Glider EFIS anyone?

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

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.

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

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.../overview.html

On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:40:01 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote:
for about $900:
http://www.brauniger.com/en/products.../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...cessories.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.

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.../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)

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.../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/...-products.html

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

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?

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.

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)