Talk:Flight instruments

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Formatting[edit]

This page should be formatted with standard headings and Error: no page names specified (help). tags like Pitot-static system Dhaluza 17:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic T info[edit]

Was this part not important?

The arrangement was chosen to optimise pilot instrument scanning and is mandated in the US by FAA Regulation ~~25.1321(b).~~[1]

It didn't make the merge. Just wondering. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm proposing that Basic Six be merged with the page on Flight Instruments. Flight Instruments already has a section on instrument arrangement, has better sourcing, and has better pictures. Mmoople (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge them, there's no need to have separate articles. 82.4.227.189 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite agree. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Basic Six must be merged with Flight instruments. The basic six and basic T arrangements are very significant items of information, but they are a sub-set of the information that is, and should be, presented in Flight instruments. Having this information in a separate article diminishes the value of Wikipedia, either because it causes duplication or this valuable information is not available in Flight instruments. The time has come to transfer the information into Flight instruments and re-direct Basic Six to Flight instruments. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take the above as being consensus in favour, so I have merged the text and redirected Basic Six here. 82.1.62.101 (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange layouts in the early days[edit]

In the early days, were there any unusual layouts of the flight instrument panel? The main article could be improved with a paragraph or two on which dials were most likely subject to random relocation, and which ones were almost always laid down side by side each other. 216.99.219.182 (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally there was no fixed or standard layout for any instruments until the Royal Air Force (RAF) 'Basic Six' was introduced in 1937, the aircraft designers putting instruments anywhere they liked. The only exceptions were that multi-engined aircraft usually had the engine instruments side by side, i.e., grouped together. This lack of standardisation made conversions between aircraft-types unnecessarily difficult, and so the Basic Six was developed to minimise this - the same set of six flight instruments in the same arrangement were used in every RAF aircraft, large or small - see image. The Basic Six was then modified slightly to the arrangement that is still used today.

History of instruments[edit]

What instruments were available in the early aircraft? For instance, pre-WWI, WWI aircraft, dirigibles, etc? - 202.76.163.105 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon[edit]

You forgot the horizon. This is more important that any of the other instruments. The reason the articifical horizons are used in the event the natural horizon is not visable. Arydberg (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing instruments[edit]

A list of instruments is:

gyrocompass
compass
turn indicator
climb/descend speed meter
altitudemeter
clock
automatic direction finder (ADF) indicator
very high frequency omnidirectional (VOR) radio
Ammeter
fuel meter
Tachometer
oil temperature meter
carburator preheating switch
fuel tank selector
switch for flaps
GPS receiver with display
combined radio and VOR navigation set 1
combined radio and VOR navigation set 2
distance measuring equipment
automatic direction finder control panel
transponder

Check which ones of these are still missing in article 91.182.135.174 (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following paragraph as it is utter crap, the author is making it up:

"But on large jet airliners, landing without any functional artificial horizon, then the landing will most presumably not end well. It's impossible to a pilot (of a large aircraft) to estimate if the aircraft flies without a banking of f.i 3-4 degrees at landing setting. And if only one side of the central gear wheels touches ground (in a speed of 140-150 knots), a disaster is the most likely result. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.96.178 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight instruments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701011444/http://www.faa.gov:80/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/ to http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]