Glass Cockpits
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glass Cockpits
.. or should I say computerised instrumant display panels and engine monitoring systems.
No doubt I should have used the search function and will end up being harangued but technology moves on and old posts may no longer be relevant, so forgive me.
I have a permit aircraft powered by a Rotax 914 and the usual bank of analogue gauges, dials and vacuum driven flight instruments. All this lot (including the vacuum pump) probably weigh in at about 20-30lbs and are not exactly the most accurate or eays to read bits of kit invented.
I am thinking of ripping them all out and replacing with a glass display. The Dynon FlightDEK D-180 seems to fulfil most of my needs and is reasonably priced with all the sensors, wiring and other bits and bobs required for the Rotax 914. I have a SkyMap IIIC GPS which I would still use that apparaently can be interfaced to the Dynon for some of the more esoteric functions.
Has anyone have any experience here of using the Dynon D180 - particularly interested in readability, reliability and accuracy, even better if this has been gained with a Rotax 912 or 914. The optional AoA pitot also seems like a useful device
Any tips on difficulty / ease of installation would be useful.
The panel itself is not a problem as I have an easily removable carbon fibre sub panel that I can replace with new, that contains most of the stuff I will replace with the Dynon.
Your shared experience, do's dont's etc would be most welcome.
No doubt I should have used the search function and will end up being harangued but technology moves on and old posts may no longer be relevant, so forgive me.
I have a permit aircraft powered by a Rotax 914 and the usual bank of analogue gauges, dials and vacuum driven flight instruments. All this lot (including the vacuum pump) probably weigh in at about 20-30lbs and are not exactly the most accurate or eays to read bits of kit invented.
I am thinking of ripping them all out and replacing with a glass display. The Dynon FlightDEK D-180 seems to fulfil most of my needs and is reasonably priced with all the sensors, wiring and other bits and bobs required for the Rotax 914. I have a SkyMap IIIC GPS which I would still use that apparaently can be interfaced to the Dynon for some of the more esoteric functions.
Has anyone have any experience here of using the Dynon D180 - particularly interested in readability, reliability and accuracy, even better if this has been gained with a Rotax 912 or 914. The optional AoA pitot also seems like a useful device
Any tips on difficulty / ease of installation would be useful.
The panel itself is not a problem as I have an easily removable carbon fibre sub panel that I can replace with new, that contains most of the stuff I will replace with the Dynon.
Your shared experience, do's dont's etc would be most welcome.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will still need to have purely mechanical versions of ASI, Altimeter and compass.
A couple of years ago I ripped out the vacuum system, AH and DI on a permit aeroplane and replaced it with a mini-EFIS. In general that was a great improvement. You'll even find a ready market for all the vacuum kit and instruments.
A couple of years ago I ripped out the vacuum system, AH and DI on a permit aeroplane and replaced it with a mini-EFIS. In general that was a great improvement. You'll even find a ready market for all the vacuum kit and instruments.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin, ireland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a D-180 in a CTSW. Well happy & can't say anything bad about it. It it lovely and clear, fine screen resolution compared to MGL. It would be nice to have a rotary select compared to inc/dec buttons, but that's fairly minor. Enigma has numeric keypad but the buttons seem small. I think I like that better. But its screen res is poor. A fellow flyer has the enigma and is just as pleased as me with mine ( I think). Which is better? I don't really kniow.
I didn't install it but Oliver the FD Agent recommends their adapted harness as very neat
I didn't install it but Oliver the FD Agent recommends their adapted harness as very neat
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the comments from all.
I am aware that I will need some residual analogue instruments (ASI, Altimeter and compass) - I will re-use the existing ones - there should be plenty of panel space left for the ASI and Altimeter - the compass I'll leave as is.
How tricky is it to retrofit this type of kit?
Is it a specialist job or could a reasonably competent amateur do it? by following the manual (which seems quite comprehensive for the Dynon D 180).
I am aware that I will need some residual analogue instruments (ASI, Altimeter and compass) - I will re-use the existing ones - there should be plenty of panel space left for the ASI and Altimeter - the compass I'll leave as is.
How tricky is it to retrofit this type of kit?
Is it a specialist job or could a reasonably competent amateur do it? by following the manual (which seems quite comprehensive for the Dynon D 180).
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bath, England
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a D-100 installed in an RV-9A. I installed the unit during the aircraft build and it wasn't hard to do - you just need to be confident at either soldering or crimping wires into D-sub connectors. The biggest pain on a retro-fit is likely to be routing all the wires around the aircraft. The most fantastic thing for me is getting a DI/Compass that doesn't need adjusting all the time and points where it's supposed to. We've managed to swing the compass sensor on our Dynon to within degree.
If you have the panel space think about fitting 2 separate screens for EFIS and EMS. I like to fly my D-100 with the DI showing - and I don't know how that would work with the engine data also on screen.
If you can do it easily then the Dynon AOA is worth installing - but it may be too much trouble on a retro-fit. It requires fitting the Dynon AOA pitot head and an additional pressure line to the Pitot.
Dave
If you have the panel space think about fitting 2 separate screens for EFIS and EMS. I like to fly my D-100 with the DI showing - and I don't know how that would work with the engine data also on screen.
If you can do it easily then the Dynon AOA is worth installing - but it may be too much trouble on a retro-fit. It requires fitting the Dynon AOA pitot head and an additional pressure line to the Pitot.
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod,
That is very kind of you - and yes I am actually planning to go to Dunkeswell this Saturday (from Compton Abbas) - probably about midday (ish) or soon after.
I'll PM my personal details so that we can meet up. Thanks again.
That is very kind of you - and yes I am actually planning to go to Dunkeswell this Saturday (from Compton Abbas) - probably about midday (ish) or soon after.
I'll PM my personal details so that we can meet up. Thanks again.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dynon
Hi
I fitted twin Dynons in the Sportcruiser with a 912 Rotax, which I built and am very happy with them. I would be happy to give you any info I can call me or send an email
07976 262833
[email protected]
Pete
I fitted twin Dynons in the Sportcruiser with a 912 Rotax, which I built and am very happy with them. I would be happy to give you any info I can call me or send an email
07976 262833
[email protected]
Pete
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought an aircraft fitted with a glass display and have to make the observation that I removed it and fitted conventional steam panel.
The reasons I did this, rightly or wrongly, is that I did all my IMC training and experience on PA28s and Club Cessnas. I decided that in an emergency I would be better seeing a display that I was 100% familiar with rather than a glass one where a certain amount of 'reasoning' would have to be done. It's when everything starts to go wrong that an easily understood set of instruments will come into its own. I'm not saying anyone else should do this, its just something to consider.
The reasons I did this, rightly or wrongly, is that I did all my IMC training and experience on PA28s and Club Cessnas. I decided that in an emergency I would be better seeing a display that I was 100% familiar with rather than a glass one where a certain amount of 'reasoning' would have to be done. It's when everything starts to go wrong that an easily understood set of instruments will come into its own. I'm not saying anyone else should do this, its just something to consider.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise this is basically a "homebuilt" thread, but FWIW one needs to consider aircraft downtime resulting from avionics failures.
Managing individual avionics failures is much easier than managing a collective failure. With individual instruments, you can swap out the duff one.
This is why I like individual instruments. In most cases, the swap is trivially easy to do, a signature (on a certified aircraft) is obtained, and the downtime is only ~ 2 days even if the replacement had to be ordered from the USA. Whereas with a "glass" cockpit, most problems involve a flight to the dealer, trains to get back or hotel stays, etc.
Maybe, with cheap enough (homebuilt / uncertified) kit, one could keep a whole spare multifunction unit on the shelf?
Managing individual avionics failures is much easier than managing a collective failure. With individual instruments, you can swap out the duff one.
This is why I like individual instruments. In most cases, the swap is trivially easy to do, a signature (on a certified aircraft) is obtained, and the downtime is only ~ 2 days even if the replacement had to be ordered from the USA. Whereas with a "glass" cockpit, most problems involve a flight to the dealer, trains to get back or hotel stays, etc.
Maybe, with cheap enough (homebuilt / uncertified) kit, one could keep a whole spare multifunction unit on the shelf?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Whereas with a "glass" cockpit, most problems involve a flight to the dealer, trains to get back or hotel stays, etc.”
As you said, this is basically a home built thread. I could pull my machine apart, swap every element of the system and have it back in the air in 2 days at zero labour cost.
Rod1
As you said, this is basically a home built thread. I could pull my machine apart, swap every element of the system and have it back in the air in 2 days at zero labour cost.
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Rod, I am impressed. Not only have you got a hangar where you are allowed to do maintenance, but also you are a competent mechanical engineer and a competent electronics engineer 
I know there is a strong correlation between [real or assumed] DIY skills/capability and homebuilt ownership (after all, you would not try to build your own plane unless you had the copious time and facilities) but somehow I think you are being over-generous on the avionics repair capability of the owners
FWIW I have seen plenty of these products at exhibitions, and some are no less complex than the certified ones. Your eggs are in one basket - regardless of whether that basket is ICAO certified. A significant portion of the separate v. integrated decision hangs on one's attitude to aircraft downtime.
I know there is a strong correlation between [real or assumed] DIY skills/capability and homebuilt ownership (after all, you would not try to build your own plane unless you had the copious time and facilities) but somehow I think you are being over-generous on the avionics repair capability of the owners
FWIW I have seen plenty of these products at exhibitions, and some are no less complex than the certified ones. Your eggs are in one basket - regardless of whether that basket is ICAO certified. A significant portion of the separate v. integrated decision hangs on one's attitude to aircraft downtime.
Last edited by IO540; 25th Apr 2010 at 07:06.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I think you are being over-generous on the avionics repair capability of the owners”
It took me 550 hours to do my panel and wire my aircraft, this included learning how to as I had never done it before. I did need a few hours of help with the navcom, which was too hard to work out. However, the glass home built stuff is relatively easy. Firstly, the kit is intended for home installation so the manuals are simple and straightforward. Secondly, you are not “fixing avionics” you are swapping/isolating modules. The LAA run courses to teach all this now, but when I did mine this was not available.
I used this site, which I found useful for my original build;
AeroElectric Connection - Aircraft Electrical Systems
“but also you are a competent mechanical engineer and a competent electronics engineer ”
I will leave Choxolate and others who have seen my creation to judge that.
Rod1
It took me 550 hours to do my panel and wire my aircraft, this included learning how to as I had never done it before. I did need a few hours of help with the navcom, which was too hard to work out. However, the glass home built stuff is relatively easy. Firstly, the kit is intended for home installation so the manuals are simple and straightforward. Secondly, you are not “fixing avionics” you are swapping/isolating modules. The LAA run courses to teach all this now, but when I did mine this was not available.
I used this site, which I found useful for my original build;
AeroElectric Connection - Aircraft Electrical Systems
“but also you are a competent mechanical engineer and a competent electronics engineer ”
I will leave Choxolate and others who have seen my creation to judge that.
Rod1
