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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
Thank you so much that you gave us more advice.
Yes, quality is the most importance in our country. Chinese manufacturers realise it these years. They are working hard to follow world's step. I should emphasized that we have a strong air industry. China has developed their air for more than 50 years. The foreigner know a little about Chinese air industry. We sell a few air products to the abroad. Since we don't know what are air requirement of foreigners. The foreigners don't know we had a strong technical powers in this fields. Just to see our aircraft instruments which I had sold them to the abroad markets for more than 15 years. Maybe you had seen our products, maybe you used them. Our products quality is better in Ultralight fields. Please see our Web: http://www.ming-da.com I wish to learn more comment to improve our products. Since pilot is our finial customers. They have a full experience to comment our products. I have done international trade for more than 20 years. I knew our country's industry well. I am so interesting in air field. Althought I have not pilot licence which it need 8 months to study with USD15,000.00 in China. I have no time to do it. I wish one day I fly with my plane. Luo |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
-----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----- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
wrote in message oups.com... Thank you Mr. Richard, Denny. Please not be sick of my more questions. From your opinion, you like "needle" meters. I want to know why most of digital manufacturers made numeric readouts. I think they have investigated markets, and then they done these kinds of products. Since I browsed aircraftspure catalogues. I found numeric readout digital meters stand in front of selling catalogue. I guessed there are a lot of people buy and use them. Maybe I am wrong. Luo Not necessarily wrong--or right. Numeric digital meters have been around for quite a while. When the concept was new, a solid state analog display was prohibitively expensive--where it was even available. So, if the requirement was only to obtain a steady state reading and write it in a book or log, they worked just fine and eliminated parallax and any disagreement between technicians interpolating the numbers. In addition, many meters had a "peak hold" function which could preserve peak values until they could be copied from the face of the meter. Even 25 years ago, seven segment displays were cheap, bright, and readable; and, with the available rubber cover, the package could be dropped on a concrete floor without damage or loss of accuracy. Besides, when we needed to tune anything, or watch anything dynamic, we could still get the old analog meter from the shelf, supply room, or truck. So, no one really ever converted to digital readouts--but they are really rugged, light, and useful for some tasks. At the moment, I can think of a few places in an aircraft cockpit where digital flight instrument readouts are acceptable, and even useful, but none where they have a clear advantage. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
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- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote 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. Here, we call that "fly by wire", and for a small airplane, there is no possible way to make that lighter than you could make conventional controls. You will need to have back-up, triple redundancy; all of the controls multiplied times three will start to get heavy. You need to look at, and study AC 43.13-1B, found at faa.gov under Advisory Circulars. It shows how to build or repair airplanes, in an accepted, airworthy manner. Controls built like that will be much lighter, and more reliable than you could build fly by wire for small aircraft. Good luck on your dream, and getting to be allowed to do that, in China. -- Jim in NC |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
On 18 Apr 2006 00:44:55 -0700, wrote:
Thank you so much that you gave us more advice. Yes, quality is the most importance in our country. Chinese manufacturers realise it these years. They are working hard to follow world's step. I should emphasized that we have a strong air industry. China has developed their air for more than 50 years. The foreigner know a little about Chinese air industry. We sell a few air products to the abroad. Since we don't know what are air requirement of foreigners. The foreigners don't know we had a strong technical powers in this fields. Just to see our aircraft instruments which I had sold them to the abroad markets for more than 15 years. Maybe you had seen our products, maybe you used them. Our products quality is better in Ultralight fields. Please see our Web: http://www.ming-da.com that directional gyro-electric in the bottom left of the page looks amazingly like an artificial horizon. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
In article .com,
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote: 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- Let's be careful with our choice of words, lest we cast murkiness instead of illumination. Flight *instruments* monitor what's going on. Those things display airspeed, altitude, attitude, heading, rate of climb. Engine *instruments* tell us what's happening with the engine, or at least part of that info. At a minimum, RPM and oil temperature, and often times many other parameters. Additional instruments include those for communication and navigation. Now we have engine *controls* like the throttle, mixture, and carb heat, at a minimum. And then flight *controls* which are really the only things strictly required to fly. Those are the movable surfaces of the plane and the mechanical linkages that the pilot manipulates in order to move those surfaces, and hence *control* the planes attitude, and, thus, it's path through space. Now, others on this board will doubtless contend with some of *my* word choices and explanations, and I readily concede that I'm not even close to being among the most experienced or knowledgeable pilots in the virtual room. Nevertheless, in the English language, and amongst pilots, there is a substantial difference between a *control* and an *instrument.* I'm guessing that you're using the word "control" when you mean "instrument." Many pilots love the simplicity, elegance, and nostalgia of "steam gauges" -- the old, individual, three dimensional, panel-mounted instruments. And, many also have no objection to updating some of that stuff with LCD displays, particularly if the newer technology can do the same job with substantial savings of cost, time, weight, and complexity, while offering increased reliability. In *that* endeavor, you have my blessing. But I'd restrain the idea of pushing a left turn button on the panel that sends a radio signal to some little motors in the wings and tail to make the control surfaces move, to your nighttime "dreaming." |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is it a habit we prefer mechnical instruments?
Smitty Two wrote:
Let's be careful with our choice of words, lest we cast murkiness instead of illumination. [snipped] Many pilots love the simplicity, elegance, and nostalgia of "steam gauges" -- the old, individual, three dimensional, panel-mounted instruments. And, many also have no objection to updating some of that stuff with LCD displays, particularly if the newer technology can do the same job with substantial savings of cost, time, weight, and complexity, while offering increased reliability. In *that* endeavor, you have my blessing. But I'd restrain the idea of pushing a left turn button on the panel that sends a radio signal to some little motors in the wings and tail to make the control surfaces move, to your nighttime "dreaming." Yes proper nomenclature is really important. But in fact, I do mean both the instruments and the controls. They should be brought as deep into the digital domain as possible. Again, as an electrical/software engineer (but not a pilot), I am biased. When I look into the cockpit of an aircraift, I see opportunity for greater efficiency almost everywhere. Certain questions that must be asked about conventional instruments and controls would simply never get asked in the digital domain. Semiconductors fatigue. Their parts don't vibrate. They are not as susceptible to variations in moisture and other environmental factors. If I were to go dig out an old 1984 IBM PC from my schools computer lab closet and flip the switch, it might not start, but that would be due to rust on the mechanics. I could take the board out, put it in a non-rusty case, power it, and it will boot. And it will compute up to 4.77 million instructions per second thereafter, and continue to do so for 1000 years provided I did not drop or fry it. This is why I believe that heavy metal will eventually give way to a lightweight composites and plastics. The value proposition is just to great to ignore. It would be much more exciting if someone were to just do much of it at once rather than spread the transition out over 50 years. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Minimum Instruments Required? | John A. Landry | Home Built | 5 | October 14th 05 11:27 PM |