I have mostly completed the top half of my panel (early model like Kevin's) and am currently in parts order mode for the bottom. I opted for the 430W in the bottom plumbed to a 796 flush mounted up top front and center. My eye's are getting older and the 796 Screen absolutely smokes the smaller Garmin IFR boxes in all respects. You can shoot flight plans over from the 430, the Wx is more pleasing to look at, it has syn vis if that floats you boat, overlay onto a chart all sorts of good stuff...
It is heavy, and spend, but run modern gyros and you get the weight saving to pay for it.

Since the rest of me is getting older as well, (including patience and hearing) the notion of flying with a handheld for a back up comm in an IFR ship has lost its attraction as well. I love to save weight where I can, but given some of the lighter options out there today in this case 'the juice just ain't worth the squeeze...' If IFR wasn't in the equation I would be happy as a clam with a single comm box and call it a day, for that matter, much of my flying involves no comm box... In the soup I enjoy having frequencies dialed up and ready to go, and the more the merrier, so an extra comm box is not likely to be sitting idle and off in a bag...

Take care, Rob

flightlogic wrote:.... Hard IFR & little one motor planes:trouble. ......

I know a lot of guys who (after they get their multi rating) kind of swagger when they say "I won't fly single-engine IFR anymore". But a guy I know who's a corporate pilot went them one better-- "I won't fly piston-powered IFR anymore". As for myself, I'm not interested in flying any kind of IFR except in the back of a Boeing.

The panel in the Bearhawk is all electric. The EFIS and EIS are from Grand Rapids Technologies http://www.grtavionics.com/. The EFIS is coupled with the SL30 for VOR and localizer so this is at the upper-end for a VFR panel, but still very simple, light and clean.

I find the technology available in the black boxes is pretty useful. Automatic flight logging, wind vectors, fuel flow, free nav data base, engine monitoring with out-of-parameter alarms, flight time, auto transponder switching. No real issues in 600 hours so far. Fuel flow is more than nice to have especially with the O-540 since fuel flow can vary significantly between power settings.

Great thread!

I am considering buying a pacer. It may only have a hand held for com, and may lack a transponder.

I would like to keep it practical so I am looking at-

1. Sl-30. Single nav com with glideslope. This single box is sweet because you can monitor the standby.
2. Good audio panel.
3. 500 series hand held linked to my GDL-39.
4. Will consider an ADSb transponder.
5. Engine monitor with fuel flow.
6. Dynon EFIS for backup.

Lots of utility but still lacks an IFR GPS. What I struggle with is guys buying the mac-daddy panel mount GPS. Do you really gain much over an IFR legal box (ie Garmin 300) combined with a hand held??????

As for myself, I'm not interested in flying any kind of IFR except in the back of a Boeing.

Hard SE IFR is admittedly pretty risky and perhaps not the smartest thing to do. But being able to safely depart through a low lying scud layer, or land after an undercast closes in on the destination, or continue through moderate clouds, rain, etc. can make the difference between starting and completing a pretty risk-free trip. With proper planning and consideration of the risks involved, SE IFR is no more risky than VFR flight. I can think of many trips I've taken, where being able to go into moderate IMC made the difference between going and not going, without increasing the risk significantly at all.

Cary

Cary wrote:

As for myself, I'm not interested in flying any kind of IFR except in the back of a Boeing.

Hard SE IFR is admittedly pretty risky and perhaps not the smartest thing to do. But being able to safely depart through a low lying scud layer, or land after an undercast closes in on the destination, or continue through moderate clouds, rain, etc. can make the difference between starting and completing a pretty risk-free trip. With proper planning and consideration of the risks involved, SE IFR is no more risky than VFR flight. I can think of many trips I've taken, where being able to go into moderate IMC made the difference between going and not going, without increasing the risk significantly at all.

Cary

Exactly Cary.

When I ask the more experienced folks I know, they tell me that most times they can climb or descend to Vmc.

At times, when flight watch says Vfr not recommended, conditions are fine. And at other times flight watch has no concern, yet actual conditions are a concern.

Proceed at your own risk I guess...

Proceed at your own risk I guess...

Years ago when I was stationed at Elmendorf AFB, Wife 1's folks drove the Alaska Highway in their motorhome for a visit. The Anchorage to Fairbanks highway had been built but wasn't yet open. We drove our respective rigs to where the highway started, us in the lead, and there was a huge sign which said that the road was not yet open, so "proceed at your own risk". I asked my father-in-law what he wanted to do. He said, "all of life is proceeded at your own risk. I say we drive around it." So we did. Had a great time, too.

Later when the road was officially open, we drove it several times--and there was no difference in condition or facilities, except the sign was gone.

Cary