Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?

I think we're being told a lot of digital stuff is "better"
when it really isn't in some ways. Digital stuff is much cheaper to
manufacture, because machines can assemble almost the entire thing,
while analog devices have small moving parts that usually need to be
put together by hand. The profit on digital equipment must be a lot
higher, especially on the cheap stuff.
I can't use digital meters while troubleshooting electrical
problems. The digital VOM I can afford only samples the voltage or
whatever about once a second, making any rapid adjustments or quick
readings impossible. The old analog meter goes immediately to the value
and shows any changes instantly. In cold weather the LCD digital
display gets sleepy but my mechanical needle still works faithfully.

Dan

I think we're being told a lot of digital stuff is "better"
when it really isn't in some ways. Digital stuff is much cheaper to
manufacture, because machines can assemble almost the entire thing,
while analog devices have small moving parts that usually need to be
put together by hand. The profit on digital equipment must be a lot
higher, especially on the cheap stuff.
I can't use digital meters while troubleshooting electrical
problems. The digital VOM I can afford only samples the voltage or
whatever about once a second, making any rapid adjustments or quick
readings impossible. The old analog meter goes immediately to the value
and shows any changes instantly. In cold weather the LCD digital
display gets sleepy but my mechanical needle still works faithfully.

Dan

Good points, one and all. And my experience as well.

Peter

wrote:
I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
meter with digital number in it?

Several responders have pointed out the superior visual cue that an
analog meter makes over a digital read-out, which I completely agree
with.

However, I do think that glass cockpits are not used enough. As an
electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes. I think the reason has
more to do with knowledge domain than anything else.

The cost savings of having a commoditized machine control and monitor
your plane would simply be enormous. The reduction in weight alone
from eliminating the mechanical controls would be worth the change.
But of course, there are so many more things that you can do with
software that you simply can't do with mechanical controls. I saw a
show recently where stealth pilots were acknowledging this fact, as if
it were not obvious that computer can do things that a human simply
cannot.

I'm waiting for the day when someone gets rid of all these mechanical
controls and run every thing with disposable, off-the-shelf, sensors
and controls that connect to a (fail-safed) CPU that controls every
thing, with 500GB of songs and videos on board, measurements of all
kinds, 3-D render of atmosphere, maps, climate control, lighting,
auto-pilot, software radios, monitoring systems (to make sure I'm
awake), web cam, whatever...

It's not like the eqipment to do this today does not already exist.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

As an
electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes.

If you can do that, you will sell tremendous numbers of them.

Many glass cockpit systems put the readouts in such a way that they are a
tape, or some other means to display the information, without just numbers,
in a visual pointer, or graph. That will be important, to get good
acceptance.

Price is still the key. Make a glass cockpit that people can afford, sell
it to experimental plane owners, the get it certified for the certified
airplanes.
--
Jim in NC

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
meter with digital number in it?

Several responders have pointed out the superior visual cue that an
analog meter makes over a digital read-out, which I completely agree
with.

However, I do think that glass cockpits are not used enough. As an
electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes. I think the reason has
more to do with knowledge domain than anything else.

The cost savings of having a commoditized machine control and monitor
your plane would simply be enormous. The reduction in weight alone
from eliminating the mechanical controls would be worth the change.
But of course, there are so many more things that you can do with
software that you simply can't do with mechanical controls. I saw a
show recently where stealth pilots were acknowledging this fact, as if
it were not obvious that computer can do things that a human simply
cannot.

I'm waiting for the day when someone gets rid of all these mechanical
controls and run every thing with disposable, off-the-shelf, sensors
and controls that connect to a (fail-safed) CPU that controls every
thing, with 500GB of songs and videos on board, measurements of all
kinds, 3-D render of atmosphere, maps, climate control, lighting,
auto-pilot, software radios, monitoring systems (to make sure I'm
awake), web cam, whatever...

It's not like the eqipment to do this today does not already exist.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
redundancy.

jls wrote:
You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
redundancy.

Hmm...I've thought about the stick and rudder problem quite a bit, and
the irrational part of me says keep the mechanics, but the rational
part of me says that electronics will do the job. If the system is
designed correctly, it will operate correctly, even when it's broken.

I'd probably design system with so much redundancy that, if you crashed
as result of fault, God probably wanted you to crash anyway.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In article .com,
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:

jls wrote:
You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
redundancy.

Hmm...I've thought about the stick and rudder problem quite a bit, and
the irrational part of me says keep the mechanics, but the rational
part of me says that electronics will do the job. If the system is
designed correctly, it will operate correctly, even when it's broken.

I'd probably design system with so much redundancy that, if you crashed
as result of fault, God probably wanted you to crash anyway.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

The first word in the name of this particular newsgroup is
*recreational.* We like to FLY. Flying involves considerably more than
being above the surface of the earth, moving from one place to another,
and looking out the window. Autopilots are for airliners. Go ahead and
give me a glass cockpit with ANALOG displays, but make sure I have to
tap on the simulated faceplates covering the simulated needles once in a
while to keep them moving. And leave the damn stick alone, you pesky
meddling heretic. (Insert emoticon representing friendly warning snarl
here.)

Smitty Two wrote:
The first word in the name of this particular newsgroup is
*recreational.* We like to FLY. Flying involves considerably more than
being above the surface of the earth, moving from one place to another,
and looking out the window. Autopilots are for airliners. Go ahead and
give me a glass cockpit with ANALOG displays, but make sure I have to
tap on the simulated faceplates covering the simulated needles once in a
while to keep them moving. And leave the damn stick alone, you pesky
meddling heretic. (Insert emoticon representing friendly warning snarl
here.)

Ok, I have a confession to make. I have wild dreams of making my own
flying "vehicle". Yes I know, I'm a lune, but being a lune has never
stopped a man from dreaming.

In such flying vehicle, I had always intended to add new
pseudo-digital, mechanical controls controls to compensate for getting
rid of most of the conventionaly mechanical analog controls. Everytime
I see the inside of a conventional aircraft, I can't help but think
that the whole thing could be done so much lighter, cheaper, etc.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
jls wrote:

You want to give up the stick and rudder to the CPU too? I think I'd like
to hang on to that. Everything else might be ok except I'd like some analog
redundancy.


Hmm...I've thought about the stick and rudder problem quite a bit, and
the irrational part of me says keep the mechanics, but the rational
part of me says that electronics will do the job. If the system is
designed correctly, it will operate correctly, even when it's broken.

I'd probably design system with so much redundancy that, if you crashed
as result of fault, God probably wanted you to crash anyway.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


As someone who has spent the last several years working in quality
control for electronic devices, let me just say..."No FRIGGIN' way, dude"

No matter how much you think you've thought of everything, you haven't.
It doesn't matter if it is mechanical or electronically controlled.
It just that with the mechanical control, you have a chance to see the
rust running off the torque tube and feel the extra play in it during
preflight. When you're a leaking electron, no one can hear you scream.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
wrote:

I just wondered which kinds of digital meters, electric analog or
numeric meter, do pilot can accept. Or we can accept an electric analog
meter with digital number in it?


Several responders have pointed out the superior visual cue that an
analog meter makes over a digital read-out, which I completely agree
with.

However, I do think that glass cockpits are not used enough. As an
electrical/software engineer, I know that it is possible to pack every
function of every glass cockpit ever created into one computer costing
less than $1000US, but no one has done this yes. I think the reason has
more to do with knowledge domain than anything else.
Not really, economics does come into play as well. Consider that if you
could produce a custom electrical package with a nice looking LCD for
~$1000 USD, that you'd still have to arrange to sell it through
distributors, and those guys often want to charge 100% over what you are
charging them. To make matters more interesting, agreements with such
distributors often require you to set a "list price" which is about what
they want to charge at retail (so you don't steal their sales).

Funny enough, this price starts to look awfully like what dynon & the
other workalikes are selling for.

Evan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFERTtXpxCQXwV2bJARAoekAJ92WDHoljIXSbEkBDuCE2 goN8oOPgCgmrwL
gbMyiIbG+omjm4rAcB4BGbU=
=O/bd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----