TruTrack has mounted its Vizion 2-axis autopilot in a Cessna 172, a Mooney is next. STC’s will apparently be pursued (with EAA involvement) for a large number of certifieds, with a retail price of around 5k US.
Funny that the UK CAA banned some of their products for IFR, in its LAA (homebuilt etc) IFR approval programme, due to misleading indications.
I think that’s a very good development.
Peter wrote:
Funny that the UK CAA banned some of their products for IFR, in its LAA (homebuilt etc) IFR approval programme, due to misleading indications.
Is it probably because the Gemini indicates flight path rather than attitude?
I always wonder why even the “modern” gauges still have pitot and static lines couplings. Surely it’d be much easier to have a remote sensor and run a thin wire – rather than two tubes?
Push that even further – why not a proper avionics bay in the tailcone where the units can easily be worked on / replaced, and a dumb canbus cable feeding screens and whatever buttons needed instead of a wild spaghetti monster living behind the panel?
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Push that even further – why not a proper avionics bay in the tailcone where the units can easily be worked on / replaced, and a dumb canbus cable feeding screens and whatever buttons needed instead of a wild spaghetti monster living behind the panel?
That’s how the G1000 etc. work only that they use Ethernet instead of CANBUS. The piecemeal avionics are designed to be replacements for older units and tend to follow their wiring philosophy.
A good day for GA will be when S-TEC file for protection under Chapter 11 due to strong competition. I have a bottle of champaign in the back of my fridge for that day!
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
I always wonder why even the “modern” gauges still have pitot and static lines couplings.
They’re designed for easy retrofit. There’re solution with remote sensor boxes (or remote radios with only head units in the panel but even those are usually done, from what I’ve seen, so the remote mounting is optional, not required). I guess retrofits of individual boxes make a big chunk of the market (compared to redesign and rewiring or new installations).
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
why not a proper avionics bay
Avionics suites are normally arranged that way.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Push that even further
I’m all with you, Shorrick, and would push even further: why do we still rely on barometric altimeters at all, in this era of GPS?
It has been said that gps altitude is not very accurate, but I doubt the barometric thingies are much better – rather the contrary.
At least in the non certified world, both approaches seem to be used. All manufacturers have both stand alone “does everything” EFISes and modular systems.
Stand alone units are by far the simplest to install, while modular systems are much better for more advanced panels and future incremental upgrading, using Ethernet or canbus to communicate.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
It has been said that gps altitude is not very accurate, but I doubt the barometric thingies are much better – rather the contrary.
The important thing is not absolute accuracy — most likely GPS is better than barometric altimetry because the latter has to be corrected for (largely unknown) temperatures in the airmass below the aircraft — but relative accuracy. That is if the altimeters of two aircraft show that they are separated by 1000 feet of altitude, then they really are separated by 1000 feet of altitude.
And if the GPS receivers of two planes say they are separated by 1000 feet of altitude?
