Standalone artificial horizon

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Lancaster wrote:
Hi all,

I’m looking for a reliable, high quality, standalone artificial horizon that fits cleanly in a round hole (I’m not wanting a square barnacle that “fits� into a round hole).

Does anyone have any flight experience with either of these:

uAvionix AV-30:
https://uavionix.com/products/av-30/

RC Allen RCA2610:
https://www.kellymfg.com/images/RCA2...nformation.pdf

Any hands on info appreciated.

Many thanks,

Richard

This video shows the AV-30 in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh9DiMPpKAA
Here is a pretty good review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8p3ncDYFiI
If all you want is an attitude indicator a better choice might be the AV-20..

I have the Garmin G5 PFD and love it. It differs from the AV-30 (besides being square) in that the airspeed and altitude displays are strips that move up and down. I use the altimeter as a vario for weak thermals. Also, you can very precisely control airspeed vs a steam gauge ASI. I also have the battery backup option on my G5 so it has a power source if the **** hits the fan, an important consideration for your PFD.

Tom

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 4:02:59 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Lancaster wrote:
Hi all,

I’m looking for a reliable, high quality, standalone artificial horizon that fits cleanly in a round hole (I’m not wanting a square barnacle that “fits� into a round hole).

Does anyone have any flight experience with either of these:

uAvionix AV-30:
https://uavionix.com/products/av-30/

RC Allen RCA2610:
https://www.kellymfg.com/images/RCA2...nformation.pdf

Any hands on info appreciated.

Many thanks,

Richard

This video shows the AV-30 in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh9DiMPpKAA
Here is a pretty good review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8p3ncDYFiI
If all you want is an attitude indicator a better choice might be the AV-20.

I have the Garmin G5 PFD and love it. It differs from the AV-30 (besides being square) in that the airspeed and altitude displays are strips that move up and down. I use the altimeter as a vario for weak thermals. Also, you can very precisely control airspeed vs a steam gauge ASI. I also have the battery backup option on my G5 so it has a power source if the **** hits the fan, an important consideration for your PFD.

Tom

Is that battery backup built in to the G5 unit?

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 4:39:27 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 4:02:59 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Lancaster wrote:
Hi all,

I’m looking for a reliable, high quality, standalone artificial horizon that fits cleanly in a round hole (I’m not wanting a square barnacle that “fits� into a round hole).

Does anyone have any flight experience with either of these:

uAvionix AV-30:
https://uavionix.com/products/av-30/

RC Allen RCA2610:
https://www.kellymfg.com/images/RCA2...nformation.pdf

Any hands on info appreciated.

Many thanks,

Richard

This video shows the AV-30 in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh9DiMPpKAA
Here is a pretty good review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8p3ncDYFiI
If all you want is an attitude indicator a better choice might be the AV-20.

I have the Garmin G5 PFD and love it. It differs from the AV-30 (besides being square) in that the airspeed and altitude displays are strips that move up and down. I use the altimeter as a vario for weak thermals. Also, you can very precisely control airspeed vs a steam gauge ASI. I also have the battery backup option on my G5 so it has a power source if the **** hits the fan, an important consideration for your PFD.

Tom

Is that battery backup built in to the G5 unit?

It's an option that attaches to the back of the G5.

Tom

On Friday, 29 May 2020 00:02:59 UTC+1, 2G wrote:
I have the Garmin G5 PFD and love it. It differs from the AV-30 (besides being square) in that the airspeed and altitude displays are strips that move up and down. I use the altimeter as a vario for weak thermals. Also, you can very precisely control airspeed vs a steam gauge ASI.

Tom

Interesting. I've never flown anything with that kind of strip/tape display, and have always looked at still images of such displays and thought they were unnecessarily confusing and failed to convey the big picture at a glance. You've enlightened me to their upside.

Cheers,

Richard

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-7, Richard Lancaster wrote:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 00:02:59 UTC+1, 2G wrote:
I have the Garmin G5 PFD and love it. It differs from the AV-30 (besides being square) in that the airspeed and altitude displays are strips that move up and down. I use the altimeter as a vario for weak thermals. Also, you can very precisely control airspeed vs a steam gauge ASI.

Tom

Interesting. I've never flown anything with that kind of strip/tape display, and have always looked at still images of such displays and thought they were unnecessarily confusing and failed to convey the big picture at a glance. You've enlightened me to their upside.

Cheers,

Richard

A PFD is a major paradigm shift on how information is presented to the pilot. A PFD really tightens the instrument scan, which is vital if you ever find yourself in actual IFR conditions. I encourage anyone considering putting an AHRS into their cockpit to take some instrument training. One of the best lessons I had while getting my power ticket was a night flight during overcast conditions (no Moon or stars or city lights to give you a hint of the horizon, and, just in case, the CFI put me under the hood). The CFI had me put the hood down so I couldn't see anything and he put the plane into an unusual attitude. He, then, gave control back to me and I had to recover from the unusual attitude using instruments alone. It went very well and definitely built my confidence that I could save myself from an unexpected IFR situation. Years ago, I actually had to during a wave flight (w/o any IFR instrumentation), but that's a story for another time.

Tom

Tomorrow is lift to 40k, pesky clouds at 4k.

With all these fancy instruments (ADSB, Flarm, GPS, AHRS, Flux cap), ought the US figure out a way to do cloud flyng without an Instrument rating and a power plane to keep it current?

ought the US figure out a way to do cloud flyng without an Instrument rating and a power plane to keep it current?

Sure. Just ignore the regulations and go for it. If you get busted, you made the call. Unless your aircraft is approved for night flight, or instrument flight and you have the proper clearances, ratings and permission, you are taking your chances with the authorities. My glider is only approved for Day VFR. And that's fine with me. I've flown in clouds, both with and without AHRS, and I simply don't enjoy it. AHRS is nice to have, and I might opt for the LXNav upgrade sometime, but not right now.

I flew with a very excellent to-remain-unnamed pilot, who once flew 1000' above me when I thought I was at cloud base. Afterward, he said he wasn't in the cloud, because he could still see the ground directly below him. My rule for cloud base was/is that if I can't see the horizon, I'm in the cloud.

I agree that damn near every glider pilot breaks the cloud separation rules unless posting on a forum, simply because the lift is strongest there. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it certainly happens.

All that being said, what is the actual definition of cloud base, that we are supposed to stay 1000' from? I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I would really like to know.

And since I am high-jacking Richard's thread, I will add this: If you do put a stand-alone ADHRS in your glider, you will not be able to fly contests with it. As IGC regs require an ADHR activation to be logged in the file. Again, no judgment here, just passing along information.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 8:22:26 PM UTC-7, cdeerinck wrote:
I flew with a very excellent to-remain-unnamed pilot, who once flew 1000' above me when I thought I was at cloud base. Afterward, he said he wasn't in the cloud, because he could still see the ground directly below him. My rule for cloud base was/is that if I can't see the horizon, I'm in the cloud.

I agree that damn near every glider pilot breaks the cloud separation rules unless posting on a forum, simply because the lift is strongest there. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it certainly happens.

All that being said, what is the actual definition of cloud base, that we are supposed to stay 1000' from? I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I would really like to know.

And since I am high-jacking Richard's thread, I will add this: If you do put a stand-alone ADHRS in your glider, you will not be able to fly contests with it. As IGC regs require an ADHR activation to be logged in the file.. Again, no judgment here, just passing along information.

You are absolutely right: do not install an AHRS if you are a part of the 1-2% of glider pilots who fly contests (or be able to remove it). On the other hand, if you plan on flying in wave you should have an AHRS. I fly a motorglider, which really isn't competitive in contests, so I prefer the capability that a PFD gives me. At some point, the contest committee will see the safety benefits provided by an AHRS. If you did actual cloud flying in a contest it would be very obvious in the altitude traces.

Tom

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...e/over-the-top