At 09:14 AM 8/23/99 +1000, Brian Garrett wrote: >I noticed the discussions on instruments and must admit to a shame of mine. >I used to be an aircraft instrument tech, and for the life of me I do not >know the difference between a Turn & Bank instrument and the Turn >Co-ordinator. (If it was a 727 Auto pilot or flight director I would be ok) > >Turn Co-ordinators seem to be more popular in modern aircraft. Why? Are >they a more capable limited panel instrument? > >I would be interested in any comments on this.
Oh! Oh! I know! I know! The turn-and-bank instrument is just that... ...it responds to bank angle, while banking. It is also a rate instrument, in that it indicates turn rate once the turn is established. Sound like there's some ambiguity here? Yes, there is. The turn coordinator is a 'rate' instrument alone. That is, it responds to the airplanes actual rate of turn, and only to rate of turn. For someone who has an AI from which to read bank angle, if he wants to, the unambiguous pure rate information is invaluable. One question, one answer. Now, if you don't have an AI (implying that if you are in IMC, you didn't mean to be) it would seem that the old 'turn and bank' might be a bit better for saving your bacon, which, if you're in IMC without an AI and a load of IFR competance, is pretty well burnt anyhow. Greg
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
