Butterfly

Hello
The Butterfly vario was advertise has a revolution, well almost, on the market.
Is there any pilots using the Butterfly vario who care to comment on the advantages,if any, of this instrument? I am serously interested in acquiring
one but it as to be better than my LX 7000.
Thanks for your input.
Gilles

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:59:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Hello

The Butterfly vario was advertise has a revolution, well almost, on the market.

Is there any pilots using the Butterfly vario who care to comment on the advantages,if any, of this instrument? I am serously interested in acquiring

one but it as to be better than my LX 7000.

Thanks for your input.

Gilles

I have one and I like it. But I have not used an LX7000 so I cannot compare.. It has a zillion more functions and features than the CAI 302 that it replaced in my panel, and has a very nice user interface. It does a bunch of things buut its unique features seem to be:
* Nearly instantaneous wind calculation (inertially derived)
* Inertially derived Vertical Airmass Movement (VAM) which in theory eliminates horizontal gust errors
* Artificial Horizon Reference

The VAM requires some interpretation, but I think supplies some new information that I didn't have before. There are some other varios on the market claiming to use inertial sensing, but it is less clear what they actually do with it, if anything.

I am very interested in the Butterfly Vario also but am waiting to hear from more users. The price is very steep. What I am looking for is a multipurpose display/instrument. I am hopeful that the Flarm display will become more complete. I am looking forward to the Angle of Attack (AOA) feature that is supposed to be released later this year. The inertial instrumentation to filter out horizontal gusts is very attractive.

At this time I am very happy with my C302 and want to add Flarm but have limited panel space and do not want to start stacking boxes and instruments on top of my panel and on multiple RAM mounts around my cockpit.

It seems that Butterfly is spending most of their time dealing with Flarm issues and the dedicated Butterfly Flarm display and putting the Butterfly Vario on the back burner.

Waiting. Watching. Listening. Hopeful. Not ready to write the check yet..

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:29:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I am very interested in the Butterfly Vario also but am waiting to hear from more users. The price is very steep. What I am looking for is a multipurpose display/instrument. I am hopeful that the Flarm display will become more complete. I am looking forward to the Angle of Attack (AOA) feature that is supposed to be released later this year. The inertial instrumentation to filter out horizontal gusts is very attractive.



At this time I am very happy with my C302 and want to add Flarm but have limited panel space and do not want to start stacking boxes and instruments on top of my panel and on multiple RAM mounts around my cockpit.



It seems that Butterfly is spending most of their time dealing with Flarm issues and the dedicated Butterfly Flarm display and putting the Butterfly Vario on the back burner.



Waiting. Watching. Listening. Hopeful. Not ready to write the check yet.

I wouldn't say "back burner". They have responded very quickly to a couple of bugs I discovered.

I too bought it partly because of limited panel space and the integrated traffic display. The traffic display is incomplete and does not show the alarm screen, or any PCAS traffic at all. However this is nicely displayed on good PDA software (but not the PCAS targets so far as I know). What it DOES do is give you a very good voice alert: "GLIDER, 12 O'CLOCK ABOVE, TWO" meaning there is a FLARM warning of a glider at your 12 higher and 200 meters distant. I was a bit skeptical at this but having used it a few months now I think it is probably better than the display alert, if you have to choose between the two. There are voice warnings for gear, spoilers, speeds and obstacles (the latter in Europe only). In my glider this is a welcome change - I had three separate buzzers before and when one went off, I could spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out what the hell was going on. A Flarm display was going to add a 4th buzzer, with additional confusion. I would still like to see them implement full Flarm display on the vario.

Good to hear about the voice alerts. This is another very strong point in favor of the Butterfly Vario.
The C302 has a gear warning buzzer but the volume is controlled in synch with the vario volume so that when I turn the vario volume down when I am getting ready to land the gear buzzer gets turned down. When I need a quiet cockpit the most and am at risk of a gear up situation the C302 fails me. Are the volumes for each feature controlled independently in the Butterfly vario?

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:10:05 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Good to hear about the voice alerts. This is another very strong point in favor of the Butterfly Vario.

The C302 has a gear warning buzzer but the volume is controlled in synch with the vario volume so that when I turn the vario volume down when I am getting ready to land the gear buzzer gets turned down. When I need a quiet cockpit the most and am at risk of a gear up situation the C302 fails me. Are the volumes for each feature controlled independently in the Butterfly vario?

Yes the Butterfly seems to be manufactured by Triadis. Not sure who is doing the firmware. The voice alerts (and vario, and cruise tones) are each independently adjustable. In addition, there is a speed dependent volume adjustment (so it will be louder when going faster) and also a connection to the push-to-talk microphone switch so that when you talk on the radio, the volume will be turned down (again, a settable amount from 0-100%). I have found the latter a nice feature.

Is it a better vario than a CAI 302? I think strict vario function has been fairly well trodden ground. I like the presentation better on the Butterfly, it has nearly the same filtering adjustments, and cannot be set a lot faster than the 302 - not that you would necessarily want that, it (and the 302) get pretty twitchy when the filtering is reduced to the minimum. I expect both of these and any other pressure transducer instrument are accurately reporting the pressure rate of change, which is about all they can do.

Now, that is not the end of the story. The VAM is an inertially derived netto, and theoretically can filter horizontal gusts which a traditional netto or vario cannot. Actually in the Butterfly you are able to derive the VAM from barographic information, inertial information, or any mix of the two from 0-100%. I have settled on about 80% inertial, at 100% it seems hard to interpret, but I haven't played with all of the available filtering much yet. However I have watched the VAM and vario extensively in thermals (keeping an eye on the Flarm display of course, don't have time to look outside ), and I am beginning to wonder if I would do better thermalling from the VAM needle, instead of the vario needle. In rough western desert thermals it is kind of hard to tell without a lot of flying next to people to see if there is a difference in ultimate climb rate. There are many times when the needles agree, usually with the VAM leading the vario - this is good. There are also times when they don't agree, and often in those cases it is not obvious why.

Second, the inertially derived wind is nearly instantaneous, and varies a *great deal* around thermals. From the "feel" of things, I judge it accurate: when I feel a sudden sideways gust entering a thermal, sure enough there it is displayed on the vario. Vector shifts of 180 deg and 20 knots velocity compared to wind average on the PDA are somewhat common where I fly. I have just been informed by Buttefly that I can display this difference on iGlide, haven't tried it yet as I just got the equipment needed to connect it up. I am beginning to learn to use this information to tell me which direction the thermal core is.

So there is extra information available to the instrument, and the pilot, that was not there on the CAI 302. I don't think it will instantly turn me into a threat at the Nationals. However I hopeful it will improve my climbs, when and if I learn how to use it. In the mean time it is a damned entertaining instrument!

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:02:49 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
I have one and I like it. But I have not used an LX7000 so I cannot compare. It has a zillion more functions and features than the CAI 302 that it replaced in my panel, and has a very nice user interface. It does a bunch of things buut its unique features seem to be:

* Nearly instantaneous wind calculation (inertially derived)

* Inertially derived Vertical Airmass Movement (VAM) which in theory eliminates horizontal gust errors

* Artificial Horizon Reference

The VAM requires some interpretation, but I think supplies some new information that I didn't have before. There are some other varios on the market claiming to use inertial sensing, but it is less clear what they actually do with it, if anything.

I don't understand your comment "the VAM requires some interpretation, but I think supplies some new information that I didn't have before". I would think the VAM was an inertially derived NETTO value. What do you think the VAM is telling you that you don't already know?

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:39:50 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:02:49 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

I have one and I like it. But I have not used an LX7000 so I cannot compare. It has a zillion more functions and features than the CAI 302 that it replaced in my panel, and has a very nice user interface. It does a bunch of things buut its unique features seem to be:



* Nearly instantaneous wind calculation (inertially derived)



* Inertially derived Vertical Airmass Movement (VAM) which in theory eliminates horizontal gust errors



* Artificial Horizon Reference



The VAM requires some interpretation, but I think supplies some new information that I didn't have before. There are some other varios on the market claiming to use inertial sensing, but it is less clear what they actually do with it, if anything.



What do you think the VAM is telling you that you don't already know?



-John, Q3

This is a good point. I considered buying the Butterfly variometer to replace the 302 but ended up buying ClearNav. The price was not much of consideration. I watched a couple of videos of the Butterfly variometer in real flight situation and the VAM and the variometer indications hardly ever agreed.. This was very confusing. Instead of feeling air pilot would spend more time with eyes in the cockpit watching not one but two indicators and get confused by conflicting information. What sense does it make to increase the workload?

The VAM is not used to filter out gusts probably because no one can figure out the algorithm to do so considering what seems often as conflicting information.

I think the LX, ClearNav and Butterfly as variometers come very close the rest seems just like options on a well equipped car.

I only wish ClearNav sound to be nicer. The sound award goes to Butterfly and LX. ClearNav are you listening? We want nicer sounding variometer.

Due to sound of ClearNav vario if I were to choose again I would have gone with LX.

lauantai, 31. elokuuta 2013 17.14.55 UTC+3 kirjoitti:

This is a good point. I considered buying the Butterfly variometer to replace the 302 but ended up buying ClearNav. The price was not much of consideration. I watched a couple of videos of the Butterfly variometer in real flight situation and the VAM and the variometer indications hardly ever agreed. This was very confusing.



Isn't this logical considering variometer shows change of total energy including horizontal gusts, and VAM only vertical airmass movement?






The VAM is not used to filter out gusts probably because no one can figure out the algorithm to do so considering what seems often as conflicting information.




I think there is quite good reason for (sometimes) conflicting information, and the use of two indicators has been good solution, based on appr. 100hrs of flying with Butterfly. I bet writing down algorithm to combine inertial and total energy data is difficult, as no one has managed to do it succesfully.

krasw

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 7:14:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:39:50 PM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:02:49 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:



I have one and I like it. But I have not used an LX7000 so I cannot compare. It has a zillion more functions and features than the CAI 302 that it replaced in my panel, and has a very nice user interface. It does a bunch of things buut its unique features seem to be:







* Nearly instantaneous wind calculation (inertially derived)







* Inertially derived Vertical Airmass Movement (VAM) which in theory eliminates horizontal gust errors







* Artificial Horizon Reference







The VAM requires some interpretation, but I think supplies some new information that I didn't have before. There are some other varios on the market claiming to use inertial sensing, but it is less clear what they actually do with it, if anything.







What do you think the VAM is telling you that you don't already know?







-John, Q3



This is a good point. I considered buying the Butterfly variometer to replace the 302 but ended up buying ClearNav. The price was not much of consideration. I watched a couple of videos of the Butterfly variometer in real flight situation and the VAM and the variometer indications hardly ever agreed. This was very confusing. Instead of feeling air pilot would spend more time with eyes in the cockpit watching not one but two indicators and get confused by conflicting information. What sense does it make to increase the workload?



The VAM is not used to filter out gusts probably because no one can figure out the algorithm to do so considering what seems often as conflicting information.



I think the LX, ClearNav and Butterfly as variometers come very close the rest seems just like options on a well equipped car.



I only wish ClearNav sound to be nicer. The sound award goes to Butterfly and LX. ClearNav are you listening? We want nicer sounding variometer.



Due to sound of ClearNav vario if I were to choose again I would have gone with LX.

There are many settings on both the vario and VAM filtering. Watching a short video will not give you much of a feel of the capability of these features, as it might in an older, simpler instrument. For example the VAM can be set up as derived from completely barographic information (like traditional netto) in which case it will track the vario needle quite well - and any additional information be effectively discarded. Set up the way I have it, the VAM and vario sometimes don't agree, and I cannot understand why. Much of the time though, when they don't agree it makes perfect sense. In straight flight it pretty much always makes sense, so like others I use the VAM rather than vario for target speed in cruise making it less likely you are chasing gusts instead of rising or sinking air.