Glass Panel - Symmetrical or Not?

[skelrad]

This may be a dumb question, but why is it that glass panels tend to always be designed symmetrically, with one glass panel directly in front of each seat? I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of planes are flown from the left seat 99% of the time. I may be missing something obvious, but it seems like it would be better to have the second display closer to the pilot since most people reference it as their primary map fairly regularly during a flight. The central stack with audio panel and other GPS type things don't tend to be touched as frequently, yet most panels put them closer to the eye line of the pilot than the MFD. I know the side by side RVs have small panels and it's not a stretch to reach screens on the extreme sides of the panels, so maybe it's just an aesthetics thing? I'm admittedly just starting to think about my panel design, so I could be missing something very obvious. Please educate me before I do something dumb.

I'm still waffling between Dynon and AFS. AFS screens are actually too tall to go side by side like this (well, the will, but then there's zero space for switches below them....although that begs the question as to why most switches, aside from maybe flaps and a boost bump that should be by the throttle in my opinion, should not be relegated to the far right of the panel since they're rarely touched during a flight).

 

[BobTurner]

This may be a dumb question, but why is it that glass panels tend to always be designed symmetrically, with one glass panel directly in front of each seat? I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of planes are flown from the left seat 99% of the time. I may be missing something obvious, but it seems like it would be better to have the second display closer to the pilot since most people reference it as their primary map fairly regularly during a flight. The central stack with audio panel and other GPS type things don't tend to be touched as frequently, yet most panels put them closer to the eye line of the pilot than the MFD. I know the side by side RVs have small panels and it's not a stretch to reach screens on the extreme sides of the panels, so maybe it's just an aesthetics thing? I'm admittedly just starting to think about my panel design, so I could be missing something very obvious. Please educate me before I do something dumb.

I'm still waffling between Dynon and AFS. AFS screens are actually too tall to go side by side like this (well, the will, but then there's zero space for switches below them....although that begs the question as to why most switches, aside from maybe flaps and a boost bump that should be by the throttle in my opinion, should not be relegated to the far right of the panel since they're rarely touched during a flight).

View attachment 60489

I agree with you - putting an efis on the far right side is pretty much useless imho. OTOH sometimes there’s not anywhere else. e.g., the panel you show above is most likely out of compliance with the gps receiver’s TSO, which requires mounting the gps within certain distance limits of the primary AI (unless the efis or other warning lights duplicate all warnings/cautions from the gps).

 

[Mike S]

Two pilot family.

 

[skelrad]

Two pilot family.

Totally get that. That’s a case where it makes sense.

 

[Raiz]

It is personal choice but I prefer the asymmetrical layout.

Reasons to go with symmetrical include:

• 2 pilot operation
• Aircraft frequently flown from ether seat
• You've got a panel (such as an Aerosport Products one) that's symmetrical
• Looks more like a commercial jet
• You like the symmetrical aesthetic

Reasons to go with asymmetrical include:

• Normally flown from one seat
• Better access to the MFD (from the primary side)
• Better for redundancy (should the PFD fail)
• You've got an asymmetrical panel

I would also put the GPS navigator between the PFD and MFD, as the far right is not workable IMHO for approaches. Also, check whether your preferred layout clashes with any structures behind the panel.

 

[Jim F]

there is more here than asthetics.
If you are IFR you need to manage the radios with as little head movement as
Possible. That’s why the radio stack is in the middle
If you are strictly VFR it is not so important
As for Dynon or AFS, AFS is far better for IFR

 

[Capt]

Tandem seating is the only way to go, everything down the line

 

[Richard Connell]

I agree with you - putting an efis on the far right side is pretty much useless imho. OTOH sometimes there’s not anywhere else. e.g., the panel you show above is most likely out of compliance with the gps receiver’s TSO, which requires mounting the gps within certain distance limits of the primary AI (unless the efis or other warning lights duplicate all warnings/cautions from the gps).

I’m in the asymmetric camp too. With some attention to detail and mounting the displays as close as possible together you can shift everything to the left a fair way.
This setup is fine in practice for visibility and access to the 750. It’s canted at 13⁰ toward the pilot.
There is still scope to move the whole setup about 3/4” to the left (more if I lowered the GDUs) but I only had one zigzag panel folded up and I was too far advanced with the substructure by the time I realized to justify doing it again.




As far as TSO compliance is concerned, I think that’s largely moot now as any EFIS would satisfy the requirement of putting the required nav and annunciation information in the pilot’s primary field of view.
Radios are no problem as you can tune them on the GDUs.
The bigger issue with sticking the GTN on the other side of the panel is entering and amending IFR flight plans.
Even if you have a Garmin PFD/MFD, the internal vs external source demarcation setup makes it a clunky interface at best.
I still spend a lot of time tapping away on the GTN if IFR.

 

[Dr_Dave_MT]

I’m in the asymmetric camp too. With some attention to detail and mounting the displays as close as possible together you can shift everything to the left a fair way.
This setup is fine in practice for visibility and access to the 750. It’s canted at 13⁰ toward the pilot.
There is still scope to move the whole setup about 3/4” to the left (more if I lowered the efises) but I only had one zigzag panel folded up and I was too far advanced with the substructure by the time I realized to justify doing it again.

View attachment 60492


As far as TSO compliance is concerned, I think that’s largely moot now as any EFIS would satisfy the requirement of putting the required nav and annunciation information in the pilot’s primary field of view.
Radios are no problem as you can tune them on the GDUs.
The bigger issue with sticking the GTN on the other side of the panel is entering and amending IFR flight plans.
Even if you have a Garmin PFD/MFD, the internal vs external source demarcation setup makes it a clunky interface at best.
I still spend a lot of time tapping away on the GTN if IFR.

Ah, I see what you did there Mate, ain’t fooling me though….

 

[Desert Rat]

Back in the days of 6 packs, most small planes didn't have much on the right side except maybe a glove box. and a few random things. When glass came along, it became cheap to put a moving map in there, and the revision mode gives it the ability to mirror the PFD. It just made sense for the convention to become an extension of the layout used in bigger crewed airplanes.

Thats what I'm used to and I'm also part of a multi-pilot family so thats how I built mine, but I don't see any real reason you couldn't built it however you want within reason. There are pros and cons for each layout

 

[KeithB]

There are also structural issues with panel assembly. For example, the RV14 instrument panel supporting ribs “define” 3 panel segments, with the middle one dimensioned as a radio stack. If you want 2 10” screens, they will be in front of each seat unless you redesign the panel structure.

 

[Carl Froehlich]

There are other cosiderations to check. On the RV-10 as example the center rib behind the panel creates an issue to be thought through.

That said, I do like to have the IFR GPS navigator mounted between the two screens. Easy to reach and fat finger in yet another ATC reroute. Note however the bias to the left of the panel. This addressed the center rib problem and in this position the right screen was very usable to the pilot. My normal set up was Pilot EFIS displaying moving map and PDF. The Copilot display having moving map (at a longer range) and EMS. So the right display the map served as my “scratch pad” to look down track for weather, zoom in for airport info, etc.

I flew this RV-10 from the right seat on several occasions and found no problem using both screens.

This photo shows the RV-10 panel after a couple of modifications (I did a major redo at 18 months and the new owner did a couple after that). The point being whatever you decide now is likely to change. My new RV-10 will incorporate the various lessons learned from this 13 year old build. The big decision now is to stay with the 10” SkyView HDX displays or go with the new 12” displays.

Carl

 

[Snowflake]

This may be a dumb question, but why is it that glass panels tend to always be designed symmetrically, with one glass panel directly in front of each seat? I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of planes are flown from the left seat 99% of the time. I may be missing something obvious, but it seems like it would be better to have the second display closer to the pilot since most people reference it as their primary map fairly regularly during a flight. The central stack with audio panel and other GPS type things don't tend to be touched as frequently, yet most panels put them closer to the eye line of the pilot than the MFD. I know the side by side RVs have small panels and it's not a stretch to reach screens on the extreme sides of the panels, so maybe it's just an aesthetics thing? I'm admittedly just starting to think about my panel design, so I could be missing something very obvious. Please educate me before I do something dumb.

It's important to build the plane you want, but i'd temper that by saying that the plane may outlive you and it may be easier to find a new owner if the layout is more "standard" (if there is such a thing).

While 90% of my flights are solo and i'm the only one referencing any instruments, for those 10% of flights where I have a passenger, 99% of them the passenger is flying at least some of the time. Other pilots can live with looking at an instrument off-axis for a little while when they're riding as passengers. People new to flying find it awkward and uncomfortable, and I want them to have as much of the piloting experience as I can when i'm introducing them to flight.

....although that begs the question as to why most switches, aside from maybe flaps and a boost bump that should be by the throttle in my opinion, should not be relegated to the far right of the panel since they're rarely touched during a flight).

Many RV-6 and -7 builders have extended their panels vertically, either by having a new panel made, or by adding a C-channel to the bottom lip of the existing panel and putting the switches in it. The add-on has the bonus of being able to drop the row of switches for easy access if you want to service something.

 

[[email protected]]

It's important to build the plane you want, but i'd temper that by saying that the plane may outlive you and it may be easier to find a new owner if the layout is more "standard" (if there is such a thing).

While 90% of my flights are solo and i'm the only one referencing any instruments, for those 10% of flights where I have a passenger, 99% of them the passenger is flying at least some of the time. Other pilots can live with looking at an instrument off-axis for a little while when they're riding as passengers. People new to flying find it awkward and uncomfortable, and I want them to have as much of the piloting experience as I can when i'm introducing them to flight.


Many RV-6 and -7 builders have extended their panels vertically, either by having a new panel made, or by adding a C-channel to the bottom lip of the existing panel and putting the switches in it. The add-on has the bonus of being able to drop the row of switches for easy access if you want to service something.

AS far as adding C-channel/angle to the bottom of the panel. Think that one over twice. How tall are you???" I'm 6'3" and needed room
I bought an RV-6 and the first thing I did was remove the panel and get RID of the 1 1/2" add on because if in a crash it would surely cut into my shins.
And even flying the plane it was uncomfortable.
I couldn't rip that add on out fast enough.
But my luck and desires vary FIXIT

 

[Capt]

Ah the good ‘ole days

 

[esco]

Brandon: Thanks very much for asking the question!

 

[titanhank]

This is my rv6 panel. i want the ifr gps close enough to manipulate and the backup stuff on the pax side. My panel has 1” added to the bottom.

 

[Ed_Wischmeyer]

If your system lets you do split screen, you can have multiple windows up. In the RV-9A, I've effectively got two MFDs plus two PFDs plus two tall engine displays. And the GPS in the middle provides more navigation information. (Note that I have lots of flight parameters at the top of the screens, too.) If you look at a big screen showing only one window, the outer portions don't convey any information. While there are other systems that can do split screens, I find those displays cluttered, as if designed by an engineer (like me) instead of by a graphic artist (that most engineers think they are). Also, strictly speaking, in this discussion, the term symmetric has been abused... My RV-9A came with the center stack where it is, so when I upgraded the glass, I couldn't do all I wanted. to. That's why the G5 is in the middle instead of off to the left edge.
As a CFI, sometimes I like to let passengers sit on the left side, and on those flights, it's handy to have full flight instruments on my own side.

 

[Dugaru]

put the GPS navigator between the PFD and MFD, as the far right is not workable IMHO for approaches.

+1. It would be no fun running a navigator from across the panel.

I seem to recall that some IFR gadgets (like CDIs) have installation requirements regarding how far they are from the pilot — but I’m no expert, and that stuff may be for the certified world only.

 

[Richard Connell]

I realize now you look like you’re building a 14.
In that case I think you’re going to be stuck with the radio stack in the middle unless you’re willing to embark on a redesign of the sub panel to panel ribs and their orientation. I’m sure someone will do it eventually.

Ignoring the metalwork that would be required - I think a good compromise for a 2 seater could be a GDU 460 and 470 then your radio stack. I think I’ve seen someone here who’s done that.

This is the second iteration of my RV7 panel.
(Don’t ask about the Aspen. It’s a POS, but everything in it is/was TSO which was required for IFR here back in around 2010 when it went in. The G3X came in 2014.)

The 430W in that position was at the absolute limit of the lateral spacing to be install compliant for IFR (without a separate nav mode annunciator) I originally had my steam gauges and CDI where the GDU is.

That requirement is not relevant for a GTN (or a 430) interfaced to a GDU (or other EFIS) as the CDI and all annunciation is on the PFD and therefore falls within the acceptable field of view.

 

[Snowflake]

AS far as adding C-channel/angle to the bottom of the panel. Think that one over twice. How tall are you???"
I bought an RV-6 and the first thing I did was remove the panel and get RID of the 1 1/2" add on because if in a crash it would surely cut into my shins

You must be huge... I'm 5'10" and could easily add 2" to the stock panel without affecting comfort in my -6. As for cutting into the shins, i've seen a lot of panel add-ons that are just an angle, with a vertical piece of metal ending above your legs. Now *that* will definitely cut you in a crash. But a C-channel added with one flange joined to the flange at the bottom of the panel, would be no worse than the existing panel.

 

[Carl Froehlich]

AS far as adding C-channel/angle to the bottom of the panel. Think that one over twice. How tall are you???"
I bought an RV-6 and the first thing I did was remove the panel and get RID of the 1 1/2" add on because if in a crash it would surely cut into my shins.
And even flying the plane it was uncomfortable.
I couldn't rip that add on out fast enough.
But my luck and desires vary FIXIT

There is a better way to skin that cat.

Use the stock RV-10 panel as example. It has a bottom “apron” that is perfect for mounting switches, breakers, cabin heat controls and such. All that stuff that stays in the plane when you take out the now easily removable panel to work on the bench.

Here is a modified RV-6A panel that does this. The total height of the panel is the same as the original. Note the extra strip in the photo is a drill template for switches and such for the new apron. It is not used in the final install.

This approach supports the design goal of “never on your back with your head under the panel”.

Carl