IFR in the 1930's

"Badwater Bill" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:26:02 GMT, "Bill Daniels"
wrote:

As a geezer who learned to fly "blind" with needle, ball and airspeed I
can
say that in a slow, stable aircraft, that those are enough for rather
precise instrument flight. I can still fly a respectable partial panel
NDB
approach with just those instruments + an altimeter. (BTW, I HATE a turn
coordinator.)

For me an attitude indicator and a DG are just icing on the cake.

Bill Daniels

I agree with you Bill. The absolute minimum is a needle and ball,
airspeed, altimeter and compass. I like a few extras myself. If I
could only have one more instrument it would be a DG. If I could have
two, it would be a DG then a horizon. I also hate turn coodinators.
Pieces of crap. The turn needle is much better.

BWB

I should have said, "Needle, ball, airspeed, altimeter, CLOCK and wet
compass". Everything depended on being able to read a bouncing wet compass
and timing turns exactly.

Today we have all these fancy gadgets but most of the time we still depend
on the old wet compass for heading data. Every figured what you would do if
the wet compass goes TA while you are in the soup and all you have is a
manually set DG? Been there.

Bill Daniels