I've been looking at what I'd need for a basic IFR panel in the experimental I plan to build. I'm not instrument rated but hope to be some day and I want my plane to be capable of some light IFR. I don't want a IFR GPS so I've been doing some reading online about how to equip for various approaches. Seems that if I equip the plane for ILS approaches I should be ok. I'm going all steam gauges so the standard 6-pack with a CDI w/GS driven by SL30 should be all I have to have, I think? Adding a second CDI w/GS driven by a handheld GPS will provide more awareness and would be a good idea...so I've read. A second comm would be a good idea also but not absolutely necessary because the SL30 will allow you to monitor the stand by.

Any thoughts or recommendations? I know someone will say "get a IFR GPS"...that isn't going to happen.

EDIT: Crow tastes great and for EAB aircraft glass just makes too much sense...even if I don't like it.

Heck, I'll be the first to say it. Get an approach certified gps. GPS approaches are everywhere. Ok, you don't want to do that, then at least add a DME cause there are enough VOR/DME approaches that you are limiting yourself if you don't.

And I don't have either in my 185, just VOR and VOR w/glide slope. But if I ever decide to finish my IFR rating I'll add an approach certified GPS, which qualifies as a DME for a VOR/DME approach.

Thanks for getting that out of the way Barnstormer

I was just doing some reading prompted by the "recent marker beacon" thread and I agree, a DME would probably be wise addition. IDA and just about every available type of approach but I don't know how to read the plates so I don't know if the ILS/localizer approach has marker beacons.

I have a while before I'll start building my panel; I just want to make sure I have room for the stuff I'll need even if I don't install it at first.

Like it or not RNAV approaches are the future. More and more are popping up everywhere and they'll eventually do away with vortacs altogether. GPS approaches are nice, especially with LPV. If you are serious about flying IFR in the future then I'd beg borrow or steal a WAAS gps.

The Locator Otter Marker was a critical part of the Instrument Landing System with or without a glideslope indicator (localizer only.) They are probably the least expensive part of the system and they are going away. It has become more and more difficult to train pilots for the instrument rating in their own aircraft. Rather than fly long cross countries to find LOMs, they find themselves just renting for some of the training and the flight test.

Also many small town airports had an ADF approach because they were cheap. They also are going away. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid, is a principal of war but has nothing to do with government.

These are administrative decisions. They do what pleases them. They consider it poor judgement not to buy the expensive stuff.

Get at least a Garmin 300xl…fairly inexpensive. There are so many fields that don't have anything but a GPS approach, and that will only become more so.

Hate to say it Whee, but a lot of the small airports in our part of the world are going to be ditching ILS in the next few years as the cost to maintain them continues to mount. Heck, get out a sectional right now and see how many of the airports you intend to use have an ILS, not really that many. Why maintain an ILS when LPV will get you down to Cat 1 mins? Vortacs will be a thing of the past soon and eventually the only airports that will have ILS will be for Cat 3, lots of fun to do but most likely beyond the capability of most Bearhawks

If you really want to get usability from our slowly modernizing IFR system you're going to have to embrace GPS. You might as well, it's way better than the older systems, safer, and easier to use. IFR flying can get complicated in a hurry, it's good to have options.


Sam

Unless you have at least one hundred hours per year use for it, you can rent an IFR airplane cheaper than you can maintain one. All our pipeline 172s had to be IFR certified and pilots had to be rated, but not current. In ten years of 3500 miles per week, I used it zero hours.

Also (if not mentioned yet), think about easy resale value.

Purchase cost is certainly a factor but I'm determined to not get involved with stuff that require a subscription. $300 a year to keep a 430 current for using it a couple times a year is rediculous hense no GPS. Getting a static system certified every 2 years can't cost all that much. I not sure that flying a Bearhawk in IMC is a good idea at all so I'm not going to spend 10k getting it gps equipped.

Back to non GPS nav equipment.

58Skylane wrote:Also (if not mentioned yet), think about easy resale value.

Maybe short sighted but I don't care about resale; this is my forever plane.

whee wrote:

58Skylane wrote:Also (if not mentioned yet), think about easy resale value.

Maybe short sighted but I don't care about resale; this is my forever plane.

Gotcha..... Carry on

So think on this whee. If you install a WAAS GPS you'll use it always, if nothing else then a backup for you iPad on long cross country's even VFR. I do that with my old Apollo GPS that is only IFR approved for Enroute and Terminal. For the life of me I can't figure out why I need GPS at the terminal , but oh well. Oh, the autopilot is coupled to the Apollo (as well as all the other NAV devices) which is the real reason I use it.

Anyway, the two VOR steam gauges and the marker lights look cool, and occasionally a needle swings, no doubt because of some radial I flew when I was taking IFR lessons, but otherwise are a total waste of space and electricity. At least for now. I'd imagine you'll experience the same thing. I do love the look of steam gauges.

Oh, and following VOR routes there is no such thing as Direct. Kinda like when my first Raptor didn't have GPS because of the tsunami that hit Japan, it came with some lame system that was powered by Mickeysoft. The first time I used it to go from Austin to Durango (northwest), Mickeysoft want me to go to San Antonio first (an hour and a half south). Hey, maybe they are related.

Try drawing a true course on a sectional. If you stay low enough to see the earth, you can use rudders to steer so that your butt follows that line. Besides checkpoints, notice the angle you cross each tree line, straight section road, fence line etc. In most of the U.S., these are oriented the same as the longitude and latitude lines on the map. By making your butt cross these at the same crab angle, you will automatically correct for current crosswind. In five miles you will have angle across the N-S features and the angle across the E-W features memorized. There is no need for E-6B or compass. Stop every two hours or so to walk a little, pee, and get fuel.

This will provide more situational awareness and interesting things to see outside the cockpit. It will also keep your head out at least half the time.

Basic instrument ability increases safety. Flying XC IFR increases safety at great expense and with little interesting to see. I flew 400 hours IMC but 300 was on the Army's dime and the other 100 was in the student's plane or a rental.

I put a basic IFR panel in the Canuck.
Mechanical instruments, comm and transponder (w/encoder) and a old KLN89B approach certified GPS.
Realize with GPS only that you won't be able to fly anything lower than 2000 and 3. Regs say you need another source of navigation when alternate required.
Enroute IFR only requires that you check waypoints if database out of date.
KLN89B, annunciator, and CDI, under a $1000.
Dave

I've got a bare bones IFR panel with a Narco NCS-812 & CDI. The 812 has com/nav/GS/DME. The DME displays on an LCD screen on the CDI. I paid around $2000 for the package used a couple of years ago. Narco support, if required, can be problematic. Hopefully, by the time you get around to buying avionics there will be some low cost experimental IFR GPS options.

Contact, I hear what you are saying. I haven't done any real long cross countries but I don't need to rely on a GPS or a compass. Looking out side and reading a map is why a fly, why ruin that but staring a a screen...I can do that at home.

Well you guys are right, I've been looking at some of the places I want to go and non have ILS. Guess IDA is an outlier because it has RNAV, ILS/LOC, LOC BC, VOR and NDB approaches. Might have to bag the idea and continue VFR only.

d.grimm wrote:Realize with GPS only that you won't be able to fly anything lower than 2000 and 3.

Really, 2000' AGL and 3sm vis? Crap that's PVFR...instead going home to IDA just land at Rigby 10 miles away. No sense in spending gas money on something so unuseful.

I bet you know this already, to fly single pilot IFR in the Bearhawk means a full autopilot.