If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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 featu 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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 featu 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Glider EFIS anyone?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EFIS Wars.... | Andy | Home Built | 10 | August 19th 06 04:18 AM |
EFIS | [email protected] | Soaring | 6 | November 15th 05 12:00 PM |
EFIS | faadpe | Soaring | 2 | November 15th 05 06:28 AM |
EFIS one for sale | nametab | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | March 4th 04 12:31 AM |
EFIS One for sale | nametab | Home Built | 0 | March 4th 04 12:29 AM |