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

-----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-----

Earlier, wrote:

... Whether it is habit we can not accept digital meters.
For example quartz crystal watch, we almost accept it now...

Human factors studies dating back half a century show that our visual
sensory systems are most finely attuned to perception of angular
displacement and angular rate.

That is one of the things that makes it possible for most amateurs to
make straight wings; for folks with normal eyesight, sighting across
the top edges of two airfoil templates will easily get you below
1/4-degree of twist, and for most airplanes that's about as close as it
matters.

When it comes to input devices, analog meters are superior to digital
readouts in most of the aspects that matter for aviation instruments.
We are naturally very good at perceiving angular displacement and
angular rate at a glance.

We are also very good at applying "native calculus" to angular
information. One of the things we do almost without noticing is observe
the angular position, angular rate, and even angular acceleration of a
needle such as on the airspeed indicator, and integrate all of that
stuff to effect a smooth leveling-off from a climb.

It has been said that most folks prefer analog watches because they
don't really care what time it is, all they want to know is how long
it's going to be until their next temporal milestone. And the fastest
way to get that information is to observe that you have a 90-degree
minute sweep until your next appointment, and quickly filter that with
your learned understanding of how much you can get done within the 15
minutes represented by those 90 degrees.

All of that facility with angular input comes from our heritage as both
predator and prey. Those of our ancestors who could throw a rock and
bring down game, those who could detect a dangerous carnivore hidden
within a clump of swaying grass, they survived and prospered. That goes
back to my conviction that, if there is intelligent design, then
natural selection is in fact the set of rules that makes it happen.

Anyhow, when you look at your digital watch, you have to execute a
whole bunch of arithmetic gymnastics that you are programmed to learn,
but which are much less tightly wired into your brain. Suddenly you
find yourself subracting 8:45 from 9:00 in minute notation, achieving
the result of :15, and then interpolating that with your learned
understanding of how much you can get done in 15 minutes. It's not that
much harder than with the analog device, but it _is_ enough harder that
when split seconds count you can notice the difference.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

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.

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-

"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

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.

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."

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

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-