I don't know about skyview, or certifying it for IFR, but I know a couple people who've gotten field approvals to install the original 3-1/8" Dynon in their certificated airplanes (c185 & Swift). Doesn't Dynon now offer a thin "stick-on" version that doesn't need any approval since its considered a portable?
A friend of mine put an Aspen unit in his T-41, I believe it's approved for IFR. Don't know exactly how much old-school gear it replaces but it does a lot of stuff. (can you tell I'm a vfr-only guy?)

My gee wiz 10" glass is on its way back to the factory. Black screen. Glad we stay out of the mud.

Take a peek at the Garmin G3x system. By the time you are ready to purchase, there my be the next version but this PFD is quite awesome. Coupled with the GTN series makes IFR workload as low as it can get without an autopilot.

gbflyer wrote:My gee wiz 10" glass is on its way back to the factory. Black screen. Glad we stay out of the mud.

Bummer

Squash wrote:Take a peek at the Garmin G3x system. By the time you are ready to purchase, there my be the next version but this PFD is quite awesome. Coupled with the GTN series makes IFR workload as low as it can get without an autopilot.

That is a good idea. I'm guessing there will be some pretty good "older" glass available when I am ready.

I went for a ride with a friend in his 430 equipt C182. That 430 is a nice piece of equipment. Question, if you had two HSI heads could you run them both off the 430 at the same time; one off the gps and one off the nav receiver?

whee wrote:I went for a ride with a friend in his 430 equipt C182. That 430 is a nice piece of equipment. Question, if you had two HSI heads could you run them both off the 430 at the same time; one off the gps and one off the nav receiver?

An opinion and a bump to this older thread....

I can't think of a reason of ever needing two HSI heads. If you were enroute GPS transitioning to an ILS or LOC type approach just fly to a fix on the approach and when stable on said approach switch from GPS to NAV and fly it like a conventional approach. For VOR approaches, with an approach capable GPS and where authorized (which almost all are now) fly the approach in GPS with the VOR dialed in as a back up. Most airports have an RNAV approach that pretty much mirrors the VOR or LOC approaches as well.

I'm going through the same thought process now as whether to make my Bearhawk an IFR platform for those occasional socked in days to either get in somewhere or escape. I don't plan on it being a cross country IFR machine though it does give you some advantages even on VFR days when transversing controlled airspace.

At the time I wrote that I was thinking dual Dynon displays; D180/D100. I was wondering if a single 450 could drive the HSI in each unit at the same time. I've done another 180* turn and am thinking I'll just go with some GRT gear to get a nice engine display and some steam gauges. The GRT display will allow software upgrades that will turn it into a IFR capable display as long as I add some sort of IFR navigation equipment.

whee wrote:At the time I wrote that I was thinking dual Dynon displays; D180/D100. I was wondering if a single 450 could drive the HSI in each unit at the same time. I've done another 180* turn and am thinking I'll just go with some GRT gear to get a nice engine display and some steam gauges. The GRT display will allow software upgrades that will turn it into a IFR capable display as long as I add some sort of IFR navigation equipment.

It's cool to read through this thread and see all the input and how your wants changed with the advice and because of some of your own experience. I'm currently searching for my first plane and really thought I knew what I wanted in terms of avionics. Then I decided to complete my IFR training before buying the plane, and that has completely changed what I'm looking at haha.

It's hard to tell what you really want/need until you get something that you don't want, or you don't have something that you need.

I've been rereading this thread in attempt to stay on track...it isn't working. I'm installing a GRT Sport SX and all it would take (I think) is an SL30 Nav/Com and I'd have basic IFR capability. Help convince me I should spend $1200 on a new Garmin Com and not $1800 on a used Garmin Nav/com.

whee wrote:I've been rereading this thread in attempt to stay on track...it isn't working. I'm installing a GRT Sport SX and all it would take (I think) is an SL30 Nav/Com and I'd have basic IFR capability. Help convince me I should spend $1200 on a new Garmin Com and not $1800 on a used Garmin Nav/com.

If basic IFR means being able to maintain straight and level on the gauges, that's money well spent. Spending money to be able to file and navigate IFR, where you live, is not money well spent, IMO.

You have to fly a LOT of IFR to be competent, and flying around with foggles is a tremendously boring way to spend $100 an hour. Where you live it's going to be uncommon to have IFR conditions that don't involve ice or more turbulence than you want to fly in. The idea that you can get your IFR ticket and then utilize a basic IFR panel to get into a airport a couple times a year isn't valid unless you're doing LOTS of IFR practice...probably more foggle time than you're currently flying total. At least that's what I found.

I made my 170 IFR and got my license in it. Filed a few times, but when it was IFR I could rarely go anywhere I wanted to go...ice, or no approach on the other side. So now I utilize the attitude instruments somewhat regularly, but all the VOR/Localizer/GlideSlope/MarkerBeacon gear is just dead weight. I don't know when I last even looked at those instruments. I needed them for my IFR ticket, which I needed for my commercial ticket, but that's pretty much the totality of their usefulness to me.

I have a friend who got his ticket about the same time I did, and he uses it. But he's flying full glass, with autopilot, and he has business in So Cal, so there's a reason for him to fly when he has to file. He's really the only person I know who uses a IFR ticket, though I know dozens who have them.

Your probably right Hammer. The trouble is I don't know what I don't know. What I do know is Idaho Falls goes LIFR frequently in the fall, winter and spring while 15sm in any direction is CAVU. I'd like to have the ability to still go flying. A local friend had a single NAV/COM in his plane and flew IMC out of IDA regularly all year long and just watched the ice. I don't have any desire to be as cavalier as he was but he did demonstrate that it is doable.

My 180 is barely IFR with a single ILS (course+glide slope), 1 com, DME, an ADF that will be removed next annual, and my audio panel has marker beacons.

I enjoy having that stuff in there (minus ADF). I've never turned on the DME sicne I made sure it worked on a prebuy flight. I have filed IFR once in it on a long XC to punch through a layer to VFR on top. I also regularly practice ILS and VOR approaches in it for fun and to try to keep some remnant of proficiency with foggles and a safety pilot but I'm not lying to myself. It's a different kind of flying than what I truly enjoy on a daily basis, but I think it helps keep my skills rounded out and keeps me legally current (not proficient necessarily).

I was lucky enough to not have to make that choice, the plane came equipped like that. In Colorado, it's also rare to get IMC without icing, and the one time I filed in the plane was in Alabama. But if I were you, I'd go the SL30 nav/com route, personally. It'll be a great plane regardless! Excited to see your progress as you complete it.

-asa

It's dooable for sure...I just found that IFR training was great fun if someone else was paying for it, but it just sucks when it's your own flying purse getting siphoned dry so you can stare at your panel. Everyone's different, but as a new IFR pilot I'd guess you'd want no less than an hour a week of IFR practice, probably more, for pretty much the rest of your flying life.

Then of course there's the cost of getting the ticket, which I personally do NOT think makes you a better pilot in proportion to the time and money expended. It's certainly not worth it just to be able to fly three or four more days a year, at least to me.

And then there's the very real danger of never actually flying enough IFR to become expert at it, but still using it now and again. Single engine, single pilot, non-autopilot IFR flying is dangerous shit. And honestly, unless someone else is paying for it and they do it day after day for months and years, most people will never become expert.

My advice to people thinking about a IFR ticket, but with no concrete plans to fly for a living, is to get enough hood time to be able to fly to IFR test standards, but forget about the ticket. That's about 1/6th the time and money, and it gives you 100% of the survivability if you go accidental IFR.

My IFR ticket was worth it as a stepping stone to the commercial ticket. Otherwise it was a poor expenditure of time and money for me.

Edit: if Idaho Falls is LIFR you can take off, but that doesn't mean you can land. VERY easy to end up in a hotel room at the end of the day, rather than at home.

What he said.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but I like the versatility of being able to go IFR in real IMC. Granted that it's not a necessity for mostly local flying, I've found that for cross countries of any distance, it's hard to get there, wherever "there" is, without needing to use my IR.

I don't have the most elaborate IFR panel, but it's more than minimal albeit still pretty basic. I have a 430W, a Narco nav/com, a King ADF, a PS Engineering audio panel with marker beacon, and a Bendix/King transponder (obviously I'm not beholden to any one manufacturer). I have a Sandia Quattro instead of a standard attitude indicator, which is electronic/digital and has a built-in standby battery, so I don't worry at all about losing the vacuum pump. ( I guess that makes my panel "semi-glass" ) I have the necessary pitot/static checks done as required every 2 years. My airplane is IFR current right now.

I stay current with IPCs every 6 months. I give my CFII leeway to stretch them beyond the minimum requirements, so that it's a good training scenario every time. I'm current now, but I will be doing my next one as soon as he gets back into town from a Lake Powell trip. I expect him to hold my feet to the fire, and he does.

Do I "need" the ability to go IFR? No, not "need". I haven't taken a trip in years that required that I be somewhere at a given time or even a given day. I can afford to lay over somewhere, and I do that, even with my IR ticket and instrument current airplane. This summer on the way both to and from OSH, I laid over overnight, going because of weather and coming home because I was tired. So I could get along without it, but in some ways, it's further proof to me that I'm still able to handle the airplane as the years have crept up.

And although I don't need to keep to much of a schedule, being able to go IFR has allowed me to go when others can't, even in my somewhat basic airplane. I've made many trips that included puncturing through a few thousand feet of clouds, only to make most of the flight in beautiful sunshine. I've made many flights that began in good VFR conditions, but which required shooting an approach at the end to get into an airport engulfed in clouds, because the forecast was wrong.

So unless I could afford to have a second totally "toy" airplane that could only be used in clear-severe weather, which I can't, any airplane that I would own would have at least the same capabilities as my airplane has.

Cary

Just joining in as I just did a SL30 installation in my non VOR/ILS 185 along with a head. I wanted ils capability in the rare case i needed to shoot an approach into the nearby airport if the wx at my grass strip was down. I thought about the 430 issue but was advised against it by my avionics shop. He basically said they are too expensive as most all the commuter prop planes have them keeping the used cost high. I would much rather put the money toward a TRIO autopilot which has just been certified for the 185.
Tom

Thanks guys. I've decided it doesn't make sense to spend much more than the cost of a new GTR200 com radio ($1200) for a "maybe someday." If I come across an SL30 for a steal I'll get it, otherwise I'll stick with just a com.

I think that's a good choice, Whee. In addition to everything else that's been mentioned, it's not like these instruments last forever...no point in installing something that is going to endure the abuse of the cockpit if you're not going to use it right away.

And five years from now what's available for similar money might be real different. Besides, if you ever decide to really do the IFR thing you'll want two radios. You can do it with one (I did) but it's somewhat of a pain.

Hahahaha. I just found this old thread as I’m pulling my hair out over the exact things that you did, Whee. I really hate the look of full glass, love, love, love the look of steam gauges but hate the weight and up keep… and I wanted IFR capability on a budget… so much for that.

In the meantime, I was looking into all the great things glass can do and now I’m having a civil war in my head. I now have bought two, count them, two wind up clocks. A WWII Waltham CDIA and a Cold War 1-13A… and I just found a great deal on a GRT Sport EX IFR touch with the AP servos. So apparently, my “plan” (current feeling as of these last six minutes) is to take out only the heavy steam vacuum stuff and replace it with lighter fluff like beautiful vintage clocks… for science. Can you really have too much redundancy? I can’t make up my mind on what to keep and what to jettison. I’m like a kid with his hand stuck in two cookie jars. Did I mention I’m a Gemini?

I really want the 7” EFIS right up front and center but at the same time I really don’t want to break up the 6-pack. I feel like that would make me the Yoko Ono of panel design.

No offence to the Dynonistas.

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