I have to fall firmly and loudly into the "digital is good, electrical
insturments can be reliable, mechanical varios belong in museums"
group.

I would love to see a serious study that shows that classic analog
airspeed and altimeters (as used in gliders) are easier to read and
less susceptible to misinterpretation than a properly designed (but
unfortunately, theoretical) replacement digital airspeed and altimeter.
With the advent of Head-up-Displays (HUDs), fighter planes have moved
to almost completely digital displays of most values - only those where
trend is crucial, such as vertical velocity and radar altitude,
continue to have a companion analog display. Otherwise, its a straight
number, usually rounded off to the nearest knot and 10 feet. Works
fine in an F-15E, should work pretty good in an LS6

By comparison, trying to interpret a three-needle altimeter is like
trying to read sanskrit! And then there are 1 1/2 revolution airspeed
indicators!

If you have a PDA in your cockpit, try setting it up to have a nice big
font altitude (and speed, if available) display on it and try it - you
might find that it is really easy to glance at and read.

I have two seperated battery systems, and no mechanical vario. I'm
stuck with a "steam-gauge" airspeed indicator and altimeter, but what I
would really like is a digital airspeed, digital altimeter, and an
accurate AOA indicator. For tradition, I'll keep the vario needles -
since there I'm looking for trend (to provide a value to the audio),
and read a digital averager for real decision making.

Heck, last year I took off on a fine day only to find my airspeed inop
(bug in the pitot) - but that didn't prevent me from flying a nice
little 500+ k XC with some friends of mine. The only time I really
missed the airspeed indicator was in the pattern. Just flew it a bit
faster than usual (that AOA indicator sure would have been nice to have
then...).

Now the huge caveat - this is all fine in a private ship - I don't see
how a the average club ship would manage.

Kirk
66