Modern panels in vintage aircraft? [Archive]

Pilot DAR

21st Apr 2017, 02:59

Elsewhere, a debate rages following the posting of a photo of a modified panel in a vintage aircraft. "Nice job" state some comments, where other contributors cry about spoiling an original panel, and losing the vintage look.

Is it okay to renew a vintage panel, particularly steam gauge to glass?

megan

21st Apr 2017, 05:29

Depends on your aim I guess. Either to have an exact copy down to the finest detail, or have an aircraft that looks the deal from outside but incorporating modern bits in the interests of serviceability, practicality and costs. Camel with radial engine, FW 190 powered by something not BMW for example. WW1 era instrumentation would be headache, along with airstream driven fuel pumps etc etc

airdrome camel (http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/airdrome_camel/album/)

fujii

21st Apr 2017, 05:33

If it's yours, do what you want and stuff everyone else. If anyone criticises you, just ask what they have in their aircraft.

TheOddOne

21st Apr 2017, 05:42

There's no 'should' or 'shouldn't'. It's up to each person to do what they want with the machine they've got.
Having said that, once any artefact gets beyond a certain age, then in my view the present keeper has some sort of responsibility to its heritage and future keepers of it. Not everyone thinks the same, though and who is to say whose view is correct?
ISIS and others have been destroying ancient buildings and monuments, hastening what time will eventually turn to dust. The National Trust try and preserve buildings and their contents, to the extent that you're not allowed to touch things in case the grease from your fingers hastens deterioration.

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

TOO

Heston

21st Apr 2017, 07:24

Yeah you can do what you like with your toy, but that doesn't change the fact that if it looks wrong it is wrong.

ShyTorque

21st Apr 2017, 07:39

I have a car which looks old but was built by myself not long back, on a brand new chassis and using relatively modern parts, some new. It's not a replica but a car designed on a theme. At various times I've had people spouting all sorts of rubbish, such as "having one of those in the 1950s" to telling me it's built on the chassis of a totally different type of car, telling me it's front wheel drive when it's not, that it's foreign, etc etc. One particular old chap at a car show told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I pointed out he was mistaken.

mothminor

21st Apr 2017, 08:08

Guess it depends on whether you are creating a replica or restoring an original.
Can be a pain though hiding a wireless :)

flyingorthopod

21st Apr 2017, 08:50

Much as I like orginal, unfiddled old aeroplanes and cars, they have to be usable and an aeroplane that is't being flown because the kit isn't up to the job its owner wants is much more of a pity than adding a modern panel, radio, transponder etc.

Tay Cough

21st Apr 2017, 09:29

There are a few P-51s I've seen in the US with panels which could have come straight out of a Bonanza or similar. :uhoh:

Following my rollover Euromillions win (which I'm assured will happen next week :}), in order to give me the maximum choice of aircraft I have to budget for having the modern panel ripped out and a restored original put in.:ugh:

This (https://goo.gl/images/Z0e8gO) not this (https://goo.gl/images/5sJw3D).

Although, I'll fly either if anyone wants to offer. ;)

AerocatS2A

22nd Apr 2017, 03:08

That "modern" P-51 is kind of the worst of both worlds isn't it? It's not original but it doesn't really add anything spectacularly useful. If I was going to ditch the original panel I'd be inclined to go for a serious Garmin setup.

Personally I'd go for an original panel with a few mod-cons such as an iPad holder and power point.

9 lives

22nd Apr 2017, 04:23

The instrument panel (collectively) is a major tool for the pilot, and for IFR flying, maybe most of the resource of the pilot. Basic flying is the same, though airspace, navigation, communication, and engine monitoring may be very different than they were when these aircraft were first built. It is probable that a change to newer "tools" is appropriate.

If it's just a Cub or Moth bimbling around VFR, the basic old instruments are enough. But, VFR in complex airspace, or long journeys, or IFR really benefits from newer equipment. Instead of thinking of it as spoiling a vintage aircraft, I'll think of it as using new instrumentation to keep a vintage aircraft right up there in utility.

A panel I made for the refit of a C182Q

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b617/jim246/IMG_0822_zpsgmhwk8wz.jpg

megan

22nd Apr 2017, 05:57

Even when it looks original it maybe not be. Many P-51, Spitfire, and I suspect other Merlin powered aircraft, are fitted with versions of Merlin that are not in accordance with the original, some even fitted with commercial versions of the engine. The latest B-29 reincarnation likewise has engines of different mark to the authentic. Am I to complain about lack of originality? Not in a bulls roar.

ETOPS

22nd Apr 2017, 06:57

It does look a bit odd when you mix EFIS and wood..........

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/display-asset?id=189290&width=573&height=322

kghjfg

22nd Apr 2017, 07:24

It's a bit like "you can't use cement on a historic building", if the Romans had cement, they'd darn well have used it!

As for old aircraft and modern instruments, I'd rather see a mosquito flying around the UK with a glass panel, than them all parked up in museums with steam gauges.

If it's a museum piece, leave as is, if it's a flying machine, do whatever you like.

flyingfemme

22nd Apr 2017, 07:25

Sam Rutherford

22nd Apr 2017, 08:17

Most of the crews on the VintageAirRally had original panels - but then had 'clip on' iPads, small transponder and radio discreetly located low down or off to the side etc. Seems like the best of all worlds? I think there is a way of complying with modern legal requirements and making use of modern advantages without reducing the 'vintage look'.

Safe flights, Sam.

tmmorris

22nd Apr 2017, 09:44

In my own area of expertise, it's a bit like 'you can't play Bach on the piano, he didn't have pianos'. Personally I play him on the harpsichord or organ; but I don't begrudge those who play him on the piano.

abgd

22nd Apr 2017, 10:29

As Sam mentions, the question isn't whether you should put in a new panel on a vintage aircraft - but how one should go about putting in the necessaries as sympathetically as possible.

My aircraft has no electrical system but I think the time will come when an installed radio and transponder will be a necessity.

Tay Cough

22nd Apr 2017, 21:01

DH put a glass panel in my 1960 Comanche - the outside is an age-appropriate paint job while the panel is simple, modern and functional. Anyone who hates it doesn't have to fly with me......
https://www.dropbox.com/s/da17zftij8bw09g/panelsmall.jpg?raw=1

That's fine by me. No disrespect intended but a Comanche doesn't generally have the provenance of a P-51 though.

megan

23rd Apr 2017, 03:04

doesn't generally have the provenance of a P-51 thoughThere are Mustangs, and then there are Mustangs. The Cavalier version was aimed at the executive business aircraft market, a very plush personal two seat transport, the military equipment was stripped out, and then rebuilt with a second seat, new avionics, plush leather interiors and luggage bays. Not a ride for you Tay? :)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/P-51D_5NA_Cavalier.jpg/800px-P-51D_5NA_Cavalier.jpg

Tay Cough

23rd Apr 2017, 07:24

The amount I'd have to spend putting it right, probably not.

Still, if you want to lend me yours...;)

foxmoth

23rd Apr 2017, 13:09

if the Romans had cement

Actually they did!

Piltdown Man

23rd Apr 2017, 15:38

What will you achieve by having modern instruments? Unless we are talking about real vintage, they will be as accurate as needed. So you might as well stick with the old steam clocks and dials.

PM

Jan Olieslagers

23rd Apr 2017, 18:08

it's a bit like 'you can't play Bach on the piano, he didn't have pianos'. Personally I play him on the harpsichord or organ; but I don't begrudge those who play him on the piano.

Hehe, that's an unexpected but refreshing parable. I think there's basically nothing wrong with playing any componist on any instrument; but I do take issue with those pianists playing Bach with a variety of sentiment and interpretation that Bach's instruments weren't capable of. I always suspect these of being more occupied with themselves than with the great Johan Sebastian, or his inspiration - never doubting their ability, though.

But what is the comparison? If flying for the utility purpose of getting where one wants to be, the style of panel is totally irrelevant. If flying for the fun of flying, idem ditto. Only if creating/recreating an aeroplane for reasons of historic nostalgia, one can - and should - aim to get it all historically right. But the plane resulting from that process might well be too precious to be actually flown.

The goal of playing music is to produce audible music, with the great added value of ad hoc interpretation by (a) human musician(s). The goal of (re)building an aeroplane is less clearly defined.

But why should we argue, or even worry? Why cannot we leave to each their own?

flyingfemme

24th Apr 2017, 07:20

That's fine by me. No disrespect intended but a Comanche doesn't generally have the provenance of a P-51 though.
His T6 has a modern panel as well, though not (yet) glass...........

If you actually want to go places a decent selection of kit makes the whole process easier. If you just want to look at them.....

m.Berger

25th Apr 2017, 07:58

I am in my late fifties and own a Stereo system with electrostatic loudspeakers, the subtleties of which I long since have been unable to hear. I keep them because they take up a lot of room and infuriate the other half who prefers a transistor radio that sounds like a strangling chipmunk. Others tell me they sound very good but their utility to me is questionable.
Aeroplanes, however are another story. I do not subscribe to the use of four Ipads (Some do,) but clear and legible instrumentation makes ANY aircraft easier to fly and more pleasurable to use. My float and wire fuel gauge used to scare the hell out of me but the LCD display fed by a proper tank sender has made my flying much more confident and my sorties longer.
So as a dyed in the wool luddite, I am in favour of the modern panel, as long as it is not cluttered with stuff I do not need and would also assert the point that most of the older panels are a real mess when it comes to telling the pilot what he needs to know.

alex90

25th Apr 2017, 08:36

I think it really depends on your mission...

If you're flying a vintage plane for the love of vintage aeroplanes, and do so in your spare time during the summer, then why install anything but the original instruments?

If however, you love the aeroplane, but it is your main "go places" aeroplane. You intend to fly in IMC, along with all sorts of possible conditions you might encounter throughout the year - then in my book, suitable instruments would be preferable.

If you wanted to keep the original "look" you could probably hide the new part of the panel with a removable cover, which you can remove in flight to reveal your spanking new G500 with SVT, terrain etc... and a GTN750 in addition to an autopilot! (well okay... maybe overkill - but you get the idea!)

m.Berger

25th Apr 2017, 09:05

My main "Go places " aeroplane. Umm, now which one would that be? For reasons of necessary economy it is not a difficult choice!

Less Hair

25th Apr 2017, 09:34

I have had the very pleasure to see the Paul Allen aicraft collection in Arlington back then. All aircraft are brought to mint condition. For display purposes when on the ground they get the original (mint again) equipment (seatbelts, avionics and stuff) just for flying they are reconfigured on short notice with modular modern stuff to make them legal. Good system but costly.

Penny Washers

26th Apr 2017, 20:59

Would you want to trust your life to seventy year old instruments?

AerocatS2A

27th Apr 2017, 05:30

Would you want to trust your life to seventy year old instruments?

Sure, why not?

Piltdown Man

27th Apr 2017, 07:05

Providing they are properly calibrated, why not? Besides, most vintage aircraft can be flown quite safely without instruments, as can most spam cans. Obviously easier with but if they fail it shouid not be the end of the world.

PM

ChampChump

27th Apr 2017, 13:02

Would you want to trust your life to seventy year old instruments?

The seventy year old airframe is more important. And yes, we do.

Chris Martyr

27th Apr 2017, 14:41

It's simply a question of good judgement and good taste . You can construct a homebuild or restore a vintage classic to a very high standard , but still be deficient in both of the above areas!

There's nothing to stop you from restoring an E-Type Jaguar or a TR-4 and fitting Puerto Rican hub caps that revolve in the opposite direction when stationary. Or LED's in the wheel-arches , or having "drug dealer" blacked out windows.........But would your taste allow you to do that ? If it does and you're happy , then fine !
Same with aeroplanes though isn't it ? Surely , if you're happy with the conventional , analogue engine instrumentations accuracy , then the other constituents of the 6 pack can be easily contained in a removable tablet device and referred to as a cross reference to the time honoured and reliable instrumentation if/when required .
Take the Carbon-Cub for example , about $270.000 of "new technology" with a hideous great carbuncle of unnecessary digital dogsh*t right smack in the middle of the panel.
Whereas , for a fraction of that price , you could acquire the real thing !

Like I said,,,,,more a question of taste than anything else. Thankfully , we're all different. The more punters there are for Carbon Cubcrafters type machinery , the more proper classic/vintage types are left for people whose taste leans in the other direction .
Fine with me...!