|
Yes, at the given price tag the G5 killed the gyro business. But, it is computer stuff. Recent reports on frequent tumbling G5s worry me and prevents me flying with them into IMC.
|
Chicken house
You make a good point, while I would have no hesitation in fitting a G5 as a HSI I think I would let the system mature a little before using it as the primary attitude display.
|
Our installation is still on mock-up but we expect to have all on plane within
next two weeks... Garmin support was so-so. On the other hand support from Trig is excellent, they upgraded SW on TT31 for free, with prompt reply on any technical question. Great work. https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...48&oe=5B17E070 https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...34&oe=5B0DB4B6 http://https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fb...34&oe=5B0DB4B6 |
9Aplus
Nice pictures but from an instrument scanning point of view not so good. I would swap the altimeter and turn and slip - likewise put the ASI where the VSI is. The ADF needle is nearly redundant so put that where the ASI came out and the VSI can go in the now vacant ADF hole. You would then have a more natural scan similar to the basic six of other types. |
Yes, that is also subject of our on going discussion.
This is 3rd layout solution, and still not final ;) |
Originally Posted by ETOPS
(Post 10068454)
Nice pictures but from an instrument scanning point of view not so good. [...] You would then have a more natural scan similar to the basic six of other types. Today I flew behind 2 x G5 in a hire plane for the second time and I now know how my next panel upgrade will look like! /h88 |
Not sure what part of the world you are in, but in the US the FAA specifies the arrangement:
§ 25.1321 Arrangement and visibility. (a) Each flight, navigation, and powerplant instrument for use by any pilot must be plainly visible to him from his station with the minimum practicable deviation from his normal position and line of vision when he is looking forward along the flight path. (b) The flight instruments required by § 25.1303 must be grouped on the instrument panel and centered as nearly as practicable about the vertical plane of the pilot's forward vision. In addition - (1) The instrument that most effectively indicates attitude must be on the panel in the top center position; (2) The instrument that most effectively indicates airspeed must be adjacent to and directly to the left of the instrument in the top center position: (3) The instrument that most effectively indicates altitude must be adjacent to and directly to the right of the instrument in the top center position; and (4) The instrument that most effectively indicates direction of flight must be adjacent to and directly below the instrument in the top center position. |
Originally Posted by hegemon88
(Post 10068507)
...will the scan now be limited to the top G5 only? Entire six-pack is now presented on a single display, and steam gauges are backup?
But we also must consider worst case of both G5 down. In that case student pilot may not be able to fly partial panel so instructor is taking over... |
Originally Posted by 9Aplus
(Post 10068630)
True.
But we also must consider worst case of both G5 down. In that case student pilot may not be able to fly partial panel so instructor is taking over... |
Can Bus short circuit, can bring that level of trouble too.
On the other hand, line break, not. G5+G5+GMU11+GAD29 are all on that bus. |
The observations about instrument position have merit. It is very wise to arrange the instruments as closely as possible to the FAR Part 23 standard quoted. All certified aircraft made since the mid '70's will have this arrangement, to the extent that they are equipped.
The reasoning being that the pilot will develop muscle memory for the instrument scan, and instinctively look to the correct position on the panel for the information they seek. This becomes more important for night flying. The other thing I do when making or approving instrument panel changes is to insist that the panel itself be any colour other than black. The reasoning for this is that the eye is more able to distinguish any particular instrument because the black round face is contrast to the not black panel, and the eye can center on the instrument, and perceive the information rapidly. In the case of a black panel, the white marks, numbers, and pointers can become a blur, particularly if the instruments are very closely spaced, or of poor arrangement. This can make night IFR flying quickly tiring. It is perhaps for this reason that some black panel aircraft have a white or yellow line painted around the central instruments. The "glass cockpit" displays will of course cause the need to rearrange things, and new standards for arrangement. But any attempt to maintain consistency of the steam gauges which are installed will be worthwhile to pilot perception, and ease of transition from type to type. |
Thanks Pilot DAR
I was thinking along these lines... https://mms.businesswire.com/media/2...rtificated.jpg |
That Skyhawk panel looks beautiful!
|
Two G5 better than one Aspen?
|
A C 182 panel I made a few years back
https://www.pprune.org/members/15056...left-panel.jpg Right side https://www.pprune.org/members/15056...ight-panel.jpg |
Fitted 2 G5s to my PA28 to go with the Garmin 650; really impressed with it. Suction system removed.
Can’t wait for the Garmin autopilot to get released. |
Can't help it, but these glass cockpits look like video games. Do you really fly with these things, wouldn't a flight simulator be cheaper?
|
Originally Posted by ChickenHouse
(Post 10070169)
Can't help it, but these glass cockpits look like video games. Do you really fly with these things, wouldn't a flight simulator be cheaper?
The question of replacing instruments then becomes a reality and making sure to fit the best you can buy for your money makes the G5 a very interesting proposition... Although steam gauges still hold dear to my heart, losing the suction system altogether is something I would definitely consider. I'm not a fan of the Aspen 1000, I've seen it mentioned up there a few times, I find it a bit buggy, seen it completely fail on a blocked pitot tube (including AI / HSI ) and definitely not worth the price-tag in my opinion, I'd spend the 2 or 3k more and get the G500 (if they still make them / someone has some in stock). They were fantastic to fly with, although not quite the G1000.... |
Originally Posted by alex90
(Post 10070208)
Haha - very true! But for most of us flying 1970s (or earlier) aeroplanes, whose avionics look mostly unchanged since then, are starting to become *ermmm* "occasionally inaccurate".
The question of replacing instruments then becomes a reality and making sure to fit the best you can buy for your money makes the G5 a very interesting proposition... Although steam gauges still hold dear to my heart, losing the suction system altogether is something I would definitely consider. I'm not a fan of the Aspen 1000, I've seen it mentioned up there a few times, I find it a bit buggy, seen it completely fail on a blocked pitot tube (including AI / HSI ) and definitely not worth the price-tag in my opinion, I'd spend the 2 or 3k more and get the G500 (if they still make them / someone has some in stock). They were fantastic to fly with, although not quite the G1000.... Flying behind G1000 can be done and I have a lot of hours there, but it always felt a bit Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards - even though the Nxi does a big step to the remake version ... I thought on suction systems out some years ago, but when I was exactly into final consideration I had to fly a Diesel C172 and encountered an engine failure due to power gone. My feeling = never allow power to be vital for flying. I abandoned the idea of taking the suction system off the plane. |
Aspen/G500 argument, you need to compare the installed price, not the purchase price.
Then the decision is not so simple... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.