Palm/PocketPC flight computers
Yuliy Gerchikov
I suspect it's a FAQ these days, but I'd like to find some comparative
information on the available soaring software for palm/pocket computers.
My intention is to put together a relatively simple and inexpensive setup
suitable for club ship(s). It is not intended for serious competition
flying. Therefore top-notch competition features is not the goal. Instead,
safety margin and peace of mind for local and just-for-fun cross country
pilot is my primary focus. Portability, simplicity of operation and budget
cost are considerations in a club environment as well.
A simple and obvious idea is to use handheld GPS (in fact I lean towards
Garmin GPS 35 for its low price, slick form factor and low power
consumption) connected to a palm/pocket computer running one of the soaring
programs.
What program to use seems to be a major choice to make, both money-wise and
usability. As of now I'm aware of five options:
1. SoaringPilot -- http://www.soaringpilot.org/ -- Freeware -- by Mark
Hawkins et al -- PalmPilot.
2. GPS_LOG -- http://www.soaringpilotsoftware.com/ -- Freeware -- by Henryk
Birecki -- WinCE.
3. CEGlide -- http://www.ccsi.com/~inadas/ -- $199 -- by Ian Nadas -- WinCE.
4. WInPilot -- http://www.winpilot.com/ -- $375 (Adv) -- by Jerry
Plaszowiecki -- WinCE.
5. Pocket-NAV -- http://www.cambridge-aero.com/ -- Freeware -- by Cambridge
Aero Instruments -- WinCE.
(Anything else?)
I would like to hear (or to be pointed to a source of) comparative
information on these programs. I'm really interested in opinions as of
strength and weakness of each program. What do they do great? Or, what
essential or desirable functions are maybe not so great or even missing?
Also, would be interesting to hear on how easy the setup, configuration and
use of those programs is. Availability of configuration information/setup
data (turmpoints in suitable format, maps, SUAs) is also a factor.
I'm looking for the information to *compare* and *choose* a program,
therefore I'd really like to hear from those who used more than one.
Comments to the tune 'I use X and it's great!' are fine, but an explanation
why it is so (or maybe not so) great is even better. How and why did you
choose your program? What should I look for/be aware of while searching for
one?
Your comments on overall setup, GPS receiver choice and especially on
software will be a great help -- Thanks!
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Ruud J. Holswilder
<gerc...@usa.net.net.net> wrote:
>I would like to hear (or to be pointed to a source of) comparative
>information on these programs. I'm really interested in opinions as of
>strength and weakness of each program. What do they do great? Or, what
>essential or desirable functions are maybe not so great or even missing?
I don't think there is such a source.
IMHO Winpilot comes out head and shoulders above all other Windows CE
soaring software. OK, there is a rather high price tag attached to it,
if you compare it with other CE software, but it's worth every penny
of it.
Ruud Holswilder.
Gary Ehrefneld
"Yuliy Gerchikov" <gerc...@usa.net.net.net> wrote in message
news:ln3O6.22946$%i7.20...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
Dan Cromer
I have Garmin GPS III Pilot, purchased for power use also, and Compaq
iPAQ 3635 Pocket PC, which I use for more than soaring. I've been very
satisfied and impressed with the free GPS_LOG program from Dr. Birecki,
which I use in flying club and rental sailplanes. It creates an .igc
log that can be viewed just like the FAI recorders. Neither the GPS III
Pilot or iPAQ 3635 are cheapest options, so you can get the same
functionality much less expensively, though the color screen on the iPAQ
model is great. Try the GPS_LOG program for free, and if doesn't do
what you want, you haven't lost anything. It's worked for me and my
soaring so I haven't tried anything else. My choice was for Windows
CE/Pocket PC computer because of other options, as well as broader
selection of soaring software.
Dan Cromer
Gainesville Florida
Greg Arnold
Cambridge software. WP has a lot more bell and whistles, and from a
computer standpoint is a technological tour de force. However, I thought it
was extremely hard to use the touch screen in the cockpit.
The Cambridge product has much larger screen "buttons" and accordingly is
much easier to use in the cockpit. Cambridge also is much more competitive
price-wise than it used to be, as with the new 302 vario you can have the
complete setup (including datalogger) for about $3,000. With the free
version of the Cambridge software, your only cost is the Compaq 1550 (no
longer in production, and for that reason pretty cheap if you can find one)
and a handheld GPS.
> I suspect it's a FAQ these days, but I'd like to find some comparative
> information on the available soaring software for palm/pocket computers.
> >
haakmeester
The moving map (which I prepared myself for The Netherlands) is very simple
and can't match those from Winpilot or others, hoewever, for a nice view I
look out of the window ;-).
Program contains all required final glide info, has windcalculations during
flight and creates a logger file which can be reviewed not only on your PC
but also on the palmtop. I was a bit hesitant for I don't like to fiddle too
much with my instruments during flight (flying is nicer), but it is possible
to have everything setup in a way that almost no pilot interference is
required.
For me the biggest surprise in use of the program was my world becoming
bigger. in the past I tended to remain closer to highways etc. to keep
track. Now direction and distance are always available.
And , like Dan wrote: If you don't like it nothing is lost.
Marco
chris
> > information on the available soaring software for palm/pocket computers.
I have winpilot Pro and am very happy with it, it does everything. I
would recommend Winpilot pro or advanced if you can afford it. I run
the pro version with a Borgelt B50 and it is an awesome combination!
If you cannot afford winpilot, i recommend just about anything else
EXCEPT the cambridge program. It is a fine program, but unless you
are flying with a panel full of cambridge hardware, you are missing
some important functions.
When just used with a handheld gps, the cai software does not give you
speed to fly(!!!), and i don't know if you even have any polar related
funtions since that is in their vario. You also do not get any
logging function, since that is in their secure & igc approved
hardware. There are others, i just can't think of them at the moment.
I don't mean to bash CAI, they make fine stuff, but their software
really is intended to make the most of their hardware, and is not such
a great stand alone solution. If you are going for free look at some
of the other free ones.
I tested CE glide some too and it is a fine deal for its price, and
the fellow who writes it is very responsive to user's wishes.
ruf
Al
your in sink speed up
your in lift slow down!!
Looking at the little chevrons on the winpilot isnt going to let you have a
better flight and I wager that dont even obey the STF information provided.
The cambridge system is the business if you have a full S-NAV /L-NAV GPS NAv
combo.
I also preffer its less cluttered approach to the display that winpilots.
Another worth checking out is no CE at all in the cockpit but a B50, B2000
and a Garmin 195 or 295.
Now thats a sweet set up.
At the end of this year a number of manufactuers like westerboer will be
releasing all in one computers that give you everything in one panel mounted
unit.
http://www.westerboer.com/VW1200.htm
will give you an idea of what will be available in 2002
Al
"chris" <greeneg...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad9f51be.0105...@posting.google.com...
Yuliy Gerchikov
"Dan Cromer" <da...@afn.org> wrote in message
news:3B091939...@afn.org...
> Neither the GPS III
> Pilot or iPAQ 3635 are cheapest options, so you can get the same
> functionality much less expensively, though the color screen on the iPAQ
> model is great.
GPS_LOG does not use color, does it? (Trying to justify Compaq Aero 15xx...)
> My choice was for Windows
> CE/Pocket PC computer because of other options, as well as broader
> selection of soaring software.
That's my current thinking too.
Thanks for your opinion.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Yuliy Gerchikov
"haakmeester" <hjm.haa...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:9ebp1h$733$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
> Setup: Garmin E-trex, Compaq 1550 and I use GPS-Log from Henryk Birecki.
So far this seems to be the setup I'll try first. Maybe I'll use GPS 35
though.
> The moving map (which I prepared myself for The Netherlands) is very
simple
> and can't match those from Winpilot or others, hoewever, for a nice view I
> look out of the window ;-).
:)
> Program contains all required final glide info, has windcalculations
during
> flight and creates a logger file which can be reviewed not only on your PC
> but also on the palmtop. I was a bit hesitant for I don't like to fiddle
too
> much with my instruments during flight (flying is nicer), but it is
possible
> to have everything setup in a way that almost no pilot interference is
> required.
Sounds encouraging.
> For me the biggest surprise in use of the program was my world becoming
> bigger. in the past I tended to remain closer to highways etc. to keep
> track. Now direction and distance are always available.
That's exactly what I'm looking for! When set up with a fairly conservative
polar and a plenty of safety altitude for recreational XC flying it is
supposed to give one the peace of mind required to focus on flying, not
worrying. Indeed, having GPS_LOG tracking my glide to my current "local"
landing site, I can spend more time looking for lift (and traffic) than I
could otherwise. I noticed that when approaching boundaries of my "local
soaring cone" I tend to spend disproportionately more time on the sectional
map, over and over again verifying my present position, distance and
checking my altimeter. If only I could spot that proverbial circling eagle
instead, that would definitely extend my range. Better yet would be to spot
that glider, 12 o'clock, same altitude, on reciprocal heading, before it
gets scary...
It also seems to me that a calculated final glide is somewhat easier to obey
and harder to push than, say, the "two fingers below horizon" method. You
know, "it's not quite two fingers yet if I just turn it this way and look at
an angle" kind of thinking. Besides, who has ever seen a straight horizon in
Sierras once below 15K feet? :)
Thakns for your input.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Yuliy Gerchikov
"Greg Arnold" <soarxc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:kwbO6.2378$0e3.3...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
> I have used both the Pro version of WinPilot, and the free version of the
> Cambridge software. WP has a lot more bell and whistles, and from a
> computer standpoint is a technological tour de force.
For this reason alone I'll lay my hands on it, sooner or later... :)
> The Cambridge product has much larger screen "buttons" and accordingly is
> much easier to use in the cockpit. Cambridge also is much more
competitive
> price-wise than it used to be, as with the new 302 vario you can have the
> complete setup (including datalogger) for about $3,000.
Not yet in my range...
> With the free
> version of the Cambridge software, your only cost is the Compaq 1550 (no
> longer in production, and for that reason pretty cheap if you can find
one)
> and a handheld GPS.
Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. Unless somebody corrects my
latest findings ;) , PocketNav does not read GPS altitude and therefore is
nearly useless without CAI's GPS-NAV and/or L-NAV with pressure altitude
digital output.
Thanks!
--
Yuliy
Yuliy Gerchikov
Latest stuff from biggest brands with four digits both in its name and on
its price alike is great but fits neither the club's budget nor goals.
As for comparison between WinPilot and PocketNav, thanks for useful
feedback. Unfortunately ;) you're right regarding full CAI setup needed for
PocketNav, which pretty much rules it out.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
"Al" <acro...@www.silentflight.com> wrote in message
news:tgjsonn...@news.supernews.com...
Yuliy Gerchikov
"chris" <greeneg...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad9f51be.0105...@posting.google.com...
> I have winpilot Pro and am very happy with it, it does everything. I
> would recommend Winpilot pro or advanced if you can afford it. I run
> the pro version with a Borgelt B50 and it is an awesome combination!
As of now we're definitely limited to Adv version at best (no B50, not even
in plans... well, in dreams maybe).
> When just used with a handheld gps, the cai software does not give you
> speed to fly(!!!), and i don't know if you even have any polar related
> funtions since that is in their vario.
Worse... It does not read GPS altitude.
> I don't mean to bash CAI, they make fine stuff, but their software
> really is intended to make the most of their hardware, and is not such
> a great stand alone solution.
Understood.
> I tested CE glide some too and it is a fine deal for its price, and
> the fellow who writes it is very responsive to user's wishes.
I second it. Ian Nadas is indeed very responsive to my questions. Actually,
so is Dr. Birecki with GPS_LOG. All in all, the level of support seems to
depend on persons more than on price -- and let me tell you that we're lucky
here. Thanks everybody for your support!
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Brent Sullivan
Here's hoping you won't hold the fact that a PW5 driver likes the product against it,
Brent
At 07:30 21 May 2001, Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>Group,
>
>I suspect it's a FAQ these days, but I'd like to find some comparative
>information on the available soaring software for palm/pocket computers.
>
>My intention is to put together a relatively simple and inexpensive setup
>suitable for club ship(s). It is not intended for serious competition
>flying. Therefore top-notch competition features is not the goal. Instead,
>safety margin and peace of mind for local and just-for-fun cross country
>pilot is my primary focus. Portability, simplicity of operation and budget
>cost are considerations in a club environment as well.
>
>A simple and obvious idea is to use handheld GPS (in fact I lean towards
>Garmin GPS 35 for its low price, slick form factor and low power
>consumption) connected to a palm/pocket computer running one of the soaring
>programs.
>
>What program to use seems to be a major choice to make, both money-wise and
>usability. As of now I'm aware of five options:
>1. SoaringPilot -- http://www.soaringpilot.org/ -- Freeware -- by Mark
>Hawkins et al -- PalmPilot.
>2. GPS_LOG -- http://www.soaringpilotsoftware.com/ -- Freeware -- by Henryk
>Birecki -- WinCE.
>3. CEGlide -- http://www.ccsi.com/~inadas/ -- $199 -- by Ian Nadas -- WinCE.
>4. WInPilot -- http://www.winpilot.com/ -- $375 (Adv) -- by Jerry
>Plaszowiecki -- WinCE.
>5. Pocket-NAV -- http://www.cambridge-aero.com/ -- Freeware -- by Cambridge
>Aero Instruments -- WinCE.
>
>(Anything else?)
>
>I would like to hear (or to be pointed to a source of) comparative
>information on these programs. I'm really interested in opinions as of
>strength and weakness of each program. What do they do great? Or, what
>essential or desirable functions are maybe not so great or even missing?
>
>Also, would be interesting to hear on how easy the setup, configuration and
>use of those programs is. Availability of configuration information/setup
>data (turmpoints in suitable format, maps, SUAs) is also a factor.
>
>I'm looking for the information to *compare* and *choose* a program,
>therefore I'd really like to hear from those who used more than one.
>Comments to the tune 'I use X and it's great!' are fine, but an explanation
>why it is so (or maybe not so) great is even better. How and why did you
>choose your program? What should I look for/be aware of while searching for
>one?
>
>Your comments on overall setup, GPS receiver choice and especially on
>software will be a great help -- Thanks!
>--
>Yuliy Gerchikov
>
>
>
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: camaro.bmc.com
==============================================================
R Pfiffner
GPS NAV, and S-Nav. You can purchase a Aero 1550 or IPaq on E-Bay for a
reasonable price. The software is easy to use, very comprehensive, updates
and new features are numerous and can be downloaded from the website.
www.winpilot.com.
dick
"Yuliy Gerchikov" <gerc...@usa.net.net.net> wrote in message
news:ln3O6.22946$%i7.20...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
Chris Ruf
>Looking at the little chevrons on the winpilot isnt going to let you have a
>better flight and I wager that dont even obey the STF information provided.
The chevrons are not the speed to fly, they are the % above/below glide
slope. But if you are gonna igonore the STF, then you will be doing this
with all systems.
>Another worth checking out is no CE at all in the cockpit but a B50, B2000
>and a Garmin 195 or 295.
>Now thats a sweet set up.
That is probably nice too, the units that are originally designed for in
panel use do have advantages over palm computers which are not purpose built
for this use.
>At the end of this year a number of manufactuers like westerboer will be
>releasing all in one computers that give you everything in one panel
mounted
>unit.
>http://www.westerboer.com/VW1200.htm
>will give you an idea of what will be available in 2002
>
>Al
Vaporware at this point, and when it does come out it will be revision
1.000, so you might as well wait for promises of what will come in 2003.
have fun,
ruf
Eric Greenwell
greeneg...@att.net says...
> If you cannot afford winpilot, i recommend just about anything else
> EXCEPT the cambridge program. It is a fine program, but unless you
> are flying with a panel full of cambridge hardware, you are missing
> some important functions.
What important functions would a club pilot (the requested target of
this inquiry) be missing? I use PocketNav, and I can't think of any.
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
Eric Greenwell
gerc...@usa.net.net.net says...
> Not yet in my range...
>
> > With the free
> > version of the Cambridge software, your only cost is the Compaq 1550 (no
> > longer in production, and for that reason pretty cheap if you can find
> one)
> > and a handheld GPS.
>
> Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. Unless somebody corrects my
> latest findings ;) , PocketNav does not read GPS altitude and therefore is
> nearly useless without CAI's GPS-NAV and/or L-NAV with pressure altitude
> digital output.
There is no need for PocketNav to read the GPS altitude; without it,
it gives you the altitude required to reach your goal. You have to
compare the altitude required to your altimeter to see if you are
above or below your glide slope. This is easy, and pilots did it for
decades.
If you use a GPS that sends the altitude in a compatible format,
PocketNav will read and give the additional option of "differential
altitude", I.e., the altitude above or below glideslope.
Another poster claimed PocketNav doesn't give you speed-to-fly (stf)
info, which is true. You'll want a stf vario, which can be as simple
and easy as a speed ring on a ordinary vario, such as you might find
in club ship. In our club, I could never get the students to move the
stf ring off zero anyway, and was just happy when they sped up in sink
and slowed lift.
PocketNav is a free download, has everything a club pilot needs (as I
understand your requirements). Download it, run it in it's simulator
mode (happens automatically if no GPS is attached), and give it a try.
You can do the same thing with WinPilot, and let your club members try
them out and see what they like best.
Yuliy Gerchikov
Thank you for constructive input.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Greenwell" <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Palm/PocketPC flight computers
> There is no need for PocketNav to read the GPS altitude; without it,
> it gives you the altitude required to reach your goal. You have to
> compare the altitude required to your altimeter to see if you are
> above or below your glide slope. This is easy, and pilots did it for
> decades.
Agreed, for very simple flying it will do. For a bit more advanced stuff
this does not show "affordable" MC setting as a function of current
altitude.
Other programs show altitude required (or arrival altitude) tabulated for
different MC settings and/or cruise speeds -- this is nice when I'm above GS
(as we should always be in unstressed recreational flying) but want to go
fast (which we'd like to practise nevertheless).
That's not to mention that GPS altitude allows for "Emergency GOTO" or
reachable sites calculation... OK, ok, I should not need it for weekend
flying if done right, I need to know my landable sited at any time etc. etc.
All true. But to have only one site being "locked" for my final glide at any
given time is, well, kinda' inflexible. Say, how do you know when it's time
to jump from airfield A to B if you only have A "locked in"? Periodically
try new destination and, if to soon, switch right back again? OK, admittedly
it was a bit artificial problem.
> If you use a GPS that sends the altitude in a compatible format,
> PocketNav will read and give the additional option of "differential
> altitude", I.e., the altitude above or below glideslope.
Alas, there is only one such GPS -- CAI's GPS-NAV. PocketNav won't "eat"
anything other than GPS-NAV pressure altitude sentences.
> Another poster claimed PocketNav doesn't give you speed-to-fly (stf)
> info, which is true. You'll want a stf vario, which can be as simple
> and easy as a speed ring on a ordinary vario, such as you might find
> in club ship. In our club, I could never get the students to move the
> stf ring off zero anyway, and was just happy when they sped up in sink
> and slowed lift.
Again to the point. However, besides an instantaneous speed-to-fly as
directed by vario against MC ring there also is something different here.
Auto-MC feature as found in WinPilot and CEGlide gives me "long term"
speed-to-fly for my cruise. Altitude is required for this calculation.
Without altitude it's still possible to tabulate altitude required vs. MC
(as was already mentioned), but no, PocketNav won't do it.
While we're at it, let me try to mention some other "important functions"
PocketNAV misses (of course "important" being relative term anyway).
* No IAS estimation (from groundspeed, altitude and calculated wind; very
handy for wind verification).
* No lift averager.
* No logger function.
Please correct me if I got it wrong.
> PocketNav is a free download, has everything a club pilot needs (as I
> understand your requirements). Download it, run it in it's simulator
> mode (happens automatically if no GPS is attached), and give it a try.
> You can do the same thing with WinPilot, and let your club members try
> them out and see what they like best.
This is a good point. I'll definitely try everything I can reach, and I'll
also encourage everybody in the club to do the same.
Thanks again.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Yuliy Gerchikov
> GPS_LOG does not use color, does it? (Trying to justify Compaq Aero
15xx...)
Let me take this one back. After studying GPS_LOG user's guide I found how
to use color for map symbols and drawings. My apologies to the group. Thanks
Henryk for pointing this out!
As for Aero 1550, it is indeed quite a lot cheaper that any acceptable color
models (iPaq 36xx). Aero 21xx are not good for their non-reflective backlit
TFT displays. Also, iPaq's peak power consumption (1Amp of current?) sounds
prohibitive for glider use.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Tjeerd Mulder
(www.agandacomputing.com) running Linux. It has the advantage that I
will be busy during the winter writing the software for it :-)
And when I don't like it I can modify it.
Anyone interested in joining ?
--
=======================================================================
Tjeerd Mulder ! mailto:tjeerd...@fujitsu-siemens.com
Fujitsu Siemens Computers !
FSC PO PC RD MDE !
Buergermeister Ulrichstr 100 ! Phone: +49 821 804 3549
86199 Augsburg ! Fax : +49 821 804 3934
=======================================================================
Eric Greenwell
gerc...@usa.net.net.net says...
Yuri, you have definitely drifted from your original request for a
program suited to "club pilots"!
About PocketNav, Yuri writes...
> Agreed, for very simple flying it will do.
I find it does very well for "simple flying" like contests, speed
record attempts, and aggressive cross-country flying.
> For a bit more advanced stuff
> this does not show "affordable" MC setting as a function of current
> altitude.
I don't know what you mean by "Affordable" MC, but I'm curious!
Perhaps you mean "the MC setting for the glide slope to my airport
that I have right now". This is easy to discover by changing the MC
until the required altitude equals your actual altitude. It is
something I rarely do, even in contests. How would you use this
information to change your decisions?
> Other programs show altitude required (or arrival altitude) tabulated for
> different MC settings and/or cruise speeds -- this is nice when I'm above GS
> (as we should always be in unstressed recreational flying) but want to go
> fast (which we'd like to practise nevertheless).
I don't see the value for a list of altitudes for different cruise
speeds and MC settings. My cruise speed is set by my speed to fly
(STF) setting, my MC setting is based on how important it is to make
it to the selected field (higher settings when flying over poor
landing areas, lower settings when landing places are plentiful). I
know higher STF or higher MC means more altitude required, and vice-
versa, so a list of precisely *calculated* values doesn't doesn't add
to my knowledge.
> That's not to mention that GPS altitude allows for "Emergency GOTO" or
> reachable sites calculation... OK, ok, I should not need it for weekend
> flying if done right, I need to know my landable sited at any time etc. etc.
> All true. But to have only one site being "locked" for my final glide at any
> given time is, well, kinda' inflexible. Say, how do you know when it's time
> to jump from airfield A to B if you only have A "locked in"? Periodically
> try new destination and, if to soon, switch right back again? OK, admittedly
> it was a bit artificial problem.
This situation is the normal one, not artificial at all. PocketNav
allows you to easily and quickly (two taps on the screen) to switch
between A and B at any moment. One site is NEVER "locked in". This
flexibility exists even during a task, where you can switch between
the turnpoints or other points easily.
> Again to the point. However, besides an instantaneous speed-to-fly as
> directed by vario against MC ring there also is something different here.
> Auto-MC feature as found in WinPilot and CEGlide gives me "long term"
> speed-to-fly for my cruise.
I am very skeptical of CEglide's "auto-MC" feature (I don't think
WinPilot has such a feature), as are others on this newsgroup. The
biggest problem I see is it is based on the past, and the MC setting
should be based on the future; i.e., what you think lies ahead.
> Altitude is required for this calculation.
> Without altitude it's still possible to tabulate altitude required vs. MC
> (as was already mentioned), but no, PocketNav won't do it.
If you need to see the altitude required for other MC settings, you
can change the MC setting and immediately see the new altitude
required.
>
> While we're at it, let me try to mention some other "important functions"
> PocketNAV misses (of course "important" being relative term anyway).
>
> * No IAS estimation (from groundspeed, altitude and calculated wind; very
> handy for wind verification).
Your airspeed gives you your IAS, so there is no need to
estimate it (perhaps you meant True Airspeed (TAS)?). PocketNav
calculates the wind while circling, and does a good job of it.
> * No lift averager.
> * No logger function.
It does not provide these. An averager function is useful if your
vario does not have one, and even club pilots might find a logger
function interesting and useful. Their instructor might also be very
interested in looking at the file, as good and bad flying can often be
detected! If there is significant interest in cross-country and flight
examination, I suggest buying a secure logger like the Volkslogger,
Colibri, etc., and encouraging the pilots to go for their badges, club
records, and entering Sports (or Club) Class contests.
There is no reason you can not use one program for the club pilots and
another for the more experienced pilots. They can both be loaded in
the PDA and the desired one started as needed. For the "club pilots",
I suggest it is very important the program be VERY easy to use.
Chris Ruf
> it to the selected field (higher settings when flying over poor
> landing areas, lower settings when landing places are plentiful).
That sounds exactly backwards to me, it seems like most pilots go like mad
when there are a lot of safe landing options and slow down to maximize glide
angle over unlandable terrain. (within reason).
ruf
Eric Greenwell
REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net says...
> If you use a GPS that sends the altitude in a compatible format,
> PocketNav will read and give the additional option of "differential
> altitude", I.e., the altitude above or below glideslope.
Some real brain fade when I wrote this, because the only GPS that have
the "compatible format" are Cambridge GPS. When I wrote it, I thought
one of the Garmins also provided it because Cambridge uses a Garmin
GPS engine, but I should've checked their website before writing.
So, while you can use PocketNav with almost any GPS, you'll have to
use it in the "altitude required" mode, instead of "altitude
above/below glideslope" mode (Cambridge calls it differential
altitude).
Eric Greenwell
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, greeneg...@worldnet.att.net says...
Well, it wouldn't sound backwards if I'd been a little bit clearer. I
set my Speed to Fly (STF) MC on the vario to a low number over poor
terrain, while simultaneously setting my Glide MC to a higher number.
In my setup, the two MC values can be set independently, and usually
the Glide MC is higher than the STF MC.
Yuliy Gerchikov
"Eric Greenwell" <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9ehhlk$631a$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> program suited to "club pilots"!
Depends on club, maybe? ;-)
> > For a bit more advanced stuff
> > this does not show "affordable" MC setting as a function of current
> > altitude.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "Affordable" MC, but I'm curious!
> Perhaps you mean "the MC setting for the glide slope to my airport
> that I have right now".
That's precisely what I mean.
> This is easy to discover by changing the MC
> until the required altitude equals your actual altitude.
The idea was to minimize "head down time". If I mess with a computer instead
of flying then I could mess with a sectional map and a ruler just as well.
> It is
> something I rarely do, even in contests. How would you use this
> information to change your decisions?
It only works for final glides, but for those I'd use id just as one would
use any other MC setting. I'd fly it. I'd be adjusting it up if I'm above GS
and down if below, but otherwise I'd just fly STF commanded by it.
> know higher STF or higher MC means more altitude required, and vice-
> versa, so a list of precisely *calculated* values doesn't doesn't add
> to my knowledge.
Probably you're right and it does not buy me much... I do not know, I have
not tried. Just some programs do it, some don't. I wonder why.
> > Say, how do you know when it's time
> > to jump from airfield A to B if you only have A "locked in"?
Periodically
> > try new destination and, if to soon, switch right back again? OK,
admittedly
> > it was a bit artificial problem.
>
> This situation is the normal one, not artificial at all. PocketNav
> allows you to easily and quickly (two taps on the screen) to switch
> between A and B at any moment.
Yes, but it must be so much nicer to have arrival labels as in WinPilot
readily indicated. Same idea -- less time messing with computer, more time
flying.
> I am very skeptical of CEglide's "auto-MC" feature (I don't think
> WinPilot has such a feature), as are others on this newsgroup. The
> biggest problem I see is it is based on the past, and the MC setting
> should be based on the future; i.e., what you think lies ahead.
Would not you expect some correlation? And you can always override it if you
don't.
> > * No IAS estimation (from groundspeed, altitude and calculated wind;
very
> > handy for wind verification).
>
> Your airspeed gives you your IAS, so there is no need to
> estimate it (perhaps you meant True Airspeed (TAS)?). PocketNav
> calculates the wind while circling, and does a good job of it.
That's exactly what I'm questioning. I do not trust it. Instead, I'd like it
to take its calculated wind, GS and altitude from GPS and produce an
estimated IAS. If it agrees with what I see on my airspeed indicator, then
it means that everything clicks together and I'm happy.
> > * No lift averager.
> > * No logger function.
>
> It does not provide these. An averager function is useful if your
> vario does not have one,
...which is the case for 4 ships out of 5...
> and even club pilots might find a logger
> function interesting and useful.
> If there is significant interest in cross-country and flight
> examination, I suggest buying a secure logger like the Volkslogger,
> Colibri, etc., and encouraging the pilots to go for their badges, club
> records, and entering Sports (or Club) Class contests.
I agree. Just when secure log is not required then software does it cheaper.
In fact we thought about FAI approved logger, but for the time being decided
that photo-evidence is simply more fun :) .
> There is no reason you can not use one program for the club pilots and
> another for the more experienced pilots. They can both be loaded in
> the PDA and the desired one started as needed. For the "club pilots",
> I suggest it is very important the program be VERY easy to use.
Both are very valid points, I'll definitely follow the former, while the
latter needs some investigation (which BTW our discussion is a part of --
thanks!).
--
Yuliy
Henryk Birecki
>As for Aero 1550, it is indeed quite a lot cheaper that any acceptable color
>models (iPaq 36xx). Aero 21xx are not good for their non-reflective backlit
>TFT displays. Also, iPaq's peak power consumption (1Amp of current?) sounds
>prohibitive for glider use.
A few comments concerning my experience with PDAs and Aero 1550 in
particular.
One thing that was not brought into discussion is the Temperature.
Aero 1550 and the likes have a "passive" drive for the display. This
implies some limitations on how contrast can be controlled. Flying in
California where temperatures at low elevations can exceed 90F. I find
that I have to adjust contrast to the lowest posssible value, or else
the display is just "black". If I were in a wave over Sierra's I'd
have to readjust it at high altitudes. "Active" display drive typical
of color displays is probably much more tolerant of temperatures, but
I have no actual experience with it under flight conditions.
Power consumption. If the Aero's battery is somewhat discharged, the
initial current it consumes from the charger can exceed half an amp.
Once the battery is charged, power consumption drops dramatically, but
fluctuates with peaks above 2/10 amp depending on what the unit is
doing. Backlight units will consume much more power because of the
"lightbulb". Anybody considering using a PDA attached to a glider's
battery, better invest in a good switching regulator to conserve
power. In case of the Aero 1550, the input voltage needs to be 5V. So
the current drained from the battery is typically halved
(5/12/efficiency) by use of such a regulator. They are easy to make.
Happy flying.
Henryk Birecki
*****====*****====*****====*****====*****====*****====*****
Dr. Henryk Birecki phone: 1-650-857-4597
Principal project Scientist FAX: 1-650-852-8579
Hewlett Packard Laboratories
1501 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
John Morgan
"Henryk Birecki" <bir...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:svaqgtgvdlplc4vm8...@4ax.com...
>
> A few comments concerning my experience with PDAs and Aero 1550 in
> particular.
>
> One thing that was not brought into discussion is the Temperature.
> Aero 1550 and the likes have a "passive" drive for the display. This
> implies some limitations on how contrast can be controlled. Flying in
> California where temperatures at low elevations can exceed 90F. I find
> that I have to adjust contrast to the lowest posssible value, or else
> the display is just "black". If I were in a wave over Sierra's I'd
> have to readjust it at high altitudes. "Active" display drive typical
> of color displays is probably much more tolerant of temperatures, but
> I have no actual experience with it under flight conditions.
>
> Power consumption. If the Aero's battery is somewhat discharged, the
> initial current it consumes from the charger can exceed half an amp.
> Once the battery is charged, power consumption drops dramatically, but
> fluctuates with peaks above 2/10 amp depending on what the unit is
> doing. Backlight units will consume much more power because of the
> "lightbulb". Anybody considering using a PDA attached to a glider's
> battery, better invest in a good switching regulator to conserve
> power. In case of the Aero 1550, the input voltage needs to be 5V. So
> the current drained from the battery is typically halved
> (5/12/efficiency) by use of such a regulator. They are easy to make.
>
> Happy flying.
>
> Henryk Birecki
I have a Aero 1530 connected to a Cambridge GPS-NAV. The GPS provides 5
volts for the PDA. I've flown with the temperature in the 90's and to <18K
with OAT around -12 F or so. Cockpit temps stayed in the low 50's. I've not
had to adjust the contrast nor have I had a problem with the display under
these conditions. I cover my PDA with a hat while parked on the ramp . . .
otherwise the display goes black and I get concerned for it's safety and
well being.
bumper (Napa, CA . . . and sometimes Minden too!)
Chris Ruf
figure glideslope?
I think that all that is handled in their vario, though I might very well be
wrong on that. If correct, then how the heck can it tell you if you are
above or below glideslope without glider performance data?
ruf
Eric Greenwell <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9ei8i7$b96i$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
Chris Ruf
Eric,
Can you explain your method of using 2 different McCready values
simultaneously? That does not at all fit with my understanding of the
McCready theory, but I would be interesting to see what kinds of problems it
solves.
How do you define a "glide Mc" vs a "STF Mc", really since when you thermal
you fly as slow as you can, so McCready only really tells you how fast to
glide, I don't understand you idea of using 2 different values.
regards
Chris Ruf
Yuliy Gerchikov
screens? Do b/w screens suffer from temperature enough to become unreadable?
Can they be damaged permanently (with solar heating)? Are color ipaq screens
less sensitive to temperature excursions?
Thanks!
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
P.S.: Compaq claims the same operating temperature range 32° .. 104°F (0° ..
40°C) for aero 1500 AND for ipaq 3600.
"Henryk Birecki" <bir...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:svaqgtgvdlplc4vm8...@4ax.com...
Yuliy Gerchikov
> One thing that was not brought into discussion is the Temperature.
And since we mentioned operating environment... Compaq says AERO is good up
to 15000 feet (pressure altitude). Did somebody mention wave flying? ;-)
Any guess why Compaq thinks AERO will disintegrate (ok, quit working at the
very least) above 15K? I'm curious.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Paul Remde
The Pocket-NAV calculates final glide independently from the L-NAV. That is
why the L-NAV is not required in their new series of products. They moved
the speed to fly calculations down from the L-NAV into the vario and use the
Pocket-NAV for final glide calculations.
By the way, I have an L-NAV, GPS-NAV and Pocket-NAV and I love them all!
I'll probably upgrade to the new 300 series next year to get the cool vario
and 2000 waypoints (as opposed to 250 in the current GPS-NAV).
Also, I played with a Volkslogger the other day. It is a very interesting
unit. A good low cost unit. However, I found the user interface on the
unit to be a pain to use. Not nearly as quick and easy to navigate around
in as the CAI products are.
Just my 2 cents.
Paul E. Remde
e-mail: pa...@remde.net
Homepage - http://www.soarmn.com/paul_remde/
Soar Minnesota - http://www.soarmn.com
Soaring Links - http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_links.htm
Minnesota Soaring Club - http://www.soarmn.com/msc/
Stanton Sport Aviation - http://www.soarmn.com/stanton/
Soaring Sensations - http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_sensations/
"Chris Ruf" <greeneg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:PCjP6.43387$t12.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Chris Ashburn
Paul Remde wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The Pocket-NAV calculates final glide independently from the L-NAV. That is
> why the L-NAV is not required in their new series of products. They moved
> the speed to fly calculations down from the L-NAV into the vario and use the
> Pocket-NAV for final glide calculations.
>
Moving the STF to the vario is great, BUT (and it's a big one!)
After inquiring of Cambridge, you can't change the ballast or
bugs setting on the 301/302 instrument
without a GPS-NAV or PocketNAV connected. (Default zero for both)
Chris
Eric Greenwell
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, greeneg...@worldnet.att.net says...
=
= Eric,
=
= Can you explain your method of using 2 different McCready values
= simultaneously? That does not at all fit with my understanding of the
= McCready theory, but I would be interesting to see what kinds of problems it
= solves.
=
= How do you define a "glide Mc" vs a "STF Mc", really since when you thermal
= you fly as slow as you can, so McCready only really tells you how fast to
= glide, I don't understand you idea of using 2 different values.
Most of my flying is recreational flying, to which the following
comments apply:
I use the MC setting on the vario to give me the "optimum" airspeed
for the lift and sink I'm in. I set the MC as high as I can and still
remain "comfortably" high; in practice, this value turns out be less
than half the lift I'm getting.
I use the MC setting on the glide computer to give me the altitude
required to get to a safe landing place with a "high" degree of
confidence, even if I encounter unusual sink or higher headwinds than
expected. For my present glider and most of the places I fly, this is
a MC setting of 4. In places with poor landing options, I will use a
setting of 5.
For contests and record flying:
For these events, I'm willing to give up the luxury of staying
"comfortably" high, and work harder on flying the task faster, so I'll
use a higher MC setting on the vario; even so, it is rarely higher
than half the lift I'm using. With my skill level, it is too easy to
miss that good thermal and end up low, scratching around. The idea of
MacCready theory, where you use the same setting as the lift you are
using sounds great, but it is really hard to do in practice.
The glide computer setting usually remains at 4, since for most of the
flight it's just helping me stay aware of what landing place I'll go
to if I get low. For the final glide, I'll generally set it to the
actual value of the last thermal; even so, I'll often climb above my
glide slope to give me better chance of making it home, as contest
scoring severely penalizes not making it home.
Hope that helps. I think most people do this, though not in the
exactly same manner. Some people put a polar into their system that is
worse than actual, or they don't fly as fast as the vario commands,
etc.
--
>>Delete the "REMOVE" from my e-mail address to reply by e-mail<<
Eric Greenwell
Doug Hoffman
egree...@prodigy.net writes:
>I use the MC setting on the glide computer to give me the altitude
>required to get to a safe landing place with a "high" degree of
>confidence, even if I encounter unusual sink or higher headwinds than
>expected. For my present glider and most of the places I fly, this is
>a MC setting of 4. In places with poor landing options, I will use a
>setting of 5.
>
4 and 5 what? Feet per second? Knots? Other?
-Doug
Eric Greenwell
gerc...@usa.net.net.net says...
When someone says they are looking for equipment for "club pilots", I
assume they mean a low time pilot with limited cross-country
experience, who flies only club gliders. I don't expect them to be
talking about experienced cross-country pilots who happen to fly
gliders owned by a club. For the club pilots I'm talking about,
PocketNav will be a fine choice. It isn't the only choice, of course.
I think further discussion (at least with me, since I have experience
only with PocketNav) won't be useful, and you should buy a GPS and a
PocketPC, since all the programs you are considering require these.
Load a free program on the computer, and go fly with it. You need
experience using at least one of these programs before you can decide
which has the features you really want. Without this flight
experience, you are just guessing.
After a while, you should be able to make an informed choice, then you
can report to us what you chose and why. Good luck!
--
>>Delete the "REMOVE" from my e-mail address to reply by e-mail<<
Eric Greenwell
Yuliy Gerchikov
"Eric Greenwell" <egree...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.157b72848...@news.prodigy.net...
> I think further discussion (at least with me, since I have experience
> only with PocketNav) won't be useful, and you should buy a GPS and a
> PocketPC, since all the programs you are considering require these.
Well, it was a part of the question. Actually, two parts. 1) PocketPC is not
the only platform, there are programs for PalmPilot as well. 2) GPS choise
also depends on program to be used. For example some programs rely on NMEA
$GPRMB sentences from GPS for waypoints/route information. Not all GPS units
provide it.
> Load a free program on the computer, and go fly with it. You need
> experience using at least one of these programs before you can decide
> which has the features you really want. Without this flight
> experience, you are just guessing.
Working on this full time :) .
> After a while, you should be able to make an informed choice, then you
> can report to us what you chose and why. Good luck!
So be it. And thanks everybody who responded -- it all helps to put pieces
together.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov
Eric Greenwell
dhof...@oakland-info.com says...
= In article <MPG.157ae576...@news.prodigy.net> Eric Greenwell,
= egree...@prodigy.net writes:
= >I use the MC setting on the glide computer to give me the altitude
= >required to get to a safe landing place with a "high" degree of
= >confidence, even if I encounter unusual sink or higher headwinds than
= >expected. For my present glider and most of the places I fly, this is
= >a MC setting of 4. In places with poor landing options, I will use a
= >setting of 5.
= >
=
= 4 and 5 what? Feet per second? Knots? Other?
I use knots.
--
>>Delete the "REMOVE" from my e-mail address to reply by e-mail<<
Eric Greenwell
Eric Greenwell
gerc...@usa.net.net.net says...
= Well, it was a part of the question. Actually, two parts. 1) PocketPC is not
= the only platform, there are programs for PalmPilot as well. 2) GPS choise
= also depends on program to be used. For example some programs rely on NMEA
= $GPRMB sentences from GPS for waypoints/route information. Not all GPS units
= provide it.
The palm pilot programs are too limited for the features you seem to
want, and the WinCe units are cheap enough. Borrow a GPS, make a
cable, and go flying. You are spinning your wheels trying to determine
the "best" program sitting on the ground. A major feature of this
hardware is you aren't stuck with a decision - you can load in another
program.