No fancy glass panel is going to stop folks from flying into bad weather they should run from, running out of gas, or messing up landings and takeoffs.
A Skyhawk is not a difficult airplane to fly or manage systems. Fast high flying twins and turboprops can cover a lot of ground in a hurry and need all the fancy stuff. Good grief! We are talking about planes that can fly barely 2 miles a minute. Unless you do trips longer than about 300miles a stretch you don't need anything more than a couple of nav/coms and a low end GPS to make a hour trip to the $100 hamburger. Those schools need state of the art to attract students who will be using such stuff in the future. They are being produced because the vast majority of light GA planes are sold to flight schools, not individuals.
IN the game it is difficult, but the scenery in the RW tends to be more detailed than you can find in the best photorealist scenery. I am assuming you are not a pilot from your post, but looking at a sectional and then looking out the window at the world is not that hard. oh, and as them costing $400,000.not so, you can buy a Cirrus SR22 for less than that. I still find myself using them as that is what I have always been acustomed to, and understand them better 'visually' as that is what I've seen all my life. In fact, they may be there for a long long time. My deceased father, (who was a pilot), may disagree with this direction.but, maybe not, he may love this new technology )Īs far as 'steam gauges', (for quite a bit longer), I believe you will always have alt, atit, and AS gauges right next to the glass panels. I must admit, they were tough to get used to at first, but now, given a choice, I would pick a plane with a glass panel without question. I've only flown these 'animals' virtually, but I don't see any downside to flying an aircraft like the Cirrus with these panels, and it seems more and more pilots in the real world are agreeing and they don't have any urge to fly a 'heavy' anytime soon. To me the info on the MFD/PDF is actually safer than having to flip through maps, terminal charts, FIB's, etc., along with all the other info which can be obtained via the GNS system(s). Or all the frequancies you need within a couple 'clicks', or a complete engine management page showing exactly what is going on with the engine/mixture in one complete 'picture' before you. Not sure what is so wrong with looking at a detailed moving map vs a sectional on you lap. With the slow demise of ADF and (after speaking with a commercial pilot client of mine) someday VOR's.this is the direction aviation is going like it or not.Īs far as VFR flying, I can't see how they can not be an advantage as an extra tool at the pilot's fingertips/'eyetips'. How many GA planes had built in GPS/GNS units 10 years ago? Not many. My feeling is within 10 years, most all *new* GA will have glass cockpits as the stock panel. Companies like Cirrus and Lancair (Columbia, etc.) are simply moving that direction right now as 'standard'. Cessna, Mooney, and particularly Piper seems headed in that direction. What you say may have some truth to it, but look around.many new aircraft are either being produced with them stock, or as an option. It is often hard enough to make the 530/430 GNS units work in some because of the various ways panels are designed. I know Project Magenta is working on the G1000 panels, but it sure seems to me that they are for seperate monitor use in a virtual homebuilt cockpit, not something to be integrated into an existing panel.Īs a user of Reality RXP gauges, I can tell you, it would be frustrating to make a glass panel work correctly (placing into the panel) in a variety of aircraft. I think something like this will probably have to come from third party designers, and are too labor intensive code-wise to be freeware. In other words, if FSX had them, it would probably drive the cost way up. I know from purchasing the Eaglesoft Cirrus models (which have Avidyne glass cockpits that work almost exactly like the real deal, and have been praised by real Ciurrus pilots) that these panels are very expensive to recreate and program in order to function like the real thing. I loaded it and then deleted it from my system.
In fact none of the functions really worked.basically incorporated some default 'heavy' HSI's etc into a G1000 looking frame. One has been created by someone (freeware), but it works nothing like the real thing.
0 kommentar(er)
