ChrisT & ChrisB,
If I recall correctly, vacuum loss most often resulted from the failure
of an engine-driven vacuum pump. The plumbing was pretty rugged.
Conversely, the venturi-driven instruments had little to fail besides
the instrument itself, unless one was in an icing situation where the
venturi got blocked by ice buildup.
But those days are long gone.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 8/9/2015 11:19 AM, ChrisB wrote:
I share your wariness, Chris. I’ve never been enamoured of totally glass
cockpits, and RAF pilots are now trained on the Hawk T2, which has a HUD as well as a
glass cockpit.
Mind you, vacuum-operated artificial horizons were fraught with risk, as I
understand it. If you had a leak in the supply from the engine you could have
an insidious failure of the instrument, a failure which could easily cause
disorientation in cloud etc . . .
Chris
On 9 Aug 15, at 16:32, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That would have been nice 50 yrs ago. This guy is about 2 generations
advanced from your choices, with 180 hp, glass panel, etc.
No glass panels ever! That was my single objection to the C-130J. I'm
not at all comfortable with an all-electronic instrument panel. Nice in
fighters where weight is a consideration or if you are enamoured with
razzle-dazzle technology. Flat-screen radar displays, yes. All you need is a
small EMP blast and your instrumentation is toast.
I still have the suction-operated artificial horizon. Found it in a large
lot of Taylorcraft parts which my dad bought that was found in a hangar loft.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|