Need a new altimeter, could go with a drop in vanilla 3 1/8" sensitive. Looked at a TL Elektronics digital with mode C output. Anybody tried one?

FWIW, I just had a Quattro installed to replace the AI. It has an altimeter on one side of it and an airspeed indicator on the other. Here's a pic:


Since it's only approved as an AI replacement, I had to keep the normal analog altimeter. But when they did the pitot/static check after the installation, the Quattro was right on, while the analog altimeter was within specs but about 50' off. So now my setting process is to set the Quattro, then match the hands of the analog altimeter to the altitude shown on the Quattro. Not saying all electronic digitals will be that accurate, but this one sure is.

Cary

What was the price for that Quattro?
I'm guessing Quattro is espanol for $4K?

I saw a thread on SC about them today. I hadn't heard about them before. Looks like a nice product.

hotrod180 wrote:What was the price for that Quattro?
I'm guessing Quattro is espanol for $4K?

That's funny right there.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that "quarto" is for the four functions it performs: artificial horizon, airspeed, altimeter, and slip/skid ball. But it turns out that Spruce has them priced at $3595- close enough to $4K for gov't work.

Along the same line, Spruce lists the RC Allen 2600 series electronic horizon at about $2600.

hotrod180 wrote:Actually, I'm pretty sure that "quarto" is for the four functions it performs: artificial horizon, airspeed, altimeter, and slip/skid ball. But it turns out that Spruce has them priced at $3595- close enough to $4K for gov't work.

Along the same line, Spruce lists the RC Allen 2600 series electronic horizon at about $2600.

However, by the time you add RC Allen's backup battery to the 2600 (which is now $2800 at Spruce depending on options) at $725, they're close to neck and neck--the Quattro has its own backup battery. According to the avionics guys that did the installing, besides providing more info, the Quattro is a better product. I don't know whether that's true, but so far, I'm very satisfied with it.

I notice that RC Allen's advertising says that one of their benefits is that their digital AI isn't "cluttered" with other info--I guess they think the narrow altimeter and airspeed tapes on either side of the Quattro is cluttering.

I think the only thing that is better about the RC Allen AI is that the wings are adjustable by the pilot in pitch, like a normal gyro-driven AI is, whereas the Quattro has to be adjusted by the installer. That took a trip back to the avionics shop, after I flew it in straight and level flight and took a picture of where it was. The installer was able to get it right on. The issue is that few airplanes sit on the ground in the same pitch attitude as they do when in cruise, even trikes such as mine is, which is much closer to level than a tail dragger would be.

Cary

Cary wrote:I think the only thing that is better about the RC Allen AI is that the wings are adjustable by the pilot in pitch, like a normal gyro-driven AI is, whereas the Quattro has to be adjusted by the installer. That took a trip back to the avionics shop, after I flew it in straight and level flight and took a picture of where it was. The installer was able to get it right on. The issue is that few airplanes sit on the ground in the same pitch attitude as they do when in cruise, even trikes such as mine is, which is much closer to level than a tail dragger would be.

Cary

That could easily be fixed by turning the pitch indication into a rate of climb indication. They're already tied into the static system...


And I agree, from the pictures those taped don't look cluttering as all.