Bleeding edge technology or traditional solutions ?

[Spike]

After the Captain made fun of my "dream" panel earlier this evening because it contained gyros instead of an EFIS I got curious as to what the populus' thoughts were on this subject manor.

What Im curious to know is not so much specific to panels, but in general, where do you draw the line between tried and true technologies and experimental only, new to the market technologies? I find it interesting that many many people are going straight for the flat panels, but yet Eggenfellner power plants appear to be on a smaller percentage of the builder's pick lists. I would imagine that many draw the line as it relates to percieved risks and what they are willing to tolerate. I would also imagine that some draw the lines due to financial limitations. What about you ?

For me the whole path of building revolves around getting involved in a long term project that is related to my love of flying, the desire to build something with my hands, and to learn more about aircraft. My goals dont necessarily involve having the latest and greatest gadget outside of having a kick butt airplane with capable equipment. For me, at this point in time, gyros are the way to go because I percieve them as less risky than the newer and yet unproven (IMHO) experimental EFIS'. The thought of flying in the soup with them does not appeal to me. I'm sure that there are some that would disagree with me, and thats fine, thats why they are building their own plane

So what about it ? Where do you fall in the spectrum of using new technologies (panels, engines, etc.) on your aircraft ? Why ?

-- John

[nightflyer]

I'll definitely be going with some form of experimental (non-traditional) engine, be it rotary, Subaru, or (possibly) diesel. I've never really considered a Lycoming; just doesn't appeal to me. As far as instuments, right now I'm thinking glass with very minimal steam gauge backups. I just think I'd like to have, at the least, an airspeed indicator, altimeter, and artificial horizon, just in case. No vacuum system though.

[captain_john]

I am glad I am of use around here!

I am certainly going with an electric/EFIS setup. I am also CONSIDERING and alternative engine. I know Vans pretty much suggests against it, but my strengths are in electricity and engines more so than plumbing and sheet metal work. Those are my reasons.

CJ

[Reheat]

Spike,
I think the big advantage is weight and simplicity. No vacuum pump, filter, hoses, and heavy gyro instruments. Also important would be reliability, and enhanced situational awareness.

Keep it light! These crates'll only fly like they're supposed to if we keep the weight under control.

Cheers

[svanarts]

I've got to echo what another 'banger said, SIMPLICITY. That's why I'm not going for an auto engine conversion. And weight. I did everything I could to keep my plane as light and simple as possible. I have steam gauges in my panel now but I am trying to save up for an EFIS. The new electronic stuff is very reliable. I may keep a backup airspeed indicator even that's not too likely. If I had it to do over again (and had the money) I'd strictly go EFIS with only a critical instrument or two backed up by round gauges. Mine is strictly a VFR machine though.

[mustang]

Yes, we are seriously considering an electronic EFIS, HSI, and EICAS. The cost now makes these items more than a dream, not to mention saving all that drilling on the panel itself.

Having operated the big iron with all these "glass" items without a single failure in my entire career, I no longer have any trust issues with this type of equipment.

We will definitley have the "big three" backup round gauges for safety. I would not consider any kind of IFR operation without a standby horizon, altimeter,and airspeed indicator. Hopefully, we will be able to operate our standby instruments on the same pitot/static system as the electronics. BTW, we are not creating a certified IFR machine here, just a well equipped day/night VFR airplane with the ability to "get in" or "get out" if required.

I have been most interested in the Blue Mntn EFIS/Lite unit as it has a GPS loaded into the matrix and gives so much more information than the non-GPS units like the Dynon 10A. I will be watching and waiting because we are at least a year from installation of such equipment, and the times, they are a changing, and fast too. By the time we are ready for this stuff, there may well be something better or cheaper available.

Cheers, Pete

[mustang]

Darn,
I forgot to mention engines. We will be installing an O-360 A1A in our RV-8. I would not consider an automotive powerplant in a cross country machine such as this. We will be operating over isolated, uninhabited terrain in Canada for lengthy cross country flights into remote mountain strips. The last thing I want to worry about would be my drive belt slipping or gearbox overheating on such trips. All of the automotive installations I have witnessed on other types of homebuilts have proved to be heavier and underpowered compared to a 180 HP Lycoming. I want our RV to be a lighter shade of pale for max payload, max performance, and max safety. One of the best lines in Van's advisories, is to take 8000 dollars, and convert it into a used Lycoming. Jeez, there is enough work here already without spending an extra year dicking around with an oddball engine setup. My humble opinion!
Cheers, Pete

[Spike]

Having operated the big iron with all these "glass" items without a single failure in my entire career, I no longer have any trust issues with this type of equipment.

Heres where we diverge. I also agree that glass items, especially those in "big iron" are trustworthy. However, for me, that does not translate into these panel solutions that are being used in the experimental aircraft as being trustworthy. The solutions that go into certified aircraft have tons of certifications that they have to put their code through, etc. The ones that RV builders are purchasing dont. My background is writing ground control software that monitors and controls satellites as they orbit. Frankly, at this point, Id rather trust the immutable laws of physics (gyros) than man written software when in the soup. Dont get me wrong, I fully support the EFIS movement. However Id like to see it a bit more mature before used mainstream for IFR type of flying. By the time I get my 9A ready for the panel though they very well might have reached what I percieve to be a very mature product.


-- John

[Heli-Wrench]

Needle, ball and airspeed. Day VFR. Spent too much time North of 60 flying around in the soup to want to fly in anything but blue skies. Don't start me on Night flying.... Glass cockpits are great, but canopies are better.

Two cents worth?

[Spike]

Glass cockpits are great, but canopies are better.

Cool motto ....

[mustang]

Heli-wrench.

Yeah Baby! I know what you mean about North of 60. Spent five years up there on the C-130 moving oil rigs on and off the ice. Probably enough!

Spike,
I agree with your summary also. I figure I'll be alot more educated about all these EFIS systems by installation time. Since I wrote my first piece on this thread, I've become much more educated.

That said, the Dynon EFIS is a proven unit and the units have been in operation for some years now.

Cheers, Pete

[RV6junkie]

Right now I'm flying behind a good old O-320 with an electronic ignition, and my instrumentation consists of gyros, dials and an electronic engine monitor (EPI-800). A mix of old and new tech.

To date everything has worked very well, but when I build my next RV, it more than likely will have an alternative engine with electronic instrumentation.

I’d like to give you a concrete reason why I would go this route, but I can’t. It’s an emotional choice that isn’t based on any facts or statistics. I like experimenting. The Subaru conversions hold the promise of efficiently (fuel burn & ownership) with data acquisition. That sounds interesting to me.

Truth be told, I could get by just fine with a VFR panel, but electronic instruments look nice…period. Besides, if I find myself in a situation that I really had to rely on an HSI, I’m over my head anyway! Looking back, 99% of my flying has been in VFR, the other 1% was a mistake and could all be written into Flying Magazine’s “I Learned About Flying From That” series.

I don’t think I’d want to retrofit anything into my flying RV…It seems it would be much easier to just start from scratch.

[Levrie]

FWIW! One swallow does not a summer make!!!........but......

I was invited to fly in a 'glass' house recently. As an instructor, I was asked to help out a pilot that needed a 'safety pilot' on a 400nm trip to a maintenance facility. The pilot had paid almost $100,000 to 'equip his panel with all glass'. No vacuum backup either.

So what happened.........?

q) Where's the flight plan?
a) Oh don/t worry, It's all punched into the system. No probs. we're VMC all the way.

q) Have you checked the weather, en route, destination and alternate?
a) Yeap, it's all in the system, real time and Wx radar.

In Flight... VMC (CAVOK)

q) Why is the engine runnung so 'hot' and the rpm so high?
a) It's all OK. It's been like this for a while, I'm having calibration problems.


You know what comes next..........

The pilot spent most of the 2hr flight 'Head Down' looking at the 'glass ware' and trying to absorbed 'tons' of data. Twice he used the 'get me there' button.

Every 15-20 mins. he would say...... There's a town, there's a wood or forest etc.
I had played 'safe' and Lo tech, with my pencil, flight log, chart, watch and EYE BALLS.

The pilot was 38nm off track. It was only when we were 5 mins from penetrating a control zone that I pointed out his 'track' error.

The return flight occurred the following day. I was pilot in command. This time we flew applying VFR in VMC. I switched off all the boxes and demonstrated true Dead Reckoning navigation techniques. We arrived back 20 seconds early and 1/2 a mile to the Right of track.

Moral of the story?
VFR pilots are obliged to look out of the window by law.
They must keep right of track lines. (Don't follow VOR-VOR radials) try 'off sets' if needed.
Learn to 'read the ground' features etc.
Remain safe to other pilots on similar (hopefully off set) tracks.
Never, Ever forget, Airmanship includes navigation briefings and 'awareness' to all other airmen.

So, it's not the high tech equipment if used correctly, it's not the high performance aircraft with 'glass houses'. It's just the 'see this' and this, and this nav aid, and observe nothing, that scares me! and most probably other 'oncoming' pilots too.

Simplicity is the essence of good design.

[mustang]

Levrie,

What a great piece! I could not agree more. Although I am comfortable with "Glass Cockpits," when I fly little airplanes, I'm looking out the front window. I use the glass, (GPS) as a backup, and sometimes as an aid to navigation. Unless I was going to fly over water, out of sight from land, I continue to use my Mark II eyeballs as my primary navigation tool.

Going direct is great. However, in the mountains I can hardly ever go direct without flying too far from somewhere suitable to land, like roads or fields and such. Some of the time, there just is no place suitable to land and then I go direct to minimize my time away from the safe landing areas.

Your interesting story illustrates where the "Glass" can dominate the flight to the point where the "tail wags the dog" and safety goes out the window.

I hope the "gadget guys" (you know who you are) read this story a few times and learn from it.
Cheers, Pete