Shortest distance to IFR capable plane

My -8 has a standard 6-pack of instruments, a King KT-76A Transponder and KY-97 comm radio, and use a 496 for nav, weather and XM radio. I have flown it just about everywhere east of the Rockies and some west of the Rockies and generally get to where I need to go despite occasional weather woes. Last year I had to stay over one night because of weather.

This last week I ended up staying in Pascagoula, MS for two extra days due to low ceilings and sometimes low viz.

So given my 6-pack and vacuum system and existing comm and transponder and VFR GPS, what would I need to add for the minimum cost to safely and legally fly en route IFR and transition through cloud layers?

I know that some would say that if you don't go all the way with 430W and be able to do all the approaches etc etc you're just asking for trouble, but I don't buy it. Why is having no IMC capability better than having limited but useful IMC capability?

Think - shortest, cheapest distance between two points! I cannot spend the money right now for a full setup so help me get the most bang for my buck.

If you are talking strictly navigation

You must have equipment that will allow you to use the navigation facilities applicable for your flight ---- minimum would be a Narco Nav 122 (strictly VOR/LOC/ILS), OR a Nav/Comm like a King KX 155, preferable with glideslope, which would give you the extra comm capability. You may not be able to do some approaches that require additional capability like DME (I know, cheat with the 496) or some means to identify a published fix or markers.

In addition, your pitot/static/transponder/altimeter system would have to meet the IFR calibration standards every 24 months.

That's a good start. I'd need a nav indicator too. I'd forgotten about the pitot static part.

I've heard conflicting stories on using a VFR GPS for locating fixes like the OM etc. My super-pilot CFII sister says it's legal. That would be great because I would not need a marker beacon receiver and ADF.

More opinioins? Beware of mission creep!

(Stein, Jay Pratt - now's the time to make me an offer I cannot refuse!")

Bubblehead said:

That's a good start. I'd need a nav indicator too. I'd forgotten about the pitot static part.

I've heard conflicting stories on using a VFR GPS for locating fixes like the OM etc. My super-pilot CFII sister says it's legal. That would be great because I would not need a marker beacon receiver and ADF.

More opinioins? Beware of mission creep!

(Stein, Jay Pratt - now's the time to make me an offer I cannot refuse!")

Click to expand...

We were just talking about hand held and non IFR certified GPS units for IFR approaches last week in my Instrument ground school. My understanding is that you must have the required approved navigation equipment to legally fly the approach and if its not an IFR certified GPS with a current up to date database,,,it will not pass legal muster.

Thanks "GT"

Here's one short way to get part way there.

"VAL AVIONICS NAV INS 429 WITH VOR/LOC/GS/MB" http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/valINS429.php

Here's the desciption from ACS: "The INS 429 is a high quality, multi-function, fully integrated navigational instrument displaying VOR, LOC, Glide Scope, Marker Beacon, and GPS/NAV inputs. Not only does it sport its own internal receivers, it will also display course deviation information from an external NAV or GPS source. A perfect solution for a crowded panel. Not TSO'D (for experimental aircraft only)."

Does anyone have any experience with these?

Bubblehead said:

Here's the desciption from ACS: "The INS 429 is a high quality, multi-function, fully integrated navigational instrument displaying VOR, LOC, Glide Scope, Marker Beacon, and GPS/NAV inputs. Not only does it sport its own internal receivers, it will also display course deviation information from an external NAV or GPS source. A perfect solution for a crowded panel. Not TSO'D (for experimental aircraft only)."

Click to expand...

I'm learning here too; but doesn't the instrument have to be TSO'D to be "legal" ????

Deal Fair

TSO'd not a requirement

TSO compliance gives you some assurance the unit meets specific standards , but is not a requirement

I have a little experience with the VAL 429, and I like it. Right now it is at Stein's so he can wire a 430W into it and it becomes the CDI for the 430. I have had it for a couple of years and it works well and (IMHO) is a better buy than the 422 Narco. It takes a little getting used to when you have watched needles all your life (it has a row of LEDs horizontal and vertical.) It seems sensitive enough and certainly reliable. Cheaper, too. BTW, I thought they were getting it TSO'd. Must not have happened...

Bob Kelly

Maybe you don't need anything additional...

14 CFR say's this: 91.205 (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required: (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

What if the only ground facility intended to be used is approach radar via radar vectors?

Here's the scenario: the weather in KS is 1,000 AGL overcast and the layer is 3,000 feet thick with clear above. I want to get on top and head to Olney TX for a fly-in/Air Tractor tour. As soon as I cross the KS/OK border the sky is clear. I'll opine that I can depart & climb using radar vectors to at least 1,000 feet above the tops then I cancel IFR and proceed under VFR.

Let's not turn this thread into a discussion about VFR on-top or if approach radar is a ground facility. John asked what he needed to "transition through cloud layers" ... my input is that maybe he needs no additional equipment.

-Jim

cheap solution

A used Collins VIR-351 nav receiver for 100-200 dollars. They are all 14volt, and have a to/from radial indication built in, so you could theoretically do a VOR approach somewhere near your destination if a contact approach or visual approach is not possible. I think most would use a 496 as the actual reference in any case, but the VOR onboard seems to me to make it legal, as long as you could file to an airport that had good enough weather for a contact approach, or reach one that has a VOR approach. I believe that it will send a LOC signal to something like a Dynon 100, but am not sure if it needs a resolver. Adding a separate VOR indicator will likely triple the cost, but would open up LOC approaches, if it doesn't interface easily with our typical Dynon units.

I'm in total agreement with you. I've flown IFR for 3.5 decades, and we really did used to do it with one vor and no transponder, never dreaming of the ease and safety that these handheld GPS's now give. There are plenty of times that simply going IFR is a relief, just to stop worrying about cloud layers enroute, while decent or MVFR weather prevails at your destination. I am intrigued by the argument that Precision Approach Radar could be a legal justification for going 'as is', but the FAA does scare me enough to want to put in a VOR, at least. I've also had panels that were state of the art, (yes, back in the older days) that could never provide the safety of a couple of cheap handhelds with their own built in antennas and battery backups as well as graphic moving maps, etc. Loss of situational awareness seems almost impossible with a typical handheld these days, and that's a big step forward.

Before I'd be able to recommend a "minimum" IFR equipment list, I'd want to know how comfortable you are in IFR, and how many hours/years you have in the system. If you're new to IFR flying, then the equipment list would be considerably different than if you have decades and thousands of hours in the soup. Going "absolutely minimum" with a new ticket in something as responsive as an RV-8 is a good recipe for a bad day.

I have been doing the instrument thing for decades, and when I look back at flying in bumpy clouds with an unstable Yankee, no autopilot, and flaky VOR recievers...well, I'd rather not do that again. It was all we had, and we made it work. But there were a lot more "Loss of control in IMC" accidents too.

Frankly, I'd be very cautious about committing to IMC conditions in an RV without a good, functioning autopilot. And in an -8, with a narrow cockpit, trying to handle charts and plates can be a very high-gain task - with moving maps and the like available, I'm not sure I'd want to go without them.

I might sound like an old-time voice of caution, which, I guess I am. I am very comfortable flying IFR in these airplanes - with the right equipment. Trying to do it too much on the cheap would be outside my own comfort zone.

You don't need a 430 - but make sure you have a backup plan for all reasonable contingencies - including an overloaded pilot. Been there, got the T-shirt....

Paul

The shortest di$tance to IFR would be something like Stratomaster's SL-30 clone (once they release it) coupled with an inexpensive EFIS / EMS (e.g. a Dynon D-10). Oh, and a cheap transponder, preferably one that accepts the EFIS encoder signal without extra adapters.

There are some lines of thought that if you build your own aircraft and use something like a GRT EFIS with a WAAS capable GPS receiver you may also be legal since it is an experimental aircraft. We need a few more people to "prove this theory" before I'd be comfortable with that solution.

Legal IFR

To fly legal IFR you'll need the equipment listed in the FARs which include a panel mounted clock and Navigation stuff. As everyone has said the nav equipment needs to be consistent with your flight plan. I fly IFR regularily and I think your minimum equipment need will be a Nav receiver and a CDI with glide slope. This will give you VOR departures, enroute, and VOR approaches, and LOC approaches, and ILS approaches. 3 different approaches is what you'll need for your IFR check ride. You don't "need" DME, nor GPS, nor ADF, for most approaches although there are some that require DME. So I'd recommend you find a King-155 Nav/Com/GS and compatible CDI (OMNI). You might see one at an avionics shop for $2-$3 grand. The marker beacon receiver is in the audio panel and you can get an old King for $500 bucks.

If you truly want to merely go up and descend through stratus layers, I recommend an ILS receiver like in most nav receivers just to make sure you can get under. The ILS will get you 200 feet above the pavement on instruments.

I do have a Garmin 430 in a Cherokee, but I'm looking for destinations with ILS approaches when the clouds are low.

Thanks for all the good information.

Paul - I flew a lot of IMC for about 15 years but have not been current in 5+ years. I need a refresher, but when I did it a lot I did it either without A/P or with an A/P that I could not trust so am used to hand flying in IMC. The planes were similar speed as the -8 (V-35, A-36, T-210, M231) The -8 would be tougher but I have >200 hours in this -8, most of it cross-country and all without an A/P so am very used to hand flying the plane.

I appreciate your words of caution, but when I flew IMC regularly I set personal minimums based on human and weather factors and will do so again. The minimums will include how long to be IMC before VMC. That doesn't mean the weather will always be as briefed but I would prefer to have the capability and ability and keep it within personal minimums than not have any options stuck at an airport under a 1000' thick ceiling.

I think I'll check out the used radios at Sun-N-Fun with everyone's comments in mind.

I appreciate all the ideas and suggestions. That's one of the things that makes this forum great.

garmin 300xl?

At <$3000 these days, would the 300XL gps/com provide the minimum info to do enroute and non precision approaches in "gentle" IFR conditions? What else would you need, assuming you understood the limitations and found them acceptable. In my case I just want to decend through a marine layer to vfr below (as an example). I'm not interested in going to minimums. What else do you need?

I'll answer my own question; You need an external anunciator. After discussing options with an avionics guy, I've decided to go with the GNC420 which is the GNC430 without VOR/ILS. I know, I know, the 430 is just a little more, but here's my logic; I've been flying for fun for 26 years and aside from training I've never flown an ILS approach. I'm just not interested in flying in bad weather, which in AZ is deadly most of the time anyway. I'll have the moving map for 99% of the time, plus the ability to get through a cloud layer and do a non precision approach if the need arises. which is just right for me. plus I'm sick of trying to find routing for antenas!

Cheap Nav Option

I've been doing a good bit of digging on a low cost way of making the plane minimally IFR capable (i.e. VOR and LOC approaches). The best I've come up with is the Collins VIR-351, which you can easily find working for under $200. But, you'll quickly find that a Collins CDI is going to set you back something like $400. An output of the VIR-351 nav radio is the composite nav signal. Normally this would drive an HSI or some such, but you could use that signal to drive a converting indicator, such as the ARC IN-38x series (ex: IN-385). Those indicators are easily found under $200.

What I can't say is whether any avionics shop would sign off on this hybrid or not. Electrically I don't see anything wrong with this (and it makes installation much simpler as there are lots fewer wires between the two units). But that is just the opinion of an experimenter.

If you wanted glide slope, there is also a readily available Collins GLS-350 that is coupled to the VIR-351.

blaplante said:

I've been doing a good bit of digging on a low cost way of making the plane minimally IFR capable (i.e. VOR and LOC approaches). The best I've come up with is the Collins VIR-351, which you can easily find working for under $200. But, you'll quickly find that a Collins CDI is going to set you back something like $400. An output of the VIR-351 nav radio is the composite nav signal. Normally this would drive an HSI or some such, but you could use that signal to drive a converting indicator, such as the ARC IN-38x series (ex: IN-385). Those indicators are easily found under $200.

What I can't say is whether any avionics shop would sign off on this hybrid or not. Electrically I don't see anything wrong with this (and it makes installation much simpler as there are lots fewer wires between the two units). But that is just the opinion of an experimenter.

If you wanted glide slope, there is also a readily available Collins GLS-350 that is coupled to the VIR-351.

Click to expand...

The avionics shop does not get to decide or have the ability to "sign off" your experimental for IFR usage other than the Pitot/Static/Txpdr check. It's up to you as the mfgr of the plane to ensure it's equipment is appropriate to the type of flying you intend to do (specifically IFR). As long as you have equipment appropriate to the type of navigation you'll be performing you're good to go. Personally I'd stay away from the old Collins stuff because while it's cheap to buy, it's not cheap to fix (and it's not if you fix it, it's when). Will it work, probably...but again be midfull of being pennywise if you're going to be actually using the equipment in IMC.

My 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein

cheap to buy

SteinAir said:

The avionics shop does not get to decide or have the ability to "sign off" your experimental for IFR usage other than the Pitot/Static/Txpdr check. It's up to you as the mfgr of the plane to ensure it's equipment is appropriate to the type of flying you intend to do (specifically IFR). As long as you have equipment appropriate to the type of navigation you'll be performing you're good to go. Personally I'd stay away from the old Collins stuff because while it's cheap to buy, it's not cheap to fix (and it's not if you fix it, it's when). Will it work, probably...but again be midfull of being pennywise if you're going to be actually using the equipment in IMC.

Click to expand...

If it is cheap enough to buy, you don't fix it. When was the last time you saw a TV repair shop? My 0.02 is that spending top dollar for brand new latest wiz bang is a poor investment. Avionics has changed so much in the last 10 years, and I don't see that slowing down soon. 10 years from now, someone will say 'Garmin 430 - that old thing? I wouldn't bother'.

Ah, but I would love to have a 430 in my panel between now and then!

how about......

a kx155 nav/com/ handheld gps with wx/ and AP. good to go IFR. ILS/VOR/GPS hmmmmm.

I was searching for VAL INS-429 and came up with this thread and the poster making a prediction about 10 years into the future :

blaplante said:

.... Avionics has changed so much in the last 10 years, and I don't see that slowing down soon. 10 years from now, someone will say 'Garmin 430 - that old thing? I wouldn't bother'.

Click to expand...

Well 10 years are up and the darn Garmin 430 is still commanding top dollar

Pilot135pd said:

I was searching for VAL INS-429 and came up with this thread and the poster making a prediction about 10 years into the future :



Well 10 years are up and the darn Garmin 430 is still commanding top dollar

Click to expand...

The 430 was around $9k new and they sell for around 1/2 that today because the replacements are now $10k+. The 430 is still a good unit, no doubt, but they maintain their price because the new alternative is $10k in what is an essentially Garmin's monopolistic market. If these followed the trend of other consumer electronics, the 650's would be under $5k today and the used 430's would be selling for next to nothing. It's the price of the new with no real alternatives at a lower price that drives the price of the old 430's.

I agree Garmin's monopoly sucks. That's another reason I bought the VAL since the cheapest Garmin for me to do simple IFR is over $4000 plus installation.

The GNC355 would give you the IFR Navigator and a second com radio. I am not comfortable IFR with a single com radio. Only thing left would be a course indicator.

Jpm757 said:

The GNC355 would give you the IFR Navigator and a second com radio. I am not comfortable IFR with a single com radio. Only thing left would be a course indicator.

Click to expand...

That thing is $6200 !! We're trying to go DOWN in cost not up