Butterfly vario side-by-side with ClearNav vario

Anyone used these two varios in the same flight? How do they compare?

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:50:37 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Anyone used these two varios in the same flight? How do they compare?

If you do, get the latest CN vario software. The speed to fly is now working and the filtering has changed a good deal -- for the better imho.
John Cochrane

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:50:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Anyone used these two varios in the same flight? How do they compare?

I have compared in Flight the LX Navigation 1606, LXNAV V7, and the ButterFly vario to the CAI 302. Approximatle 10 hours of comparison with the 1606, and about 20 each with the V7 and Butterfly.

The cambridge was sold as a used item immediately after the testing. It is still a nice vario and well worth the $1000 a customer paid for the 302/303 combination but does not perform as well as the newer stuff.


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:50:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Anyone used these two varios in the same flight? How do they compare?

That's going to yield slippery answers. Both instruments are evolving in time. Both have a huge number of user options to set. Given that, it's possible to get any sort of comparison (flattering or otherwise) you desire, so keep that in mind and ask question of the person who makes bold statements of superiority without disclosing a lot of tedious setup info.

We're flying the heck out of CNv at Sports Nats with an internal beta release and expect CNv-Club to be feature complete with a commercial release any day now. We're *extremely* pleased with it, but more about that later.

Good Soaring,

Evan Ludeman / CNi

I agree with Evan.

We are working very hard since over one year on refining and improving all the features of our vario. Its complex and we are very pleased by the results so far. What we do with our sensors has never been done before and leads to many new things we have to learn. We do not use more than 50% of its potential so far and yet it is really impressing.

Check out our Youtube channel (videos don't really give you the feeling but they at least show how the display looks): http://www.youtube.com/user/ButterflyAvionics

Best wishes
Marc
Butterfly Avionics

So am I correct that this generation of "Varios" has very similar sensors complements?

And the things that differentiates them is:
1)the software,
2)the display,
3)rate and breadth of access to raw sensor data and internally computed values (for example calculated wind direction) by external applications, and
4)pricing structure and packaging.
5)post-sales support
6)talent of the team and projected trajectory of the company

As the software evolves, the varios will continue to improve. A valid objective benchmark would be rather difficult and expensive to accomplish.

The decision of which to buy though is really very simple because both of them are excellent. Just pick one.

I think the biggest advantge with Butterfly Variometer is that you get actually get several instruments in one package. The "normal" TE-based vario is very good, in my opinion on the level of the best traditional electric varios (Zander etc.). And then you get the netto vario that can be configured to be totally independent of the TE system (though it can be mixed with it), based on inertial sensors. After flying for a while with Butterfly one really sees how important it is to know wheather gust is vertical or horizontal. Traditional TE system can't separate these reliably. Netto variometer and real time wind calculated by the inertial system gives very accurate picture of the airmass around you (and as a side produt most accurate speed-to-fly commands I've seen). In this respect Butterfly Variometer is not comparable with other current systems. I think this fundamental difference is not completely understood here.

krasw

krasw wrote, On 5/17/2013 10:33 AM:
(and as a side produt most accurate speed-to-fly commands I've seen).
In this respect Butterfly Variometer is not comparable with other
current systems. I think this fundamental difference is not
completely understood here.

I really curious about what an "accurate" speed-to-fly command is. What
is the command based on that makes it more accurate than the usual
variometer, like a 302?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

The advent of varios with inertial probes that enable the compensation or identification of horizontal gusts will be especially useful in hot strongly thermic areas, like Arizona where I mostly fly.

This is especially true on days when the air is stable but still rises strongly because of very strong surface heating. Thermals in these conditions often have a strong horizontal outflow that increases the energy of the ship as you approach the thermal. Since your total energy increases, all conventional varios indicate lift, leading the pilot to turn too soon. Many experienced pilots know this and compensate as best they can, but it would be great to have a reliable vario do this for you.

Mike

On Friday, May 17, 2013 2:23:21 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
The advent of varios with inertial probes that enable the compensation or identification of horizontal gusts

So does the ClearNav
1)have an inertial probe and
2)does it have the software (at the moment) to filter out horizontal gusts?

So does an "inertial probe" and an "accelerometer" both provide the same sensor inputs to the software?