Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Daleandee, Sep 30, 2019.
Neat toy. Does it work better than a Mk 1 eyeball?
Seems to me this has the same problem all digital feed back has. Humans work in best in analog. This is why the variometers in gliders use a tone, not numbers.
I'm surprised the Wright Brothers ever got off the ground. No CAD system. No FEA software. No glass cockpit. No flight planning apps. No voice call-outs. No carbon fiber layups.
How did they ever do it? Oh, yes they flew the plane, not the plane flying them!
I don't see a need for such on a day VFR light sport aircraft. Perhaps someone flying at night or IFR but I'm under the impression that all landings are visual in the small planes most of us fly.
It might be great if it could be synced to the AP, GPS, EFIS, & ECM. If everything worked correctly the pilot could sleep through the entire flight or perhaps stay at the house and let the airplane have all the enjoyment with out that pesky pilot guy screwing things up ...
I like the idea - it gives input through a different channel to the eyes at times when the eyes might be dealing with another problem.
What happened to "fly the plane"? If your eyes are not focused on your "target" when on final approach, you've already got problems! By that point, everything should have already been set up in the cockpit so there is no need to look elsewhere than over the nose.
All those approaches seemed strange to me anyway. I was taught to do steeper closer in short finals. Of course you had to at k4i9. There was a hill a mile off the east end of the field.
An advantage of this is that if your engine quit on final, you know you could at least make the field.
Separate names with a comma.