What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Empty panel...how much glass can/would you use ?

H-Ottawa

Member
If you would have an empty instrument panel.
How many of the traditional instruments/engine etc indicators can be replaced with glass?
Would that make for a lighter panel ?
I am just getting back into this and am amazed at how technology has taken off.

Are there any things you wouldn't go glass with ?

Thanks all for your input and expertise.
 
There are a lot of people who feel that the latest is indeed the greatest. I'll ignore the mapping and primary flight instruments and just comment about the engine instrumentation.

Here, I think, the digital color displays with alarm notification are far superior to the analogue instruments. They provide more usable information and are easier to read. Plus, some of them offer some sort of remote box to which the engine sensor leads can attach, and in some cases that can make for simpler electrical wiring at the panel.

They are probably lighter, even with the wiring, since the digital display doesn't need things like capillary tubes or tachometer cables that go from the panel to the engine.

My vote would be to replace all the engine instruments with one of the digital units.

Dave
 
In a modern experimental, there is nothing that can't be replaced by glass, and it's almost always lighter and more reliable. No vacuum pumps!

yb50.jpg


7ajk.jpg
 
Are there any things you wouldn't go glass with ?

You are sure to get many opinions on this subject as it is somewhat akin to a chevy vs ford debate or the like.

I fully agree with Dave that glass offers advantages in engine instrumentation monitoring.

I fly IFR single pilot and while I have an EFIS in the plane of approx 4" x 5.5" dimensions, rarely do I look at its airspeed. The round airspeed indicator is much easier for my brain to interpret with just a glance in the higher workload environment of IFR and landing phases of flight. I believe this is a safety of flight issue. Maybe in time if I only had the EFIS I might get accustomed to it's airspeed tape, but it is not intuitive.
 
As mentioned, you're going to get opinions all over the map but only one counts - yours. My -6A has steam gauge backups but I don't care for them; the -10 will be all glass, including the backup instruments. I learned on the old instruments but I find that my scan is better and I actually spend more time with my head out of the instrument panel with glass displays. However, other people who have flown with me have had different experiences. I have a couple of friends who like the glass but I worry because they spend, in my opinion, too much time playing with the technology and not enough time flying the plane and looking for traffic. And I also know some people who find the glass very frustrating and difficult to use. So my advice is: get some time in an airplane equipped how you think you'd like it and see if you are correct. An RV-7A builder here started his instrument training in a G1000 equipped Cessna and, as a result, decided on a G3X panel; even if it isn't in an RV, you should be able to find an aircraft configured in a fashion to give you a reasonable test. Then you will know the style you like and are most comfortable with and can configure your own panel to meet your needs and likes.
 
I find that I'm a little bit lazier with my engine instrument scans with glass. That's the bad result of something really good. The Dynon will automatically warn me when something goes out of bounds so I sometimes find myself getting a bit complacent in that regard. On the plus side, I spend a lot more time with eyes outside... that is, so long as I'm not fixated on all the other cool stuff the Dynon shows me like TAS, winds, etc. :rolleyes:

The only backup I have is an ASI and ALT. I'm comforted by having them there (especially b/c my D180 failed on me during my first flight) but I don't really use them much at all. And, since Dynon replaced my unit at no charge, I've not had any more issues with reliability.
 
The Dynon will automatically warn me when something goes out of bounds ...
The only backup I have is an ASI and ALT. I'm comforted by having them there ... but I don't really use them much at all. .

Same goes for my GRT displays. There's a big red light on the panel that flashes when any parameter goes outside the limits you set for it. Besides engine limits, it will flash "obstacle" if a tower or similar is within 500 vert ft of your present flight path. The alarm capability is vastly superior than anything steam gauges will do for you. I too have steam backup ASI and ALT.
The only downside for me was during the first 3 or 4 flights. Since a number of my limits were initially too tight, that big red light kept coming on and about giving me cardiac arrest. :eek:
 
remember, Canadian rules are different

It depends on your mission.
Look at the CARS for minimum equipment requirements. For VFR, straightforward.
For IFR, do not rely on experience of U.S. builders, Canadian rules are different. For example, radio navigation redundancy in Canada requires two separate boxes, so a single IFR GPS/NAV will not do it. Back-up cannot be an uncertified glass like a Gemini.
I have spent a lot of time figuring this out, if you wish to discuss, feel free to send me a private message.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa Canada
RV-6A finishing (still)
 
I just happened to notice that there's an updated document under the Continuing Airworthiness section of the MD-RA website, "Information Package for Removal of ?Visual Flight Rules Only? (VFR) Restrictions for Amateur-Built Aircraft" dated September 26, 2013 that cancels the previous document, B032 dated April 18, 1996.

Point 4.1.(d) states "The IFR equipment does not need to be certified in accordance with TSO standards, and hence does not require authorised release certificates"

I'm far from planning my panel so I haven't really studied all the regs yet but I just wanted to point out the updated document.

Cheers,
 
As Dynon said above, there is no longer a reason to include steam gauges.

When I built my first panel (first flight in 2007) I included steam AS and altimeter along with the Dynon D100. When I upgraded to the Dynon SkyView I realized there was no need for the steam gauges and removed them.

If I were to fly IFR, and I don't, I would put in some kind of backup such as the Dynon D1. It is a great unit and easy to install.
 
My panel has two round dials that I find essential for aerobatics. The traditional airspeed and altitude instruments are easy to read and give essential trend information that, for me is easier to interpret with a quick glance. For example, coming down the back side of a diamond loop I'm busy checking the position of my wingmen, checking the position of other aircraft in the box, checking for rate of approach to Vne to insure we stay in the envelope and checking altitude and rate of altitude change to insure ground or box floor clearance. With all that's going on I find that I always use the traditional round dials for airspeed and altitude reference even though I have the same information displayed on my EFIS as well.

Having said that; if I did not fly aerobatics I would be comfortable with an all glass cockpit. And as others have said there is no beating glass engine monitoring these days and the days of the 6-pack seem to be numbered as well.

20130301114241u.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Lots of advice given without knowing what the OPs mission is.

Without that, I think the answer still ranges from none to a lot.
 
Last edited:
Its all about your personal risk threshold, the type of ops you will be undertaking, your level of skill at flying partial panel (may not be an issue VFR if you are relatively experienced), how reliable you believe your chosen piece of glass is and the reliability of your electrical system. It takes a lot of work to make an informed decision. The folks here can help you gather that information, but its your decision, and its also up to you to figure out a robust plan B if/when something breaks down.

Pete
 
Back
Top