Butterfly display (displaying a big red logo under normal flight conditions)

Hi Gang
A reminder. The Butterfly polarizer which is an integral part of any LCD display is orientated so that the Butterfly Display can only be viewed in the portrait (vertical) mode if you use polarized sunglasses whereas the portable PowerFlarm display requires a landscape (horizontal) mounting. Why? You figure that out.
My DG1001M came with the 2 Butterfly Displays mounted in the landscape mode so I purchased a pair of articulating arms to mount the Butterfly Displays. These arms can be rotated through at least 180 degrees and fixed the polarizer problems. If I had to do it all again there is no way I would purchase PowerFlarms. Instead for the DG 1001M a couple of MRX PCAS units is so clearly the best solution to collision avoidance. My 2 cents worth after battling the PowerFlarms for more than a couple of years.
Dave

Here's an option: How about the PF team bring their two systems back in line to each other? Meaning, the Portable display is the nice radar screen all the time, while the Core Butterfly displays show the logo. Why the difference?

Make both systems have the same user interface and sreens... or allow the user to choose what they'd prefer.

I've emailed the PF team about this disparity a couple months ago. Their reply in short: they'd think about it, but its not on the priority list. Maybe if we get enough momentum?

This doesn't solve any polarization issues of course, and people are already switching to other displays which just work.
-Britton

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:39:22 AM UTC-4, Marc - Butterfly Avionics wrote:
Juan, SF,



please get in touch with us and provide pictures of your installation and close-ups of your display:



Its a transflective display - it gets brighter in sunlight and looks dim when not in sunlight. If you install it in an unfavorable angle or in the shadow of your glareshield, or if using polarized glasses it won't bring much fun using it.



Looking forward to helping you.



Marc

Will try to take pictures before our season winds down.

Recommending an MRX over a powerflarm is like recommending a flip phone over a smartphone. If powerflarm is too overwhelming for you, you will still be safer if you turn it on without ever looking at it than if you use an MRX, since it will warn other gliders of your presence. After the earliy PCAS issues were resolved, I continued flying with both MRX and my PF brick (with butterfly display) side by side for another 100 hours or so and here are my unbiased observations:
1- PF has better reception most of the time
2- altitude difference is always correct in PF. It can be totally wrong in MRX almost half the time especially after flying close to someone else it seem to confuse the altitude calculation for a while.
3- MRX will sound an audio alert too late most of the time as it only sounds an alert when the traffic is 1 mile or so away. PF with the latest butterfly firmware will sound a short alert whenever it detects a new traffic within the max distance you configured.
4- MRX has reliability issues. Mine went back to the factory more than 5 times over the 5+ years I used it. To Zaon credit they never charged me and have an excellent customer service.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with neither Flarm nor Butterfly.

Ramy

The suggestion to bring the displays of PF portable and Butterfly in line with each other, so you have identical indications on both displays is the best option. I fully support this.

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:43:10 AM UTC-6, RuudH wrote:
The suggestion to bring the displays of PF portable and Butterfly in line with each other, so you have identical indications on both displays is the best option. I fully support this.

Hi all. Would most of you Flarm/butterfly display users support switching the functionality of the knob so that it would not be necessary to press/turn to change the range? I appreciate the multi-functioning of the knob, but mostly I use it inflight to adjust the range not select a target. Or am I missing something?

Thanks, jim

On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:34:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:

"After the early PCAS issues were resolved"

PCAS issues are still not resolved if you fly with a transponder. The fix for continous "own ship" alerting appears to have been to inhibit reporting of co-altitude targets. My portable still does not perform the function it was purchased for (traffic awareness and collision warning for my airplane).

I hope the "other issues" the FLARM team are working on include making PCAS work. That functionality is long overdue.


Andy

I have hundreds of hours with transponder and PF without a single false alarm. None of the 50 pilots or so that flying in our region with both PF and transponder are reporting this issue. So it is time for you to conclude this is likely a unique issue with your setup or send your PF to repair.

Ramy

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:58:59 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
I have hundreds of hours with transponder and PF without a single false alarm. None of the 50 pilots or so that flying in our region with both PF and transponder are reporting this issue. So it is time for you to conclude this is likely a unique issue with your setup or send your PF to repair.



Ramy

Ramy,
I have Trig 22 and unfortunately I don't have flawless operation. I hear beeps alerting me to my own transponder (from time to time not consistently with errors in a log file failed to detect own transponder or something like that). Are you suggesting that some of us have faulty units?

I am going to mount soon the PF in my other glider that also has a transponder (different make) and see if I still get false alerts.

I have no doubt that there are faulty units around. I seen units which either don't receive well or don't transmit well. Could also be a setup issue or antenna issues. Just like with radios. Some installations work better than others. In my case I had PCAS issues until I replaced my PCAS antena. Could also be some sort of a comparability issue with some transponders if we can identify a trend. I have a mode C Becker and have no issues. I should also point out that I did not necessarily follow the installation recomendations. My PF antennas are telatively close to each other in the nose of my glider close to the pedals and not completely vertical yet the reception is pretty good, even from behind. I've seen installations partially below the glare shield which also work relatively well.

Ramy