Glider EFIS anyone?

[[email protected]]

Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight instruments, engine controls, communications and of course navigation. There is nothing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work. Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information. Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.
We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer information in dedicated boxes. This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame. I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the Experimental category. So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?

[Roel Baardman]

Allow me to share some random thoughts.

> Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight
instruments,engine controls, communications and of course navigation.
> There is no thing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work.
> Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design
is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information.
> Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.

- It is. However, I think we have one big difference: we rely entirely on batteries for power.
There are not a whole lot of (off-the-shelf) displays out there that are well readable in direct sunlight and do not require a lot of power for their
backlight. There is a company called Pixel Qi, which shows promising technology though.

- I wonder why you would want 'a single box'. I would - personally - like a decent "avionics bay" inside new gliders. That way you can keep a clean panel,
containing just the screen, and RF cables and cables towards things like sensors and GPS can probably also remain short.

> We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer
information in dedicated boxes.

Why would we have to get used to vertical tapes? When I think long and hard about what information you require for the decision-making process during
cross-country flights, I think that is very very different from those tapes. Also, when certification requires an analogue AIS, why duplicate it on your
precious panel-space?

When I think long and hard, I get the impression that we would use a computer-screen for two purposes:
- As a digital replacement/enhancement of our paper map, the traditional moving map. This is long-term planning, tactics, etc.
- As an instrument to increase situational awareness, by showing data the pilot is not able to visualize himself (traffic at your six for example). This is
short-term planning, collision-avoidance, thermal-centering etc

> This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame.
> I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the
Experimental category.

> So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?

I am working, for the purpose of getting to know various technologies, on a rapid prototyping platform. Due to the lack of proper displays, and my desire
not to re-do my panel at this point, I interface with good old analog gauges. Borgelt was very kind and provided me with the information required to use
second-seat varios as a generic analog gauge.

Roel

[Bill D]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:40 AM UTC-7, Roel Baardman wrote:
> Allow me to share some random thoughts.
>
>
>
> > Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight
>
> instruments,engine controls, communications and of course navigation.
>
> > There is no thing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work.
>
> > Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design
>
> is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information.
>
> > Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.
>
>
>
> - It is. However, I think we have one big difference: we rely entirely on batteries for power.
>
> There are not a whole lot of (off-the-shelf) displays out there that are well readable in direct sunlight and do not require a lot of power for their
>
> backlight. There is a company called Pixel Qi, which shows promising technology though.
>
>
>
> - I wonder why you would want 'a single box'. I would - personally - like a decent "avionics bay" inside new gliders. That way you can keep a clean panel,
>
> containing just the screen, and RF cables and cables towards things like sensors and GPS can probably also remain short.
>
>
>
> > We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer
>
> information in dedicated boxes.
>
>
>
> Why would we have to get used to vertical tapes? When I think long and hard about what information you require for the decision-making process during
>
> cross-country flights, I think that is very very different from those tapes. Also, when certification requires an analogue AIS, why duplicate it on your
>
> precious panel-space?
>
>
>
> When I think long and hard, I get the impression that we would use a computer-screen for two purposes:
>
> - As a digital replacement/enhancement of our paper map, the traditional moving map. This is long-term planning, tactics, etc.
>
> - As an instrument to increase situational awareness, by showing data the pilot is not able to visualize himself (traffic at your six for example). This is
>
> short-term planning, collision-avoidance, thermal-centering etc
>
>
>
> > This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame.
>
> > I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the
>
> Experimental category.
>
>
>
> > So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?
>
>
>
> I am working, for the purpose of getting to know various technologies, on a rapid prototyping platform. Due to the lack of proper displays, and my desire
>
> not to re-do my panel at this point, I interface with good old analog gauges. Borgelt was very kind and provided me with the information required to use
>
> second-seat varios as a generic analog gauge.
>
>
>
> Roel

Pixel Qi has some competition:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/145253-electrowetting-displays-brighter-than-lcd-lower-power-and-daylight-readable

One additional advantage to the "Glass Cockpit" is it's relative compactness. Round gauges take up a lot of space so the number one can use is limited. Another is more creative information display is possible such as putting the speed-to-fly command on the airspeed vertical tape as a moving bug.

[son_of_flubber]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:37:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?

I don't think I would want a larger screen with more gauges and info in a glider, (except for a bright and large moving map). I'd rather have my eyes outside the cockpit.

I do prefer a combination of digital readouts and analog dials, but this generation of "speed to fly" varios seem to strike the balance just right. The basic capabilities are already there in the sensor packages, if not yet on the screen. Give it a few years.

http://www.lxnav.com/products/v7.html
http://www.butterfly-avionics.com/index.php/en/products/butterfly-vario-intelligent-variometer
http://www.clearnav.net/main/cn-vario.html

One technology that I would like to see in gliders is robotic vision for collision avoidance. Unlike Flarm and Transponders, the other plane does not need any complementary electronics. It is simply a robotically enhanced 'see and avoid'. The tech is starting to emerge for autonomous drones and it should get a lot better, cheaper, and lighter as drones come to prominence. Check this out and be sure to scroll down the page to the near-miss .gif
http://www.sara.com/ISR/UAV_payloads/OCA.html

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

re http://www.sara.com/ISR/UAV_payloads/OCA.html

Interesting.
“Only consumes 1 watt of power.
Passively monitors 122º x 10º field of regard.”

If it’s in a drone, and flies much faster than gliders, it should pick most of us up.

But not so good for glider to glider. Many of our collisions involve one behind the other so only one (same as “see and be seen” has the chance to initiate avoidance.

Chris N

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:37:47 PM UTC, wrote:
> We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude

I don't have a fraction of the experience and background knowledge required to hold an opinion on this subject, but since that's never stopped me before: I wonder if tape indicators (specifically 'fixed pointer, moving tape' indicators) really make sense for gliders. I understand that they originated as mechanical displays in supersonic military aircraft of the 1960s and that the basic design has remained unchanged through moves to HUDs, then PFDs in transonic aircraft and finally trickled down into slower and slower aircraft.

Once we're into the performance range of gliders, it's not so useful having an indicator that focuses on a small working band of the airspeed and altitude range in order to give precise rate-of-change information. There are plenty of other cues the pilot uses to judge and control rate of change of airspeed, and the rate of change of altitude is something we modify our flight according to rather than manipulate with throttle, so the rate of change information is no great gain. I suspect that there's extra work required to read the instantaneous airspeed / altitude - in a situation where the pilot is under high workload or inattentive / complacent this could be a big drawback.

That's just my gut feeling though. I'd be interested in any studies of the benefits / drawbacks of tape displays in gliders and light powered aircraft..

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:30:28 AM UTC-5, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> “Only consumes 1 watt of power.
> Passively monitors 122º x 10º field of regard.”
> If it’s in a drone, and flies much faster than gliders, it should pick most of us up.
>
> But not so good for glider to glider. Many of our collisions involve one behind the other so only one (same as “see and be seen” has the chance to initiate avoidance.

Assuming these things get cheap (they will because of the proliferation of drones), we just need a second system pointed backwards and maybe a third camera pointed under the bow so we don't open air brakes and descend on top of another glider that is lower in the pattern.

This product is actually very old technology that was at one time sold to GA. They are now trying to sell it into the drone market. Machine Vision and collision avoidance is an exploding area of active research... consider Google's Self Driving Cars, one of many projects in this area.

Systems like this are complementary to transponders and Flarm. Once the Flarm alert goes off, you still need to spot the threat and something like this (perhaps with a heads up display) might help you spot it.

[son_of_flubber]

I think we'll see this in gliders before we see a glass panel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Glass

It is very low power consumption and you can leave all the TSO'd gauges in your panel. You can look outside the cockpit AND look at the gauges. The next generation of speed-to-fly variometers will interface with consumer level HUDs if they are smart.

[waremark]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:37:47 PM UTC, wrote:
> Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight instruments, engine controls, communications and of course navigation. There is nothing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work. Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information. Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.
>
> We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer information in dedicated boxes. This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame. I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the Experimental category. So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?

There are various instruments available now with displays of approx 5.6 inches;this size leaves just enough room in a typical glider panel to also have round analog instruments in 57 mm format. I have an LX 9000, obvious rivals are the Clearnav, the LX Navigation Zeus and the Craggy Aero Ultimate. The LX 9000 gives great flexibility in the sceen layout(the others probably do too, but I am not familiar with them). The LX 9000 also comes with the V5 vario, which has most of the same features as the better known V7 - ie it includes an LCD display showing (at option) myriad additional data items. The main LX 9000 display can be configured to include tape displays of airspeed and altitude, but I cannot think why you would want that. Personally I want to use most of the available display area for situational awareness (ie moving map with various things displayed on it). At appropriate times, being based in the UK where IFR flight is allowed, I can hand over some of the display space to an attitude indicator or to a radar display of Flarm traffic.

I look for progress not in the way info is displayed, but in a reduction of power consumption, and an improvement in communication. As of today, to transfer information into or out of any of the fixed glider instruments, you have to fiddle with data cards. It will be a worthwhile improvement when internet access and file transfer are available wirelessly (as is the case for the many GA flight planning and navigation programs running on iPads).

I look forward to other people's thoughts.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Jan 14, 8:54*am, waremark > wrote:
> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:37:47 PM UTC, wrote:
> > Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight instruments, engine controls, communications and of course navigation. *There is nothing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work. *Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information. *Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.
>
> > We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer information in dedicated boxes. *This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame. *I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the Experimental category. *So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?
>
> There are various instruments available now with displays of approx 5.6 inches;this size leaves just enough room in a typical glider panel to also have round analog instruments in 57 mm format. I have an LX 9000, obvious rivals are the Clearnav, the LX Navigation Zeus and the Craggy Aero Ultimate. The LX 9000 gives great flexibility in the sceen layout(the others probably do too, but I am not familiar with them). The LX 9000 also comes with the V5 vario, which has most of the same features as the better known V7 - ie it includes an LCD display showing (at option) myriad additional data items.. The main LX 9000 display can be configured to include tape displays of airspeed and altitude, but I cannot think why you would want that. Personally I want to use most of the available display area for situational awareness (ie moving map with various things displayed on it). At appropriate times, being based in the UK where IFR flight is allowed, I can hand over some of the display space to an attitude indicator or to a radar display of Flarm traffic.
>
> I look for progress not in the way info is displayed, but in a reduction of power consumption, and an improvement in communication. As of today, to transfer information into or out of any of the fixed glider instruments, you have to fiddle with data cards. It will be a worthwhile improvement when internet access and file transfer are available wirelessly (as is the case for the many GA flight planning and navigation programs running on iPads).
>
> I look forward to other people's thoughts.

One issue comes to mind. To actually replace legally required steam
gauges, the electronic system would have to go through all sorts of
certification, then the reliability of the electrical system becomes
part of the mandatory flight instruments, blah blah blah. So, you'll
still have to have the steam gauges anyway, which lowers the benefits
of mirroring the same information on a screen.

John Cochrane

[kirk.stant]

A lot of people seem inordinately attached to old-style airspeed and altitude indicators. But they were just the best that could be done in analog, pre-computer display days. At the speeds and rates of climb we experience in our gliders, all that is really needed is a big number. You glance at it, read the value, and fly accordingly. With a smart display, you can add color for speed limits, change the intervals so the digits change at a recognizable rate, and provide a trend arrow for "at a glance" monitoring (in the pattern, for example). Tapes have disappeared from Fighter HUDs for that reason - there is just a box with the airspeed, and another with the altitude. With less clutter, it's easier to lookout for traffic!

Lots of new cars have a digital speedometer in addition to the old needle - I at least find it a lot faster to check - just read the number directly, instead of finding the needle, then looking and reading the closest number under it.

If it works at 600knots and 200 ft, it will work at 60 knots and 2000 ft.

So add a big legible airspeed and altitude readout to the top of your glass panel, and stick a small mechanical backup airspeed at the bottom of the panel.

Kirk
66

[Bill D]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 8:44:03 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Jan 14, 8:54*am, waremark > wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:37:47 PM UTC, wrote:
>
> > > Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight instruments, engine controls, communications and of course navigation. *There is nothing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work. *Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information. *Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.
>
> >
>
> > > We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer information in dedicated boxes. *This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame. *I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the Experimental category. *So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?
>
> >
>
> > There are various instruments available now with displays of approx 5.6 inches;this size leaves just enough room in a typical glider panel to also have round analog instruments in 57 mm format. I have an LX 9000, obvious rivals are the Clearnav, the LX Navigation Zeus and the Craggy Aero Ultimate. The LX 9000 gives great flexibility in the sceen layout(the others probably do too, but I am not familiar with them). The LX 9000 also comes with the V5 vario, which has most of the same features as the better known V7 - ie it includes an LCD display showing (at option) myriad additional data items. The main LX 9000 display can be configured to include tape displays of airspeed and altitude, but I cannot think why you would want that. Personally I want to use most of the available display area for situational awareness (ie moving map with various things displayed on it). At appropriate times, being based in the UK where IFR flight is allowed, I can hand over some of the display space to an attitude indicator or to a radar display of Flarm traffic.
>
> >
>
> > I look for progress not in the way info is displayed, but in a reduction of power consumption, and an improvement in communication. As of today, to transfer information into or out of any of the fixed glider instruments, you have to fiddle with data cards. It will be a worthwhile improvement when internet access and file transfer are available wirelessly (as is the case for the many GA flight planning and navigation programs running on iPads)..
>
> >
>
> > I look forward to other people's thoughts.
>
>
>
> One issue comes to mind. To actually replace legally required steam
>
> gauges, the electronic system would have to go through all sorts of
>
> certification, then the reliability of the electrical system becomes
>
> part of the mandatory flight instruments, blah blah blah. So, you'll
>
> still have to have the steam gauges anyway, which lowers the benefits
>
> of mirroring the same information on a screen.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

While there are certification issues, I think you overstate. The light end of GA is proving it's possible to fit or re-fit glass cockpits. I don't think retaining "steam gauges" will be necessary. However, if you prefer to retain them, a thin flip-up display could hide the big, round gauges until you decide you need them.

While the MEL will list "an altimeter", it rarely specifies a Kollsman or any other make. A simple 5-digit digital altimeter would suffice for day VFR flying. IFR is another issue. I really wish our gadget suppliers would make a tiny LCD digital altimeter so we could reclaim some panel space.

Way back when surplus stores were full of aircraft instruments, I picked up a "yellow-tagged", "drum-type" encoding altimeter which had been used on some sort of military jet for, IIRC $30. The altitude range was huge which made it nice for wave flying. The only downside was the size and weight since it extended about 10" behind the panel but I was instantly hooked on the digital display.

[Roel Baardman]

Waremark wrote:
>... and an improvement in communication.

I have done my master thesis on glider-to-glider communication, without the need for infrastructure on the ground (a mobile ad-hoc mesh network). I'm not going to pretend like
this was a big succes, but I can share my experiences. More info is in a paper published by OSTIV.

- In my experience GSM/3G stops above 800 meters, when you're flying in densely populated areas. In mountains this may be different.
- It is not very easy to find energy-efficient, licence-free, long-distance transceivers with a decent data-rate. I used the X-Bee PRO 868 modules from digi.com, which have a
900MHz equivalent too.
- Gliders are relatively ideal for RF communication, since we often have line of sight.
- The range of 40km that the mentioned RF modules have is nice, because it also works in blue days. I simulated this using some IGC files. However, the long range leads to a
lot of contention.
- IP might not be the best solution for these environments. Some sort of disruptive tolerant networking with heavy caching would be great. Connections just aren't that stable.
- Although I haven't simulated this, I suspect that polarization might become an issue when thermaling.

Roel

[soartech[_2_]]

> I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information.

You could eliminate the entire panel and just strap this to your leg
for about $900:

http://www.brauniger.com/en/products/flight-instruments/iq-compeo/overview.html

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:40:01 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote:
> for about $900:
> http://www.brauniger.com/en/products/flight-instruments/iq-compeo/overview.html

As I understand it, these rely on GPS for air speed. The remote AS sensor option pegs at 75 mph. Unless I missed something on the translated webpage, there is no remote sensor for the vario, so the pressure change would be inside the sailplane cockpit.

http://www.brauniger.com/en/products/flight-instruments/iq-compeo/accessories.html

Not sure how those limitations shake out because this unit is also a navigation aid.

It's amazing that you can add "passive Flarm" to this unit for $70!

I used a $200 Flytec Sonic audio-only variometer last summer when flying without a panel mounted audio vario. A number of us tried it and felt that the Sonic was a huge improvement (both safety and performance) over the alternative of flying with no audio vario. I highly recommend the Sonic to clubs and students.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/15/2013 9:40 AM, soartech wrote:
>> I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument
>> design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight
>> information.
>
> You could eliminate the entire panel and just strap this to your leg
> for about $900:
>
> http://www.brauniger.com/en/products/flight-instruments/iq-compeo/overview.html

And strap this to your back to eliminate the rest of the sailplane,
saving thousands more!

Seriously, the instrument is interesting, but putting it on the panel
would make it easier to use. I would not want to depend on the ASI, as
it looks very hard to read at a glance - OK for people with the wind
literally in their face, but not for us.

Two of them on the panel might be even better: one left on the flying
page, the other left on the navigation/soaring page. You can even get a
Flarm module for one of them, but it might not be legal in the USA.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/15/2013 12:41 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 1/15/2013 9:40 AM, soartech wrote:
>>> I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument
>>> design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight
>>> information.
>>
>> You could eliminate the entire panel and just strap this to your leg
>> for about $900:
>>
>> http://www.brauniger.com/en/products/flight-instruments/iq-compeo/overview.html
>>
>
> And strap this to your back to eliminate the rest of the sailplane,
> saving thousands more!

Oops, didn't get the "strap to your back" link. Here it is:

http://www.brauniger.com/en/e-drive/e-drive-products.html

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Craig R.]

If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the brain to interpret and understand data quickly using either an analog or digital readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the main emphasis of the study. The study showed that the brain interprets the analog display quicker and with greater accuracy. Besides the issue of running out of power, it appears that the analog display is superior to digital for information gathering and execution. Something to consider in going to an all glass panel. Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could elaborate?

[Bill D]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
> If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the brain to interpret and understand data quickly using either an analog or digital readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the main emphasis of the study. The study showed that the brain interprets the analog display quicker and with greater accuracy. Besides the issue of running out of power, it appears that the analog display is superior to digital for information gathering and execution. Something to consider in going to an all glass panel. Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could elaborate?

That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC. Current studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend with an analog needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits. Few would use an altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a numeric display which is why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand altimeters anymore - in fact they're pretty much relegated to gliders which means they're probably going to disappear. Not many "little old Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these days.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/15/2013 7:48 PM, Bill D wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
>> If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the
>> brain to interpret and understand data quickly using either an
>> analog or digital readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the
>> main emphasis of the study. The study showed that the brain
>> interprets the analog display quicker and with greater accuracy.
>> Besides the issue of running out of power, it appears that the
>> analog display is superior to digital for information gathering and
>> execution. Something to consider in going to an all glass panel.
>> Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could elaborate?
>
> That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC.
> Current studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend
> with an analog needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits.
> Few would use an altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a
> numeric display which is why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand
> altimeters anymore - in fact they're pretty much relegated to gliders
> which means they're probably going to disappear. Not many "little old
> Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these days.

After a year or so of getting my 302, the first instrument I had with a
digital altimeter display, I noticed I used it instead of the 3-hand
"clock". No effort was made to learn or do that - it just happened.

The analog airspeed still seems to be better than a numeric one, but I
don't have a numeric ASI to see if that's true. The airspeed is quite a
different quantity than altitude, and maybe that's why digital might not
be a good choice for it: airspeed has the same "right" and "wrong"
positions during the flight, regardless of your location; the "right"
altitude varies constantly during the flight.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Roel Baardman]

> That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC.
Current studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend
with an analog needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits.

Can you name or link some studies please?

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:15:40 AM UTC+1, Craig R. wrote:
> If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the brain to interpret and understand data quickly using either an analog or digital readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the main emphasis of the study. The study showed that the brain interprets the analog display quicker and with greater accuracy. Besides the issue of running out of power, it appears that the analog display is superior to digital for information gathering and execution. Something to consider in going to an all glass panel. Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could elaborate?

Without specifying the type of data, range, units, etc. you really can't just say analog is better that digital.

In aviation, the trend is for direct digital readout for performance values (airspeed, altitude, and for gliders, average climb rates) while using some form of analog indication for trend (rate of climb or descent) or percentage (thrust) values.

My preference, if I could get a display built to my specifications, would have a dedicated display (say the size of the new Butterfly vario) for airspeed with a large digital IAS readout, smaller TAS and GS readouts, a big up/down trend arrow showing instantaneous airspeed trend (nice in the pattern to catch a wind shear), and an analog indication of current airspeed (bug) vs various Vspeeds. Being an AOA fan, a digital AOA readout would be included, but the primary AOA would be on the glareshield (and have an aural tone for on-speed with the gear down!).

Main display in the panel would be large moving map, with altitude/navigation/final glide across top in big digital format, and all the tactical/navigation info available in navboxes as required, with all needed controls on the stick or a remote. No touchscreens.

Obviously, there would be a separate vario display with all magic that is in the new LXNAV and Butterfly displays.

And finally, a combined radio/transponder/ADS-B/FLARM/PCAS/Spot/Elt control head to manage all the electronics in one place.

It's taking time, but we are getting there...

Kirk
66

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:47:44 AM UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 1/15/2013 7:48 PM, Bill D wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
>
> >> If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the
>
> >> brain to interpret and understand data quickly using either an
>
> >> analog or digital readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the
>
> >> main emphasis of the study. The study showed that the brain
>
> >> interprets the analog display quicker and with greater accuracy.
>
> >> Besides the issue of running out of power, it appears that the
>
> >> analog display is superior to digital for information gathering and
>
> >> execution. Something to consider in going to an all glass panel.
>
> >> Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could elaborate?
>
> >
>
> > That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC.
>
> > Current studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend
>
> > with an analog needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits.
>
> > Few would use an altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a
>
> > numeric display which is why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand
>
> > altimeters anymore - in fact they're pretty much relegated to gliders
>
> > which means they're probably going to disappear. Not many "little old
>
> > Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these days.
>
>
>
> After a year or so of getting my 302, the first instrument I had with a
>
> digital altimeter display, I noticed I used it instead of the 3-hand
>
> "clock". No effort was made to learn or do that - it just happened.
>
>
>
> The analog airspeed still seems to be better than a numeric one, but I
>
> don't have a numeric ASI to see if that's true. The airspeed is quite a
>
> different quantity than altitude, and maybe that's why digital might not
>
> be a good choice for it: airspeed has the same "right" and "wrong"
>
> positions during the flight, regardless of your location; the "right"
>
> altitude varies constantly during the flight.

Erik, once you have flown with a properly designed digital airspeed indicator, you will hate going back to an analog one. We are trained to think in terms of discrete, specific airspeed values, and while yes you can glance at your airspeed indicator and (if you have flown with it a lot) can get an idea of your speed ("3 o'clock is a safe pattern speed, 2 o'clock is getting slow"), if you are aiming for a specific speed you still have to compare the needle to the scale, interpolate, and decide what speed it is indicating. With a big number, it's just there. If I want 63 knots on final, I look at the panel, see 61, and immediately know that I'm 2 knots slow. Ditto when cruising - my nav computer says optimum Mc speed is 102 knots (yeah, it's a good day out west ;^), I accelerate to what I think is right judging by nose position on the horizon, then a glance see 106 and ease the nose up a bit.

One of the jets I'm working on now (a brand new advanced trainer) has a neat feature: a bug next to the flight path vector that shows your airspeed trend based on attitude and thrust setting - if it's above the FPV, you will accelerate. So when you reach the speed you want, you ease the throttles back until the bug is next to the FPV, and your speed will stay the same. Makes instrument flying so easy it's ridiculous! For gliders, you could use the same idea to indicate your airspeed trend in the pattern (based on pitch attidude/AOA and accelleration) so at a glance could see if you are slowing down or speeding up.

Fun stuff

Kirk

[Dan Marotta]

Maybe instrument design has changed, but I recall the counter, drum, pointer
altimeter needing a vibrator (read battery consumption) to keep the pointer
and digits from sticking. Or you could continuously tap the panel to keep
it moving...

"Bill D" > wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
> If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the brain to
> interpret and understand data quickly using either an analog or digital
> readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the main emphasis of the
> study. The study showed that the brain interprets the analog display
> quicker and with greater accuracy. Besides the issue of running out of
> power, it appears that the analog display is superior to digital for
> information gathering and execution. Something to consider in going to an
> all glass panel. Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could
> elaborate?

That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC. Current
studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend with an analog
needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits. Few would use an
altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a numeric display which is
why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand altimeters anymore - in fact
they're pretty much relegated to gliders which means they're probably going
to disappear. Not many "little old Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these
days.

[Dan Marotta]

Your 302 has digital indicated airspeed on screen 10.

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/15/2013 7:48 PM, Bill D wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
>>> If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the
>>> brain to interpret and understand data quickly using either an
>>> analog or digital readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the
>>> main emphasis of the study. The study showed that the brain
>>> interprets the analog display quicker and with greater accuracy.
>>> Besides the issue of running out of power, it appears that the
>>> analog display is superior to digital for information gathering and
>>> execution. Something to consider in going to an all glass panel.
>>> Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could elaborate?
>>
>> That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC.
>> Current studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend
>> with an analog needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits.
>> Few would use an altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a
>> numeric display which is why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand
>> altimeters anymore - in fact they're pretty much relegated to gliders
>> which means they're probably going to disappear. Not many "little old
>> Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these days.
>
> After a year or so of getting my 302, the first instrument I had with a
> digital altimeter display, I noticed I used it instead of the 3-hand
> "clock". No effort was made to learn or do that - it just happened.
>
> The analog airspeed still seems to be better than a numeric one, but I
> don't have a numeric ASI to see if that's true. The airspeed is quite a
> different quantity than altitude, and maybe that's why digital might not
> be a good choice for it: airspeed has the same "right" and "wrong"
> positions during the flight, regardless of your location; the "right"
> altitude varies constantly during the flight.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

[mike]

On Jan 16, 2:45*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:47:44 AM UTC+1, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > On 1/15/2013 7:48 PM, Bill D wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
>
> > >> If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the
>
> > >> brain to interpret and understand data quickly using either an
>
> > >> analog or digital readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the
>
> > >> main emphasis of the study. The study showed that the brain
>
> > >> interprets the analog display quicker and with greater accuracy.
>
> > >> Besides the issue of running out of power, it appears that the
>
> > >> analog display is superior to digital for information gathering and
>
> > >> execution. Something to consider in going to an all glass panel.
>
> > >> Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could elaborate?
>
> > > That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC.
>
> > > Current studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend
>
> > > with an analog needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits.
>
> > > Few would use an altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a
>
> > > numeric display which is why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand
>
> > > altimeters anymore - in fact they're pretty much relegated to gliders
>
> > > which means they're probably going to disappear. Not many "little old
>
> > > Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these days.
>
> > After a year or so of getting my 302, the first instrument I had with a
>
> > digital altimeter display, I noticed I used it instead of the 3-hand
>
> > "clock". No effort was made to learn or do that - it just happened.
>
> > The analog airspeed still seems to be better than a numeric one, but I
>
> > don't have a numeric ASI to see if that's true. The airspeed is quite a
>
> > different quantity than altitude, and maybe that's why digital might not
>
> > be a good choice for it: airspeed has the same "right" and "wrong"
>
> > positions during the flight, regardless of your location; the "right"
>
> > altitude varies constantly during the flight.
>
> Erik, once you have flown with a properly designed digital airspeed indicator, you will hate going back to an analog one. *We are trained to think in terms of discrete, specific airspeed values, and while yes you can glance at your airspeed indicator and (if you have flown with it a lot) can get an idea of your speed ("3 o'clock is a safe pattern speed, 2 o'clock is getting slow"), if you are aiming for a specific speed you still have to compare the needle to the scale, interpolate, and decide what speed it is indicating. With a big number, it's just there. *If I want 63 knots on final, I look at the panel, see 61, and immediately know that I'm 2 knots slow. *Ditto when cruising - my nav computer says optimum Mc speed is 102 knots (yeah, it's a good day out west ;^), I accelerate to what I think is right judging by nose position on the horizon, then a glance see 106 and ease the nose up a bit.
>
> One of the jets I'm working on now (a brand new advanced trainer) has a neat feature: a bug next to the flight path vector that shows your airspeed trend based on attitude and thrust setting - if it's above the FPV, you will accelerate. *So when you reach the speed you want, you ease the throttles back until the bug is next to the FPV, and your speed will stay the same.. Makes instrument flying so easy it's ridiculous! For gliders, you could use the same idea to indicate your airspeed trend in the pattern (based on pitch attidude/AOA and accelleration) so at a glance could see if you are slowing down or speeding up.
>
> Fun stuff
>
> Kirk

How about this? Been thinking of getting one for fun.

http://www.mglavionics.com/html/infinity_singles.html

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/16/2013 1:45 AM, kirk.stant wrote:

>
> Erik, once you have flown with a properly designed digital airspeed
> indicator, you will hate going back to an analog one. We are trained
> to think in terms of discrete, specific airspeed values, and while
> yes you can glance at your airspeed indicator and (if you have flown
> with it a lot) can get an idea of your speed ("3 o'clock is a safe
> pattern speed, 2 o'clock is getting slow"), if you are aiming for a
> specific speed you still have to compare the needle to the scale,
> interpolate, and decide what speed it is indicating. With a big
> number, it's just there. If I want 63 knots on final, I look at the
> panel, see 61, and immediately know that I'm 2 knots slow. Ditto
> when cruising - my nav computer says optimum Mc speed is 102 knots
> (yeah, it's a good day out west ;^), I accelerate to what I think is
> right judging by nose position on the horizon, then a glance see 106
> and ease the nose up a bit.

The only time I use numbers when I'm thinking of or using airspeed is in
the pattern: I consider the wind and turbulence, then choose an amount
to add to my zero wind pattern speed. Once I have that, I fly to
maintain the needle at that position on the ASI - no more numbers.

All the flight before landing is done without numbers: follow the speed
director for speed to fly; thermal with the nose on the horizon; keep
the needle in the green (mostly); set flaps to the position indicated by
the needle.

Maybe if I had a digital readout for the ASI, I'd like it, but I don't
see how the actual number is useful for most of the flight. Next year,
I'll have glider with a glass panel, and then I'll have some experience
to better judge these choices.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:31:14 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Maybe instrument design has changed, but I recall the counter, drum, pointer
>
> altimeter needing a vibrator (read battery consumption) to keep the pointer
>
> and digits from sticking. Or you could continuously tap the panel to keep
>
> it moving...
>
>
>
> "Bill D" wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
>
> > If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the brain to
>
> > interpret and understand data quickly using either an analog or digital
>
> > readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the main emphasis of the
>
> > study. The study showed that the brain interprets the analog display
>
> > quicker and with greater accuracy. Besides the issue of running out of
>
> > power, it appears that the analog display is superior to digital for
>
> > information gathering and execution. Something to consider in going to an
>
> > all glass panel. Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could
>
> > elaborate?
>
>
>
> That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC. Current
>
> studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend with an analog
>
> needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits. Few would use an
>
> altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a numeric display which is
>
> why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand altimeters anymore - in fact
>
> they're pretty much relegated to gliders which means they're probably going
>
> to disappear. Not many "little old Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these
>
> days.

Mine worked just fine without a vibrator.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:17:21 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:31:14 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> > Maybe instrument design has changed, but I recall the counter, drum, pointer
>
> >
>
> > altimeter needing a vibrator (read battery consumption) to keep the pointer
>
> >
>
> > and digits from sticking. Or you could continuously tap the panel to keep
>
> >
>
> > it moving...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "Bill D" wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 5:15:40 PM UTC-7, Craig R. wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > If I remember correctly, studies were done on the ability of the brain to
>
> >
>
> > > interpret and understand data quickly using either an analog or digital
>
> >
>
> > > readout. Time and speedometer readouts were the main emphasis of the
>
> >
>
> > > study. The study showed that the brain interprets the analog display
>
> >
>
> > > quicker and with greater accuracy. Besides the issue of running out of
>
> >
>
> > > power, it appears that the analog display is superior to digital for
>
> >
>
> > > information gathering and execution. Something to consider in going to an
>
> >
>
> > > all glass panel. Perhaps someone that is up on this subject could
>
> >
>
> > > elaborate?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That study was done very early in the digital age - 1960's IIRC. Current
>
> >
>
> > studies show that while it remains easier to detect a trend with an analog
>
> >
>
> > needle, a discrete value is easier to read in digits. Few would use an
>
> >
>
> > altimeter to detect a trend so it works best as a numeric display which is
>
> >
>
> > why few high performance aircraft use 3-hand altimeters anymore - in fact
>
> >
>
> > they're pretty much relegated to gliders which means they're probably going
>
> >
>
> > to disappear. Not many "little old Swiss watchmakers" left to fix them these
>
> >
>
> > days.
>
>
>
> Mine worked just fine without a vibrator.

Here is a glass panel (EFIS) made by Dittel Avionik
http://www.dittel-avionik.de/files/gca/GCA_Mounting.pdf

That's what I was looking for when asking the original question. It seems to have not really set the world afire, so far. Plus, radio and transponder are not yet integrated. Flarm can be connected, however. They seem to be able to load a number of open-source software packages. Altitude and airspeed are indicated in boxes right below the map.
Herb

[Sam Discusflyer[_2_]]

One suggestion for the digital airspeed display is to add color.
Either as a color digit display or a color background display.

I know this might not work for color blindness. So options to add
color based on speed threshholds. The pilot could decide to use
maneuvering speed or flap speeds or ????

The oudie uses this for the green or orange box around airport/land
out waypoints.

Steve
>

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/16/2013 9:35 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:

>>
>> The analog airspeed still seems to be better than a numeric one, but I
>> don't have a numeric ASI to see if that's true. The airspeed is quite
>> a different quantity than altitude, and maybe that's why digital might
>> not be a good choice for it: airspeed has the same "right" and "wrong"
>> positions during the flight, regardless of your location; the "right"
>> altitude varies constantly during the flight.
>>
> Your 302 has digital indicated airspeed on screen 10.

True, but it means I lose the digital altitude, push/pull icons, and avg
climb rate. There's also a lot of info on a standard ASI (flap settings,
rough air and red line) that is not on the 302 readout, so it doesn't
seem like good test of a digital ASI

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Sam Discusflyer[_2_]]

One suggestion for the digital airspeed display is to add color.
Either as a color digit display or a color background display.

I know this might not work for color blindness. So options to add
color based on speed threshholds. The pilot could decide to use
maneuvering speed or flap speeds or ????

The oudie uses this for the green or orange box around airport/land
out waypoints.

Steve
>

[folken]

I think you are looking for this:

http://www.lxnavigation.si/lx-zeus/

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:39:27 AM UTC-6, folken wrote:
> I think you are looking for this:
>
>
>
> http://www.lxnavigation.si/lx-zeus/

Bingo!
Danke, Folken
Herbert

[[email protected]]

This is the "simple" glass panel in my self-launching TeST 10M:
http://www.brauniger.com/en/products/motor-instruments/alphamfd/overview.html
I have this plus 302 and Oudie -- that's it. Works very nicely.

[[email protected]]

Hi. Take a look at Glance EFIS: http://glance-efis.com

It's suitable for gliders.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

The LX 9070 with S-80 or s-1010 is effectively an EFIS. The s-80 with display digital A/S and Alt, and so will the LX9070. The LX9070 also can be configured with tape display for A/S, Alt, and vario. Add a Butterfly display and you now have three glass instruments that give you all the flight data you need and more.


What I want is a true HUD with vario, A/S and traffic.

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 at 10:37:47 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight instruments, engine controls, communications and of course navigation. There is nothing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work. Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information. Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.
> We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer information in dedicated boxes. This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame. I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the Experimental category. So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?

[Muttley]

This looks about just right to me ( in a JS1)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B98QDGWDnrb1d3FGc2loV1NsOWc

round instrument on the left seems to be a ASI

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B98QDGWDnrb1a29VSzd1TzYzT2M

round instrument on the right S-80

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B98QDGWDnrb1V0hmYjR3SHVnNzQ

[Bryan Searle[_2_]]

I am working on a low-cost EFIS system for gliders! As it will be
non-approved initially it will be suitable for UL/Experimental gliders, but
could be used as advisory instrumentation for certified gliders. It uses
low-cost off-the-shelf components for all the sensors and a high brightness
colour LCD. I am thinking of a 'kit' type product, as the main component is
the dedicated software. Two identical units are used, one for the primary
instruments and another for an innovative graphical variometer. Either unit
may be switched for primary or vario function providing fail-safe in the
event of power failure, but each unit will also contain a battery for
3rd/4th level fail-safe. The moving-map or tactical display would be a
completely separate unit, for which there are many alternatives. A
Raspberry Pi with a high brightness screen would be ideal. This makes for a
much more cost effective and equally capable solution than the very
expensive and complex 'one-box' variometer/navigation units on offer. So
the panel will consist of just 3 LCDs, that's it, no steam gauges - PM me.


At 18:56 15 August 2016, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>The LX 9070 with S-80 or s-1010 is effectively an EFIS. The s-80 with
>disp=
>lay digital A/S and Alt, and so will the LX9070. The LX9070 also can be
>co=
>nfigured with tape display for A/S, Alt, and vario. Add a Butterfly
>display=
> and you now have three glass instruments that give you all the flight
>data=
> you need and more.
>
>
>What I want is a true HUD with vario, A/S and traffic.
>
>On Sunday, January 13, 2013 at 10:37:47 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
>> Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport
Aircraft,
>=
>I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight
>instru=
>ments, engine controls, communications and of course navigation. There
is
>=
>nothing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires
electrons
>=
>to work. Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with
>certif=
>ied instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft
>inst=
>rument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight
>inf=
>ormation. Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically
>fea=
>sible.
>> We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but
>ev=
>erything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring
>comp=
>uter information in dedicated boxes. This would clean up our busy panels
>a=
>nd we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from
>th=
>e panel or the canopy frame. I=E2=80=99d be interested in such a panel
>and=
> would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing
>gl=
>ider fleet, especially in the Experimental category. So who might be
>worki=
>ng on a Glider-EFIS?
>

[Andrew Ainslie]

I just went to the LX Nav page, and boy have things changed! It looks like they're putting out some interesting instruments. The ASI that someone pointed out earlier in the JS1 cockpit ( I think called the Salus) looks amazing. Anybody have any idea what the price on that ASI is?

[Mike C]

On Sunday, January 13, 2013 at 11:37:47 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Looking at the options for instrumentation for new Light Sport Aircraft, I find most manufacturers to offer a complete glass panel for flight instruments, engine controls, communications and of course navigation. There is nothing round with a pointer to be found and everything requires electrons to work. Factory-made gliders require of course to be equipped with certified instruments but I wonder if anybody in our small niche of aircraft instrument design is working on a one-panel box that shows the usual flight information. Given the progress in that area, it is certainly technically feasible.
> We would have to get used to vertical tapes for speed and altitude but everything could be over-laid a navigation screen with the usual soaring computer information in dedicated boxes. This would clean up our busy panels and we could rid ourselves of the ugly external boxes that stick out from the panel or the canopy frame. I’d be interested in such a panel and would think in the long run this could well be marketed to the existing glider fleet, especially in the Experimental category. So who might be working on a Glider-EFIS?

http://www.westerboer.de/Seiten/vw1200.html