whee wrote:I know I know...y'all told me so... We'll see what happens when the time comes.

That is a great plan. The advice offered you in this thread is excellent and really nothing to disagree with. Note the patterns of similar answers from those with much [actual] IFR experience.

I have a few cents to offer from my experience that is worth what you paid for it....

I also ended up with a Garmin GPS. I am really impressed with the 300XL as mentioned by others. Solid non-precision (c129a) approach certified. End of life, but still fully supported and serviceable for the foreseeable. Found used examples for close to $3k (again the ifr version: c129a). Fell into a deal of a brand new 400W for $4K, sealed and warrantied. Look around and those deals are out there.

As you and others mentioned 400W has no Nav/COM. My plan was as much separation of function as possible, so I went with the Val Electronics INS429
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/a ... INS429.php

Just under $1600 once in the basket at Spruce. Has VOR/LOC/GS (ILS) and marker receivers. Fits in a single 3 some inch instrument hole. Will take the CDI serial data from a GPS and display GPS CDI on it face for additional redundancy.

All that combined with GRT Avionics HXr (similar display to Dynon--aka glas screen) Flight management system gives two sources of nav (ground based and GPS), two CDI's to display them on (glass + INS 429 face).

I have remote com radio controlled by the glass (Dynon offers the same) and a hand held com radio.

The 430W is a real winner, and has all that stuff built in, but still requires a CDI (glass or otherwise). For me the more complex route cost the same as a 430W, but offers additional redundancy.

I also plan a piece of yarn on the windshield for slip/skid (pusher) excellent compass, and hall hang glider windspeed on the strut--cause everything breaks, even glass panels. For backup attitude I plan the pocket horizon on my iPhone

If IFR is in your future and you do go glass, consider GRT avionics compared to Dynon (direct competitor). In my opinion Dynon has always been ahead on features and GRT ahead on solid state "gyro" (airdata etc) architecture. If you are interested read about the differences in design and what they mean for flight in actual IFR conditions. GRT "gyros" are designed more Like the certified "gyros" in Garmin/Honeywell etc. (magnetometer stabilized with pitot and GPS backup in case the planet's magnetic field shifts). Dynon gyro architecture requires GPS for stabilization. While I agree a GPS satellite outage is very unlikely, I am unwilling to fly in the soup with a attitude indicator that goes belly up if my GPS receiver poops out. As a backup, no problem, but not for primary.

Point is non-certified glass panels are buyer beware; there is no requirement for reliability or fault tolerant design in gyro/air data. So few glass paneled experimental planes fly in actual IFR the market is poorly prepared to enforce IFR gyro stability via market share. Learn how they work and be comfortable with it. The big value in certified glass panels is that stuff is all sorted for you...at 3 to 4 times the cost.

I keep reading through this thread thinking I will add something...but now I find pretty much everything has been covered by MTV.

I just did instrument training last spring. It went well and I fly the steam gauges really well. But if I ever wanted a useful IFR machine I would be equipping for GPS eithout hesitation. After learning to operate the 430W I was amazed at what all it provides. I am sure there are other options like it as well. The FAA will keep asking questions about VOR approaches on the written, but I think in 10 years the practical application of that procedure will have been lost. Right up there with the NDB approaches.

It really is simple...the GPS procedures are more cohesive, lower workload, and more accurate than everything except an ILS. And the precision GPS approaches are just about as good as an ILS.

I have not equipped my plane. I probably won't. Too much money. So I know what you are saying. But if I did there's no way I'd sink a bunch of time and energy into a steam gauge system.

Battson wrote:Single pilot IFR without autopilot would be something else.
At aft CG you can't let her go for more than a few seconds, even changing maps usually means a minor pitch change, before you correct it. The controls are so light and well balanced, it's great fun in VMC.
In "simulated" turbulent IMC you cannot take your hand off the stick and eyes off the screen (Dynon ) for even a couple of seconds. Not impossible of course, just high workload and not much fun, compared to if the plane had AP to hold itself steady.

The Bearhawk's limited pitch stability is due to the servo action of the pitch trim tab. Mine has the original large trim tabs and had the original thinner trim tab links. When I flew it home from purchase, it was unstable in pitch. If I took my hands off the stick, it would immediately pitch up or down at a moderate rate. Because the airplane as a whole was stable and the problem was only with the elevator itself, if I kept my hand on the stick it took no effort. However, as soon as I took my hand off, it was headed either up or down. ...made for a very long 10 hrs of flying from FL to NH, dodging rain and thunderstorms the whole way. I have since disabled one of the trim tabs and adjusted the linkage to minimize the servo action and its effects. The plane isn't a "rock solid platform" like a C182, but it is stable and can be flown hands off.

At least one person has completely changed the pitch trim linkage so that there is no servo behavior of the trim tabs. If I were building a Bearhawk, I would do this and I would suggest that Whee seriously consider it. The light controls of the Bearhawk are nice, but more stability wouldn't detract from it one bit. Its not a nimble airplane so the light controls do very little for it. The ability to relax more while flying would be more valuable.

I plan to upgrade my panel for IFR and though I would like an autopilot, I probably won't install one due to the size of the total project. The plane just isn't that hard to fly. Yes, I do know what hard IMC is. An autopilot sure would be nice, but I'll do it later if/when I get around to it. It isn't a requirement.

whee wrote:I was just looking over the Dynon stuff again and crap, it just makes sense even if I don't like it.

SkyView even offers a 6 pack mode.

M3X wrote:If IFR is in your future and you do go glass, consider GRT avionics compared to Dynon (direct competitor). In my opinion Dynon has always been ahead on features and GRT ahead on solid state "gyro" (airdata etc) architecture. If you are interested read about the differences in design and what they mean for flight in actual IFR conditions. GRT "gyros" are designed more Like the certified "gyros" in Garmin/Honeywell etc. (magnetometer stabilized with pitot and GPS backup in case the planet's magnetic field shifts). Dynon gyro architecture requires GPS for stabilization. While I agree a GPS satellite outage is very unlikely, I am unwilling to fly in the soup with a attitude indicator that goes belly up if my GPS receiver poops out. As a backup, no problem, but not for primary.

I won't say that GRT is a bad choice, lots of people love it. The reason I don't like GRT (if I recall correctly from when I was choosing) was their extensive use of USB. I've used USB in settings other than desktop, and I won't use it where my life depends on it. I've seen it choke in noisy environments far too many times. USB isn't a proper differential signal. It is a balance signal pair for data transmission, but it also uses common mode signaling for start/stop of packets and other things. This means that it has little tolerance for common mode noise which is the main point of a differential signal (it also reduces emissions which USB should achieve). Dynon uses RS485 which is a seriously robust differential signalling mechanism. Not as good as something transformer isolated like Ethernet, but a world better than USB.

Also, Dynon does not depend on GPS for attitude. It does need a speed input and by default uses airspeed. Should airspeed fail (iced pitot?) it will revert to GPS. So, the Dynon has a back up for its weak link.

whee wrote:Dammit MTV, why couldn't you just say "cave man." You and Z are always making me look words up, but I'm not such a Troglodyte that I use a paper dictionary.

Hey, no offense intended......us Troglodytes are recruiting in any case.....



MTV

Battson wrote:Yeah - it happens

Thanks for that Battson. The pic actually helps me think this through more.

M3X wrote:All that combined with GRT Avionics HXr (similar display to Dynon--aka glas screen) Flight management system gives two sources of nav (ground based and GPS), two CDI's to display them on (glass + INS 429 face).

I've been thinking about some redundancy. I think D180 and a D100 could be nice; two HSI and I could couple them to NAV and GPS. Man you guys are good at spending my money.

If IFR is in your future and you do go glass, consider GRT avionics compared to Dynon (direct competitor).

I will for sure give GRT a look.

Troy Hamon wrote:I have not equipped my plane. I probably won't. Too much money. So I know what you are saying. But if I did there's no way I'd sink a bunch of time and energy into a steam gauge system.

I'm realizing this unfortunate fact, I really do prefer the appearance of steam gauges but when it comes to function/cost for experimental aircraft there is no beating glass.

kestrel wrote:The Bearhawk's limited pitch stability is due to the servo action of the pitch trim tab.

I completely agree. The BH I have about 40hrs in has the original tabs and it was wild at first. They were set to the most sensitive position and one of them fluttered in flight. I disabled the one that fluttered and set the other to the least sensitive position and it was much better. I have been thinking about changing the trim system and still may. I'd really like to change it to a trimable horizontal stabilizer but I'm not sure I want to take on that big of a change. Once I pickup the fuselage and empennage arrive from Avipro I'll look things over and decide what to do.

kestrel wrote:The reason I don't like GRT (if I recall correctly from when I was choosing) was their extensive use of USB.

Good point...

I have experience with fighting the USB battle in aircraft environments for flight systems. It is a really important consideration when you have a long interconnect. The specification is 3-5 meters, but in an aircraft, and barring other precautionary measures, it works best to limit oneself to about 1.5 meters between USB hubs.

The bonding and grounding can also be critical when pushing cable lengths beyond that, which brings up maintainability issues...these problems may crop up mysteriously and confusingly if the shielded grounds are not terminated properly down the road.

With reasonably short runs with properly terminated and shielded cables, noise problems don't surface. The convenience and cost of the chip sets that offer USB rather than 485 or 422 or ARINC is pretty overwhelming and allows the platform to keep up with better SWAP (size, weight, power) at a lower cost and development time.

Where longer runs are needed, a switch to USB3.0 or the use of relatively inexpensive differential serial/USB or optical transceivers is used in some aviation applications.

The biggest issue to me is how much protection the GRT units have to provide for their USB ports. In my experience, providing these without isolation invited a user to plug a consumer grade electronics device (basically a big broadband RF antenna/emitter) up to a flight system...with startling results in some aircraft (helis, mostly...noisiest RF environments).

In short, it is good to be cautious. USB 2.0 works fine in aviation if the application is thought out. I have to think GRT has done some work in this area.

I don't have a lot to add since I don't have a whole lot of instrument experience, just the rating basically. But I do know if I ever get an instrument capable plane, which I plan to do some day, it will have an IFR approved GPS such as the 430W. The 172s I trained in had them and they are great.

kestrel wrote:The reason I don't like GRT (if I recall correctly from when I was choosing) was their extensive use of USB.

My GRT system (HXr) uses ARINC 429 natively for IFR GPS data from the 400W, and RS232 (both serial protocols) for gyros and the rest. I agree USB has issues for critical safety of flight data, but as others pointed out, can be mitigated via good design. On my system I only use USB for recording engine data for later analysis. I understand GRT will do FLIR cameras and ADS-B via USB as well. but haven't messed with it. I am a big fan of serial protocols for reliable data transfer.

kestrel wrote:Also, Dynon does not depend on GPS for attitude. It does need a speed input and by default uses airspeed. Should airspeed fail (iced pitot?) it will revert to GPS. So, the Dynon has a back up for its weak link.

I see that on the website. The design has changed in the years since I last looked. I stand corrected on that point.

lesuther wrote:

kestrel wrote:The reason I don't like GRT (if I recall correctly from when I was choosing) was their extensive use of USB.

Good point...

I have experience with fighting the USB battle in aircraft environments for flight systems. It is a really important consideration when you have a long interconnect. The specification is 3-5 meters, but in an aircraft, and barring other precautionary measures, it works best to limit oneself to about 1.5 meters between USB hubs.

The bonding and grounding can also be critical when pushing cable lengths beyond that, which brings up maintainability issues...these problems may crop up mysteriously and confusingly if the shielded grounds are not terminated properly down the road.

With reasonably short runs with properly terminated and shielded cables, noise problems don't surface. The convenience and cost of the chip sets that offer USB rather than 485 or 422 or ARINC is pretty overwhelming and allows the platform to keep up with better SWAP (size, weight, power) at a lower cost and development time.

Where longer runs are needed, a switch to USB3.0 or the use of relatively inexpensive differential serial/USB or optical transceivers is used in some aviation applications.

The biggest issue to me is how much protection the GRT units have to provide for their USB ports. In my experience, providing these without isolation invited a user to plug a consumer grade electronics device (basically a big broadband RF antenna/emitter) up to a flight system...with startling results in some aircraft (helis, mostly...noisiest RF environments).

In short, it is good to be cautious. USB 2.0 works fine in aviation if the application is thought out. I have to think GRT has done some work in this area.

Very informative, thanks for contributing. I will keep this in mind going forward. This might explain why my navigation carputer on my Land Cruiser had nothing but problems with the USB touch screen interface, and worked perfectly switching to a serial interface. I thought I pinched a usb cable or something.

Okay so I don't like whee or mtv anymore.

I don't like whee because he started this thread and got me thinking, which is never a good thing. I don't like mtv because he reminded me of what I already knew; vor's, ndb's, marker beacons, etc are yesterday's news, and he got me thinking, which as I said is never a good thing. Both of these guys are going to cost me money and here's why:

1. I love the Dynon Skyview in my SQ-2.

2. I can't have a Dynon Skyview in my 185. Again I just confirmed with my IA that there is no trickery interpretation of the rules that can be used to allow it. I thought there might be since we can now panel mount iPads in certified planes. Would have to try for a field approval and what's the chance of that, zero.

3. When I refurbed the 185 and replaced the instrument panels, I kept the VOR and VOR/Glideslope and Marker Beacons, along with the Apollo GPS, and the two crap MX 170C Nav/Coms and the crap King Transponder because a)they worked, b)they made the 185 IFR equipped, c)they were coupled to the autopilot, and d)I was running out of money. But since the refurb the transponder has burnt up, and both the radios have been in for repair a couple of times each. I've held off replacing the radios because a)I've got two so at least one should always be working, b)I was thinking I needed to replace them with modern nav/coms, and c)I'd need to replace two.

But wait just a minute here. If vor's, ndb's, marker beacons, etc are yesterday's news - why not toss them - which means I just need a single Com radio with flip/flop and monitoring. I'm liking this.

Might as well toss the Apollo as well since it's neither a moving map nor approach certified, and I use my iPad with Foreflight and/or Garmin Pilot for my navigation. I could just panel mount it in the radio stack now that the junk is removed.

Or...

Why not panel mount the iPad directly in front?

For VFR I'm only required (for the 185) to have Air Speed Indicator, Altimeter, and Compass - plus some engine instruments that are over in the right panel (along with the compass) - which doesn't need anything changed.

For IFR I'd need a Slip-skid indicator, which is an option on a number of Attitude Indicators (which can be substituted for the required rate-of-turn indicator), a clock which I already have as part of my CO monitor, and a directional gyro indicator.

So essentially I can have three TSO'd instruments; Air Speed Indicator, Altimeter, and Attitude/Slip-skid Indicator - perhaps 2" instead of 3". I'm golden for VFR.

For IFR I'd need to add Directional Gyro Indicator, and add a Garmin GTN 650. Get's me Nav (VOR and VOR/Glideslope with display)/Com (2 channel flip flop and monitoring), WAAS GPS moving map (tiny) for GPS LPV approaches down to 200 feet, terrain, weather, etc.

Now I've got room for two panel mounted mini-iPads.

Left of the yoke running Foreflight/Stratus for AHRS/GPS horizon, altitude, ground track, ground speed, rate of climb. Or Garmin Pilot/GDL 39 for AHRS/GPS Synthetic Vision horizon, altitude, ground track, ground speed, rate of climb.

Right of the yoke running Foreflight/Stratus for moving map, navigation, weather, etc. Or Garmin Pilot/GDL 39 for the same.

With Foreflight/Stratus you can split screen for the moving map and AHRS, kinda small on the Mini, might be large enough on the full sized iPad. However Foreflight/Stratus doesn't have Synthetic Vision - at least not yet.

Both Foreflight/Stratus and Garmin Pilot/GDL 39 will give ADS-B in, as will the Garmin GTN 650.

And dangit, it's already started, I just bought a Garmin GTN-650.

You guys are killing me.

Haha...sorry about the Barnstomer but I guess it serves you right for helping talk me into glass and gps. Just don't get too excited and screw up the Stearman with glass

Barnstormer wrote:Okay so I don't like whee or mtv anymore.

I don't like whee because he started this thread and got me thinking, which is never a good thing. I don't like mtv because he reminded me of what I already knew; vor's, ndb's, marker beacons, etc are yesterday's news, and he got me thinking, which as I said is never a good thing. Both of these guys are going to cost me money and here's why:

1. I love the Dynon Skyview in my SQ-2.

2. I can't have a Dynon Skyview in my 185. Again I just confirmed with my IA that there is no trickery interpretation of the rules that can be used to allow it. I thought there might be since we can now panel mount iPads in certified planes. Would have to try for a field approval and what's the chance of that, zero.

3. When I refurbed the 185 and replaced the instrument panels, I kept the VOR and VOR/Glideslope and Marker Beacons, along with the Apollo GPS, and the two crap MX 170C Nav/Coms and the crap King Transponder because a)they worked, b)they made the 185 IFR equipped, c)they were coupled to the autopilot, and d)I was running out of money. But since the refurb the transponder has burnt up, and both the radios have been in for repair a couple of times each. I've held off replacing the radios because a)I've got two so at least one should always be working, b)I was thinking I needed to replace them with modern nav/coms, and c)I'd need to replace two.

But wait just a minute here. If vor's, ndb's, marker beacons, etc are yesterday's news - why not toss them - which means I just need a single Com radio with flip/flop and monitoring. I'm liking this.

Might as well toss the Apollo as well since it's neither a moving map nor approach certified, and I use my iPad with Foreflight and/or Garmin Pilot for my navigation. I could just panel mount it in the radio stack now that the junk is removed.

Or...

Why not panel mount the iPad directly in front?

For VFR I'm only required (for the 185) to have Air Speed Indicator, Altimeter, and Compass - plus some engine instruments that are over in the right panel (along with the compass) - which doesn't need anything changed.

For IFR I'd need a Slip-skid indicator, which is an option on a number of Attitude Indicators (which can be substituted for the required rate-of-turn indicator), a clock which I already have as part of my CO monitor, and a directional gyro indicator.

So essentially I can have three TSO'd instruments; Air Speed Indicator, Altimeter, and Attitude/Slip-skid Indicator - perhaps 2" instead of 3". I'm golden for VFR.

For IFR I'd need to add Directional Gyro Indicator, and add a Garmin GTN 650. Get's me Nav (VOR and VOR/Glideslope with display)/Com (2 channel flip flop and monitoring), WAAS GPS moving map (tiny) for GPS LPV approaches down to 200 feet, terrain, weather, etc.

Now I've got room for two panel mounted mini-iPads.

Left of the yoke running Foreflight/Stratus for AHRS/GPS horizon, altitude, ground track, ground speed, rate of climb. Or Garmin Pilot/GDL 39 for AHRS/GPS Synthetic Vision horizon, altitude, ground track, ground speed, rate of climb.

Right of the yoke running Foreflight/Stratus for moving map, navigation, weather, etc. Or Garmin Pilot/GDL 39 for the same.

With Foreflight/Stratus you can split screen for the moving map and AHRS, kinda small on the Mini, might be large enough on the full sized iPad. However Foreflight/Stratus doesn't have Synthetic Vision - at least not yet.

Both Foreflight/Stratus and Garmin Pilot/GDL 39 will give ADS-B in, as will the Garmin GTN 650.

And dangit, it's already started, I just bought a Garmin GTN-650.

You guys are killing me.

Aw, poor baby!

Reminds me of the builder's comment, when Wife-Of-The-Time and I were planning the house we built in Anchorage some 44 years ago, "You can have anything you want--all it takes is money."

BTW, a friend who built and flies his Lancair 320 (horrors--not capable of any kind of back country!) has it equipped with Dynon stuff. He frequently flies to Minnesota, Arizona, and the west coast, a lot of it IFR. He speaks very highly of all of his Dynon items, says they've been 100% reliable for several years now. All FWIW.

Like most certified aircraft owners, I too would like to be able to save and use the experimental offerings, but the likelihood of that ever being approved by the FAA is somewhere south of between none and not ever.

Cary

Whee, on another note, what were you thinking as far as audio panel/intercom goes? PS Engineerings Par200A is a sweet piece of equipment. Comm with standby listening ability, intercom amd audio panel all built into one. Blue tooth as well. Not sure how it all ties in with the panel you are planning, but they are sweet units. I'm sure there will be more units offering this type of utility by the time you are at that stage of the build.

A1Skinner wrote:Whee, on another note, what were you thinking as far as audio panel/intercom goes? PS Engineerings Par200A is a sweet piece of equipment. Comm with standby listening ability, intercom amd audio panel all built into one. Blue tooth as well. Not sure how it all ties in with the panel you are planning, but they are sweet units. I'm sure there will be more units offering this type of utility by the time you are at that stage of the build.

I have to agree that modern Comm units are amazing.
Functionality, integration +++
Weight, size ---
Cost, what cost???

A pair of those for IFR would be easy, you may only need to have one head-unit and network the other one in blind.

I have been using the MGL V Comm unit, functionally it sounds like it's very similar to the PS Par Comm you've described.

I've put a lot of thought into a bare bones, up to date, good for 10 years+, keep me alive IFR panel. I'm in that process right now. I settled on an Aspen 1000 Pro, run by a GTN-650 (with a GDL-88 ADS-B in/out), a GTX-327, a EI CGR-30P and my ASL digital Fuel gage. And a STEC-30 Autopilot. I agree with all the comments above... you can fly IFR with just what the FAA says you need.... BUT I don't want to, or like to, fly IFR with that. I want a good WAAS GPS and an Autopilot. Flying big iron IFR is one thing, but its MUCH easier to fly hard IFR in big airplanes. The workload in GA airplanes is VERY high. And I'm too old for that.... so an Autopilot.

Here's the final version of the panel that I've been working up with Darin (from BCP). Simple, clean... and lots of work to get it there. But it'll be cool. Oh, and NO vacuum system at all (other than pitot;))

gunny

Very, very cool Gunny. Please post pics and updates as you move through the process.

Gunny wrote:I've put a lot of thought into a bare bones, up to date, good for 10 years+, keep me alive IFR panel. I'm in that process right now. I settled on an Aspen 1000 Pro, run by a GTN-650 (with a GDL-88 ADS-B in/out), a GTX-327, a EI CGR-30P and my ASL digital Fuel gage. And a STEC-30 Autopilot. I agree with all the comments above... you can fly IFR with just what the FAA says you need.... BUT I don't want to, or like to, fly IFR with that. I want a good WAAS GPS and an Autopilot. Flying big iron IFR is one thing, but its MUCH easier to fly hard IFR in big airplanes. The workload in GA airplanes is VERY high. And I'm too old for that.... so an Autopilot.

Here's the final version of the panel that I've been working up with Darin (from BCP). Simple, clean... and lots of work to get it there. But it'll be cool. Oh, and NO vacuum system at all (other than pitot;))

gunny

kestrel wrote:The light controls of the Bearhawk are nice, but more stability wouldn't detract from it one bit.

Just to be a little more technically accurate, control force and stability are two different characteristics solved/adjusted by different means, although you are correct in that both feed into the total picture of what a plane is like to fly.

I've only flown 1 bearhawk when I was originally considering which plane to get and I can only assume it must have been rigged poorly because the balance between pitch and roll control forces was terrible. The plane was very light in pitch and heavy in roll. Based on all the reviews I've read here and elsewhere I can only conclude the one I flew was not rigged correctly, but it caused me to look elsewhere.


Regarding fancy Dynon/Garmin/GRT glass in 185's, there is hope with the Non-Commercial Use Category that has been proposed. If passed, it would allow 20+ year old factory aircraft to be certified as non commercial use, allowing the owner to do pretty much the exact same maintenance and use the same equipment the amateur built aircraft are currently allowed. The link below has more info on the proposal, and I have had word from an FAA guy who worked on this that is expecting it to pass, just a matter of when.

http://eaaforums.org/attachment.php?att ... 1396123203

Barnstormer wrote:Very, very cool Gunny. Please post pics and updates as you move through the process.

Gunny wrote:I've put a lot of thought into a bare bones, up to date, good for 10 years+, keep me alive IFR panel. I'm in that process right now. ...............

Thanks.

I'll start another thread in a little bit since you're interested. I'm doing the scrape, clean, paint and re-wire routine right now. I should have a good bit of the re-wire done by this weekend and when all the avionic bits start to come in I'll post pictures. Greg, Kevin and Matt did a better job than I could with the bare bones (and I'm doing what they did, pretty much anyway).

gunny