am not a fan of glass and flat screen. I flew a friends PA32 quite a bit. Full glass kit. I know it is not there, but I always felt the airspeed ticker tape lagged. Could never get that out of my head. It then crept to all other instruments. I also felt that information overload was very real. I have only ever bust a Military firing zone once, and that was in this thing. Petrified owner in IMC. Passed it to me. I am flying it on glass from the RHS, coming from 9k to 2k, right through the zone, with Avidyne information over load screaming at me. Gave myself a fright that day, and as I relive it, pat myself on the back for saving the day. It should never have happened of course.
@Beechbaby that sounds more like a phobia than a real issue.
Jason I agree. It actually does not matter, in my head it is there, so I do not fly them any longer.
Flyer59 wrote:
There have been other tests that say: Homeopathy.
As to the “article”, Boldmethod have been wrong on easier topics before. I do think that the ADF will sadly fade out, but you can’t make too strong points about everything else.
1.) The retractable gear won’t go. You will need it for fast aircraft (speak TBM, Mirage, PC12, King Air, up to CAT, etc) and, of course, where you need aerodynamic efficiency (gliders). And the argument about the thin wing is not really based on engineering judgement. Furthermore, you will need complex trainers, because not everything can be simulated and it doesn’t seem a particulary good idea to encouter the RG the first time in an A320 or alike.
Likewise, the author could have made this statement about the conventional gear in the 1950s, when Piper put out countless TriPacers and Cessna adopted the Idea on their 170/140. Wasn’t true then, as it isn’t true today. The moment when you can make a good point in favour of a trade, it will stay.
2.) I assume they talk about mechanical instruments in contrast to glass cockpits, because the classic 6 pack has been developed in hindsight of human integration into the cockpit and some of these basic rules remain even on a big screen. So you should not confuse those tow.
Any setup of mechanical instruments has the advantage of light weight and easier maintainability in contrast to something like a G1000 and alike. That does count in some evnironments. Sure, if you are travelling IFR, it might be a huge advantage, but for a basic trainer, you just don’t need all that stuff. What you need is an easy, reliable system that can be fixed over night, if broken.
3.) That will sadly go. I think it’s a very good and easy to use VFR navigation instrument.
4.) This won’t go, because DME/DME needs much more avionics on the aircraft end and you will need some backup over GPS/GLONASS/Galileo, even if you count in SBAS. They might be reduced, but not go totally. Unless you come up with a cheap stand alone DME/DME navigation system.
5./6.) I don’t think both will disappear. It is quite obvious, that an engine can be run at several operation points, like best power or best economy, highest cruise speed, lowest noise, and such. Limiting your options to only one operation point seems a bit bald to me. I do think that even will full digital engine control, there will be – or should be – a possibility to chose those operation points – if not through direct influence on the prop or mixture, then by choosing the desired operation mode.
7.) Simple things tend to stay. A basic EGT is a simple thing.
8.) Not, unless full autonomous flight will be possible, and we are far from that. Any full automatic flight system has to prove, that it can fully substitute any advantage of a pilot in an aircraft, especially with his capabilities of non linear controlling and adaption to changed situations and creativity if things go south. Plus, it is no fun to have a machine burn your avgas, while you stay on the ground.
Jason I agree. It actually does not matter, in my head it is there, so I do not fly them any longer.
Which of course makes sense. Just pointing out that it doesn’t mean they are either bad or good for others.
Most people condider me a bit of a luddite but this glass thing is the doggs bo….x !
its far better for situational awarness, the speed and allitude tapes are easy to use…. just bug the number you want and a quick glance tells you if you are high or low on speed or altitude, navigation and traffic can be seen at a glance and this all lets you have your eyes out of the cockpit for longer.
The only problem is that the glass takes a lot of work to gain the knowlage for instinctive operation and in the aircraft is not the place to learn.
What I do look forward to is the synthetic vision. That stuff can save your life. I’ll probably just go for an Aspen MFD when the time comes to do my panel. Can’t justify the $30K+ for a G600 when it’s getting that old. I hope they come out with something new soon.
AdamFrisch wrote:
What I do look forward to is the synthetic vision.
I tried it on ForeFlight the other day. Not in anger (severe clear day out of Big Bear), but although of course not certified, definitely a ‘get-out-of-jail’ card!
