I thought about those or at least an AV-30 but for the money, the GRT does so much more. I’m also trying to be a little budget conscious. They are pretty sweet panel candy though.

bfmetcalf wrote:A couple of Garmin GI275's will let you keep the round steam gauge look and still give you the glass info/capabilities.

... all at only 3X the price of the GRT Sport 7 that you're discussing... With the GI-series, Garmin created a great retrofit product for GA types that can't use experimental avionics, but the price point is ridiculous compared to the experimental alternatives.

I assume you're experimental, and if so, you could also look at the Garmin G5. If your need for WAAS GPS is for instrument approaches, you're going to need an IFR navigator anyway, so why not go Garmin for both.

For my VFR-only aircraft, I absolutely love the idea of the GRT Mini or Sport 7". I've been trying to decide between them for the last 18 months or so... Was going to take another look at them at one of the airshows, then Covid happened, so everything's been on hold.

I assume you're experimental, and if so, you could also look at the Garmin G5. If your need for WAAS GPS is for instrument approaches, you're going to need an IFR navigator anyway, so why not go Garmin for both.

When the G5 first came out I got a look at it at an avionics shop. It’s a great unit for what it is. It’s been in my head all this time but after doing a bunch of research GRT does so much more. I had to reconsider. It has built in uncertified WAAS if the certified nav goes down and you can actually talk to a real live human being in support there. I’m practically in it just to keep the smaller guys alive. Their UI is less splashy than some but that’s because they put the resources where they should. After owning a succession of iPhones that look real fancy but just get slower, harder to operate and buggier every update because they obsess over form at the expense of function, a simple, logical UI is absolute gold to me. Also… no subscriptions. Having said that, I will probably to go with Garmin for the nav but at least the GRT (did I mention it has a built in autopilot?) can be the control head.

Funny this came up. Like most of the old farts predicted, I no longer have much interest in flying IFR. I don’t fly enough nor do I have enough faith in my equipment.

My GRT Sport is awesome and the EX version is even better. There is no comparison between them and any of the smaller gauges, G5, AV30, etc.

I do miss the look and simplicity of steam gauges but they just don’t make sense these days. Only reason to go with them is for aesthetics.

I wouldn’t use any steam gauges for backup. The electric gyros aren’t reliable enough and a vacuum system would be silly to install. Add a second EFIS whether it be a G5 or an GRT Mini or whatever.

I may use my airplane to get my instrument rating and if I do I’ll just install and MGL V16. I’ve been very happy with my N16 and when paired to a V16 they work exactly like an Apollo SL30 would. That would get me enough for a rating which is all I’d be looking for.

I could install auto pilot servos and let my EFIS fly a coupled ILS approach. That may be worth doing just because I can. Haha.

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

Why would it mean an autopilot. I don't get pilots that think one can't or shouldn't fly IFR without an A/P. Every single seat fighter is flown IFR without one everyday at 300-450kts on a single radio and single nav source. Believe me, that is much more challenging than plodding along in a Bearhawk at 125kts.

jugheadF15 wrote:

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

Why would it mean an autopilot. I don't get pilots that think one can't or shouldn't fly IFR without an A/P. Every single seat fighter is flown IFR without one everyday at 300-450kts on a single radio and single nav source. Believe me, that is much more challenging than plodding along in a Bearhawk at 125kts.

Jughead is right. The art of hand flying IFR is being lost through automation. I will admit I have a GFC 500 AP in my 180 and enjoy watching it fly approaches but this does not the negate the need to practice and hand fly the airplane. I have been alternating between AP/hand flown approaches lately. There is something to be said about knowing the proper sequence of pushing the buttons correctly but when all else fails fly the airplane. Single pilot IFR is challenging and requires a lot of practice and proficiency much like anything else. I think many are relying too much on the AP now.


Josh

jugheadF15 wrote:

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

Why would it mean an autopilot. I don't get pilots that think one can't or shouldn't fly IFR without an A/P. Every single seat fighter is flown IFR without one everyday at 300-450kts on a single radio and single nav source. Believe me, that is much more challenging than plodding along in a Bearhawk at 125kts.

Think of all the pilots that don’t make the cut to fly fighters, all the pilots that can’t keep their TWs straight, all the pilots that can barely land a 172. I think you get why comparing a fighter pilot to a instrument rated PPL flying a BH doesn’t apply. The focus required to fly a BH in IMC would burn out the average Joe in a matter of minutes. Could some guys do it? Absolutely, but most guys, including myself, could not. We aren’t taking about a Cessna, which basically flies itself.

I gave up flying IFR because it wore me out in actual conditions. I don't have an autopilot in my Maule and even an uneventful IFR flight was exhausting. When you add last minute changes to the approach and other likely changes in routing due to ice or other problems that pop up in the PNW, it just wasn't something I could stay proficient enough with to be safe. Yeah, I could add the autopilot, but I've worked hard to keep the plane as light as possible. Adding more weight for the rare times I'd be interested in flying IFR just didn't pass the Ho-Ho test. I fly for fun, and the workload associated with hand flying IFR isn't fun for me. I regularly spend a couple hours with an instructor doing simulated IFR just in case an emergency arose, but I'm not bothering with an instrument proficiency check. I fly when it's nice out and if the weather sours on me, my schedule if flexible enough that landing somewhere unplanned and waiting for things to improve isn't a problem.

I flew numerous single-pilot actual IFR missions in an OH-58 Kiowa, with only a single NDB for navigation (no VOR, and well before GPS existed) – all without an autopilot. It was mostly for getting out from under the marine layer along California's coastal fog region, but it was do-able for a highly proficient and IFR-current pilot. (I spent 5-6 hours every month in the simulator, flying with the other pilots I instructed.) Still, it wasn't much fun, and to this day I absolutely HATE ADF...

But with that said, given the price and effectiveness of available experimental autopilot systems today, if I were planning to fly IFR in pretty much ANY experimental aircraft I owned, I would install an autopilot – no question. I had a "wing leveler" in a Grumman Traveler in the past, and although most people laughed at it, I found it invaluable on VFR cross-country flights, and it was extremely helpful during instrument cross-country legs. It kept me a lot "fresher" for the approach portion, where it was of marginal utility.

Adding autopilot servos to the current Garmin suite of glass such as the G3X adds only about 2lbs to the install (maybe per side). It's getting hard to argue against having the ability to go IFR, even if you are a mostly vfr pilot who would mostly benefit from the occasional escape situation (marine layers and/or summer/morning fog). I realize it was difficult going single pilot IFR in the days pre-gps or even NDB, but I just don't know how relevant that is today. Yes it's dangerous depending on the automation built into these magic boxes - but they are pretty dang reliable these days - and I always travel with no less that 2-3 fully capable backups in the form of iDevices with foreflight and ADAHRS.

Hell, I wouldn't mind having an autopilot in a VFR only airplane on long cross countries.....

MTV

With all of the improvements with avionics and autopilots, Single Pilot IFR is not as daunting as it once was. I fly SPIFR for work in the Rotary Wing world and just finished my CFII in a Cirrus last week. For general SA I am also RW CFI/II. Automation doesn't eliminate the need for going and maintaining currency, but does reduce that work load when in the IFR environment. I also agree with MTV, on a long cross country VFR, it may be nice to hand it over to Otto and George and grab a quick drink of coffee and take in the sites....

Greg

Exactly, MTV

Hell, there's so much traffic here, I'd like autopilot just so's I can concentrate on watching for all these low time jerries fartin' around here at 140kts. The servos added on to a system you are already doing is only about $1000 extra - so might as well if you are going glass anyway.

Another point raised earlier was about the G5 versus the newer 275. I'll point out that the G5 now is showing it's age. It's slower and a lot less functional than the admittedly more expensive 275. The 275 has more screen space - and much faster - and can fully function as a backup MFD and control things like the xponder, radios, gps etc. So if cost is the primary concern, not sure why we are talking about glass. But if you want glass - I find it hard to not be looking at an all-in garmin panel. The 275 has pages and can pretty much be a backup mfd or pfd to an entire G3x - so I don't think it's fair to compare it to the g5 - a 275 is a lot cheaper than a 7" G3 if you only need it to satisfy the IFR backup. A 275 is $800 to $1200 more expensive than a G5 when similarly configured - yet can be configured to do a LOT more.

Sarasota sells a package deal for certified planes, with DUAL 10" G3X, gps, EIS, transponder, dual comms, and a g5 backup for about $28k + installation. I've been penciling in a system w/ a single G3x and a 275 with all the sundry bits retailing somewhere around 22k or so just in parts. Now I know you might have to double that in labor - and you have to do it through a garmin dealer - but full glass panels are increasing in capability AND decreasing in cost as far as I can tell - at a pretty rapid clip.

And then' there's the resale value of this stuff. I'm flabbergasted that people are still getting 5k for takeoff 430Ws that are 15 years old. A lot of you experimental guys are buying used gear and propping up prices on the certified stuff.

For certified guys like me - sitting on 50-60 year old equipment that is reeeeaaaallllly long in the tooth... who just wants to start over.

https://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/g3x-touch-certified-package-d10

When I was younger and working on my IFR ticket I had a lot of fun doing it and thought it was cool. The few times I actually have gone IFR in our area sucked ass. The last time was this summer for about 30 minutes trying to get over the top to Illiamna (those elusive holes in the clouds kept closing up on me). The shittiest 30 minutes I can remember in the air in a long time. As others have said, unless you stay current IFR sucks being hand flown once every few years. Can it be done, yes, but why? Its good to be able to get yourself out of a shitty situation you should not have been in to begin with, but to do it on purpose is a great way to get grey hair and decide that you need to start smoking again after 10+ yrs of not smoking.

I hope its the last time I try to be stupid in the air...

JP256 wrote:.......I had a "wing leveler" in a Grumman Traveler in the past, and although most people laughed at it, I found it invaluable on VFR cross-country flights.....

I'm a VFR only pilot, and I would like to have a single-axis aka "wing leveller" autopilot.
It could be driven by my pre-STC G5, or simply by dialing in the heading.
Unfortunately simple single-axis autopilots seem to be few & far between now,
and I'm not interested in spending $10K or more for something like Garmin's "affordable" GFC500.

hotrod180 wrote:

JP256 wrote:.......I had a "wing leveler" in a Grumman Traveler in the past, and although most people laughed at it, I found it invaluable on VFR cross-country flights.....

I'm a VFR only pilot, and I would like to have a single-axis aka "wing leveller" autopilot.
It could be driven by my pre-STC G5, or simply by dialing in the heading.
Unfortunately simple single-axis autopilots seem to be few & far between now,
and I'm not interested in spending $10K or more for something like Garmin's "affordable" GFC500.

The Trio or Tru trak are quite affordable and can be driven off of a handheld GPS. They can also just be used as a wing leveler with the heading bug right on the control head. Easy install with them as well. May be worth looking in to.

A guy I know has a Bushmaster with a single-axis TruTrak autopilot.
One servo, which mounts on the control column & has a sprocket which engages the aileron cable chains.
And a controller head that looks like an artificial horizon into which you can dial your heading.
Very simple.
The TruTrak & Trio AP's both seem to be more affordable than the Garmin.
Their AP's for certified airplanes are both two-axis models,
and appear to use traditional servos which mount further out on the aileron & elevator control systems.
Not as attractive an option IMHO.

hotrod180 wrote:A guy I know has a Bushmaster with a single-axis TruTrak autopilot.
One servo, which mounts on the control column & has a sprocket which engages the aileron cable chains.
And a controller head that looks like an artificial horizon into which you can dial your heading.
Very simple.
The TruTrak & Trip AP's both seem to be more affordable than the Garmin.
Their AP's for certified airplanes are both two-axis models,
and appear to use traditional servos which mount further out on the aileron & elevator control systems.
Not as attractive an option IMHO.

Trio uses a push pull rod in the wing and tail. Very simple and easy to install.

I have had the stc group trio autopilot for over 2 years and it works great. It was time consuming to dial it in but after that it worked fine

I went full glass almost 2 years ago and have zero regrets. Of course it wasn't cheap but I hope to fly the Skywagon the rest of my life. God willing! I have no analog instruments in the airplane now. I shed 50 lbs of weight going with this panel because the new stuff is super lightweight. I have a GFC 500 AP - not seen on the photo on the lower panel. It drastically reduces the workload flying - including in VFR conditions. There might be something said to becoming too reliant on the AP for flying. I still love hand flying approaches but it is wonderful having an AP with altitude preselect and GP/Vnav. The GFC flies GPS/ILS/LOC and VOR approaches flawlessly. It still requires one to stay proficient both hand flown and with the buttonology. I am lucky to live in the Pacific Northwest. I get plenty of opportunities to get IMC but also understand the limitations due to icing. I enjoy giving IFR instruction - it helps with my own proficiency. The recent C340 accident in San Diego shows the importance of staying on your game with the IFR proficiency/training. There is a great thread on BT right now discussing it. Many things to be learned from this accident.





Josh